delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/03/23/00:21:06

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:20:49 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Keeping base, adding standard.
Message-ID: <20020323052049.GA3202@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA76008AB77 AT itdomain003 DOT itdomain DOT net DOT au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <FC169E059D1A0442A04C40F86D9BA76008AB77@itdomain003.itdomain.net.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 10:03:28AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com] 
>> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 8:10 AM
>> To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
>> Subject: Keeping base, adding standard.
>> 
>> 
>> Now that we have clickable categories, I think we should 
>> consider not making "Base" the default installation, 
>> defaulting to something like "Standard" instead.
>> 
>> Standard would include things like:
>> 
>...
>
>> The rationale is that people can still select a minimal 
>> install with base but still choose a usable setup with Standard.
>> 
>> How does this sound?
>
>This comes back to what I said some time ago - that categories are
>necessary but not sufficient to provide a good user experience.

Yep.  I'm not surprised that you'd object.  As I said some time ago, I
don't agree with the concept of presenting the user with YA category
field for their confusion.  We already know that they don't quite
understand what's going on with categories (although maybe the new
presentation will improve that).  I don't think adding another screen is
going to improve things.

Yadda, yadda.  I've said it all before.

>Something like 'configurations' are needed (which may indeed be
>categories under the skin) that builds user focused combinations like:
>Workstation
>Developer
>Server
>Minimal.
>
>I'm very unhappy with the idea of overloading categories per se to
>achieve that, but I won't vote against it. 

You're very unhappy with overloading categories while this is exactly
what I had envisioned when I suggested them.  And, I strongly disagree
with the above way of dealing with things.

I hope this doesn't mean that I have to go back to maintaining setup
but I don't think anyone is going to convince me that adding another
layer to the process is going to improve the user experience.

>OTOH leveraging dependencies via meta-packages to achieve it makes a lot
>of sense to me, the question is how to present it to the user in a
>meaningful way.

Sorry.  I don't know what this means.  If you mean allowing the addition
of category names to dependencies then I think that's a great idea.

cgf

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019