On 15 October 2010 04:48, Fernando Parra <gato2...@yahoo.com.mx> wrote: > Hi everybody. > > I feel that the concept of a new way, as it exist into my mind is not > completely understood. Let me try to re-explain again. Please be patient and > excuses any mistake with my English (I'm totally out of practice): > > I'm talking about to liberate to novice/novel/without experience user, about > concepts like backports, but I'm not talking about > close/disappear/eliminate/forgot backports. > > Why? because a big share of them will arrive from a very different > environment (especially windows), and as you now, in there those concepts are > not only estrange, they simply don't exists. > When a Windows user wants/needs to update a program, as much the only thing > that he/she must do is unninstall the old/previous version and then install > the new one. > > What programs? Following the same idea, about these kind of users, we should > ask: what programs they usually upgrade? The answer could be found asking to > the user's themselves, but certainly could be another ways. > > Why not all backports? Reason 1: Because a lot of them don't care about the > new version of CUPS (in example) or the new version of Maxima (I'm sure there > are a lot clearly examples). > Reason 2: Because there are packages that may causes some incidents after > upgrade them. > > How we can solve this situation? Offering a default automatic upgrade for a > small group of packages, especially when they change in an important way, in > example Firefox 3.6x 3.6x+ or to 4.x > > With this in mind: > >> What aspects of the Mandriva backports solution are not satisfactory? > >> -The fact that not everything is available as a backport? > > Not all are in backports, more these users don't want/understand a big share > of them > >> -That users don't know how to request a backport? > > That is true, more, they don't want to learn about that, they only want a new > version of their favourite program. > >> -That too many backports are available? > > This is matter of who are revising backports, for novice? Yes there are to > many. For the geek or the expert? Maybe never there will enough of them. > >> -That all users don't get them by default? >> -That users doing network installs by default don't get the backport on >> initial installation? > > No, they are not get them if we will use a potentially problematic repository. > >> -That users aren't aware of backports? >> -Something else? > > Panic? Fear? Baal, Luzbel and other demons in their minds? > >> Technically speaking? >> Less than 'urpmi --searchmedia Backports chromium' ? > > If I was a novice my answer will be: What hell is that? > >> Again, before we can decide what *more* we should do (what significant >> resources we need to commit), maybe we should first understand why the >> existing features (which have significant effort behind them) are not >> resulting in user satisfaction. > > More and more reasons to prepare very carefully our offer. All we here > appreciate those efforts and there are no way to send them to trash > >> Personally I think a poll without educating everyone about what exactly >> each choice would mean is useless. We first need to elaborate detailed >> alternatives before anyone can make an informed choice. > > IMHO, a democracy without education is not democracy, is populism. I agree at > all, we need first elaborate a well structured alternatives and then, > explicitly after inform and educate our community we can run a poll, or > prepare a council, or any other appropriated way. > >> backports should be supported for security patches and bug fixes just like >> the main packages (if not instead of the main packages). >> Of course the security patch could be simply provided by backporting a >> newer version of the package, no need to make patches for each version. > > That is essential, any upgrade must be supported (other valid reason for an > small group of packages). > >> What I mean is basically when new updates get presented (which would >> include new backports) the user could untick specific packages (as is >> possible now) but also have a second tick-box to store the choice >> permanently in the skip.list. >> This would give the user more choice of which packages he wants to always >> update to the newest version and wich ones he/she prefers to keep frozen >> at the same version. > > Please try to explain that to my grandma, or maybe you could be lucky with > some of my students. > >> New users who frequented the forums always got to know what backports >> are pretty fast. And bugzilla is the perfect system for asking for a >> backport, that worked pretty good. > > These users are walking to change into intermediate users, they are no longer > basic users. This only for the simple fact that they are posting in a > technical forum. Let me remind you: 1,300 millions of Hispanics and only 130 > votes at the BlogDrake poll. > >> I was thinking about writing a proposal as you suggested, but so far I >> haven't found the time. >> I don't think this is that urgent, since backports only become an issue >> once we have the first release out, but I will try to write up a >> proposal well before that. > > I'm writing a proposal as Tux99 does, I need find time for finish it and then > translate it. > > Regards from México > -- > Fernando Parra <gato2...@yahoo.com.mx> >
Your reply doesn't show whom you're quoting. Please pay more attention to show whom you're quoting when quoting others' posts :) -- Ahmad Samir
