[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fedora-desktop-list
Subject:    Re: Tech Spec, System Installer
From:       Chris Murphy <lists () colorremedies ! com>
Date:       2014-02-22 23:43:57
Message-ID: 0B8760C1-A38B-4310-81E3-AB30F9705087 () colorremedies ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


On Feb 22, 2014, at 2:45 PM, Liam <liam.bulkley@gmail.com> wrote:

> Given that the audience for the Workstation is developers, does it make sense to \
> prioritize minimalism?

Yes, because the minimum required should enable the majority to end up with a \
bootable, working system. I'm not suggesting arbitrarily gutting capability most \
people really need. But rather focus limited development and testing resources on \
some common, sane, tested and recommended subset of the many ways of ultimately \
getting to the same thing: bootable, working system.

> That doesn't, necessarily, mean keep things as they are, but I'm not sure you need \
> to coddle them. It makes sense, to me, to continue offering the two paths but, \
> perhaps, tweaking what they offer/expose a bit.

OK.

> So, assuming someone has Mac/windows machines available, their installers should be \
> used as a guide for user expectations.

The OS X installer is point and shoot. There is no partitioning, LVM, raid, or \
encryption. A separate Disk Utility application permits some limited resizing, \
partitioning, raid, and a bcache-like choice. It's used pre-install. Encryption is an \
option post-install via online conversion.

The Windows installer by default is similar. The custom install path offers basic \
partitioning. No LVM, raid, or encryption. However most computers come with a \
manufacturer software restore, which typically doesn't use the Microsoft installer, \
usually it obliterates everything on the drive in favor of a predefined partition \
scheme and software set. There are some variations on this, but the most capable and \
complex I've seen still have fewer testable outcomes than the Anaconda \
default/easy/Automatic/guided path. By about an order of magnitude.

Fedora probably needs more capability than that. But

> To the point regarding combinatorics and qa, the installer needs to be reliable. If \
> you can't test every scenario (or at least have strong reasons to think untested \
> variants will work) you shouldn't expose them (if at all possible).

Yes or somehow placard or segment or gradually reveal such things.


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


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]