Hi
Can you explain to me a few different use cases which makes it a
good argument to be available by default other than selecting
package groups, kickstart and using yum . Please explain with
rationale instead of just stating your preference.
hmmmmm ... that scraping you hear is the sound of goalposts being
moved. apparently, it's not enough if i supply just *one* convincing
reason for supporting an "everything" install. no, apparently, rahul
wants to see "a few different use cases." ah, well, i should be
grateful he didn't ask for several.
Just one use case doesnt make a convincing argument you have to provide
as many as possible for the relevant developers to understand whether
the use cases provided by the users can be satisfied by other means or
whether they exhibit patterns that show problems elsewhere or whether
they truely need that option. A good developer's job is to say NO when
it doesnt make sense and say YES only and if only the rationale provided
by the users are solid enough for the feature to be added. Remember that
every feature has a associated development and long term maintenance
cost. Its is the responsibility of the developer to encourage good use
cases and *discourage* the not so good ones. Of course some balances
needs to be there to provide flexibility in order to present the user
the benefit in cases where the developer has not thought of all the
relevant use cases. Now in this particular scenario the flexibility is
provided through checking the package groups or through installer or
through using yum or pirut post installation. Now the question is
whether you can present enough use cases for the developer to be
convinced that the feature is worthy providing.
<anecdote>
i have a yahoo email account. when i log in to it, i might see a
screenful of emails. with yahoo, i have the ability to select any
subset of the visible emails and delete all checked emails. but yahoo
also has this marvelous feature at the top -- with a single stroke,
i can select *all* visible emails.
note that, strictly speaking, that meta checkbox isn't necessary. i
could get *exactly* the same effect by manually and tediously checking
each box one at a time. but the people at yahoo understand the
concept of convenience -- hence, the meta checkbox. is that a nifty
invention or what?
</anecdote>
No its not but its not a relevant analogy since I can already present
use cases where it make sense. I provide detailed rationale why it *does
not make sense*. I havent had much of a refute against the rationales
presented by me. It could possible that I have missed out areas where it
does indeed make sense despite my rationale. all I am asking for is
users to present that so that it can discussed in detail.
back to reality. of course one could live without an "everything"
install since, as folks here have pointed out, the idea is that you
will be able to get the same effect without it, albeit with a little
more effort.
using the same logic, you could do without a graphical installer
since, technically speaking, everything can be done in text mode.
sure, it would be more of a pain but, as we all understand,
the functionality would still be there. do you buy *that* argument?
no? why not? you just made the same one in a different context.
See above on developer responsibility.
perhaps the most irritating theme underlying this discussion is that
people have to make a compelling argument to keep the concept of an
everything install. i disagree. i think the developers have to make
a compelling argument to *remove* it since many people have used it,
and many people happen to like it.
Though I am not a developer I already presented what I believe to be
compelling arguments against it. Remember again that every feature has a
associated cost.
rahul wanted some use cases to defend an everything install. i'll
give him just one - i like it. period. and since it doesn't appear
to do any obvious harm, and since it has historical precedence, and
since it's been admitted that the same functionality will still be
available but more inconveniently, i don't see why some people are so
adamant about getting rid of it.
It has very obvious harm. I remember so many times where users had a
messed up box that I had to help them recover in #fedora channel.
various administrative and security issues not to mention that a
"everything" installation is not one really since Fedora Extras is not
supported yet in the installer. Now your personal preference is that you
somehow like it but it does require a better defense than that.
--
Rahul
Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list