Mark Phalan wrote: > On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 15:57 -0600, Keith Bierman wrote: > >> On Aug 6, 2007, at 3:36 PM, Mark Phalan wrote: >> >> >>> I think that its really important that the live cd is a true subset of >>> what a user would get from a full indiana (or solaris next as the case >>> may be) install. From a usability perspective the closer to the >>> finally >>> installed bits the better - including default settings etc. I'd be >>> strongly against delivering a gnu userland if that wasn't the default >>> when the bits are finally committed to disk. >>> >> Clearly there is a river to potentially cross. >> >> Making OpenSolaris/Indiana most palatable to the Linux immigrant >> would mandate making defaults look most like Linux. >> >> Making it most like Solaris.Next would require the defaults be as >> close to Solaris Classic. >> >> > > I totally agree with the above two points. To me it seems that we'll > need two slightly different live CD's each reflecting the environment > that will be installed once the "install button" is clicked. > > These two will probably converge over time as indiana and Solaris become > one (thats the current plan - right?) but it seems to me that THE most > important thing here is consistency. I'm pretty sure that's what ubuntu > do - the live cd is the same as the install, it just has fewer packages. > The *same* packages should be delivered on the live cd as are delivered > by the install, we just need to choose that subset. >
Instead of 2 livecds there can be one having both environments. The user is asked which he'd prefer while booting up (among other things). That selection is utilized also while installing to harddisk. Regards, Moinak. > Just my 2c > > -M > > _______________________________________________ > indiana-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss > _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
