Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Thats too generic. Is all of the software thats available in core
needed to be installed simultaneously and is using all of them
together a common scenario?
You(Rahul) still don't get it! It's not about "using them all
together" at all. Yes, it is about installing "everything" in Core at
one time(install time!) *easily*. It's a usability / easy-of-use
issue. It's about giving users the choice. If they want to - let then.
Choice has associated cost. Implementing everything any user ever asked
for will lead to a unmaintainable mess.
Let's see *your* cost/benefit analysis.
It saves me and many others time when selecting packages to install.
It saves me and many others time to not have to install packages
individually.
I and many others don't have to download packages (via yum or whatever)
that have already been downloaded in the isos.
I and many others don't need a kickstart file.
I and many others don't need to waste space on disk with rpms when I
already have the packages installed from the initial installation.
Your "reductio ad absurdum" argument doesn't apply. We are talking about
*one* "select all" feature.
Report number?
Search on "anaconda everything".
Thats not a number ;-)
The research is left as a learning experience for you. =:O
And what makes Rahul think he knows the difference better than
others? (wink,wink)
Oh please guys. Listen before responding. I presented very detailed
reasons why I think it is not a good thing.
And all those reasons are bogus and do not apply to the usability/ease
of use of the package selection part of the installer.
Sure. Call them all bogus with no explanation. That doesnt look a
appealing argument.
Your "reasons" are below in quotes:
"* Dependency issues - One of the reasons behind doing a everything
installation is avoid dealing with dependency issues. However that is
largely not a problem now since yum install and yum groupinstall along
with along programs like pirut. Refer to the yum guide available at
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs "
Your "dependancies" reason does not apply to the question of whether a
"select all" feature in the installer is useful. There are other reasons
for doing an "everything" install. By not having a "select all"
feature, it looks like you are trying to hide the symptoms of
dependency problems.
"* Discoverability - Fedora Core like you indicate a large number of
useful programs but the installer divides these into several different
types to target particular segment of use cases and avoid having to a
everything installation. Custom group and package selection is available
for those who would like to do a granular installation. Even if all the
packages of Fedora Core is installed it doesnt grant users immediate
access to all the packages since the ones in Fedora Extras repository is
not available at installation time. Though the installer itself is
getting support for additional repositories the aspect of making these
packages more visible to users is better handled through the use of
tools such as pirut rather than having users install everything which
they cant now anyway since the installation is limited to Fedora Core
packages."
This reason is unrelated to the question of whether a "select all"
option in the installer is useful. The problem of finding packages is
much easier if they are "all" in one place(i.e. installed). see also
'rpm -qa | grep <whatever>', google, etc.
"* Redundancy - While Fedora Core itself is slowing moving towards
providing more packages as part of the Fedora Extras and possibly doing
several different targets the current selection uses multiple programs
that provide the same functionality, browsers or desktop environments
for example and its better for users to use a graphical tool like pirut
and install packages as necessary."
There are users that want to compare the "redundant" programs.
Who are you to say what is better for users? It is arrogant it assume
you know more than the users.
"* Security, manageability and performance - As more and more packages
are installed on a system the amount of updates and interactions
between the packages that the user has to handle drastically increases.
For users who are using Fedora as a development system or using it just
to learn Linux where the system serves no other purpose and a high
amount of bandwidth is available this might make sense but for others
users who use it deploy it at various levels the amount of updates and
potential security issues that they have to deal with packages that they
might not even use is a additional burden. Moreover the additional
packages installed might need listen to network connections by default
making the systems potentially more vulnerable by increasing the attack
vector. Additional services enabled by default also affect performance."
It is a "user choice" issue as to what trade offs users want to make
regarding "Security, manageability and performance" ! If people want to
install "everything" that is their choice and just trying to make it
more difficult because you don't think it is a good idea is wrong.
Several people have already given you "use cases" but this is not
about your opinion that an "everything" install is not useful.
Can you list them?
do your own homework.
It's about those users that want to do it (in spite of your opinion)
being able to do it easily. Trying to make it difficult is just
arrogance!
Depends on what you want to do and how useful it is. I still havent
heard good use cases yet.
The sooner you realize that it is not your judgment of what I or other
users want to do that counts, the smarter you will be.
Good luck to you and the Red Sox,
Richard
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list