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

Re: fc5: install everything?



On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 18:23 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 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.
> 
LOLOLOL
Tim is one of the regulars here and a great help to many.
Troll indeed.  Are you looking in the mirror or something?


> > 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.

Your expectations may be violated.  For the great majority of us it made
perfect sense.  No degradation in usability.   Yum updates, installs,
and the use of extras provides much more than is possibly available on
the CDs.

>  
> > 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.
> 
Name calling even, and for one of the most helpful people on this list.


> > 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. 
> 
GOOD

> > 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*
Certainly helpful for over 99% of the people wanting that option.
>  
> > 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.

I think Tim speaks for himself and his view fits in with the norm.

> 
> > 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. 

PLONK!!!!!


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