OSDir

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

[no subject]


> Are graphical installers and boot splash screens really a priority for
> the breezy release?  

Well as far as I can gather, they were already planned for Warty, didn't
make it, then for Hoary, again didn't make it. So either we get them for
Breezy, or we officially give up on them forever and concentrate the
resource on making all the H/W and under the hood stuff work perfectly.
But since the people who do the graphics stuff may not be the ones who
do the under the hood stuff, then there is no sense in stopping one, as
it won't help the other at all anyway.

> I really am not eager to see ubuntu turn into
> another distro like suse where the installer is really crazy
> looking... 

Yes, I remember trying to install Suse 9.1 once, it all looked great,
but the installer was so confusing that I cancelled the install, for
fear of screwing my data and/or partitions.... :-/

> during an install i want efficiency.

Well, I don't see what a graphical version of the Ubuntu installer would
remove in the usability/efficiency department ? Efficiency is achieved
by design, it is not dependent on the nature of the user interface. If
you have a crappy text installer, turning it graphical will only make it
pretty but still as crappy an installer, no ? Whereas turning the nice
Ubuntu installer graphical, will only make it prettier (if done with
taste of course...). But why would it remove any of the efficiency ?
just the opposite, it will make it better. Instead of using the keyboard
only, you will have the possibility to use the mouse as well. More
flexibility means more people will feel confident/happy using it, hence
more people using Ubuntu :-)

> Vincent, since newer versions of packages are added to the dev
> version, there are often advantages to using the development release,
> particularly if you are looking for new features.

Sure, but if you NEED something that much, then it means you rely on it,
you need it for work or something. And development version is by nature
untrustable and ever changing. What use is any feature, if you can't
trust in it ? Answer : zero use, of course...
Same goes the other way around... having a rock solid version with 20
year old programs/zero feature, is of no use either... we must
compromise... this compromise is called Ubuntu stable, Warty or
Hoary :o)


--
Vince