FC5T2 ready for even a test release?

[Rahul Sundaram]

Hi

>>Can you explain to me a few different use cases which makes it a
>>good argument to be available by default other than selecting
>>package groups, kickstart and using yum . Please explain with
>>rationale instead of just stating your preference.
>>    
>>
>
>hmmmmm ... that scraping you hear is the sound of goalposts being
>moved.  apparently, it's not enough if i supply just *one* convincing
>reason for supporting an "everything" install.  no, apparently, rahul
>wants to see "a few different use cases."  ah, well, i should be
>grateful he didn't ask for several.
>  
>
Just one use case doesnt make a convincing argument you have to provide 
as many as possible for the relevant developers to understand whether 
the use cases provided by the users can be satisfied by other means or 
whether they exhibit patterns that show problems elsewhere or whether 
they truely need that option. A good developer's job is to say NO when 
it doesnt make sense and say YES only and if only the rationale provided 
by the users are solid enough for the feature to be added. Remember that 
every feature has a associated development and long term maintenance 
cost. Its is the responsibility of the developer to encourage good use 
cases and *discourage* the not so good ones. Of course some balances 
needs to be there to provide flexibility in order to present the user 
the benefit in cases where the developer has not thought of all the 
relevant use cases. Now in this particular scenario the flexibility is 
provided through checking the package groups or through installer or 
through using yum or pirut post installation. Now the question is 
whether you can present enough use cases for the developer to be 
convinced that the feature is worthy providing.

><anecdote>
>
>i have a yahoo email account.  when i log in to it, i might see a
>screenful of emails.  with yahoo, i have the ability to select any
>subset of the visible emails and delete all checked emails.  but yahoo
>also has this marvelous feature at the top -- with a single stroke,
>i can select *all* visible emails.
>
>note that, strictly speaking, that meta checkbox isn't necessary.  i
>could get *exactly* the same effect by manually and tediously checking
>each box one at a time.  but the people at yahoo understand the
>concept of convenience -- hence, the meta checkbox.  is that a nifty
>invention or what?
>
></anecdote>
>  
>
No its not but its not a relevant analogy since I can already present 
use cases where it make sense. I provide detailed rationale why it *does 
not make sense*. I havent had much of a refute against the rationales 
presented by me. It could possible that I have missed out areas where it 
does indeed make sense despite my rationale. all I am asking for is 
users to present that so that it can discussed in detail.

>back to reality.  of course one could live without an "everything"
>install since, as folks here have pointed out, the idea is that you
>will be able to get the same effect without it, albeit with a little
>more effort.
>
>using the same logic, you could do without a graphical installer
>since, technically speaking, everything can be done in text mode.
>sure, it would be more of a pain but, as we all understand,
>the functionality would still be there.  do you buy *that* argument?
>no?  why not?  you just made the same one in a different context.
>  
>
See above on developer responsibility.

perhaps the most irritating theme underlying this discussion is that

>people have to make a compelling argument to keep the concept of an
>everything install.  i disagree.  i think the developers have to make
>a compelling argument to *remove* it since many people have used it,
>and many people happen to like it.
>  
>
Though I am not a developer I already presented what I believe to be 
compelling arguments against it. Remember again that every feature has a 
associated cost.

>rahul wanted some use cases to defend an everything install.  i'll
>give him just one - i like it.  period.  and since it doesn't appear
>to do any obvious harm, and since it has historical precedence, and
>since it's been admitted that the same functionality will still be
>available but more inconveniently, i don't see why some people are so
>adamant about getting rid of it.
>
>  
>
It has very obvious harm. I remember so many times where users had a 
messed up box that I had to help them recover in #fedora channel. 
various administrative and security issues not to mention that a 
"everything" installation is not one really since Fedora Extras is not 
supported yet in the installer. Now your personal preference is that you 
somehow like it but it does require a better defense than that.

-- 
Rahul 

Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers