On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 09:37 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > That's because it's not always a technical issue. It's about choice. > Default does not mean "this has to be installed". It's just a default. > If I don't like the default, I should be given the option of installing > an alternative. And that is without needing to download another large > ISO after the fact because one didn't realize that KDE wasn't included > in Core anymore. ok just to be devils advocate again; how is having an iso labeled "Extras-KDE" different from having one additional iso in core that has the kde packages (I'm not sure if kde fills an entire CD but it'll go quite some way towards that anyway). In the first case you offer the user the choice to download it or *not* download it if the user isn't going to use KDE, in the case of KDE-in-core you force downloading that same ISO on all users, regardless of whether they will install KDE or not. Your argument seems to be "but then I have to download an extra iso".... well you download that iso anyway, and not just you but everyone else too. (Note: I guess OpenOffice might deserve the own-iso treatment as well :) Note to conspiracy theorists: this is NOT a RH official opinion. It's not even MY opinion per se; it's just food for thought on the "but then we make people download one more iso" argument which I considered flawed. There may or may not be other arguments, the discussion is interesting, but this one I consider mostly a bad argument.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
