fc5: install everything?
Frank Samuelson
expiregmane0306.m.cudgle at neverbox.com
Mon May 8 02:38:41 UTC 2006
Because you can never beat a dead horse enough...
I'm going to chime in that the loss of the "Install Everything"
button is a big loss for Fedora. Everyone I know who installs Fedora
or RedHat (which is really only about 4-5 people)
uses the "Install Everything" button, because _no_one_
gives a measly care about a few extra Gb of disk space, and
nobody wants to spend time pecking around menus or hunting down
software. It is a big waste of time.
No, I don't want to have to load and run another program that
can get me some other interface which I have to figure out
to install everything. No I don't want to have to click every
package group. No, I don't care if my auto updater has to download more fixes.
I just want to click the "Install Everything" button and,
no, I don't care if it doesn't really install _everything_.
Almost everything is fine.
And conflicts really aren't the problem. There are lots of
packages now that aren't getting installed now that could be.
I was surprised by all the "optional" packages that I had to
select one at a time to get installed: old favorites like
emacs(!), xmms, xfig, and great newer programs like k3b (which the
fedora installation web page recommends for burning fedora CDs :).
It is just not worth my time. Next time it will be SUSE instead.
-Frank
p.s. Inkscape should be in the distribution. It's the hot
new thing. Very nice.
Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:27:56PM +1030, Tim wrote:
>
>>Discussed to death here over the last few weeks. But in summary,
>>"everything" never really installed "everything", and if you actually
>
> The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload of packages.
> User attention is a scarce resource.
>
> Hard drive space and bandwidth is effectively free. Time is not.
>
>>did "install" *everything* you'd have conflicts up to your earholes, not
>
> Is "conflicts up to your earlobes" supposed to be a feature?
> Why can't conflicts be autoresolved? Why are there conflicts in the
> first place?
>
>>to mention masses of updates to manage.
>
> If I asked for it, and bandwidth is no issue, I don't see why this
> is a problem.
>
> Please stop rationalizing deficits being features. They're not.
>
>
More information about the users
mailing list