FC5T2 ready for even a test release?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On 1/22/06, gb spam <gbofspam at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > We value everything installs, it works for us and jumping
> > > > through hoops (write web apps; managing kickstart files; using
> > > > kickstart during installs - does it still not tell you if it
> > > > can't load the ks file until you get to a point in the install
> > > > where your options haven't been selected?) is "less
> > > > convenient" than clicking a check box during install.

> > > So let me get this straight.. nothing other than a single check box
> > > during install is going to satify you?  There is no room to
> > > compromise? You've drawn the line in the sand and you are holding
> > > your breath?  That's unfortunate.

> > um ... no.  what's unfortunate is your condescending attitude
> > towards folks who are pointing out that they *like* the concept of
> > an everything install.  that would include folks like *me*, by the
> > way. does that mean you're going to insult me as well?

> Can you explain to me a few different use cases which makes it a
> good argument to be available by default other than selecting
> package groups, kickstart and using yum . Please explain with
> rationale instead of just stating your preference.

hmmmmm ... that scraping you hear is the sound of goalposts being
moved.  apparently, it's not enough if i supply just *one* convincing
reason for supporting an "everything" install.  no, apparently, rahul
wants to see "a few different use cases."  ah, well, i should be
grateful he didn't ask for several.

<anecdote>

i have a yahoo email account.  when i log in to it, i might see a
screenful of emails.  with yahoo, i have the ability to select any
subset of the visible emails and delete all checked emails.  but yahoo
also has this marvelous feature at the top -- with a single stroke,
i can select *all* visible emails.

note that, strictly speaking, that meta checkbox isn't necessary.  i
could get *exactly* the same effect by manually and tediously checking
each box one at a time.  but the people at yahoo understand the
concept of convenience -- hence, the meta checkbox.  is that a nifty
invention or what?

</anecdote>

back to reality.  of course one could live without an "everything"
install since, as folks here have pointed out, the idea is that you
will be able to get the same effect without it, albeit with a little
more effort.

using the same logic, you could do without a graphical installer
since, technically speaking, everything can be done in text mode.
sure, it would be more of a pain but, as we all understand,
the functionality would still be there.  do you buy *that* argument?
no?  why not?  you just made the same one in a different context.

it's also odd that one can make the argument that there's no need to
have an "everything" install if the packages are re-orged so that you
can get the same effect by just checking every single box.  in short
(and as i mentioned before), this would be *exactly* equivalent to an
everything install, it would just be far more of a PITA.  this does
not strike me as progress.  ("sure, we'll give you the option of an
'everything' install.  we just won't call it that, and it'll be far
more annoying than it used to be.")

(by the way, if i read jef's posting correctly, the plan is to
re-categorize so that *every* *single* *package* ends up in a
category, is that correct?  is it worth pointing out that, if one of
these categories is called "Miscellaneous", it is a worthless
re-categorization.  but i digress.  onward.)

perhaps the most irritating theme underlying this discussion is that
people have to make a compelling argument to keep the concept of an
everything install.  i disagree.  i think the developers have to make
a compelling argument to *remove* it since many people have used it,
and many people happen to like it.

rahul wanted some use cases to defend an everything install.  i'll
give him just one - i like it.  period.  and since it doesn't appear
to do any obvious harm, and since it has historical precedence, and
since it's been admitted that the same functionality will still be
available but more inconveniently, i don't see why some people are so
adamant about getting rid of it.

rday