+1

EDIT: this is to answer caieng's previous post.

This is, as always, a friendly community. Your opinion has been listened to. We all respect the initial idea of suggesting useful features which help making the distro or the particular installer better. A new feature for setting up automatic login (during the installation process) is something that corenominal or ikey should consider about. I think they already did. If they don't implement such a feature, that's also fine, because it's really a minor issue. However, normal and friendly people on these boards disrespect your attitude of accusing and blaming other people, directly or indirectly; ironically or pathetically. This is my opinion. And I would also underline another very important thing: peace. (Oh yes, and please don't correct my English just try to understand it.)

+1, totally agree with you.

This is, as always, a friendly community. Your opinion has been listened to. We all respect the initial idea of suggesting useful features which help making the distro or the particular installer better. A new feature for setting up automatic login (during the installation process) is something that corenominal or ikey should consider about. I think they already did. If they don't implement such a feature, that's also fine, because it's really a minor issue. However, normal and friendly people on these boards disrespect your attitude of accusing and blaming other people, directly or indirectly; ironically or pathetically. This is my opinion. And I would also underline another very important thing: peace. (Oh yes, and please don't correct my English just try to understand it.)

Personally, I do agree with CAI ENG that ideally, and in general (not specific to #!), any Desktop oriented Linux distribution's installer should offer an automatic login option feature for simple users looking for ease of use, mimic the Windows experience, if desired. I'm an IT professional and a little experienced on Linux so I don't require this for myself but I can agree that newbies or not so experienced users would find it more convenient.

But there is no need to drive yourselves in to flame wars because of this. Hugs and kisses to everyone. :-)

Also, you seek to speak for every user, I assume you did an initial questionarre {sic} and consensus before you came to such a well informed decision on behalf of community members you've never discussed the matter with.{emphasis by CAI ENG}

questionnaire.

Entire?  Hmm.  Am I then no longer a part of the community?  You certainly do not speak, or write for that matter, on behalf of the "entire" community, until such time as I am expelled from said community.

"namecalling"?  Must be VERY subtle.  I don't see it.  PLEASE IDENTIFY in which of my several posts to this thread, or this forum, you have observed this so called name calling, else retract your baseless allegation.  It is YOU, who has engaged in namecalling, by claiming that I have written in an adversarial fashion.

Really?  "Respect"?  Why?  What is there about ikey's blatant dishonesty, that you find respectful, boromeus?  He lied about my having engaged in "name-calling", and you respect him?   He deliberately misrepresented my having NOT sought the opinion of others on the forum, and having instead written that this was merely my own idiosyncratic suggestion, NOT a community wide notion, and yet, you found his post, worthy of your respect?  He falsely asserted that I have no interest in standards, though he himself disregards the standards of the English language.  I can cut some slack to a non-native speaker, but not to someone so arrogant, and so dishonest as this guy.  Neither he, nor anyone else on this forum knows anything about my background, particularly with regard to the evolution of standards within the computer science community (hint:  Open System Interconnect Model), so where does he come off, as deserving your "respect" for falsely claiming that I disregard the notion of "standards" in computer science?

What did ikey write, that you found so respectful, or perhaps, more appropriately, worthy of your respect, or conversely, what is it about CAIENG's post that you found so disrespectful?  Surely, you are not intending to write here, that someone who offers an opinion about a potential benefit associated with CHANGE in the status quo, functions as a mere "troll", because of his/her having offered to the forum a suggestion for change, while some other anonymous poster, claiming to have performed xyz, is worthy of your respect, for having claimed credit for creating the very problem identified by the "troll"?

Honestly?  Can you read?

CAI ENG

Now I'm confused. The 64bit livecd for r20110105 has only three options on the splash screen - live, failsafe, and memory test. There is no install option. If I select live, and try to install from the live session, there is a sort of semi-graphical installer, without any of the usual advanced options such as encryption. The installer, btw, is unlike any I have seen so far in any of the #! versions.

Or am I missing something?

See post #1 in this thread.

Or am I missing something?

Currently if you want a live install option you need the current release. If you want a text/graphical install option at boot, download a previous release or wait for the next one.

In this case from a user's point of view it would be nice if such a version was downloadable from the downloads-section.

Vuoristoneuvos wrote:

Back to the installers: If it is possible and not too inconvenient I'm in the favor of both having the install option on the boot menu, and having the "graphical" installer in the live session.

That's not possible with the Debian installer. Currently if you want a live install option you need the current release. If you want a text/graphical install option at boot, download a previous release or wait for the next one.

I'm not sure that is still the case. See http://live.debian.net/manual/en/html/c … aller.html

a.

Back to the installers: If it is possible and not too inconvenient I'm in the favor of both having the install option on the boot menu, and having the "graphical" installer in the live session.

That's not possible with the Debian installer. Currently if you want a live install option you need the current release. If you want a text/graphical install option at boot, download a previous release or wait for the next one.

I understand that in the recent releases the installer is still there, if you feed the correct parameter in the boot. If it is, there's no reason for at least hiding it, is there?

Before people used to ask why there isn't an option for installing in the menu like there usually is, and now in January I came across a couple of cases people complaining "how can I install, the install isn't where it has always been"