Re: NF Compromise - Alternatives Nagging + planned removal date warning
* Anthony Towns | On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:56:21PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: | * Anthony Towns | | On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:54:29AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: | | Because I'd like to Debian be installable with much fewer questions, | | Do you realise what that means? It means: I want everyone to end up with | | the same system. | Actually not. [...] | This will be possible in d-i, by choosing that you only want to see | questions with high or critical priority. | | However everyone that does this will end up with the same system. Yup, that's what we call base. | Whereas ideally, what you want is a way of easily including non-free, | or setting up a wiki server, or otherwise indicating that you want some | common variant of a Debian system without an undue amount of effort. Base will still be the same, or are you talking about making base more flexible as well? | And if that's not enough, customizing a floppy | set with even more predefined answers shouldn't be that hard. | | That's possible, and it's what Knoppix and PGI and so forth are | effectively doing. It doesn't really benefit the people who grab a | Debian CD, or poke through the Debian website, and want to install | Debian, though. Nothing is stopping us from doing what they do -- say -desktop want their own custom installer: go ahead, do that. d-i is a framework where -boot provides a set of building block which is (or will be) roughly equivalent to what b-f provides, initially. I hope others will build on and extend the framework. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Re: NF Compromise - Alternatives Nagging + planned removal date warning
On Fri, 2002-11-22 at 10:01, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: This has nothing to do with boot-floppies. It is apt-setup, which is run from base-config. Thank you for the clarification. I wasn't sure if all that was still there with the new debian installer. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: NF Compromise - Alternatives Nagging + planned removal date warning
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 03:30:10AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Well, the first (only!) time they will install apt/dpkg on a system is during the dbootstrap in debian-installer. I'd object very strongly if such a question were asked by d-i. Debconf is doable, but it'd have to why would you object? yes, it's another question that they'd be asked during an install phase full of questions, but that's exactly when the installer would want to know this preference (i.e. before it dropped them into dselect for the first time). also, they'd only be asked once. be a priority low default no question --- in which case, most people wouldn't see it. And those that would see it probably already know how to look. In general, I don't see preferences as an excuse for bad user interface. (I hate those don't show this dialog next time checkboxes, but that's a rant for another thread.) well, i hate those when i get them uninvited (cue the paperclip asking me if i'm writing a letter), but if i've explicitly asked for it, i'd like to know how to turn it off. However, an approach that is *much* better user interface comes to mind: Give dselect/aptitude/etc. a key binding to show alternatives (this is even more general!) and even display a small note at the bottom of the description: i don't think these ideas are mutually exclusive. i think that that would be really nice feature. and how about adding an apt-cache free-alternatives packagename while we're at it? I hope you'll agree that is much better user interface. well, considering i don't use anything more than a command line for my admin'ing, so i won't agree it's a better, but like i said, i think it's a nice idea and folks who use them would probably find it useful. also, i second the motion on giving a splash screen with the licenses from non-free, as well as making it clear to the users that non-free is not an official part of debian (throw in some social contract) _but still provided_ as a simple courtesy, and defaulting to not using it. i think removing the software on idealogical principles is a little heavy handed and unnecessary, at leat at present, because if you want a pure-free-software OS, all you have to do is not update from non-free! I realize that the social contract states it's debian's goal to provide a completely free OS, and imho they already do that, and more. regards, sean pgpCWB8MVIUAP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NF Compromise - Alternatives Nagging + planned removal date warning
On Friday, November 22, 2002, at 02:48 AM, sean finney wrote: On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 03:30:10AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Well, the first (only!) time they will install apt/dpkg on a system is during the dbootstrap in debian-installer. I'd object very strongly if such a question were asked by d-i. Debconf is doable, but it'd have to why would you object? yes, it's another question that they'd be asked during an install phase full of questions, Because I'd like to Debian be installable with much fewer questions, and asking about if the user wants dialogs warning them of non-free is not needed to install the system. but that's exactly when the installer would want to know this preference (i.e. before it dropped them into dselect for the first time). The installer must already have the user set up his sources.list. The old boot-floppies asks a question about the use of non-free software; this could be expanded to explain how non-free is not part of Debian, may be illegal, etc. I don't think that having two dialogs (do you want to use non-free? and do you want me to bug you whenever you try to use non-free?) makes too much sense. well, i hate those when i get them uninvited (cue the paperclip asking me if i'm writing a letter), but if i've explicitly asked for it, i'd like to know how to turn it off. One way to explicitly turn them on --- which would not bug users who don't want it --- would be to install a package. The package could work similar to apt-listchanges. There are certainly better ways to do that 'I see you're writing a letter' thing. Having a 'New from Template...' menuitem would be much less annoying. One of the templates would be a personal letter, another a business letter, and hopefully another a death threat to Microsoft Paperclip letter. However, an approach that is *much* better user interface comes to mind: Give dselect/aptitude/etc. a key binding to show alternatives (this is even more general!) and even display a small note at the bottom of the description: i don't think these ideas are mutually exclusive. i think that that would be really nice feature. Strictly speaking, they are not mutually exclusive. However, if you've already been reminded gently by dselect friends of the free alternatives, why would you want a dialog to remind you again? and how about adding an apt-cache free-alternatives packagename while we're at it? Good idea. We should add an 'apt-cache alternatives packagename' as well.
Re: NF Compromise - Alternatives Nagging + planned removal date warning
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:54:29AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Because I'd like to Debian be installable with much fewer questions, Do you realise what that means? It means: I want everyone to end up with the same system. Which either means, I'm not interested in having Debian support all the people who have different requirements to me, or I'm happy for people to have to confusing invocations to get what they want The former's not very reasonable: we're trying to produce the universal operating system, remember. The latter can be reasonable, but should really be a matter of efficiency and user-friendliness, not religion. If asking a question upfront makes an install notably more efficient than requiring the user to switch to a shell and run vi, without making life much harder for the person who just wants to say no, then it should be done. (Actually, there's one other way of interpreting the original desire: that it'd be okay to make the question continue to exist, but not require any effort -- even just hitting enter -- to accept the defaults. Consider the difference between accepting the defaults with debconf to accepting the defaults with make menuconfig) Cheers, aj, who always thought being able to say No to Do you want non-free software? was more empowering than offensive -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.'' pgpwoFbq8Cw20.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NF Compromise - Alternatives Nagging + planned removal date warning
* Anthony Towns | On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:54:29AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: | Because I'd like to Debian be installable with much fewer questions, | | Do you realise what that means? It means: I want everyone to end up with | the same system. Actually not. It means «it should be possible to install debian without being asked a zillion questions». That's how I read it, at least. This will be possible in d-i, by choosing that you only want to see questions with high or critical priority. If you want nitty-gritty control, choose low. And if that's not enough, customizing a floppy set with even more predefined answers shouldn't be that hard. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Re: NF Compromise - Alternatives Nagging + planned removal date warning
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:54:29AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Because I'd like to Debian be installable with much fewer questions, and asking about if the user wants dialogs warning them of non-free is not needed to install the system. and i guess that's where we disagree. if i wanted a non-interactive install i'd use FAI :) personally i think that it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask for a medium priority install. The installer must already have the user set up his sources.list. The old boot-floppies asks a question about the use of non-free software; this could be expanded to explain how non-free is not part of Debian, may be illegal, etc. I don't think that having two dialogs (do you want to use non-free? and do you want me to bug you whenever you try to use non-free?) makes too much sense. sure it does. like you have non-free installed on your system. debian prides itself for providing a completely free OS, and there may be freely available alternatives to some of your packages. would you like debian to inform you when this is the case?. personally i don't really use non-free, but i'd enable that option if i had the choice and found myself wanting something out of non-free. One way to explicitly turn them on --- which would not bug users who don't want it --- would be to install a package. The package could work similar to apt-listchanges. that's another idea. the reason i'd prefer the original is that this idea was originally conceived as a compromise for the folks who are pushing for the non-free exodus. i think they'd be much less agreeable to the idea if it were a package, especially if it were not installed with the base system by default. i don't think these ideas are mutually exclusive. i think that that would be really nice feature. Strictly speaking, they are not mutually exclusive. However, if you've already been reminded gently by dselect friends of the free alternatives, why would you want a dialog to remind you again? well the way i interpreted it, i didn't imagine it wouldn't be for reminders. say you're looking around for an image viewer (and let's pretend the xv package still existed), and you found xv. it might be nice to only have to press a button to find out what the free alternatives are, that's what i was thinking. also, such packages could be highlighted or have an icon or something to let the user know that there exist free alternatives. apt-cache free-alternatives packagename while we're at it? Good idea. We should add an 'apt-cache alternatives packagename' as well. yeah, that'd be cool. maybe we should file a wishlist bug? :) --sean pgpRMNjVYe8uO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NF Compromise - Alternatives Nagging + planned removal date warning
* Anthony DeRobertis | The installer must already have the user set up his sources.list. The | old boot-floppies asks a question about the use of non-free software; This has nothing to do with boot-floppies. It is apt-setup, which is run from base-config. boot-floppies/d-i is what gets run before the first boo from hard drive, base-config is what gets run after. [...] | Good idea. We should add an 'apt-cache alternatives packagename' as | well. I've seen many «we should add X», while few people seem to actually do what they suggest. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Re: NF Compromise - Alternatives Nagging + planned removal date warning
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:54:29AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: One way to explicitly turn them on --- which would not bug users who don't want it --- would be to install a package. The package could work similar to apt-listchanges. oh yeah, i just remembered, check out the vrms package, which already does much along these lines. --sean pgpPAx7RGLPRa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NF Compromise - Alternatives Nagging + planned removal date warning
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 04:01:05PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: | Good idea. We should add an 'apt-cache alternatives packagename' as | well. I've seen many «we should add X», while few people seem to actually do what they suggest. right, because we're brainstorming here :) if this were a compromise that actually somehow actually made everyone happy, i'd volunteer some of my own time to get a working prototype of the free-alternatives, but otherwise not, since it'd be more than a little work (those needed control fields aren't already in the packages and there isn't already similar functionaly in apt-cache afaik). or perhaps starting with 'alternatives' instead of free-alternatives would be good then, so then if those fields got added into the control fields of the non-free packages the basic funtionality to do it would already be there and just need a little hack here and there to get it working. sean pgp3tlEHnUeLl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NF Compromise - Alternatives Nagging + planned removal date warning
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:56:21PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: * Anthony Towns | On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:54:29AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: | Because I'd like to Debian be installable with much fewer questions, | Do you realise what that means? It means: I want everyone to end up with | the same system. Actually not. [...] This will be possible in d-i, by choosing that you only want to see questions with high or critical priority. However everyone that does this will end up with the same system. If you want nitty-gritty control, choose low. The issue's a little subtler than that. Effectively, you're giving people a choice between here, have this sytem that's okayish, but almost certainly not what you actually want, then make it look the way you want by hand later or go through all these annoying options most of which you don't care about. Whereas ideally, what you want is a way of easily including non-free, or setting up a wiki server, or otherwise indicating that you want some common variant of a Debian system without an undue amount of effort. Compare the high/low question with, say, letting people answer Standard install? Yes/No and then get either everything in standard installed and a root prompt, or being prompted whether or not to install every single package one by one. There are *much* better interfaces for that task: aptitude, dselect and tasksel. I think that's worth extrapolating. And if that's not enough, customizing a floppy set with even more predefined answers shouldn't be that hard. That's possible, and it's what Knoppix and PGI and so forth are effectively doing. It doesn't really benefit the people who grab a Debian CD, or poke through the Debian website, and want to install Debian, though. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.'' pgpXuvhdaw1vW.pgp Description: PGP signature
