[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: fc5: install everything?



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.
>  
> 


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]