Rahul Sundaram sundaram@redhat.com on 01/23/2006 10:27 AM added:
Please explain what is good about the everything installation option. Dont throw around vague notions.
It saves me time when selecting packages to install.
Which ones?
All of them. Thats the whole point.
It saves me time to not have to install packages individually.
What are you using your system for?. Is it a desktop/workstation/server/development system?. Doesnt it fit into one of these profiles?
Correct, It doesn't fit. My usage profile (like many others on this list) is a superset of those categories. I've found that none of the existing profiles suits my needs. They each have something missing. My laptop is: - a desktop, - a workstation, - a server - a development system.
Because I use the 'desktop' of my 'workstation' to 'develop' 'server' applications.
Actually, given your attitude against the 'all' profile, you can't really justify having a 'workstation', or server', or any other arbitrary profile either. Given your rationalization, they whould all be removed too!
I don't have to download packages (via yum or whatever) that have already been downloaded in the isos.
You cant work with them using the current tools provided anyway.
The point is, as has been mentioned a million time already in this thread, Its a great inconvienience to have to push every button manually. Especially in light of the fact that this feature: _used_ to exist, _was_ being used by a lot of people. and has been _removed_.
Its not as if we are asking for a 'new' feature, we just want our 'old' feature back.
Thats what we are trying to fix already. If you dont use yum to keep yourself updated installing everything is dangareous since it brings in potential security issues with packages you wouldnt even use.
Yup, and I/we are willing to risk that, and deal with the issues.
I don't need a kickstart file.
I don't need to waste space on disk with rpms when I already have the package installed from the initial installation.
You waste disk space by installing packages you wouldnt use. You will to keep packages updated. Performance would do down with deamons and other session programs. You would be installing tons of world languages which you wouldnt be using and so on.
Yup. wasting disk space is _our_ choice, not yours. You select the packages you want to install, and we get to select the packages _we_ want to install.
Performance issues... yup. we will live with it. world languages... yup, we will live with it.
The bottom line, is its _our_ choice as the installers, not yours. While I've been reading this thread, there seems to be a whole lot of people who are addemant about having this bug (where the everything option appears to now be missing) fixed.
You have received a lot of feedback and justification for having it re-instated, but you seem to be reluctant to accept the fact that:
"PEOPLE WANT IT BACK".
It seems to me that there are more people, with more justifications that want it back, than you and your rationalizations.
(Please note that I _am_ trying to be civil about this.)
Hi
What are you using your system for?. Is it a desktop/workstation/server/development system?. Doesnt it fit into one of these profiles?
Correct, It doesn't fit. My usage profile (like many others on this list) is a superset of those categories. I've found that none of the existing profiles suits my needs. They each have something missing. My laptop is:
- a desktop,
- a workstation,
- a server
- a development system.
Because I use the 'desktop' of my 'workstation' to 'develop' 'server' applications.
Question is whether this use case is usual enough to justify adding more options to the installer. There always will be users who dont fit into one of the usual profiles that will have to use kickstart. That is one of the major reasons it exists really. We can modify the profiles and fine tune them to specific level or build separate targets like Fedora Server, Fedora Desktop and so on and you can do a everything installation.
Actually, given your attitude against the 'all' profile, you can't really justify having a 'workstation', or server', or any other arbitrary profile either. Given your rationalization, they whould all be removed too!
They are specific targets. Everything installation is not.
The point is, as has been mentioned a million time already in this thread, Its a great inconvienience to have to push every button manually. Especially in light of the fact that this feature: _used_ to exist, _was_ being used by a lot of people. and has been _removed_.
Its not as if we are asking for a 'new' feature, we just want our 'old' feature back.
Its not merely development code. The development code itself has been rewritten to use yum. So the installer has to reimplement the feature and not merely bring back a old one. Its removed due to support costs associated with it.
Thats what we are trying to fix already. If you dont use yum to keep yourself updated installing everything is dangareous since it brings in potential security issues with packages you wouldnt even use.
Yup, and I/we are willing to risk that, and deal with the issues.
Those who are loud arent necessarily right.
You waste disk space by installing packages you wouldnt use. You will to keep packages updated. Performance would do down with deamons and other session programs. You would be installing tons of world languages which you wouldnt be using and so on.
Yup. wasting disk space is _our_ choice, not yours.
Definitely. Use kickstart or yum. Nobody is holding you but whether it should be available as a Anaconda is what we are trying to determine here.
You select the packages you want to install, and we get to select the packages _we_ want to install.
Performance issues... yup. we will live with it. world languages... yup, we will live with it.
Please dont use rhetoric.
You have received a lot of feedback and justification for having it re-instated, but you seem to be reluctant to accept the fact that:
"PEOPLE WANT IT BACK".
People want several choices and features. While it is a good point it doesnt by itself justify the existance of a feature. It has to be associated with good rationale behind them. We can only provide a subset of all the choices and featuers people ever want. Remember again that each and every feature has a associated development and support cost. When people want features it is the developer's job to understand them in detail before implementing them to enable it to happen in a optimal way.
It seems to me that there are more people, with more justifications that want it back, than you and your rationalizations.
Your opinion is different from mine. Thats all.
(Please note that I _am_ trying to be civil about this.)
Thank you for being civil. Lets end the conversation here since it doesnt bring in the discussions that I wanted to see happen . I will let the Anaconda developers decide. Thanks
Rahul Sundaram sundaram@redhat.com wrote:
[...]
Correct, It doesn't fit. My usage profile (like many others on this list) is a superset of those categories. I've found that none of the existing profiles suits my needs. They each have something missing. My laptop is:
- a desktop,
- a workstation,
- a server
- a development system.
Because I use the 'desktop' of my 'workstation' to 'develop' 'server' applications.
Question is whether this use case is usual enough to justify adding more options to the installer. There always will be users who dont fit into one of the usual profiles that will have to use kickstart. That is one of the major reasons it exists really. We can modify the profiles and fine tune them to specific level or build separate targets like Fedora Server, Fedora Desktop and so on and you can do a everything installation.
And allowing several selections at the same time?
Hi
Question is whether this use case is usual enough to justify adding more options to the installer. There always will be users who dont fit into one of the usual profiles that will have to use kickstart. That is one of the major reasons it exists really. We can modify the profiles and fine tune them to specific level or build separate targets like Fedora Server, Fedora Desktop and so on and you can do a everything installation.
And allowing several selections at the same time?
Installer could provide a advanced option for multiple targets at the same time...
On 1/25/06, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@redhat.com wrote:
Installer could provide a advanced option for multiple targets at the same time...
installer could provide an advanced option to install everything from core, people could have what they wanted.
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 04:46 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Question is whether this use case is usual enough to justify adding more options to the installer. There always will be users who dont fit into one of the usual profiles that will have to use kickstart. That is one of the major reasons it exists really. We can modify the profiles and fine tune them to specific level or build separate targets like Fedora Server, Fedora Desktop and so on and you can do a everything installation.
And allowing several selections at the same time?
Installer could provide a advanced option for multiple targets at the same time...
Dude, what on Earth are you talking about?
You're kidding, right?
Hi
Installer could provide a advanced option for multiple targets at the same time...
Dude, what on Earth are you talking about?
You're kidding, right?
Not kidding at all. Today Fedora Core is a 4 to 5 CD's. If a user wants only the server packages or only the KDE packages they wouldnt know which CD's to download. It isnt obviously labelled or documented. What I am proposing is splitting up the CD's into specific targets. Fedora Server, Fedora Desktop, Fedora Edutainment etc that is self hosting with a base group that brings in compatibility between these different targets but it would waste some space.. Th user who wants just a desktop or a server can download a single CD. By default anaconda wouldnt offer any package selection and install everything in the CD which would only offer a single default browser, single mail client, DE etc. A advanced option during installation can allow you to do something thats similar to the current setup that will allow user to select different groups such as desktop, workstation, server etc. When clicking on a group that is not provided within the current CD the installer would indicate that additional CD's are required or alternatively pull packages from the network (nfs/http/ftp ...).
this is tring to make it fedora for dumbs i think
but the problems with this are that you would probley want the dev tools on a disk to and anyone just starting with fedora new to linux would download just the desktop cd and not be aware of the fact that 50% of software out there will need the dev tools to compile
this would be even hard to draw lines between server and desktop software sence you give the user no review and edit option becuase of a desktop software that most people use that is lilsted in the server group Samba and other office software that most home users would need
From: Rahul Sundaram sundaram@redhat.com Reply-To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases fedora-test-list@redhat.com To: pjones@redhat.com,For testers of Fedora Core development releases fedora-test-list@redhat.com Subject: Fedora Targets Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:36:27 +0530
Hi
Installer could provide a advanced option for multiple targets at the same time...
Dude, what on Earth are you talking about?
You're kidding, right?
Not kidding at all. Today Fedora Core is a 4 to 5 CD's. If a user wants only the server packages or only the KDE packages they wouldnt know which CD's to download. It isnt obviously labelled or documented. What I am proposing is splitting up the CD's into specific targets. Fedora Server, Fedora Desktop, Fedora Edutainment etc that is self hosting with a base group that brings in compatibility between these different targets but it would waste some space.. Th user who wants just a desktop or a server can download a single CD. By default anaconda wouldnt offer any package selection and install everything in the CD which would only offer a single default browser, single mail client, DE etc. A advanced option during installation can allow you to do something thats similar to the current setup that will allow user to select different groups such as desktop, workstation, server etc. When clicking on a group that is not provided within the current CD the installer would indicate that additional CD's are required or alternatively pull packages from the network (nfs/http/ftp ...).
-- Rahul
Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Caleb B. Warta wrote:
this is tring to make it fedora for dumbs i think
Just because some users dont want to download multiple CD's and they dont have a DVD drive doesnt mean that they are dumb. That is a effort to reduce the number of CD's a user would have to download not a question of their intelligence.
but the problems with this are that you would probley want the dev tools on a disk to and anyone just starting with fedora new to linux would download just the desktop cd and not be aware of the fact that 50% of software out there will need the dev tools to compile
Users shouldnt be required to compile software.
this would be even hard to draw lines between server and desktop software sence you give the user no review and edit option becuase of a desktop software that most people use that is lilsted in the server group Samba and other office software that most home users would need
I didnt say it would be very easy. Some amount of balance would be required.
From: Rahul Sundaram sundaram@redhat.com Reply-To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases fedora-test-list@redhat.com To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases fedora-test-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: Fedora Targets Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:50:03 +0530
Caleb B. Warta wrote:
this is tring to make it fedora for dumbs i think
Just because some users dont want to download multiple CD's and they dont have a DVD drive doesnt mean that they are dumb. That is a effort to reduce the number of CD's a user would have to download not a question of their intelligence.
what i ment by this is that users are going to download single disc that will by no mean have everything they need
just a linux kde for desktop maybe well with that we will lose new comers to linux by the lack of software i think
but the problems with this are that you would probley want the dev tools on a disk to and anyone just starting with fedora new to linux would download just the desktop cd and not be aware of the fact that 50% of software out there will need the dev tools to compile
Users shouldnt be required to compile software.
so you think that people need to start having binaries for every distro im all for it man but its not going to happen any time soon there are to many software groups out there that only have the source releases to make this no dev tools desktop user world happen
this would be even hard to draw lines between server and desktop software sence you give the user no review and edit option becuase of a desktop software that most people use that is lilsted in the server group Samba and other office software that most home users would need
I didnt say it would be very easy. Some amount of balance would be required.
the whole idea would mean that for the server cd the desktop cd and the office cd they would all need kde and or gnome and alot of doubled software making downloading the full cd install even more of a pain for dvd burnerless people
-- Rahul
Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
_________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Hi
what i ment by this is that users are going to download single disc that will by no mean have everything they need
They can still download all the CD's they want. This effort doesnt prevent you from doing that.
so you think that people need to start having binaries for every distro im all for it man but its not going to happen any time soon there are to many software groups out there that only have the source releases to make this no dev tools desktop user world happen
They download two CD - desktop and developer CD.
the whole idea would mean that for the server cd the desktop cd and the office cd they would all need kde and or gnome and alot of doubled software making downloading the full cd install even more of a pain for dvd burnerless people
Thats what we need to figure out...
On 1/26/06, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@redhat.com wrote:
They download two CD - desktop and developer CD.
the whole idea would mean that for the server cd the desktop cd and the office cd they would all need kde and or gnome and alot of doubled software making downloading the full cd install even more of a pain for dvd burnerless people
Thats what we need to figure out...
Maybe it's just me but I like having the complete Fedora PPC mirror on my local system -- I have roughly 11GB now if you include the dev extras and what not.
I just find that life is easy this way -- but like I said before I may be a little crazy. -- WC -Sx- Jones | http://ccsh.us/ | Open Source Consulting
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
what i ment by this is that users are going to download single disc that will by no mean have everything they need
They can still download all the CD's they want. This effort doesnt prevent you from doing that.
so you think that people need to start having binaries for every distro im all for it man but its not going to happen any time soon there are to many software groups out there that only have the source releases to make this no dev tools desktop user world happen
They download two CD - desktop and developer CD.
the whole idea would mean that for the server cd the desktop cd and the office cd they would all need kde and or gnome and alot of doubled software making downloading the full cd install even more of a pain for dvd burnerless people
Thats what we need to figure out...
You could put all the common software needed by multiple targets onto one/more CD's. Also, none of the CD's need to be full ! eg: the server stuff might only be half a CD, but this is cool, it saves download time/ storage space. But if you do need specific stuff from the target you did not choose, you would decide to either download the whole iso, or just individual packages.
Hi
You could put all the common software needed by multiple targets onto one/more CD's. Also, none of the CD's need to be full ! eg: the server stuff might only be half a CD, but this is cool, it saves download time/ storage space. But if you do need specific stuff from the target you did not choose, you would decide to either download the whole iso, or just individual packages.
I have given it a thought but the problem with segregating the common software is that the user needs atleast two CD's to do anything useful with the system. By adding it to every CD the user can download just one and that particular CD from the several choiecs will hopefully provide most of what they want.
On 1/26/06, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@redhat.com wrote:
Not kidding at all. Today Fedora Core is a 4 to 5 CD's. If a user wants only the server packages or only the KDE packages they wouldnt know which CD's to download. It isnt obviously labelled or documented. What I am proposing is splitting up the CD's into specific targets. Fedora Server, Fedora Desktop, Fedora Edutainment etc that is self hosting with a base group that brings in compatibility between these different targets but it would waste some space.. Th user who wants just a desktop or a server can download a single CD. By default anaconda wouldnt offer any package selection and install everything in the CD which would only offer a single default browser, single mail client, DE etc. A advanced option during installation can allow you to do something thats similar to the current setup that will allow user to select different groups such as desktop, workstation, server etc. When clicking on a group that is not provided within the current CD the installer would indicate that additional CD's are required or alternatively pull packages from the network (nfs/http/ftp ...).
Fedora distros would be better served if there was a snapshot CD of a functioning config (as you describe) that is simply DD'ed or some such to the target partitions.
That way you have Kernel, depends, and basics software up and working on the CD bundles -- not like a live CD set but somewhat. -- WC -Sx- Jones | http://ccsh.us/ | Open Source Consulting
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 22:36 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Not kidding at all. Today Fedora Core is a 4 to 5 CD's. If a user wants only the server packages or only the KDE packages they wouldnt know which CD's to download. It isnt obviously labelled or documented. What I am proposing is splitting up the CD's into specific targets. Fedora Server, Fedora Desktop, Fedora Edutainment etc that is self hosting with a base group that brings in compatibility between these different targets but it would waste some space.. Th user who wants just a desktop or a server can download a single CD. By default anaconda wouldnt offer any package selection and install everything in the CD which would only offer a single default browser, single mail client, DE etc. A advanced option during installation can allow you to do something thats similar to the current setup that will allow user to select different groups such as desktop, workstation, server etc. When clicking on a group that is not provided within the current CD the installer would indicate that additional CD's are required or alternatively pull packages from the network (nfs/http/ftp ...).
-- Rahul
Sounds like an interesting option to me. How about: CD1. Base desktop. CD1. Server tools. CD3. Office and Java. CD4. Development tools. CD5. KDE. CD6. Extra snapshot. etc
Gilboa
On 1/28/06, Gilboa Davara gilboad@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 22:36 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Not kidding at all. Today Fedora Core is a 4 to 5 CD's. If a user wants only the server packages or only the KDE packages they wouldnt know which CD's to download. It isnt obviously labelled or documented. What I am proposing is splitting up the CD's into specific targets. Fedora Server, Fedora Desktop, Fedora Edutainment etc that is self hosting with a base group that brings in compatibility between these different targets but it would waste some space.. Th user who wants just a desktop or a server can download a single CD. By default anaconda wouldnt offer any package selection and install everything in the CD which would only offer a single default browser, single mail client, DE etc. A advanced option during installation can allow you to do something thats similar to the current setup that will allow user to select different groups such as desktop, workstation, server etc. When clicking on a group that is not provided within the current CD the installer would indicate that additional CD's are required or alternatively pull packages from the network (nfs/http/ftp ...).
-- Rahul
Sounds like an interesting option to me. How about: CD1. Base desktop. CD1. Server tools. CD3. Office and Java. CD4. Development tools. CD5. KDE. CD6. Extra snapshot. etc
I would like to second that. The Extra Snapshot might need to be more than 1 cd.. and the rest is semantics [and what can cause the greatest heartaches.. I mean I would prefer
CD1 Minimal Fedora System/Rescue system CD2 Gnome Desktop tools CD3 KDE Desktop tools CD4 Services and tools CD5 Development Tools CD6 Extras 1 snapshot. CD7 Extras 2 snapshot.
CD1, CD2, CD3 could be 1 DVD and CD4,5,6,7 could be a second DVD
-- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
Horst von Brand wrote:
Rahul Sundaram sundaram@redhat.com wrote:
[...]
Correct, It doesn't fit. My usage profile (like many others on this list) is a superset of those categories. I've found that none of the existing profiles suits my needs. They each have something missing. My laptop is:
- a desktop,
- a workstation,
- a server
- a development system.
Because I use the 'desktop' of my 'workstation' to 'develop' 'server' applications.
Question is whether this use case is usual enough to justify adding more options to the installer. There always will be users who dont fit into one of the usual profiles that will have to use kickstart. That is one of the major reasons it exists really. We can modify the profiles and fine tune them to specific level or build separate targets like Fedora Server, Fedora Desktop and so on and you can do a everything installation.
And allowing several selections at the same time?
Let us now go into the world of 'I want'.
If he gets an <INSTALL EVERYTHING> button I want a <SELECT EVERYTHING YOU DO NOT WANT WHILE WE INSTALL EVERYTHING> button to be an option of his. This said with a smile.
I do not understand why you would want to install everything. Five?, or more, officesuites when I can chose the one I want from the CD/DVD? Or browsers. Or email clients. Or anything? Servers? Apache? How many firewalls do you need? How many locales? How many desktops? Screensavers? And on and on. The list is almost as long as this thread.
I think this thread is a troll and that means it just hit the /dev/null list.
On 1/25/06, David Boles dgboles@comcast.net wrote:
Horst von Brand wrote:
And allowing several selections at the same time?
Let us now go into the world of 'I want'.
If he gets an <INSTALL EVERYTHING> button I want a <SELECT EVERYTHING YOU DO NOT WANT WHILE WE INSTALL EVERYTHING> button to be an option of his. This said with a smile.
I do not understand why you would want to install everything. Five?, or more, officesuites when I can chose the one I want from the CD/DVD? Or browsers. Or email clients. Or anything? Servers? Apache? How many firewalls do you need? How many locales? How many desktops? Screensavers? And on and on. The list is almost as long as this thread.
I think this thread is a troll and that means it just hit the /dev/null list.
I think it possible to come up with solutions which would solve people's problems but aren't exactly what they are asking for.
For example, a select all and deselect all buttons or commands would be useful on all levels of the package selection. Want all the optional packages in a group? Select All. Only want one thing in a group? Deselect all and select the one you want.
This does raise the question of does select all only select all the groups and their defaults. Or does it select all groups and every package underneath. I guess it depends on if you think of selection working on the current level or recursively.
- Ian
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 17:23 -0800, Ian Burrell wrote:
This does raise the question of does select all only select all the groups and their defaults. Or does it select all groups and every package underneath. I guess it depends on if you think of selection working on the current level or recursively.
The (de)select all button could only be exposed or enabled once looking at the package subset. Top level view of groups could not have the option to (de)select all.
Fulko.Hew@sita.aero wrote:
[...]
Correct, It doesn't fit. My usage profile (like many others on this list) is a superset of those categories. I've found that none of the existing profiles suits my needs. They each have something missing. My laptop is:
- a desktop,
- a workstation,
- a server
- a development system.
Because I use the 'desktop' of my 'workstation' to 'develop' 'server' applications.
OK, so it is a /workstation/ which also runs a few /selected/ services. Just like mine here. Know what? I selected "Workstation" and tweaked the package selection. And installed a few other things I came to need later on.
And that is too hard to do for somebody who develops stuff? Come on...
-
Andrew Parker -
Caleb B. Warta -
Chasecreek Systemhouse -
David Boles -
David Timms -
Fulko.Hew＠sita.aero -
Gilboa Davara -
Horst H. von Brand -
Ian Burrell -
Jesse Keating -
Peter Jones -
Rahul Sundaram -
Rahul Sundaram -
Stephen John Smoogen