FC5T2 ready for even a test release?

[Nils Philippsen]

On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 05:39 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
> 
> >
> >note well that what that point shows is that an everything install may
> >not have as compelling reason for *existence* as it once did, and i'm
> >certainly willing to grant that. but it most certainly does *not* show
> >that it has a "cost."  there's a difference.
> >  
> >
> Of course it does. How many users have you supported that end dealing 
> with the GFS kernel module issue in FC4 just because they did a 
> everything installation and had no clue what GFS mean and wouldnt have 
> installed had it not the installation supported a everything 
> installation?. I remember dealing with in #fedora, fedora list. fedora 
> forum and in person atleast three dozen times. In every single instance 
> that I was able to discuss this in detail with them they agreed they 
> were doing it out of ignorance about the issues involved.

Lack of an "Everything" button won't solve that particular problem, the
hunter-gatherers among those who can't help themselves (who just have to
have everything because it's there, the same clientele likely to fall
prey to "1001 hidden secrets of Windows" if they were on a different
OS, ...) will just click all them checkboxes, have the GFS kernel module
problem and still complain that they wore out their mouses because the
installer sucks ;-). Honestly: the (GFS) kernel module problem shouldn't
be solved in the installer. Some people will always install stuff they
don't need just because it's there.

> >more to the point, it cannot *possibly* have an associated "cost"
> >since you can emulate it simply by selecting all of the check boxes on
> >the screen.
> >  
> >
> You are working around something that shouldnt be really required for 
> end users at all who wouldnt use kickstart, yum or pirut.

I don't think he was talking about end users at all. From
fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html:

"""
Objectives of Fedora Core:

     1. Create a complete general-purpose operating system with
        capabilities equivalent to competing operating systems, built
        for and by a community — those who not only consume, but also
        produce for the good of other community members.
"""

I would argue that this means that "power users", developers and testers
are very much a target audience of Fedora. Again, I'd like to emphasize
that the problem to me isn't the lack of "Everything" per se but the
deficiencies of the current package selector when it comes to selecting
stuff beyond what someone deemed worthy to be default ;-). If the groups
and subgroups UI had an easy way to "give me all that cruft within and
forget about disk space and bandwidth" I wouldn't complain and others
probably neither.

> >i have no problem with people arguing against an "everything" install.
> >but, please -- don't make up bogus arguments to bolster your case.
> >  
> >
> Please make your case *in support of it* more just that you want it 
> without providing any good reasons. I have asked for it so many times 
> already

Instead of the "Everything" install, I'll try to make the case for bulk
selections as outlined above, note that in some cases this relates to
perceived rather than actual need:

1) Testers who want to test every corner of the system.
2) Some of 1) might even be journalists and fair share of them labels
things missing if they can't find them or missed to install them. Or so
it seems to me.
3) The survivalist type: Mobile users/developers/... who'd rather waste
some disk space than find themselves having something not installed when
they're away from net access.
4) Hunter-gatherers who want everything under the sun just because it
exists and no you won't make them behave with rational arguments.
5) Number 4) light, if they install on a spare machine to "browse" the
new version in order to decide what they actually need. Rarely seen ;-).

> >in any event, there may be reasons why an "everything" install isn't
> >as important a feature as it once was.  but it doesn't appear to have
> >an actual "cost" associated with it, and it clearly doesn't do any
> >actual harm.  so let's not make those arguments, ok?
> >  
> >
> It has so many manageability, performance and potential security issues 
> with packages they wouldnt be using. Did you actually read my entire 
> rationale against it?

First, software just installed usually should only cause updates to take
longer. If we distribute software, it'd better be secure. Nevertheless
we shouldn't enable to many daemons by default, rather have the users
activate them if they need them. The issues you bring up can be handled
differently than by not installing specific software IMO.

Nils
-- 
     Nils Philippsen    /    Red Hat    /    nphilipp at redhat.com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
 safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."     -- B. Franklin, 1759
 PGP fingerprint:  C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011