Most certainly I was not trying to say that. I just was comparing that to the
worse situation of a locked-down distro that requires hacking to get rid of
unwanted programs. I've seen so much stuff come along that I am better off
without, such as support for pay software in software center or pulseaudio's
resource consumption. Ideally a user would not have to install, nor to
download, anything they aren't going to actually use. Removal after the fact
is second best, but beats the hell out of having to screw with the filesystem
because someone added dependancies to something that it will run without.
Even if the installer is a big one with all workflows (bandwidth), having to
first install and then remove unused software adds time to the installation,
plus opportunities for file system corruption if there are hardware issues or
on some kinds of flash media. Leaving unused software on-disk is also a
security issue (more possible attack vectors) on any machine that will ever be
connected to a network or even used with removable drives.
Ideally there would be some way to manage separate installers for each
workflow, plus an "all" installer, to reduce download bandwidth issues. For
the "alternate" disk full of Debian packages that would not be such a problem,
might be a mess for live installers, though.
> So are you saying Studio should not offer the installing user a choice of
> which workflows to install? Or that we should not install all workflows
> and then let the user remove some? I don't think we can offer the first
> without the user being able to unload a meta. But the fewer a machine
> starts off with the better IMO.
>
>
> --
> Len Ovens
> www.OvenWerks.net
>
>
--
Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
