fc5 installer has me confused and stumped. Could someone please tell me where to find the "install everything" option?
--rich
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 13:06:24 -0800, "K. Richard Pixley" rich@noir.com wrote:
fc5 installer has me confused and stumped. Could someone please tell me where to find the "install everything" option?
That feature was dropped. You can do select all by right clicking, but you have to be at least one level down to do this. This won't actually install all of the rpms, but may be good enough for you.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 13:06:24 -0800, "K. Richard Pixley" rich@noir.com wrote:
fc5 installer has me confused and stumped. Could someone please tell me where to find the "install everything" option?
That feature was dropped. You can do select all by right clicking, but you have to be at least one level down to do this. This won't actually install all of the rpms, but may be good enough for you.
Bah. Thanks.
What's the rationale here? And what's the new procedure?
I mean, one of the reasons I use a full distribution like fedora is that I don't want to run around with cd's all the time. I want everything available on my development machine immediately and I'm perfectly fine with spending a measly 6-20gig to hold it. Those extra gigabytes are much cheaper than my every needing to hunt down cd's so that I can (re)install some obscure tidbit that I might suddenly need in 6 months. Or worse, doing it every 10 minutes for the first few weeks of using the installation.
I can understand wanting a minimal install for an installation for an embedded or vertical app, but that's no reason to eliminate the fat install. Surely there must be an alternative.
--rich
At 2:16 PM -0800 3/27/06, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
...And what's the new procedure?
I mean, one of the reasons I use a full distribution like fedora is that I don't want to run around with cd's all the time. I want everything available on my development machine immediately and I'm perfectly fine with spending a measly 6-20gig to hold it. Those extra gigabytes are much cheaper than my every needing to hunt down cd's so that I can (re)install some obscure tidbit that I might suddenly need in 6 months. Or worse, doing it every 10 minutes for the first few weeks of using the installation.
I can understand wanting a minimal install for an installation for an embedded or vertical app, but that's no reason to eliminate the fat install. Surely there must be an alternative.
Try Paul Howarth's http://www.city-fan.org/tips/YumRepoFromImages and at least you won't need the CDs or a fast Internet connection to do yum installs. ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' mailto:tonynelson@georgeanelson.com ' http://www.georgeanelson.com/
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 14:16 -0800, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
What's the rationale here?
Discussed to death here over the last few weeks. But in summary, "everything" never really installed "everything", and if you actually did "install" *everything* you'd have conflicts up to your earholes, not to mention masses of updates to manage.
I mean, one of the reasons I use a full distribution like fedora is that I don't want to run around with cd's all the time. I want everything available on my development machine immediately and I'm perfectly fine with spending a measly 6-20gig to hold it.
Is it really that hard to figure out that if you don't want to take discs with you that you should copy them to your hard drive?
Sure, there's various ways of doing this for installation convenience sake (local YUM repos, etc), but it's pretty obvious that copying the disc structure to the hard drive as an installation tree allows you people to install from local files later on.
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:27:56PM +1030, Tim wrote:
Discussed to death here over the last few weeks. But in summary, "everything" never really installed "everything", and if you actually
The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload of packages. User attention is a scarce resource.
Hard drive space and bandwidth is effectively free. Time is not.
did "install" *everything* you'd have conflicts up to your earholes, not
Is "conflicts up to your earlobes" supposed to be a feature? Why can't conflicts be autoresolved? Why are there conflicts in the first place?
to mention masses of updates to manage.
If I asked for it, and bandwidth is no issue, I don't see why this is a problem.
Please stop rationalizing deficits being features. They're not.
On 3/28/06, Eugen Leitl eugen@leitl.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:27:56PM +1030, Tim wrote:
Discussed to death here over the last few weeks. But in summary, "everything" never really installed "everything", and if you actually
The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload of packages. User attention is a scarce resource.
Hard drive space and bandwidth is effectively free. Time is not.
Not too happy about this change either.
Is there an overview somewhere of what gets installed if you select "everything", desktop, server, etc. in the new FC5 installer? That would at least make it easier for us "everything"-people to create a small script to perform an initial yum install to get everything we want.
-- Tarjei
Tim:
Discussed to death here over the last few weeks. But in summary, "everything" never really installed "everything", and if you actually
Eugen Leitl:
The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload of packages. User attention is a scarce resource.
Yes, it is, start paying attention... I said, and I'm quoting from others, that the everything option didn't install "everything". It installed *lots* of things, but it did *not* install *every* single RPM that was available. There are numerous reasons for this, I don't care whether you like the reasons or not, the reasons are there.
e.g. On a 32 bit system there's no point, and probably some harm, in installing 64 bit packages. Certainly so if you try to use them. Then there's kernels for specific CPUs which you won't have.
There have always been some packages which conflict with others, they *cannot* be installed at the same time, there is no resolution to this other than to not install both of them. Hence anything that pretends to be an "everything installation" is not, and those picking one hoping that it is installing everything so are being deluded.
If you really want to install everything, and it won't work, it's child's play: CD into the RPMs folder, and do: rpm -i *.rpm
It will attempt to install all RPMs, there will be no difficulty for you to try this (no options to pick, no variations), and it will fail.
Please stop rationalizing deficits being features. They're not.
Stop expecting everything to be precisely what you want, it's not going to happen. Take your fingers out of your ears and pay attention to the thread that has explained all of this, in excruciating detail, over the last few weeks. Those who've created the installation process understand the problems, even if you do not.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:08:24AM +1030, Tim wrote:
The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload of packages. User attention is a scarce resource.
Yes, it is, start paying attention... I said, and I'm quoting from
I pegged you for a troll right away. You're making it too easy.
others, that the everything option didn't install "everything". It installed *lots* of things, but it did *not* install *every* single RPM that was available. There are numerous reasons for this, I don't care
I'm not interested in your strawmen.
whether you like the reasons or not, the reasons are there.
I'm not interested in your reasons. I've described end user expectations which are violated, and result in reduce usability.
e.g. On a 32 bit system there's no point, and probably some harm, in installing 64 bit packages. Certainly so if you try to use them. Then
There are no 64 bit packages nor MIPSel in FC5 x86_32, moron.
there's kernels for specific CPUs which you won't have.
There have always been some packages which conflict with others, they *cannot* be installed at the same time, there is no resolution to this
That's what conflict resolution is there for. Again: it used to work. It no longer works, because the "install everything and the kitchensink" option is no longer there.
other than to not install both of them. Hence anything that pretends to be an "everything installation" is not, and those picking one hoping that it is installing everything so are being deluded.
If you really want to install everything, and it won't work, it's child's play: CD into the RPMs folder, and do: rpm -i *.rpm
If you really want want to make nonconstructive comments, it's a child's play, *plonk*
It will attempt to install all RPMs, there will be no difficulty for you to try this (no options to pick, no variations), and it will fail.
Please stop rationalizing deficits being features. They're not.
Stop expecting everything to be precisely what you want, it's not going
Stop pretending to speak for Fedora users. You most emphatically don't.
to happen. Take your fingers out of your ears and pay attention to the thread that has explained all of this, in excruciating detail, over the last few weeks. Those who've created the installation process understand the problems, even if you do not.
Idiots like you are responsible for user experience degradation. Thanks for turning back the Linux clock.
On Tue March 28 2006 11:23, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Idiots like you are responsible for user experience degradation. Thanks for turning back the Linux clock.
Making comments like this degrades the experience of using this list. I don't give a damn about the truth of the matter. If you're convinced you're right, take it off list. If you're just an obnoxious loudmouth, shut up.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:39:13 -0500 Claude Jones claude_jones@levitjames.com wrote:
On Tue March 28 2006 11:23, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Idiots like you are responsible for user experience degradation. Thanks for turning back the Linux clock.
Making comments like this degrades the experience of using this list. I don't give a damn about the truth of the matter. If you're convinced you're right, take it off list. If you're just an obnoxious loudmouth, shut up.
Guys!!! Just do not respond anymore the this thread! This is what the OP is looking for!!
- -- Best regards, ~WILL~ Key: http://code-heads.com/keys/ch1.asc Key: http://code-heads.com/keys/ch2.asc Linux Commands: http://code-heads.com/commands Linux Registered User: 406084 (http://counter.li.org/)
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 18:23 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:08:24AM +1030, Tim wrote:
Stop expecting everything to be precisely what you want, it's not going
Stop pretending to speak for Fedora users. You most emphatically don't.
to happen. Take your fingers out of your ears and pay attention to the thread that has explained all of this, in excruciating detail, over the last few weeks. Those who've created the installation process understand the problems, even if you do not.
Idiots like you are responsible for user experience degradation. Thanks for turning back the Linux clock.
---- interesting exchange
You ***can*** actually read for yourself the reasons for this on the fedora-developers mail list as it is archived and not rely upon anyone's paraphrasing the conclusions and the reasoning behind them though I do think that Tim's conclusions about why the option was removed are pretty much on the mark.
I personally don't see much logic behind an 'install everything' option but my opinion counts as much (or as little) as yours does...and it is this type of decision making process that does things like alter installation options and elects people like 'W' - there is a bottom line issue...you can't please everyone all the time.
Seriously though...there was a bunch of consternation about what represented 'install everything', there was emphasis on reducing the packages that are part of core and moving stuff out to extras which is really where people are wanting to install everything...not from core.
Craig
Craig White wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 18:23 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:08:24AM +1030, Tim wrote:
Seriously though...there was a bunch of consternation about what represented 'install everything', there was emphasis on reducing the packages that are part of core and moving stuff out to extras which is really where people are wanting to install everything...not from core.
Using pirut (Add/Remove software) program on groups is a lot better to get everything when you right click and select all packages in the group. I tried this for the games selection and pulled in 46 game packages altogether. The children have a lot of options now to stay in Linux mode. This feature works on Internet package retrievals excellent.
The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages available in core.
Jim
Craig
On Tue March 28 2006 15:29, Jim Cornette wrote:
The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages available in core.
After kicking up a big fuss over this, I now pretty much agree with you. Any time lost by having to click through several extra menus is offset by the time saved by not having to deal with the issues that were created by the old "everything" button, after the installation.
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 15:47 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue March 28 2006 15:29, Jim Cornette wrote:
The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages available in core.
After kicking up a big fuss over this, I now pretty much agree with you. Any time lost by having to click through several extra menus is offset by the time saved by not having to deal with the issues that were created by the old "everything" button, after the installation.
---- gee...you got pretty po'd at me about this topic too.
;-)
I give you credit for changing your mind.
Craig
Craig White wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 15:47 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue March 28 2006 15:29, Jim Cornette wrote:
The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages available in core.
After kicking up a big fuss over this, I now pretty much agree with you. Any time lost by having to click through several extra menus is offset by the time saved by not having to deal with the issues that were created by the old "everything" button, after the installation.
gee...you got pretty po'd at me about this topic too.
;-)
I give you credit for changing your mind.
Craig
That was such a polite nice reply, I have to comment.
Well done, Craig.
BTW, how are things over on CentOS?
Mike
Mike McCarty wrote:
Craig White wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 15:47 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue March 28 2006 15:29, Jim Cornette wrote:
The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages available in core.
After kicking up a big fuss over this, I now pretty much agree with you. Any time lost by having to click through several extra menus is offset by the time saved by not having to deal with the issues that were created by the old "everything" button, after the installation.
gee...you got pretty po'd at me about this topic too.
;-)
I give you credit for changing your mind.
Craig
That was such a polite nice reply, I have to comment.
Well done, Craig.
BTW, how are things over on CentOS?
Mike
Oh,well, even ON the list! :-)
Mike
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 15:50 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Craig White wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 15:47 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue March 28 2006 15:29, Jim Cornette wrote:
The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages available in core.
After kicking up a big fuss over this, I now pretty much agree with you. Any time lost by having to click through several extra menus is offset by the time saved by not having to deal with the issues that were created by the old "everything" button, after the installation.
gee...you got pretty po'd at me about this topic too.
;-)
I give you credit for changing your mind.
Craig
That was such a polite nice reply, I have to comment.
Well done, Craig.
BTW, how are things over on CentOS?
---- pretty calm - needs your deft cynicism ;-)
Craig
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 18:07 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue March 28 2006 16:34, Craig White wrote:
gee...you got pretty po'd at me about this topic too.
;-)
I give you credit for changing your mind.
Yes, but I used metaphor and humor to insult you, not name-calling ;-)
---- having re-read the thread now...I am quite certain I didn't do any name calling. You did force me to go back and look through the thread though.
Craig
On Tue March 28 2006 6:53 pm, Craig White wrote:
having re-read the thread now...I am quite certain I didn't do any name calling. You did force me to go back and look through the thread though.
Nor, did I accuse you of such... I was referring to the "moron" post But I did try to make a little fun of you way back, for what I perceived as a bit of pomposity ;-)
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 21:18 -0500, Yang Xiao wrote:
If you are new to Linux, yes, install everything.
Okay then, I hope they do that! (With one particular person in mind). Maybe then they'll get to experience why it's such a bad idea. Hopefully, they're on dial-up internet access, too. >:-)
On 3/28/06, Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 21:18 -0500, Yang Xiao wrote:
If you are new to Linux, yes, install everything.
Okay then, I hope they do that! (With one particular person in mind). Maybe then they'll get to experience why it's such a bad idea. Hopefully, they're on dial-up internet access, too. >:-)
Come to think of it, this is a better reason than the one I had in mind.
But for most people, they will only know what they need or don't need over time, and for newbies, trying to install packages on demoand may not be so fun if they are just casual users.
- Yang
Yang Xiao wrote:
But for most people, they will only know what they need or don't need over time, and for newbies, trying to install packages on demoand may not be so fun if they are just casual users.
That doesn't mean you want "everything" everything.
Most people *will* know that there are certain categories of software that they won't be interested in.
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/fedora-install-guide-en/fc5/ch-packageselectio...
Take the categories "Software Development" and "web server". Most people will never need software from these categories. If they do, then they are likely to know there's a possibility they'll want it at install time -- they'll already have an interest in programming, or running servers from their own computer.
And, to be honest, it *is* reasonable to assume that software developers should know how to install software.
What most people will want is either "all programs from certain categories" or "the most useful programs from certain categories". That's what the installer is optimised around.
James.
On 3/31/06, James Wilkinson fedora@westexe.demon.co.uk wrote:
Yang Xiao wrote:
But for most people, they will only know what they need or don't need
over
time, and for newbies, trying to install packages on demoand may not be
so
fun if they are just casual users.
That doesn't mean you want "everything" everything.
Most people *will* know that there are certain categories of software that they won't be interested in.
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/fedora-install-guide-en/fc5/ch-packageselectio...
Take the categories "Software Development" and "web server". Most people will never need software from these categories. If they do, then they are likely to know there's a possibility they'll want it at install time -- they'll already have an interest in programming, or running servers from their own computer.
And, to be honest, it *is* reasonable to assume that software developers should know how to install software.
What most people will want is either "all programs from certain categories" or "the most useful programs from certain categories". That's what the installer is optimised around.
James.
-- E-mail address: james | "We've just been contacted by the Lady of the Lake." @westexe.demon.co.uk | "Really? What does she want?" | "A really big towel." | -- http://www.mopsy.com/d/19981122.html
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
That's precisely what I meant, for example, I didn't know I needed compat-libstdc++ libraries as part of our standard install until I found some in house apps required them, so I start to include it with the custom kickstart script, and the KSH that comes with FC4 is not the same as the pdksh that was on previous releases. So over time, I have a good picture of what I need and what I don't.
Then for someone who's new to linux, you need to let them walk the path themselves, they may choose their packages, then come back and say Fedora sux, it doesn't have this and that, and turns out they chosed not to install it to begin with, thus my suggestion, install everything if you are new to Fedora/Linux, see find out for yourself
- Yang
On 3/31/06, Yang Xiao yxiao2004@gmail.com wrote:
Then for someone who's new to linux, you need to let them walk the path themselves, they may choose their packages, then come back and say Fedora sux, it doesn't have this and that, and turns out they chosed not to install it to begin with, thus my suggestion, install everything if you are new to Fedora/Linux, see find out for yourself
I'd much rather someone thought Fedora sucked because of their own ignorance than because of ... well, installing Everything will lead to monsterous update processes, causing them to think Fedora sucks, again, due to their own ignorance.
Hrm, I guess either way works.
-- Chris
"I trust the Democrats to take away my money, which I can afford. I trust the Republicans to take away my freedom, which I cannot."
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 10:00, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
Then for someone who's new to linux, you need to let them walk the path themselves, they may choose their packages, then come back and say Fedora sux, it doesn't have this and that, and turns out they chosed not to install it to begin with, thus my suggestion, install everything if you are new to Fedora/Linux, see find out for yourself
I'd much rather someone thought Fedora sucked because of their own ignorance than because of ... well, installing Everything will lead to monsterous update processes, causing them to think Fedora sucks, again, due to their own ignorance.
How about if they think fedora sucks because the people who probably spent a lot of time deciding for themselves what should be on the CD's couldn't be bothered to make it possible for someone to install all of the programs they are likely to need in one step, or without understanding the purpose of each program/package at a point when they can't see it or it's man page.
Les Mikesell wrote:
How about if they think fedora sucks because the people who probably spent a lot of time deciding for themselves what should be on the CD's couldn't be bothered to make it possible for someone to install all of the programs they are likely to need in one step, or without understanding the purpose of each program/package at a point when they can't see it or it's man page.
But it *is* possible to install whichever programs you like at a point where you *can* see any manpages or web pages -- after the install, when you've got a basic system up and running.
In any case, if you *really* want an "everything" install, you should be installing all of Extras, too.
James.
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 21:13 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue March 28 2006 6:53 pm, Craig White wrote:
having re-read the thread now...I am quite certain I didn't do any name calling. You did force me to go back and look through the thread though.
Nor, did I accuse you of such... I was referring to the "moron" post But I did try to make a little fun of you way back, for what I perceived as a bit of pomposity ;-)
---- moi ? ;-)
no problem - I probably deserved it. I sometimes get fatigued by what I perceive as whining on the list.
Craig
Craig White wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 21:13 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue March 28 2006 6:53 pm, Craig White wrote:
having re-read the thread now...I am quite certain I didn't do any name calling. You did force me to go back and look through the thread though.
Nor, did I accuse you of such... I was referring to the "moron" post But I did try to make a little fun of you way back, for what I perceived as a bit of pomposity ;-)
moi ? ;-)
no problem - I probably deserved it. I sometimes get fatigued by what I perceive as whining on the list.
Are you complaining about whiners again, Craig? :-)
Mike
Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue March 28 2006 15:29, Jim Cornette wrote:
The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages available in core.
After kicking up a big fuss over this, I now pretty much agree with you. Any time lost by having to click through several extra menus is offset by the time saved by not having to deal with the issues that were created by the old "everything" button, after the installation.
I've never seen any problems from an "everything" installation of either redhat or fedora.
I counted about 800 clicks to get a complete install by clicking on all of the separate packages, (not counting the couple of reinstalls because I missed one of two from manual error).
So I disagree. This isn't a reasonable alternative. A one click install would have been vastly preferable from my perspective.
--rich
Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue March 28 2006 15:29, Jim Cornette wrote:
The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages available in core.
After kicking up a big fuss over this, I now pretty much agree with you. Any time lost by having to click through several extra menus is offset by the time saved by not having to deal with the issues that were created by the old "everything" button, after the installation.
I've never seen any problems from an "everything" installation of either redhat or fedora.
I counted about 800 clicks to get a complete install by clicking on all of the separate packages, (not counting the couple of reinstalls because I missed one of two from manual error).
So I disagree. This isn't a reasonable alternative. A one click install would have been vastly preferable from my perspective.
Rich,
Some months ago I complained about the "everything" option which literally installed everything -- including support for every language on the planet. Thereafter having to update umpteen unused OOo language modules needlessly burned up a lot of bandwidth.
Unfortunately the pendulum has now swung too far in the opposite direction. While language support has been broken out separately (thank goodness), having to manually select all those other packages is a royal pain in the okole.
It seems to me that an ideal compromise would be two omnibus check boxes, one for all apps (but not languages) and a separate one for all languages.
Just my $0.02....
--Doc Savage Fairview Heights, IL
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 14:39 -0800, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue March 28 2006 15:29, Jim Cornette wrote:
The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages available in core.
After kicking up a big fuss over this, I now pretty much agree with you. Any time lost by having to click through several extra menus is offset by the time saved by not having to deal with the issues that were created by the old "everything" button, after the installation.
I've never seen any problems from an "everything" installation of either redhat or fedora.
You mustn't be applying updates regularly then. The FC4 "Everything" install included some kernel modules for clustering, which, when an updated kernel was released, caused dependency issues that blocked all other updates being installed for several days before the matching updates to the kernel module were pushed. The vast majority of Fedora users didn't need these modules, and their presence on their systems, blocking updates, was a security issue as well as an annoyance for them.
Of course, it could be argued that the kernel modules should have been built and pushed at the same time as the kernel itself, and that would be right. But that's not what happened and it caused a real problem for the "Everything" installers.
Paul.
On Fri March 31 2006 2:43 am, Paul Howarth wrote:
But that's not what happened and it caused a real problem for the "Everything" installers.
Hate to disagree and/or jump back into this discussion, but I just don't buy this oft-repeated argument. I did many 'everything installs', and I encountered this issue with a small number of packages, and I remember them well. It gave me a reason to research those packages, find out something about them, and when I saw that they were not needed for my particular system, I just removed them.
And I learned something, not just about the particular package, either, but broader knowledge about dependency problems and such...which has everything to do with why I liked the everything install.
And now, I've gotten used to the new way, and it's OK, too - I think the detractors who talk about thousands of clicks are equally wrong, btw... After doing multiple FC5 installs, using the right-click method, I can get through the package lists in under 5 minutes, and there are many things I leave out, now that I've learned a bit about Linux.
But, the oft repeated argument that those pesky packages that wouldn't get updated caused "real problems" for us, I think is a red herring. Problems are always opportunities - solving them increases one's knowledge. I also remember trying some smaller installs and also having problems. Things that wouldn't work, and packages missing whose name you didn't know, and spending much time tracking such issues down - so, it can cut both ways...
But, this argument, I'm sure, will go on and on -- too bad, because, the matter has been settled - to paraphrase W. Churchill, using up the present to argue about the past is a good way to shortchange the future...
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 07:16, Claude Jones wrote:
But, this argument, I'm sure, will go on and on -- too bad, because, the matter has been settled - to paraphrase W. Churchill, using up the present to argue about the past is a good way to shortchange the future...
I don't see how that applies unless you think there won't be any future versions or any future changes. I still think there should be a one-click way to install what 'everything' used to be. It doesn't really have to be 'everything', but it should be what someone who had a part in choosing the set of packages on the CD thinks will make a useful and complete system for most purposes. It could be called 'complete' instead. It doesn't have to be everything on the CD but then again, if a package doesn't have a common use, why is it on the core CDs in the first place? I think most new users would rather take another dollar's worth of disk space to never have to deal with problems like the vmware modules not building because the kernel headers aren't there, or their web application not connecting to their database because the php or dbi modules aren't there, or some perl app installation pulling in CPAN modules when RPMs are available but not installed.
On Fri March 31 2006 8:42 am, Les Mikesell wrote:
I don't see how that applies unless you think there won't be any future versions or any future changes. I still think there should be a one-click way to install what 'everything' used to be. It doesn't really have to be 'everything', but it should be what someone who had a part in choosing the set of packages on the CD thinks will make a useful and complete system for most purposes. It could be called 'complete' instead. It doesn't have to be everything on the CD but then again, if a package doesn't have a common use, why is it on the core CDs in the first place? I think most new users would rather take another dollar's worth of disk space to never have to deal with problems like the vmware modules not building because the kernel headers aren't there, or their web application not connecting to their database because the php or dbi modules aren't there, or some perl app installation pulling in CPAN modules when RPMs are available but not installed.
Agreed! I'll even follow up on that and put an RFE in at bugzilla. My main intention was to speak to the hyperbole that exists on both sides of the debate. I enjoy a good polemic, and hyperbole is a useful tool in debate, employed properly - the kinds of statements I've seen on both sides of the argument in many of these threads wouldn't get past a 5th grade English teacher.
Craig White wrote:
Seriously though...there was a bunch of consternation about what represented 'install everything', there was emphasis on reducing the packages that are part of core and moving stuff out to extras which is really where people are wanting to install everything...not from core.
The problem with that approach is a lack of integration.
If the core fedora team wants to thin out it's responsibilities, that's fine, I suppose. We'll just need to reinvent another team to reintegrate and repackage fedora core + the rest of the stuff we need for a complete OS. I'm just sad to see the product degrade.
Integration is the most important thing fedora offers, even more important than nice art, even more important than simple installs.
--rich
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 14:30 -0800, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Craig White wrote:
Seriously though...there was a bunch of consternation about what represented 'install everything', there was emphasis on reducing the packages that are part of core and moving stuff out to extras which is really where people are wanting to install everything...not from core.
The problem with that approach is a lack of integration.
If the core fedora team wants to thin out it's responsibilities, that's fine, I suppose. We'll just need to reinvent another team to reintegrate and repackage fedora core + the rest of the stuff we need for a complete OS. I'm just sad to see the product degrade.
Integration is the most important thing fedora offers, even more important than nice art, even more important than simple installs.
---- I can see your point to this extent...that when I read the above I thought to check what the current fedora web pages say is the purpose for Fedora and it seems to be lacking authoritative philosophy.
The closest thing I could find is: http://fedora.redhat.com/About/
I believe that the vision expressed was to have a Fedora Core which comprised a base distribution of that which was simply a core set of packages and allowed for other repositories to provide other packages as may be required. If they take packages from core and spin them out to fedora extras, that actually makes sense if they are truly not needed for core install.
Other repositories such as k12ltsp, kde-redhat, and atrpms are perhaps more specialized whereas fedora extras, livna, freshrpms, dries are more generalized. That actually makes a very impressive array of options.
If integration is as you say, more important than simple installs, then everything seems to be headed just where you want it to be so I guess I am confused what the point is that you are trying to make.
Craig
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 18:23 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:08:24AM +1030, Tim wrote:
The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload of packages. User attention is a scarce resource.
Yes, it is, start paying attention... I said, and I'm quoting from
I pegged you for a troll right away. You're making it too easy.
LOLOLOL Tim is one of the regulars here and a great help to many. Troll indeed. Are you looking in the mirror or something?
whether you like the reasons or not, the reasons are there.
I'm not interested in your reasons. I've described end user expectations which are violated, and result in reduce usability.
Your expectations may be violated. For the great majority of us it made perfect sense. No degradation in usability. Yum updates, installs, and the use of extras provides much more than is possibly available on the CDs.
e.g. On a 32 bit system there's no point, and probably some harm, in installing 64 bit packages. Certainly so if you try to use them. Then
There are no 64 bit packages nor MIPSel in FC5 x86_32, moron.
Name calling even, and for one of the most helpful people on this list.
there's kernels for specific CPUs which you won't have.
There have always been some packages which conflict with others, they *cannot* be installed at the same time, there is no resolution to this
That's what conflict resolution is there for. Again: it used to work. It no longer works, because the "install everything and the kitchensink" option is no longer there.
GOOD
other than to not install both of them. Hence anything that pretends to be an "everything installation" is not, and those picking one hoping that it is installing everything so are being deluded.
If you really want to install everything, and it won't work, it's child's play: CD into the RPMs folder, and do: rpm -i *.rpm
If you really want want to make nonconstructive comments, it's a child's play, *plonk*
Certainly helpful for over 99% of the people wanting that option.
It will attempt to install all RPMs, there will be no difficulty for you to try this (no options to pick, no variations), and it will fail.
Please stop rationalizing deficits being features. They're not.
Stop expecting everything to be precisely what you want, it's not going
Stop pretending to speak for Fedora users. You most emphatically don't.
I think Tim speaks for himself and his view fits in with the norm.
to happen. Take your fingers out of your ears and pay attention to the thread that has explained all of this, in excruciating detail, over the last few weeks. Those who've created the installation process understand the problems, even if you do not.
Idiots like you are responsible for user experience degradation. Thanks for turning back the Linux clock.
PLONK!!!!!
Jeff Vian wrote:
That's what conflict resolution is there for. Again: it used to work. It no longer works, because the "install everything and the kitchensink" option is no longer there.
GOOD
I'm confused. Fedora used to be an easy to install, integrated, fairly comprehensive operating system distribution. You're saying that you want it to be hard to install, non-integrated, and not comprehensive?
What is it that you want from your operating system distribution?
--rich
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 14:34 -0800, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Jeff Vian wrote:
That's what conflict resolution is there for. Again: it used to work. It no longer works, because the "install everything and the kitchensink" option is no longer there.
GOOD
I'm confused. Fedora used to be an easy to install, integrated, fairly comprehensive operating system distribution. You're saying that you want it to be hard to install, non-integrated, and not comprehensive?
What is it that you want from your operating system distribution?
What I *don't* want is the major bloat that used to be in the "install everything" option. Every language for man pages, OOo, spelling, etc. Over 200 packages and way over a gigabyte of drive space lost for things that I will never in my lifetime use. Plus the extended update times needed to update the bloat when there is no reason for it.
What I would like is the ability to have a simple select button within each of the smaller groups where I can select everything in the group with a single click. For example, the database server groups for mysql and postgresql. Less than half of each group is selected by default and if I want them all a single click would be ideal Similarly with development software. If I want the whole shebang for perl a single button to select all perl related packages would be nice. (as it is there is about 40 or so packages to choose individually)
This would hit a happy medium between the "everything" proposers and the "minimalist" proposers. The default could be near minimal, with a very easy way to choose to get everything I want (which may / may not meet your definition of everything as well). Those who want the kitchen sink in their install could simply select everything in _all_ groups, and I may select everything in only a few groups.
--rich
fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Folks,
I stayed out of this thread since I started the same subject awhile back, but I just wanted to reiterate just one thing...
All of these arguments (everything or minimalist or whatever) could have easily been resolved if total flexibility was given in the installation program in the first place.
For example:
1) Different templates for different configuration choices, for exanple, "Typical", "Custom", "MyChoices"
2) All item selection functionality should be given. For example: shift-key for item X through item X+n, Control-Key for single-item (de)selections. These used in combination with the mouse selections as well. Then there should be a "select all items", "Deselect All Items" so that you and select all items and deselect items you dont want or "deselect all items" and select items you want.
The point is, give the installer conplete flexibility and stop worrying about the (in)ability of the installer to make sensible installation choices. If this were an issue on the part of the installer, then you can possibly do an automatic list installation such as the "MyChoices" template and the interactive selections would remain hidden unless there was a conflict resolution that is required to resolve it.
That's all I am going to say for now.
Dan
Leitl:
The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload of packages. User attention is a scarce resource.
Tim:
Yes, it is, start paying attention... I said, and I'm quoting from
Eugen:
I pegged you for a troll right away. You're making it too easy.
Nice try, the one being a "troll" (romping into a list and arguing against the facts, because you don't like it), is you. If you want to continue your stupid argument about the "everything" installation, go and argue with the people who're responsible for the installation routines. We all know just how far you're going to get, and that's because of you being a twit, not them.
others, that the everything option didn't install "everything". It installed *lots* of things, but it did *not* install *every* single RPM that was available. There are numerous reasons for this, I don't care
I'm not interested in your strawmen.
It's not a "strawman" it's a fact. It never installed everything, if you think it did, you're seriously mistaken. You're deluded if you think otherwise. None of us care whether you can't understand reasons and explanations, you've demonstrated you're a pigheaded idiot quite definitely by now.
If you really want to install everything, and it won't work, it's child's play: CD into the RPMs folder, and do: rpm -i *.rpm
If you really want want to make nonconstructive comments, it's a child's play, *plonk*
If you think that's non-constructive, you're a complete idiot. I gave you a single command line that COULD install everything. But it won't, and the rest of us know the reasons why. Apparently you cannot see this.
Please stop rationalizing deficits being features. They're not.
Stop expecting everything to be precisely what you want, it's not going
Stop pretending to speak for Fedora users. You most emphatically don't.
Pot, kettle, black. You're the one attempting to say what everyone wants (everything install), I'm just explaining why it isn't there. If you can't handle the truth, it's pity help you.
to happen. Take your fingers out of your ears and pay attention to the thread that has explained all of this, in excruciating detail, over the last few weeks. Those who've created the installation process understand the problems, even if you do not.
Idiots like you are responsible for user experience degradation. Thanks for turning back the Linux clock.
The one being an idiot here, is you. Everyone else can see it, even if you can't. And thanks to the archiving of the list they can see it for all time. You've had your points refuted by facts, you've blithely ignored all advice about the issue, and carried on a petulant rant about not being able to get your own way.
There is absolutely nothing stopping users from trying out any package that they want to, nor from having a look through the list of available files and descriptions for what they do. No user is going to try out every package, and you're a real fool if you think any one person can. You're also quite stupid if you don't understand the nasty experience that will be inflicted upon new users who did try to install everything then pick up the pieces.
Tim wrote:
If you really want to install everything, and it won't work, it's child's play: CD into the RPMs folder, and do: rpm -i *.rpm
It will attempt to install all RPMs, there will be no difficulty for you to try this (no options to pick, no variations), and it will fail.
That's because it's missing that important feature that we're expecting from a distribution - integration.
Seriously. I'm expecting the fedora teams to sort out licensing. I'm expecting fedora teams to sort out configuration defaults. I'm expecting them to make reasonable decisions about which available service in a choice of services will be the best choice, (sendmail vs whatever else).
I didn't say I wanted a system that wasn't integrated. I want the integration that has been done so well on redhat and fedora releases for years. I just want it on fc5 too.
--rich
Tim:
If you really want to install everything, and it won't work, it's child's play: CD into the RPMs folder, and do: rpm -i *.rpm
It will attempt to install all RPMs, there will be no difficulty for you to try this (no options to pick, no variations), and it will fail.
Richard Pixley:
That's because it's missing that important feature that we're expecting from a distribution - integration.
I disagree. It's already got that. You can install a workstation with a set of applications most people would use for that sort of thing, just by running the installation routine without changing anything, and they work well together.
You really can't expect them to look at every possible package that could be put on a Linux system, *and* make them all work together out-of-the box. Some of those packages don't lend *themselves* to ease of use with other things, and that's an issue with the original package.
Seriously. I'm expecting the fedora teams to sort out licensing.
Already done. You've got stuff without onerous conditions. Things with problematic licenses are already weeded out.
I'm expecting fedora teams to sort out configuration defaults.
You've already got most of that done for you. Networking is mostly a doddle until it comes to trying to use proprietary Windows-only designed gear. Many things are pre-configured in quite usable ways.
I'm expecting them to make reasonable decisions about which available service in a choice of services will be the best choice, (sendmail vs whatever else).
That's already done, too.
Because you can never beat a dead horse enough...
I'm going to chime in that the loss of the "Install Everything" button is a big loss for Fedora. Everyone I know who installs Fedora or RedHat (which is really only about 4-5 people) uses the "Install Everything" button, because _no_one_ gives a measly care about a few extra Gb of disk space, and nobody wants to spend time pecking around menus or hunting down software. It is a big waste of time.
No, I don't want to have to load and run another program that can get me some other interface which I have to figure out to install everything. No I don't want to have to click every package group. No, I don't care if my auto updater has to download more fixes. I just want to click the "Install Everything" button and, no, I don't care if it doesn't really install _everything_. Almost everything is fine.
And conflicts really aren't the problem. There are lots of packages now that aren't getting installed now that could be. I was surprised by all the "optional" packages that I had to select one at a time to get installed: old favorites like emacs(!), xmms, xfig, and great newer programs like k3b (which the fedora installation web page recommends for burning fedora CDs :).
It is just not worth my time. Next time it will be SUSE instead.
-Frank
p.s. Inkscape should be in the distribution. It's the hot new thing. Very nice.
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:27:56PM +1030, Tim wrote:
Discussed to death here over the last few weeks. But in summary, "everything" never really installed "everything", and if you actually
The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload of packages. User attention is a scarce resource.
Hard drive space and bandwidth is effectively free. Time is not.
did "install" *everything* you'd have conflicts up to your earholes, not
Is "conflicts up to your earlobes" supposed to be a feature? Why can't conflicts be autoresolved? Why are there conflicts in the first place?
to mention masses of updates to manage.
If I asked for it, and bandwidth is no issue, I don't see why this is a problem.
Please stop rationalizing deficits being features. They're not.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
It is just not worth my time. Next time it will be SUSE instead.
-Frank
Good luck with that. I have a SUSE box that has virtually nothing installed by default. You think Fedora's installation is sparse? I was amazed at the total lack of packages installed in SUSE. Really, it's a total joke to work on that server. It has KDE /and/ GNOME installed (on a /server/ no less) and yet I had to install the sysstat packages along with ntpd and about 3 or 4 others just to make the server really manageable. The SUSE install is just silly. The Fedora installer is at least more /sane/ than most other installers I've seen or used.
But it seems rather childish to switch distros just for that. Kind of like taking your ball and going home, eh?
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:27:56PM +1030, Tim wrote:
Discussed to death here over the last few weeks. But in summary, "everything" never really installed "everything", and if you actually
The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload of packages. User attention is a scarce resource.
Hard drive space and bandwidth is effectively free. Time is not.
did "install" *everything* you'd have conflicts up to your earholes, not
Is "conflicts up to your earlobes" supposed to be a feature? Why can't conflicts be autoresolved? Why are there conflicts in the first place?
to mention masses of updates to manage.
If I asked for it, and bandwidth is no issue, I don't see why this is a problem.
Please stop rationalizing deficits being features. They're not.
- -- Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Mark Haney Sr. Systems Administrator ERC Broadband (828) 350-2415
On Mon, 8 May 2006, Mark Haney wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
It is just not worth my time. Next time it will be SUSE instead.
-Frank
Good luck with that. I have a SUSE box that has virtually nothing installed by default. You think Fedora's installation is sparse? I was amazed at the total lack of packages installed in SUSE. Really, it's a total joke to work on that server. It has KDE /and/ GNOME installed (on a /server/ no less) and yet I had to install the sysstat packages along with ntpd and about 3 or 4 others just to make the server really manageable. The SUSE install is just silly. The Fedora installer is at least more /sane/ than most other installers I've seen or used.
But it seems rather childish to switch distros just for that. Kind of like taking your ball and going home, eh?
I found the FC5 lack of 'install everything' to be a really serious pain on the machine I built a week and a half ago as I had to do it three or four times in a row as I worked through the problems I was having with install media.
It is aggravated by the fact that choosing a group of things doesn't actually mean you get everything in that group, either, and so you have to manually tick through nearly *every* menu to make sure that you have actually have a full install.
And yes - I have SUSE 10 installed on another machine. It wasn't even CLOSE to the pain that FC5 was to install this time. Thumbs down on the lack of an 'install everything' button in FC5. It was a victory of ideological purity over distribution usability to have removed it.
And *YES* - the problem is severe enough to make me consider switching distributions. And I've been using RH since the RH4 days, so that is actually saying something.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 11:42 -0700, Benjamin Franz wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2006, Mark Haney wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
It is just not worth my time. Next time it will be SUSE instead.
-Frank
Good luck with that. I have a SUSE box that has virtually nothing installed by default. You think Fedora's installation is sparse? I was amazed at the total lack of packages installed in SUSE. Really, it's a total joke to work on that server. It has KDE /and/ GNOME installed (on a /server/ no less) and yet I had to install the sysstat packages along with ntpd and about 3 or 4 others just to make the server really manageable. The SUSE install is just silly. The Fedora installer is at least more /sane/ than most other installers I've seen or used.
But it seems rather childish to switch distros just for that. Kind of like taking your ball and going home, eh?
I found the FC5 lack of 'install everything' to be a really serious pain on the machine I built a week and a half ago as I had to do it three or four times in a row as I worked through the problems I was having with install media.
It is aggravated by the fact that choosing a group of things doesn't actually mean you get everything in that group, either, and so you have to manually tick through nearly *every* menu to make sure that you have actually have a full install.
You can right click on a group in both the Installer and Pirut to select every package in a group. Otherwise you might use kickstart.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I found the FC5 lack of 'install everything' to be a really serious pain on the machine I built a week and a half ago as I had to do it three or four times in a row as I worked through the problems I was having with install media.
It is aggravated by the fact that choosing a group of things doesn't actually mean you get everything in that group, either, and so you have to manually tick through nearly *every* menu to make sure that you have actually have a full install.
You can right click on a group in both the Installer and Pirut to select every package in a group. Otherwise you might use kickstart.
This is still a time-consuming, error-prone and (sorry, no offense) "dumb" task. The deselected groups have to be selected, and then the individual packages can be added with the menu by right-clicking. It's quite a lot of them. A "Select All" button/checkbox (not to be confused with the old "Everything" option) would be nice to select everything that can be installed anyway.
On the other hand, that package selection process is really weird. It's unpredictable, which packages get their according devel package (with header files and config tools) installed as well, and which not. Even if everything is selected, a number of packages don't have their *-devel package installed. But this is necessary to develop and compile software.
OK, missing packages can be installed afterwards, but that's even more time-consuming. If I select all development packages during installation, why don't I get all packages installed *with* their devel packages? Do they do any harm? Do they confuse end-users? This might be considered a bug.
The current package selection process might be perfect for end-users who never compile anything. Maybe some Ubuntu users will change to Fedora now.
However, as a developer or programmer, Fedora Core now requires a lot of additional work to make the machine usable. This has been much better in previous releases.
I filed a bug report, but I don't think that they understand my point. It became a duplicate of the "Install Everything" bug that will never be fixed. But my bug wasn't pro or contra the old "Install Everything" checkbox. The current installation process makes it impossible to get a system right from the beginning where things fit together nicely. I get most of the libraries, but I don't get their header files (includes). If I select all development packages, isn't it obvious that I want most/all packages installed *with* their devel packages?
That said, it doesn't help much to use bugzilla on specific topics. (As some people here suggested.)
Fedora seems to become an end-user distribution, anD times might get harder for developers, programmers and people who like to compile stuff on their own instead of using pre-build packages.
Greetings, Andreas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Benjamin Franz wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2006, Mark Haney wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
It is just not worth my time. Next time it will be SUSE instead.
-Frank
Good luck with that. I have a SUSE box that has virtually nothing installed by default. You think Fedora's installation is sparse? I was amazed at the total lack of packages installed in SUSE. Really, it's a total joke to work on that server. It has KDE /and/ GNOME installed (on a /server/ no less) and yet I had to install the sysstat packages along with ntpd and about 3 or 4 others just to make the server really manageable. The SUSE install is just silly. The Fedora installer is at least more /sane/ than most other installers I've seen or used.
But it seems rather childish to switch distros just for that. Kind of like taking your ball and going home, eh?
I found the FC5 lack of 'install everything' to be a really serious pain on the machine I built a week and a half ago as I had to do it three or four times in a row as I worked through the problems I was having with install media.
It is aggravated by the fact that choosing a group of things doesn't actually mean you get everything in that group, either, and so you have to manually tick through nearly *every* menu to make sure that you have actually have a full install.
And yes - I have SUSE 10 installed on another machine. It wasn't even CLOSE to the pain that FC5 was to install this time. Thumbs down on the lack of an 'install everything' button in FC5. It was a victory of ideological purity over distribution usability to have removed it.
And *YES* - the problem is severe enough to make me consider switching distributions. And I've been using RH since the RH4 days, so that is actually saying something.
[Flame ahead] It's quite obvious that if you like the 'install everything' option that you've never really worried too much about disk space or security for your servers. Who /needs/ KDE and GNOME on a server? Matter of fact, who /needs/ everything on a desktop? Sounds extremely lazy and inefficient to me.
[I now step down from my soapbox and move on to other things.]
- -- Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Mark Haney Sr. Systems Administrator ERC Broadband (828) 350-2415
Mark Haney wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
[Flame ahead] It's quite obvious that if you like the 'install everything' option that you've never really worried too much about disk space or security for your servers. Who /needs/ KDE and GNOME on a server? Matter of fact, who /needs/ everything on a desktop? Sounds extremely lazy and inefficient to me.
[I now step down from my soapbox and move on to other things.]
Any machine that we install and send out gets an install everything, since we cannot predict (and the customers mostly don't know) exactly what mix of packages that they need for their specific application.
Security, we turn off the extra unneeded services, mostly the install everything is to get all applications, libraries and such on the machine, not so much all of the services.
Too many of our customers are using obscure libraries for their applications, and none of them appear to use the same obscure libraries.
Roger
On Mon, 8 May 2006, Mark Haney wrote:
[Flame ahead] It's quite obvious that if you like the 'install everything' option that you've never really worried too much about disk space or security for your servers. Who /needs/ KDE and GNOME on a server? Matter of fact, who /needs/ everything on a desktop? Sounds extremely lazy and inefficient to me.
[I now step down from my soapbox and move on to other things.]
[Sarcasm]
It's quite obvious that if you _FILL IN RELIGIOUS ISSUE HERE_ you've _INSULT OTHER PERSON'S COMPETENCY_. Who /needs/ _FILL IN SPECIFIC THING I DON'T NEED MYSELF_. Matter of fact, who /needs/, _FILL IN GENERALITY I DON'T NEED MYSELF_. Sounds _INSULT OTHER PERSON'S WORK HABITS_.
[/Sarcasm]
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 12:16 -0700, Benjamin Franz wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2006, Mark Haney wrote:
[Flame ahead] It's quite obvious that if you like the 'install everything' option that you've never really worried too much about disk space or security for your servers. Who /needs/ KDE and GNOME on a server? Matter of fact, who /needs/ everything on a desktop? Sounds extremely lazy and inefficient to me.
[I now step down from my soapbox and move on to other things.]
[Sarcasm]
It's quite obvious that if you _FILL IN RELIGIOUS ISSUE HERE_ you've _INSULT OTHER PERSON'S COMPETENCY_. Who /needs/ _FILL IN SPECIFIC THING I DON'T NEED MYSELF_. Matter of fact, who /needs/, _FILL IN GENERALITY I DON'T NEED MYSELF_. Sounds _INSULT OTHER PERSON'S WORK HABITS_.
[/Sarcasm]
---- I hate to say this but this hasn't been a constructive thread.
Those who state that they will switch to SuSE because of this should do so. Since it is too late to do anything about it now, FC-5 has already been released, does this mean that if the option is back with FC-6 installer that you will be back?
There's a feedback mechanism, it's called Bugzilla.
This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
Craig
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:50, Craig White wrote:
Those who state that they will switch to SuSE because of this should do so. Since it is too late to do anything about it now, FC-5 has already been released, does this mean that if the option is back with FC-6 installer that you will be back?
There's a feedback mechanism, it's called Bugzilla.
It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users to pay attention to the whining.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:05 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:50, Craig White wrote:
Those who state that they will switch to SuSE because of this should do so. Since it is too late to do anything about it now, FC-5 has already been released, does this mean that if the option is back with FC-6 installer that you will be back?
There's a feedback mechanism, it's called Bugzilla.
It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users to pay attention to the whining.
---- As you and I both know, the fedora developers don't listen to this list and if enough people sounded off via the official feedback mechanism, they would probably change it.
Craig
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:05 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:50, Craig White wrote:
Those who state that they will switch to SuSE because of this should do so. Since it is too late to do anything about it now, FC-5 has already been released, does this mean that if the option is back with FC-6 installer that you will be back?
There's a feedback mechanism, it's called Bugzilla.
It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users to pay attention to the whining.
Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
Rahul
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users to pay attention to the whining.
Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said? A lot of decisions seem to be made with no thought about the real-world effects. For example if someone wanted to build PCs with fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on it?
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:20 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users to pay attention to the whining.
Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said?
Yes it does. If you want designers to care about what you consider design bugs you need to use the bug tracking system to provide detailed input on it rather than send mails to user lists and expect the developers to read that.
A lot of decisions seem to be made with no thought about the real-world effects.
Decisions are never made arbitrarily. They are almost always driven by real world considerations. Developers dont operate in silos. However it is not possible to anticipate all the scenarios and hence specific feedback mechanisms have been provided.
For example if someone wanted to build PCs with fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on it?
OEM copies of Fedora would have whatever the OEM vendors decide to provide.
Rahul
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:35, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said?
Yes it does. If you want designers to care about what you consider design bugs you need to use the bug tracking system to provide detailed input on it rather than send mails to user lists and expect the developers to read that.
But then you'll only see a few people who are either fanatics about some issue or just don't understand the right approach. Here you get the sanity check of other users who wouldn't normally peruse bugzilla either pointing out the mistake or joining in about how they were also inconvenienced by a change.
For example if someone wanted to build PCs with fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on it?
OEM copies of Fedora would have whatever the OEM vendors decide to provide.
That's almost shocking in the context of marketing. Is that what you want for a user's exposure to a fedora system?
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:01 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:35, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said?
Yes it does. If you want designers to care about what you consider design bugs you need to use the bug tracking system to provide detailed input on it rather than send mails to user lists and expect the developers to read that.
But then you'll only see a few people who are either fanatics about some issue or just don't understand the right approach.
Not sure what you trying to say here. Are you implying that people who use bugzilla are fanatics? The people who understand the right approach can very well use bugzilla to convey developers that information.
Here you get the sanity check of other users who wouldn't normally peruse bugzilla either pointing out the mistake or joining in about how they were also inconvenienced by a change.
You can achieve the same by filing a bug report and then inviting others to comment on it. Happens all the time.I have proposed a fedora bug list similar to cvs commits lists so end users can subscribe and track bugs easier. Bugzilla also has rss feeds, watch maintainer, query to mail features and others to aid in this and upstream bugzilla can accept mails as comments on bug reports.
Mailing lists are completely inefficient to track bugs compared to bug tracking systems. Pretty much every major open source project has bugzilla or some other bug tracking system for the very same reason.
For example if someone wanted to build PCs with fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on it?
OEM copies of Fedora would have whatever the OEM vendors decide to provide.
That's almost shocking in the context of marketing. Is that what you want for a user's exposure to a fedora system?
Usually OEM renames the system since the trademark guidelines dont allow for Fedora to be modified and still retain the name and hence a user experience of those systems doesnt affect Fedora. There has been discussions on and off about modifying the guidelines to do various things that help OEM, respins etc but we havent drafted out anything concrete yet.
Rahul
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:13, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
But then you'll only see a few people who are either fanatics about some issue or just don't understand the right approach.
Not sure what you trying to say here. Are you implying that people who use bugzilla are fanatics? The people who understand the right approach can very well use bugzilla to convey developers that information.
I'm saying you aren't going to get a cross section of users and actual experiences there - and I don't think anyone wants them there.
Mailing lists are completely inefficient to track bugs compared to bug tracking systems. Pretty much every major open source project has bugzilla or some other bug tracking system for the very same reason.
But these things aren't exactly bugs although they have a cumulative effect that adds up to TCO. Is there anyone involved in fedora development that is bothered by the Microsoft claims of lower TCO? No single user's experience can tell you how to reduce the time and trouble (and thus cost) to install and maintain the system in general. However, in a forum with a large number of users the things that take an annoying amount of time and workarounds will come out.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:32 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:13, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
But then you'll only see a few people who are either fanatics about some issue or just don't understand the right approach.
Not sure what you trying to say here. Are you implying that people who use bugzilla are fanatics? The people who understand the right approach can very well use bugzilla to convey developers that information.
I'm saying you aren't going to get a cross section of users and actual experiences there - and I don't think anyone wants them there.
We arent talking about getting recording user experiences in general. We are talking about filing bugs and if users are unwilling to report those bugs into a bug tracking system meant for that purpose, then they are unlikely to reach the relevant developers. Using bug tracking systems to record and track bugs isnt specific to Fedora and is a proven methodology that works throughout all the mature software projects.
Mailing lists are completely inefficient to track bugs compared to bug tracking systems. Pretty much every major open source project has bugzilla or some other bug tracking system for the very same reason.
But these things aren't exactly bugs although they have a cumulative effect that adds up to TCO. I
If they arent bugs, then thats a unrelated discussion. You can start a new thread on TCO claims and I would promptly opt out of that ;-).
Rahul
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:45, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If they arent bugs, then thats a unrelated discussion. You can start a new thread on TCO claims and I would promptly opt out of that ;-).
No, that's what this discussion was about from the beginning. There are lots of things that can be made to work with sufficient highly paid sysadmin time and thus aren't technically bugs. I was hoping that someone building some linux distro would be interested in reducing those kinds of problems with better defaults, more attention to what has to be done for a backup/restore to work, etc.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:01 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:45, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If they arent bugs, then thats a unrelated discussion. You can start a new thread on TCO claims and I would promptly opt out of that ;-).
No, that's what this discussion was about from the beginning.
I certainly didnt understand that this was a TCO discussion.
There are lots of things that can be made to work with sufficient highly paid sysadmin time and thus aren't technically bugs.
They dont need to bugs. They can be requested for enhancements. Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests for more details.
I was hoping that someone building some linux distro would be interested in reducing those kinds of problems with better defaults, more attention to what has to be done for a backup/restore to work, etc.
Sure. As long as it is communicated in a appropriate way. Refer to the section on providing feedback to developers in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate
Rahul
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:08, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If they arent bugs, then thats a unrelated discussion. You can start a new thread on TCO claims and I would promptly opt out of that ;-).
No, that's what this discussion was about from the beginning.
I certainly didnt understand that this was a TCO discussion.
When someone asks for a quick convenient choice and instead is given a slow, inconvenient workaround that accomplishes pretty much the same thing, how else can you interpret it? You may measure the cost in time or money, depending on whether you do it yourself or not. But since it isn't actually impossible to complete the installation it isn't really a bug.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:28 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:08, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If they arent bugs, then thats a unrelated discussion. You can start a new thread on TCO claims and I would promptly opt out of that ;-).
No, that's what this discussion was about from the beginning.
I certainly didnt understand that this was a TCO discussion.
When someone asks for a quick convenient choice and instead is given a slow, inconvenient workaround that accomplishes pretty much the same thing, how else can you interpret it?
Bad advice. Not a TCO discussion.
You may measure the cost in time or money, depending on whether you do it yourself or not. But since it isn't actually impossible to complete the installation it isn't really a bug.
In that case it might a RFE or if you want to be even more proactive, a way to file a patch. Bugzilla allows room for all these so we dont need to confine ourselves to just reporting bugs.
Rahul
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:01 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:45, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If they arent bugs, then thats a unrelated discussion. You can start a new thread on TCO claims and I would promptly opt out of that ;-).
No, that's what this discussion was about from the beginning. There are lots of things that can be made to work with sufficient highly paid sysadmin time and thus aren't technically bugs. I was hoping that someone building some linux distro would be interested in reducing those kinds of problems with better defaults, more attention to what has to be done for a backup/restore to work, etc.
The everything install is not for sys admins. All sys admins that I know that have to install more than one machines use Kickstart.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:32 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:13, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
But then you'll only see a few people who are either fanatics about some issue or just don't understand the right approach.
Not sure what you trying to say here. Are you implying that people who use bugzilla are fanatics? The people who understand the right approach can very well use bugzilla to convey developers that information.
I'm saying you aren't going to get a cross section of users and actual experiences there - and I don't think anyone wants them there.
Mailing lists are completely inefficient to track bugs compared to bug tracking systems. Pretty much every major open source project has bugzilla or some other bug tracking system for the very same reason.
But these things aren't exactly bugs although they have a cumulative effect that adds up to TCO. Is there anyone involved in fedora development that is bothered by the Microsoft claims of lower TCO? No single user's experience can tell you how to reduce the time and trouble (and thus cost) to install and maintain the system in general. However, in a forum with a large number of users the things that take an annoying amount of time and workarounds will come out.
Exactly... bugzilla is used after a user posts his problem here, where it gets thrashed out and either remedied or general concensus dictates to take it to bugzilla. As Les points out it's the cumulative effect of a lot of problems that adds up. I've bugzilla'd and bitched about udev barfing, it ain't fixed. Hell, I'm just waiting for FC6 and maybe the problem will get fixed. It takes only 4-5 extra minutes for my machine to boot, so I go have a smoke. I screwed up using yum upgrade. But, if enough stuff broke, I'd blow this pop stand.
I happen to beleive in RedHat, so I'm hanging tough. When I get to devel on my project though, that will be a different story, as I cannot dink around then. So, while you may feel it's completely inefficient, as an engineer, to track bugs through the mailing list, it's good marketing to keep a finger on the overall pulse of your user's problems. Damn good marketing. No market, no engineer. Ric
On 5/8/06, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:01 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:35, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said?
Yes it does. If you want designers to care about what you consider design bugs you need to use the bug tracking system to provide detailed input on it rather than send mails to user lists and expect the developers to read that.
But then you'll only see a few people who are either fanatics about some issue or just don't understand the right approach.
Not sure what you trying to say here. Are you implying that people who use bugzilla are fanatics? The people who understand the right approach can very well use bugzilla to convey developers that information.
Here you get the sanity check of other users who wouldn't normally peruse bugzilla either pointing out the mistake or joining in about how they were also inconvenienced by a change.
You can achieve the same by filing a bug report and then inviting others to comment on it. Happens all the time.I have proposed a fedora bug list similar to cvs commits lists so end users can subscribe and track bugs easier. Bugzilla also has rss feeds, watch maintainer, query to mail features and others to aid in this and upstream bugzilla can accept mails as comments on bug reports.
Bugzilla has improved, somewhat, from the early RH 5 days. However, filing a bug report is not an easy endeavor. Filers have to understand the jargon and navigate the imposing UI. Once filed there is no guarantee that a developer will examine the report. So, yes, only a true believer will file a bug report.
Mailing lists are completely inefficient to track bugs compared to bug tracking systems. Pretty much every major open source project has bugzilla or some other bug tracking system for the very same reason.
There is higher visibility with a mailing list. Create enough noise and the squeaky wheel gets fixed.
Unless there is a process in place requiring developers to fix their bugs bug tracking systems become nothing more than just window dressing.
For example if someone wanted to build PCs with fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on it?
OEM copies of Fedora would have whatever the OEM vendors decide to provide.
That's almost shocking in the context of marketing. Is that what you want for a user's exposure to a fedora system?
Usually OEM renames the system since the trademark guidelines dont allow for Fedora to be modified and still retain the name and hence a user experience of those systems doesnt affect Fedora. There has been discussions on and off about modifying the guidelines to do various things that help OEM, respins etc but we havent drafted out anything concrete yet.
Rahul
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:44 -0700, Kam Leo wrote:
Bugzilla has improved, somewhat, from the early RH 5 days. However, filing a bug report is not an easy endeavor. Filers have to understand the jargon and navigate the imposing UI. Once filed there is no guarantee that a developer will examine the report. So, yes, only a true believer will file a bug report.
Anyone who wants to actually get their bug reports to reach the developers would better be a true believer.
Mailing lists are completely inefficient to track bugs compared to bug tracking systems. Pretty much every major open source project has bugzilla or some other bug tracking system for the very same reason.
There is higher visibility with a mailing list. Create enough noise and the squeaky wheel gets fixed.
Fortunately you dont have to waste your time creating noise to help fix bugs. Just report them in the bug tracking system.
Unless there is a process in place requiring developers to fix their bugs bug tracking systems become nothing more than just window dressing.
There is of course no guarantee that you will get a response to every bug report filed since there is no commercial contract or license in place in Fedora to ensure that bu developers are going to respond more often to bug reports than users lists. So in relative terms, thats the more efficient process.
Rahul
Les Mikesell:
For example if someone wanted to build PCs with fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on it?
Rahul Sundaram
OEM copies of Fedora would have whatever the OEM vendors decide to provide.
Les Mikesell:
That's almost shocking in the context of marketing. Is that what you want for a user's exposure to a fedora system?
I see two very different groups here:
1. Someone distributing pre-installed systems: For them it's a nonsense to argue about using the install routine as is. They should be using a custom install script that preselects everything that they want, the system supports that with kickstart. Or, they should be doing some sort of cloning operation with a post install script that customises each model afterwards (e.g. configures the hardware, makes each machine individual so they don't all have the hostname, etc.). There is no way that I would sit through using Fedora's installer more than once every few months.
2. End-users, installing their own systems: There's no predicting how they'd all want to do that. Though I'd say that anybody who keeps on repeatedly installing their own system more than a few times a year is giving themselves more work than they should. On a basis of installing *an* OS on a reasonable regularity, the current installer is not too much of an imposition to deal with. Even building two or three home PCs once a year isn't too much of a pain.
And as far as marketing is concerned, you've got the tools in your hands to customise it as you want to. I'd say it's far easier to do that with Fedora than with Windows, for instance. You don't have *onerous* limitations on you as to what you can do. And you get far more functionality (all those applications, utilities, and games, as well as the OS).
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:20 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users to pay attention to the whining.
Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said? A lot of decisions seem to be made with no thought about the real-world effects. For example if someone wanted to build PCs with fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on it?
Whatever the "builder" chose to install. Doh!
Jeff Vian wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:20 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users to pay attention to the whining.
Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said? A lot of decisions seem to be made with no thought about the real-world effects. For example if someone wanted to build PCs with fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on it?
Whatever the "builder" chose to install. Doh!
Which the safest choice is "install everything" since the builder does not know exactly how the customer is going to use the machine.
Roger
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 08:21 -0500, Roger Heflin wrote:
Jeff Vian wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:20 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users to pay attention to the whining.
Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said? A lot of decisions seem to be made with no thought about the real-world effects. For example if someone wanted to build PCs with fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on it?
Whatever the "builder" chose to install. Doh!
Which the safest choice is "install everything" since the builder does not know exactly how the customer is going to use the machine.
Actually the better choice would be to install what *most* will use, and provide media with the rest so they can tailor the install to fit their needs.
No Windows machine comes with ANY apps installed except those the builder chose to provide and that usually is something like microsoft works and some media apps. The flexibility and availability of apps for Linux is overpowering even for the expert user to keep up with. A newbie would be totally overwhelmed and would have no clue as to the number of apps installed if he was given 'everything'.
The typical workstation or server install contains hundreds more apps than are readily available on a typical Windows install, even without 'everything'.
Roger
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 20:19 -0500, Jeff Vian wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 08:21 -0500, Roger Heflin wrote:
Jeff Vian wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:20 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
> This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind. That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users to pay attention to the whining.
Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said? A lot of decisions seem to be made with no thought about the real-world effects. For example if someone wanted to build PCs with fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on it?
Whatever the "builder" chose to install. Doh!
Which the safest choice is "install everything" since the builder does not know exactly how the customer is going to use the machine.
Actually the better choice would be to install what *most* will use, and provide media with the rest so they can tailor the install to fit their needs.
The builder should pick a user interface, and stick with it - IE gnome or KDE, but not both. The builder should pick a set of applications that they are willing to support when the customer calls.
No Windows machine comes with ANY apps installed except those the builder chose to provide and that usually is something like microsoft works and some media apps. The flexibility and availability of apps for Linux is overpowering even for the expert user to keep up with. A newbie would be totally overwhelmed and would have no clue as to the number of apps installed if he was given 'everything'.
Exactly. A newbie does not need every app available. My personal recommendation is a basic GNOME desktop with maybe a few things from Extras added, and (when they are ready) the GStreamer multimedia plugins from fluendo.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:05 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:50, Craig White wrote:
Those who state that they will switch to SuSE because of this should do so. Since it is too late to do anything about it now, FC-5 has already been released, does this mean that if the option is back with FC-6 installer that you will be back?
There's a feedback mechanism, it's called Bugzilla.
It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users to pay attention to the whining.
Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
Rahul
This is your regular post with regards to user input. We get the point that developers don't care what users think or want. Don't just tell us to post to the devel list, they are the same developers and have the same attitude over there.
With that said, I don't see a need for an "everything" option, but if I were a developer and cared about what my users wanted I'd add it back after all the requests I've seen.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:25 -0600, Tony Heaton wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
Rahul
This is your regular post with regards to user input.
Yes and it is unfortunate that the point still hasnt got through to everyone
We get the point that developers don't care what users think or want. Don't just tell us to post to the devel list, they are the same developers and have the same attitude over there.
There is no question of attitude. Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list to gather feedback. Use the infrastructure provided explicitly for it.
Rahul
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:25 -0600, Tony Heaton wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
Rahul
This is your regular post with regards to user input.
Yes and it is unfortunate that the point still hasnt got through to everyone
We get the point that developers don't care what users think or want. Don't just tell us to post to the devel list, they are the same developers and have the same attitude over there.
There is no question of attitude. Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list to gather feedback. Use the infrastructure provided explicitly for it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186007 "NOTABUG" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183871 "NOTABUG" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186802 "DUPLICATE of 186007" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186062 "DUPLICATE of 186007" "CLOSED"
Any other suggestions for getting the developer's attention that won't result in it just getting CLOSED as NOTABUG?
It is un-useful to say 'use bugzilla' when the only response there is to CLOSE it as NOTABUG.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 19:10 -0700, Benjamin Franz wrote:
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:25 -0600, Tony Heaton wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
Rahul
This is your regular post with regards to user input.
Yes and it is unfortunate that the point still hasnt got through to everyone
We get the point that developers don't care what users think or want. Don't just tell us to post to the devel list, they are the same developers and have the same attitude over there.
There is no question of attitude. Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list to gather feedback. Use the infrastructure provided explicitly for it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186007 "NOTABUG" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183871 "NOTABUG" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186802 "DUPLICATE of 186007" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186062 "DUPLICATE of 186007" "CLOSED"
Any other suggestions for getting the developer's attention that won't result in it just getting CLOSED as NOTABUG?
It is un-useful to say 'use bugzilla' when the only response there is to CLOSE it as NOTABUG.
---- That can be the only resolution in bugzilla but that shouldn't deter anyone nor should anyone conclude that it isn't useful to open a new bugzilla entry.
It is the one and only meaningful way to provide feedback by the users to the developers.
My estimate was that there were about 10 people who wanted the 'install everything' option in anaconda. According to a quick perusal of the above links, there were less than 10.
Thus a reasonable conclusion is that those who feel that the removal of the 'install everything' option in anaconda are statistically insignificant.
Craig
On Tuesday 09 May 2006 07:05, Craig White wrote:
That can be the only resolution in bugzilla but that shouldn't deter anyone nor should anyone conclude that it isn't useful to open a new bugzilla entry.
It is the one and only meaningful way to provide feedback by the users to the developers.
My estimate was that there were about 10 people who wanted the 'install everything' option in anaconda. According to a quick perusal of the above links, there were less than 10.
Doubt that. This is the fourth time this discussion has come up on this list in the past few months. Each time it has generated more e-mails than any other topic. It was bugzilled and closed as not a bug. Probably right as it's not really a bug it's a usability feature.
I did an install yesterday and it took the entire day to get the "everything install". Do the base install selecting as little as possible, configure the yum repos, do the everything install, do the updates. I'm thinking of a few months time when I have to install 200+ machines. And I need the everything install because I can't tell a student what environment, Gnome or KDE, to use what browser, mailer etc to use.
It was a useful feature.
Tony
Thus a reasonable conclusion is that those who feel that the removal of the 'install everything' option in anaconda are statistically insignificant.
Craig
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 11:39 +0100, Tony Molloy wrote:
On Tuesday 09 May 2006 07:05, Craig White wrote:
That can be the only resolution in bugzilla but that shouldn't deter anyone nor should anyone conclude that it isn't useful to open a new bugzilla entry.
It is the one and only meaningful way to provide feedback by the users to the developers.
My estimate was that there were about 10 people who wanted the 'install everything' option in anaconda. According to a quick perusal of the above links, there were less than 10.
Doubt that. This is the fourth time this discussion has come up on this list in the past few months. Each time it has generated more e-mails than any other topic. It was bugzilled and closed as not a bug. Probably right as it's not really a bug it's a usability feature.
I did an install yesterday and it took the entire day to get the "everything install". Do the base install selecting as little as possible, configure the yum repos, do the everything install, do the updates. I'm thinking of a few months time when I have to install 200+ machines. And I need the everything install because I can't tell a student what environment, Gnome or KDE, to use what browser, mailer etc to use.
It was a useful feature.
---- you really need to learn about kickstart. It is a way to automate installations making it a breeze to install on more than one computer and ***install everything*** option
Craig
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 05:39, Tony Molloy wrote:
I did an install yesterday and it took the entire day to get the "everything install". Do the base install selecting as little as possible, configure the yum repos, do the everything install, do the updates. I'm thinking of a few months time when I have to install 200+ machines. And I need the everything install because I can't tell a student what environment, Gnome or KDE, to use what browser, mailer etc to use.
It was a useful feature.
Some time ago I saw an invocation of 'rpm -q ...' that generated the installed list of software on one machine in a format that could be used on the command line of yum to load the same set on another. One format string would load the exact versions and one would pull the latest version of that set of packages. Making this list available - or perhaps many versions of this list with descriptions of why this set was chosen - would mostly solve this problem for people with fast internet connections.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 11:39 +0100, Tony Molloy wrote:
On Tuesday 09 May 2006 07:05, Craig White wrote:
That can be the only resolution in bugzilla but that shouldn't deter anyone nor should anyone conclude that it isn't useful to open a new bugzilla entry.
It is the one and only meaningful way to provide feedback by the users to the developers.
My estimate was that there were about 10 people who wanted the 'install everything' option in anaconda. According to a quick perusal of the above links, there were less than 10.
Doubt that. This is the fourth time this discussion has come up on this list in the past few months. Each time it has generated more e-mails than any other topic. It was bugzilled and closed as not a bug. Probably right as it's not really a bug it's a usability feature.
I did an install yesterday and it took the entire day to get the "everything install". Do the base install selecting as little as possible, configure the yum repos, do the everything install, do the updates. I'm thinking of a few months time when I have to install 200+ machines. And I need the everything install because I can't tell a student what environment, Gnome or KDE, to use what browser, mailer etc to use.
It was a useful feature.
That scenario is a perfect place to use kickstart and configure it as you want. That also will automate it and eliminate the need to babysit each install as you configure it.
For 200 installs I would *never* want to sit through the first steps of configuring anaconda even if there were an 'everything' option.
Tony
Thus a reasonable conclusion is that those who feel that the removal of the 'install everything' option in anaconda are statistically insignificant.
Craig
--
Tony Molloy.
Dept. of Comp. Sci. University of Limerick
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 11:39 +0100, Tony Molloy wrote:
On Tuesday 09 May 2006 07:05, Craig White wrote:
That can be the only resolution in bugzilla but that shouldn't deter anyone nor should anyone conclude that it isn't useful to open a new bugzilla entry.
It is the one and only meaningful way to provide feedback by the users to the developers.
My estimate was that there were about 10 people who wanted the
'install
everything' option in anaconda. According to a quick perusal of the above links, there were less than 10.
Doubt that. This is the fourth time this discussion has come up on this list in the past few months. Each time it has generated more e-mails than any other topic. It was bugzilled and closed as not a bug. Probably right as it's not really a bug it's a usability feature.
I did an install yesterday and it took the entire day to get the "everything install". Do the base install selecting as little as possible, configure the yum repos, do the everything install, do the updates. I'm thinking of a few months time when I have to install 200+ machines. And I need the everything install because I can't tell a student what environment, Gnome or KDE, to use what browser, mailer etc to use.
It was a useful feature.
That scenario is a perfect place to use kickstart and configure it as you want. That also will automate it and eliminate the need to babysit each install as you configure it.
For 200 installs I would *never* want to sit through the first steps of configuring anaconda even if there were an 'everything' option.
Tony
Perhaps it should be suggested (Enhancement Request) that the necessary kickstart configuration be shipped with FC6 "out of the box" for those that want "everything" installed. With highly visible instructions and necessary warnings, where needed, of course.
~~R
Benjamin Franz wrote:
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:25 -0600, Tony Heaton wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
Rahul
This is your regular post with regards to user input.
Yes and it is unfortunate that the point still hasnt got through to everyone
We get the point that developers don't care what users think or want. Don't just tell us to post to the devel list, they are the same developers and have the same attitude over there.
There is no question of attitude. Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list to gather feedback. Use the infrastructure provided explicitly for it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186007 "NOTABUG" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183871 "NOTABUG" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186802 "DUPLICATE of 186007" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186062 "DUPLICATE of 186007" "CLOSED"
Any other suggestions for getting the developer's attention that won't result in it just getting CLOSED as NOTABUG?
It is un-useful to say 'use bugzilla' when the only response there is to CLOSE it as NOTABUG.
It is practically useless to use Bugzilla for proposals like "Everything Installs without a "Reporter satisfied" type of feature where bugs can only be closed when the reporter is satisfied with the problem reported.
Bugzilla does not have a customer satisfied feature. Therefore it is useless for this sort of request.
Jim
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 07:22:36 -0400, Jim Cornette fc-cornette@insight.rr.com wrote:
It is practically useless to use Bugzilla for proposals like "Everything Installs without a "Reporter satisfied" type of feature where bugs can only be closed when the reporter is satisfied with the problem reported.
Bugzilla does not have a customer satisfied feature. Therefore it is useless for this sort of request.
But they could give a coherent argument as to why the proposal will not be considered, even if its we think it will take too much developer time to do it right for the perceived benefit.
I had a non sequitor response when I posted a RFE (188314) to allow creating raid 1 devices with only one drive during an install, so that people could upgrade by splitting mirrored drives and then putting the mirror back together again after things appear to be working. The response was: People using RAID1 are doing so with an expectation of some reliability which you don't get with a single drive. We're not going to do this.
It should have been clear that the expectation was not to run raid 1 on one drive forever, but just during the install and testing period.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 09:45, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I had a non sequitor response when I posted a RFE (188314) to allow creating raid 1 devices with only one drive during an install, so that people could upgrade by splitting mirrored drives and then putting the mirror back together again after things appear to be working. The response was: People using RAID1 are doing so with an expectation of some reliability which you don't get with a single drive. We're not going to do this.
That's the real issue - the developers have no concept of real-world use and have no intention to. Given an easy choice, I'd always build partitions on RAID1 with a missing device. It doesn't hurt anything and can be handy even if you just occasionally plug in a USB or firewire drive and sync to it.
And in fact it is fairly painful even to build RAID1 with paired partitions during installs.
It should have been clear that the expectation was not to run raid 1 on one drive forever, but just during the install and testing period.
If you want to press the point that other people agree that this is useful you might point out the SME server distribution from http://www.contribs.org builds the 'broken raid' layout automatically in a default install on a single disk machine and provides a push-button upgrade to mirrored operation at any later time. It's built on Centos instead of fedora but the raid code all comes from the same place.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 07:22 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
Any other suggestions for getting the developer's attention that won't result in it just getting CLOSED as NOTABUG?
It is un-useful to say 'use bugzilla' when the only response there is to CLOSE it as NOTABUG.
It is practically useless to use Bugzilla for proposals like "Everything Installs without a "Reporter satisfied" type of feature where bugs can only be closed when the reporter is satisfied with the problem reported.
Bugzilla does not have a customer satisfied feature. Therefore it is useless for this sort of request.
Jim
Amen Jim!! Amen!! No one fixed the udev problem to my satisfaction and I would like to see that the bug couldn't not be closed until my udev fired up on boot. Otherwise, why bother? At the Friday 1pm Rah Rah session, where the week's activities are commented on, someone can say "I closed 20 bugs!" without fear of confrontation from the boss, since he never comes into this "high traffic cluttered list" to see who is zooming who. At least Mr Harald has not closed the udev bugzilla report, so that's a good guy! :) Ric
Rickey Moore wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 07:22 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
Any other suggestions for getting the developer's attention that won't result in it just getting CLOSED as NOTABUG?
It is un-useful to say 'use bugzilla' when the only response there is to CLOSE it as NOTABUG.
It is practically useless to use Bugzilla for proposals like "Everything Installs without a "Reporter satisfied" type of feature where bugs can only be closed when the reporter is satisfied with the problem reported.
Bugzilla does not have a customer satisfied feature. Therefore it is useless for this sort of request.
Jim
Amen Jim!! Amen!! No one fixed the udev problem to my satisfaction and I would like to see that the bug couldn't not be closed until my udev fired up on boot. Otherwise, why bother? At the Friday 1pm Rah Rah session, where the week's activities are commented on, someone can say "I closed 20 bugs!" without fear of confrontation from the boss, since he never comes into this "high traffic cluttered list" to see who is zooming who. At least Mr Harald has not closed the udev bugzilla report, so that's a good guy! :) Ric
Having the reporter assured that the concern is addressed adequately would make filing a bug report more worthwhile. Just as Bruno mentioned for upgrading with raid where at least the updating is done singularly and the raid updated after the installation is completed. Sure it is possible that a disk might fail when one was upgrading the system but the time spent in this mode is relatively short. If the upgrade failed with the singular disk being updated, you would still have the redundant drive to start over. I have not used raid so I am probably misunderstanding some of the aspects for upgrading a system with raid.
To track with the subject line. I am satisfied with the right clicking on each group in order to select all the additional packages within the groups. It also makes it easier to go back within the groups and remove selection of programs that I know I do not want on the system. There are a lot fewer packages that I do not want compared to what I would not exclude from the system.
Jim
--CUT--
Having the reporter assured that the concern is addressed adequately would make filing a bug report more worthwhile. Just as Bruno mentioned for upgrading with raid where at least the updating is done singularly and the raid updated after the installation is completed. Sure it is possible that a disk might fail when one was upgrading the system but the time spent in this mode is relatively short. If the upgrade failed with the singular disk being updated, you would still have the redundant drive to start over. I have not used raid so I am probably misunderstanding some of the aspects for upgrading a system with raid.
To track with the subject line. I am satisfied with the right clicking on each group in order to select all the additional packages within the groups. It also makes it easier to go back within the groups and remove selection of programs that I know I do not want on the system. There are a lot fewer packages that I do not want compared to what I would not exclude from the system.
Jim
Hey Jim, Although you make valid points, please be aware that other people have different needs than you do. I've seen a lot of posts (including this one) with a lot of I's. "I am satisfied" "I know I do not want" "I do not want" "I would not exclude".
Fedora isn't made for simply one person. It is made for a community of people. We must ALL remember that please.
Personally, I just installed FC5 for the first time here at the office, and, in my case (I didn't know about the right clicking because I'm lazy and probably missed reading that somewhere), it was hellishly annoying to convert the default setup into an "Everything" one.
Apart from the Languages packs, we ALWAYS install everything here, as most of our PCs go out to clients. We can not know beforehand what they need, so we install everything, then disable unneeded services.
That is my case. Most people do not want this, and that is fine.
What I agree with the other posters is that what is NOT fine is the fact that the everything option has been removed without a suitable replacement. A "Select All" tick box or the like would have sufficed me, but apart from the right click method, we don't have that option any more.
I think that is what of posters on this subject mean, and frankly, for us here at my work, I'd have to agree.
Regards, Ed.
On Wed May 10 2006 1:54 am, Edward Dekkers wrote:
Hey Jim, Although you make valid points, please be aware that other people have different needs than you do. I've seen a lot of posts (including this one) with a lot of I's. "I am satisfied" "I know I do not want" "I do not want" "I would not exclude".
Fedora isn't made for simply one person. It is made for a community of people. We must ALL remember that please.
And therein lies the rub... Even more objectionable, and downright obnoxious, than the self-centered, are the faction that simply 'know' what's right for all - 'this is the way it must be done' I am _the_ authority... Frankly, their attitude stinks.
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 13:54 +0800, Edward Dekkers wrote:
Apart from the Languages packs, we ALWAYS install everything here, as most of our PCs go out to clients. We can not know beforehand what they need, so we install everything, then disable unneeded services.
You need a kickstart file. You can burn a small boot.iso with a kickstart file to install Fedora with everything you want to include (which may be everything) from a network server, and greatly reduce the amount of time required to install stuff.
btw - I think it is much easier for someone to use pirut to install what they want than it is to have to uninstall everything they don't want.
But that's just me.
You need a kickstart file. You can burn a small boot.iso with a kickstart file to install Fedora with everything you want to include (which may be everything) from a network server, and greatly reduce the amount of time required to install stuff.
I know, one of those things that's never been done before here at the office - so always gets put on the "we'll do that another time" pile.
btw - I think it is much easier for someone to use pirut to install what they want than it is to have to uninstall everything they don't want.
OK, I also agree with that.
BUT, I've never said (nor has anyone else here), that there should ONLY be an everything install. I just said a tick box would be nice as a "select all" in the install process, so the people who DO want an everything install don't have to jump through hoops to get one.
I've used Red Hat since 5.1 (yes, I know, late start) and FWICR there was always an option like this. This is the first time it is missing.
But that's just me.
I know, fair enough, I'm just an old schooler who doesn't like change I guess.
There must be an awful lot of old schoolers out here though - I'm not the only one voicing my concern.
Ed.
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 15:53 +0800, Edward Dekkers wrote:
I know, fair enough, I'm just an old schooler who doesn't like change I guess.
There must be an awful lot of old schoolers out here though - I'm not the only one voicing my concern.
I've been around since when, but as a user not a developer... I bought the earliest RedHat, then the first Caldera at around $75 bucks. I ran an 8 line BBS in those days. So, I have some claim to ancientude and my two cents is that I usually installed everything by hitting that button to do so. Every lib got installed, so that I had a reasonable chance to build some tarball that I wanted built.
I've tried the server install and missed stuff. I've tried client / workstation and missed stuff not getting installed. So, hitting 'install everything', going off for a smoke, a beer and a skirt was good for me. Now, I'm not supposed to smoke or drink and skirts are almost impossible to find (and politically incorrect), so just leave me with my 'install everything' button and I'll make the most of it. Or, is THAT too, just asking too much? :) Ric
Edward Dekkers wrote:
--CUT--
To track with the subject line. I am satisfied with the right clicking on each group in order to select all the additional packages within the groups. It also makes it easier to go back within the groups and remove selection of programs that I know I do not want on the system. There are a lot fewer packages that I do not want compared to what I would not exclude from the system.
Jim
Hey Jim, Although you make valid points, please be aware that other people have different needs than you do. I've seen a lot of posts (including this one) with a lot of I's. "I am satisfied" "I know I do not want" "I do not want" "I would not exclude".
Usually empathy gets me into trouble and I can only speak for my personal desires. I like to have all packages available for install and desire the most efficient way to select the packages that I use.
Fedora isn't made for simply one person. It is made for a community of people. We must ALL remember that please.
It is of course made for the community and their suggestions should be considered. If it was specifically tailored for my desires, all multimedia formats would work out of the box, the themes would not all be so smurfish blue, mozilla/seamonkey suite would be the default, midnight commander would be installed by default and the level of eye candy would be higher. Since it a community project, configuration for each one's individual needs without a lot of hassles should be priority. Not everyone uses the same applications.
Personally, I just installed FC5 for the first time here at the office, and, in my case (I didn't know about the right clicking because I'm lazy and probably missed reading that somewhere), it was hellishly annoying to convert the default setup into an "Everything" one.
There should be a more obvious method to select all that is contained on the install medium. I did not know about this option until I filed a bug report regarding the everything install. Knowing about this option now makes using pirut or the installer more efficient to use.
Apart from the Languages packs, we ALWAYS install everything here, as most of our PCs go out to clients. We can not know beforehand what they need, so we install everything, then disable unneeded services.
Besides langpacks, not ready for release apps and apps that are so stripped down that they interfere with feature rich and functional applications, I install everything also for my systems.
That is my case. Most people do not want this, and that is fine.
What I agree with the other posters is that what is NOT fine is the fact that the everything option has been removed without a suitable replacement. A "Select All" tick box or the like would have sufficed me, but apart from the right click method, we don't have that option any more.
I think that is what of posters on this subject mean, and frankly, for us here at my work, I'd have to agree.
I have no objections to including an easy and up front method to install all that is available on the install medium.
Jim
Regards, Ed.
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 07:20 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
I have no objections to including an easy and up front method to install all that is available on the install medium.
One of the things to note is that Fedora is going away from the model of a large core. At least in theory.
Many apps have been moved from Core to Extras - for example, AbiWord, Pan, Gnumeric, etc. - as this transition happens, "install everything" is not what it use to be.
There is even a push to move KDE out of core and into Extras:
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/UnleashKDE
Installing "everything" for the purposes described in this thread will not have the same effect - you are going to have to have all of Extras to get that effect, because a lot of what you get when you "install everything" in older Fedora Core _is_ going bye bye out of Core anyway.
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 01:42:39PM -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Installing "everything" for the purposes described in this thread will not have the same effect - you are going to have to have all of Extras to get that effect, because a lot of what you get when you "install everything" in older Fedora Core _is_ going bye bye out of Core anyway.
I think most people who object to the removal of the 'Everything' option really just want a button who's action is to "install as much as is realistically possible that is contained on the installation media", as a shortcut to having to rummage around manually selecting lots of package groups.
I for one have been very irritated by it's removal.
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 22:36 +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 01:42:39PM -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Installing "everything" for the purposes described in this thread will not have the same effect - you are going to have to have all of Extras to get that effect, because a lot of what you get when you "install everything" in older Fedora Core _is_ going bye bye out of Core anyway.
I think most people who object to the removal of the 'Everything' option really just want a button who's action is to "install as much as is realistically possible that is contained on the installation media", as a shortcut to having to rummage around manually selecting lots of package groups.
I for one have been very irritated by it's removal.
I can understand that. What I would like to see (been meaning to work on it) is a stripped down Fedora with only two options - standard desktop and desktop + devel - where standard desktop includes a decent GNOME environment for the novice user, and the development includes just what is needed to build everything on the distro.
Thus - selecting devel gets everything. No customization, something that is sane for a generic desktop install. You get what is on it, but it is a much smaller download than the big Fedora.
Something like that would be especially well suited for OEM distributors - the more that is in there, the more training an OEMs call center needs.
I suspect some people choose "Install Everything" because they do not have the knowledge to select what they really want. In such cases, they probably should just select "GNOME workstation" and be done with it, but a lot of new users don't know that that is probably their best option.
Of course - if I ever get around to doing it, OpenOffice will NOT be on the disk - AbiWord and Gnumeric will be :p
One of the issues though with doing this (grrr) is the Fedora Trademark. To do it - all the Fedora artwork legally has to be removed and replaced. They patched the gnome login process to move the icons up so that it would look good on the Fedora specific splash screen - replace that splash with the default gnome splash, and the icons as gnome starts are too high. So it would require removing that patch etc.
Ah well, I'm going off topic ...
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 17:48, Michael A. Peters wrote:
One of the issues though with doing this (grrr) is the Fedora Trademark. To do it - all the Fedora artwork legally has to be removed and replaced.
Interesting - the equivalent to Centos but with fedora as the base...
However if all you really want to do is become the expert who decides what 'everything' means for some set of people that might care about your opinion, couldn't you do that by publishing the output of some invocation of 'rpm -q' in a format that could be used directly by anyone's yum to load up the same packages?
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 18:05 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 17:48, Michael A. Peters wrote:
One of the issues though with doing this (grrr) is the Fedora Trademark. To do it - all the Fedora artwork legally has to be removed and replaced.
Interesting - the equivalent to Centos but with fedora as the base...
However if all you really want to do is become the expert who decides what 'everything' means for some set of people that might care about your opinion, couldn't you do that by publishing the output of some invocation of 'rpm -q' in a format that could be used directly by anyone's yum to load up the same packages?
The idea is an ISO that is easily downloadable and only uses 1 CD (probably 2 if you want devel). The secondary idea is to respin every six weeks with updates.
A kickstart file that does a network install would also work, except for updates, but there are too many times when for whatever reason a network install doesn't work (IE the pcmcia support was broken in anaconda for my laptop in FC5, making network install impossible).
-=- As far as "become the expert who decides what 'everything' means for some set of people - that's not the intention at all. The intention is to provide a good base distribution targeted at LOTD that is good for new users and easy for OEMs to support.
As you are aware, Fedora does not come with any support. So if Fedora is going to be installed by OEMs - it needs to have enough software that users can enjoy it, but not so much software that an OEM has to spend a lot of money in software support training because there are seventeen different applications that all basically have similar purposes, but different ways of going about doing them.
Reducing the install base also makes it possible to target those specific applications for proper scrollkeeper support, and proper translations of the scrollkeeper documentation into other languages that are likely to be in the market for the product (IE Spanish and French for the North American market, add Portugueese and probably Italian for the South American market, etc.)
Michael A. Peters wrote:
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 07:20 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
I have no objections to including an easy and up front method to install all that is available on the install medium.
One of the things to note is that Fedora is going away from the model of a large core. At least in theory.
Many apps have been moved from Core to Extras - for example, AbiWord, Pan, Gnumeric, etc. - as this transition happens, "install everything" is not what it use to be.
With all of the trimming down proposed and parts that already have taken place, it would not be worthwhile to have install medium which only provided for core. Since Core is targeted for extreme reduction, an everything install would probably be default. :-)
There is even a push to move KDE out of core and into Extras:
Isn't there a group that has repositories for KDE for Redhat (Fedora) already? Are the current developers/packagers going to work within the Fedora-Extras group for KDE?
Installing "everything" for the purposes described in this thread will not have the same effect - you are going to have to have all of Extras to get that effect, because a lot of what you get when you "install everything" in older Fedora Core _is_ going bye bye out of Core anyway.
Is the goal to make an affordable RHEL or for Less for more as in fossil fuels in recent practices?
Jim
why don't we just cut to the chase and send a a email to the whole list like...
Subject: THERE IS NO INSTALL EVERYTHING IN FC5!
Body: There is no install everything in FC5
reasons go here
There will now be no more tolerance for threads on this subject as this has just been explained.
- List Admin
dunno...just kind of annoying/funny IMO that there's been alot of discussion over this...either there is such an option or there isn't...
On 5/10/06, Jim Cornette fc-cornette@insight.rr.com wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 07:20 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
I have no objections to including an easy and up front method to
install
all that is available on the install medium.
One of the things to note is that Fedora is going away from the model of a large core. At least in theory.
Many apps have been moved from Core to Extras - for example, AbiWord, Pan, Gnumeric, etc. - as this transition happens, "install everything" is not what it use to be.
With all of the trimming down proposed and parts that already have taken place, it would not be worthwhile to have install medium which only provided for core. Since Core is targeted for extreme reduction, an everything install would probably be default. :-)
There is even a push to move KDE out of core and into Extras:
Isn't there a group that has repositories for KDE for Redhat (Fedora) already? Are the current developers/packagers going to work within the Fedora-Extras group for KDE?
Installing "everything" for the purposes described in this thread will not have the same effect - you are going to have to have all of Extras to get that effect, because a lot of what you get when you "install everything" in older Fedora Core _is_ going bye bye out of Core anyway.
Is the goal to make an affordable RHEL or for Less for more as in fossil fuels in recent practices?
Jim
-- Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Wed May 10 2006 10:06 pm, Jim Cornette wrote:
Isn't there a group that has repositories for KDE for Redhat (Fedora) already? Are the current developers/packagers going to work within the Fedora-Extras group for KDE?
Yes, and yes - Rex Dieter, the maintainer of kde-redhat has also been named a member of the Fedora Project Board.
Claude Jones wrote:
On Wed May 10 2006 10:06 pm, Jim Cornette wrote:
Isn't there a group that has repositories for KDE for Redhat (Fedora) already? Are the current developers/packagers going to work within the Fedora-Extras group for KDE?
Yes, and yes - Rex Dieter, the maintainer of kde-redhat has also been named a member of the Fedora Project Board.
KDE should flourish with developers from this project working together. I rarely use KDE but recall removing Fedora KDE and installing from ked-redhat was common among a lot of KDE users.
Jim
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 21:48:38 -0400, Jim Cornette fc-cornette@insight.rr.com wrote:
To track with the subject line. I am satisfied with the right clicking on each group in order to select all the additional packages within the groups. It also makes it easier to go back within the groups and remove selection of programs that I know I do not want on the system. There are a lot fewer packages that I do not want compared to what I would not exclude from the system.
I went through that process and found that I didn't get some things that I wanted. A specific example was mt wasn't installed even though I selected all of the packages. It was included in "core" as part of mt-st though.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 21:48:38 -0400, Jim Cornette fc-cornette@insight.rr.com wrote:
To track with the subject line. I am satisfied with the right clicking on each group in order to select all the additional packages within the groups. It also makes it easier to go back within the groups and remove selection of programs that I know I do not want on the system. There are a lot fewer packages that I do not want compared to what I would not exclude from the system.
I went through that process and found that I didn't get some things that I wanted. A specific example was mt wasn't installed even though I selected all of the packages. It was included in "core" as part of mt-st though.
During the testing phase there was a list of many packages that were not included in groups which were contained on the install medium and were not installed. There was work on getting these applications which were not pulled in into a comps file so they would be pulled in.
Your results do not surprise me. Fortunately for me was that programs that I use were pulled in with the changes they did make to accommodate packages that were not pulled in before with the installer.
I would like to see an addition to the installer that allowed globbing even as far as an * for all packages on the install medium.
Anyway, it appears that the right click on selected groups is the best that we'll get.
Jim
I'm running FC4 and KDE. I recently added an external USB soundcard that works fine. How do I make this the default soundcard for my system? I've been resetting this with Kmix whenever I reboot. Thanks for the help. --Jerry
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 19:10 -0700, Benjamin Franz wrote:
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:25 -0600, Tony Heaton wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
Rahul
This is your regular post with regards to user input.
Yes and it is unfortunate that the point still hasnt got through to everyone
We get the point that developers don't care what users think or want. Don't just tell us to post to the devel list, they are the same developers and have the same attitude over there.
There is no question of attitude. Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list to gather feedback. Use the infrastructure provided explicitly for it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186007 "NOTABUG" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183871 "NOTABUG" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186802 "DUPLICATE of 186007" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186062 "DUPLICATE of 186007" "CLOSED"
Any other suggestions for getting the developer's attention that won't result in it just getting CLOSED as NOTABUG?
It is un-useful to say 'use bugzilla' when the only response there is to CLOSE it as NOTABUG.
I have been trying to figure how to share a comment like yours on another topic. I keep getting told to post a bug of the type Request for Enhancement. This is supposed to be explained at the web site below. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests
Or if it is feedback to developers then here is the advice: See the section on feedback to developers in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate. If its a straight forward enhancement, file a RFE in bugzilla. Upstream projects bugzilla's are preferrable for suggesting enhancements. If it requires discussion, you might post to fedora-devel list
On Tue May 9 2006 8:05 am, Aaron Konstam wrote:
If it requires discussion, you might post to fedora-devel list
That's an interesting discovery given all that's been tossed in the "everything" discussion. In that debate, I did post a few times in the development list, but got the "file a bugzilla" rejoinder.
Under another cap, I'm in politics. There's a rule of thumb there, if you're going to survive as an office holder: for every letter you get, that represents the sentiments of a hundred others (put your own number there - it's always large, though).
Those who say the issue is not significant because only a few have bothered to bugzilla it have a little problem of 'noblesse oblige' - the 'let them eat cake' crowd may find the ultimate historical fate of their posturing as metaphorically 'interesting' as that of Marie Antoinette's...
Now, anyone want to start a debate about configurability of Fedora for 'regular users'? Compare the Mandrake/PCLOS Control Center to Fedora's System-Config-Control to see what I mean... (I suggest anyone suffering through issues with NDISwrapper and Broadcom in Fedora to take a look at that implementation)
I don't personally believe that the issues that have been raised here haven't got back to the team that steers the development of Fedora, however. They are a derivative of a successful corporation that has built a successful alternative to Redmond, and they haven't done that by ignoring their user-base. I'm not going to make threats about switching distros. I run at least five different distros currently, and Fedora is still the best for multiple reasons. I am participating in various discussions with developers/users of some of the Fedora derivatives, though - there are active efforts to make Fedora better out there, and I'm convinced that such efforts can only rebound to the benefit/improvement of Fedora. Sometimes, you have to use a tug-boat to steer a ship... '-)
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 09:07 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue May 9 2006 8:05 am, Aaron Konstam wrote:
If it requires discussion, you might post to fedora-devel list
That's an interesting discovery given all that's been tossed in the "everything" discussion. In that debate, I did post a few times in the development list, but got the "file a bugzilla" rejoinder.
Well I have a perfect record. I have filed about 5 or 6 bugzillas and I have yet to have a solution to the problem as a response. I rarely get a response.
Example: I filed a bugzilla against kyum. It has an obvious bug. I even indicated the specific nature of the bug which would make it obvious to the developer of kyum how it be solved. I my opinion a soluiton of the problem should be straightforward to program.
I have heard no response to the bugzilla. No promise to fix to bug or a statement why it will not be fixed. I got zip, nothing, de nada.
Now I know the person who the bug was assigned to is probably busy. FC6 is on the way. I would accept a statement that the bug would be fixed in FC6. But I don't hear even that.
Am I mad or discouraged . Not really. But I think those people who recommend bugzills must have better experiences than I have had. ======================================================================= Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him. ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@sbcglobal.net
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 15:42 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 09:07 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue May 9 2006 8:05 am, Aaron Konstam wrote:
If it requires discussion, you might post to fedora-devel list
That's an interesting discovery given all that's been tossed in the "everything" discussion. In that debate, I did post a few times in the development list, but got the "file a bugzilla" rejoinder.
Well I have a perfect record. I have filed about 5 or 6 bugzillas and I have yet to have a solution to the problem as a response. I rarely get a response.
Example: I filed a bugzilla against kyum. It has an obvious bug. I even indicated the specific nature of the bug which would make it obvious to the developer of kyum how it be solved. I my opinion a soluiton of the problem should be straightforward to program.
I have heard no response to the bugzilla. No promise to fix to bug or a statement why it will not be fixed. I got zip, nothing, de nada.
Now I know the person who the bug was assigned to is probably busy. FC6 is on the way. I would accept a statement that the bug would be fixed in FC6. But I don't hear even that.
Am I mad or discouraged . Not really. But I think those people who recommend bugzills must have better experiences than I have had.
The kyum bug is probably a bug that really needs to be fixed by the upstream maintainer.
The fact that it modifies a file it has no business modifying indicates that it has a serious design flaw.
Filing an RFE (or whatever they are calling them) does not mean the package maintainer is going to see things your way.
From what I understand of the kyum bug, the maintainer *should* at least
attempt to verify the issue, and if the maintainer isn't going to fix it themselves, should file a bug upstream, and indicate that in the bugzilla.
It is possible that the kyum maintainer has not had opportunity to do that yet, it is an extras package which means it is maintained by an unpaid volunteer. The fact that you filed a bug report though means that other Extras volunteers who _do_ go through open bug reports can potentially look for a fix and tack it to the bug report.
That particular bug hopefully will get fixed soon. Others experiencing it should add a "me too" to the bugzilla.
At 21:42 09/05/2006, you wrote:
Well I have a perfect record. I have filed about 5 or 6 bugzillas and I have yet to have a solution to the problem as a response. I rarely get a response.
I've submitted two bugs myself, neither of which has been completed.
Bug 178847, a RFE, is now in the wiki, looking like a useful document for absolute beginners. Unfortunately it needs to be in the download folder, not the wiki, to be truly useful. This was supposed to have happened for the FC5 final release but of course it didn't.
Example: I filed a bugzilla against kyum. It has an obvious bug. I even indicated the specific nature of the bug which would make it obvious to the developer of kyum how it be solved. I my opinion a soluiton of the problem should be straightforward to program.
I have heard no response to the bugzilla. No promise to fix to bug or a statement why it will not be fixed. I got zip, nothing, de nada.
Bug 186766 - this is obviously something wrong but it appears to be getting ignored, probably because I made the mistake of finding a workaround. Last thing that Red Hat did was shift it to the kernel. That was on 19th April and absolutely nothing has happened since.
Now I know the person who the bug was assigned to is probably busy. FC6 is on the way. I would accept a statement that the bug would be fixed in FC6. But I don't hear even that.
IMHO the existing bugs in FC5 should be fixed before working on FC6.
Am I mad or discouraged . Not really. But I think those people who recommend bugzills must have better experiences than I have had.
I'm sure a user could easily become discouraged. As I understand it, we the Fedora users are effectively providing a service by testing the OS and reporting the bugs. But we don't seem to be getting our rewards through bug fixes.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Wed May 10 2006 6:15 am, David Fletcher wrote:
At 21:42 09/05/2006, you wrote:
Well I have a perfect record. I have filed about 5 or 6 bugzillas and I have yet to have a solution to the problem as a response. I rarely get a response.
I've submitted two bugs myself, neither of which has been completed.
Bugzilla has been frustrating at times, for me, as well. Ironically, I received 4 followups last night from previously posted bug reports. All were under active discussion/resolution by the developers, with one having been resolved - that was an unusual event.
Aaron Konstam wrote:
I have been trying to figure how to share a comment like yours on another topic. I keep getting told to post a bug of the type Request for Enhancement. This is supposed to be explained at the web site below. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests
Or if it is feedback to developers then here is the advice: See the section on feedback to developers in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate. If its a straight forward enhancement, file a RFE in bugzilla. Upstream projects bugzilla's are preferrable for suggesting enhancements. If it requires discussion, you might post to fedora-devel list
It appears that the "enhancement" option/feature of rh's bugzilla has been removed recently, and replaced by adding "FutureFeature" to the Keyword field.
-- Rex
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Rex Dieter wrote:
Aaron Konstam wrote:
I have been trying to figure how to share a comment like yours on another topic. I keep getting told to post a bug of the type Request for Enhancement. This is supposed to be explained at the web site below. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests
Or if it is feedback to developers then here is the advice: See the section on feedback to developers in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate. If its a straight forward enhancement, file a RFE in bugzilla. Upstream projects bugzilla's are preferrable for suggesting enhancements. If it requires discussion, you might post to fedora-devel list
It appears that the "enhancement" option/feature of rh's bugzilla has been removed recently, and replaced by adding "FutureFeature" to the Keyword field.
And, of course, Bugzilla just screams out that you need to free type 'FutureFeature' into the 'Keywords' to specify that. It would too obvious to have a set of radio boxes in the form instead of a link to a page listing all the possible keywords with no real hint as to the fact that it is in fact a structured field.
:/
I am reminded of a 'in the basement inside a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign saying Beware of the leopard.'
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Aaron Konstam wrote:
I have been trying to figure how to share a comment like yours on another topic. I keep getting told to post a bug of the type Request for Enhancement. This is supposed to be explained at the web site below. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests
Or if it is feedback to developers then here is the advice: See the section on feedback to developers in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate. If its a straight forward enhancement, file a RFE in bugzilla. Upstream projects bugzilla's are preferrable for suggesting enhancements. If it requires discussion, you might post to fedora-devel list
The below bug went from 'NEW' to 'CLOSED' in under 20 minutes (closed by Paul Nasrat pnasrat@redhat.com, with no feedback what-so-ever other than that it duplicates bug 186007). In spite of 'FutureFeature' being put into Keywords.
Craig? You said something about 'pissing in the wind', and how we should use Bugzilla instead of the maillist to get action? Care to comment? I seem to feel a bit of a warm wet breeze from the direction of Bugzilla, myself.
Message-ID: 200605091449.k49Ena3J011234@www.beta.redhat.com Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 10:49:36 -0400 To: snowhare@nihongo.org From: bugzilla@redhat.com Subject: [Bug 191169] Install Everything needs restoration to installer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Install Everything needs restoration to installer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191169
pnasrat@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE
------- Additional Comments From pnasrat@redhat.com 2006-05-09 10:49 EST -------
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 186007 ***
-- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 08:16 -0700, Benjamin Franz wrote:
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Aaron Konstam wrote:
I have been trying to figure how to share a comment like yours on another topic. I keep getting told to post a bug of the type Request for Enhancement. This is supposed to be explained at the web site below. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests
Or if it is feedback to developers then here is the advice: See the section on feedback to developers in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate. If its a straight forward enhancement, file a RFE in bugzilla. Upstream projects bugzilla's are preferrable for suggesting enhancements. If it requires discussion, you might post to fedora-devel list
The below bug went from 'NEW' to 'CLOSED' in under 20 minutes (closed by Paul Nasrat pnasrat@redhat.com, with no feedback what-so-ever other than that it duplicates bug 186007). In spite of 'FutureFeature' being put into Keywords.
Craig? You said something about 'pissing in the wind', and how we should use Bugzilla instead of the maillist to get action? Care to comment? I seem to feel a bit of a warm wet breeze from the direction of Bugzilla, myself.
---- I think that you did well and now your voice is among the listed.
If and when someone wants to count how many people have voiced the same opinion it's certainly possible. If enough people sound off on this issue, they clearly would have to rethink the decision.
Whether the bugzilla entry is coded off as closed/notabug or how quickly isn't important. What is important is to stand and be heard (and counted). Quite clearly you are officially on record whereas simply posting here is lost by the very next post that follows.
By the way, you could have added to the original closed bug instead of starting a new one but either way is acceptable.
Craig
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:30 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
On Mon May 8 2006 3:50 pm, Craig White wrote:
whining here is merely pissing in the wind
There you go again, Craig -
---- yeah but read what Rahul is saying... ----
Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list to gather feedback.
---- Craig
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:10 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
On Mon May 8 2006 4:43 pm, Craig White wrote:
yeah but read what Rahul is saying...
yes, without demeaning, belittling, or personal adjectives - that's precisely my point ;-)
---- there was nothing demeaning or belittling in my commentary.
There was a 'personal adjective' which I think would more apt be called a metaphor and I choose metaphors for their ability to characterize things as I see it but of course, you may feel free to disagree.
Considering that few fedora developers actually monitor this list, I think that my characterization is quite apropos.
Craig
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 21:49 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
On Mon May 8 2006 7:06 pm, Craig White wrote:
you may feel free to disagree
Why should I bother - in your mind's eye, you are always right.
---- would you want me to be any other? ----
In that universe, my opinion is irrelevant ;-)
---- I'm not sure why you would worry about my view of your opinion. There are certainly circles where my opinion doesn't count but I don't lose sleep over it.
As I see it, you did the right thing...you posted your commentary on a bugzilla entry and posted on list to get others to join with their own commentary. That there were very few who bothered to join in suggests to me that the number of those who agree are few.
Craig
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 13:43 -0700, Craig White wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:30 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
On Mon May 8 2006 3:50 pm, Craig White wrote:
whining here is merely pissing in the wind
There you go again, Craig -
yeah but read what Rahul is saying...
Rahul is very clearly telling people that if they want a specific fix or feature they should use the tool provided, bugzilla.
If they do not care enough to do that then it must not be important. In fact I would wager that even though there has been a lot of discussion here and in the past about the everything option that very few have submitted anything in bugzilla about it. (I was only able to find 2 bugzilla entries with "install everything" as the search term, and only 6 with "everything" as the term.)
It sure seams people want to whine, but not do anything constructive to get their case heard and considered.
Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list to gather feedback.
Craig
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:31 -0500, Jeff Vian wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 13:43 -0700, Craig White wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:30 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
On Mon May 8 2006 3:50 pm, Craig White wrote:
whining here is merely pissing in the wind
There you go again, Craig -
yeah but read what Rahul is saying...
Rahul is very clearly telling people that if they want a specific fix or feature they should use the tool provided, bugzilla.
If they do not care enough to do that then it must not be important. In fact I would wager that even though there has been a lot of discussion here and in the past about the everything option that very few have submitted anything in bugzilla about it. (I was only able to find 2 bugzilla entries with "install everything" as the search term, and only 6 with "everything" as the term.)
It sure seams people want to whine, but not do anything constructive to get their case heard and considered.
Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list to gather feedback.
----- and my guess is that 10 people complaining about it is statistically an insignificant percentage.
Craig
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:08, Craig White wrote:
It sure seams people want to whine, but not do anything constructive to get their case heard and considered.
You can look at this the other way and wonder if there is anyone who cares if the distribution contains things that make people whine unnecessarily.
Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list to gather feedback.
and my guess is that 10 people complaining about it is statistically an insignificant percentage.
By the time someone has encountered the problem it is too late for them - those are the people who are concerned about helping others avoid the issue.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:46 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:08, Craig White wrote:
It sure seams people want to whine, but not do anything constructive to get their case heard and considered.
You can look at this the other way and wonder if there is anyone who cares if the distribution contains things that make people whine unnecessarily.
Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list to gather feedback.
and my guess is that 10 people complaining about it is statistically an insignificant percentage.
By the time someone has encountered the problem it is too late for them - those are the people who are concerned about helping others avoid the issue.
So, since you are one of those complaining and claim to want to help others, then put your action where your mouth is and file the bugzilla.
I for one do not like people who whine but refuse to take action to better what they are complaining about.
I think we've reached (quite some time ago) the old "You can make some of the people happy some of the time....." point.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 19:38, Jeff Vian wrote:
By the time someone has encountered the problem it is too late for them - those are the people who are concerned about helping others avoid the issue.
So, since you are one of those complaining and claim to want to help others, then put your action where your mouth is and file the bugzilla.
I for one do not like people who whine but refuse to take action to better what they are complaining about.
It isn't about how I want it to be. All I can do is describe my experience when installing and it isn't likely to get better unless someone collates a large number of those experiences. How would you word an RFE like that? Maybe yum could be instrumented to track downloads of missing packages after a base install or the system could track and report 'file not found' errors in the system areas to identify files that are frequently needed but not always there.
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 02:54:46PM -0400, Mark Haney wrote:
server? Matter of fact, who /needs/ everything on a desktop? Sounds extremely lazy and inefficient to me.
Hard drive space and bandwidth are effectively infinite, human time is scarcer than ever. Saving time is efficient. Laziness is a virtue.
It doesn't forebode well for FLOSS that people are not getting it.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 06:08 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 02:54:46PM -0400, Mark Haney wrote:
server? Matter of fact, who /needs/ everything on a desktop? Sounds extremely lazy and inefficient to me.
Hard drive space and bandwidth are effectively infinite, human time is scarcer than ever. Saving time is efficient. Laziness is a virtue.
It doesn't forebode well for FLOSS that people are not getting it.
Huh?
Sorry - but "installing everything" is just plain silly in most cases. Even with gobs of hard drive space and gigabit straight from a backbone to your home.
menus become cluttered, for one thing.
Install what you are going to use. Install what you would like to test. There is no need to have OpenOffice.org and koffice installed if you are only going to use AbiWord and Gnumeric.
Why have kmail and balsa and sylpheed cluttering up your menus when you are going to use evolution?
It also is a lot more likely that you will run into problems when upgrading if you have everything under the sun installed.
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 09:54:07PM -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Sorry - but "installing everything" is just plain silly in most cases.
I don't know which packages and libraries I'm going to need tomorrow. I don't have time to work for my computer. My computer should work for me.
Even with gobs of hard drive space and gigabit straight from a backbone to your home.
I manage with 0.5/6 MBit ADSL, but FC does have an unstable feel around it.
menus become cluttered, for one thing.
Then the menus are designed wrong. I don't expect most packages to show up in the menus.
Install what you are going to use.
I like to explore first, and then use it. I can't explore what's not already installed. If I could have a machine with 16 kPackages from Sarge I would probably have it.
Install what you would like to test. There is no need to have OpenOffice.org and koffice installed if you are only going to use AbiWord and Gnumeric.
Bzzt. I have no idea what I'm going to use next. Some documents can be only read in AbiWord, and some in OO. You don't know which is going to cut the mustard.
Why have kmail and balsa and sylpheed cluttering up your menus when you are going to use evolution?
I'm using mutt, and it doesn't show up in the menus. I use locate instead of menus most of the time.
It also is a lot more likely that you will run into problems when upgrading if you have everything under the sun installed.
Upgrades Just Don't Work in FC. Tried it, always wind up with reinstalling. If you want smooth upgrades, try Debian.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 07:09 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 09:54:07PM -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Sorry - but "installing everything" is just plain silly in most cases.
I don't know which packages and libraries I'm going to need tomorrow.
You never need to explicitly ask for libraries unless you are a developer. yum will find them.
As far as what you will need tomorrow - when you need it, it is just a yum away.
I don't have time to work for my computer. My computer should work for me.
It is far more likely _not_ to work for you if you install everything under the sun. Particularly when update time comes.
Even with gobs of hard drive space and gigabit straight from a backbone to your home.
I manage with 0.5/6 MBit ADSL, but FC does have an unstable feel around it.
FC is close to bleeding edge. If you want stable - try RHEL (or one of the free clones, like Cent OS - just the other day, I saw a Linux magazine at the grocery store that came with Cent OS - so you may not even need to DL it)
menus become cluttered, for one thing.
Then the menus are designed wrong. I don't expect most packages to show up in the menus.
Most do not - but if you install everything, you get all the apps that _do_ show up in the menus.
Bzzt. I have no idea what I'm going to use next. Some documents can be only read in AbiWord, and some in OO. You don't know which is going to cut the mustard.
OK - confession here. I purchased CrossOver Office. If AbiWord doesn't handle it, I use Word Document Viewer from within wine, installed in CrossOver Office (I also have the powerpoint and excel viewers, though with gnumeric - I've never needed the excel viewer. I also have Google Picasa, which works exceptionally well in CXO.
Why have kmail and balsa and sylpheed cluttering up your menus when you are going to use evolution?
I'm using mutt, and it doesn't show up in the menus. I use locate instead of menus most of the time.
But if you install everything, you will have all those things in the menus. If you don't mind that - whatever, but it is counter to usability to have menus stuffed with everything.
It also is a lot more likely that you will run into problems when upgrading if you have everything under the sun installed.
Upgrades Just Don't Work in FC. Tried it, always wind up with reinstalling. If you want smooth upgrades, try Debian.
Maybe because you tried it after an everything install ? ;)
I usually do a clean install as well, but I also have yum updated several systems - and yes, I have to do a little cleanup and work through some issues - but it does work. If I had everything installed, it would be a LOT more difficult.
-=-
The only time I ever have done an "install everything" was when I worked for a software company and we packaged our product in RPM (and slack packages ...)
We did a few everything install in QA to see what broke.
Other than that - it is pretty pointless IMHO.
A bigger thing to gripe about IMHO is the removal (not separate packaging, complete removal) of static libraries from packages ... :p
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:15, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Sorry - but "installing everything" is just plain silly in most cases.
I don't know which packages and libraries I'm going to need tomorrow.
You never need to explicitly ask for libraries unless you are a developer. yum will find them.
And for your users that *are* developers???
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 08:27 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:15, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Sorry - but "installing everything" is just plain silly in most cases.
I don't know which packages and libraries I'm going to need tomorrow.
You never need to explicitly ask for libraries unless you are a developer. yum will find them.
And for your users that *are* developers???
They *know* what they need.
Ralf
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:41:15PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I don't know which packages and libraries I'm going to need tomorrow.
You never need to explicitly ask for libraries unless you are a developer. yum will find them.
Really? yum install vmd? yum install gamess? yum install gromacs? yum install namd? yum install mmtk? yum install openbabel? Funny, yum finds jack.
And for your users that *are* developers???
They *know* what they need.
You're engaging in wishful thinking. I'm not a developer, yet I fix bugs and build things from source when it's not in the depositories. I don't have the time to resolve the dependencies manually, hence I need a system where almost everything is already there. There's no sharp boundary between users and developers in FLOSSland. Get used to it.
You're still not getting it. I'm a yet another user asking for an option which used to be there. Don't tell me what I need. I know far better what I need that you do. I don't claim to speak for you, either.
If developers don't care enough to occasionally send someone to skim the list archives for user-reported design flaws and improvement suggestions I have no trouble with that. I have several alternative distros and, yes, proprietary systems to turn to. The usage pattern comes and goes. FC5 is reasonably close to a useful system as RatHed goes, but it's still a far shot to Win XP or OS X. The UI being hokey and slow is the largest culprit -- I'm hanging in for GL hardware acceleration. Maybe it will be enough, maybe I need a faster CPU. Long-term, kick out X and give us something rendering as cleanly as ClearType, and it's getting close to an ideal system. Maybe another 5-10 years, and we'll be there.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 16:46 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:41:15PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I don't know which packages and libraries I'm going to need tomorrow.
You never need to explicitly ask for libraries unless you are a developer. yum will find them.
Really? yum install vmd? yum install gamess? yum install gromacs? yum install namd? yum install mmtk? yum install openbabel? Funny, yum finds jack.
Developers!
And for your users that *are* developers???
They *know* what they need.
You're engaging in wishful thinking. I'm not a developer,
That's apparent. As I've said before, developers *know*, or more precisely, are supposed to know what they are doing.
Ralf
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 07:09:04PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Really? yum install vmd? yum install gamess? yum install gromacs? yum install namd? yum install mmtk? yum install openbabel? Funny, yum finds jack.
Developers!
No developers (you seem to have been bitten by Ballmer, that's usually fatal). Just check it out, and build it yerself. But it's not in the depositories. (No, even Debian doesn't have most of them).
You're engaging in wishful thinking. I'm not a developer,
That's apparent. As I've said before, developers *know*, or more
It is quite apparent that you don't know developers. I do; I have to change their diapers. Daily. Don't tell me about what developers know.
precisely, are supposed to know what they are doing.
You must send me whatever you've been smoking. Some powerful stuff, eh.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 19:20 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 07:09:04PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Really? yum install vmd? yum install gamess? yum install gromacs? yum install namd? yum install mmtk? yum install openbabel? Funny, yum finds jack.
Developers!
No developers (you seem to have been bitten by Ballmer, that's usually fatal).
BS.
Just check it out, and build it yerself. But it's not in the depositories. (No, even Debian doesn't have most of them).
And? Where is the problem?
If developers need something, they can chose: Use what other supply or do it themselves, or ditch it.
You're engaging in wishful thinking. I'm not a developer,
That's apparent. As I've said before, developers *know*, or more
It is quite apparent that you don't know developers. I do; I have to change their diapers. Daily. Don't tell me about what developers know.
You might have some people claiming to be developers.
precisely, are supposed to know what they are doing.
You must send me whatever you've been smoking. Some powerful stuff, eh.
It's always a pleasure being in contact with semi-educated people, who can't refrain from molesting the public on topics, they only believe to have understood.
EOT
Ralf
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 12:09, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
And for your users that *are* developers???
They *know* what they need.
You're engaging in wishful thinking. I'm not a developer,
That's apparent. As I've said before, developers *know*, or more precisely, are supposed to know what they are doing.
I think you've forgotten the way they learn about these things (which is not by avoiding installing them) and the fact that they change daily.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 08:27 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:15, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Sorry - but "installing everything" is just plain silly in most cases.
I don't know which packages and libraries I'm going to need tomorrow.
You never need to explicitly ask for libraries unless you are a developer. yum will find them.
And for your users that *are* developers???
you install the devel packages you need to work with. Choosing "software development", "gnome-development", and "kde-development" groups will get most of them for you.
Hi,
well, I have read all the complaint letters about the $SUBJECT and I wondered if software installation can be done without net access but with the FC5 DVD at hand.
I do have a solution for this (now non-)problem. Edit /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-core.repo, so the first three lines reads like these below.
--------------------------- [core] name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch baseurl=file:///media/disk ---------------------------
Then put your installation DVD into your drive and do
# yum install --exclude="dlm*" --exclude="gnbd*" --exclude="cman*" --exclude=magma-plugins "*"
I needed those --excludes because yum cannot resolve dependencies for their kernels and I don't need them. So it still won't install everything but after that "yum install magma-plugins" will do the rest.
It would be similar for mirrored updates and extras trees on the harddisk. I wonder why wasn't it the default baseurl? Maybe worth and RFE in Bugzilla...
Best regards, Zoltán Böszörményi
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 23:48 +0200, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
Hi,
well, I have read all the complaint letters about the $SUBJECT and I wondered if software installation can be done without net access but with the FC5 DVD at hand.
I do have a solution for this (now non-)problem. Edit /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-core.repo, so the first three lines reads like these below.
[core] name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch baseurl=file:///media/disk
Then put your installation DVD into your drive and do
# yum install --exclude="dlm*" --exclude="gnbd*" --exclude="cman*" --exclude=magma-plugins "*"
I needed those --excludes because yum cannot resolve dependencies for their kernels and I don't need them. So it still won't install everything but after that "yum install magma-plugins" will do the rest.
It would be similar for mirrored updates and extras trees on the harddisk. I wonder why wasn't it the default baseurl? Maybe worth and RFE in Bugzilla...
That only works for people that: (a) actually burn the installer image to DVD, which many people don't because network installs are much faster and more reliable (b) use DVDs rather than CDs (c) have physical access to the machine every time when they want to use yum so that they can insert the DVD into the drive and mount it (unless they dedicate a DVD drive for this purpose)
I think the current default would work for a larger subset of the user base, but it might be worth adding the media baseurl as a commented-out example so that people could configure it easily enough. You'd still need Internet access for all other enabled repos though, and there's no quick workaround for those as only a very small proportion of users have their own Extras and updates mirrors.
Paul.
Michael A. Peters mpeters@mac.com wrote:
Sorry - but "installing everything" is just plain silly in most cases.
I don't know which packages and libraries I'm going to need tomorrow.
You never need to explicitly ask for libraries unless you are a developer. yum will find them.
And for your users that *are* developers???
you install the devel packages you need to work with. Choosing "software development", "gnome-development", and "kde-development" groups will get most of them for you.
Even if all groups and their packages are selected, quite a number of packages are installed without their according devel package (like gtk+-devel, glib-devel or ImageMagick-devel). This can be annoying if you want to compile some software yourself.
I usually prefer to have packages installed complete or not at all. But installing only some parts of them, that is confusing.
I think, there's room for improvement.
Greetings, Andreas
Its easy!! just go to the directory in the installer DVD or CD containing all the rpms and run the script below.
ls > /root/rpmlist
#Install Script
exec 3
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 23:54, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Sorry - but "installing everything" is just plain silly in most cases.
[...]
Install what you are going to use.
Why install a multiuser OS if only one user will ever use it?
Les Mikesell wrote:
Why install a multiuser OS if only one user will ever use it?
The fundamental architecture of a system designed for multi-user usage provides for enhanced control of the system by its administrators and, most likely, much tighter security of the applications and the users' limitations.
One of the fundamental things about GNU/Linux and other Unix-like systems is that the user does not run with administrative privileges on a day-to-day basis. This in itself is one of the biggest aspects of security: Generally speaking, the most damage that a user could do is destroy their own home directory. Things like SELinux and other MAC (Mandatory Access Control) systems now make the superuser (root) in many cases no more privileged than a normal user, which helps a lot since there may likely be security holes that could give a user root-level access to the system.
(If I recall correctly, there are actually a few locked-down SELinux boxes setup with various distributions by the NSA and various volunteers where you are *given* the root password, and your goal is to actually damage the system in some way as to bypass its control. How's that for secure? ^_^)
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:20 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Why install a multiuser OS if only one user will ever use it?
Because the system runs some services as other users, not yourself. Even if you ran a system as one personal user and one system user, it's still a multi-user system, and once the mechanism is in place, you may as well provide the ability to have more than one user. Having users is one way of separating what a person should normally be able to do, and what they should normally being prevented from doing.
Or were you being facetious?
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:31, Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:20 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Why install a multiuser OS if only one user will ever use it?
Because the system runs some services as other users, not yourself. Even if you ran a system as one personal user and one system user, it's still a multi-user system, and once the mechanism is in place, you may as well provide the ability to have more than one user. Having users is one way of separating what a person should normally be able to do, and what they should normally being prevented from doing.
Or were you being facetious?
I was hoping that someone would catch on that it is not unusual to actually use a multiuser OS for multiple users on one machine, in which case the person installing may in fact have a reason to install different mail user agents, word processors and so on, because they will be the preferred choice for different users.
And as a side effect to point out that it is no more wasteful to have the multiple application choices available than it is to have a multiuser OS serving a single user.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:20 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 23:54, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Sorry - but "installing everything" is just plain silly in most cases.
[...]
Install what you are going to use.
Why install a multiuser OS if only one user will ever use it?
OK - install what your users are going to use. You certainly don't want everything under the sun with multiple login users - multiple login users increases the chances of a compromised local account, and a compromised local account with everything installed increases the chances that something installed has an exploit that can be taken advantage of by the system cracker.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:18, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Why install a multiuser OS if only one user will ever use it?
OK - install what your users are going to use. You certainly don't want everything under the sun with multiple login users - multiple login users increases the chances of a compromised local account, and a compromised local account with everything installed increases the chances that something installed has an exploit that can be taken advantage of by the system cracker.
That might be a useful comment if you mentioned the parts that are dangerous to install - and perhaps why they are included on the CD if no one should install them.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:18, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Why install a multiuser OS if only one user will ever use it?
OK - install what your users are going to use. You certainly don't want everything under the sun with multiple login users - multiple login users increases the chances of a compromised local account, and a compromised local account with everything installed increases the chances that something installed has an exploit that can be taken advantage of by the system cracker.
That might be a useful comment if you mentioned the parts that are dangerous to install - and perhaps why they are included on the CD if no one should install them.
That is the point - you don't know what packages have exploits that have not been found yet. If they were known, chances are they would have already been fixed. But if you have everything installed, the chances that you have a package with an exploit installed goes up.
On the other hand, if it will never be run with root privileges, chances are it will only mess up the user's files, and not the system. From a security standpoint, it makes sense to load the packages that you use. If a machine is not going to be a server, then you only need a few of the server apps. If it is not going to be used for development, and especially if it is going to be a server that can be accessed from the Internet, you do not want the ability to compile programs. (Compile them on another machine, and install them on the server.)
This is sounding a lot like the what I heard a few years ago when distributions started shipping with services disabled by default, or only accessible on the loopback interface. You have to go in and configure them before you could run them. But it sure cut down on boxes that were hacked before they were updated, and the owner learned what was going on. Experienced users know how to get the services going, and newbies usually end up doing a bit of research, or asking on a list, and hopefully learn about the risks involved in running the server, and how to configure them.
The distribution should be as safe as possible for a newbie to install. If they ever put the install everything option back, I hope it is only available as an advanced install option. A newbie doing an install should not see it.
What might be a good idea is that when you install from CD/DVD, is to have an option to set up a Yum repo that uses the install media and asks for the CD/DVD needed to be inserted when installing software if there is not a newer package in the other repos. That way, if you find you want/need more packages after install, it will not download everything from the Internet if you have a slow connection, or a bandwidth limit. This would be especially true in you are shipping a machine with Linux pre-installed. Otherwise, depending on the lag between when you built the system, and when the costumer receives it they may end up with a large update needed when they get the machine with an everything install. Not too bad of a problem if you do the install, update the machine, and then ship it directly to the costumer, but a big problem if you are building in quantity. Especially if you don't update your install image on a regular basis, or are shipping to a retail location.
Mikkel
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 09:36:41 -0500, "Mikkel L. Ellertson" mikkel@infinity-ltd.com wrote:
That is the point - you don't know what packages have exploits that have not been found yet. If they were known, chances are they would have already been fixed. But if you have everything installed, the chances that you have a package with an exploit installed goes up.
This is very low risk. This risk should be weighed against the extra work involved tracking down packages that could have been installed off the CD.
On the other hand, if it will never be run with root privileges, chances are it will only mess up the user's files, and not the system. From a security standpoint, it makes sense to load the packages that you use. If a machine is not going to be a server, then you only need a few of the server apps. If it is not going to be used for development, and especially if it is going to be a server that can be accessed from the Internet, you do not want the ability to compile programs. (Compile them on another machine, and install them on the server.)
Not having a compiler adds almost no security. Again this needs to be weighed against the costs of having one available when you want it.
This is sounding a lot like the what I heard a few years ago when distributions started shipping with services disabled by default, or only accessible on the loopback interface. You have to go in and configure them before you could run them. But it sure cut down on boxes that were hacked before they were updated, and the owner learned what was going on. Experienced users know how to get the services going, and newbies usually end up doing a bit of research, or asking on a list, and hopefully learn about the risks involved in running the server, and how to configure them.
Running services that listen on network ports is a lot higher risk than just having code installed. Also, in those days ipchains typically wasn't installed as well to block connections to services that only needed to listen on the loopback address.
The distribution should be as safe as possible for a newbie to install. If they ever put the install everything option back, I hope it is only available as an advanced install option. A newbie doing an install should not see it.
I disaggree. You need to balance safety with convenience, especially for for new users.
What might be a good idea is that when you install from CD/DVD, is to have an option to set up a Yum repo that uses the install media and asks for the CD/DVD needed to be inserted when installing software if there is not a newer package in the other repos. That way, if you find you want/need more packages after install, it will not download everything from the Internet if you have a slow connection, or a bandwidth limit. This would be especially true in you are shipping a machine with Linux pre-installed. Otherwise, depending on the lag between when you built the system, and when the costumer receives it they may end up with a large update needed when they get the machine with an everything install. Not too bad of a problem if you do the install, update the machine, and then ship it directly to the costumer, but a big problem if you are building in quantity. Especially if you don't update your install image on a regular basis, or are shipping to a retail location.
Using the install media as a repo is a separate issue, that also has value. However, this still doesn't address not having software installed when you want it, that could have easily been installed. That costs people time.
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 01:19:23PM -0400, Mark Haney wrote:
Good luck with that. I have a SUSE box that has virtually nothing installed by default. You think Fedora's installation is sparse? I was
I can't confirm that data point. SuSE installs are usually eclectic.
amazed at the total lack of packages installed in SUSE. Really, it's a total joke to work on that server. It has KDE /and/ GNOME installed (on
You're talking about a server, I notice.
a /server/ no less) and yet I had to install the sysstat packages along with ntpd and about 3 or 4 others just to make the server really manageable. The SUSE install is just silly. The Fedora installer is at least more /sane/ than most other installers I've seen or used.
I disagree. I'm still not done with pulling the packages in manually. People, this sucks.
But it seems rather childish to switch distros just for that. Kind of like taking your ball and going home, eh?
I don't like the sentiment behind above sentence. Yes, I try and run whatever the fuck I damn please. It broadens the horizont. It allows me to get work done quicker. Been SuSE, done that, and "install everything" is a sufficient reason to switch distros.
I've been totally confused by my having clicked (I thought) to install everything, and yet apparently virtually nothing was installed from CDs 4 and 5. I've always chosen Fedora precisely because it comes on 5 CDs instead of 1 and had an Install Everything button. The only refinement I'd like to see is some buttons for "install everything in <my language>". But you've got the magazines all jumping on "bloatware".
I think Debian is more popular than SuSE, isn't it? There must be a reason.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Lee Maschmeyer wrote:
I've been totally confused by my having clicked (I thought) to install everything, and yet apparently virtually nothing was installed from CDs 4 and 5. I've always chosen Fedora precisely because it comes on 5 CDs instead of 1 and had an Install Everything button. The only refinement I'd like to see is some buttons for "install everything in <my language>". But you've got the magazines all jumping on "bloatware".
I think Debian is more popular than SuSE, isn't it? There must be a reason.
I would think Debian is only more popular that Suse because of it's perceived stability. If you don't want 'bleeding edge' or even 'cutting edge', Debian is a good distro. I am not fond of the way packages are updated (although apt-get is a great app), but maybe I'm spoiled by Fedora and Gentoo.
- -- Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Mark Haney Sr. Systems Administrator ERC Broadband (828) 350-2415
Mark Haney wrote:
It is just not worth my time. Next time it will be SUSE instead.
-Frank
Good luck with that. I have a SUSE box that has virtually nothing installed by default. You think Fedora's installation is sparse? I was amazed at the total lack of packages installed in SUSE. Really, it's a total joke to work on that server. It has KDE /and/ GNOME installed (on a /server/ no less) and yet I had to install the sysstat packages along with ntpd and about 3 or 4 others just to make the server really manageable. The SUSE install is just silly. The Fedora installer is at least more /sane/ than most other installers I've seen or used.
But it seems rather childish to switch distros just for that. Kind of like taking your ball and going home, eh?
No, not childish, just efficient. These distributions are really not all that different. The same packages are there, so the question is just which is easiest to install? And yes, SUSE has an install everything checkbox that works very well.
I've been using RedHat since 4.0, but this is a show stopper.
Installing everything is not a security risk. All of my installs (and I would guess most installs) are for machines with user bases of known trustworthy people, such as my family or coworkers. Local exploits are not an issue. People running servers with shell access for scores of remote unknown people are the exception, not the rule.
Some people have said that I should only install programs that I'm going to use. Well, my wife uses KDE, my son uses Gnome, I use fvwm. My wife uses kmail, my son uses mozilla, and I use pine. My wife uses OpenOffice, I use emacs/latex, my son uses, uh... I don't even know what it's called. I could go on and on. And that's just my family. At work the situation is even more diverse. I'm _not_ going to hunt all those down. For years I've just done install everything and it just worked. Until now.
I don't understand the mentality of taking away a very useful feature that lots of people want (even if it's not perfect), and saying that it is better.
-Frank
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:27:56PM +1030, Tim wrote:
Discussed to death here over the last few weeks. But in summary, "everything" never really installed "everything", and if you actually
The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload of packages. User attention is a scarce resource.
Hard drive space and bandwidth is effectively free. Time is not.
did "install" *everything* you'd have conflicts up to your earholes, not
Is "conflicts up to your earlobes" supposed to be a feature? Why can't conflicts be autoresolved? Why are there conflicts in the first place?
to mention masses of updates to manage.
If I asked for it, and bandwidth is no issue, I don't see why this is a problem.
Please stop rationalizing deficits being features. They're not.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Mark Haney Sr. Systems Administrator ERC Broadband (828) 350-2415 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEX32bYQhnfRtc0AIRApxkAKCceM17q8hKzmaxl2jqZSX6wo3xKgCePf/3 3/EPzr3rLK1av+eG0KsxtP0= =1qc4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Samuelson wrote:
Because you can never beat a dead horse enough...
I'm going to chime in that the loss of the "Install Everything" button is a big loss for Fedora.
I think the everything means ALL languges and a bunch of stuff I will never use. But I loaded the "Work Station" which in the old days meant you could compile a new kernel and did often. I discovered I had to yum the compiler stuff and it was ok but slow.
So if I do it again I will choose to select my own. I can get all the things I use like the "joe editor" and maybe even get my gMFSK to work on FC5.
Karl
Everyone I know who installs Fedora or RedHat (which is really only about 4-5 people) uses the "Install Everything" button, because _no_one_ gives a measly care about a few extra Gb of disk space, and nobody wants to spend time pecking around menus or hunting down software. It is a big waste of time.
No, I don't want to have to load and run another program that can get me some other interface which I have to figure out to install everything. No I don't want to have to click every package group. No, I don't care if my auto updater has to download more fixes. I just want to click the "Install Everything" button and, no, I don't care if it doesn't really install _everything_. Almost everything is fine.
And conflicts really aren't the problem. There are lots of packages now that aren't getting installed now that could be. I was surprised by all the "optional" packages that I had to select one at a time to get installed: old favorites like emacs(!), xmms, xfig, and great newer programs like k3b (which the fedora installation web page recommends for burning fedora CDs :).
It is just not worth my time. Next time it will be SUSE instead.
-Frank
p.s. Inkscape should be in the distribution. It's the hot new thing. Very nice.
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:27:56PM +1030, Tim wrote:
Discussed to death here over the last few weeks. But in summary, "everything" never really installed "everything", and if you actually
The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload of packages. User attention is a scarce resource.
Hard drive space and bandwidth is effectively free. Time is not.
did "install" *everything* you'd have conflicts up to your earholes, not
Is "conflicts up to your earlobes" supposed to be a feature? Why can't conflicts be autoresolved? Why are there conflicts in the first place?
to mention masses of updates to manage.
If I asked for it, and bandwidth is no issue, I don't see why this is a problem.
Please stop rationalizing deficits being features. They're not.
Tim wrote:
Is it really that hard to figure out that if you don't want to take discs with you that you should copy them to your hard drive?
Sure, there's various ways of doing this for installation convenience sake (local YUM repos, etc), but it's pretty obvious that copying the disc structure to the hard drive as an installation tree allows you people to install from local files later on
Actually, it doesn't. I need to know a lot more about the install format, structures, policies, and databases than I do now to use that approach. That's why I've never used it in the past but instead just always installed "everything".
Even needing to go back and find one single package makes the distribution more costly than I'm willing to afford. That one package will take me an hour or two to hunt down, install, sort through possible conflicts, (which I presume the original packagers took into account at the time but may no longer be relevant), test, then figure out how to get that distributed to all of my users as well. At that point, I'd have been better off with a more comprehensive distribution.
--rich
Tim:
Is it really that hard to figure out that if you don't want to take discs with you that you should copy them to your hard drive?
Sure, there's various ways of doing this for installation convenience sake (local YUM repos, etc), but it's pretty obvious that copying the disc structure to the hard drive as an installation tree allows you people to install from local files later on
Richard Pixley:
Actually, it doesn't. I need to know a lot more about the install format, structures, policies, and databases than I do now to use that approach. That's why I've never used it in the past but instead just always installed "everything".
Actually it "does" allow it. You *can* simply copy the files, and simply install the ones you want, later on. You *can*, if you don't like messing with RPM, install something to let you manage installations in a more user-friendly manner. You don't *need* to try and "install" everything just to avoid having to track discs around with you or download files from the internet.
Even needing to go back and find one single package makes the distribution more costly than I'm willing to afford.
I wonder how you cope within using any computer, at all, then? Many applications are less than user-friendly, and require the operator to jump through hoops just to use them.
That one package will take me an hour or two to hunt down, install, sort through possible conflicts, (which I presume the original packagers took into account at the time but may no longer be relevant), test, then figure out how to get that distributed to all of my users as well.
Hogwash!
And a very appropriate random fortune cookie was chosen by my mail client, so for a change I won't delete it before posting:
To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 13:06:24 -0800, "K. Richard Pixley" rich@noir.com wrote:
fc5 installer has me confused and stumped. Could someone please tell me where to find the "install everything" option?
That feature was dropped. You can do select all by right clicking, but you have to be at least one level down to do this. This won't actually install all of the rpms, but may be good enough for you.
I used the select all per group today during an install. All the packages that I normally use were there after installing. The process did not take long since I was able to choose all optional packages easily.
I also did a yum upgrade on another system and it croaked because it had all of the openoffice language packages on it. I believe if the Turkish package was correct, it would have upgraded initially. I never use the language packages but they should not cause a failure either. I know the issue was discussed too much already.
I like the new installer over an everything install but this feature elimination does not keep the heat on for the GFS kernel modules and the language specific packager/developers to keep their packages at least installable.
Jim
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 13:06 -0800, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
fc5 installer has me confused and stumped. Could someone please tell me where to find the "install everything" option?
--rich
Not this again!!!!!
Search the list archives. This has been talked about WAY to much!!
--- "K. Richard Pixley" rich@noir.com wrote:
fc5 installer has me confused and stumped. Could someone please tell me where to find the "install everything" option?
It is not there anymore! Select all from each group and hope for the best.
Regards,
Antonio
--rich
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 01:06:24PM -0800, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
fc5 installer has me confused and stumped. Could someone please tell me where to find the "install everything" option?
It isn't there anymore. Someone optimized it all away. (Goes very well with the Turkish language selection crash bug, especially if it's the third time in a row you're doing the install).
-
Aaron Konstam -
Andreas M. Kirchwitz -
Antonio Olivares -
Benjamin Franz -
Bruno Wolff III -
Christofer C. Bell -
Claude Jones -
Claus Reheis -
CodeHeads -
Craig White -
Dan Thurman -
Dave Mitchell -
David Fletcher -
Ed Greshko -
Edward Dekkers -
Edward Krack -
Eugen Leitl -
Frank Samuelson -
Gerhard Magnus -
Hex Star -
James Wilkinson -
Jeff Vian -
Jim Cornette -
K. Richard Pixley -
Kam Leo -
Karl Larsen -
Lee Maschmeyer -
Les Mikesell -
Mark Haney -
Michael A. Peters -
Mike McCarty -
Mikkel -
Paul Howarth -
Peter Gordon -
potat0 -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ralf Corsepius -
Rex Dieter -
Ric Moore -
Richard England -
Robert G. (Doc) Savage -
Roger Heflin -
Tarjei Knapstad -
Tim -
Tony Heaton -
Tony Molloy -
Tony Nelson -
Yang Xiao -
Zoltan Boszormenyi