I think I was following
sorry for chiming in
$0.02
sorry for chiming in
$0.02
------
Powered by:
![Knoppix logo]()
Powered by:
On Friday, February 21, 2014 10:53 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 16:14 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > You might need to provide more details and background in posts like
> > this, Chris, considering the context. I don't think the desktop team is
> > as familiar with the ins and outs of installer partitioning as the
> > anaconda and QA teams. They don't deal with it every day. :)
>
> OK I'm not sure how or what to provide that wouldn't also be obscenely verbose.
>
> My premise is that the present installer paths (Automatic and Manual)
> do not constitute limiting the user interaction to the minimum. But
> maybe all or most WG members consider the installer already meets
> these requirements?
>
> For comparison, by at least two orders of magnitude, the Windows and
> OS X installers are more minimalist. They each offer a handful of
> installed outcomes (including dual boot), whereas Anaconda
> Automatic/guided path alone offers dozens of outcomes, and the
> Manual/custom paths offers hundreds possibly infinite.
It would help for this audience to quantify exactly what 'automatic' and
'manual' *are*, and the range of choices they currently expose.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
> On Feb 20, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > You might need to provide more details and background in posts like
> > this, Chris, considering the context. I don't think the desktop team is
> > as familiar with the ins and outs of installer partitioning as the
> > anaconda and QA teams. They don't deal with it every day. :)
>
> OK I'm not sure how or what to provide that wouldn't also be obscenely verbose.
>
> My premise is that the present installer paths (Automatic and Manual)
> do not constitute limiting the user interaction to the minimum. But
> maybe all or most WG members consider the installer already meets
> these requirements?
>
> For comparison, by at least two orders of magnitude, the Windows and
> OS X installers are more minimalist. They each offer a handful of
> installed outcomes (including dual boot), whereas Anaconda
> Automatic/guided path alone offers dozens of outcomes, and the
> Manual/custom paths offers hundreds possibly infinite.
It would help for this audience to quantify exactly what 'automatic' and
'manual' *are*, and the range of choices they currently expose.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
-- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
