will F18 allow simultaneous installation of more than one desktop?

[David Lehman]

On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 12:12 -0600, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 12:49 -0500, David Lehman wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 11:23 -0600, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 11:52 -0500, David Lehman wrote:
> > > > > Exactly what is so bad with "that practice" (of installing both desktops) as to "frown upon it"?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I am a KDE user and yet I still install Gnome on my machine. Exactly what crime do I commit?
> > > > 
> > > > Only being unwilling to choose a camp. Not even a crime, really.
> > > 
> > > And choosing a camp is good? Not choosing a camp or deciding to remain
> > > flexible is bad? Not really.
> > 
> > I didn't say flexible is bad. What I am saying is that flexible is
> > _hard_ (for those of us doing the work). Hard is not necessarily bad,
> > either, but at some point one must begin to choose one's battles.
> 
> So... Lots of stuff is hard. But it's also worth it. We don't achieve
> excellence by taking the simple route. I do really hard stuff both in my
> job and on my own time as a volunteer most every day.
> 
> > > > > I am another _real_ data point showing that Fedora users actually do that (that = install both 
> > > > > desktops to have access to packages from both of them).
> > > > 
> > > > There are plenty of very vocal minority groups here.
> > > 
> > > Please show researched statistics to support your claim and implication
> > > that this is a minority group. I question and doubt you actually have
> > > statistics on any of these groups.
> > 
> > Too busy trying to actually do work, but thanks for offering to help.
> 
> Nice try. I didn't offer to help on this one. You alleged something as a
> point without anything to back it up. I just asked you to back up what
> you're saying. If you can't do that, it's not my problem. It just means
> I'm winning on this part of the argument.

I was being sarcastic about you offering to help.

> 
> > > > I can tell you from personal experience that Fedora has both real and
> > > > imaginary idiots. Just kidding. We have two opposing groups of users:
> > > > Those who think the installer should have a knob for whatever their
> > > > obscure pet option is, and those who believe it should be a
> > > > highly-polished, streamlined interface along the lines of MacOS. These
> > > > are fundamentally in opposition and it is impossible to please both
> > > > camps entirely.
> > > 
> > > ...Wow - Talk about spin. Only something that's highly polished and
> > > streamlined like MacOS...?
> > 
> > I don't have time to sit with you all day picking the fly shit out of
> > the pepper. You should stop making assumptions and take a look at the UI
> > before continuing to try and dictate its design from afar.
> 
> Must be getting you you since you're now resorting to ...umm "colorful"
> language.
> 
> I guess you missed the part where I have been contributing in one way or
> another to Fedora since its start (and RHL before that). While I'm not a
> coder, I do understand a lot more about this than you want to imply.
> > > 
> > > Simple is not a requirement for highly polished, and neither simple nor
> > > streamlined should prevent flexibility in options. Besides, if you
> > > really want to emulate MacOS like that, why not just go buy a Mac?
> > > 
> > > I would submit there is a group who wants something highly polished,
> > > with flexibility and the ability to easily control finer points of the
> > > process along the way. None of these traits necessarily precludes the
> > > others. Is that really too much to ask for?
> > 
> > No, of course not. We'll attain UI perfection while simultaneously
> > arguing with you about it. Have you even looked at the UI we're working
> > on? Read the blog posts about what we're doing?
> 
> ...Well, actually... Yes I have, and I keep up on things quite
> regularly. I just don't always chime in on things unless I clearly see
> something truly problematic and have the cycles to engage on it.
> 
> > Just because I failed to spoonfeed you the entire essence of several
> > man-years of work in a short email doesn't mean you're ahead of the game
> > here.
> 
> Only several man-years? I was in Redomond a couple of weeks ago review
> just the update to System Center 2012 and Hyper-V Windows Server 2008 (I
> design and build cloud infrastructure by trade leading a practice for a
> Fortune 500 company). Microsoft is quite proud of that they have more
> than 6,000 man-years of work in the update to System Center 2012
> alone...

You both have reason to be proud.

> 
> > > > > "Applications programming is a race between software engineers, who strive to produce idiot-proof 
> > > > > programs, and the universe which strives to produce bigger idiots. So far the Universe is winning."
> > > > > 
> > > > > Do you really strive to produce more and better idiots?
> > > > 
> > > > We strive to provide an environment in which the idiots can play in
> > > > relative safety (the graphical installer) while also offering an
> > > > alternative environment for the geniuses to do whatever crazy thing they
> > > > think they need to do (kickstart).
> > > 
> > > ...This is evidence of another misconception and misguided strategy
> > > (albeit an honest one): We need to save the novice users from
> > > themselves, while letting "geniuses" hack kickstart files. This is
> > > pitting one extreme vs. another in a situation where neither is
> > > realistically encountered. Just because I might be a genius doesn't mean
> > > I should be required to hack kickstart files (although the choice to do
> > > so should remain available at my own risk).
> > > 
> > > Why not instead have a good set of defaults in the installer, with a
> > > "Don't try this at home unless you're a professional" button to open up
> > > options for those who choose to do so, and then highly polish the whole
> > > thing. Is that just too much to ask despite that reasonably good
> > > versions of such have been successfully accomplished in the past?
> > 
> > Who said we wouldn't be using sane defaults and providing _some_ level
> > of opt-in advanced capability? Nobody.
> 
> Well - Actually, that would be you. You further maintain a position that
> applications from DEs should never be mixed, even post-install. And it
> seems I'm not the only one you're arguing with about this.

I did not say applications from multiple DEs should never coexist. I
said multiple full DEs should not be an installer requirement.

> 
> Let's cut to the chase here: Your actual motivation for all of this is
> that you want to limit the amount of work that you do. You're just
> disguising it in all sorts of excuses. Why not just say that you don't

It's amusing that you assume I am shunning a piece of work, presumably
in order to gain free time, as though I have no other work to keep me
busy for the foreseeable future.

> want to do it? Or, alternately, say that you don't have the cycles to do
> it and, if people really want this done, you're going to need more
> help/time/money, or similar. It's easier and it's a lot more honest. The
> rest of us can then decide how we should adjust our priorities, ranging
> from helping to find more resources willing to work on it, helping to
> work on it ourselves, or even getting up and leaving.
> 
> Chris
> 
> -- 
> Christopher A. Williams <chriswfedora at cawllc.com>
>