Take on our poll below and vote for your favorite OS installer (Javascript required).
Poll: Best OS Installer
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I voted for Windows XP but it hurt to do so. I really liked the installers for Mandrake and Fedora Core however I really can’t accept being stuck in the middle of installing from FTP when the site goes down. It seems that it should be trivial to offer a way to choose a new site in this case but… So I had to give my vote to Windows XP which has never given me any problems even though it doesn’t offer as many options as the Linux installers I’ve tried.
Longhorn has the best installer ever created.
Where is the “I install my OS from scratch, you insensitive clod!” option? (http:/www.linuxfromscratch.org/)
Anyone remember one of the first good installers for Linux? I wish I could recall the exact name of it. I had always hoped it would become a defacto standard. The coolest feature? You could play Tetris while it copied files! Too bas SCO scoped them up
Storm Linux had a good installer too.
But the best intallers are just getting started: Live CDs.
You are missing the SO cool OpenBSD/MirOS installer,
which works when you have only a line printer and
keyboard *g* and is actually pretty usable and even
user-friendly – after you’ve gotten the partitioning
right, especially on x86.
Where is gentoo?? That is my favourite installer. I can chat with irssi and listen to music while the system is compiling itself =)
I think Slackware’s got the best installer, not too cluttered with graphical elements and easy to learn.
Well i wud settle with Anaconda. V hv a anaconda based installer and we had succesfully got it working in some 100+ different types of systems. Kudos !!
And the kickstart feature, well what else one needs. Interface too adds up to that. Though not cute, it does well. But we hvnt got it working in some SCSI systems, for obvious reasons.
No comments abt knoppix !!
I hv also tried Mandrake, Debian & SuSe’s Yast.
I have tried every one of these OSs and theirfore their installers. Linux has come a VERY long way in the install process, but all of the linux installers still have some issues especially with unrecognized hardware. If the linux installers, i prefer yast. beos is an absolute joy to install BUT it is way to simple, no configuration options, just click and wait.
OSX has, IMHO, the best OS installer to date. functional in simplicity yet flexible. OSX is also the only installer that looks smooth and elegant from boot to reboot, no funky text scrolling, no nasty “starting bootloader” screen.
Windows installer is crap, it is fairly easy but absolute crap. no installer should take 2 minutes to start, and go through 3 seperate phases just to install an OS that is standardized, it might as well just be a norton ghost image of a functional windows(stop laughing, it happens occasionally) with a ‘runonce’ reg entry to redetect all hardware, ask for a key, and setup users.
4 time more votes for Debian than for Xandros … this has t be a joke. I think this poll definetly is more about OS preferences than about installers.
BTW: The all-so-praised OSX installer might be nice, but actually the job it has to perform is much inferior to the PC installers with much more diverse hardware requirements – even the graphic cards are different. So PCs are much more challenging to installers than OSX.
last time I installed openbsd (3.1) I had to use a caclulator for fdisk. Is it still like this? Anyway I enjoyed the openbsd installer.
But my favorite is Debian.
If we would talk about configuration tools I say Windows 2000/2003 Server. Thay make the essentials tasks to get the server running in production very easy and fast.
“BTW: The all-so-praised OSX installer might be nice, but actually the job it has to perform is much inferior to the PC installers with much more diverse hardware requirements – even the graphic cards are different. So PCs are much more challenging to installers than OSX.”
So? It’s still the best installer/OS setup program….
Ben
4 time more votes for Debian than for Xandros … this has t be a joke. I think this poll definetly is more about OS preferences than about installers.
maybe. But most experienced admins/users prefers to have the possibility to make the install as lean as possible. I dont know if xandros is simmilar to the debian installer in this aspect.
I am a bit surprised to se so many votes for Windows 2000 Installer. I hate it, simply because if you don’t like the standard settings (for example I usually want to have my user profiles folder somewhere else), then you can only change this during installation using the “unattended installation”. And this really is ugly.
Plus you can only load additional drivers th first few seconds – if you don’t know that you need some special drivers for your SCSI-Drive you will have to restart the installation. And only loading the installer itself is a lengthy process.
Plus you don’t see the result of these options until the installation is finished, so I used three attempts for my last Windows 2000 installation.
But fortunately once Win2k is installed, normally you don’t need to reinstall it like it was with Windows 98.
Kaya
BeOS came to mind quickly… but the choice could only be between these (and those with similar capability): Suse and FreeBSD. Both are very easy and straight forward – what makes them stand out is their ability for network / internet installs. Either you can or you can’t do such thing, so all others loose out here. Since Suse is even pretty in addition to being easy, I voted for Suse.
I voted from a sysadmin viewpoint. I have used all kinds of installers (or the lack of) for many years and have come to love two kinds of installers which should be based on the same library (in the perfect world).
1. As a sysadmin I often install via a serial console. Thus I need a text based installer that work in almost any terminal.
To mention some that works. Solaris and OpenBSD. Both systems provide text based installers that work well. OpenBSD’s installer however has a few problems. In some places one cannot undo a decision. A couple of years ago one had to start all-over but I think this has been changed to redoing a couple of steps. In other ways OpenBSD’s installer is extremely flexible. The fact that one can use the swap-space on solaris as a base for rebooting into an OpenBSD installer is just great.
Also as a sysadmin I like the installer to be scriptable. Solaris has jumpstart which is great. FreeBSD can be scripted as well (and RedHat). This is a must!
2. The other kind of installer is the one that does everything for you. I like to test new OS’es on my laptop once in a while. When I test an OS for the first time I prefer a really painless installation. Something like:
auto-detect and setup hardware, a good auto-partitioning with support for a multi-os machine and with a bootloader that provides a menu for all installed os. If X is needed the installer should autodetect the graphics card and monitor and create a working configuration.
A few software targets like laptop, workstation and custom where almost everything has been setup – powerprofile, ease networking and such.
These to kind of installers provide the opposite but is the same in many ways. One of the very important things is to make the hardware work out the box. Few installers/OS do this.
I allmost allways end up doing a PXE boot and script my installation if I think I will have to install the same OS more than a few times.
so simple
* Gentoo
Installers are nothing where to put much glance and glamour in or something, because they are just for putting the os & friends on the machine. I for example like NetBSD 2.0beta installers… They are text based, u go through it step by step, have to answer basic and clear question, choice of software is well structured and limit. I thing this is the way how to do it.
But I had to choose and choosed the BeOS one… It is very similar. You choose a disk and a pkg set and say go. Thats it.
Its fast and just working(tm).
Regards
Andreas
When I read the poll topic I knew the answer was an easy choice, hands down BeOS. But when I saw BeOS was clumped together with Zeta I could no longer vote for it. Zeta really took the beauty of the BeOS installer away – it’s incredible simplicity.
For that reason I went with my next favorite installer, Mac OS X, for the same reason I love the BeOS installer – does it’s job, asks very few questions, and get’s out of your way. All the other settings I can do once everything is installed.
Gentoo
whatever os was on the VIC 20
Namely AmigaOS.
On second place, I’d put OpenBSD just for the hell of it. 🙂
Linspire got the least number of mouse clicks I’ve ever seen in an OS installer.
gentoo portage rules, debian is good.
sometimes you don’t have a graphics or VDU, so text over serial is essential
Really, had to choose between Gentoo and Windows XP. So Windows XP – the pragmatists choice. At least I have plenty of experience with its installer
Linspire (previously known as Lindows) has the easest installer hands down.. Its the only installer I know of you can go through in 2 clicks.
If this vote is about ease of install I have not seen anything that even remotely compares. But if there are other factors such as customizability of install (choosing GUI or partition formats or even partitioning and what apps get installed… etc…) then I guess it dont score well there but since it targets the newbs what newb is gonna even know what any of this stuff even is?
Lets not forget 10 min install.. Fully working OS.
Is CNR considered a installer too? =)
1 click install apps is great to.
… geddit..?! The W9x/Me installer is large and by the same as for W2K/XP, still, there are zero votes for W9x, but plenty for W2K/XP — obviously, people feel obleagued to vote for the OS they are using, not for installers. Otherwise, there would be equal numbers for W9x – W2K/XP. Nothing to worry about… I expected this anyways…
And btw, it is not about easiest either, it is about *best*, as it clearly reads in the headline. There is more to being good or even best than how many/few clicks it takes to install, so finally knock it off with Lindows. Even if you have to make a dozen clicks this is still no rocket sciene, it’s still easy. If you can’t handle 3 questions upon installing + 10 clicks – how are you ever to use the system in the first place..?
If anyone that has installled MacOS X votes for any other OS, he’s a liar.
Getting a pre-installed Linspire box is a joke, because the OS is practically already installed when you put the cd in the drive.
My vote goes for Mandrake. The partitioning system is fantastic, and it even works.
OS Emu wrote: “I’m surprised it’s not on the list. And after installing, removing unneeded software is as simple as dragging a file to the trash.”
MacOS X is even better.
An excellent example is the package for MAMP (Macintosh, Apache, MySQL and PHP) which consists of one (1) file.
http://www.webedition-cms.com/english/downloads/mamp.php
Double click it to start and – that’s it.
Quit and drag it to trash. Gone.
That really made my day.
NetBSD’s sysinst has always been a pleasant experience for me. It’s quick, simple, and efficient. The first time may be intimidating for users used to heavy and slow GUI installers but there’s documentation available http://www.netbsd.org/guide/en/chap-exinst.html#chap-exinst-install and if you’ve went through sysinst a couple of times it’s simplicity itself. Installing first only the base system and then installing other stuff you want is much better than the mess many other installers leave behind by default, with every available service enabled and all kinds of things going on in your system that you don’t know about. The *BSD style of installation is much better if you want to keep the control of your system to yourself.
NetBSD 2.0 hasn’t yet been released but Release Candidates are available, and so I gave one RC a test drive. There are unofficial ISOs for these RCs but doing it from ftp with only two floppies is much more fun (provided you’ve got a reasonably fast net connection). Modifying disklabel partitions is perhaps the only part where one needs to take a quick look at documentation but selecting distribution sets (GENERIC_LAPTOP kernel for my laptop, but no XFree86, thanks) and the rest of sysinst should be clear using plain common sense. After installation I did some quick system and shell tweaks using vi, then used cvs to get pkgsrc, and off I went installing Xorg and other stuff from pkgsrc.
One thing I’ve noticed is that there are plenty of installation tutorials, or stories of individual installations, of GNU/Linux distros like Slackware available on the net but nothing similar for NetBSD. There’s the official documentation (and it’s quite sufficient) but numerous stories of individual installations, where slightly different choices have been made, are more “personal” and they make installing Slackware sound somehow easier. If you cannot figure out your own installation using one of these tutorials, there are many others to turn to. But if you find something in NetBSD’s sysinst (or in official documentation) a bit difficult to understand at first, you may just give up. And yet, having used both numerous times, I’d say that NetBSD’s sysinst is easier and simpler than Slackware’s installer. But that’s, of course, only my opinion. 😉
I can’t speak for BeOS/Zeta, MAC OS X, Debian, Lycoris but I’ve had plenty of experience in the rest, and the numbers in the vote simply are not true.
*BSD has been the worst. Have not been able to successfully get through an install process (OpenBSD, NetBSD, or FreeBSD) because of the tremendously complicated harddisk partitioning.
The following are too long and overly complicated:
RH/Fedora Anaconda
SuSE Yast2
Mandrake
Windows XP/2k3
The fastest and least complicated are:
Xandros
Lindows
Have another vote on sky color, and we’ll find that it is aquamarine.
Actually the BeOS drve setup utility is one of the nicest i’ve seen and I still use it even to set up a lot of non BeOS partitions,the only real drawback to it is its NOT non-destructive,maybe Haiku will address this shortcoming in the future.
I voted foe Mandrake because it’s easy and full featured,.Plus I also loved the installer that came with Mephis.Don’t get me wrong I still love BeOS but certain elements of it are beginning to show thier age somewhat,just like the Partition magic special edition that comes with R5 Pro that allows you to make a maximum sized BeOS partition of 2 gigs,this was fine back in the day when a 6 gig HD was Huge,but now it’s laughable so if you want a bigger BeOS partition you have to use it’s own drive setup utility which is a destructive one or use another 3rd party non destructive utility.
I will have to go with MS windows 2000XP installer. All I wish MS windows could use other types of FS natively. Still MS windows 2000 works for me. I just need to upgrade to XP pro soon.
what i said earlier,I still use the drive setup utility in BeOs if I’m going to set up a new drive,I jusst plug the drive in my Dell 410, boot BeOS and set it up,then install the OS’s on it wherever,i even have a laptop drive adapter to do laptop drives this way,and it’s nice to be able to set it all up before you get down to the nitty gritty of oS installation,the only drawback to this is you have to have a sort of plan in your mind as to what you want on the drive ahead of time
I really like NetBSD’s installer. It’s the simplest, easiest one I’ve ever come across.
It’s been a long time since I installed BeOS, but as I remember.
– It wouldn’t install at all unless you already had windows installed.
– All kinds of floppies were required. All CD installs were common, even then.
– Several reboots were required.
– Total pain in the azz. Constantly had to reboot, then make another floopy or two, reboot again from those floppies, and so on.
Frankly, I never saw anything so great about the BeOS install, or anything BeOS for that matter.
BTW: I’m no msft fan. I use debian as my main desktop. I also like apple. I just never got the BeOS hype.
That is the BeOS PERSONAL EDITION installer. We’re talking about the non-freeloaders version, e.g. Professional, which you booted off CD, pointed it at the partition from the GUI, clicked go, and it was done in ten minutes. Reboot, system is done, bootloader is installed, hardware is initialised
But if you have all the supported hardware, Solaris is quite an easy installation routine.
Oh, and on my Windows 98 system I remember a Personal Edition install involving one reboot, no floppies; on XP one reboot, one floppy. Something tells me you’re thinking of another OS here – I’m not, considering I user BeOS
I don’t know why, but the simplisity of Slackwares installer (which happens to be mostly if not all one large shell script)
I think it is a bit incorrect to put BeOS and Zeta together.
Ad far we all remember, in first Zeta reviews here at OsNews just Zeta Installer was very subject for blame.
It breaks idea of BeOS supersimplicity and turns BeOS in something like “linux-work-in-progress-forever”. Some people may like it more, some – less.
Maybe YT changed it now, but anyway,
BeOS and Zeta have DIFFERENT installers and Zeta’s one was just YT’s own work. So those cannot be put together in voting.
Because you only have to do it once.
I think it took a total of 3 clicks to install Lindows. (wipe the HD option)
What in the hell are you talking about? r5 lets you boot from a cd and install. thats it. r4 might have made you make two floppies (one has some version of dos, the other a partition utility) and run an installer via windows. I’m not positive though. I have never installed r4. But anyways, beos r5 does not require any host OS and can boot from a cd. if your system wont boot to cd’s you can make a boot floppy thatll boot the cd. Beos no doubt progressed a lot since you had last used it..
I can boot my beos cd and have a full install in 10 minutes. Only reboot is after the initial install so the OS will load like any other install.
Because you only have to do it once
Actually quite a good point. What good is an “easy” install that you have to do every time when some bigger changes or fixes need to be done to the OS, and so if the OS itself is not stable but in constanmt need of fixing? Or if the install leaves you with a poorly configured system that you have to tune and configure for hours to get a functional system. Though, in this latter sense, ease of configurartion, Debian may not be particularly easy… =)
Anyway, you cannot well evaluate the installer separately from the OS. In a poll like this it’s understandable that people evaluate both the installer and the OS in general.
Installer works well, is simple. The same program can be used to post-install configure most any aspect of the system and can be used to upgrade an entire system. Beats all others in flexibility and overall usefullness.
Darwin/GNUDarwin/OpenDarwin definately has the best installer. Choose Disk, Y/N, Done…you can’t get easier than that (as long as you don’t want to dual boot). Its worth remembering that Mac OS X/Windows/Anaconda/YaST2 *don’t* work over a ssh connection. . This should have been a poll of the worst installer – for me that would have been a toss up between Solaris/Gentoo – although I don’t think that fair, as Gentoo doesn’t have an installer – and I like that…and yes I’ve used all the installer on the list.
In my oppinion, the Slackware Linux installer (which is quite similar to FreeBSD’s installer) is by far the best there is out there.
Simple, to the point, text based (so it works everywhere), rock solid, easy to customize, does the job. What more do you want?
Dead easy to install and from tape, cdrom or network too.
So between them I still pick windows, just click the install file, what is not to love., YaST is good to if you installing of the cd/dvd. How do you pick a file of the drive?
Gentoo ;-))
No, R4 installed purely from CD. R3 did not, it came with a boot floppy pre-made in the box though, along with two seperate disks.
1: AmigaOS
2: Windows95 from floppy disks
(Was there 50 floppies? I don’t remember.. haha!)
I would also vote MorphOS, but it requires manual setup of the boot-partition (and in 1.4.2 it must be FFS!) before installing.
I don’t understand how this can be an accurate pole because I think it’s safe to say that the majority of people voting have not tried all these installers. Therefore it turns into a pole of “which installer have you used and liked.”
Wow, I don’t think I’ve seen a post with this much mis-information ever so lets address every sentence:
It wouldn’t install at all unless you already had windows installed.
NOT TRUE. Although Peronal Edition (intended to be a demo of BeOS given out for free) installed inside Windows OR Linux the full version of BeOS always installed in it’s own partition. Keep in mind BeOS started as an OS which ran on it’s own custom hardware, then on Mac clones, and then the PC…needing windows makes absolutely no sense.
All kinds of floppies were required. All CD installs were common, even then.
Once again , NOT TRUE. Even the preview releases (97) came on CD’s and this is many versions before they had an intel release. (http://www.beatjapan.org/mirror/www.be.com/aboutbe/pressreleases/97…). When they did port BeOS to the intel archetcture they had a boot floppy incase your system did not boot from CD, but that was the only floppy and only needed if your BIOS didn’t support boot from cd.
Several reboots were required.
Guess what…NOT TRUE. The BeOS install only had to reboot once, when it was finished.
Total pain in the azz. Constantly had to reboot, then make another floopy or two, reboot again from those floppies, and so on.
NOT TRUE, see above!
Frankly, I never saw anything so great about the BeOS install, or anything BeOS for that matter.
Frankly it sounds to me like you never saw anything even simular to BeOS!
BTW: I’m no msft fan. I use debian as my main desktop. I also like apple. I just never got the BeOS hype.
Maybe you should actually give BeOS a try one of these days just to see what the hype was about. It was well deserved. Be represented a new OS built from the scratch with the latest technology (at the time). But most of all it was well designed, powerful, and easy to use. Many of it’s features are just being imitated now in mainstream operating systems. (Mac OS X SpotLight and WinFS all take a page from the Be File System, BFS).
If I want to do a “serious” vote I must know the all the intallers. But that is almost impossible. Only the IT might be able to do a “serious” vote (and only a very selected group).
openbsd intaller sucks. debian installer sucks.
Anaconda is the best Linux installer hands down! Has a cool text installer and an amazing graphical installer.
BeOS gets my vote. It’s livecd too – just ctrl+alt+delete and click “restart the desktop”. Never saw something simpler and faster than BeOS installer. It need good partition software though.
OpenBSDs installer! Really! It may be not the most user-friendly, but it definitely is the eastiest, fastest and most flexible way to install an OS.
I have tried all four O/S and the one I found the best for ease of instalation, software instalation and ease of use was Linspire.
I vote Lindows ease of installation,ease of software instalation ease of use and B.T.W the O/S is called
Linspire I have never come across a distro with such ease of instalation I had to recoment and vote due to the out dated name used. I have used Fedora,Mandrake10 Windows98 and xp but Linspire is the best
I love Gentoo installation process. Yeah, I know it’s not exactly an installer but it’s the one I trust the most. Total control on my hands. And as others have said, you can install it flawlessly from Knoppix or another distribution. Piece of cake.
I used Classic Mac OS for 10 years and I have no memory of installing it.
That’s for me an awesome installer.
I like flexibility in an installer, but it should also be easy to use.
The one I like best was the old Mandrake installer (circa MDK 7.x). The newer versions are too slow and force too much on you, even in expert mode.
Anaconda could be good, but it has always been inflexible in the most annoying ways. For example: There is no simple way to tell which packages are on which CD, and if you accidentally select a package from say Disc 3 and don’t have that CD, the installer will hang. I’m somewhere between a noob and an expert, so others are probably beter with this stuff than me, but the only way out of this I found was to reboot and start the whole install process over. At least Mandrake’s installers ask you ahead of time which CDs you have. This is one example, I have run into several other examples where Anaconda would run into problems and hang, where most other (non-beta release versions of) installers have never done this to me (correction: Windows installers have frozen up on me, and Mandrake’s has, but only when doing the X-setup test, and Mandrake’s X-test was after the package installation and the rest of the setup was completed, so you at least had a working system if the test froze things up). (disclaimer: I haven’t tried Anaconda since RH9, it may have improved)
I hope that Debian’s new installer is great, but I haven’t had a chance to try it – I like the flexibility of the old one, but would not call it simple to use. I tried one of the beta releases awhile back, but it wasn’t compatible with some of my hardware.
I’m currently using Gentoo, which is also very flexible, but not simple enough to even be in the running.
“But if you have all the supported hardware, Solaris is quite an easy installation routine.”
You mean if you have Sparc hardware – the x86 Solaris install was anything but simple last time I tried it.
For example OS/2 Warp 3 goes I think disk 1 2 3 4 then back to 1 again, insane. Those are floppies BTW.
Once on a redhat installer I clicked a back button and it crashed. Don’t remember the exact version number of it.
Most installers these days are a breeze. Anyone ever installed windows 95 from floppy? It’s about 13 floppies.
QNX is easy and always been trouble-free for me. But it’s not as flexible as others. For instance it requires a Primary partition.
Anyone installed Oberon? It’s probably not on the poll for a reason. It hurts my brain…
The last Mandrake I’ve tried is 9.something. Very nice, and easy to customize. And it didn’t scramble my extended partitions, unlike Red Hat.
FreeBSD has a very unique system, using a single Primary partition that the OS divides into it’s own “Slices”, vs Linux that requires multiple partitions.
I’ve never installed BeOS from media, but using the Installer app to ‘copy’ BeOS from PE to a dedicated partition is an incredibly easy operation.
For the absolute easiest OS installation, I voted Lycoris. Definitely simpler than any other Linux I’ve tried.
-Bob
i really like the win2k style installer from WinXP
( http://nuhi.msfn.org/nlite.html ) enables it.. im lookin for a way to do it normally thou.. i dont like their *ware..
if anyone knows please link me. thnx..
I have. Plus (in no particular order) OS/2 from v3 through v4, Plan 9, Inferno, Menuet, QNX, Win3x/95/98/98SE/NT4/2K, DOS/Desqview (still a favorite of mine; wish I had an old enough system I could run it on), Solaris, NetBSD & OpenBSD (to go along with that FreeBSD), Mac OS 7 (but not 8 or 9)… Oh, I’m tired of typing.
For me it was a very hard choice between Mac OS X and RH/FC Anaconda. The former is the nicest, easiest, without sacraficing all configurability install while the later is the doesn’t give you to much but still lets you configure anything you need for an initial system, be it desktop or server install. In the end I had to go with the RH/FC option. But only by a hair.
I’ve tried and used every OS on the voting list and I must say , putting aside the technical standpoint, BeOS has the most clean, easy to use installer I’ve come to use.
I also like the FreeBSD installer.
MacOS is also great.
BeOS was my vote however..
Well.. OpenBSD installer is the best. Full OS istall in about 4 minutes with everything working good after install… best, isn’t it ?:P
In response to the Anonymouse user..
“And btw, it is not about easiest either, it is about *best*”
Well the “best” installer can be a lot of things.. Most flexible? ease of install? Most user friendly? and a million other variables. Having tried a few installers in my opinion Linspire is the easiest and most user friendly installer. Not much flexibility.
” If you can’t handle 3 questions upon installing + 10 clicks – how are you ever to use the system in the first place..?”
Well thats another strong point for Linspire.. You dont need to know how to do all the console commands or what hardware sits in you puter in most cases. And you dont need to worry about a lot of other technical things like file system types and partitioning or kernal setup and compilation. In other words you dont need to be a linux geek to use it.
Someone else said what good is a easy install if you have to spend hours configuring the rest of the system.
Again not true on Linspire system. The system is just damn user friendly and detected hardware is setup.
Now Linspire is not the *all mighty* OS but it is the best newb friendly OS helping build a bridge between Linux and that other monopolistic system. Linspire at the cost of extreme user friendlyness does suffer long boot times and useless modules preloaded. Other OS’s like Gentoo will give you quick boot times and very quick OS at the cost of a installer that would overwhelm any newb but is completely flexible and tuned every little bit to your system setup.
when do people actually ever have to install mac os? seems like all the work is done for you when you have hardware specific appliance-like os like mac.
where is the slackware installer? simpler and easy…. that’s all that you need
> Anyone installed Oberon? It’s probably not on the poll
> for a reason. It hurts my brain…
I’ve installed Oberon (System 3) several times. If you can learn the interface, it isn’t hard at all.