On Thu, 04 Nov 2021 13:58:44 +0100 shundhammer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2021-11-04 11:14, josef Reidinger wrote: > > Challenge: > > ---------- > > > > Libzypp supports parallel download and install. Yast installation > > progress does > > not fit it at all [1]. Issues are secondary progress bar that does not > > work > > with parallel installation. Also there are overwhelming amount of > > information on screen that is quite distracting. That information is > > often > > wrong like time estimation. And also table for media is a bit useless > > nowadays > > as everything is on one iso/medium, so there is no need to see when cd > > switch > > will be needed. The details tab are the most visible as it is default > > one. > > > > Proposal: > > --------- > > > > Remove completely that details tab and keep just release notes one[2]. > Hi, at first let me thank you for providing feedback. > Yikes. That will make tracking down problems completely impossible; for > us as well as for users. This is not a good idea IMHO. As a user, I want > to get a general idea what's going on. More often than not, it's some > specific packages that take forever to install; some post-install script > building a kernel module, for example. > > Not having any information about that is a huge step backwards IMHO. Well, we still have that information, just in logs. As mentioned goal is allow parallel download and install. With current machine power I think it will be really hard to provide such kind of info. And also target user group is very is very small who needs such detailed info or even intersted what takes time during installation. I think majority of users are binary or ternary ( install, not install and option install but takes too much time ). If we really want to trace down issue with package installation and long times, then I suggest systemd approach. Simple having output like systemd-analyze that gives you all needed info for very expert usage. > > > > It contains release notes that contain useful information > > For some, maybe. Certainly not for everybody. Well, there are basically three possible infos I see during research how other OSes do progress installation: 1. what installer currently doing ( to be honest I think majority do not care, windows express it best, it just say I am installing without any details ) 2. what issues/features you can expect after installation ( that is what release notes contain - important changes, incompatibilities, and so on ) 3. what OS provides to user ( that is what was slide show and what currently has ubuntu installater ). > > > > and also has just one progress bar. For that bar remove keep always > > just > > remaining size and count of packages, so user has idea how it does, > > That is much too coarse IMHO. > Well, it really depends on audience. I did research of other OSes and it really varies like windows desktop - just say "Preparing system and it can take several minutes". That is e.g. for me quite uncomfortable, but as seen it works for majority of world. windows server - 5 steps and having percent in each step fedora - writes installaling software and percentage ubuntu - writes retrieving or installation software and X / Y and what we writes now in details window? see link[1] in original mail Installing very_long_rpm_name_including_arch_and_version ( installed size X.Y MiB ) Installing packages ... (Remaining X.Y Gib/ X:Y:Z, ABC packages ) and it is usually redrawing so quick that it is hard to even read it. So only time when you have chance to read it is when something big comes....and to be honest that time is always completely off. In the case when I took screenshot it take 4 minutes to install and it says after 14% that it should be 71 minutes. > > > but do not print what exactly is installing > > or any time estimation. If there are more release notes allow to > > switch between them. > > > > Also keep possibility to have slide show which we had in past for > > installation > > if someone create some > > That slideshow seemed like a good idea back in the early 2000s. We had > intended it to show highlights of the distribution that you are > currently installing, to entertain the users (who were installing from > CDs or DVDs back then which took a looong time) and to give them a good > feeling about their new system that they were currently installing. As mentioned above Ubuntu still uses it and when I install it I really like it. For me when I compare various progress during installation the best one, because it is positive, it shows what you can do with your system and just looks good and move the product on higher level. > > It took about 7 nanoseconds until that was hijacked by marketing who > misused it to show the user the OTHER products, more or less implying > "duh, you got the wrong one". The idea and spirit behind the slideshow > were dead at that moment, yet we were saddled with that over-complicated > code. well, even with fire you can burn whole vilage and still noone says stop using it. It is just about usage. > > We had to make it over-complicated because of limitations that we had > back then with YCP and the overall YaST engine; but even today it > wouldn't become significantly easier, clearer or better to maintain. Hmm, I touch it few years ago and it was not rocket science. Just show something in defined time sequence. I remember I kill all that overengineering to try to be super smart to show everything exactly once and to compute exact seconds for each frame and simple replace it with hard coded time for each frame and result works well and is quite simple. > > IMHO this is the best opportunity to get rid of that slideshow for good. > It has been in zombie state for many years, yet it was always in the > way. > As said above for me the ubuntu solution looks from user POV still as the best one I see ( including our own ). > > I propose we could do something similar to what we (Knut and I) did > recently for formatting DASDs: > > - One progress bar because that's really the best thing we can do > > - Provide a list or several lists of packages > - currently being installed > - finished installing > - waiting to be installed > > along with the number in each category, of course. Well, I expect for DASD formatting take serious time, but for package installation when majority of rpms is libs with KiB size, it will quickly become disco dream. Also if I look at it from user POV what I will see? currently installing X package and I have no clue what each package is...hey, there is libreoffice, I heard about it. finished installation - another bunch of packages I have no clue ( On that screenshot I provide with default SLES installation was 2k packages, do we really expect that user scan it? ) waiting to be installed - another bunch of packages I do not know...what I can do with that info? > > The DASDformat prototype: > > https://github.com/shundhammer/dasdfmt-proto/issues/2 > > the package installation would look differently, of course; but you can > get some inspirations from here. > > > I'll happily help with more detailed UI design, but please let's not > dumb this down to the point of becoming useless; and by all means let's > get rid of that slideshow code monster. Nobody asked for it for at least > the past 6 years (probably even for the last 10-12 years); let's bury > that thing for good. Well, for UI design and UX I add to CC Jesus, which I expect can provide more expert view and bring some fresh ideas outside of our bubble that is fascinated by watching installation progress. > > > Kind regards
