Bug#452388: Back on "'standard system' is confusing" bug report
Quoting Frans Pop (elen...@planet.nl): > > does not make it clear that standard+desktop will end up in a GUI. > > Correct. > > > If we go back to "Standard environment", I guess it does not make > > things clearer enough. > > The current short description is "Standard *system*", not "Standard > environment". IMO Standard system is quite clear and also IMO > "environment" is very much a wrong term to use as packages with priority > standard do not provide an "environment". > > > Maybe things could be changed in "Desktop environment" to make it > > clear that this is graphical? > > I guess changing it to "Graphical desktop environment" would be OK, but > that does not make "Standard (non-graphical) environment" any less wrong! > > If you want to replace "Standard system" with anything, then it should IMO > be something like "Standard system utilities". Joey, Otavio and I agree with that proposal of yours: Description: Standard system utilities This task sets up a basic user environment, providing a reasonably small selection of services and tools usable on the command line. Description: Graphical desktop environment This task provides basic desktop software and serves as a basis for the GNOME and KDE desktop tasks. > > But even better would be to bring back some pre-sarge tasksel > functionality that allows users to get an extended description of the > tasks. Maybe the new help functionality in cdebconf could help there, but > that would require either backporting it to debconf, or switching to > cdebconf for installed systems. Could be an interesting suggestion to keep in mind. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#452388: Back on "'standard system' is confusing" bug report
Hello, On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Frans Pop wrote: > I guess changing it to "Graphical desktop environment" would be OK, but > that does not make "Standard (non-graphical) environment" any less wrong! I think it would make clear that it is indeed a graphical system and it makes sense for me. > If you want to replace "Standard system" with anything, then it should IMO > be something like "Standard system utilities". Yes; I second this one. It makes clear that it is a set of system utilities after all. > But even better would be to bring back some pre-sarge tasksel > functionality that allows users to get an extended description of the > tasks. Maybe the new help functionality in cdebconf could help there, but > that would require either backporting it to debconf, or switching to > cdebconf for installed systems. That would indeed be nice however I think we could wait until cdebconf is capable to replace debconf in installed systems to support it. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#452388: Back on "'standard system' is confusing" bug report
Christian Perrier writes: > My understanding of your point is that having this: > > [ ] Desktop environment > [ ] Foo > [ ] Bar > [ ] Standard (non-graphical) environment > > does not make it clear that standard+desktop will end up in a GUI. > > If we go back to "Standard environment", I guess it does not make > things clearer enough. What if we replace environment by tools? -- Feri. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#452388: Back on "'standard system' is confusing" bug report
On Wednesday 29 July 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: > My understanding of your point is that having this: > > [ ] Desktop environment > [ ] Foo > [ ] Bar > [ ] Standard (non-graphical) environment > > does not make it clear that standard+desktop will end up in a GUI. Correct. > If we go back to "Standard environment", I guess it does not make > things clearer enough. The current short description is "Standard *system*", not "Standard environment". IMO Standard system is quite clear and also IMO "environment" is very much a wrong term to use as packages with priority standard do not provide an "environment". > Maybe things could be changed in "Desktop environment" to make it > clear that this is graphical? I guess changing it to "Graphical desktop environment" would be OK, but that does not make "Standard (non-graphical) environment" any less wrong! If you want to replace "Standard system" with anything, then it should IMO be something like "Standard system utilities". But even better would be to bring back some pre-sarge tasksel functionality that allows users to get an extended description of the tasks. Maybe the new help functionality in cdebconf could help there, but that would require either backporting it to debconf, or switching to cdebconf for installed systems. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#452388: Back on "'standard system' is confusing" bug report
Quoting Frans Pop (elen...@planet.nl): > On Tuesday 28 July 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: > > What about something like: > > > > Description: Standard (non-graphical) system > > This task installs a reasonably small character-mode system, > > that provides the most commonly used tools in non-graphical > > environments. > > That will look very silly in D-I when you see it combined with the Desktop > Environment task. > > It would give the impression that if both are selected, you are about to > install a non-graphical desktop system, which will IMO cause all kinds of > confusion we should try to avoid. That's about the short description, right? Apparently, the long description bike has now been tweaked in many ways...so we can go on that other one As of now, in this discussion, we have: Description: Standard (non-graphical) system This task sets up a basic user environment, providing a reasonably small selection of services and tools usable on the command line. My understanding of your point is that having this: [ ] Desktop environment [ ] Foo [ ] Bar [ ] Standard (non-graphical) environment does not make it clear that standard+desktop will end up in a GUI. If we go back to "Standard environment", I guess it does not make things clearer enough. Maybe things could be changed in "Desktop environment" to make it clear that this is graphical? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#452388: Back on "'standard system' is confusing" bug report
On Tuesday 28 July 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: > What about something like: > > Description: Standard (non-graphical) system > This task installs a reasonably small character-mode system, > that provides the most commonly used tools in non-graphical > environments. That will look very silly in D-I when you see it combined with the Desktop Environment task. It would give the impression that if both are selected, you are about to install a non-graphical desktop system, which will IMO cause all kinds of confusion we should try to avoid. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#452388: Back on "'standard system' is confusing" bug report
Quoting Justin B Rye (j...@edlug.org.uk): > However, I worry that this will encourage CLI-phobic users to > uncheck the Standard task. It's not for console-only systems; after > all, I'm using mutt right now in my window manager. It's a basic > "neutral" user environment, including apt, exim4, perl, python, and > so on, just not X - the only time I would leave it out is on a > bare-bones server with no users. Perhaps it should say something > more like: > > This task sets up a basic user environment, providing a reasonably > small selection of services and tools usable on the command line. Point taken. I like your rephrasing. It has been as of now the best proposal we've seen. > Or if the idea is that GNOME users _don't_ need it, it needs a name > change to, say, "Traditional" or "Command Line User Environment". A > name change might be appropriate anyway, given that tasksel's > "Standard task" includes the whole of "Priority: required" and > "Priority: important", not just "Priority: standard". I would consider this a little bit out of scope...unless a good proposal comes up for the synopsis and name of the task. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#452388: Back on "'standard system' is confusing" bug report
Christian Perrier wrote:
>> Description: Standard system
>> This task installs a reasonably small character-mode system.
>
> What about something like:
>
> Description: Standard (non-graphical) system
> This task installs a reasonably small character-mode system,
> that provides the most commonly used tools in non-graphical environments.
No comma before a "that" clause; and the last part isn't quite right
either ("provides [...] tools in [...] environments"?). I assume
the intended sense is "the tools that in non-graphical environments
are used most commonly", but there's no good way of phrasing that.
How about just:
This task installs a reasonably small character-mode system, providing
tools often used in non-graphical environments.
However, I worry that this will encourage CLI-phobic users to
uncheck the Standard task. It's not for console-only systems; after
all, I'm using mutt right now in my window manager. It's a basic
"neutral" user environment, including apt, exim4, perl, python, and
so on, just not X - the only time I would leave it out is on a
bare-bones server with no users. Perhaps it should say something
more like:
This task sets up a basic user environment, providing a reasonably
small selection of services and tools usable on the command line.
Or if the idea is that GNOME users _don't_ need it, it needs a name
change to, say, "Traditional" or "Command Line User Environment". A
name change might be appropriate anyway, given that tasksel's
"Standard task" includes the whole of "Priority: required" and
"Priority: important", not just "Priority: standard".
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#452388: Back on "'standard system' is confusing" bug report
Quoting Christian Perrier (bubu...@debian.org): > Description: standard (non-graphical) core operating environment > This is the subset of the distribution, installed by default, which > can be added upon to provide a more featureful and tailored operating > system. > > The current description is indeed: > > Description: Standard system > This task installs a reasonably small character-mode system. > > > I think we might want to converge to something like: > > Description: Standard (non-graphical) system > This task installs a reasonably small character-mode system. > > I think that actually the synopsis is to be enhanced to make it > clearer that the standard system is not graphical, which is certainly > the main flaw of the current wording. (note that the synopsis is what > appears in the menu during D-I). > > On the other hand, the current long description is fairly clear and > includes a word I really like (reasonably) that makes it clear that > the contents of the task is essnetially a compromise. > > Would anyone object to such change to fix this bug? Talking with Otavio in RL, it appeared interesting to add something more to the long description. What about something like: Description: Standard (non-graphical) system This task installs a reasonably small character-mode system, that provides the most commonly used tools in non-graphical environments. (dle added to CC list, to get input by our famous proofreaders) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#452388: Back on "'standard system' is confusing" bug report
(CC'ing some contributors in the thread who might be missing this mail otherwise) I went again on this bug report (against tasksel) about the name of the "standard" task (and description) being somewhat confusing. The thread in this bug report is very long, but finally concludes that a rewrite is needed in some waywith, as often, various (sometimes contradictory) proposals. The best compromise as of now, in the thread, seems to be: Description: standard (non-graphical) core operating environment This is the subset of the distribution, installed by default, which can be added upon to provide a more featureful and tailored operating system. The current description is indeed: Description: Standard system This task installs a reasonably small character-mode system. I think we might want to converge to something like: Description: Standard (non-graphical) system This task installs a reasonably small character-mode system. I think that actually the synopsis is to be enhanced to make it clearer that the standard system is not graphical, which is certainly the main flaw of the current wording. (note that the synopsis is what appears in the menu during D-I). On the other hand, the current long description is fairly clear and includes a word I really like (reasonably) that makes it clear that the contents of the task is essnetially a compromise. Would anyone object to such change to fix this bug? -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
