Ermm.. Kris<br><br>From your point of view ( and also both of u of course), which one is better? Pico or Nano? seems like Nano is based on pico but have some enhancements ( that's from what i read )<br><br><br><br><div>
<span class="gmail_quote">On 8/30/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Kris Moore</b> <<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Terry Poulin wrote:<br>>> Message: 2<br>>> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:07:54 -0700 (PDT)<br>>> From: <a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a><br>>> Subject: [PC-BSD Testing] Add nano/joe editors, and a little bootup
<br>>> help?<br>>> To: <a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a><br>>> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com
</a>><br>>> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1<br>>><br>>> Kris et al.,<br>>><br>>> This pertains to last Friday's snapshot (and earlier), but since I haven't<br>>> heard anyone else mention this, I think it would be nice to offer a choice
<br>>> of a few widely familiar and comfortable text editors right from the<br>>> start, that could be available when things go badly during or after an<br>>> install.<br>>><br>>> The included "edit" editor is OK, but many people probably could work
<br>>> better and make fewer mistakes with joe or even pico/nano.<br>>><br>><br>> Any thing simple and with on screen guides should work, but Pico would<br>> probably be best... It's as basic as ed yet as simple as notepad in a console
<br>> ready package.<br><br>I can concede to adding "pico" to the base, I have a soft spot for it,<br>since its the editor I first learned FreeBSD on, before having to master<br>"vi" :) That'll probably help us with troubleshooting when a user needs
<br>to edit a file from the command-line.<br><br><br>>> Also, the bootup process is still screechingly at odds with PC-BSD's great<br>>> work elsewhere at making FreeBSD easier to use. When an install didn't
<br>>> work recently because an old non-booting disk drive that was attached to<br>>> the system "failed" (as far as I could see, it didn't pass fsck because of<br>>> 1 bad cluster), all the wonderful GUIs and goodness of PC-BSD vanished
<br>>> when the bootup process tossed itself overboard at a point when not even<br>>> joe could run because the state of things yet was such that random cursor<br>>> addressing for the screen wasn't working.
<br>>><br>>> The system behaved as if this disk was critical to its operation. That was<br>>> far from true, and an easy-to-use option to bypass it rather than<br>>> struggling against the system's wrong assumptions would have been very
<br>>> welcome. Some errors can be addressed much better after the boot disk and<br>>> the system are fully up and operational. Forcing the user to solve such<br>>> problems at a partially effective system prompt with severely limited
<br>>> tools is sub-optimal. More than once while this was happening, not only<br>>> that ancient disk but the main boot disk too were marked read-only and not<br>>> even root could edit the necessary files to get around it.
<br>>><br>>> Some useful messages (understandable to the average person) about how to<br>>> bypass this kind of thing are fairly nonexistent in FreeBSD's bootup<br>>> process. It would be very helpful to look through the bootup procedure to
<br>>> see what helpful informational messages and screens screens could be added<br>>> at various points, to help new desktop users who aren't Unix gurus when<br>>> bootup falls over and throws PC-BSD on its ear in the mud.
<br>>><br>>> At least, giving the user clearer ways to differentiate between really<br>>> showstopping errors and lesser errors that could be fixed more effectively<br>>> once the desktop GUI system is up, compared to trying to fix things
<br>>> partway through bootup using sticks and flint knives, seems desirable if<br>>> at all possible.<br>>><br>>> -rsc<br>><br>> I suppose that is a question of how true to the underlaying FreeBSD the
<br>> developers wish to stay with what changes they do make.<br>><br>><br>> TerryP.<br>><br><br>As for the boot process, these are all valid points. I'm going to put<br>this down to investigate for the next release. We'll just have to figure
<br>out if we can add some sort of "monitoring" service, which keeps track<br>of the startup, and takes appropriate actions if the load fails.<br><br><br>--<br><br>Kris Moore<br>PC-BSD Software<br><a href="http://www.pcbsd.com">
http://www.pcbsd.com</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>Testing mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Testing@lists.pcbsd.org">Testing@lists.pcbsd.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo/testing">