On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 16:01 -1000, David Cantrell wrote: > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:59:41 -0600 (CST) > Jeff Bastian <jbastian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, David Cantrell wrote: > > > People ask for this stuff, I work on it, and then it's shot down by someone. I'll remove the UI components. > > > > > > I think you should keep it. I agree with your argument that it exposes > > some of the security options available in Fedora that most people might > > never even know exists. I know I've learned a lot about things by seeing > > an option in a GUI or a config file option and then reading about it to > > understand what it does. I've often gone with something other than the > > default, too. > > Presenting the option to the user during installation will cause confusion. I > played around with adding descriptions such as: > Probably secure (MD5) > Better security (SHA-256) > Best security we can do (SHA-512) > But that doesn't help if we add other algorithms. If I'm just an end-user, I'm *always* going to want "best security we can do". There's no way for me to know about all of the trade-offs involved (compatibility, speed?, ...) and then make an educated choice. So even the above doesn't really help from a confusion point of view. > I want to leave the functionality for kickstart. That's requested by > RHEL customers, so we should keep that. And Seth mentioned that > covers the choice aspect. Yep, kickstart seems emminently reasonable for exposing this. Jeremy _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
