fc5: install everything?
Eugen Leitl
eugen at leitl.org
Tue Mar 28 16:23:13 UTC 2006
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20060328/6ef56c7d/attachment-0001.sig>
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list