Graphical Distribution Upgrades

[kendell clark]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

hi
I'll second this. I'm relatively new to the fedora community, so I
don't know whether fedora's primary audience is developers or not.
That being said, I'm not one, and I like user friendly, although I can
run terminal commands when needed or if I want to. That being said,
since gnome is moving towards user friendly everything, software
management, eventually uefi firmware upgrades, it makes sense to
handle distro upgrades as well, and if possible in a distro agnostic
way if at all possible. Of course, since fedora is a very large
contributor to gnome it seems only fair that it be the first to be
able to be upgraded graphically. I would though, provide a big warning
text before attempting to upgrade the distro graphically. If the user
has 3rd party repositories that are unknown to fedora, such as the
ever popular rpmfusion, any graphical upgrade method is likely not to
be able to upgrade those cleanly, if at all, so either the user will
have to disable them manually or the upgrader could do it, and either
re-enable them upon reboot or tell the user to do it.
Thanks
Kendell clark
Sent from Fedora GNU/Linux


Richard Turner wrote:
> On 8 April 2015 at 08:52, Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> if developers are the primary user group, is it unreasonable to
>> expect that they will use a shell once or twice per year to
>> perform the upgrades?
> 
> 
> That's a big "if", isn't it? Do we have any real figures about who
> our users are, or plans to find out? I digress, but it seems like a
> short survey of the kind Stack Overflow did (and Matthew Miller
> mentioned in another thread) might be a good way to learn more
> about our users, especially if it's triggered during initial set-up
> or post-upgrade.
> 
> It may be fair to say that developers are our primary target user
> group, in which case I agree that expecting them to use a shell to
> upgrade is fine (It's not like "sudo fedup --network 22" is a
> complicated command). Still, notifying the user that there's a new
> major version available to upgrade to is worthwhile. There's an
> argument that targeting developers is a bit of a cop-out though;
> assuming some technical expertise on behalf of our users could be
> an excuse not to make stuff as user-friendly as it might be.
> 
> I've actually installed Fedora for a couple of my family members
> because I think GNOME Shell provides a more user-friendly UI than
> many alternatives, and Fedora ships a great GNOME Shell set-up. As
> Fedora users they're in a very small minority I'm sure, but they'd
> certainly benefit from a graphical upgrade process (or at least, I
> would in that I'd not need to do the upgrades for them).
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=fLNT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----