The specification for the installer that was used at UDS can be found here: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfkkjjcj_101gnkrpg5v
The spec describes the first Objective of the installer as: Make installation process quick with an engaging hand-off to the desktop. It goes on to describe the Problem Definition as: The Ubuntu Live CD is the first experience many new users will have of Ubuntu. The installation experience should be attractive and effortless to reassure new users that Ubuntu is the right choice. The process should feel safe and should only highlight risk when necessary (e.g. when data will be destroyed). The document goes on to list 3 types of user to consider: 1. Users with no prior knowledge of Ubuntu or understanding of the nature of an operating system 2. Users who already know they want to install Ubuntu 3. Expert Ubuntu users who have very specific configuration requirements In this context we can discuss this bug in 2 ways: a) Is the design intent the right choice for us? b) Given that the design intent has been agreed through an accepted process what do we do about the use-case presented? I propose that a discussion around a) should be left for UDS (or similar decision making forum) as design intent is often a complex decision inviting technical, user and strategic goals to be represented and cannot be adequately explored in this forum. Design intent is not a bug. Which brings us to the use-case represented. Looking at the design of the installer, it is very much geared around this new user of Ubuntu. "Welcome", "Where are you?" , "About you"; the slideshow elements are all things that You can do. If we add another field (and I do like Randall's wording) we would have to add another step on the 'About you' page? In fact, it could be argued that the name of my computer doesn't belong on a page About Me in which case we would be adding complete extra page. This might not be a big deal but our intent has been described as creating an "Quick, Attractive and Effortless" install and I believe that we owe it to ourselves to fight the urge to add steps. Do we want to do that? Providing an auto-generated bit of the name (as per Mark's suggestion) would just add an element of uniqueness that might be helpful if, let's say, someone installed an Ubuntu box somewhere where there were lots of Ubuntu machines and then they could share music and see how lovely it is to be part of ubuntu-land, it would also mean that if you were installing Ubuntu on a lot of machines you wouldn't end up with any repeated names on your network. Now to the fact that there is no way to change the name of the machine. If that is a use-case we need to support, let's design and make the best way to do that. -- Maverick ubiquity lacks option to change computer name https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/628087 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
