> Nice, thoughtful, post. Thanks. Agreed. Thank you, James.
> Absolutely true. For now, we're certainly not > competing with the > Windows market for most cases, and we're expecting a > more technically > savvy audience. Nod. > > To suggest that the overall quality of Solaris > could in some way be judged > > by the snazziness of its install GUI seems to me > equivalent to suggesting > > that the overall quality of a Boeing 767 can be > determined by the available > > upholstery color combinations on the flight deck. > > > > Yes, that's true as well. That said, there are other > factors to consider > here. Linux is a significant factor, and is good > enough for many audiences > much of the time, and for that reason, we need to > consider factors other > than just the underlying technical quality. I don't think anyone is arguing that the installer needs to be "snazzier" for the sake of being snazzy. The arguments against the current model that I have tend to be in the realm of "the current installer is actually getting in my way". I suspect most people would agree to something along those lines (if, maybe, not that strong), which is why this discussion has been so extensive. > On the other hand, for the people who just want to > get from point A to point > B, and consider cars to be largely commodities, the > upholstery could certainly > be a differentiating factor. Exactly. When all other factors are similar, what pushes the customer from one choice to the other? I see the current installer as being a serious negative to the new user, even if that user is very technically savvy. I'm not trying to demean the developers of the current system--as Eric points out, it worked well for the niche market that has been pro-Sun for ages. But as Eric also states, it's a whole new world, and OpenSolaris is (among other things) an attempt to break out of that niche market while, at the same time, not alienating it. (This is one reason the idea of a technical, text installer seperate from the home-user graphical install is appealing to me, now that someone has raised the possibility.) > Yes, that's certainly been the case in the past...but > that's why Solaris is > a niche player in a large market. Sun's historic > inability to look past > the technical merits of technologies to envision how > to connect to > customer's business needs is firmly rooted in the > assumptions you outline > above. This "head in the sand" approach to customer needs is one of the really big peeves I've had against Sun over the past 15 years. As much as I love the technology, sometimes Sun doesn't seem to understand how the real world uses it. That's why these dialogues are vital (and it's great to see Sun as a company starting to "get" what some of its employees have for a long time). > > I hold that this suggests that you don't need to be > splashfully entertained I don't want to be "entertained", but the "ads" can be positive, informative information. Certainly, better feedback in the install process as to where you are, what's left, what is meant by some questions is not "entertainment", but positive value. > You most likely know > exactly what you want done for the install, what to > put where, and what > configurations to set. Any CPU/graphical engine > cycle not devoted to > [i]install action[/i] is a candidate for a wasted > cycle. > > For some audiences, that's true. But for many other > audiences, > an aesthetically pleasing installation can be > significant. Again, are we targetting the same old niche market, or are we trying to expand Solaris' adoption/penetration in the industry? I would argue for the latter (without pushing the former away). > > As far as unabashed marketing during our > install--did someone say "popup > > ads"?--what a way to treat a masterpiece Again, these can be useful. I agree with your sentiment: nothing ticks me off more than an anti-piracy ad I can't skip on a DVD I just bought, for example, or not being able to skip the trailers for other movies I don't want to buy. But at the same time, the use of pop-ups can be made to improve the whole experience. This doesn't HAVE to be a negative, if it's done right. > > Make the install experience efficient but robust, > clean, and most > > importantly, professional and reserved in > appearance, befitting a system of > > this quality. > > Agreed--I don't think we need dancing paperclips or > the like. Right, but I would venture that most people in the current discussion are there because they feel the current installer isn't there yet, and everyone is trying to figure out, through consensus, what is needed to do to get there. I'm not meaning to speak for others; this is my opinion based on the comments being made, both in volume and in content. > > When in doubt, understate rather than overstate. > Your > installer/user/sysadmin has already been sold on the > product. > > Doesn't this doom us to perpetually being a niche OS, > and keep us with > only the same audience and customers that we > currently have? Exactly. We are trying to sell MORE people on Solaris. Most of these new people have NOT been sold on the product yet, but the current installer is actually (possibly) turning some of them away. Thank you both for the thoughtful posts. This thread could be called "the philosophy of the installer". :-) It was a very good idea to pull this discussion of why we should/shouldn't change out of the enormous thread regarding how we could change it. Rainer This message posted from opensolaris.org
