3:06 p.m.
fc5 installer has me confused and stumped. Could someone please tell me
where to find the "install everything" option?
--rich
3:18 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 13:06:24 -0800,
"K. Richard Pixley" <rich(a)noir.com> wrote:
fc5 installer has me confused and stumped. Could someone please tell
me
where to find the "install everything" option?
That feature was dropped.
You can do select all by right clicking, but you have to be at least one
level down to do this.
This won't actually install all of the rpms, but may be good enough for you.
3:45 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 13:06 -0800, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
fc5 installer has me confused and stumped. Could someone please tell
me
where to find the "install everything" option?
--rich
Not this again!!!!!
Search the list archives. This has been talked about WAY to much!!
--
Best regards,
~WILL~
Key: http://code-heads.com/keys/ch1.asc
Key: http://code-heads.com/keys/ch2.asc
Linux Commands: http://code-heads.com/commands
Linux Registered User: 406084 (http://counter.li.org/)
4:16 p.m.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 13:06:24 -0800,
"K. Richard Pixley" <rich(a)noir.com> wrote:
> fc5 installer has me confused and stumped. Could someone please tell me
> where to find the "install everything" option?
>
That feature was dropped.
You can do select all by right clicking, but you have to be at least one
level down to do this.
This won't actually install all of the rpms, but may be good enough for you.
Bah. Thanks.
What's the rationale here? And what's the new procedure?
I mean, one of the reasons I use a full distribution like fedora is that
I don't want to run around with cd's all the time. I want everything
available on my development machine immediately and I'm perfectly fine
with spending a measly 6-20gig to hold it. Those extra gigabytes are
much cheaper than my every needing to hunt down cd's so that I can
(re)install some obscure tidbit that I might suddenly need in 6 months.
Or worse, doing it every 10 minutes for the first few weeks of using the
installation.
I can understand wanting a minimal install for an installation for an
embedded or vertical app, but that's no reason to eliminate the fat
install. Surely there must be an alternative.
--rich
5:27 p.m.
--- "K. Richard Pixley" <rich(a)noir.com> wrote:
fc5 installer has me confused and stumped. Could
someone please tell me
where to find the "install everything" option?
It is not there anymore! Select all from each group
and hope for the best.
Regards,
Antonio
--rich
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
5:32 p.m.
At 2:16 PM -0800 3/27/06, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
...And what's the new procedure?
I mean, one of the reasons I use a full distribution like fedora is that I
don't want to run around with cd's all the time. I want everything
available on my development machine immediately and I'm perfectly fine
with spending a measly 6-20gig to hold it. Those extra gigabytes are much
cheaper than my every needing to hunt down cd's so that I can (re)install
some obscure tidbit that I might suddenly need in 6 months. Or worse,
doing it every 10 minutes for the first few weeks of using the
installation.
I can understand wanting a minimal install for an installation for an
embedded or vertical app, but that's no reason to eliminate the fat
install. Surely there must be an alternative.
Try Paul Howarth's http://www.city-fan.org/tips/YumRepoFromImages and at
least you won't need the CDs or a fast Internet connection to do yum
installs.
____________________________________________________________________
TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@georgeanelson.com>
' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>
7:44 p.m.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 13:06:24 -0800,
"K. Richard Pixley" <rich(a)noir.com> wrote:
> fc5 installer has me confused and stumped. Could someone please tell me
> where to find the "install everything" option?
That feature was dropped.
You can do select all by right clicking, but you have to be at least one
level down to do this.
This won't actually install all of the rpms, but may be good enough for you.
I used the select all per group today during an install. All the
packages that I normally use were there after installing. The process
did not take long since I was able to choose all optional packages easily.
I also did a yum upgrade on another system and it croaked because it had
all of the openoffice language packages on it. I believe if the Turkish
package was correct, it would have upgraded initially. I never use the
language packages but they should not cause a failure either.
I know the issue was discussed too much already.
I like the new installer over an everything install but this feature
elimination does not keep the heat on for the GFS kernel modules and the
language specific packager/developers to keep their packages at least
installable.
Jim
7:57 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 14:16 -0800, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
What's the rationale here?
Discussed to death here over the last few weeks. But in summary,
"everything" never really installed "everything", and if you actually
did "install" *everything* you'd have conflicts up to your earholes, not
to mention masses of updates to manage.
I mean, one of the reasons I use a full distribution like fedora is
that I don't want to run around with cd's all the time. I want
everything available on my development machine immediately and I'm
perfectly fine with spending a measly 6-20gig to hold it.
Is it really that hard to figure out that if you don't want to take
discs with you that you should copy them to your hard drive?
Sure, there's various ways of doing this for installation convenience
sake (local YUM repos, etc), but it's pretty obvious that copying the
disc structure to the hard drive as an installation tree allows you
people to install from local files later on.
--
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
1:03 a.m.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 01:06:24PM -0800, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
fc5 installer has me confused and stumped. Could someone please tell
me
where to find the "install everything" option?
It isn't there anymore. Someone optimized it all away.
(Goes very well with the Turkish language selection
crash bug, especially if it's the third time in a
row you're doing the install).
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
2:56 a.m.
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.
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
3:23 a.m.
On 3/28/06, Eugen Leitl <eugen(a)leitl.org> 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.
Not too happy about this change either.
Is there an overview somewhere of what gets installed if you select
"everything", desktop, server, etc. in the new FC5 installer? That
would at least make it easier for us "everything"-people to create a
small script to perform an initial yum install to get everything we
want.
--
Tarjei
8:38 a.m.
Tim:
> Discussed to death here over the last few weeks. But in
summary,
> "everything" never really installed "everything", and if you
actually
Eugen Leitl:
The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload of
packages.
User attention is a scarce resource.
Yes, it is, start paying attention... I said, and I'm quoting from
others, that the everything option didn't install "everything". It
installed *lots* of things, but it did *not* install *every* single RPM
that was available. There are numerous reasons for this, I don't care
whether you like the reasons or not, the reasons are there.
e.g. On a 32 bit system there's no point, and probably some harm, in
installing 64 bit packages. Certainly so if you try to use them. Then
there's kernels for specific CPUs which you won't have.
There have always been some packages which conflict with others, they
*cannot* be installed at the same time, there is no resolution to this
other than to not install both of them. Hence anything that pretends to
be an "everything installation" is not, and those picking one hoping
that it is installing everything so are being deluded.
If you really want to install everything, and it won't work, it's
child's play: CD into the RPMs folder, and do: rpm -i *.rpm
It will attempt to install all RPMs, there will be no difficulty for you
to try this (no options to pick, no variations), and it will fail.
Please stop rationalizing deficits being features. They're not.
Stop expecting everything to be precisely what you want, it's not going
to happen. Take your fingers out of your ears and pay attention to the
thread that has explained all of this, in excruciating detail, over the
last few weeks. Those who've created the installation process
understand the problems, even if you do not.
--
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
10:23 a.m.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:08:24AM +1030, Tim wrote:
> The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload of
packages.
> User attention is a scarce resource.
Yes, it is, start paying attention... I said, and I'm quoting from
I pegged you for a troll right away. You're making it too easy.
others, that the everything option didn't install
"everything". It
installed *lots* of things, but it did *not* install *every* single RPM
that was available. There are numerous reasons for this, I don't care
I'm not interested in your strawmen.
whether you like the reasons or not, the reasons are there.
I'm not interested in your reasons. I've described end user expectations
which are violated, and result in reduce usability.
e.g. On a 32 bit system there's no point, and probably some harm,
in
installing 64 bit packages. Certainly so if you try to use them. Then
There are no 64 bit packages nor MIPSel in FC5 x86_32, moron.
there's kernels for specific CPUs which you won't have.
There have always been some packages which conflict with others, they
*cannot* be installed at the same time, there is no resolution to this
That's what conflict resolution is there for. Again: it used to work.
It no longer works, because the "install everything and the kitchensink"
option is no longer there.
other than to not install both of them. Hence anything that pretends
to
be an "everything installation" is not, and those picking one hoping
that it is installing everything so are being deluded.
If you really want to install everything, and it won't work, it's
child's play: CD into the RPMs folder, and do: rpm -i *.rpm
If you really want want to make nonconstructive comments, it's
a child's play, *plonk*
It will attempt to install all RPMs, there will be no difficulty for
you
to try this (no options to pick, no variations), and it will fail.
> Please stop rationalizing deficits being features. They're not.
Stop expecting everything to be precisely what you want, it's not going
Stop pretending to speak for Fedora users. You most emphatically don't.
to happen. Take your fingers out of your ears and pay attention to
the
thread that has explained all of this, in excruciating detail, over the
last few weeks. Those who've created the installation process
understand the problems, even if you do not.
Idiots like you are responsible for user experience degradation.
Thanks for turning back the Linux clock.
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
10:39 a.m.
On Tue March 28 2006 11:23, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Idiots like you are responsible for user experience
degradation. Thanks for turning back the Linux clock.
Making comments like this
degrades the experience of using this
list. I don't give a damn about the truth of the matter. If
you're convinced you're right, take it off list. If you're just
an obnoxious loudmouth, shut up.
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
10:42 a.m.
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 18:23 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:08:24AM +1030, Tim wrote:
> Stop expecting everything to be precisely what you want, it's not going
Stop pretending to speak for Fedora users. You most emphatically don't.
> to happen. Take your fingers out of your ears and pay attention to the
> thread that has explained all of this, in excruciating detail, over the
> last few weeks. Those who've created the installation process
> understand the problems, even if you do not.
Idiots like you are responsible for user experience degradation.
Thanks for turning back the Linux clock.
----
interesting exchange
You ***can*** actually read for yourself the reasons for this on the
fedora-developers mail list as it is archived and not rely upon anyone's
paraphrasing the conclusions and the reasoning behind them though I do
think that Tim's conclusions about why the option was removed are pretty
much on the mark.
I personally don't see much logic behind an 'install everything' option
but my opinion counts as much (or as little) as yours does...and it is
this type of decision making process that does things like alter
installation options and elects people like 'W' - there is a bottom line
issue...you can't please everyone all the time.
Seriously though...there was a bunch of consternation about what
represented 'install everything', there was emphasis on reducing the
packages that are part of core and moving stuff out to extras which is
really where people are wanting to install everything...not from core.
Craig
11:17 a.m.
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 18:23 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:08:24AM +1030, Tim wrote:
> > The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload of packages.
> > User attention is a scarce resource.
>
> Yes, it is, start paying attention... I said, and I'm quoting from
I pegged you for a troll right away. You're making it too easy.
LOLOLOL
Tim is one of the regulars here and a great help to many.
Troll indeed. Are you looking in the mirror or something?
> whether you like the reasons or not, the reasons are there.
I'm not interested in your reasons. I've described end user expectations
which are violated, and result in reduce usability.
Your expectations may be violated. For the great majority of us it made
perfect sense. No degradation in usability. Yum updates, installs,
and the use of extras provides much more than is possibly available on
the CDs.
> e.g. On a 32 bit system there's no point, and probably some harm, in
> installing 64 bit packages. Certainly so if you try to use them. Then
There are no 64 bit packages nor MIPSel in FC5 x86_32, moron.
Name calling even, and for one of the most helpful people on this list.
> there's kernels for specific CPUs which you won't have.
>
> There have always been some packages which conflict with others, they
> *cannot* be installed at the same time, there is no resolution to this
That's what conflict resolution is there for. Again: it used to work.
It no longer works, because the "install everything and the kitchensink"
option is no longer there.
GOOD
> other than to not install both of them. Hence anything that
pretends to
> be an "everything installation" is not, and those picking one hoping
> that it is installing everything so are being deluded.
>
> If you really want to install everything, and it won't work, it's
> child's play: CD into the RPMs folder, and do: rpm -i *.rpm
If you really want want to make nonconstructive comments, it's
a child's play, *plonk*
Certainly helpful for over 99% of the people wanting
that option.
> It will attempt to install all RPMs, there will be no difficulty for you
> to try this (no options to pick, no variations), and it will fail.
>
> > Please stop rationalizing deficits being features. They're not.
>
> Stop expecting everything to be precisely what you want, it's not going
Stop pretending to speak for Fedora users. You most emphatically don't.
I think Tim speaks for himself and his view fits in with the norm.
> to happen. Take your fingers out of your ears and pay attention to the
> thread that has explained all of this, in excruciating detail, over the
> last few weeks. Those who've created the installation process
> understand the problems, even if you do not.
Idiots like you are responsible for user experience degradation.
Thanks for turning back the Linux clock.
PLONK!!!!!
12:39 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:39:13 -0500
Claude Jones <claude_jones(a)levitjames.com> wrote:
On Tue March 28 2006 11:23, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Idiots like you are responsible for user experience
> degradation. Thanks for turning back the Linux clock.
Making comments like this degrades the experience of using this
list. I don't give a damn about the truth of the matter. If
you're convinced you're right, take it off list. If you're just
an obnoxious loudmouth, shut up.
Guys!!! Just do not respond anymore the this thread! This is what the
OP is looking for!!
- --
Best regards,
~WILL~
Key: http://code-heads.com/keys/ch1.asc
Key: http://code-heads.com/keys/ch2.asc
Linux Commands: http://code-heads.com/commands
Linux Registered User: 406084 (http://counter.li.org/)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEKYLufw3TK8jhZrsRAjtKAKCvVNMoE373rXNU85h/nywTfhoLdQCg6rEc
qa8n3H35JtKhIydjLuNo9Sc=
=QvTi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2:29 p.m.
Craig White wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 18:23 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:08:24AM +1030, Tim wrote:
Seriously though...there was a bunch of consternation about what
represented 'install everything', there was emphasis on reducing the
packages that are part of core and moving stuff out to extras which is
really where people are wanting to install everything...not from core.
Using pirut (Add/Remove software) program on groups is a lot better to
get everything when you right click and select all packages in the
group. I tried this for the games selection and pulled in 46 game
packages altogether. The children have a lot of options now to stay in
Linux mode. This feature works on Internet package retrievals excellent.
The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a few clicks
away vs. one button to pull in all packages available in core.
Jim
Craig
--
The best way to get rid of worries is to let them die of neglect.
2:47 p.m.
On Tue March 28 2006 15:29, Jim Cornette wrote:
The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a
few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages
available in core.
After kicking up a big fuss over this, I now pretty much agree
with you. Any time lost by having to click through several extra
menus is offset by the time saved by not having to deal with the
issues that were created by the old "everything" button, after
the installation.
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
3:34 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 15:47 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue March 28 2006 15:29, Jim Cornette wrote:
> The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a
> few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages
> available in core.
After kicking up a big fuss over this, I now pretty much agree
with you. Any time lost by having to click through several extra
menus is offset by the time saved by not having to deal with the
issues that were created by the old "everything" button, after
the installation.
----
gee...you got pretty po'd at me about this topic too.
;-)
I give you credit for changing your mind.
Craig
3:50 p.m.
New subject: OFF LIST: Re: fc5: install everything?
Craig White wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 15:47 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
>On Tue March 28 2006 15:29, Jim Cornette wrote:
>
>>The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a
>>few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages
>>available in core.
>
>After kicking up a big fuss over this, I now pretty much agree
>with you. Any time lost by having to click through several extra
>menus is offset by the time saved by not having to deal with the
>issues that were created by the old "everything" button, after
>the installation.
----
gee...you got pretty po'd at me about this topic too.
;-)
I give you credit for changing your mind.
Craig
That was such a polite nice reply, I have to comment.
Well done, Craig.
BTW, how are things over on CentOS?
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
3:51 p.m.
New subject: OFF LIST: Re: fc5: install everything?
Mike McCarty wrote:
Craig White wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 15:47 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
>
>> On Tue March 28 2006 15:29, Jim Cornette wrote:
>>
>>> The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a
>>> few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages
>>> available in core.
>>
>>
>> After kicking up a big fuss over this, I now pretty much agree with
>> you. Any time lost by having to click through several extra menus is
>> offset by the time saved by not having to deal with the issues that
>> were created by the old "everything" button, after the installation.
>
>
> ----
> gee...you got pretty po'd at me about this topic too.
>
> ;-)
>
> I give you credit for changing your mind.
>
> Craig
>
That was such a polite nice reply, I have to comment.
Well done, Craig.
BTW, how are things over on CentOS?
Mike
Oh,well, even ON the list! :-)
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
3:55 p.m.
New subject: OFF LIST: Re: fc5: install everything?
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 15:50 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Craig White wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 15:47 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
>
>>On Tue March 28 2006 15:29, Jim Cornette wrote:
>>
>>>The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a
>>>few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages
>>>available in core.
>>
>>After kicking up a big fuss over this, I now pretty much agree
>>with you. Any time lost by having to click through several extra
>>menus is offset by the time saved by not having to deal with the
>>issues that were created by the old "everything" button, after
>>the installation.
>
> ----
> gee...you got pretty po'd at me about this topic too.
>
> ;-)
>
> I give you credit for changing your mind.
>
> Craig
>
That was such a polite nice reply, I have to comment.
Well done, Craig.
BTW, how are things over on CentOS?
----
pretty calm - needs your deft cynicism ;-)
Craig
5:53 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 18:07 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue March 28 2006 16:34, Craig White wrote:
>
> ----
> gee...you got pretty po'd at me about this topic too.
>
> ;-)
>
> I give you credit for changing your mind.
>
Yes, but I used metaphor and humor to insult you, not
name-calling ;-)
----
having re-read the thread now...I am quite certain I didn't do any name
calling. You did force me to go back and look through the thread though.
Craig
8:13 p.m.
On Tue March 28 2006 6:53 pm, Craig White wrote:
having re-read the thread now...I am quite certain I didn't do
any name
calling. You did force me to go back and look through the thread though.
Nor, did I
accuse you of such... I was referring to the "moron" post
But I did try to make a little fun of you way back, for what I perceived as a
bit of pomposity ;-)
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
8:23 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 21:13 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue March 28 2006 6:53 pm, Craig White wrote:
> having re-read the thread now...I am quite certain I didn't do any name
> calling. You did force me to go back and look through the thread though.
Nor, did I accuse you of such... I was referring to the "moron" post
But I did try to make a little fun of you way back, for what I perceived as a
bit of pomposity ;-)
----
moi ? ;-)
no problem - I probably deserved it. I sometimes get fatigued by what I
perceive as whining on the list.
Craig
8:40 p.m.
Craig White wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 21:13 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
>On Tue March 28 2006 6:53 pm, Craig White wrote:
>
>>having re-read the thread now...I am quite certain I didn't do any name
>>calling. You did force me to go back and look through the thread though.
>
>Nor, did I accuse you of such... I was referring to the "moron" post
>But I did try to make a little fun of you way back, for what I perceived as a
>bit of pomposity ;-)
----
moi ? ;-)
no problem - I probably deserved it. I sometimes get fatigued by what I
perceive as whining on the list.
Are you complaining about whiners again, Craig? :-)
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
10:31 p.m.
Leitl:
>> The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload
of packages.
>> User attention is a scarce resource.
Tim:
> Yes, it is, start paying attention... I said, and I'm
quoting from
Eugen:
I pegged you for a troll right away. You're making it too easy.
Nice try, the one being a "troll" (romping into a list and arguing
against the facts, because you don't like it), is you. If you want to
continue your stupid argument about the "everything" installation, go
and argue with the people who're responsible for the installation
routines. We all know just how far you're going to get, and that's
because of you being a twit, not them.
> others, that the everything option didn't install
"everything". It
> installed *lots* of things, but it did *not* install *every* single RPM
> that was available. There are numerous reasons for this, I don't care
I'm not interested in your strawmen.
It's not a "strawman" it's a fact. It never installed everything, if
you think it did, you're seriously mistaken. You're deluded if you
think otherwise. None of us care whether you can't understand reasons
and explanations, you've demonstrated you're a pigheaded idiot quite
definitely by now.
> If you really want to install everything, and it won't work,
it's
> child's play: CD into the RPMs folder, and do: rpm -i *.rpm
If you really want want to make nonconstructive comments, it's
a child's play, *plonk*
If you think that's non-constructive, you're a complete idiot. I gave
you a single command line that COULD install everything. But it won't,
and the rest of us know the reasons why. Apparently you cannot see
this.
>> Please stop rationalizing deficits being features.
They're not.
> Stop expecting everything to be precisely what you want, it's
not going
Stop pretending to speak for Fedora users. You most emphatically
don't.
Pot, kettle, black. You're the one attempting to say what everyone
wants (everything install), I'm just explaining why it isn't there. If
you can't handle the truth, it's pity help you.
> to happen. Take your fingers out of your ears and pay attention
to the
> thread that has explained all of this, in excruciating detail, over the
> last few weeks. Those who've created the installation process
> understand the problems, even if you do not.
Idiots like you are responsible for user experience degradation.
Thanks for turning back the Linux clock.
The one being an idiot here, is you. Everyone else can see it, even if
you can't. And thanks to the archiving of the list they can see it for
all time. You've had your points refuted by facts, you've blithely
ignored all advice about the issue, and carried on a petulant rant about
not being able to get your own way.
There is absolutely nothing stopping users from trying out any package
that they want to, nor from having a look through the list of available
files and descriptions for what they do. No user is going to try out
every package, and you're a real fool if you think any one person can.
You're also quite stupid if you don't understand the nasty experience
that will be inflicted upon new users who did try to install everything
then pick up the pieces.
--
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
10:35 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 21:18 -0500, Yang Xiao wrote:
If you are new to Linux, yes, install everything.
Okay then, I hope they do that! (With one particular person in mind).
Maybe then they'll get to experience why it's such a bad idea.
Hopefully, they're on dial-up internet access, too. >:-)
--
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
4:19 p.m.
Tim wrote:
Is it really that hard to figure out that if you don't want to
take
discs with you that you should copy them to your hard drive?
Sure, there's various ways of doing this for installation convenience
sake (local YUM repos, etc), but it's pretty obvious that copying the
disc structure to the hard drive as an installation tree allows you
people to install from local files later on
Actually, it doesn't. I need to
know a lot more about the install
format, structures, policies, and databases than I do now to use that
approach. That's why I've never used it in the past but instead just
always installed "everything".
Even needing to go back and find one single package makes the
distribution more costly than I'm willing to afford. That one package
will take me an hour or two to hunt down, install, sort through possible
conflicts, (which I presume the original packagers took into account at
the time but may no longer be relevant), test, then figure out how to
get that distributed to all of my users as well. At that point, I'd
have been better off with a more comprehensive distribution.
--rich
4:22 p.m.
On 3/28/06, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 21:18 -0500, Yang Xiao wrote:
> If you are new to Linux, yes, install everything.
Okay then, I hope they do that! (With one particular person in mind).
Maybe then they'll get to experience why it's such a bad idea.
Hopefully, they're on dial-up internet access, too. >:-)
Come to think of it, this is a better reason than the one I had in mind.
But for
most people, they will only know what they need or don't need over
time, and for newbies, trying to install packages on demoand may not be so
fun if they are just casual users.
- Yang
4:24 p.m.
Tim wrote:
If you really want to install everything, and it won't work,
it's
child's play: CD into the RPMs folder, and do: rpm -i *.rpm
It will attempt to install all RPMs, there will be no difficulty for you
to try this (no options to pick, no variations), and it will fail.
That's
because it's missing that important feature that we're expecting
from a distribution - integration.
Seriously. I'm expecting the fedora teams to sort out licensing. I'm
expecting fedora teams to sort out configuration defaults. I'm
expecting them to make reasonable decisions about which available
service in a choice of services will be the best choice, (sendmail vs
whatever else).
I didn't say I wanted a system that wasn't integrated. I want the
integration that has been done so well on redhat and fedora releases for
years. I just want it on fc5 too.
--rich
4:30 p.m.
Craig White wrote:
Seriously though...there was a bunch of consternation about what
represented 'install everything', there was emphasis on reducing the
packages that are part of core and moving stuff out to extras which is
really where people are wanting to install everything...not from core.
The problem with that approach is a lack of integration.
If the core fedora team wants to thin out it's responsibilities, that's
fine, I suppose. We'll just need to reinvent another team to
reintegrate and repackage fedora core + the rest of the stuff we need
for a complete OS. I'm just sad to see the product degrade.
Integration is the most important thing fedora offers, even more
important than nice art, even more important than simple installs.
--rich
4:34 p.m.
Jeff Vian wrote:
> That's what conflict resolution is there for. Again: it used
to work.
> It no longer works, because the "install everything and the kitchensink"
> option is no longer there.
>
GOOD
I'm confused. Fedora used to be an easy to install, integrated, fairly
comprehensive operating system distribution. You're saying that you
want it to be hard to install, non-integrated, and not comprehensive?
What is it that you want from your operating system distribution?
--rich
4:39 p.m.
Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue March 28 2006 15:29, Jim Cornette wrote:
> The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a
> few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages
> available in core.
>
After kicking up a big fuss over this, I now pretty much agree
with you. Any time lost by having to click through several extra
menus is offset by the time saved by not having to deal with the
issues that were created by the old "everything" button, after
the installation.
I've never seen any problems from an "everything" installation of
either
redhat or fedora.
I counted about 800 clicks to get a complete install by clicking on all
of the separate packages, (not counting the couple of reinstalls because
I missed one of two from manual error).
So I disagree. This isn't a reasonable alternative. A one click
install would have been vastly preferable from my perspective.
--rich
4:39 p.m.
Claude Jones wrote:
> On Tue March 28 2006 15:29, Jim Cornette wrote:
>
>> The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a
>> few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages
>> available in core.
>>
> After kicking up a big fuss over this, I now pretty much agree
> with you. Any time lost by having to click through several extra
> menus is offset by the time saved by not having to deal with the
> issues that were created by the old "everything" button, after
> the installation.
>
I've never seen any problems from an "everything" installation of either
redhat or fedora.
I counted about 800 clicks to get a complete install by clicking on all
of the separate packages, (not counting the couple of reinstalls because
I missed one of two from manual error).
So I disagree. This isn't a reasonable alternative. A one click
install would have been vastly preferable from my perspective.
Rich,
Some months ago I complained about the "everything" option which literally
installed everything -- including support for every language on the
planet. Thereafter having to update umpteen unused OOo language modules
needlessly burned up a lot of bandwidth.
Unfortunately the pendulum has now swung too far in the opposite
direction. While language support has been broken out separately (thank
goodness), having to manually select all those other packages is a royal
pain in the okole.
It seems to me that an ideal compromise would be two omnibus check boxes,
one for all apps (but not languages) and a separate one for all languages.
Just my $0.02....
--Doc Savage
Fairview Heights, IL
7:45 p.m.
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 14:30 -0800, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Craig White wrote:
> Seriously though...there was a bunch of consternation about what
> represented 'install everything', there was emphasis on reducing the
> packages that are part of core and moving stuff out to extras which is
> really where people are wanting to install everything...not from core.
>
The problem with that approach is a lack of integration.
If the core fedora team wants to thin out it's responsibilities, that's
fine, I suppose. We'll just need to reinvent another team to
reintegrate and repackage fedora core + the rest of the stuff we need
for a complete OS. I'm just sad to see the product degrade.
Integration is the most important thing fedora offers, even more
important than nice art, even more important than simple installs.
----
I can see your point to this extent...that when I read the above I
thought to check what the current fedora web pages say is the purpose
for Fedora and it seems to be lacking authoritative philosophy.
The closest thing I could find is:
http://fedora.redhat.com/About/
I believe that the vision expressed was to have a Fedora Core which
comprised a base distribution of that which was simply a core set of
packages and allowed for other repositories to provide other packages as
may be required. If they take packages from core and spin them out to
fedora extras, that actually makes sense if they are truly not needed
for core install.
Other repositories such as k12ltsp, kde-redhat, and atrpms are perhaps
more specialized whereas fedora extras, livna, freshrpms, dries are more
generalized. That actually makes a very impressive array of options.
If integration is as you say, more important than simple installs, then
everything seems to be headed just where you want it to be so I guess I
am confused what the point is that you are trying to make.
Craig
1:43 a.m.
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 14:39 -0800, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Claude Jones wrote:
> On Tue March 28 2006 15:29, Jim Cornette wrote:
>
>> The everything install is not really missing. The choice is a
>> few clicks away vs. one button to pull in all packages
>> available in core.
>>
> After kicking up a big fuss over this, I now pretty much agree
> with you. Any time lost by having to click through several extra
> menus is offset by the time saved by not having to deal with the
> issues that were created by the old "everything" button, after
> the installation.
>
I've never seen any problems from an "everything" installation of either
redhat or fedora.
You mustn't be applying updates regularly then. The FC4 "Everything"
install included some kernel modules for clustering, which, when an
updated kernel was released, caused dependency issues that blocked all
other updates being installed for several days before the matching
updates to the kernel module were pushed. The vast majority of Fedora
users didn't need these modules, and their presence on their systems,
blocking updates, was a security issue as well as an annoyance for them.
Of course, it could be argued that the kernel modules should have been
built and pushed at the same time as the kernel itself, and that would
be right. But that's not what happened and it caused a real problem for
the "Everything" installers.
Paul.
1:59 a.m.
Tim:
> Is it really that hard to figure out that if you don't want
to take
> discs with you that you should copy them to your hard drive?
>
> Sure, there's various ways of doing this for installation convenience
> sake (local YUM repos, etc), but it's pretty obvious that copying the
> disc structure to the hard drive as an installation tree allows you
> people to install from local files later on
Richard Pixley:
Actually, it doesn't. I need to know a lot more about the
install
format, structures, policies, and databases than I do now to use that
approach. That's why I've never used it in the past but instead just
always installed "everything".
Actually it "does" allow it. You *can* simply copy the files, and
simply install the ones you want, later on. You *can*, if you don't
like messing with RPM, install something to let you manage installations
in a more user-friendly manner. You don't *need* to try and "install"
everything just to avoid having to track discs around with you or
download files from the internet.
Even needing to go back and find one single package makes the
distribution more costly than I'm willing to afford.
I wonder how you cope within using any computer, at all, then? Many
applications are less than user-friendly, and require the operator to
jump through hoops just to use them.
That one package will take me an hour or two to hunt down, install,
sort through possible conflicts, (which I presume the original
packagers took into account at the time but may no longer be
relevant), test, then figure out how to get that distributed to all of
my users as well.
Hogwash!
And a very appropriate random fortune cookie was chosen by my mail
client, so for a change I won't delete it before posting:
To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so.
--
(Currently running FC4, occasionally trying FC5.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
2:05 a.m.
Tim:
> If you really want to install everything, and it won't work,
it's
> child's play: CD into the RPMs folder, and do: rpm -i *.rpm
>
> It will attempt to install all RPMs, there will be no difficulty for you
> to try this (no options to pick, no variations), and it will fail.
Richard Pixley:
That's because it's missing that important feature that
we're expecting
from a distribution - integration.
I disagree. It's already got that. You can install a workstation with
a set of applications most people would use for that sort of thing, just
by running the installation routine without changing anything, and they
work well together.
You really can't expect them to look at every possible package that
could be put on a Linux system, *and* make them all work together
out-of-the box. Some of those packages don't lend *themselves* to ease
of use with other things, and that's an issue with the original package.
Seriously. I'm expecting the fedora teams to sort out licensing.
Already done. You've got stuff without onerous conditions. Things with
problematic licenses are already weeded out.
I'm expecting fedora teams to sort out configuration defaults.
You've already got most of that done for you. Networking is mostly a
doddle until it comes to trying to use proprietary Windows-only designed
gear. Many things are pre-configured in quite usable ways.
I'm expecting them to make reasonable decisions about which
available
service in a choice of services will be the best choice, (sendmail vs
whatever else).
That's already done, too.
--
(Currently running FC4, occasionally trying FC5.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
6:26 a.m.
Yang Xiao wrote:
But for most people, they will only know what they need or don't
need over
time, and for newbies, trying to install packages on demoand may not be so
fun if they are just casual users.
That doesn't mean you want "everything" everything.
Most people *will* know that there are certain categories of software
that they won't be interested in.
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/fedora-install-guide-en/fc5/ch-packageselec...
Take the categories "Software Development" and "web server". Most
people
will never need software from these categories. If they do, then they
are likely to know there's a possibility they'll want it at install
time -- they'll already have an interest in programming, or running
servers from their own computer.
And, to be honest, it *is* reasonable to assume that software developers
should know how to install software.
What most people will want is either "all programs from certain
categories" or "the most useful programs from certain categories".
That's what the installer is optimised around.
James.
--
E-mail address: james | "We've just been contacted by the Lady of the
Lake."
@westexe.demon.co.uk | "Really? What does she want?"
| "A really big towel."
| -- http://www.mopsy.com/d/19981122.html
7:16 a.m.
On Fri March 31 2006 2:43 am, Paul Howarth wrote:
But that's not what happened and it caused a real problem for
the "Everything" installers.
Hate to disagree and/or jump back into this discussion, but I just don't buy
this oft-repeated argument. I did many 'everything installs', and I
encountered this issue with a small number of packages, and I remember them
well. It gave me a reason to research those packages, find out something
about them, and when I saw that they were not needed for my particular
system, I just removed them.
And I learned something, not just about the particular package, either, but
broader knowledge about dependency problems and such...which has everything
to do with why I liked the everything install.
And now, I've gotten used to the new way, and it's OK, too - I think the
detractors who talk about thousands of clicks are equally wrong, btw... After
doing multiple FC5 installs, using the right-click method, I can get through
the package lists in under 5 minutes, and there are many things I leave out,
now that I've learned a bit about Linux.
But, the oft repeated argument that those pesky packages that wouldn't get
updated caused "real problems" for us, I think is a red herring. Problems are
always opportunities - solving them increases one's knowledge. I also
remember trying some smaller installs and also having problems. Things that
wouldn't work, and packages missing whose name you didn't know, and spending
much time tracking such issues down - so, it can cut both ways...
But, this argument, I'm sure, will go on and on -- too bad, because, the
matter has been settled - to paraphrase W. Churchill, using up the present to
argue about the past is a good way to shortchange the future...
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
7:42 a.m.
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 07:16, Claude Jones wrote:
But, this argument, I'm sure, will go on and on -- too bad,
because, the
matter has been settled - to paraphrase W. Churchill, using up the present to
argue about the past is a good way to shortchange the future...
I don't see how that applies unless you think there won't be
any future versions or any future changes. I still think there
should be a one-click way to install what 'everything' used
to be. It doesn't really have to be 'everything', but it
should be what someone who had a part in choosing the
set of packages on the CD thinks will make a useful and
complete system for most purposes. It could be called
'complete' instead. It doesn't have to be everything
on the CD but then again, if a package doesn't have
a common use, why is it on the core CDs in the first
place? I think most new users would rather take another
dollar's worth of disk space to never have to deal with
problems like the vmware modules not building because
the kernel headers aren't there, or their web application
not connecting to their database because the php or dbi
modules aren't there, or some perl app installation pulling
in CPAN modules when RPMs are available but not installed.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
8:01 a.m.
On Fri March 31 2006 8:42 am, Les Mikesell wrote:
I don't see how that applies unless you think there won't be
any future versions or any future changes. I still think there
should be a one-click way to install what 'everything' used
to be. It doesn't really have to be 'everything', but it
should be what someone who had a part in choosing the
set of packages on the CD thinks will make a useful and
complete system for most purposes. It could be called
'complete' instead. It doesn't have to be everything
on the CD but then again, if a package doesn't have
a common use, why is it on the core CDs in the first
place? I think most new users would rather take another
dollar's worth of disk space to never have to deal with
problems like the vmware modules not building because
the kernel headers aren't there, or their web application
not connecting to their database because the php or dbi
modules aren't there, or some perl app installation pulling
in CPAN modules when RPMs are available but not installed.
Agreed!
I'll even follow up on that and put an RFE in at bugzilla.
My main intention was to speak to the hyperbole that exists on both sides of
the debate. I enjoy a good polemic, and hyperbole is a useful tool in debate,
employed properly - the kinds of statements I've seen on both sides of the
argument in many of these threads wouldn't get past a 5th grade English
teacher.
--
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA
9:28 a.m.
On 3/31/06, James Wilkinson <fedora(a)westexe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Yang Xiao wrote:
> But for most people, they will only know what they need or don't need
over
> time, and for newbies, trying to install packages on demoand may not be
so
> fun if they are just casual users.
That doesn't mean you want "everything" everything.
Most people *will* know that there are certain categories of software
that they won't be interested in.
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/fedora-install-guide-en/fc5/ch-packageselec...
Take the categories "Software Development" and "web server". Most
people
will never need software from these categories. If they do, then they
are likely to know there's a possibility they'll want it at install
time -- they'll already have an interest in programming, or running
servers from their own computer.
And, to be honest, it *is* reasonable to assume that software developers
should know how to install software.
What most people will want is either "all programs from certain
categories" or "the most useful programs from certain categories".
That's what the installer is optimised around.
James.
--
E-mail address: james | "We've just been contacted by the Lady of the
Lake."
@westexe.demon.co.uk | "Really? What does she want?"
| "A really big towel."
| -- http://www.mopsy.com/d/19981122.html
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
That's precisely what I meant, for example, I didn't know I needed
compat-libstdc++ libraries as part of our standard install until I found
some in house apps required them, so I start to include it with the custom
kickstart script, and the KSH that comes with FC4 is not the same as the
pdksh that was on previous releases. So over time, I have a good picture of
what I need and what I don't.
Then for someone who's new to linux, you need to let them walk the path
themselves, they may choose their packages, then come back and say Fedora
sux, it doesn't have this and that, and turns out they chosed not to install
it to begin with, thus my suggestion, install everything if you are new to
Fedora/Linux, see find out for yourself
- Yang
10 a.m.
On 3/31/06, Yang Xiao <yxiao2004(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Then for someone who's new to linux, you need to let them walk the path
themselves, they may choose their packages, then come back and say Fedora
sux, it doesn't have this and that, and turns out they chosed not to install
it to begin with, thus my suggestion, install everything if you are new to
Fedora/Linux, see find out for yourself
I'd much rather someone thought Fedora sucked because of their own
ignorance than because of ... well, installing Everything will lead to
monsterous update processes, causing them to think Fedora sucks,
again, due to their own ignorance.
Hrm, I guess either way works.
--
Chris
"I trust the Democrats to take away my money, which I can afford. I
trust the Republicans to take away my freedom, which I cannot."
11:32 a.m.
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 14:34 -0800, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Jeff Vian wrote:
> > That's what conflict resolution is there for. Again: it used to work.
> > It no longer works, because the "install everything and the
kitchensink"
> > option is no longer there.
> >
> GOOD
>
I'm confused. Fedora used to be an easy to install, integrated,
fairly comprehensive operating system distribution. You're saying
that you want it to be hard to install, non-integrated, and not
comprehensive?
What is it that you want from your operating system distribution?
What I *don't* want is the major bloat that used to be in the "install
everything" option. Every language for man pages, OOo, spelling, etc.
Over 200 packages and way over a gigabyte of drive space lost for things
that I will never in my lifetime use. Plus the extended update times
needed to update the bloat when there is no reason for it.
What I would like is the ability to have a simple select button within
each of the smaller groups where I can select everything in the group
with a single click.
For example, the database server groups for mysql and postgresql. Less
than half of each group is selected by default and if I want them all a
single click would be ideal Similarly with development software. If I
want the whole shebang for perl a single button to select all perl
related packages would be nice. (as it is there is about 40 or so
packages to choose individually)
This would hit a happy medium between the "everything" proposers and the
"minimalist" proposers. The default could be near minimal, with a very
easy way to choose to get everything I want (which may / may not meet
your definition of everything as well). Those who want the kitchen sink
in their install could simply select everything in _all_ groups, and I
may select everything in only a few groups.
--rich
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
12:05 p.m.
Folks,
I stayed out of this thread since I started the same
subject awhile back, but I just wanted to reiterate
just one thing...
All of these arguments (everything or minimalist or
whatever) could have easily been resolved if total
flexibility was given in the installation program
in the first place.
For example:
1) Different templates for different configuration
choices, for exanple, "Typical", "Custom", "MyChoices"
2) All item selection functionality should be given. For
example: shift-key for item X through item X+n, Control-Key
for single-item (de)selections. These used in combination
with the mouse selections as well. Then there should be a
"select all items", "Deselect All Items" so that you
and select all items and deselect items you dont want
or "deselect all items" and select items you want.
The point is, give the installer conplete flexibility and stop
worrying about the (in)ability of the installer to make sensible
installation choices. If this were an issue on the part of the
installer, then you can possibly do an automatic list installation
such as the "MyChoices" template and the interactive selections
would remain hidden unless there was a conflict resolution that
is required to resolve it.
That's all I am going to say for now.
Dan
12:08 p.m.
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 10:00, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
>
> Then for someone who's new to linux, you need to let them walk the path
> themselves, they may choose their packages, then come back and say Fedora
> sux, it doesn't have this and that, and turns out they chosed not to install
> it to begin with, thus my suggestion, install everything if you are new to
> Fedora/Linux, see find out for yourself
I'd much rather someone thought Fedora sucked because of their own
ignorance than because of ... well, installing Everything will lead to
monsterous update processes, causing them to think Fedora sucks,
again, due to their own ignorance.
How about if they think fedora sucks because the people who
probably spent a lot of time deciding for themselves what
should be on the CD's couldn't be bothered to make it
possible for someone to install all of the programs they
are likely to need in one step, or without understanding
the purpose of each program/package at a point when they
can't see it or it's man page.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
1:57 p.m.
Les Mikesell wrote:
How about if they think fedora sucks because the people who
probably spent a lot of time deciding for themselves what
should be on the CD's couldn't be bothered to make it
possible for someone to install all of the programs they
are likely to need in one step, or without understanding
the purpose of each program/package at a point when they
can't see it or it's man page.
But it *is* possible to install whichever programs you like at a point
where you *can* see any manpages or web pages -- after the install, when
you've got a basic system up and running.
In any case, if you *really* want an "everything" install, you should be
installing all of Extras, too.
James.
--
E-mail address: james | McGill does everything in two languages. Even the
@westexe.demon.co.uk | water valves in our bathrooms are marked in both
| English and French — the left one is marked "C" for
| "Chaud," and the right one "C" for
"Cold."
| -- Konstantin Ryabitsev
9:38 p.m.
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.
12:19 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
It is just not worth my time. Next time it will be SUSE instead.
-Frank
Good luck with that. I have a SUSE box that has virtually nothing
installed by default. You think Fedora's installation is sparse? I was
amazed at the total lack of packages installed in SUSE. Really, it's a
total joke to work on that server. It has KDE /and/ GNOME installed (on
a /server/ no less) and yet I had to install the sysstat packages along
with ntpd and about 3 or 4 others just to make the server really
manageable. The SUSE install is just silly. The Fedora installer is at
least more /sane/ than most other installers I've seen or used.
But it seems rather childish to switch distros just for that. Kind of
like taking your ball and going home, eh?
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.
>
>
- --
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
(828) 350-2415
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEX32bYQhnfRtc0AIRApxkAKCceM17q8hKzmaxl2jqZSX6wo3xKgCePf/3
3/EPzr3rLK1av+eG0KsxtP0=
=1qc4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
1:42 p.m.
On Mon, 8 May 2006, Mark Haney wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> It is just not worth my time. Next time it will be SUSE instead.
>
> -Frank
Good luck with that. I have a SUSE box that has virtually nothing
installed by default. You think Fedora's installation is sparse? I was
amazed at the total lack of packages installed in SUSE. Really, it's a
total joke to work on that server. It has KDE /and/ GNOME installed (on
a /server/ no less) and yet I had to install the sysstat packages along
with ntpd and about 3 or 4 others just to make the server really
manageable. The SUSE install is just silly. The Fedora installer is at
least more /sane/ than most other installers I've seen or used.
But it seems rather childish to switch distros just for that. Kind of
like taking your ball and going home, eh?
I found the FC5 lack of 'install everything' to be a really serious pain
on the machine I built a week and a half ago as I had to do it three or
four times in a row as I worked through the problems I was having with
install media.
It is aggravated by the fact that choosing a group of things doesn't
actually mean you get everything in that group, either, and so you have to
manually tick through nearly *every* menu to make sure that you have
actually have a full install.
And yes - I have SUSE 10 installed on another machine. It wasn't even
CLOSE to the pain that FC5 was to install this time. Thumbs down on the
lack of an 'install everything' button in FC5. It was a victory of
ideological purity over distribution usability to have removed it.
And *YES* - the problem is severe enough to make me consider switching
distributions. And I've been using RH since the RH4 days, so that is
actually saying something.
--
Benjamin Franz
I don't care how many levels of reality you posit; as soon as you posit even
one it's turtles all the way down.
---Nova Spivak
1:46 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 11:42 -0700, Benjamin Franz wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2006, Mark Haney wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>> It is just not worth my time. Next time it will be SUSE instead.
>>
>> -Frank
>
> Good luck with that. I have a SUSE box that has virtually nothing
> installed by default. You think Fedora's installation is sparse? I was
> amazed at the total lack of packages installed in SUSE. Really, it's a
> total joke to work on that server. It has KDE /and/ GNOME installed (on
> a /server/ no less) and yet I had to install the sysstat packages along
> with ntpd and about 3 or 4 others just to make the server really
> manageable. The SUSE install is just silly. The Fedora installer is at
> least more /sane/ than most other installers I've seen or used.
>
> But it seems rather childish to switch distros just for that. Kind of
> like taking your ball and going home, eh?
I found the FC5 lack of 'install everything' to be a really serious pain
on the machine I built a week and a half ago as I had to do it three or
four times in a row as I worked through the problems I was having with
install media.
It is aggravated by the fact that choosing a group of things doesn't
actually mean you get everything in that group, either, and so you have to
manually tick through nearly *every* menu to make sure that you have
actually have a full install.
You can right click on a group in both the Installer and Pirut to select
every package in a group. Otherwise you might use kickstart.
Rahul
1:54 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Benjamin Franz wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2006, Mark Haney wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>> It is just not worth my time. Next time it will be SUSE instead.
>>
>> -Frank
>
> Good luck with that. I have a SUSE box that has virtually nothing
> installed by default. You think Fedora's installation is sparse? I was
> amazed at the total lack of packages installed in SUSE. Really, it's a
> total joke to work on that server. It has KDE /and/ GNOME installed (on
> a /server/ no less) and yet I had to install the sysstat packages along
> with ntpd and about 3 or 4 others just to make the server really
> manageable. The SUSE install is just silly. The Fedora installer is at
> least more /sane/ than most other installers I've seen or used.
>
> But it seems rather childish to switch distros just for that. Kind of
> like taking your ball and going home, eh?
I found the FC5 lack of 'install everything' to be a really serious pain
on the machine I built a week and a half ago as I had to do it three or
four times in a row as I worked through the problems I was having with
install media.
It is aggravated by the fact that choosing a group of things doesn't
actually mean you get everything in that group, either, and so you have
to manually tick through nearly *every* menu to make sure that you have
actually have a full install.
And yes - I have SUSE 10 installed on another machine. It wasn't even
CLOSE to the pain that FC5 was to install this time. Thumbs down on the
lack of an 'install everything' button in FC5. It was a victory of
ideological purity over distribution usability to have removed it.
And *YES* - the problem is severe enough to make me consider switching
distributions. And I've been using RH since the RH4 days, so that is
actually saying something.
[Flame ahead] It's quite obvious that if you like the 'install
everything' option that you've never really worried too much about disk
space or security for your servers. Who /needs/ KDE and GNOME on a
server? Matter of fact, who /needs/ everything on a desktop? Sounds
extremely lazy and inefficient to me.
[I now step down from my soapbox and move on to other things.]
- --
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
(828) 350-2415
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEX5P2YQhnfRtc0AIRAo7PAJ4pPBOQitHyoaK2Tjg9rFgx9z8cFQCg506E
T7GzKDyaW5czMoyxK7mdftI=
=i8on
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2:16 p.m.
Mark Haney wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
[Flame ahead] It's quite obvious that if you like the
'install
everything' option that you've never really worried too much about disk
space or security for your servers. Who /needs/ KDE and GNOME on a
server? Matter of fact, who /needs/ everything on a desktop? Sounds
extremely lazy and inefficient to me.
[I now step down from my soapbox and move on to other things.]
Any machine that we install and send out gets an install everything,
since we cannot predict (and the customers mostly don't know) exactly
what mix of packages that they need for their specific application.
Security, we turn off the extra unneeded services, mostly the install
everything is to get all applications, libraries and such on the machine,
not so much all of the services.
Too many of our customers are using obscure libraries for their
applications,
and none of them appear to use the same obscure libraries.
Roger
2:16 p.m.
On Mon, 8 May 2006, Mark Haney wrote:
>
[Flame ahead] It's quite obvious that if you like the 'install
everything' option that you've never really worried too much about disk
space or security for your servers. Who /needs/ KDE and GNOME on a
server? Matter of fact, who /needs/ everything on a desktop? Sounds
extremely lazy and inefficient to me.
[I now step down from my soapbox and move on to other things.]
[Sarcasm]
It's quite obvious that if you _FILL IN RELIGIOUS ISSUE HERE_ you've
_INSULT OTHER PERSON'S COMPETENCY_. Who /needs/ _FILL IN SPECIFIC THING I
DON'T NEED MYSELF_. Matter of fact, who /needs/, _FILL IN GENERALITY I
DON'T NEED MYSELF_. Sounds _INSULT OTHER PERSON'S WORK HABITS_.
[/Sarcasm]
--
Benjamin Franz
Unix was not designed to stop people from doing stupid things, because
that would also stop them from doing clever things.
---Doug Gwyn
2:50 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 12:16 -0700, Benjamin Franz wrote:
On Mon, 8 May 2006, Mark Haney wrote:
>>
> [Flame ahead] It's quite obvious that if you like the 'install
> everything' option that you've never really worried too much about disk
> space or security for your servers. Who /needs/ KDE and GNOME on a
> server? Matter of fact, who /needs/ everything on a desktop? Sounds
> extremely lazy and inefficient to me.
>
> [I now step down from my soapbox and move on to other things.]
[Sarcasm]
It's quite obvious that if you _FILL IN RELIGIOUS ISSUE HERE_ you've
_INSULT OTHER PERSON'S COMPETENCY_. Who /needs/ _FILL IN SPECIFIC THING I
DON'T NEED MYSELF_. Matter of fact, who /needs/, _FILL IN GENERALITY I
DON'T NEED MYSELF_. Sounds _INSULT OTHER PERSON'S WORK HABITS_.
[/Sarcasm]
----
I hate to say this but this hasn't been a constructive thread.
Those who state that they will switch to SuSE because of this should do
so. Since it is too late to do anything about it now, FC-5 has already
been released, does this mean that if the option is back with FC-6
installer that you will be back?
There's a feedback mechanism, it's called Bugzilla.
This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
Craig
3:05 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:50, Craig White wrote:
Those who state that they will switch to SuSE because of this should
do
so. Since it is too late to do anything about it now, FC-5 has already
been released, does this mean that if the option is back with FC-6
installer that you will be back?
There's a feedback mechanism, it's called Bugzilla.
It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users
to pay attention to the whining.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
3:09 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:05 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:50, Craig White wrote:
> Those who state that they will switch to SuSE because of this should do
> so. Since it is too late to do anything about it now, FC-5 has already
> been released, does this mean that if the option is back with FC-6
> installer that you will be back?
>
> There's a feedback mechanism, it's called Bugzilla.
It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
> This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users
to pay attention to the whining.
----
As you and I both know, the fedora developers don't listen to this list
and if enough people sounded off via the official feedback mechanism,
they would probably change it.
Craig
3:10 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:05 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:50, Craig White wrote:
> Those who state that they will switch to SuSE because of this should do
> so. Since it is too late to do anything about it now, FC-5 has already
> been released, does this mean that if the option is back with FC-6
> installer that you will be back?
>
> There's a feedback mechanism, it's called Bugzilla.
It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
> This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users
to pay attention to the whining.
Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all
the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
Rahul
3:20 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
>
> > This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
>
> That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users
> to pay attention to the whining.
Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all
the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said? A lot of
decisions seem to be made with no thought about the real-world
effects. For example if someone wanted to build PCs with
fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on
it?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
3:25 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:05 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:50, Craig White wrote:
>
> > Those who state that they will switch to SuSE because of this should do
> > so. Since it is too late to do anything about it now, FC-5 has already
> > been released, does this mean that if the option is back with FC-6
> > installer that you will be back?
> >
> > There's a feedback mechanism, it's called Bugzilla.
>
> It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
>
> > This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
>
> That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users
> to pay attention to the whining.
Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all
the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
Rahul
This is your regular post with regards to user input. We get the point
that developers don't care what users think or want. Don't just tell us
to post to the devel list, they are the same developers and have the
same attitude over there.
With that said, I don't see a need for an "everything" option, but if I
were a developer and cared about what my users wanted I'd add it back
after all the requests I've seen.
--
Tony Heaton
3:28 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:25 -0600, Tony Heaton wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all
> the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
>
> Rahul
This is your regular post with regards to user input.
Yes and it is unfortunate that the point still hasnt got through to
everyone
We get the point
that developers don't care what users think or want. Don't just tell us
to post to the devel list, they are the same developers and have the
same attitude over there.
There is no question of attitude. Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you
dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont
expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list to
gather feedback. Use the infrastructure provided explicitly for it.
Rahul
3:35 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:20 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >
> > It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
> >
> > > This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
> >
> > That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users
> > to pay attention to the whining.
>
> Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all
> the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said?
Yes it does. If you want designers to care about what you consider
design bugs you need to use the bug tracking system to provide detailed
input on it rather than send mails to user lists and expect the
developers to read that.
A lot of
decisions seem to be made with no thought about the real-world
effects.
Decisions are never made arbitrarily. They are almost always driven by
real world considerations. Developers dont operate in silos. However it
is not possible to anticipate all the scenarios and hence specific
feedback mechanisms have been provided.
For example if someone wanted to build PCs with
fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on
it?
OEM copies of Fedora would have whatever the OEM vendors decide to
provide.
Rahul
3:43 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:30 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
On Mon May 8 2006 3:50 pm, Craig White wrote:
> whining here is merely pissing in the wind
There you go again, Craig -
----
yeah but read what Rahul is saying...
----
Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you
dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont
expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list
to gather feedback.
----
Craig
4:01 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:35, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said?
Yes it does. If you want designers to care about what you consider
design bugs you need to use the bug tracking system to provide detailed
input on it rather than send mails to user lists and expect the
developers to read that.
But then you'll only see a few people who are either fanatics
about some issue or just don't understand the right approach.
Here you get the sanity check of other users who wouldn't
normally peruse bugzilla either pointing out the mistake or
joining in about how they were also inconvenienced by a
change.
> For example if someone wanted to build PCs with
> fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on
> it?
OEM copies of Fedora would have whatever the OEM vendors decide to
provide.
That's almost shocking in the context of marketing. Is that
what you want for a user's exposure to a fedora system?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
4:13 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:01 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:35, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >
> > OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said?
>
> Yes it does. If you want designers to care about what you consider
> design bugs you need to use the bug tracking system to provide detailed
> input on it rather than send mails to user lists and expect the
> developers to read that.
But then you'll only see a few people who are either fanatics
about some issue or just don't understand the right approach.
Not sure what you trying to say here. Are you implying that people who
use bugzilla are fanatics? The people who understand the right approach
can very well use bugzilla to convey developers that information.
Here you get the sanity check of other users who wouldn't
normally peruse bugzilla either pointing out the mistake or
joining in about how they were also inconvenienced by a
change.
You can achieve the same by filing a bug report and then inviting others
to comment on it. Happens all the time.I have proposed a fedora bug list
similar to cvs commits lists so end users can subscribe and track bugs
easier. Bugzilla also has rss feeds, watch maintainer, query to mail
features and others to aid in this and upstream bugzilla can accept
mails as comments on bug reports.
Mailing lists are completely inefficient to track bugs compared to bug
tracking systems. Pretty much every major open source project has
bugzilla or some other bug tracking system for the very same reason.
> > For example if someone wanted to build PCs with
> > fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on
> > it?
>
> OEM copies of Fedora would have whatever the OEM vendors decide to
> provide.
That's almost shocking in the context of marketing. Is that
what you want for a user's exposure to a fedora system?
Usually OEM renames the system since the trademark guidelines dont allow
for Fedora to be modified and still retain the name and hence a user
experience of those systems doesnt affect Fedora. There has been
discussions on and off about modifying the guidelines to do various
things that help OEM, respins etc but we havent drafted out anything
concrete yet.
Rahul
4:32 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:13, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> But then you'll only see a few people who are either
fanatics
> about some issue or just don't understand the right approach.
Not sure what you trying to say here. Are you implying that people who
use bugzilla are fanatics? The people who understand the right approach
can very well use bugzilla to convey developers that information.
I'm saying you aren't going to get a cross section of users
and actual experiences there - and I don't think anyone wants
them there.
Mailing lists are completely inefficient to track bugs compared to
bug
tracking systems. Pretty much every major open source project has
bugzilla or some other bug tracking system for the very same reason.
But these things aren't exactly bugs although they have a cumulative
effect that adds up to TCO. Is there anyone involved in fedora
development that is bothered by the Microsoft claims of lower
TCO? No single user's experience can tell you how to reduce
the time and trouble (and thus cost) to install and maintain
the system in general. However, in a forum with a large number
of users the things that take an annoying amount of time and
workarounds will come out.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
4:44 p.m.
On 5/8/06, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:01 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:35, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said?
> >
> > Yes it does. If you want designers to care about what you consider
> > design bugs you need to use the bug tracking system to provide detailed
> > input on it rather than send mails to user lists and expect the
> > developers to read that.
>
> But then you'll only see a few people who are either fanatics
> about some issue or just don't understand the right approach.
Not sure what you trying to say here. Are you implying that people who
use bugzilla are fanatics? The people who understand the right approach
can very well use bugzilla to convey developers that information.
> Here you get the sanity check of other users who wouldn't
> normally peruse bugzilla either pointing out the mistake or
> joining in about how they were also inconvenienced by a
> change.
You can achieve the same by filing a bug report and then inviting others
to comment on it. Happens all the time.I have proposed a fedora bug list
similar to cvs commits lists so end users can subscribe and track bugs
easier. Bugzilla also has rss feeds, watch maintainer, query to mail
features and others to aid in this and upstream bugzilla can accept
mails as comments on bug reports.
Bugzilla has improved, somewhat, from the early RH 5 days. However,
filing a bug report is not an easy endeavor. Filers have to understand
the jargon and navigate the imposing UI. Once filed there is no
guarantee that a developer will examine the report. So, yes, only a
true believer will file a bug report.
Mailing lists are completely inefficient to track bugs compared to bug
tracking systems. Pretty much every major open source project has
bugzilla or some other bug tracking system for the very same reason.
There is higher visibility with a mailing list. Create enough noise
and the squeaky wheel gets fixed.
Unless there is a process in place requiring developers to fix their
bugs bug tracking systems become nothing more than just window
dressing.
>
> > > For example if someone wanted to build PCs with
> > > fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on
> > > it?
> >
> > OEM copies of Fedora would have whatever the OEM vendors decide to
> > provide.
>
> That's almost shocking in the context of marketing. Is that
> what you want for a user's exposure to a fedora system?
Usually OEM renames the system since the trademark guidelines dont allow
for Fedora to be modified and still retain the name and hence a user
experience of those systems doesnt affect Fedora. There has been
discussions on and off about modifying the guidelines to do various
things that help OEM, respins etc but we havent drafted out anything
concrete yet.
Rahul
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
4:45 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:32 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:13, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > But then you'll only see a few people who are either fanatics
> > about some issue or just don't understand the right approach.
>
> Not sure what you trying to say here. Are you implying that people who
> use bugzilla are fanatics? The people who understand the right approach
> can very well use bugzilla to convey developers that information.
I'm saying you aren't going to get a cross section of users
and actual experiences there - and I don't think anyone wants
them there.
We arent talking about getting recording user experiences in general. We
are talking about filing bugs and if users are unwilling to report those
bugs into a bug tracking system meant for that purpose, then they are
unlikely to reach the relevant developers. Using bug tracking systems to
record and track bugs isnt specific to Fedora and is a proven
methodology that works throughout all the mature software projects.
> Mailing lists are completely inefficient to track bugs compared to bug
> tracking systems. Pretty much every major open source project has
> bugzilla or some other bug tracking system for the very same reason.
But these things aren't exactly bugs although they have a cumulative
effect that adds up to TCO. I
If they arent bugs, then thats a unrelated discussion. You can start a
new thread on TCO claims and I would promptly opt out of that ;-).
Rahul
4:50 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:44 -0700, Kam Leo wrote:
Bugzilla has improved, somewhat, from the early RH 5 days. However,
filing a bug report is not an easy endeavor. Filers have to understand
the jargon and navigate the imposing UI. Once filed there is no
guarantee that a developer will examine the report. So, yes, only a
true believer will file a bug report.
Anyone who wants to actually get their bug reports to reach the
developers would better be a true believer.
> Mailing lists are completely inefficient to track bugs compared
to bug
> tracking systems. Pretty much every major open source project has
> bugzilla or some other bug tracking system for the very same reason.
>
There is higher visibility with a mailing list. Create enough noise
and the squeaky wheel gets fixed.
Fortunately you dont have to waste your time creating noise to help fix
bugs. Just report them in the bug tracking system.
Unless there is a process in place requiring developers to fix their
bugs bug tracking systems become nothing more than just window
dressing.
There is of course no guarantee that you will get a response to every
bug report filed since there is no commercial contract or license in
place in Fedora to ensure that bu developers are going to respond more
often to bug reports than users lists. So in relative terms, thats the
more efficient process.
Rahul
5:01 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:45, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If they arent bugs, then thats a unrelated discussion. You can start
a
new thread on TCO claims and I would promptly opt out of that ;-).
No, that's what this discussion was about from the beginning. There
are lots of things that can be made to work with sufficient highly
paid sysadmin time and thus aren't technically bugs. I was hoping
that someone building some linux distro would be interested in
reducing those kinds of problems with better defaults, more
attention to what has to be done for a backup/restore to work, etc.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
5:08 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:01 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:45, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> If they arent bugs, then thats a unrelated discussion. You can start a
> new thread on TCO claims and I would promptly opt out of that ;-).
No, that's what this discussion was about from the beginning.
I certainly didnt understand that this was a TCO discussion.
There
are lots of things that can be made to work with sufficient highly
paid sysadmin time and thus aren't technically bugs.
They dont need to bugs. They can be requested for enhancements. Refer to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests for more details.
I was hoping
that someone building some linux distro would be interested in
reducing those kinds of problems with better defaults, more
attention to what has to be done for a backup/restore to work, etc.
Sure. As long as it is communicated in a appropriate way. Refer to the
section on providing feedback to developers in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate
Rahul
5:16 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:01 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:45, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> If they arent bugs, then thats a unrelated discussion. You can start a
> new thread on TCO claims and I would promptly opt out of that ;-).
No, that's what this discussion was about from the beginning. There
are lots of things that can be made to work with sufficient highly
paid sysadmin time and thus aren't technically bugs. I was hoping
that someone building some linux distro would be interested in
reducing those kinds of problems with better defaults, more
attention to what has to be done for a backup/restore to work, etc.
The everything install is not for sys admins. All sys admins that I
know that have to install more than one machines use Kickstart.
--
Tony Heaton
5:18 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:20 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >
> > It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
> >
> > > This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
> >
> > That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users
> > to pay attention to the whining.
>
> Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all
> the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said? A lot of
decisions seem to be made with no thought about the real-world
effects. For example if someone wanted to build PCs with
fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on
it?
Whatever the "builder" chose to install. Doh!
5:28 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:08, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> > If they arent bugs, then thats a unrelated discussion. You can start a
> > new thread on TCO claims and I would promptly opt out of that ;-).
>
> No, that's what this discussion was about from the beginning.
I certainly didnt understand that this was a TCO discussion.
When someone asks for a quick convenient choice and instead
is given a slow, inconvenient workaround that accomplishes
pretty much the same thing, how else can you interpret it?
You may measure the cost in time or money, depending on
whether you do it yourself or not. But since it isn't actually
impossible to complete the installation it isn't really
a bug.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
5:31 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 13:43 -0700, Craig White wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:30 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
> On Mon May 8 2006 3:50 pm, Craig White wrote:
> > whining here is merely pissing in the wind
>
> There you go again, Craig -
>
----
yeah but read what Rahul is saying...
Rahul is very clearly telling people that if they want a specific fix or
feature they should use the tool provided, bugzilla.
If they do not care enough to do that then it must not be important.
In fact I would wager that even though there has been a lot of
discussion here and in the past about the everything option that very
few have submitted anything in bugzilla about it. (I was only able to
find 2 bugzilla entries with "install everything" as the search term,
and only 6 with "everything" as the term.)
It sure seams people want to whine, but not do anything constructive to
get their case heard and considered.
----
> Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you
> dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont
> expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list
> to gather feedback.
----
Craig
5:35 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:28 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:08, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >
> > > If they arent bugs, then thats a unrelated discussion. You can start a
> > > new thread on TCO claims and I would promptly opt out of that ;-).
> >
> > No, that's what this discussion was about from the beginning.
>
> I certainly didnt understand that this was a TCO discussion.
When someone asks for a quick convenient choice and instead
is given a slow, inconvenient workaround that accomplishes
pretty much the same thing, how else can you interpret it?
Bad advice. Not a TCO discussion.
You may measure the cost in time or money, depending on
whether you do it yourself or not. But since it isn't actually
impossible to complete the installation it isn't really
a bug.
In that case it might a RFE or if you want to be even more proactive, a
way to file a patch. Bugzilla allows room for all these so we dont need
to confine ourselves to just reporting bugs.
Rahul
6:06 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:10 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
On Mon May 8 2006 4:43 pm, Craig White wrote:
> yeah but read what Rahul is saying...
yes, without demeaning, belittling, or personal adjectives -
that's precisely my point ;-)
----
there was nothing demeaning or belittling in my commentary.
There was a 'personal adjective' which I think would more apt be called
a metaphor and I choose metaphors for their ability to characterize
things as I see it but of course, you may feel free to disagree.
Considering that few fedora developers actually monitor this list, I
think that my characterization is quite apropos.
Craig
6:08 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:31 -0500, Jeff Vian wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 13:43 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:30 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
> > On Mon May 8 2006 3:50 pm, Craig White wrote:
> > > whining here is merely pissing in the wind
> >
> > There you go again, Craig -
> >
> ----
> yeah but read what Rahul is saying...
Rahul is very clearly telling people that if they want a specific fix or
feature they should use the tool provided, bugzilla.
If they do not care enough to do that then it must not be important.
In fact I would wager that even though there has been a lot of
discussion here and in the past about the everything option that very
few have submitted anything in bugzilla about it. (I was only able to
find 2 bugzilla entries with "install everything" as the search term,
and only 6 with "everything" as the term.)
It sure seams people want to whine, but not do anything constructive to
get their case heard and considered.
> ----
> > Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you
> > dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont
> > expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list
> > to gather feedback.
>
-----
and my guess is that 10 people complaining about it is statistically an
insignificant percentage.
Craig
6:46 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:08, Craig White wrote:
>
> It sure seams people want to whine, but not do anything constructive to
> get their case heard and considered.
You can look at this the other way and wonder if there is anyone
who cares if the distribution contains things that make people
whine unnecessarily.
> > > Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you
> > > dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont
> > > expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list
> > > to gather feedback.
> >
-----
and my guess is that 10 people complaining about it is statistically an
insignificant percentage.
By the time someone has encountered the problem it is too late
for them - those are the people who are concerned about helping
others avoid the issue.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
6:57 p.m.
Frank Samuelson wrote:
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.
I think the everything means ALL languges and
a bunch of stuff I
will never use. But I loaded the "Work Station" which in the old days
meant you could compile a new kernel and did often. I discovered I had
to yum the compiler stuff and it was ok but slow.
So if I do it again I will choose to select my own. I can get all
the things I use like the "joe editor" and maybe even get my gMFSK to
work on FC5.
Karl
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.
>
>
>
7:38 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:46 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:08, Craig White wrote:
> >
> > It sure seams people want to whine, but not do anything constructive to
> > get their case heard and considered.
You can look at this the other way and wonder if there is anyone
who cares if the distribution contains things that make people
whine unnecessarily.
> > > > Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you
> > > > dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs.
Dont
> > > > expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic
list
> > > > to gather feedback.
> > >
> -----
> and my guess is that 10 people complaining about it is statistically an
> insignificant percentage.
By the time someone has encountered the problem it is too late
for them - those are the people who are concerned about helping
others avoid the issue.
So, since you are one of those complaining and claim to want to help
others, then put your action where your mouth is and file the bugzilla.
I for one do not like people who whine but refuse to take action to
better what they are complaining about.
8:34 p.m.
Les Mikesell:
>> For example if someone wanted to build PCs with fedora
pre-installed,
>> what might the user expect to find on it?
Rahul Sundaram
> OEM copies of Fedora would have whatever the OEM vendors decide
to
> provide.
Les Mikesell:
That's almost shocking in the context of marketing. Is that
what you want for a user's exposure to a fedora system?
I see two very different groups here:
1. Someone distributing pre-installed systems: For them it's a nonsense
to argue about using the install routine as is. They should be using a
custom install script that preselects everything that they want, the
system supports that with kickstart. Or, they should be doing some sort
of cloning operation with a post install script that customises each
model afterwards (e.g. configures the hardware, makes each machine
individual so they don't all have the hostname, etc.). There is no way
that I would sit through using Fedora's installer more than once every
few months.
2. End-users, installing their own systems: There's no predicting how
they'd all want to do that. Though I'd say that anybody who keeps on
repeatedly installing their own system more than a few times a year is
giving themselves more work than they should. On a basis of installing
*an* OS on a reasonable regularity, the current installer is not too
much of an imposition to deal with. Even building two or three home PCs
once a year isn't too much of a pain.
And as far as marketing is concerned, you've got the tools in your hands
to customise it as you want to. I'd say it's far easier to do that with
Fedora than with Windows, for instance. You don't have *onerous*
limitations on you as to what you can do. And you get far more
functionality (all those applications, utilities, and games, as well as
the OS).
--
(Currently running FC4, occasionally trying FC5.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
8:44 p.m.
I think we've reached (quite some time ago) the old "You can make some
of the people happy some of the time....." point.
9:10 p.m.
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:25 -0600, Tony Heaton wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>> Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all
>> the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
>>
>> Rahul
>
> This is your regular post with regards to user input.
Yes and it is unfortunate that the point still hasnt got through to
everyone
> We get the point
> that developers don't care what users think or want. Don't just tell us
> to post to the devel list, they are the same developers and have the
> same attitude over there.
There is no question of attitude. Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you
dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont
expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list to
gather feedback. Use the infrastructure provided explicitly for it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186007
"NOTABUG" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183871
"NOTABUG" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186802
"DUPLICATE of 186007" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186062
"DUPLICATE of 186007" "CLOSED"
Any other suggestions for getting the developer's attention that won't
result in it just getting CLOSED as NOTABUG?
It is un-useful to say 'use bugzilla' when the only response there is to
CLOSE it as NOTABUG.
--
Benjamin Franz
I don't care how many levels of reality you posit; as soon as you posit even
one it's turtles all the way down.
---Nova Spivak
9:14 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 19:38, Jeff Vian wrote:
>
> By the time someone has encountered the problem it is too late
> for them - those are the people who are concerned about helping
> others avoid the issue.
>
So, since you are one of those complaining and claim to want to help
others, then put your action where your mouth is and file the bugzilla.
I for one do not like people who whine but refuse to take action to
better what they are complaining about.
It isn't about how I want it to be. All I can do is describe
my experience when installing and it isn't likely to get better
unless someone collates a large number of those experiences.
How would you word an RFE like that? Maybe yum could be
instrumented to track downloads of missing packages after
a base install or the system could track and report
'file not found' errors in the system areas to identify
files that are frequently needed but not always there.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
10:38 p.m.
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 01:19:23PM -0400, Mark Haney wrote:
Good luck with that. I have a SUSE box that has virtually nothing
installed by default. You think Fedora's installation is sparse? I was
I can't confirm that data point. SuSE installs are usually eclectic.
amazed at the total lack of packages installed in SUSE. Really,
it's a
total joke to work on that server. It has KDE /and/ GNOME installed (on
You're talking about a server, I notice.
a /server/ no less) and yet I had to install the sysstat packages
along
with ntpd and about 3 or 4 others just to make the server really
manageable. The SUSE install is just silly. The Fedora installer is at
least more /sane/ than most other installers I've seen or used.
I disagree. I'm still not done with pulling the packages in manually.
People, this sucks.
But it seems rather childish to switch distros just for that. Kind
of
like taking your ball and going home, eh?
I don't like the sentiment behind above sentence. Yes, I try and run
whatever the fuck I damn please. It broadens the horizont. It allows
me to get work done quicker. Been SuSE, done that, and "install everything"
is a sufficient reason to switch distros.
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
11:08 p.m.
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 02:54:46PM -0400, Mark Haney wrote:
server? Matter of fact, who /needs/ everything on a desktop?
Sounds
extremely lazy and inefficient to me.
Hard drive space and bandwidth are effectively infinite, human time
is scarcer than ever. Saving time is efficient. Laziness is a virtue.
It doesn't forebode well for FLOSS that people are not getting it.
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
11:45 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:32 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 16:13, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > But then you'll only see a few people who are either fanatics
> > about some issue or just don't understand the right approach.
>
> Not sure what you trying to say here. Are you implying that people who
> use bugzilla are fanatics? The people who understand the right approach
> can very well use bugzilla to convey developers that information.
I'm saying you aren't going to get a cross section of users
and actual experiences there - and I don't think anyone wants
them there.
> Mailing lists are completely inefficient to track bugs compared to bug
> tracking systems. Pretty much every major open source project has
> bugzilla or some other bug tracking system for the very same reason.
But these things aren't exactly bugs although they have a cumulative
effect that adds up to TCO. Is there anyone involved in fedora
development that is bothered by the Microsoft claims of lower
TCO? No single user's experience can tell you how to reduce
the time and trouble (and thus cost) to install and maintain
the system in general. However, in a forum with a large number
of users the things that take an annoying amount of time and
workarounds will come out.
Exactly... bugzilla is used after a user posts his problem here,
where it gets thrashed out and either remedied or general concensus
dictates to take it to bugzilla. As Les points out it's the cumulative
effect of a lot of problems that adds up. I've bugzilla'd and bitched
about udev barfing, it ain't fixed. Hell, I'm just waiting for FC6 and
maybe the problem will get fixed. It takes only 4-5 extra minutes for my
machine to boot, so I go have a smoke. I screwed up using yum upgrade.
But, if enough stuff broke, I'd blow this pop stand.
I happen to beleive in RedHat, so I'm hanging tough. When I get to devel
on my project though, that will be a different story, as I cannot dink
around then. So, while you may feel it's completely inefficient, as an
engineer, to track bugs through the mailing list, it's good marketing to
keep a finger on the overall pulse of your user's problems. Damn good
marketing. No market, no engineer. Ric
11:54 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 06:08 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 02:54:46PM -0400, Mark Haney wrote:
> server? Matter of fact, who /needs/ everything on a desktop? Sounds
> extremely lazy and inefficient to me.
Hard drive space and bandwidth are effectively infinite, human time
is scarcer than ever. Saving time is efficient. Laziness is a virtue.
It doesn't forebode well for FLOSS that people are not getting it.
Huh?
Sorry - but "installing everything" is just plain silly in most cases.
Even with gobs of hard drive space and gigabit straight from a backbone
to your home.
menus become cluttered, for one thing.
Install what you are going to use.
Install what you would like to test.
There is no need to have OpenOffice.org and koffice installed if you are
only going to use AbiWord and Gnumeric.
Why have kmail and balsa and sylpheed cluttering up your menus when you
are going to use evolution?
It also is a lot more likely that you will run into problems when
upgrading if you have everything under the sun installed.
12:09 a.m.
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 09:54:07PM -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Sorry - but "installing everything" is just plain silly in
most cases.
I don't know which packages and libraries I'm going to need tomorrow.
I don't have time to work for my computer. My computer should work for me.
Even with gobs of hard drive space and gigabit straight from a
backbone
to your home.
I manage with 0.5/6 MBit ADSL, but FC does have an unstable
feel around it.
menus become cluttered, for one thing.
Then the menus are designed wrong. I don't expect most packages
to show up in the menus.
Install what you are going to use.
I like to explore first, and then use it. I can't explore what's
not already installed. If I could have a machine with 16 kPackages
from Sarge I would probably have it.
Install what you would like to test.
There is no need to have OpenOffice.org and koffice installed if you are
only going to use AbiWord and Gnumeric.
Bzzt. I have no idea what I'm going to use next. Some documents
can be only read in AbiWord, and some in OO. You don't know which
is going to cut the mustard.
Why have kmail and balsa and sylpheed cluttering up your menus when
you
are going to use evolution?
I'm using mutt, and it doesn't show up in the menus. I use locate
instead of menus most of the time.
It also is a lot more likely that you will run into problems when
upgrading if you have everything under the sun installed.
Upgrades Just Don't Work in FC. Tried it, always wind up with
reinstalling. If you want smooth upgrades, try Debian.
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
12:30 a.m.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Why install a multiuser OS if only one user will ever use
it?
The fundamental architecture of a system designed for multi-user usage
provides for enhanced control of the system by its administrators and,
most likely, much tighter security of the applications and the users'
limitations.
One of the fundamental things about GNU/Linux and other Unix-like
systems is that the user does not run with administrative privileges on
a day-to-day basis. This in itself is one of the biggest aspects of
security: Generally speaking, the most damage that a user could do is
destroy their own home directory. Things like SELinux and other MAC
(Mandatory Access Control) systems now make the superuser (root) in many
cases no more privileged than a normal user, which helps a lot since
there may likely be security holes that could give a user root-level
access to the system.
(If I recall correctly, there are actually a few locked-down SELinux
boxes setup with various distributions by the NSA and various volunteers
where you are *given* the root password, and your goal is to actually
damage the system in some way as to bypass its control. How's that for
secure? ^_^)
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
12:31 a.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:20 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Why install a multiuser OS if only one user will ever use
it?
Because the system runs some services as other users, not yourself.
Even if you ran a system as one personal user and one system user, it's
still a multi-user system, and once the mechanism is in place, you may
as well provide the ability to have more than one user. Having users is
one way of separating what a person should normally be able to do, and
what they should normally being prevented from doing.
Or were you being facetious?
--
(Currently running FC4, in case that's important to the thread)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
12:40 a.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:31, Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:20 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Why install a multiuser OS if only one user will ever use
> it?
Because the system runs some services as other users, not yourself.
Even if you ran a system as one personal user and one system user, it's
still a multi-user system, and once the mechanism is in place, you may
as well provide the ability to have more than one user. Having users is
one way of separating what a person should normally be able to do, and
what they should normally being prevented from doing.
Or were you being facetious?
I was hoping that someone would catch on that it is not
unusual to actually use a multiuser OS for multiple users
on one machine, in which case the person installing may
in fact have a reason to install different mail user agents,
word processors and so on, because they will be the
preferred choice for different users.
And as a side effect to point out that it is no more
wasteful to have the multiple application choices available
than it is to have a multiuser OS serving a single user.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
1:05 a.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 19:10 -0700, Benjamin Franz wrote:
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:25 -0600, Tony Heaton wrote:
>> On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all
>>> the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
>>>
>>> Rahul
>>
>> This is your regular post with regards to user input.
>
> Yes and it is unfortunate that the point still hasnt got through to
> everyone
>
>> We get the point
>> that developers don't care what users think or want. Don't just tell
us
>> to post to the devel list, they are the same developers and have the
>> same attitude over there.
>
> There is no question of attitude. Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you
> dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont
> expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list to
> gather feedback. Use the infrastructure provided explicitly for it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186007
"NOTABUG" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183871
"NOTABUG" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186802
"DUPLICATE of 186007" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186062
"DUPLICATE of 186007" "CLOSED"
Any other suggestions for getting the developer's attention that won't
result in it just getting CLOSED as NOTABUG?
It is un-useful to say 'use bugzilla' when the only response there is to
CLOSE it as NOTABUG.
----
That can be the only resolution in bugzilla but that shouldn't deter
anyone nor should anyone conclude that it isn't useful to open a new
bugzilla entry.
It is the one and only meaningful way to provide feedback by the users
to the developers.
My estimate was that there were about 10 people who wanted the 'install
everything' option in anaconda. According to a quick perusal of the
above links, there were less than 10.
Thus a reasonable conclusion is that those who feel that the removal of
the 'install everything' option in anaconda are statistically
insignificant.
Craig
1:15 a.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 07:09 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 09:54:07PM -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Sorry - but "installing everything" is just plain silly in most cases.
I don't know which packages and libraries I'm going to need tomorrow.
You never need to explicitly ask for libraries unless you are a
developer. yum will find them.
As far as what you will need tomorrow - when you need it, it is just a
yum away.
I don't have time to work for my computer. My computer should
work for me.
It is far more likely _not_ to work for you if you install everything
under the sun. Particularly when update time comes.
> Even with gobs of hard drive space and gigabit straight from a backbone
> to your home.
I manage with 0.5/6 MBit ADSL, but FC does have an unstable
feel around it.
FC is close to bleeding edge. If you want stable - try RHEL (or one of
the free clones, like Cent OS - just the other day, I saw a Linux
magazine at the grocery store that came with Cent OS - so you may not
even need to DL it)
> menus become cluttered, for one thing.
Then the menus are designed wrong. I don't expect most packages
to show up in the menus.
Most do not - but if you install everything, you get all the apps that
_do_ show up in the menus.
Bzzt. I have no idea what I'm going to use next. Some documents
can be only read in AbiWord, and some in OO. You don't know which
is going to cut the mustard.
OK - confession here.
I purchased CrossOver Office. If AbiWord doesn't handle it, I use Word
Document Viewer from within wine, installed in CrossOver Office (I also
have the powerpoint and excel viewers, though with gnumeric - I've never
needed the excel viewer. I also have Google Picasa, which works
exceptionally well in CXO.
> Why have kmail and balsa and sylpheed cluttering up your menus when you
> are going to use evolution?
I'm using mutt, and it doesn't show up in the menus. I use locate
instead of menus most of the time.
But if you install everything, you will have all those things in the
menus. If you don't mind that - whatever, but it is counter to usability
to have menus stuffed with everything.
> It also is a lot more likely that you will run into problems when
> upgrading if you have everything under the sun installed.
Upgrades Just Don't Work in FC. Tried it, always wind up with
reinstalling. If you want smooth upgrades, try Debian.
Maybe because you tried it after an everything install ? ;)
I usually do a clean install as well, but I also have yum updated
several systems - and yes, I have to do a little cleanup and work
through some issues - but it does work. If I had everything installed,
it would be a LOT more difficult.
-=-
The only time I ever have done an "install everything" was when I worked
for a software company and we packaged our product in RPM (and slack
packages ...)
We did a few everything install in QA to see what broke.
Other than that - it is pretty pointless IMHO.
A bigger thing to gripe about IMHO is the removal (not separate
packaging, complete removal) of static libraries from packages ... :p
1:17 a.m.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 21:49 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
On Mon May 8 2006 7:06 pm, Craig White wrote:
> you may feel free to disagree
Why should I bother - in your mind's eye, you are always right.
----
would you want me to be any other?
----
In that
universe, my opinion is irrelevant ;-)
----
I'm not sure why you would worry about my view of your opinion. There
are certainly circles where my opinion doesn't count but I don't lose
sleep over it.
As I see it, you did the right thing...you posted your commentary on a
bugzilla entry and posted on list to get others to join with their own
commentary. That there were very few who bothered to join in suggests to
me that the number of those who agree are few.
Craig
1:18 a.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:20 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 23:54, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Sorry - but "installing everything" is just plain silly in most cases.
[...]
> Install what you are going to use.
Why install a multiuser OS if only one user will ever use
it?
OK - install what your users are going to use.
You certainly don't want everything under the sun with multiple login
users - multiple login users increases the chances of a compromised
local account, and a compromised local account with everything installed
increases the chances that something installed has an exploit that can
be taken advantage of by the system cracker.
5:39 a.m.
On Tuesday 09 May 2006 07:05, Craig White wrote:
----
That can be the only resolution in bugzilla but that shouldn't deter
anyone nor should anyone conclude that it isn't useful to open a new
bugzilla entry.
It is the one and only meaningful way to provide feedback by the users
to the developers.
My estimate was that there were about 10 people who wanted the 'install
everything' option in anaconda. According to a quick perusal of the
above links, there were less than 10.
Doubt that. This is the fourth time this discussion has come up on this
list in the past few months. Each time it has generated more e-mails than
any other topic. It was bugzilled and closed as not a bug. Probably right
as it's not really a bug it's a usability feature.
I did an install yesterday and it took the entire day to get the
"everything install". Do the base install selecting as little as
possible, configure the yum repos, do the everything install, do the
updates. I'm thinking of a few months time when I have to install 200+
machines. And I need the everything install because I can't tell a
student what environment, Gnome or KDE, to use what browser, mailer etc
to use.
It was a useful feature.
Tony
Thus a reasonable conclusion is that those who feel that the removal of
the 'install everything' option in anaconda are statistically
insignificant.
Craig
--
Tony Molloy.
Dept. of Comp. Sci.
University of Limerick
6:22 a.m.
Benjamin Franz wrote:
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:25 -0600, Tony Heaton wrote:
>> On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all
>>> the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
>>>
>>> Rahul
>>
>> This is your regular post with regards to user input.
>
> Yes and it is unfortunate that the point still hasnt got through to
> everyone
>
>> We get the point
>> that developers don't care what users think or want. Don't just tell us
>> to post to the devel list, they are the same developers and have the
>> same attitude over there.
>
> There is no question of attitude. Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you
> dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont
> expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list to
> gather feedback. Use the infrastructure provided explicitly for it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186007
"NOTABUG" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183871
"NOTABUG" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186802
"DUPLICATE of 186007" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186062
"DUPLICATE of 186007" "CLOSED"
Any other suggestions for getting the developer's attention that won't
result in it just getting CLOSED as NOTABUG?
It is un-useful to say 'use bugzilla' when the only response there is to
CLOSE it as NOTABUG.
It is practically useless to use Bugzilla for proposals like "Everything
Installs without a "Reporter satisfied" type of feature where bugs can
only be closed when the reporter is satisfied with the problem reported.
Bugzilla does not have a customer satisfied feature. Therefore it is
useless for this sort of request.
Jim
--
Plate voltage too low on demodulator tube
7:05 a.m.
New subject: fc5: install everything? - advice on sending suggestions
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 19:10 -0700, Benjamin Franz wrote:
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 14:25 -0600, Tony Heaton wrote:
>> On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all
>>> the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
>>>
>>> Rahul
>>
>> This is your regular post with regards to user input.
>
> Yes and it is unfortunate that the point still hasnt got through to
> everyone
>
>> We get the point
>> that developers don't care what users think or want. Don't just tell
us
>> to post to the devel list, they are the same developers and have the
>> same attitude over there.
>
> There is no question of attitude. Use bugzilla for bug reports. If you
> dont care enough to file a bug report, dont complain about bugs. Dont
> expect developers to read every single mail on this high traffic list to
> gather feedback. Use the infrastructure provided explicitly for it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186007
"NOTABUG" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=183871
"NOTABUG" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186802
"DUPLICATE of 186007" "CLOSED"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186062
"DUPLICATE of 186007" "CLOSED"
Any other suggestions for getting the developer's attention that won't
result in it just getting CLOSED as NOTABUG?
It is un-useful to say 'use bugzilla' when the only response there is to
CLOSE it as NOTABUG.
I have been trying to figure how to share a comment like yours on
another topic. I keep getting told to post a bug of the type Request for
Enhancement. This is supposed to be explained at the web site below.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests
Or if it is feedback to developers then here is the advice:
See the section on feedback to developers in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate. If its a straight forward
enhancement, file a RFE in bugzilla. Upstream projects bugzilla's are
preferrable for suggesting enhancements. If it requires discussion, you
might post to fedora-devel list
--
Aaron Konstam <akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net>
7:48 a.m.
I've been totally confused by my having clicked (I thought) to install
everything, and yet apparently virtually nothing was installed from CDs 4
and 5. I've always chosen Fedora precisely because it comes on 5 CDs instead
of 1 and had an Install Everything button. The only refinement I'd like to
see is some buttons for "install everything in <my language>". But
you've
got the magazines all jumping on "bloatware".
I think Debian is more popular than SuSE, isn't it? There must be a reason.
--
Lee Maschmeyer
<lee_maschmeyer(a)wayne.edu>
"Be kind to your fur-bearing friends,
For a skunk may be somebody's brother."
--Fred Allen
7:53 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Lee Maschmeyer wrote:
I've been totally confused by my having clicked (I thought) to
install
everything, and yet apparently virtually nothing was installed from CDs
4 and 5. I've always chosen Fedora precisely because it comes on 5 CDs
instead of 1 and had an Install Everything button. The only refinement
I'd like to see is some buttons for "install everything in <my
language>". But you've got the magazines all jumping on
"bloatware".
I think Debian is more popular than SuSE, isn't it? There must be a reason.
I would think Debian is only more popular that Suse because of it's
perceived stability. If you don't want 'bleeding edge' or even 'cutting
edge', Debian is a good distro. I am not fond of the way packages are
updated (although apt-get is a great app), but maybe I'm spoiled by
Fedora and Gentoo.
- --
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
(828) 350-2415
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEYJC2YQhnfRtc0AIRAiUsAKDCqO3Yp/D1g8ViFK0LstYUl2AFRgCgx9o/
O1mSJ3TAG3iXxT3Ck6tpOwY=
=F5BD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
8:02 a.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 11:39 +0100, Tony Molloy wrote:
On Tuesday 09 May 2006 07:05, Craig White wrote:
> ----
> That can be the only resolution in bugzilla but that shouldn't deter
> anyone nor should anyone conclude that it isn't useful to open a new
> bugzilla entry.
>
> It is the one and only meaningful way to provide feedback by the users
> to the developers.
>
> My estimate was that there were about 10 people who wanted the 'install
> everything' option in anaconda. According to a quick perusal of the
> above links, there were less than 10.
Doubt that. This is the fourth time this discussion has come up on this
list in the past few months. Each time it has generated more e-mails than
any other topic. It was bugzilled and closed as not a bug. Probably right
as it's not really a bug it's a usability feature.
I did an install yesterday and it took the entire day to get the
"everything install". Do the base install selecting as little as
possible, configure the yum repos, do the everything install, do the
updates. I'm thinking of a few months time when I have to install 200+
machines. And I need the everything install because I can't tell a
student what environment, Gnome or KDE, to use what browser, mailer etc
to use.
It was a useful feature.
----
you really need to learn about kickstart. It is a way to automate
installations making it a breeze to install on more than one computer
and ***install everything*** option
Craig
8:07 a.m.
New subject: fc5: install everything? - advice on sending suggestions
On Tue May 9 2006 8:05 am, Aaron Konstam wrote:
If it requires discussion, you
might post to fedora-devel list
That's an interesting discovery given all that's been tossed in
the "everything" discussion. In that debate, I did post a few times in the
development list, but got the "file a bugzilla" rejoinder.
Under another cap, I'm in politics. There's a rule of thumb there, if you're
going to survive as an office holder: for every letter you get, that
represents the sentiments of a hundred others (put your own number there -
it's always large, though).
Those who say the issue is not significant because only a few have bothered to
bugzilla it have a little problem of 'noblesse oblige' - the 'let them eat
cake' crowd may find the ultimate historical fate of their posturing as
metaphorically 'interesting' as that of Marie Antoinette's...
Now, anyone want to start a debate about configurability of Fedora
for 'regular users'? Compare the Mandrake/PCLOS Control Center to Fedora's
System-Config-Control to see what I mean... (I suggest anyone suffering
through issues with NDISwrapper and Broadcom in Fedora to take a look at that
implementation)
I don't personally believe that the issues that have been raised here haven't
got back to the team that steers the development of Fedora, however. They are
a derivative of a successful corporation that has built a successful
alternative to Redmond, and they haven't done that by ignoring their
user-base. I'm not going to make threats about switching distros. I run at
least five different distros currently, and Fedora is still the best for
multiple reasons. I am participating in various discussions with
developers/users of some of the Fedora derivatives, though - there are active
efforts to make Fedora better out there, and I'm convinced that such efforts
can only rebound to the benefit/improvement of Fedora. Sometimes, you have to
use a tug-boat to steer a ship... '-)
--
Claude Jones
Brunswick, MD, USA
8:13 a.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 05:39, Tony Molloy wrote:
I did an install yesterday and it took the entire day to get the
"everything install". Do the base install selecting as little as
possible, configure the yum repos, do the everything install, do the
updates. I'm thinking of a few months time when I have to install 200+
machines. And I need the everything install because I can't tell a
student what environment, Gnome or KDE, to use what browser, mailer etc
to use.
It was a useful feature.
Some time ago I saw an invocation of 'rpm -q ...' that
generated the installed list of software on one machine
in a format that could be used on the command line of
yum to load the same set on another. One format string
would load the exact versions and one would pull the
latest version of that set of packages. Making this list
available - or perhaps many versions of this list with
descriptions of why this set was chosen - would
mostly solve this problem for people with fast internet
connections.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
8:21 a.m.
Jeff Vian wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:20 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
>>>
>>>> This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
>>> That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users
>>> to pay attention to the whining.
>> Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all
>> the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
> OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said? A lot of
> decisions seem to be made with no thought about the real-world
> effects. For example if someone wanted to build PCs with
> fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on
> it?
>
Whatever the "builder" chose to install. Doh!
Which the safest choice is "install everything" since the builder
does not know exactly how the customer is going to use the machine.
Roger
8:25 a.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:18, Michael A. Peters wrote:
>
> Why install a multiuser OS if only one user will ever use
> it?
OK - install what your users are going to use.
You certainly don't want everything under the sun with multiple login
users - multiple login users increases the chances of a compromised
local account, and a compromised local account with everything installed
increases the chances that something installed has an exploit that can
be taken advantage of by the system cracker.
That might be a useful comment if you mentioned the parts that
are dangerous to install - and perhaps why they are included
on the CD if no one should install them.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
8:27 a.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:15, Michael A. Peters wrote:
>
> > Sorry - but "installing everything" is just plain silly in most
cases.
>
> I don't know which packages and libraries I'm going to need tomorrow.
You never need to explicitly ask for libraries unless you are a
developer. yum will find them.
And for your users that *are* developers???
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
8:33 a.m.
New subject: fc5: install everything? - advice on sending suggestions
Aaron Konstam wrote:
I have been trying to figure how to share a comment like yours on
another topic. I keep getting told to post a bug of the type Request for
Enhancement. This is supposed to be explained at the web site below.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests
Or if it is feedback to developers then here is the advice:
See the section on feedback to developers in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate. If its a straight forward
enhancement, file a RFE in bugzilla. Upstream projects bugzilla's are
preferrable for suggesting enhancements. If it requires discussion, you
might post to fedora-devel list
It appears that the "enhancement" option/feature of rh's bugzilla has been
removed recently, and replaced by adding "FutureFeature" to the Keyword
field.
-- Rex
8:41 a.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 08:27 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:15, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry - but "installing everything" is just plain silly in most
cases.
> >
> > I don't know which packages and libraries I'm going to need tomorrow.
>
> You never need to explicitly ask for libraries unless you are a
> developer. yum will find them.
And for your users that *are* developers???
They *know* what they need.
Ralf
9:36 a.m.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:18, Michael A. Peters wrote:
>> Why install a multiuser OS if only one user will ever use
>> it?
> OK - install what your users are going to use.
> You certainly don't want everything under the sun with multiple login
> users - multiple login users increases the chances of a compromised
> local account, and a compromised local account with everything installed
> increases the chances that something installed has an exploit that can
> be taken advantage of by the system cracker.
That might be a useful comment if you mentioned the parts that
are dangerous to install - and perhaps why they are included
on the CD if no one should install them.
That is the point - you don't know what packages have exploits that
have not been found yet. If they were known, chances are they would
have already been fixed. But if you have everything installed, the
chances that you have a package with an exploit installed goes up.
On the other hand, if it will never be run with root privileges,
chances are it will only mess up the user's files, and not the
system. From a security standpoint, it makes sense to load the
packages that you use. If a machine is not going to be a server,
then you only need a few of the server apps. If it is not going to
be used for development, and especially if it is going to be a
server that can be accessed from the Internet, you do not want the
ability to compile programs. (Compile them on another machine, and
install them on the server.)
This is sounding a lot like the what I heard a few years ago when
distributions started shipping with services disabled by default, or
only accessible on the loopback interface. You have to go in and
configure them before you could run them. But it sure cut down on
boxes that were hacked before they were updated, and the owner
learned what was going on. Experienced users know how to get the
services going, and newbies usually end up doing a bit of research,
or asking on a list, and hopefully learn about the risks involved in
running the server, and how to configure them.
The distribution should be as safe as possible for a newbie to
install. If they ever put the install everything option back, I hope
it is only available as an advanced install option. A newbie doing
an install should not see it.
What might be a good idea is that when you install from CD/DVD, is
to have an option to set up a Yum repo that uses the install media
and asks for the CD/DVD needed to be inserted when installing
software if there is not a newer package in the other repos. That
way, if you find you want/need more packages after install, it will
not download everything from the Internet if you have a slow
connection, or a bandwidth limit. This would be especially true in
you are shipping a machine with Linux pre-installed. Otherwise,
depending on the lag between when you built the system, and when the
costumer receives it they may end up with a large update needed when
they get the machine with an everything install. Not too bad of a
problem if you do the install, update the machine, and then ship it
directly to the costumer, but a big problem if you are building in
quantity. Especially if you don't update your install image on a
regular basis, or are shipping to a retail location.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
9:45 a.m.
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 07:22:36 -0400,
Jim Cornette <fc-cornette(a)insight.rr.com> wrote:
It is practically useless to use Bugzilla for proposals like "Everything
Installs without a "Reporter satisfied" type of feature where bugs can
only be closed when the reporter is satisfied with the problem reported.
Bugzilla does not have a customer satisfied feature. Therefore it is
useless for this sort of request.
But they could give a coherent argument as to why the proposal will not
be considered, even if its we think it will take too much developer time
to do it right for the perceived benefit.
I had a non sequitor response when I posted a RFE (188314) to allow creating
raid 1 devices with only one drive during an install, so that people could
upgrade by splitting mirrored drives and then putting the mirror back together
again after things appear to be working. The response was:
People using RAID1 are doing so with an expectation of some reliability which
you don't get with a single drive. We're not going to do this.
It should have been clear that the expectation was not to run raid 1 on one
drive forever, but just during the install and testing period.
9:46 a.m.
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:41:15PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > I don't know which packages and libraries I'm
going to need tomorrow.
> >
> > You never need to explicitly ask for libraries unless you are a
> > developer. yum will find them.
Really? yum install vmd? yum install gamess? yum install gromacs? yum install namd?
yum install mmtk? yum install openbabel? Funny, yum finds jack.
> And for your users that *are* developers???
They *know* what they need.
You're engaging in wishful thinking. I'm not a developer, yet I fix
bugs and build things from source when it's not in the depositories.
I don't have the time to resolve the dependencies manually, hence
I need a system where almost everything is already there. There's
no sharp boundary between users and developers in FLOSSland. Get used to it.
You're still not getting it. I'm a yet another user asking for an option which
used to be there. Don't tell me what I need. I know far better what I need
that you do. I don't claim to speak for you, either.
If developers don't care enough to occasionally send someone to skim the list
archives for user-reported design flaws and improvement suggestions I have
no trouble with that. I have several alternative distros and, yes,
proprietary systems to turn to. The usage pattern comes and goes.
FC5 is reasonably close to a useful system as RatHed goes, but it's
still a far shot to Win XP or OS X. The UI being hokey and slow is the
largest culprit -- I'm hanging in for GL hardware acceleration.
Maybe it will be enough, maybe I need a faster CPU.
Long-term, kick out X and give us something rendering as cleanly as ClearType,
and it's getting close to an ideal system. Maybe another 5-10 years,
and we'll be there.
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
9:50 a.m.
New subject: fc5: install everything? - advice on sending suggestions
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Rex Dieter wrote:
Aaron Konstam wrote:
> I have been trying to figure how to share a comment like yours on
> another topic. I keep getting told to post a bug of the type Request for
> Enhancement. This is supposed to be explained at the web site below.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests
>
> Or if it is feedback to developers then here is the advice:
> See the section on feedback to developers in
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate. If its a straight forward
> enhancement, file a RFE in bugzilla. Upstream projects bugzilla's are
> preferrable for suggesting enhancements. If it requires discussion, you
> might post to fedora-devel list
It appears that the "enhancement" option/feature of rh's bugzilla has been
removed recently, and replaced by adding "FutureFeature" to the Keyword
field.
And, of course, Bugzilla just screams out that you need to free type
'FutureFeature' into the 'Keywords' to specify that. It would too obvious
to have a set of radio boxes in the form instead of a link to a page
listing all the possible keywords with no real hint as to the fact that it
is in fact a structured field.
:/
I am reminded of a 'in the basement inside a locked filing cabinet in a
disused lavatory with a sign saying Beware of the leopard.'
--
Benjamin Franz
I don't care how many levels of reality you posit; as soon as you posit even
one it's turtles all the way down.
---Nova Spivak
9:54 a.m.
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 09:36:41 -0500,
"Mikkel L. Ellertson" <mikkel(a)infinity-ltd.com> wrote:
That is the point - you don't know what packages have exploits
that
have not been found yet. If they were known, chances are they would
have already been fixed. But if you have everything installed, the
chances that you have a package with an exploit installed goes up.
This is very low risk. This risk should be weighed against the extra work
involved tracking down packages that could have been installed off the
CD.
On the other hand, if it will never be run with root privileges,
chances are it will only mess up the user's files, and not the
system. From a security standpoint, it makes sense to load the
packages that you use. If a machine is not going to be a server,
then you only need a few of the server apps. If it is not going to
be used for development, and especially if it is going to be a
server that can be accessed from the Internet, you do not want the
ability to compile programs. (Compile them on another machine, and
install them on the server.)
Not having a compiler adds almost no security. Again this needs to be weighed
against the costs of having one available when you want it.
This is sounding a lot like the what I heard a few years ago when
distributions started shipping with services disabled by default, or
only accessible on the loopback interface. You have to go in and
configure them before you could run them. But it sure cut down on
boxes that were hacked before they were updated, and the owner
learned what was going on. Experienced users know how to get the
services going, and newbies usually end up doing a bit of research,
or asking on a list, and hopefully learn about the risks involved in
running the server, and how to configure them.
Running services that listen on network ports is a lot higher risk than
just having code installed. Also, in those days ipchains typically wasn't
installed as well to block connections to services that only needed to
listen on the loopback address.
The distribution should be as safe as possible for a newbie to
install. If they ever put the install everything option back, I hope
it is only available as an advanced install option. A newbie doing
an install should not see it.
I disaggree. You need to balance safety with convenience, especially for
for new users.
What might be a good idea is that when you install from CD/DVD, is
to have an option to set up a Yum repo that uses the install media
and asks for the CD/DVD needed to be inserted when installing
software if there is not a newer package in the other repos. That
way, if you find you want/need more packages after install, it will
not download everything from the Internet if you have a slow
connection, or a bandwidth limit. This would be especially true in
you are shipping a machine with Linux pre-installed. Otherwise,
depending on the lag between when you built the system, and when the
costumer receives it they may end up with a large update needed when
they get the machine with an everything install. Not too bad of a
problem if you do the install, update the machine, and then ship it
directly to the costumer, but a big problem if you are building in
quantity. Especially if you don't update your install image on a
regular basis, or are shipping to a retail location.
Using the install media as a repo is a separate issue, that also has value.
However, this still doesn't address not having software installed when you
want it, that could have easily been installed. That costs people time.
10:07 a.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 09:45, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I had a non sequitor response when I posted a RFE (188314) to allow
creating
raid 1 devices with only one drive during an install, so that people could
upgrade by splitting mirrored drives and then putting the mirror back together
again after things appear to be working. The response was:
People using RAID1 are doing so with an expectation of some reliability which
you don't get with a single drive. We're not going to do this.
That's the real issue - the developers have no concept of
real-world use and have no intention to. Given an easy choice,
I'd always build partitions on RAID1 with a missing device.
It doesn't hurt anything and can be handy even if you just
occasionally plug in a USB or firewire drive and sync to it.
And in fact it is fairly painful even to build RAID1 with paired
partitions during installs.
It should have been clear that the expectation was not to run raid 1
on one
drive forever, but just during the install and testing period.
If you want to press the point that other people agree that
this is useful you might point out the SME server distribution
from http://www.contribs.org builds the 'broken raid' layout
automatically in a default install on a single disk machine
and provides a push-button upgrade to mirrored operation at
any later time. It's built on Centos instead of fedora but
the raid code all comes from the same place.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
10:16 a.m.
New subject: fc5: install everything? - advice on sending suggestions
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Aaron Konstam wrote:
>
I have been trying to figure how to share a comment like yours on
another topic. I keep getting told to post a bug of the type Request for
Enhancement. This is supposed to be explained at the web site below.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests
Or if it is feedback to developers then here is the advice:
See the section on feedback to developers in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate. If its a straight forward
enhancement, file a RFE in bugzilla. Upstream projects bugzilla's are
preferrable for suggesting enhancements. If it requires discussion, you
might post to fedora-devel list
The below bug went from 'NEW' to 'CLOSED' in under 20 minutes (closed by
Paul Nasrat <pnasrat(a)redhat.com>, with no feedback what-so-ever other than
that it duplicates bug 186007). In spite of 'FutureFeature' being put into
Keywords.
Craig? You said something about 'pissing in the wind', and how we should
use Bugzilla instead of the maillist to get action? Care to comment? I
seem to feel a bit of a warm wet breeze from the direction of Bugzilla,
myself.
Message-ID: <200605091449.k49Ena3J011234(a)www.beta.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 10:49:36 -0400
To: snowhare(a)nihongo.org
From: bugzilla(a)redhat.com
Subject: [Bug 191169] Install Everything needs restoration to installer
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Install Everything needs restoration to installer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191169
pnasrat(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution| |DUPLICATE
------- Additional Comments From pnasrat(a)redhat.com 2006-05-09 10:49 EST
-------
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 186007 ***
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
--
Benjamin Franz
I don't care how many levels of reality you posit; as soon as you posit even
one it's turtles all the way down.
---Nova Spivak
11:02 a.m.
New subject: fc5: install everything? - advice on sending suggestions
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 08:16 -0700, Benjamin Franz wrote:
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Aaron Konstam wrote:
>>
> I have been trying to figure how to share a comment like yours on
> another topic. I keep getting told to post a bug of the type Request for
> Enhancement. This is supposed to be explained at the web site below.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests
>
> Or if it is feedback to developers then here is the advice:
> See the section on feedback to developers in
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate. If its a straight forward
> enhancement, file a RFE in bugzilla. Upstream projects bugzilla's are
> preferrable for suggesting enhancements. If it requires discussion, you
> might post to fedora-devel list
The below bug went from 'NEW' to 'CLOSED' in under 20 minutes (closed by
Paul Nasrat <pnasrat(a)redhat.com>, with no feedback what-so-ever other than
that it duplicates bug 186007). In spite of 'FutureFeature' being put into
Keywords.
Craig? You said something about 'pissing in the wind', and how we should
use Bugzilla instead of the maillist to get action? Care to comment? I
seem to feel a bit of a warm wet breeze from the direction of Bugzilla,
myself.
----
I think that you did well and now your voice is among the listed.
If and when someone wants to count how many people have voiced the same
opinion it's certainly possible. If enough people sound off on this
issue, they clearly would have to rethink the decision.
Whether the bugzilla entry is coded off as closed/notabug or how quickly
isn't important. What is important is to stand and be heard (and
counted). Quite clearly you are officially on record whereas simply
posting here is lost by the very next post that follows.
By the way, you could have added to the original closed bug instead of
starting a new one but either way is acceptable.
Craig
12:09 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 16:46 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:41:15PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > I don't know which packages and libraries I'm going to need
tomorrow.
> > >
> > > You never need to explicitly ask for libraries unless you are a
> > > developer. yum will find them.
Really? yum install vmd? yum install gamess? yum install gromacs? yum install namd?
yum install mmtk? yum install openbabel? Funny, yum finds jack.
Developers!
> > And for your users that *are* developers???
>
> They *know* what they need.
You're engaging in wishful thinking. I'm not a developer,
That's
apparent. As I've said before, developers *know*, or more
precisely, are supposed to know what they are doing.
Ralf
12:20 p.m.
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 07:09:04PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Really? yum install vmd? yum install gamess? yum install
gromacs? yum install namd?
> yum install mmtk? yum install openbabel? Funny, yum finds jack.
Developers!
No developers (you seem to have been bitten by Ballmer, that's
usually fatal). Just check it out, and build it yerself.
But it's not in the depositories. (No, even Debian doesn't
have most of them).
> You're engaging in wishful thinking. I'm not a
developer,
That's apparent. As I've said before, developers *know*, or more
It is quite apparent that you don't know developers. I do; I
have to change their diapers. Daily. Don't tell me about
what developers know.
precisely, are supposed to know what they are doing.
You must send me whatever you've been smoking. Some powerful stuff, eh.
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
12:24 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 12:09, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > And for your users that *are* developers???
> >
> > They *know* what they need.
>
> You're engaging in wishful thinking. I'm not a developer,
That's apparent. As I've said before, developers *know*, or more
precisely, are supposed to know what they are doing.
I think you've forgotten the way they learn about these things
(which is not by avoiding installing them) and the fact that
they change daily.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
12:50 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 07:22 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
>
> Any other suggestions for getting the developer's attention that won't
> result in it just getting CLOSED as NOTABUG?
>
> It is un-useful to say 'use bugzilla' when the only response there is to
> CLOSE it as NOTABUG.
>
It is practically useless to use Bugzilla for proposals like "Everything
Installs without a "Reporter satisfied" type of feature where bugs can
only be closed when the reporter is satisfied with the problem reported.
Bugzilla does not have a customer satisfied feature. Therefore it is
useless for this sort of request.
Jim
Amen Jim!! Amen!! No one fixed the udev problem to my satisfaction and I
would like to see that the bug couldn't not be closed until my udev
fired up on boot. Otherwise, why bother? At the Friday 1pm Rah Rah
session, where the week's activities are commented on, someone can say
"I closed 20 bugs!" without fear of confrontation from the boss, since
he never comes into this "high traffic cluttered list" to see who is
zooming who. At least Mr Harald has not closed the udev bugzilla report,
so that's a good guy! :) Ric
2:27 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 08:27 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:15, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry - but "installing everything" is just plain silly in most
cases.
> >
> > I don't know which packages and libraries I'm going to need tomorrow.
>
> You never need to explicitly ask for libraries unless you are a
> developer. yum will find them.
And for your users that *are* developers???
you install the devel packages you need to work with.
Choosing "software development", "gnome-development", and
"kde-development" groups will get most of them for you.
3:42 p.m.
New subject: fc5: install everything? - advice on sending suggestions
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 09:07 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
On Tue May 9 2006 8:05 am, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> If it requires discussion, you
> might post to fedora-devel list
That's an interesting discovery given all that's been tossed in
the "everything" discussion. In that debate, I did post a few times in the
development list, but got the "file a bugzilla" rejoinder.
Well I have a perfect record. I have filed about 5 or 6 bugzillas and I
have yet to have a solution to the problem as a response. I rarely get a
response.
Example: I filed a bugzilla against kyum. It has an obvious bug. I even
indicated the specific nature of the bug which would make it obvious to
the developer of kyum how it be solved. I my opinion a soluiton of the
problem should be straightforward to program.
I have heard no response to the bugzilla. No promise to fix to bug or a
statement why it will not be fixed. I got zip, nothing, de nada.
Now I know the person who the bug was assigned to is probably busy. FC6
is on the way. I would accept a statement that the bug would be fixed in
FC6. But I don't hear even that.
Am I mad or discouraged . Not really. But I think those people who
recommend bugzills must have better experiences than I have had.
=======================================================================
Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.
=======================================================================
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam(a)sbcglobal.net
3:59 p.m.
New subject: fc5: install everything? - advice on sending suggestions
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 15:42 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 09:07 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
> On Tue May 9 2006 8:05 am, Aaron Konstam wrote:
> > If it requires discussion, you
> > might post to fedora-devel list
>
> That's an interesting discovery given all that's been tossed in
> the "everything" discussion. In that debate, I did post a few times in the
> development list, but got the "file a bugzilla" rejoinder.
>
Well I have a perfect record. I have filed about 5 or 6 bugzillas and I
have yet to have a solution to the problem as a response. I rarely get a
response.
Example: I filed a bugzilla against kyum. It has an obvious bug. I even
indicated the specific nature of the bug which would make it obvious to
the developer of kyum how it be solved. I my opinion a soluiton of the
problem should be straightforward to program.
I have heard no response to the bugzilla. No promise to fix to bug or a
statement why it will not be fixed. I got zip, nothing, de nada.
Now I know the person who the bug was assigned to is probably busy. FC6
is on the way. I would accept a statement that the bug would be fixed in
FC6. But I don't hear even that.
Am I mad or discouraged . Not really. But I think those people who
recommend bugzills must have better experiences than I have had.
The kyum bug is probably a bug that really needs to be fixed by the
upstream maintainer.
The fact that it modifies a file it has no business modifying indicates
that it has a serious design flaw.
Filing an RFE (or whatever they are calling them) does not mean the
package maintainer is going to see things your way.
From what I understand of the kyum bug, the maintainer *should* at
least
attempt to verify the issue, and if the maintainer isn't going to fix it
themselves, should file a bug upstream, and indicate that in the
bugzilla.
It is possible that the kyum maintainer has not had opportunity to do
that yet, it is an extras package which means it is maintained by an
unpaid volunteer. The fact that you filed a bug report though means that
other Extras volunteers who _do_ go through open bug reports can
potentially look for a fix and tack it to the bug report.
That particular bug hopefully will get fixed soon.
Others experiencing it should add a "me too" to the bugzilla.
4:48 p.m.
Hi,
well, I have read all the complaint letters about the $SUBJECT
and I wondered if software installation can be done without
net access but with the FC5 DVD at hand.
I do have a solution for this (now non-)problem.
Edit /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-core.repo, so the first three lines reads
like these below.
---------------------------
[core]
name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch
baseurl=file:///media/disk
---------------------------
Then put your installation DVD into your drive and do
# yum install --exclude="dlm*" --exclude="gnbd*"
--exclude="cman*"
--exclude=magma-plugins "*"
I needed those --excludes because yum cannot resolve dependencies
for their kernels and I don't need them. So it still won't install
everything
but after that "yum install magma-plugins" will do the rest.
It would be similar for mirrored updates and extras trees on the harddisk.
I wonder why wasn't it the default baseurl? Maybe worth and RFE in
Bugzilla...
Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi
7:30 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 11:39 +0100, Tony Molloy wrote:
On Tuesday 09 May 2006 07:05, Craig White wrote:
> ----
> That can be the only resolution in bugzilla but that shouldn't deter
> anyone nor should anyone conclude that it isn't useful to open a new
> bugzilla entry.
>
> It is the one and only meaningful way to provide feedback by the users
> to the developers.
>
> My estimate was that there were about 10 people who wanted the 'install
> everything' option in anaconda. According to a quick perusal of the
> above links, there were less than 10.
Doubt that. This is the fourth time this discussion has come up on this
list in the past few months. Each time it has generated more e-mails than
any other topic. It was bugzilled and closed as not a bug. Probably right
as it's not really a bug it's a usability feature.
I did an install yesterday and it took the entire day to get the
"everything install". Do the base install selecting as little as
possible, configure the yum repos, do the everything install, do the
updates. I'm thinking of a few months time when I have to install 200+
machines. And I need the everything install because I can't tell a
student what environment, Gnome or KDE, to use what browser, mailer etc
to use.
It was a useful feature.
That scenario is a perfect place to use kickstart and configure it as
you want. That also will automate it and eliminate the need to babysit
each install as you configure it.
For 200 installs I would *never* want to sit through the first steps of
configuring anaconda even if there were an 'everything' option.
Tony
>
> Thus a reasonable conclusion is that those who feel that the removal of
> the 'install everything' option in anaconda are statistically
> insignificant.
>
> Craig
--
Tony Molloy.
Dept. of Comp. Sci.
University of Limerick
7:44 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 11:39 +0100, Tony Molloy wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 May 2006 07:05, Craig White wrote:
>
> > ----
> > That can be the only resolution in bugzilla but that shouldn't deter
> > anyone nor should anyone conclude that it isn't useful to open a new
> > bugzilla entry.
> >
> > It is the one and only meaningful way to provide feedback by the users
> > to the developers.
> >
> > My estimate was that there were about 10 people who wanted the
> 'install
> > everything' option in anaconda. According to a quick perusal of the
> > above links, there were less than 10.
>
> Doubt that. This is the fourth time this discussion has come up on this
> list in the past few months. Each time it has generated more e-mails
> than
> any other topic. It was bugzilled and closed as not a bug. Probably
> right
> as it's not really a bug it's a usability feature.
>
> I did an install yesterday and it took the entire day to get the
> "everything install". Do the base install selecting as little as
> possible, configure the yum repos, do the everything install, do the
> updates. I'm thinking of a few months time when I have to install 200+
> machines. And I need the everything install because I can't tell a
> student what environment, Gnome or KDE, to use what browser, mailer etc
> to use.
>
> It was a useful feature.
>
That scenario is a perfect place to use kickstart and configure it as
you want. That also will automate it and eliminate the need to babysit
each install as you configure it.
For 200 installs I would *never* want to sit through the first steps of
configuring anaconda even if there were an 'everything' option.
>
> Tony
>
>
Perhaps it should be suggested (Enhancement Request) that the necessary
kickstart configuration be shipped with FC6 "out of the box" for those
that want "everything" installed. With highly visible instructions and
necessary warnings, where needed, of course.
~~R
8:19 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 08:21 -0500, Roger Heflin wrote:
Jeff Vian wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:20 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>> It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
>>>>
>>>>> This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the wind.
>>>> That's only true if the designers don't care enough about users
>>>> to pay attention to the whining.
>>> Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all
>>> the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
>> OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said? A lot of
>> decisions seem to be made with no thought about the real-world
>> effects. For example if someone wanted to build PCs with
>> fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on
>> it?
>>
> Whatever the "builder" chose to install. Doh!
>
Which the safest choice is "install everything" since the builder
does not know exactly how the customer is going to use the machine.
Actually the better choice would be to install what *most* will use, and
provide media with the rest so they can tailor the install to fit their
needs.
No Windows machine comes with ANY apps installed except those the
builder chose to provide and that usually is something like microsoft
works and some media apps. The flexibility and availability of apps for
Linux is overpowering even for the expert user to keep up with. A
newbie would be totally overwhelmed and would have no clue as to the
number of apps installed if he was given 'everything'.
The typical workstation or server install contains hundreds more apps
than are readily available on a typical Windows install, even without
'everything'.
Roger
8:37 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 20:19 -0500, Jeff Vian wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 08:21 -0500, Roger Heflin wrote:
> Jeff Vian wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:20 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 15:10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>>> It's not a bug, it is a design decision.
> >>>>
> >>>>> This is a user list...whining here is merely pissing in the
wind.
> >>>> That's only true if the designers don't care enough about
users
> >>>> to pay attention to the whining.
> >>> Its not possible or efficient for developers and designers to read all
> >>> the mails in the fedora-list to gather feedback.
> >> OK, but does that differ greatly from what I said? A lot of
> >> decisions seem to be made with no thought about the real-world
> >> effects. For example if someone wanted to build PCs with
> >> fedora pre-installed, what might the user expect to find on
> >> it?
> >>
> > Whatever the "builder" chose to install. Doh!
> >
>
> Which the safest choice is "install everything" since the builder
> does not know exactly how the customer is going to use the machine.
>
Actually the better choice would be to install what *most* will use, and
provide media with the rest so they can tailor the install to fit their
needs.
The builder should pick a user interface, and stick with it - IE gnome
or KDE, but not both. The builder should pick a set of applications that
they are willing to support when the customer calls.
No Windows machine comes with ANY apps installed except those the
builder chose to provide and that usually is something like microsoft
works and some media apps. The flexibility and availability of apps for
Linux is overpowering even for the expert user to keep up with. A
newbie would be totally overwhelmed and would have no clue as to the
number of apps installed if he was given 'everything'.
Exactly. A newbie does not need every app available.
My personal recommendation is a basic GNOME desktop with maybe a few
things from Extras added, and (when they are ready) the GStreamer
multimedia plugins from fluendo.
8:48 p.m.
Rickey Moore wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 07:22 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
>> Any other suggestions for getting the developer's attention that won't
>> result in it just getting CLOSED as NOTABUG?
>>
>> It is un-useful to say 'use bugzilla' when the only response there is to
>> CLOSE it as NOTABUG.
>>
>
> It is practically useless to use Bugzilla for proposals like "Everything
> Installs without a "Reporter satisfied" type of feature where bugs can
> only be closed when the reporter is satisfied with the problem reported.
>
> Bugzilla does not have a customer satisfied feature. Therefore it is
> useless for this sort of request.
>
> Jim
Amen Jim!! Amen!! No one fixed the udev problem to my satisfaction and I
would like to see that the bug couldn't not be closed until my udev
fired up on boot. Otherwise, why bother? At the Friday 1pm Rah Rah
session, where the week's activities are commented on, someone can say
"I closed 20 bugs!" without fear of confrontation from the boss, since
he never comes into this "high traffic cluttered list" to see who is
zooming who. At least Mr Harald has not closed the udev bugzilla report,
so that's a good guy! :) Ric
Having the reporter assured that the concern is addressed adequately
would make filing a bug report more worthwhile.
Just as Bruno mentioned for upgrading with raid where at least the
updating is done singularly and the raid updated after the installation
is completed. Sure it is possible that a disk might fail when one was
upgrading the system but the time spent in this mode is relatively short.
If the upgrade failed with the singular disk being updated, you would
still have the redundant drive to start over.
I have not used raid so I am probably misunderstanding some of the
aspects for upgrading a system with raid.
To track with the subject line. I am satisfied with the right clicking
on each group in order to select all the additional packages within the
groups. It also makes it easier to go back within the groups and remove
selection of programs that I know I do not want on the system. There are
a lot fewer packages that I do not want compared to what I would not
exclude from the system.
Jim
--
"To take a significant step forward, you must make a series of finite
improvements."
-- Donald J. Atwood, General Motors
10:29 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 19:20 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 07:09:04PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > Really? yum install vmd? yum install gamess? yum install gromacs? yum install
namd?
> > yum install mmtk? yum install openbabel? Funny, yum finds jack.
> Developers!
No developers (you seem to have been bitten by Ballmer, that's
usually fatal).
BS.
Just check it out, and build it yerself.
But it's not in the depositories. (No, even Debian doesn't
have most of them).
And? Where is the problem?
If developers need something, they can chose: Use what other supply or
do it themselves, or ditch it.
> > You're engaging in wishful thinking. I'm not a
developer,
> That's apparent. As I've said before, developers *know*, or more
It is quite apparent that you don't know developers. I do; I
have to change their diapers. Daily. Don't tell me about
what developers know.
You might have some people claiming to be developers.
> precisely, are supposed to know what they are doing.
You must send me whatever you've been smoking. Some powerful stuff, eh.
It's always a pleasure being in contact with semi-educated people, who
can't refrain from molesting the public on topics, they only believe to
have understood.
EOT
Ralf
12:54 a.m.
--CUT--
Having the reporter assured that the concern is addressed adequately
would make filing a bug report more worthwhile.
Just as Bruno mentioned for upgrading with raid where at least the
updating is done singularly and the raid updated after the installation
is completed. Sure it is possible that a disk might fail when one was
upgrading the system but the time spent in this mode is relatively short.
If the upgrade failed with the singular disk being updated, you would
still have the redundant drive to start over.
I have not used raid so I am probably misunderstanding some of the
aspects for upgrading a system with raid.
To track with the subject line. I am satisfied with the right clicking
on each group in order to select all the additional packages within the
groups. It also makes it easier to go back within the groups and remove
selection of programs that I know I do not want on the system. There are
a lot fewer packages that I do not want compared to what I would not
exclude from the system.
Jim
Hey Jim,
Although you make valid points, please be aware that other people have
different needs than you do. I've seen a lot of posts (including this
one) with a lot of I's. "I am satisfied" "I know I do not want"
"I do
not want" "I would not exclude".
Fedora isn't made for simply one person. It is made for a community of
people. We must ALL remember that please.
Personally, I just installed FC5 for the first time here at the office,
and, in my case (I didn't know about the right clicking because I'm lazy
and probably missed reading that somewhere), it was hellishly annoying
to convert the default setup into an "Everything" one.
Apart from the Languages packs, we ALWAYS install everything here, as
most of our PCs go out to clients. We can not know beforehand what they
need, so we install everything, then disable unneeded services.
That is my case. Most people do not want this, and that is fine.
What I agree with the other posters is that what is NOT fine is the fact
that the everything option has been removed without a suitable
replacement. A "Select All" tick box or the like would have sufficed me,
but apart from the right click method, we don't have that option any more.
I think that is what of posters on this subject mean, and frankly, for
us here at my work, I'd have to agree.
Regards,
Ed.
--
***DISCLAIMER***
The director of Triple D Computer Services does not believe in
disclaimers or signatures - and thinks they are a severe waste of
bandwidth - if you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you
must stand on your head whilst picking your nose and singing the
national anthem. Although obviously Triple D will not be responsible for
any resulting injury or ridicule.
1:42 a.m.
On Wed May 10 2006 1:54 am, Edward Dekkers wrote:
Hey Jim,
Although you make valid points, please be aware that other people
have different needs than you do. I've seen a lot of posts (including this
one) with a lot of I's. "I am satisfied" "I know I do not want"
"I do not
want" "I would not exclude".
Fedora isn't made for simply one person. It is made for a community of
people. We must ALL remember that please.
And therein lies the rub... Even more objectionable, and downright obnoxious,
than the self-centered, are the faction that simply 'know' what's right for
all - 'this is the way it must be done' I am _the_ authority... Frankly,
their attitude stinks.
--
Claude Jones
Brunswick, MD, USA
2:27 a.m.
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 13:54 +0800, Edward Dekkers wrote:
Apart from the Languages packs, we ALWAYS install everything here, as
most of our PCs go out to clients. We can not know beforehand what they
need, so we install everything, then disable unneeded services.
You need a kickstart file.
You can burn a small boot.iso with a kickstart file to install Fedora
with everything you want to include (which may be everything) from a
network server, and greatly reduce the amount of time required to
install stuff.
btw - I think it is much easier for someone to use pirut to install what
they want than it is to have to uninstall everything they don't want.
But that's just me.
2:40 a.m.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 23:48 +0200, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
Hi,
well, I have read all the complaint letters about the $SUBJECT
and I wondered if software installation can be done without
net access but with the FC5 DVD at hand.
I do have a solution for this (now non-)problem.
Edit /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-core.repo, so the first three lines reads
like these below.
---------------------------
[core]
name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch
baseurl=file:///media/disk
---------------------------
Then put your installation DVD into your drive and do
# yum install --exclude="dlm*" --exclude="gnbd*"
--exclude="cman*"
--exclude=magma-plugins "*"
I needed those --excludes because yum cannot resolve dependencies
for their kernels and I don't need them. So it still won't install
everything
but after that "yum install magma-plugins" will do the rest.
It would be similar for mirrored updates and extras trees on the harddisk.
I wonder why wasn't it the default baseurl? Maybe worth and RFE in
Bugzilla...
That only works for people that:
(a) actually burn the installer image to DVD, which many people don't
because network installs are much faster and more reliable
(b) use DVDs rather than CDs
(c) have physical access to the machine every time when they want to use
yum so that they can insert the DVD into the drive and mount it (unless
they dedicate a DVD drive for this purpose)
I think the current default would work for a larger subset of the user
base, but it might be worth adding the media baseurl as a commented-out
example so that people could configure it easily enough. You'd still
need Internet access for all other enabled repos though, and there's no
quick workaround for those as only a very small proportion of users have
their own Extras and updates mirrors.
Paul.
2:53 a.m.
You need a kickstart file.
You can burn a small boot.iso with a kickstart file to install Fedora
with everything you want to include (which may be everything) from a
network server, and greatly reduce the amount of time required to
install stuff.
I know, one of those things that's never been done before here at the
office - so always gets put on the "we'll do that another time" pile.
btw - I think it is much easier for someone to use pirut to install
what
they want than it is to have to uninstall everything they don't want.
OK, I also agree with that.
BUT, I've never said (nor has anyone else here), that there should ONLY
be an everything install. I just said a tick box would be nice as a
"select all" in the install process, so the people who DO want an
everything install don't have to jump through hoops to get one.
I've used Red Hat since 5.1 (yes, I know, late start) and FWICR there
was always an option like this. This is the first time it is missing.
But that's just me.
I know, fair enough, I'm just an old schooler who doesn't like change I
guess.
There must be an awful lot of old schoolers out here though - I'm not
the only one voicing my concern.
Ed.
--
***DISCLAIMER***
The director of Triple D Computer Services does not believe in
disclaimers or signatures - and thinks they are a severe waste of
bandwidth - if you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you
must stand on your head whilst picking your nose and singing the
national anthem.
5:15 a.m.
New subject: fc5: install everything? - advice on sending suggestions
At 21:42 09/05/2006, you wrote:
Well I have a perfect record. I have filed about 5 or 6 bugzillas and
I
have yet to have a solution to the problem as a response. I rarely get a
response.
I've submitted two bugs myself, neither of which has been completed.
Bug 178847, a RFE, is now in the wiki, looking like a useful document
for absolute beginners. Unfortunately it needs to be in the download
folder, not the wiki, to be truly useful. This was supposed to have
happened for the FC5 final release but of course it didn't.
Example: I filed a bugzilla against kyum. It has an obvious bug. I
even
indicated the specific nature of the bug which would make it obvious to
the developer of kyum how it be solved. I my opinion a soluiton of the
problem should be straightforward to program.
I have heard no response to the bugzilla. No promise to fix to bug or a
statement why it will not be fixed. I got zip, nothing, de nada.
Bug 186766 - this is obviously something wrong but it appears to be
getting ignored, probably because I made the mistake of finding a
workaround. Last thing that Red Hat did was shift it to the kernel.
That was on 19th April and absolutely nothing has happened since.
Now I know the person who the bug was assigned to is probably busy.
FC6
is on the way. I would accept a statement that the bug would be fixed in
FC6. But I don't hear even that.
IMHO the existing bugs in FC5 should be fixed before working on FC6.
Am I mad or discouraged . Not really. But I think those people who
recommend bugzills must have better experiences than I have had.
I'm sure a user could easily become discouraged. As I understand it,
we the Fedora users are effectively providing a service by testing
the OS and reporting the bugs. But we don't seem to be getting our
rewards through bug fixes.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
6:20 a.m.
Edward Dekkers wrote:
--CUT--
>
> To track with the subject line. I am satisfied with the right clicking
> on each group in order to select all the additional packages within
> the groups. It also makes it easier to go back within the groups and
> remove selection of programs that I know I do not want on the system.
> There are a lot fewer packages that I do not want compared to what I
> would not exclude from the system.
>
> Jim
Hey Jim,
Although you make valid points, please be aware that other people
have different needs than you do. I've seen a lot of posts (including
this one) with a lot of I's. "I am satisfied" "I know I do not
want" "I
do not want" "I would not exclude".
Usually empathy gets me into trouble and I can only speak for my
personal desires. I like to have all packages available for install and
desire the most efficient way to select the packages that I use.
Fedora isn't made for simply one person. It is made for a community of
people. We must ALL remember that please.
It is of course made for the community and their suggestions should be
considered. If it was specifically tailored for my desires, all
multimedia formats would work out of the box, the themes would not all
be so smurfish blue, mozilla/seamonkey suite would be the default,
midnight commander would be installed by default and the level of eye
candy would be higher.
Since it a community project, configuration for each one's individual
needs without a lot of hassles should be priority. Not everyone uses the
same applications.
Personally, I just installed FC5 for the first time here at the office,
and, in my case (I didn't know about the right clicking because I'm lazy
and probably missed reading that somewhere), it was hellishly annoying
to convert the default setup into an "Everything" one.
There should be a more obvious method to select all that is contained on
the install medium. I did not know about this option until I filed a bug
report regarding the everything install. Knowing about this option now
makes using pirut or the installer more efficient to use.
Apart from the Languages packs, we ALWAYS install everything here, as
most of our PCs go out to clients. We can not know beforehand what they
need, so we install everything, then disable unneeded services.
Besides langpacks, not ready for release apps and apps that are so
stripped down that they interfere with feature rich and functional
applications, I install everything also for my systems.
That is my case. Most people do not want this, and that is fine.
What I agree with the other posters is that what is NOT fine is the fact
that the everything option has been removed without a suitable
replacement. A "Select All" tick box or the like would have sufficed me,
but apart from the right click method, we don't have that option any more.
I think that is what of posters on this subject mean, and frankly, for
us here at my work, I'd have to agree.
I have no objections to including an easy and up front method to install
all that is available on the install medium.
Jim
Regards,
Ed.
--
/* Allow the packet buffer size to be overridden by know-it-alls. */
- comment from drivers/net/ne.c
7:57 a.m.
New subject: fc5: install everything? - advice on sending suggestions
On Wed May 10 2006 6:15 am, David Fletcher wrote:
At 21:42 09/05/2006, you wrote:
>Well I have a perfect record. I have filed about 5 or 6 bugzillas and I
>have yet to have a solution to the problem as a response. I rarely get a
>response.
I've submitted two bugs myself, neither of which has been completed.
Bugzilla has been frustrating at times, for me, as well. Ironically, I
received 4 followups last night from previously posted bug reports. All were
under active discussion/resolution by the developers, with one having been
resolved - that was an unusual event.
--
Claude Jones
Brunswick, MD, USA
9:25 a.m.
Mark Haney wrote:
>It is just not worth my time. Next time it will be SUSE instead.
>
>-Frank
Good luck with that. I have a SUSE box that has virtually nothing
installed by default. You think Fedora's installation is sparse? I was
amazed at the total lack of packages installed in SUSE. Really, it's a
total joke to work on that server. It has KDE /and/ GNOME installed (on
a /server/ no less) and yet I had to install the sysstat packages along
with ntpd and about 3 or 4 others just to make the server really
manageable. The SUSE install is just silly. The Fedora installer is at
least more /sane/ than most other installers I've seen or used.
But it seems rather childish to switch distros just for that. Kind of
like taking your ball and going home, eh?
No, not childish, just efficient. These distributions are really not
all that different. The same packages are there, so the question
is just which is easiest to install? And yes, SUSE has an install everything
checkbox that works very well.
I've been using RedHat since 4.0, but this is a show stopper.
Installing everything is not a security risk.
All of my installs (and I would guess most installs) are for machines
with user bases of known trustworthy people, such as my family or coworkers.
Local exploits are not an issue. People running servers with shell access
for scores of remote unknown people are the exception, not the rule.
Some people have said that I should only install programs that I'm going
to use. Well, my wife uses KDE, my son uses Gnome, I use fvwm. My wife
uses kmail, my son uses mozilla, and I use pine. My wife uses OpenOffice,
I use emacs/latex, my son uses, uh... I don't even know what it's called.
I could go on and on. And that's just my family. At work
the situation is even more diverse. I'm _not_ going to hunt all those
down. For years I've just done install everything and it just worked.
Until now.
I don't understand the mentality of taking away a very useful
feature that lots of people want (even if it's not perfect),
and saying that it is better.
-Frank
>
>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.
>>
>>
>
- --
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
(828) 350-2415
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEX32bYQhnfRtc0AIRApxkAKCceM17q8hKzmaxl2jqZSX6wo3xKgCePf/3
3/EPzr3rLK1av+eG0KsxtP0=
=1qc4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11:03 a.m.
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 21:48:38 -0400,
Jim Cornette <fc-cornette(a)insight.rr.com> wrote:
To track with the subject line. I am satisfied with the right clicking
on each group in order to select all the additional packages within the
groups. It also makes it easier to go back within the groups and remove
selection of programs that I know I do not want on the system. There are
a lot fewer packages that I do not want compared to what I would not
exclude from the system.
I went through that process and found that I didn't get some things that
I wanted. A specific example was mt wasn't installed even though I selected
all of the packages. It was included in "core" as part of mt-st though.
3:42 p.m.
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 07:20 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
I have no objections to including an easy and up front method to install
all that is available on the install medium.
One of the things to note is that Fedora is going away from the model of
a large core. At least in theory.
Many apps have been moved from Core to Extras - for example, AbiWord,
Pan, Gnumeric, etc. - as this transition happens, "install everything"
is not what it use to be.
There is even a push to move KDE out of core and into Extras:
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/UnleashKDE
Installing "everything" for the purposes described in this thread will
not have the same effect - you are going to have to have all of Extras
to get that effect, because a lot of what you get when you "install
everything" in older Fedora Core _is_ going bye bye out of Core anyway.
4:36 p.m.
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 01:42:39PM -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
Installing "everything" for the purposes described in this
thread will
not have the same effect - you are going to have to have all of Extras
to get that effect, because a lot of what you get when you "install
everything" in older Fedora Core _is_ going bye bye out of Core anyway.
I think most people who object to the removal of the 'Everything' option
really just want a button who's action is to "install as much as is
realistically possible that is contained on the installation media", as a
shortcut to having to rummage around manually selecting lots of package
groups.
I for one have been very irritated by it's removal.
--
I've often wanted to drown my troubles, but I can't get my wife to go
swimming.
5:48 p.m.
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 22:36 +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 01:42:39PM -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Installing "everything" for the purposes described in this thread will
> not have the same effect - you are going to have to have all of Extras
> to get that effect, because a lot of what you get when you "install
> everything" in older Fedora Core _is_ going bye bye out of Core anyway.
I think most people who object to the removal of the 'Everything' option
really just want a button who's action is to "install as much as is
realistically possible that is contained on the installation media", as a
shortcut to having to rummage around manually selecting lots of package
groups.
I for one have been very irritated by it's removal.
I can understand that.
What I would like to see (been meaning to work on it) is a stripped down
Fedora with only two options - standard desktop and desktop + devel -
where standard desktop includes a decent GNOME environment for the
novice user, and the development includes just what is needed to build
everything on the distro.
Thus - selecting devel gets everything. No customization, something that
is sane for a generic desktop install. You get what is on it, but it is
a much smaller download than the big Fedora.
Something like that would be especially well suited for OEM distributors
- the more that is in there, the more training an OEMs call center
needs.
I suspect some people choose "Install Everything" because they do not
have the knowledge to select what they really want. In such cases, they
probably should just select "GNOME workstation" and be done with it, but
a lot of new users don't know that that is probably their best option.
Of course - if I ever get around to doing it, OpenOffice will NOT be on
the disk - AbiWord and Gnumeric will be :p
One of the issues though with doing this (grrr) is the Fedora Trademark.
To do it - all the Fedora artwork legally has to be removed and
replaced. They patched the gnome login process to move the icons up so
that it would look good on the Fedora specific splash screen - replace
that splash with the default gnome splash, and the icons as gnome starts
are too high. So it would require removing that patch etc.
Ah well, I'm going off topic ...
6:05 p.m.
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 17:48, Michael A. Peters wrote:
One of the issues though with doing this (grrr) is the Fedora
Trademark.
To do it - all the Fedora artwork legally has to be removed and
replaced.
Interesting - the equivalent to Centos but with fedora as the
base...
However if all you really want to do is become the expert who
decides what 'everything' means for some set of people that
might care about your opinion, couldn't you do that by
publishing the output of some invocation of 'rpm -q' in
a format that could be used directly by anyone's yum to
load up the same packages?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
6:31 p.m.
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 18:05 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 17:48, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> One of the issues though with doing this (grrr) is the Fedora Trademark.
> To do it - all the Fedora artwork legally has to be removed and
> replaced.
Interesting - the equivalent to Centos but with fedora as the
base...
However if all you really want to do is become the expert who
decides what 'everything' means for some set of people that
might care about your opinion, couldn't you do that by
publishing the output of some invocation of 'rpm -q' in
a format that could be used directly by anyone's yum to
load up the same packages?
The idea is an ISO that is easily downloadable and only uses 1 CD
(probably 2 if you want devel). The secondary idea is to respin every
six weeks with updates.
A kickstart file that does a network install would also work, except for
updates, but there are too many times when for whatever reason a network
install doesn't work (IE the pcmcia support was broken in anaconda for
my laptop in FC5, making network install impossible).
-=-
As far as "become the expert who decides what 'everything' means for
some set of people - that's not the intention at all. The intention is
to provide a good base distribution targeted at LOTD that is good for
new users and easy for OEMs to support.
As you are aware, Fedora does not come with any support. So if Fedora is
going to be installed by OEMs - it needs to have enough software that
users can enjoy it, but not so much software that an OEM has to spend a
lot of money in software support training because there are seventeen
different applications that all basically have similar purposes, but
different ways of going about doing them.
Reducing the install base also makes it possible to target those
specific applications for proper scrollkeeper support, and proper
translations of the scrollkeeper documentation into other languages that
are likely to be in the market for the product (IE Spanish and French
for the North American market, add Portugueese and probably Italian for
the South American market, etc.)
9:06 p.m.
Michael A. Peters wrote:
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 07:20 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
> I have no objections to including an easy and up front method to install
> all that is available on the install medium.
One of the things to note is that Fedora is going away from the model of
a large core. At least in theory.
Many apps have been moved from Core to Extras - for example, AbiWord,
Pan, Gnumeric, etc. - as this transition happens, "install everything"
is not what it use to be.
With all of the trimming down proposed and parts that already have taken
place, it would not be worthwhile to have install medium which only
provided for core. Since Core is targeted for extreme reduction, an
everything install would probably be default. :-)
There is even a push to move KDE out of core and into Extras:
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/UnleashKDE
Isn't there a group that has repositories for KDE for Redhat (Fedora)
already? Are the current developers/packagers going to work within the
Fedora-Extras group for KDE?
Installing "everything" for the purposes described in this thread will
not have the same effect - you are going to have to have all of Extras
to get that effect, because a lot of what you get when you "install
everything" in older Fedora Core _is_ going bye bye out of Core anyway.
Is the goal to make an affordable RHEL or for Less for more as in fossil
fuels in recent practices?
Jim
--
Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.
9:07 p.m.
why don't we just cut to the chase and send a a email to the whole list
like...
Subject: THERE IS NO INSTALL EVERYTHING IN FC5!
Body: There is no install everything in FC5
reasons go here
There will now be no more tolerance for threads on this subject as this has
just been explained.
- List Admin
dunno...just kind of annoying/funny IMO that there's been alot of discussion
over this...either there is such an option or there isn't...
On 5/10/06, Jim Cornette <fc-cornette(a)insight.rr.com> wrote:
Michael A. Peters wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 07:20 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
>
>> I have no objections to including an easy and up front method to
install
>> all that is available on the install medium.
>
> One of the things to note is that Fedora is going away from the model of
> a large core. At least in theory.
>
> Many apps have been moved from Core to Extras - for example, AbiWord,
> Pan, Gnumeric, etc. - as this transition happens, "install everything"
> is not what it use to be.
With all of the trimming down proposed and parts that already have taken
place, it would not be worthwhile to have install medium which only
provided for core. Since Core is targeted for extreme reduction, an
everything install would probably be default. :-)
>
> There is even a push to move KDE out of core and into Extras:
>
> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/UnleashKDE
Isn't there a group that has repositories for KDE for Redhat (Fedora)
already? Are the current developers/packagers going to work within the
Fedora-Extras group for KDE?
>
> Installing "everything" for the purposes described in this thread will
> not have the same effect - you are going to have to have all of Extras
> to get that effect, because a lot of what you get when you "install
> everything" in older Fedora Core _is_ going bye bye out of Core anyway.
>
Is the goal to make an affordable RHEL or for Less for more as in fossil
fuels in recent practices?
Jim
--
Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
9:20 p.m.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 21:48:38 -0400,
Jim Cornette <fc-cornette(a)insight.rr.com> wrote:
> To track with the subject line. I am satisfied with the right clicking
> on each group in order to select all the additional packages within the
> groups. It also makes it easier to go back within the groups and remove
> selection of programs that I know I do not want on the system. There are
> a lot fewer packages that I do not want compared to what I would not
> exclude from the system.
I went through that process and found that I didn't get some things that
I wanted. A specific example was mt wasn't installed even though I selected
all of the packages. It was included in "core" as part of mt-st though.
During the testing phase there was a list of many packages that were not
included in groups which were contained on the install medium and were
not installed. There was work on getting these applications which were
not pulled in into a comps file so they would be pulled in.
Your results do not surprise me. Fortunately for me was that programs
that I use were pulled in with the changes they did make to accommodate
packages that were not pulled in before with the installer.
I would like to see an addition to the installer that allowed globbing
even as far as an * for all packages on the install medium.
Anyway, it appears that the right click on selected groups is the best
that we'll get.
Jim
--
Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.
9:23 p.m.
On Wed May 10 2006 10:06 pm, Jim Cornette wrote:
Isn't there a group that has repositories for KDE for Redhat
(Fedora) already? Are the current developers/packagers going
to work within the Fedora-Extras group for KDE?
Yes, and yes - Rex Dieter, the maintainer of kde-redhat has also
been named a member of the Fedora Project Board.
--
Claude Jones
Brunswick, Md, USA
9:36 p.m.
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 15:53 +0800, Edward Dekkers wrote:
I know, fair enough, I'm just an old schooler who doesn't like change I
guess.
There must be an awful lot of old schoolers out here though - I'm not
the only one voicing my concern.
I've been around since when, but as a user not a developer... I bought
the earliest RedHat, then the first Caldera at around $75 bucks. I ran
an 8 line BBS in those days. So, I have some claim to ancientude and my
two cents is that I usually installed everything by hitting that button
to do so. Every lib got installed, so that I had a reasonable chance to
build some tarball that I wanted built.
I've tried the server install and missed stuff. I've tried client /
workstation and missed stuff not getting installed. So, hitting 'install
everything', going off for a smoke, a beer and a skirt was good for me.
Now, I'm not supposed to smoke or drink and skirts are almost impossible
to find (and politically incorrect), so just leave me with my 'install
everything' button and I'll make the most of it. Or, is THAT too, just
asking too much? :) Ric
10:01 p.m.
Claude Jones wrote:
On Wed May 10 2006 10:06 pm, Jim Cornette wrote:
> Isn't there a group that has repositories for KDE for Redhat
> (Fedora) already? Are the current developers/packagers going
> to work within the Fedora-Extras group for KDE?
Yes, and yes - Rex Dieter, the maintainer of kde-redhat has also
been named a member of the Fedora Project Board.
KDE should flourish with developers from this project working together.
I rarely use KDE but recall removing Fedora KDE and installing from
ked-redhat was common among a lot of KDE users.
Jim
--
Conceptual integrity in turn dictates that the design must proceed from one
mind, or from a very small number of agreeing resonant minds.
- Frederick Brooks Jr., "The Mythical Man Month"
12:30 p.m.
New subject: sound card question
I'm running FC4 and KDE. I recently added an external USB soundcard
that works fine. How do I make this the default soundcard for my
system? I've been resetting this with Kmix whenever I reboot. Thanks
for the help. --Jerry
3:48 p.m.
Rahul Sundaram <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> I found the FC5 lack of 'install everything' to be a
really serious pain
> on the machine I built a week and a half ago as I had to do it three or
> four times in a row as I worked through the problems I was having with
> install media.
>
> It is aggravated by the fact that choosing a group of things doesn't
> actually mean you get everything in that group, either, and so you have to
> manually tick through nearly *every* menu to make sure that you have
> actually have a full install.
You can right click on a group in both the Installer and Pirut to select
every package in a group. Otherwise you might use kickstart.
This is still a time-consuming, error-prone and (sorry, no offense)
"dumb" task. The deselected groups have to be selected, and then the
individual packages can be added with the menu by right-clicking.
It's quite a lot of them. A "Select All" button/checkbox
(not to be confused with the old "Everything" option) would be nice
to select everything that can be installed anyway.
On the other hand, that package selection process is really weird.
It's unpredictable, which packages get their according devel package
(with header files and config tools) installed as well, and which not.
Even if everything is selected, a number of packages don't have their
*-devel package installed. But this is necessary to develop and
compile software.
OK, missing packages can be installed afterwards, but that's even
more time-consuming. If I select all development packages during
installation, why don't I get all packages installed *with* their
devel packages? Do they do any harm? Do they confuse end-users?
This might be considered a bug.
The current package selection process might be perfect for end-users
who never compile anything. Maybe some Ubuntu users will change to
Fedora now.
However, as a developer or programmer, Fedora Core now requires a lot
of additional work to make the machine usable. This has been much
better in previous releases.
I filed a bug report, but I don't think that they understand my point.
It became a duplicate of the "Install Everything" bug that will never
be fixed. But my bug wasn't pro or contra the old "Install Everything"
checkbox. The current installation process makes it impossible to
get a system right from the beginning where things fit together nicely.
I get most of the libraries, but I don't get their header files
(includes). If I select all development packages, isn't it obvious
that I want most/all packages installed *with* their devel packages?
That said, it doesn't help much to use bugzilla on specific topics.
(As some people here suggested.)
Fedora seems to become an end-user distribution, anD times might get
harder for developers, programmers and people who like to compile
stuff on their own instead of using pre-build packages.
Greetings, Andreas
4:43 p.m.
Michael A. Peters <mpeters(a)mac.com> wrote:
>>>> Sorry - but "installing everything" is just
plain silly in most cases.
>>>
>>> I don't know which packages and libraries I'm going to need
tomorrow.
>>
>> You never need to explicitly ask for libraries unless you are a
>> developer. yum will find them.
>
> And for your users that *are* developers???
you install the devel packages you need to work with.
Choosing "software development", "gnome-development", and
"kde-development" groups will get most of them for you.
Even if all groups and their packages are selected,
quite a number of packages are installed without their
according devel package (like gtk+-devel, glib-devel or
ImageMagick-devel). This can be annoying if you want to
compile some software yourself.
I usually prefer to have packages installed complete
or not at all. But installing only some parts of them,
that is confusing.
I think, there's room for improvement.
Greetings, Andreas
8:24 a.m.
Its easy!! just go to the directory in the installer DVD or CD
containing all the rpms and run the script below.
ls > /root/rpmlist
#Install Script
exec 3
--
This is an email sent via the webforum on https://fcp.surfsite.org
https://fcp.surfsite.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=114692&t...
If you think, this is spam, please report this to webmaster(a)fcp.surfsite.org and/or blame
gattu(a)oneindia.in.
6423
days inactive
6603
days old
168 comments
49 participants
participants (49)
-
Aaron Konstam -
Andreas M. Kirchwitz -
Antonio Olivares -
Benjamin Franz -
Bruno Wolff III -
Christofer C. Bell -
Claude Jones -
Claus Reheis -
CodeHeads -
Craig White -
Dan Thurman -
Dave Mitchell -
David Fletcher -
Ed Greshko -
Edward Dekkers -
Edward Krack -
Eugen Leitl -
Frank Samuelson -
Gerhard Magnus -
Hex Star -
James Wilkinson -
Jeff Vian -
Jim Cornette -
K. Richard Pixley -
Kam Leo -
Karl Larsen -
Lee Maschmeyer -
Les Mikesell -
Mark Haney -
Michael A. Peters -
Mike McCarty -
Mikkel -
Paul Howarth -
Peter Gordon -
potat0 -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ralf Corsepius -
Rex Dieter -
Ric Moore -
Richard England -
Robert G. (Doc) Savage -
Roger Heflin -
Tarjei Knapstad -
Tim -
Tony Heaton -
Tony Molloy -
Tony Nelson -
Yang Xiao -
Zoltan Boszormenyi