Regrouping on "installation profile" idea

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Regrouping on "installation profile" idea

Christopher Faylor-2
Have we converged on the naming for Igor's profile idea?

I seem to be seeing a lot of people essentially discussing GUI design
whereas Igor had an idea for a lightweight implementation which required
no changes to setup.exe.

While there may be other improvements to the setup.exe GUI, Igor's idea
is something that can be implemented quickly and I think it will help.

So, do we have a list of potential ways to label these "profiles"?  I
personally think that the term "profile" isn't intuitive enough.  I think
that something like either "installation type" or just "installation"
might be clearer.

Has anyone been collecting the list of names that have been proposed?

cgf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regrouping on "installation profile" idea

Joe Smith-10

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor"
Newsgroups: gmane.os.cygwin.applications
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 1:53 PM
Subject: Regrouping on "installation profile" idea
> So, do we have a list of potential ways to label these "profiles"?  I
> personally think that the term "profile" isn't intuitive enough.  I think
> that something like either "installation type" or just "installation"
> might be clearer.

I may be just a user, and even one who had *very* little trouble learning to
use setup, but I would say either
INSTALLATION-TYPE
or
TASKS

I'm a Debian user, and must note that Debian uses the word task for a
similar concept.
Should you be careful with the naming of the meta-packages TASKS may be the
clearest.
Examples:

* C/C++ Development
* Gaming  :-)
* Java Development
* Latex Development
* Perl Development
* SSH Server
* Web Server
* X Windows


> Has anyone been collecting the list of names that have been proposed?
Using '.', '-' and all caps:

Main Candidates:
INSTALLATION
INSTALLATION-PROFILES
INSTALLATION-TYPE
PROFILES
TASKS

These ones don't seem great:
DEFAULT-PROFILES
USER-PROFILES
FUNCTIONAL-[GROUPS|PROFILES]
USEFUL-[GROUPS|PROFILES]
PRESELECTED-[GROUPS|PROFILES|PACKAGES]

> cgf
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Prefab Program Selections (was: RE: Regrouping on "installation profile" idea)

Gary R. Van Sickle
> From: Tacvek

[snip]

> I may be just a user, and even one who had *very* little
> trouble learning to use setup, but I would say either
> INSTALLATION-TYPE or TASKS
>
> I'm a Debian user, and must note that Debian uses the word
> task for a similar concept.

Reason #63187638 why Linux will never ever ever ever ever win the desktop.
I'm sorry, but "Tasks" could not be a less meaningful way of describing this
concept.

"Installation Type" is better, but the issue you run into there is, "I want
to change my Installation Type, but I still want to play CygTetris, what do
I do!?!?!"

> Should you be careful with the naming of the meta-packages
> TASKS may be the clearest.
> Examples:
>
> * C/C++ Development
> * Gaming  :-)
> * Java Development
> * Latex Development
> * Perl Development
> * SSH Server
> * Web Server
> * X Windows
>

See how the term "Tasks" loses all meaning after "Perl Development"?

>
> > Has anyone been collecting the list of names that have been
> proposed?
> Using '.', '-' and all caps:
>
> Main Candidates:
> INSTALLATION
> INSTALLATION-PROFILES
> INSTALLATION-TYPE
> PROFILES
> TASKS
>
> These ones don't seem great:
> DEFAULT-PROFILES
> USER-PROFILES
> FUNCTIONAL-[GROUPS|PROFILES]
> USEFUL-[GROUPS|PROFILES]
> PRESELECTED-[GROUPS|PROFILES|PACKAGES]
>

The concept that's trying to be communicated here is "A selection of
programs that are likely to be of interest to the person who's eye was
caught by the sdesc".  I think it's pretty critical that "a selection of
programs" be conveyed clearly, and especially avoid the connotation that
they're somehow exclusive to others.  Ergo, "INSTALLATION-anything" seems to
me to be out (see "How do I change my installation {type,profile,whatever}?"
in the FAQ).  "Tasks" just isn't at all intuitive.  "Profiles" makes some
sense, but mostly in the "What's a 'Profile'?" sense in that it doesn't
really collide with any particular concept.  How about:

"Prefab Program Selections"

?  It still has that Unix ugly to it, but it actually says what it means and
means what it says, so everybody wins.

--
Gary R. Van Sickle

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Prefab Program Selections (was: RE: Regrouping on "installation profile" idea)

Christopher Faylor-2
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 10:43:11PM -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>"Prefab Program Selections"
>
>?  It still has that Unix ugly to it, but it actually says what it means and
>means what it says, so everybody wins.

I like "selections" but I don't like "prefab".  And, right now, I think that
Igor was telling me that you can't do something like:

Prefab Program Selections
  C Development
  X Desktop
  ...

Because setup.exe can't handle that.

So, it would have to be:

C Development Prefab Program Selection
X Desktop Prefab Program Selection
...

which is a little wordy.

I do think we want to convey that these are optional easy-to-use selections
which will pull in all of the programs required for a standard "use case"
(as they like to say where I work).

How about "standard selection"?

C Development Standard Selection
X Desktop Standard Selection
...

Bleah.  I don't know.  Maybe it just can't be properly conveyed without
all sorts of flashy gui balloons and help.

cgf


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Prefab Program Selections (was: RE: Regrouping on "installation profile" idea)

Tim O'Callaghan
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:51:24AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 10:43:11PM -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >"Prefab Program Selections"
> >
> >?  It still has that Unix ugly to it, but it actually says what it means and
> >means what it says, so everybody wins.
>
> I like "selections" but I don't like "prefab".  And, right now, I think that
> Igor was telling me that you can't do something like:
>
> Prefab Program Selections
>   C Development
>   X Desktop
>   ...
>
> Because setup.exe can't handle that.
>
> So, it would have to be:
>
> C Development Prefab Program Selection
> X Desktop Prefab Program Selection
> ...
>
> which is a little wordy.
>
> I do think we want to convey that these are optional easy-to-use selections
> which will pull in all of the programs required for a standard "use case"
> (as they like to say where I work).
>
> How about "standard selection"?
>
> C Development Standard Selection
> X Desktop Standard Selection
> ...
>
> Bleah.  I don't know.  Maybe it just can't be properly conveyed without
> all sorts of flashy gui balloons and help.
>

How about 'Bundle' ?


Tim.
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results."
-- Winston Churchill
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Prefab Program Selections (was: RE: Regrouping on "installation profile" idea)

Rajesh Balakrishnan
--- Tim O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:51:24AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 10:43:11PM -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > Prefab Program Selections
> >   C Development
> >   X Desktop
> >   ...
> >
> > Because setup.exe can't handle that.

> How about 'Bundle' ?

How about "101-Cygwin" as the category name?
101 carries a "basic" connotation too,
gets displayed as the first category,
catches attention too (non-alphabets).

or "101-Cygwin-Bundle"/"101-Bundle" would be good too.
101-Cygwin
  C Development
  X Desktop

Regards,
rb



               
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Prefab Program Selections (was: RE: Regrouping on "installation profile" idea)

Igor Peshansky
In reply to this post by Tim O'Callaghan
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Tim O'Callaghan wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:51:24AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 10:43:11PM -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > >"Prefab Program Selections"
> > >
> > >?  It still has that Unix ugly to it, but it actually says what it means and
> > >means what it says, so everybody wins.
> >
> > I like "selections" but I don't like "prefab".  And, right now, I
> > think that Igor was telling me that you can't do something like:
> >
> > Prefab Program Selections
> >   C Development
> >   X Desktop
> >   ...
> >
> > Because setup.exe can't handle that.

Actually setup.exe *can* handle that, but it'll be

Prefab Program Selections
   1.0-1   1.0-1    [] []   1k   C Development

(with many more spaces -- i.e., the words "C Development" will not be
readily seen).  We could, of course, reorder the columns in category view,
but that won't help people using the current version of setup.  So I agree
with CGF -- the category name ought to immediately make it clear that
there's interesting stuff beyond the right edge of the chooser...

> > So, it would have to be:
> >
> > C Development Prefab Program Selection
> > X Desktop Prefab Program Selection
> > ...
> >
> > which is a little wordy.

Nope.  The point is that we want to convey the fact that this *category*
contains groups of packages that allow performing certain tasks.  The
names of the packages themselves aren't as important.

> > I do think we want to convey that these are optional easy-to-use
> > selections which will pull in all of the programs required for a
> > standard "use case" (as they like to say where I work).
> >
> > How about "standard selection"?
> >
> > C Development Standard Selection
> > X Desktop Standard Selection
> > ...
> >
> > Bleah.  I don't know.  Maybe it just can't be properly conveyed
> > without all sorts of flashy gui balloons and help.
>
> How about 'Bundle' ?

I like "Bundle", but it still doesn't convey that one only needs to
install one such bundle for each task that they want to do.  How about
"Task-oriented Bundles"[*] or something?  The "Task-oriented" part clearly
shows that these are bundled with a specific task in mind.
        Igor
[*] Of course, it'd be ".TASK-ORIENTED_BUNDLES"...
--
                                http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_ [hidden email]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_ [hidden email]
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Prefab Program Selections (was: RE: Regrouping on "installation profile" idea)

Christopher Faylor-2
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:44:04AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Tim O'Callaghan wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:51:24AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 10:43:11PM -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> > >"Prefab Program Selections"
>> > >
>> > >?  It still has that Unix ugly to it, but it actually says what it means and
>> > >means what it says, so everybody wins.
>> >
>> > I like "selections" but I don't like "prefab".  And, right now, I
>> > think that Igor was telling me that you can't do something like:
>> >
>> > Prefab Program Selections
>> >   C Development
>> >   X Desktop
>> >   ...
>> >
>> > Because setup.exe can't handle that.
>
>Actually setup.exe *can* handle that, but it'll be
>
>Prefab Program Selections
>   1.0-1   1.0-1    [] []   1k   C Development
>
>(with many more spaces -- i.e., the words "C Development" will not be
>readily seen).  We could, of course, reorder the columns in category view,
>but that won't help people using the current version of setup.  So I agree
>with CGF -- the category name ought to immediately make it clear that
>there's interesting stuff beyond the right edge of the chooser...

Right.  I was just representing what you mentioned in private email
where you bemoaned the fact that the above isn't really feasible.  I
don't call the above "handling that".  1.0-1?  1k?

>> > So, it would have to be:
>> >
>> > C Development Prefab Program Selection
>> > X Desktop Prefab Program Selection
>> > ...
>> >
>> > which is a little wordy.
>
>Nope.  The point is that we want to convey the fact that this *category*
>contains groups of packages that allow performing certain tasks.  The
>names of the packages themselves aren't as important.

"Nope" meaning what?  "FOO Prefab Program Selection" *is* wordy.

>> > I do think we want to convey that these are optional easy-to-use
>> > selections which will pull in all of the programs required for a
>> > standard "use case" (as they like to say where I work).
>> >
>> > How about "standard selection"?
>> >
>> > C Development Standard Selection
>> > X Desktop Standard Selection
>> > ...
>> >
>> > Bleah.  I don't know.  Maybe it just can't be properly conveyed
>> > without all sorts of flashy gui balloons and help.
>>
>> How about 'Bundle' ?
>
>I like "Bundle", but it still doesn't convey that one only needs to
>install one such bundle for each task that they want to do.  How about
>"Task-oriented Bundles"[*] or something?  The "Task-oriented" part clearly
>shows that these are bundled with a specific task in mind.
> Igor
>[*] Of course, it'd be ".TASK-ORIENTED_BUNDLES"...

I really don't like the need for underscores or dashes and I *really*
don't like the upper case stuff.  When I see all upper case on a screen
I think there's something not set up right somewhere.

cgf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Prefab Program Selections (was: RE: Regrouping on "installation profile" idea)

Igor Peshansky
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:44:04AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Tim O'Callaghan wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:51:24AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 10:43:11PM -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >> > >"Prefab Program Selections"
> >> > >
> >> > >?  It still has that Unix ugly to it, but it actually says what it means and
> >> > >means what it says, so everybody wins.
> >> >
> >> > I like "selections" but I don't like "prefab".  And, right now, I
> >> > think that Igor was telling me that you can't do something like:
> >> >
> >> > Prefab Program Selections
> >> >   C Development
> >> >   X Desktop
> >> >   ...
> >> >
> >> > Because setup.exe can't handle that.
> >
> >Actually setup.exe *can* handle that, but it'll be
> >
> >Prefab Program Selections
> >   1.0-1   1.0-1    [] []   1k   C Development
> >
> >(with many more spaces -- i.e., the words "C Development" will not be
> >readily seen).  We could, of course, reorder the columns in category view,
> >but that won't help people using the current version of setup.  So I agree
> >with CGF -- the category name ought to immediately make it clear that
> >there's interesting stuff beyond the right edge of the chooser...
>
> Right.  I was just representing what you mentioned in private email
> where you bemoaned the fact that the above isn't really feasible.  I
> don't call the above "handling that".  1.0-1?  1k?

I think I misunderstood what you meant by "that". :-)  Indeed, setup
cannot display tree package structures reasonably.  But adding more words
to the package name doesn't help.

> >> > So, it would have to be:
> >> >
> >> > C Development Prefab Program Selection
> >> > X Desktop Prefab Program Selection
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > which is a little wordy.
> >
> >Nope.  The point is that we want to convey the fact that this *category*
> >contains groups of packages that allow performing certain tasks.  The
> >names of the packages themselves aren't as important.
>
> "Nope" meaning what?  "FOO Prefab Program Selection" *is* wordy.

"Nope" meaning "it won't have to be".  Or, rather, "it won't help".
I wasn't disputing the wordiness...

> >> > I do think we want to convey that these are optional easy-to-use
> >> > selections which will pull in all of the programs required for a
> >> > standard "use case" (as they like to say where I work).

That's why I suggested "Usage profile".  The "profile" part may be
unintuitive, but the "Usage" certainly conveys the right flavor.

> >> > How about "standard selection"?
> >> >
> >> > C Development Standard Selection
> >> > X Desktop Standard Selection
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > Bleah.  I don't know.  Maybe it just can't be properly conveyed
> >> > without all sorts of flashy gui balloons and help.
> >>
> >> How about 'Bundle' ?
> >
> >I like "Bundle", but it still doesn't convey that one only needs to
> >install one such bundle for each task that they want to do.  How about
> >"Task-oriented Bundles"[*] or something?  The "Task-oriented" part clearly
> >shows that these are bundled with a specific task in mind.
> > Igor

So, does ".Task-oriented Bundles" make sense to people?  Or
".Usage-oriented Bundles"?

> >[*] Of course, it'd be ".TASK-ORIENTED_BUNDLES"...
>
> I really don't like the need for underscores or dashes and I *really*
> don't like the upper case stuff.  When I see all upper case on a screen
> I think there's something not set up right somewhere.

Well, it'll have to be attention-grabbing.  Barring color, ALL-CAPS is the
only way we can do this, right?  The underscores you are probably right
about -- I was just trying to avoid the need to quote the category name.
BTW, the dash in this case is not a divider, but a legitimate hyphen --
it'd be there even in the normal case.

Even though this has to be compatible with the current versions of setup,
I'd still like to add some magic to setup to support something like this
(e.g., auto-expand any category that starts with a ".", or reorder columns
in category view so that the package name comes first).
        Igor
--
                                http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_ [hidden email]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_ [hidden email]
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Prefab Program Selections (was: RE: Regrouping on "installation profile" idea)

Christopher Faylor-2
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:20:26PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>So, does ".Task-oriented Bundles" make sense to people?  Or
>".Usage-oriented Bundles"?

I think either makes sense, yes.  Could you do an ASCII representation of
what you'd expect the screen to look like?

>>>[*] Of course, it'd be ".TASK-ORIENTED_BUNDLES"...
>>
>>I really don't like the need for underscores or dashes and I *really*
>>don't like the upper case stuff.  When I see all upper case on a screen
>>I think there's something not set up right somewhere.
>
>Well, it'll have to be attention-grabbing.  Barring color, ALL-CAPS is
>the only way we can do this, right?  The underscores you are probably
>right about -- I was just trying to avoid the need to quote the
>category name.  BTW, the dash in this case is not a divider, but a
>legitimate hyphen -- it'd be there even in the normal case.

Aren't these already going to be sorted first, owing to the "."?  Could we
use '***' instead of '.', maybe?  That would be attention grabbing.

>Even though this has to be compatible with the current versions of
>setup, I'd still like to add some magic to setup to support something
>like this (e.g., auto-expand any category that starts with a ".", or
>reorder columns in category view so that the package name comes first).

Yes, I think the GUI needs to be updated at some point to handle these
properly.

cgf
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Prefab Program Selections (was: RE: Regrouping on "installation profile" idea)

Igor Peshansky
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:20:26PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >So, does ".Task-oriented Bundles" make sense to people?  Or
> >".Usage-oriented Bundles"?
>
> I think either makes sense, yes.  Could you do an ASCII representation of
> what you'd expect the screen to look like?

With the maximized chooser, of course:

[+] All () Default
  [+] .Usage-oriented bundles () Default
        1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  GCC Development
        1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  LaTeX Development
        1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  SSH Server
        1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  Web Server
        1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  X Windows
  [+] Admin () Default
  [+] Archive () Default
...

Looking at the above, ".Intended Use" makes even more sense, IMO.
BTW, I see no reason to not use spaces in the names of these packages.

Pasting the below from private mail, to make sure it doesn't get lost:

Later, when setup is changed to put package name first in category view,
something like this would make sense too:

[+] All () Default
  [+] .I would like to... () Default
        Develop programs using GCC        1.0-1       () Keep  n/a [ ]   1k
        Run X windows                     1.0-1       () Keep  n/a [ ]   1k
        Run the SSHD server               1.0-1       () Keep  n/a [ ]   1k
        Run the Apache web server         1.0-1       () Keep  n/a [ ]   1k
        Write documents using LaTeX       1.0-1       () Keep  n/a [ ]   1k
  [+] Admin () Default
  [+] Archive () Default
...

> >>>[*] Of course, it'd be ".TASK-ORIENTED_BUNDLES"...
> >>
> >>I really don't like the need for underscores or dashes and I *really*
> >>don't like the upper case stuff.  When I see all upper case on a screen
> >>I think there's something not set up right somewhere.
> >
> >Well, it'll have to be attention-grabbing.  Barring color, ALL-CAPS is
> >the only way we can do this, right?  The underscores you are probably
> >right about -- I was just trying to avoid the need to quote the
> >category name.  BTW, the dash in this case is not a divider, but a
> >legitimate hyphen -- it'd be there even in the normal case.
>
> Aren't these already going to be sorted first, owing to the "."?  Could we
> use '***' instead of '.', maybe?  That would be attention grabbing.

Hmm...  Not sure, but we can try it and see.  It's not like the category
name is set in stone -- it could always be changed later, until we find
something that people like.

> >Even though this has to be compatible with the current versions of
> >setup, I'd still like to add some magic to setup to support something
> >like this (e.g., auto-expand any category that starts with a ".", or
> >reorder columns in category view so that the package name comes first).
>
> Yes, I think the GUI needs to be updated at some point to handle these
> properly.

BTW, I have the first patch ready -- will send it out separately.
The second doesn't look too hard either; probably later this week...
        Igor
--
                                http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_ [hidden email]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_ [hidden email]
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Prefab Program Selections (was: RE: Regrouping on "installation profile" idea)

Corinna Vinschen-2
On Nov 15 13:13, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:20:26PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > >On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > >>I really don't like the need for underscores or dashes and I *really*
> > >>don't like the upper case stuff.  When I see all upper case on a screen
> > >>I think there's something not set up right somewhere.
> > >
> > >Well, it'll have to be attention-grabbing.  Barring color, ALL-CAPS is
> > >the only way we can do this, right?  The underscores you are probably
> > >right about -- I was just trying to avoid the need to quote the
> > >category name.  BTW, the dash in this case is not a divider, but a
> > >legitimate hyphen -- it'd be there even in the normal case.
> >
> > Aren't these already going to be sorted first, owing to the "."?  Could we
> > use '***' instead of '.', maybe?  That would be attention grabbing.
>
> Hmm...  Not sure, but we can try it and see.  It's not like the category
> name is set in stone -- it could always be changed later, until we find
> something that people like.

Well, since I was the one suggesting the use of all-uppercase, it should
be pretty clear that I still think it's the right thing to do.

The text should indicate that it's something different, the category
is not a normal category but a meta-category which should be the first place
where the user looks when installing.  All-uppercase in the current setup
layout is the only useful style, IMHO.


Corinna

--
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Regrouping on "installation profile" idea

Jon A. Lambert
In reply to this post by Joe Smith-10
Tacvek wrote:
> Should you be careful with the naming of the meta-packages TASKS may
> be the clearest.

There it is.

.META_PACKAGES

:-P

--
J Lambert


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Prefab Program Selections (was: RE: Regrouping on "installation profile" idea)

Gary R. Van Sickle
In reply to this post by Igor Peshansky
> From: Igor Pechtchanski
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:14 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Prefab Program Selections (was: RE: Regrouping
> on "installation profile" idea)
>
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:20:26PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > >On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > >So, does ".Task-oriented Bundles" make sense to people?  Or
> > >".Usage-oriented Bundles"?
> >
> > I think either makes sense, yes.  Could you do an ASCII
> representation
> > of what you'd expect the screen to look like?
>
> With the maximized chooser, of course:
>
> [+] All () Default
>   [+] .Usage-oriented bundles () Default
>         1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  
> GCC Development
>         1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  
> LaTeX Development
>         1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  SSH Server
>         1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  Web Server
>         1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  X Windows
>   [+] Admin () Default
>   [+] Archive () Default
> ...
>
> Looking at the above, ".Intended Use" makes even more sense, IMO.
> BTW, I see no reason to not use spaces in the names of these packages.
>

Things like ".Intended Use", "Installation Type", etc make sense the very
first time somebody installs.  The next time that person touches setup on
their machine, ".Intended Use" only causes confusion, as I described in my
reply to Mr. Tacvek.  I can guarantee you with proverbial metaphysical
certitude that the messages on the lists asking "I installed all of Cygwin,
why can't I run <<program they didn't install>>?!?!" will not only not go
away, but will be joined by a chorus of people asking (and understandably
so):

- "I accidentally installed Cygwin for the Intended Use of an SSH server,
when I really wanted to do C programming!  I'm using a 300-baud smoke-signal
modem, and there's no way I'm going to redownload the Full Cygwin
Installation (FCI(tm))!  What do I do?!?!"
- Q: "Do I need to install Cygwin on two separate machines to do C
development and Perl development?"
  - A: "Well, the easiset way to do this is to install CygWINE, run two
virtual Windows machines, and install a separate Cygwin on each one."
- "How can I manually edit the registry so I can use both the "SSH Server"
Installation Type AND the "X Windows" Intended Use?  I can't believe the
idiots who wrote setup didn't allow for this!"

Metaphysical.  Certitude.

> Pasting the below from private mail, to make sure it doesn't get lost:
>
> Later, when setup is changed to put package name first in
> category view, something like this would make sense too:
>
> [+] All () Default
>   [+] .I would like to... () Default
>         Develop programs using GCC        1.0-1       () Keep
>  n/a [ ]   1k
>         Run X windows                     1.0-1       () Keep
>  n/a [ ]   1k
>         Run the SSHD server               1.0-1       () Keep
>  n/a [ ]   1k
>         Run the Apache web server         1.0-1       () Keep
>  n/a [ ]   1k
>         Write documents using LaTeX       1.0-1       () Keep
>  n/a [ ]   1k
>   [+] Admin () Default
>   [+] Archive () Default
> ...
>

Now that I like.

--
Gary R. Van Sickle

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Prefab Program Selections (was: RE: Regrouping on "installation profile" idea)

Igor Peshansky
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

> > From: Igor Pechtchanski
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:14 PM
> > To: [hidden email]

I know it's a mailing list name, but AHEM...

> > Subject: Re: Prefab Program Selections (was: RE: Regrouping
> > on "installation profile" idea)
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:20:26PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > > >On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > > >So, does ".Task-oriented Bundles" make sense to people?  Or
> > > >".Usage-oriented Bundles"?
> > >
> > > I think either makes sense, yes.  Could you do an ASCII
> > > representation of what you'd expect the screen to look like?
> >
> > With the maximized chooser, of course:
> >
> > [+] All () Default
> >   [+] .Usage-oriented bundles () Default
> >         1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  GCC Development
> >         1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  LaTeX Development
> >         1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  SSH Server
> >         1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  Web Server
> >         1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  X Windows
> >   [+] Admin () Default
> >   [+] Archive () Default
> > ...
> >
> > Looking at the above, ".Intended Use" makes even more sense, IMO.
> > BTW, I see no reason to not use spaces in the names of these packages.
>
> Things like ".Intended Use", "Installation Type", etc make sense the very
> first time somebody installs.  The next time that person touches setup on
> their machine, ".Intended Use" only causes confusion, as I described in my
> reply to Mr. Tacvek.  I can guarantee you with proverbial metaphysical
> certitude that the messages on the lists asking "I installed all of Cygwin,
> why can't I run <<program they didn't install>>?!?!" will not only not go
> away, but will be joined by a chorus of people asking (and understandably
> so):
>
> - "I accidentally installed Cygwin for the Intended Use of an SSH server,
> when I really wanted to do C programming!  I'm using a 300-baud smoke-signal
> modem, and there's no way I'm going to redownload the Full Cygwin
> Installation (FCI(tm))!  What do I do?!?!"
> - Q: "Do I need to install Cygwin on two separate machines to do C
> development and Perl development?"
>   - A: "Well, the easiset way to do this is to install CygWINE, run two
> virtual Windows machines, and install a separate Cygwin on each one."
> - "How can I manually edit the registry so I can use both the "SSH Server"
> Installation Type AND the "X Windows" Intended Use?  I can't believe the
> idiots who wrote setup didn't allow for this!"
>
> Metaphysical.  Certitude.

After a hearty LOL, I can't help but agree.  ".Intended Use" does have an
implication of being the only one.  How about ".Needed Functionality"?  Or
even ".Intended Use (more than one can be selected)"?

> > Pasting the below from private mail, to make sure it doesn't get lost:
> >
> > Later, when setup is changed to put package name first in
> > category view, something like this would make sense too:
> >
> > [+] All () Default
> >   [+] .I would like to... () Default
> >         Develop programs using GCC        1.0-1       () Keep   n/a [ ]   1k
> >         Run X windows                     1.0-1       () Keep   n/a [ ]   1k
> >         Run the SSHD server               1.0-1       () Keep   n/a [ ]   1k
> >         Run the Apache web server         1.0-1       () Keep   n/a [ ]   1k
> >         Write documents using LaTeX       1.0-1       () Keep   n/a [ ]   1k
> >   [+] Admin () Default
> >   [+] Archive () Default
> > ...
>
> Now that I like.

Yeah, me too.  But, pasting the rest of that private mail:

==============================================================================
The problem is that you wouldn't actually see the above, you'd see
something like:

[+] All () Default
  [+] .I would like to... () Default
        1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  Devel
        1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  Run X
        1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  Run t
        1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  Run t
        1.0-1       () Keep             n/a [ ]         1k  Write
  [+] Admin () Default
...

(at least until the chooser is maximized).
Oh, well, so much for that idea.
==============================================================================

That about says it all.  We can't adopt something that requires special
support from setup (yet, that is).  Once a version of setup with the
necessary changes becomes mainstream and the older versions are
deprecated, we can revisit the category/bundle naming issue.
        Igor
--
                                http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_ [hidden email]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_ [hidden email]
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA