On 10/16/2015 02:51 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
If we'd hurt embedded users by hiding the ESP in custom, we're also
hurting them with the wrong default in automatic. So their respective
WG or SIG needs to do the necessary customization to make sure the ESP
size default is set for that arch, I'm pretty sure that's possible
now.
You just described how we wouldn't actually be hurting them in
automatic. What ISO are they going to be installing with if not one
tailored for embedded? I don't think any of the primary 3 would be
appropriate.
The consequence of showing them such things is that we're effectively
telling users for the first time in free software OS installer history
they need to understand how Windows boots. They never had to understand
the Windows bootloader esoterics before,
Again, they absolutely had to. Your last sentence there is absolutely
untrue. I have had to manually set up a bootloader to access a Windows
install I unwittingly rendered unbootable via a Linux multiboot installation
before. Multiple times. Multiple distros.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I've only done
several hundred Fedora installations after Windows XP, Vista, 8 and 10
and in every case Fedora did the right thing, except when it didn't
and in every case it didn't it was a legitimate bug. So no the user
doesn't have to know about chainloading and where the Windows
bootloader is located - Windows users don't even know that stuff.
Do you remember this screen?
http://linuxgrrl.com/fedora-ux/Projects/Anaconda/Screenshots/RHL%208.0/Screenshot-15.png
We don't have a screen dedicated to bootloader configuration anymore. We
had two - this one, and the advanced one.
You're apparently talking about something that breaks and *then* you
have to know esoterics. I'm saying now with this current behavior and
bug under discussion you need to know esoterics to avoid breaking
Windows, that's how easy it is to break it.
Actually, if I didn't have to know esoterics, I wouldn't have broken it
in the first place right? :)
Or did I intentionally break windows with Linux installers back in the
late 90's / early 00's for fun? (No, I don't think so :) )
but now they do, in order to
avoid trouble in custom partitioning. And that's not a ding on just
Anaconda, all the other distributions do this too by exposing these
bootloader structures to the user. And confusion ensues.
This all affects folks in multi-boot scenarios, which are the majority case
nor really should they be. In 2015 this is an extremely limited user
population we're talking about here: an edge case.
I agree with that. I've asked the Desktop WG if they want to be more
permissive with dual boot and that's a no. There were multiboot (3+)
discussions in QA a while back and that was soundly rejected as
nuttastic, and the user is on their own. It's just too
non-deterministic to support actual multiboot vs dual.
When I say multi-boot though, that is dual-boot inclusive! Would you
argue otherwise, that dual boot is a special multi-boot scenario that is
more common / warranted?
~m
_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
