blob: 5c9b87a4375610240c82def9e64a3feb11ad4d37 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Then how are people that's new to the system meant to learn how
certain things work?<br>
<br>
John skrev 2010-11-04 09:01:
<blockquote cite="mid:20101104210124.d80ee1e4.john@neodoc.biz"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 05:18:48 +0100
Kristoffer Grundström wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Well, could we have two kinds of installers to boot?
If you want nice effects and such you check a box & if not you just
click next.
Both sides then gets their way done.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Why two installers or install methods?
To me, it seems to be waste of resources we could be using elsewhere. Yes
I know it's all about choice(s) but at this level?
An installer has the purpose of doing just that, as cleanly and as
efficiently as possible, with as little user interaction as is possible.
Seriously, the last thing the new or inexperienced user needs is yet
another choice - the new user more than likely has no idea of what here or
she is required to do anyway and presenting them with a choice of pretty
or utility for the installer is likely confuse even more.
We already have a very good installation method, a method which for the
most part is able to interrogate the hardware and make sane/sensible
descisions on that basis without a large amount of user interaction.
Yes, I agree that some parts of the present installer need a little polish
in some areas but a 'pretty' one is not going to change that either.
My vote is stay with what we have plus a little polishing
John NZ
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
|
