On 05/13/09 18:30, Dave Miner wrote: > Karen Tung wrote: >> Keith Mitchell wrote: >>>> >>>> In my opinion, the text installer should: >>>> >>>> - work on both x86 and sparc >>>> - offer a similar installation experience and feature set as the >>>> existing slim GUI installer >>> Should it offer a similar installation experience? What does this >>> mean? Is the target audience for the text installer the same as the >>> target audience for the GUI installer (I would say that it's not). In >>> that case, the experience - and feature set - should be tailored to >>> the text installer's anticipated user base. >> For me, a "similar installation experience" means similar questions >> will be asked. Same things >> can be configured/selected during installation. Not more, not less. >> >> I agree that the text installer's anticipated user base should be >> considered. So, let's talk about that. >> From what I can see, users that can benefit from using the text >> installer are: >> >> - all sparc users, since AI is the only way to install SPARC machine >> at this time. >> - All x86 users who can not use the GUI installer now, because their >> machine doesn't have enough >> memory to run GNOME, or because their machine can't use the window >> system..etc.. >> > > I think the most interesting use case here for x86 is servers which have > only a serial-type console available. > >> Based on the above user groups, I don't see why we need a different >> feature set for >> the text installer. Offering the same feature set would provide the >> same installation experience, >> and we can re-use a lot of existing code. >> > > I'd suggest that we have some internal data regarding server customer > requirements which I've passed along a while ago, and that should be > considered for requirements, even if they ultimately prove to be beyond > the scope of the project phase covered here.
Might it make sense to look into offering an enhanced feature set which could be optionally accessed to give server users the additional flexibility they want but not encumber the non-server users? Sue >>>> - the installation performance shouldn't defer too much from the GUI >>>> installer. (ie: if it >>>> takes 20 minutes to install via GUI, it should take about the same >>>> amount of time to install >>>> via the text installer) >>> Can we define "same amount of time"? Would that be within 10%? No >>> more than twice as long? Does installation time include the time the >>> user spends selecting options, or just the time spent moving bits? >> I guess this point is kinda covered in the "user experience" point >> above. I think the questions to be >> answered should be similar and the amount of time spent on moving bits >> should be similar. >> This is assuming we provide the same feature set for both installers. >> If they have different feature >> sets, probably doesn't make sense to impose this requirement. >> > > Defining an expected performance level seems to be useful for any > feature set. > > Dave > _______________________________________________ > caiman-discuss mailing list > caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
