[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: fc5: install everything?

On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 01:08:24AM +1030, Tim wrote:

> > The point it took to click one checkbox to install a shitload of packages.
> > User attention is a scarce resource.
> Yes, it is, start paying attention...  I said, and I'm quoting from

I pegged you for a troll right away. You're making it too easy.

> others, that the everything option didn't install "everything".  It
> installed *lots* of things, but it did *not* install *every* single RPM
> that was available.  There are numerous reasons for this, I don't care

I'm not interested in your strawmen. 

> whether you like the reasons or not, the reasons are there.

I'm not interested in your reasons. I've described end user expectations
which are violated, and result in reduce usability.
> e.g. On a 32 bit system there's no point, and probably some harm, in
> installing 64 bit packages.  Certainly so if you try to use them.  Then

There are no 64 bit packages nor MIPSel in FC5 x86_32, moron.

> there's kernels for specific CPUs which you won't have.
> There have always been some packages which conflict with others, they
> *cannot* be installed at the same time, there is no resolution to this

That's what conflict resolution is there for. Again: it used to work.
It no longer works, because the "install everything and the kitchensink"
option is no longer there. 

> other than to not install both of them.  Hence anything that pretends to
> be an "everything installation" is not, and those picking one hoping
> that it is installing everything so are being deluded.
> If you really want to install everything, and it won't work, it's
> child's play:  CD into the RPMs folder, and do:  rpm -i *.rpm

If you really want want to make nonconstructive comments, it's
a child's play, *plonk*
> It will attempt to install all RPMs, there will be no difficulty for you
> to try this (no options to pick, no variations), and it will fail.
> > Please stop rationalizing deficits being features. They're not.
> Stop expecting everything to be precisely what you want, it's not going

Stop pretending to speak for Fedora users. You most emphatically don't.

> to happen.  Take your fingers out of your ears and pay attention to the
> thread that has explained all of this, in excruciating detail, over the
> last few weeks.  Those who've created the installation process
> understand the problems, even if you do not.

Idiots like you are responsible for user experience degradation. 
Thanks for turning back the Linux clock. 

Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> http://leitl.org
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]