--- Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi
>>>Let's see *your* cost/benefit analysis.
>>>
>>>
>>Not to anyone who rather would name call rather
indulge in good
>>discussions. This is not constructive.
>>
>>
>
>I haven't resorted to that, could I see your
cost/benefit analysis please?
>
>
When users ask for features the rationale is
supplied by them. However I
have already presented by ideas
* Everything installation installs every package
including all the
language package that is definitely not going to be
useful for anyone in
the same time. There is obsoletely no requirement to
install all the
language packages except the l10N QA team which is a
corner case
* Everything installation is not really everything
since it doesnt
support additional repos like Fedora Extras yet
during installation
* It adds increase burden of manageability (just
look at GFS kernel
module issues in FC4 as a prominent example of how
many users ran into a
unnecessary issue even though they werent using GFS
or werent aware of
it just because they did a everything installation)
* The local and remote vulnerability potential
increases due to the
amount of updates that that user has to install
* For dialup users keep their system updated can be
even more harder due
to unnecessary packages
* Performance of the system can go down to
unnecessary services and
session programs
Better package management has resulted in much more
flexibility post
installation to install software on demand. Not
enough good use cases in
support for a everything installation has been
presented. So if you want
to lobby for a particular feature kindly present
additional reasons why
it is being required for end users who wouldnt be
able to use kickstart,
select particular groups during installation, pirut
or put post
installation. When Fedora Core reduces in size,
everything installation
might be more of a feasible option. Just that some
users want it is not
a good reason to implement any feature without
understanding the cost
involved in long term maintenance and support.
--
Rahul
Fedora Bug Triaging -
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
I am following this thread closely and I can see the
pro's and con's. Many times, the everything install
is the best way to go. You do not want to have to
install any missing dependencies via yum/rpm when you
want to compile a certain tarball for which there is
no rpm available, or there is one, but in your system
it *does not work*. The security risks are something
that we could live without. In fact many people do
not update the kernel to the latest one, despite
several vulnerabilities that they keep their existing
kernel because it boots everytime and many things just
work.
For example in FC4, the default package KDVI (KDE
Graphics) was broken, when you opened a DVI file, KDVI
told you that the file was corrupt. Being on dialup,
yum update kde-graphics took about 2 to 3 hours at the
time. I updated it on one of my home machines. I
read about the vulnerability and I knew I had to
install it. On the other machine, I changed the kile
configuration to use xdvi package and forget about
kdvi error.
This are some of the things that we can live with. I
am well aware of vulnerabilites, and understand why
install everything all those languages that I am not
going to use and I agree with that part. But the
everything install is much easier and faster to do and
saves time and effort when solving dependencies on
installing other software. It is a double edged
sword but I strongly agree that the everything option
should be kept there because we are used to it, it was
a part of the old red hat 8.0, red hat 9.0, Fedora
Core 1, 2, 3 and 4. I know things change, but why
change something that has been there and people feel
comfortable with it. *Also keep the new changes they
are awesome too* but that "Custom Install" Everything
Install is missing.
Just that some
users want it is not
a good reason to implement any feature without
understanding the cost
involved in long term maintenance and support.
What does that magic button(s) cost to implement when
it has been living there for sometime already? The
changes are welcomed, but what has been the cost and
long term maintence and support have been throughout
the Fedora Release cycles?
Why is Fedora trying to reduce the Core? Why is
wanting to become like Ubuntu? Fedora is great as it
is! Why change it to less CD's, and us having to
search for packages that are and have been there for
ages.
Sorry to get involved, but I felt the need.
Best Regards,
Antonio
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com