F18 beta experience under VM

[Michael Cronenworth]

On 12/03/2012 10:44 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> At no point in all that did you actually assign a mount point to it. I
> think you may be hitting the label/mount point confusion here. 'Boot' is
> not a mount point: it is the label of that partition. If I'm reading
> this correctly, at this point in the process, you have nothing set to be
> mounted at /boot. All you've done is say you'd like to format the
> partition called Boot in your existing F18 install, but you haven't said
> you'd actually like to use it in the new install in any way.

"Boot" is not a label on the file system, it is a label of the UI 
widget. I do not use labels on my file systems and there is not one on 
my existing F18 install.

>> >At this point a "Boot 500MB" partition is added, but the old "ext4
>> >500MB" partition line is still displayed.
> Well yes, you didn't say that partition should be removed. Why would it
> disappear?

Instead of adding an additional UI widget item for a partition, I expect 
the existing partition UI widget to be updated. In fact, when you 
navigate back to the old partition setup, and then back to the new 
partition setup, the duplicate UI widget is gone.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883076

>
>> >1) The logic behind the steps required to entire custom partitioning is
>> >wordy. It should be a simple step of asking the user "Do it for me!" or
>> >"Let me do it!" and not a couple paragraphs of text no one will read.
> So, wait, we have a couple of people in the thread suggesting that what
> the installer needs is more explanatory text, and now you're suggesting
> that explanatory text is wordy paragraphs no one will read?:)

I deal with end users of all backgrounds every day. People don't read 
*anything* you give them. People that say otherwise have been 
programming in basements for too long.

> I've actually suggested that to dlehman myself, but apparently Mo wasn't
> keen on it, but I haven't discussed it directly with her. A compromise I
> suggested was to name the expander more clearly. 'Customize' gives you
> no idea what's behind it.

That is unfortunate. What's the purpose of having 50% of the screen be 
blank?