03/13/2012 12:14 PM, intrigeri: > anonym wrote (09 Mar 2012 14:41:04 GMT) : >> Even though the above steps certainly isn't something we want to >> support I hope it all can help you identify the original source of >> the error. (As a side effect it seems like the above steps (1-8) >> make Tails on the USB drive unbootable.) > > "Missing OS", right?
Yes. > I would not be surprised if GParted played badly with the GPT > attributes. E.g. to display the attributes of /dev/sdc1, run: > > $ sgdisk /dev/sdc --attributes=1:show That particular command gave me nothing. Both changing to /dev/sdc1 and removing "=1" reported an invalid GPT with overlapping partition tables etc. >>> Given these disadvantages, and the limited benefit (better supporting >>> 2 GB media), I'm not in favour of adding such widgets at all. > >> I just fear that we're setting the requirements for Tails too high, >> effectively alienating poor people, and unnecessarily preventing >> fully adequate devices from being usable with Tails. > > I hear this fear, I agree this would be a shame to do what you fear, > and I don't think anyone is proposing to do any such thing. > > I want to point out this part of the discussion started from your > initial report that installing Tails with liveusb-creator onto a 1.88 > GiB stick would leave "only 424 MiB for TailsData". In my > understanding, this may be considered as wasting space, but seriously, > this does not prevent the stick from being usable with Tails. Yeah, "usable" was a bad choice of word. What I'm getting at is the potential to utilize the media to its fullest. Personally I get very frustrated when using tools where the developers have made a these type of "balancing choices" for me without any option to override it and adjust it according to my wishes. > Please remember that our current, pre-USB-installer, instructions to > install Tails on this very same USB stick would leave no room at all > for persistence; this has been true since the beginning of Tails. > What is currently being proposed for Tails 0.11 is *way better* for > 2GB USB stick owners than anything we have shipped until now. Of course, but since this is our (I assume) final solution to the problem I still feel entitled to talk about situations where things improved but (IMHO) not enough. After all you said you're "not in favour of adding such widgets at all", which I interpreted as a final decision on this issue from your part. > So I say let's release this, and if we want to discuss further > possible improvements, let's please make it clear we're discussing > further possible improvements (that can surely wait for after 0.11), > and not "alienating vs. not-alienating". Right. Everything except bugs reported by me should be considered like potential future improvements. I completely agree that the current plans will result in something that is ready for 0.11. >>> And anyway, I don't think anyone wants to add any additional >>> feature to our liveusb-creator codebase; remember we want to rebase >>> our work on top of another codebase at some point. > >> IMHO, if this is an issue for us when adding a feature we want, then >> we may want to reconsider our whole approach, possibly by >> maintaining a fork (gasp! :)). > > I think you're either missing some information, or you misunderstood > what I meant with "we want to rebase our work on top of another > codebase at some point". Let me clarify. > [...snip...] > > I hope it helped clarify things :) Thanks! It did. Sorry for my ignorance. >> Here's some more, unrelated suggestions: > >> * In the liveusb-creator, please add the name of the USB drives' >> models to the list of USB devices one can install Tails to. >> tails-persistence-setup currently lists the name, but IMHO it's >> more important for the installer to do so since that's were the >> real risk of selecting the wrong device is. > > Much agreed, this is in the TODO already: > https://tails.boum.org/todo/usb_install_and_upgrade/todo/ I had some how missed this page. Again, sorry. >> * When persistence has been successfully setup, prompt the user with >> an OK-pop-up containing the success message (and OK -> exit >> application) instead of changing the window to contain the success >> message and asking users to close it themselves. That seems more >> streamlined to me. > > GNOME GUI's currently evolve towards using much less modal dialog > windows, and I think it's a really good move (no idea about what other > environments do). Keeping one's attention focused on the same single > window all along a wizard-like process seems easier to me than finding > the last window that popped-up in front of my other windows. > > Maybe I should add that the whole tails-persistence-setup "setup > wizard" aspect will be clearer once the "configure which bits are > persistence" step is fully implemented and follows the "bootstrap" > one, in the same way, in the same window. So I'd like to postpone > discussing this further until you've seen the whole thing, OK? Ah, definitely. From now on I'll focus solely on bug hunting. >> Otherwise, at least add a close/exit button. > > GNOME GUI's currently evolve towards removing close / quit buttons, on > the basis that it's a duplicate of the one provided by the window > manager, and an entirely useless one as long as the application > gracefully supports being closed this way. I buy these arguments, > I like less cluttered GUI's, that's why this step has no > close/exit button. While the argument may be sound, it's still surprises me to the point were it seems sloppy (e.g. the developer was just lazy and didn't add such a control) and not a deliberate design choice. I assume many other non-Gnome users may feel the same. But seriously, I don't really care. Cheers!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
