FC5T2 ready for even a test release?

[Richard Hally]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
> 
>>>
>>> Thats too generic. Is all of the software thats available in core 
>>> needed to be installed simultaneously and is using all of them 
>>> together a common scenario?
>>>
>> You(Rahul) still don't get it! It's not about "using them all 
>> together" at all. Yes, it is about installing "everything" in Core at 
>> one time(install time!) *easily*. It's a usability / easy-of-use 
>> issue. It's about giving users the choice. If they want to - let then. 
> 
> Choice has associated cost. Implementing everything any user ever asked 
> for will lead to a unmaintainable mess.
> 
Let's see *your* cost/benefit analysis.

It saves me and many others time when selecting packages to install.
It saves me and many others time to not have to install packages 
individually.
I and many others don't have to download packages (via yum or whatever) 
that have already been downloaded in the isos.
I and many others don't need a kickstart file.
I and many others don't need to waste space on disk with rpms when I 
already have the packages installed from the initial installation.

Your "reductio ad absurdum" argument doesn't apply. We are talking about 
*one* "select all" feature.

>>>
>>> Report number?
>>
>>
>> Search on "anaconda everything".
> 
> Thats not a number ;-)

The research is left as a learning experience for you. =:O

> 
>>
>>>
>>>> And what makes Rahul think he knows the difference better than 
>>>> others? (wink,wink)
>>>>
>>> Oh please guys. Listen before responding. I presented very detailed 
>>> reasons why I think it is not a good thing.
>>
>> And all those reasons are bogus and do not apply to the usability/ease 
>> of use of the package selection part of the installer.
> 
> Sure. Call them all bogus with no explanation. That doesnt look a 
> appealing argument.
Your "reasons" are below in quotes:
"* Dependency issues -  One of the reasons behind doing a everything 
installation is avoid dealing with dependency issues. However that is 
largely not a problem now since yum install and yum groupinstall along 
with along programs like pirut. Refer to the yum guide available at 
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs "

Your "dependancies" reason does not apply to the question of whether a 
"select all" feature in the installer is useful. There are other reasons 
for doing an "everything" install.  By not having a "select all" 
feature, it looks like you are trying to hide the symptoms of 
dependency problems.

"* Discoverability - Fedora Core like you indicate a large number of 
useful programs but the installer divides these into several different 
types to target particular segment of use cases and avoid having to a 
everything installation. Custom group and package selection is available 
for those who would like to do a granular installation. Even if all the 
packages of Fedora Core is installed it doesnt grant users immediate 
access to all the packages since the ones in Fedora Extras repository is 
not available at installation time. Though the installer itself is 
getting support for additional repositories the aspect of making these 
packages more visible to users is better handled through the use of 
tools such as pirut rather than having users install everything which 
they cant now anyway since the installation is limited to Fedora Core 
packages."

This reason is unrelated to the question of whether a "select all" 
option in the installer is useful. The problem of finding packages is 
much easier if they are "all" in one place(i.e. installed). see also 
'rpm -qa  | grep <whatever>', google,  etc.

"* Redundancy - While Fedora Core itself is slowing moving towards 
providing more packages as part of the Fedora Extras and possibly doing 
several different targets the current selection uses multiple programs 
that provide the same functionality, browsers or desktop environments 
for example and its better for users to use a graphical tool like pirut 
and install packages as necessary."

There are users that want to compare the "redundant" programs.
Who are you to say what is better for users? It is arrogant it assume 
you know more than the users.

"* Security, manageability  and performance -  As more and more packages 
are installed on a system the amount of  updates and interactions 
between the packages that the user has to handle drastically increases. 
For users who are using Fedora as  a development system or using it just 
to learn Linux where the system serves no other purpose and a high 
amount of bandwidth is available this might make sense but for others 
users who use it deploy it at various levels the amount of updates and 
potential security issues that they have to deal with packages that they 
might not even use is a additional burden. Moreover the additional 
packages installed might need listen to network connections by default 
making the systems potentially more vulnerable by increasing the attack 
vector. Additional services enabled by default also affect performance."

It is a "user choice" issue as to what trade offs users want to make 
regarding "Security, manageability  and performance" ! If people want to 
install "everything" that is their choice and just trying to make it 
more difficult because you don't think it is a good idea is wrong.

> 
>> Several people have already given you "use cases" but this is not 
>> about your opinion that an "everything" install is not useful. 
> 
> Can you list them?
do your own homework.
> 
>> It's about those users that want to do it (in spite of your opinion) 
>> being able to do it easily. Trying to make it difficult is just 
>> arrogance!
> 
> Depends on what you want to do and how useful it is. I still havent 
> heard good use cases yet.
> 

The sooner you realize that it is not your judgment of what I or other 
users want to do that counts, the smarter you will be.

Good luck to you and the Red Sox,
Richard