Re: The new installer

[Karel Volný]

Hi,

> What kind of impression do you think people get when, after
> hearing that Fedora defines itself as bleeding edge
> technology, they are presented with an installer interface
> designed and written more than ten years ago?

and the wheel was invented more than ten *thousand* years ago

is that a reason we need to use something else than wheels?

take a look here:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/1107_2012_2013_new_cars_ultimate_buyers_guide/viewall.html

- don't they look modern enough?
yet they all use those obsolete wheels, ouch

/me goes to swallow Zyrtec, getting hives each time someone says
we need to replace something just because it is old

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog69.html

K.

--
Karel Volný
QE BaseOs/Daemons Team
Red Hat Czech, Brno
tel. +420 532294274
(RH: +420 532294111 ext. 8262074)
xmpp ka...@jabber.cz
:: "Never attribute to malice what can
::  easily be explained by stupidity."

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: The new installer

[David Lehman]

On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 10:24 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:
> Then there is a question of prominently showing substandard
> software to the public.  We all know about first impressions
> in social settings.  In operating systems it is the installer that
> makes the first impressions.

You have also pointed out an answer your own question about why we redid
the installer's user interface: it was antiquated and not user-friendly.

What kind of impression do you think people get when, after hearing that
Fedora defines itself as bleeding edge technology, they are presented
with an installer interface designed and written more than ten years
ago?

-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: The new installer

[Carl G]

Chuck, I don't know what you're trying to say/achieve here...

2012/9/11 Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R 

>
> On 09/11/2012 10:58 AM, David Lehman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 10:24 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/11/2012 08:07 AM, David Lehman wrote:
>>>
 On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 14:07 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:

> Had a frustrating experience with the fat cow installer.
> Something in one of the selections I made had a
> missing dependency (or whatever).  Missing dependencies
> are a part of developmental installs.
>
> What was most frustrating is that the installer did not
> indicate which selection was causing the problem.  I
> had to go into whack-a-mole mode, repeatedly removing
> selections and retrying until the offending package was
> removed.
>
 If you cannot tolerate an alpha installer, try _not_ tempting fate by
 doing a simple, minimal install. That means automatic partitioning
 (expect us to wipe the disks you select) and a minimal package set. Once
 you're out of the horrible installer you can customize to your heart's
 content.

  There are so many things wrong with this bagbiter installer.
> Why can't Fedora use the Fedora 16 installer, which was
> relatively friendly and much more useful.
>
 You can always use yum to update from one release to the next.

 I know it can be frustrating, but if you want to run alpha releases of a
 by-definition bleeding-edge distribution, that means things change. Not
 just the things you personally want changed.

  What was so wrong with the working installer that required
> writing a new one from scratch?
>
> --
> Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R c...@omen.com   www.omen.com
> Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
>  Omen Technology Inc  "The High Reliability Software"
> 10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231   503-614-0430
>
>  In my experience using Yum to update to a new release has
>>> resulted in a defective system.  And there is always the
>>> possibility that hardware failures may oblige me to make
>>> a fresh install.  A processor upgrade usually demands a
>>> fresh install.
>>>
>> As I said before, the alpha can be installed if you keep the tweaking to
>> a minimum during installation.
>>
>>  Then there is a question of prominently showing substandard
>>> software to the public.  We all know about first impressions
>>> in social settings.  In operating systems it is the installer that
>>> makes the first impressions.
>>>
>> If you're showing people a (pre-)Alpha as their first impression of
>> Fedora then the blame for that poor judgment lies with you.
>>
>>
>>  I am not showing pre-alpha Fedora to anyone.
> I am not discussing it anywhere except on this list.
> I am certainly not announcing anything on Distrowatch et al.
>
>
> --
> Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R c...@omen.com   www.omen.com
> Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
>   Omen Technology Inc  "The High Reliability Software"
> 10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231   503-614-0430
>
> --
> test mailing list
> test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/test
>
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: The new installer

[Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R]

On 09/11/2012 10:58 AM, David Lehman wrote:

On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 10:24 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:

On 09/11/2012 08:07 AM, David Lehman wrote:

On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 14:07 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:

Had a frustrating experience with the fat cow installer.
Something in one of the selections I made had a
missing dependency (or whatever).  Missing dependencies
are a part of developmental installs.

What was most frustrating is that the installer did not
indicate which selection was causing the problem.  I
had to go into whack-a-mole mode, repeatedly removing
selections and retrying until the offending package was
removed.

If you cannot tolerate an alpha installer, try _not_ tempting fate by
doing a simple, minimal install. That means automatic partitioning
(expect us to wipe the disks you select) and a minimal package set. Once
you're out of the horrible installer you can customize to your heart's
content.


There are so many things wrong with this bagbiter installer.
Why can't Fedora use the Fedora 16 installer, which was
relatively friendly and much more useful.

You can always use yum to update from one release to the next.

I know it can be frustrating, but if you want to run alpha releases of a
by-definition bleeding-edge distribution, that means things change. Not
just the things you personally want changed.


What was so wrong with the working installer that required
writing a new one from scratch?

--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R c...@omen.com   www.omen.com
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
 Omen Technology Inc  "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231   503-614-0430


In my experience using Yum to update to a new release has
resulted in a defective system.  And there is always the
possibility that hardware failures may oblige me to make
a fresh install.  A processor upgrade usually demands a
fresh install.

As I said before, the alpha can be installed if you keep the tweaking to
a minimum during installation.


Then there is a question of prominently showing substandard
software to the public.  We all know about first impressions
in social settings.  In operating systems it is the installer that
makes the first impressions.

If you're showing people a (pre-)Alpha as their first impression of
Fedora then the blame for that poor judgment lies with you.



I am not showing pre-alpha Fedora to anyone.
I am not discussing it anywhere except on this list.
I am certainly not announcing anything on Distrowatch et al.

--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R c...@omen.com   www.omen.com
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
  Omen Technology Inc  "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231   503-614-0430

--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: The new installer

[David Lehman]

On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 10:24 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:
> On 09/11/2012 08:07 AM, David Lehman wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 14:07 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:
> >> Had a frustrating experience with the fat cow installer.
> >> Something in one of the selections I made had a
> >> missing dependency (or whatever).  Missing dependencies
> >> are a part of developmental installs.
> >>
> >> What was most frustrating is that the installer did not
> >> indicate which selection was causing the problem.  I
> >> had to go into whack-a-mole mode, repeatedly removing
> >> selections and retrying until the offending package was
> >> removed.
> > If you cannot tolerate an alpha installer, try _not_ tempting fate by
> > doing a simple, minimal install. That means automatic partitioning
> > (expect us to wipe the disks you select) and a minimal package set. Once
> > you're out of the horrible installer you can customize to your heart's
> > content.
> >
> >> There are so many things wrong with this bagbiter installer.
> >> Why can't Fedora use the Fedora 16 installer, which was
> >> relatively friendly and much more useful.
> > You can always use yum to update from one release to the next.
> >
> > I know it can be frustrating, but if you want to run alpha releases of a
> > by-definition bleeding-edge distribution, that means things change. Not
> > just the things you personally want changed.
> >
> >> What was so wrong with the working installer that required
> >> writing a new one from scratch?
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R c...@omen.com   www.omen.com
> >> Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
> >> Omen Technology Inc  "The High Reliability Software"
> >> 10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231   503-614-0430
> >>
> >
> In my experience using Yum to update to a new release has
> resulted in a defective system.  And there is always the
> possibility that hardware failures may oblige me to make
> a fresh install.  A processor upgrade usually demands a
> fresh install.

As I said before, the alpha can be installed if you keep the tweaking to
a minimum during installation.

> 
> Then there is a question of prominently showing substandard
> software to the public.  We all know about first impressions
> in social settings.  In operating systems it is the installer that
> makes the first impressions.

If you're showing people a (pre-)Alpha as their first impression of
Fedora then the blame for that poor judgment lies with you.


-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: The new installer

[drago01]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R
 wrote:
>
> On 09/11/2012 10:28 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> A processor upgrade usually demands a
>>> fresh install.
>>
>> No it doesn't.
>
> I have had enough times when upgrading CPU and motherboard
> bricked a working system that I assume a fresh install will be
> best.  I have organized my files so a fresh install of Linux is relatively
> painless, modulo flag day items.

You said CPU not motherboard even in that case it should just work if
it doesn't rebuilding the initrd should be enough.
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: The new installer

[Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R]

On 09/11/2012 10:28 AM, drago01 wrote:

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R
 wrote:

A processor upgrade usually demands a
fresh install.

No it doesn't.

I have had enough times when upgrading CPU and motherboard
bricked a working system that I assume a fresh install will be
best.  I have organized my files so a fresh install of Linux is relatively
painless, modulo flag day items.

--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R c...@omen.com   www.omen.com
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
  Omen Technology Inc  "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231   503-614-0430

--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: The new installer

[Frank Murphy]

On 11/09/12 18:24, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:



Then there is a question of prominently showing substandard
software to the public.  We all know about first impressions
in social settings.  In operating systems it is the installer that
makes the first impressions.



Chuck, it's (pre)alpha
things go boom.
It's the reports and experiences from people on this list.
That let the devs know what need to be pushed, pulled
or torn completly out by the roots.
--
Regards,
Frank
"Jack of all, fubars"
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: The new installer

[drago01]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R
 wrote:
> A processor upgrade usually demands a
> fresh install.

No it doesn't.
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: The new installer

[Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R]

On 09/11/2012 08:07 AM, David Lehman wrote:

On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 14:07 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:

Had a frustrating experience with the fat cow installer.
Something in one of the selections I made had a
missing dependency (or whatever).  Missing dependencies
are a part of developmental installs.

What was most frustrating is that the installer did not
indicate which selection was causing the problem.  I
had to go into whack-a-mole mode, repeatedly removing
selections and retrying until the offending package was
removed.

If you cannot tolerate an alpha installer, try _not_ tempting fate by
doing a simple, minimal install. That means automatic partitioning
(expect us to wipe the disks you select) and a minimal package set. Once
you're out of the horrible installer you can customize to your heart's
content.


There are so many things wrong with this bagbiter installer.
Why can't Fedora use the Fedora 16 installer, which was
relatively friendly and much more useful.

You can always use yum to update from one release to the next.

I know it can be frustrating, but if you want to run alpha releases of a
by-definition bleeding-edge distribution, that means things change. Not
just the things you personally want changed.


What was so wrong with the working installer that required
writing a new one from scratch?

--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R c...@omen.com   www.omen.com
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
Omen Technology Inc  "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231   503-614-0430




In my experience using Yum to update to a new release has
resulted in a defective system.  And there is always the
possibility that hardware failures may oblige me to make
a fresh install.  A processor upgrade usually demands a
fresh install.

Then there is a question of prominently showing substandard
software to the public.  We all know about first impressions
in social settings.  In operating systems it is the installer that
makes the first impressions.

--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R c...@omen.com   www.omen.com
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
  Omen Technology Inc  "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231   503-614-0430

--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: The new installer

[David Lehman]

On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 14:07 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:
> Had a frustrating experience with the fat cow installer.
> Something in one of the selections I made had a
> missing dependency (or whatever).  Missing dependencies
> are a part of developmental installs.
> 
> What was most frustrating is that the installer did not
> indicate which selection was causing the problem.  I
> had to go into whack-a-mole mode, repeatedly removing
> selections and retrying until the offending package was
> removed.

If you cannot tolerate an alpha installer, try _not_ tempting fate by
doing a simple, minimal install. That means automatic partitioning
(expect us to wipe the disks you select) and a minimal package set. Once
you're out of the horrible installer you can customize to your heart's
content.

> 
> There are so many things wrong with this bagbiter installer.
> Why can't Fedora use the Fedora 16 installer, which was
> relatively friendly and much more useful.

You can always use yum to update from one release to the next.

I know it can be frustrating, but if you want to run alpha releases of a
by-definition bleeding-edge distribution, that means things change. Not
just the things you personally want changed.

> 
> What was so wrong with the working installer that required
> writing a new one from scratch?
> 
> -- 
> Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R c...@omen.com   www.omen.com
> Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
>Omen Technology Inc  "The High Reliability Software"
> 10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231   503-614-0430
> 


-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: The new installer

[Chris Murphy]

On Sep 10, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:

> Had a frustrating experience with the fat cow installer.

http://imgur.com/r/funny/tSE5K


> What was so wrong with the working installer that required
> writing a new one from scratch?

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NewInstallerUI


Chris Murphy
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

Re: The new installer

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 10 September 2012 15:07, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R  wrote:
> Had a frustrating experience with the fat cow installer.
> Something in one of the selections I made had a
> missing dependency (or whatever).  Missing dependencies
> are a part of developmental installs.
>
> What was most frustrating is that the installer did not
> indicate which selection was causing the problem.  I
> had to go into whack-a-mole mode, repeatedly removing
> selections and retrying until the offending package was
> removed.
>
> There are so many things wrong with this bagbiter installer.
> Why can't Fedora use the Fedora 16 installer, which was
> relatively friendly and much more useful.
>
> What was so wrong with the working installer that required
> writing a new one from scratch?

The usual.. the code had reached the end of its maintainable life with
the needs that people had for it. Basically the list of things people
want the installer gets bigger and at some point you aren't able to
stick those things in because of all the features that were asked for
in the past that may not be needed, people didn't really like how they
were, or it just won't work with where other code anaconda depends on
is. This happens every 6 or so releases I believe... it is a painful
horrible fact of Fedora life.

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
"Don't derail a useful feature for the 99% because you're not in it."
Linus Torvalds
"Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh
so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I
recommend pleasant. You may quote me."  —James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd
-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test

The new installer

[Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R]

Had a frustrating experience with the fat cow installer.
Something in one of the selections I made had a
missing dependency (or whatever).  Missing dependencies
are a part of developmental installs.

What was most frustrating is that the installer did not
indicate which selection was causing the problem.  I
had to go into whack-a-mole mode, repeatedly removing
selections and retrying until the offending package was
removed.

There are so many things wrong with this bagbiter installer.
Why can't Fedora use the Fedora 16 installer, which was
relatively friendly and much more useful.

What was so wrong with the working installer that required
writing a new one from scratch?

--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R c...@omen.com   www.omen.com
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
  Omen Technology Inc  "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231   503-614-0430

--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test