Reversions

Texus · 2011-02-04 16:49:24

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?

snowpine · 2011-02-04 17:08:19

Texus wrote:

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. smile

Secondly, the next builds will revert to using the debian-installer. I think it was important to give the graphical installer a trial and thank you to everybody who provided feedback. As many people will be aware, the graphical-installer is currently lacking a few features, which makes the d-i the best tool for the job. Also, I have been working to make the d-i work in gui mode, which I am hoping will make it more user friendly to users who have not experienced a text installer.

Texus · 2011-02-04 17:15:46

Aha! That explains it. Thanks, snowpine.

caieng · 2011-02-05 19:18:05

ikey wrote:

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}

CAIENG wrote:

About the installers, I find myself in disagreement with most of those on the forum

ikey wrote:

But of course if standards don't matter to you...

questionnaire.

ikey wrote:

I believe I speak for the entire CrunchBang community when I tell you there is no need for comments like that, nor the subtle namecalling in your later posts.{emphasis CAI ENG}

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.

boromeus wrote:

^
Respect!

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"?

DeepDayze wrote:

props to ikey for laying it all out honestly. {emphasis by CAI ENG}

Honestly? Can you read?

CAI ENG

boromeus · 2011-02-05 19:27:09

^
Disrespect!

jotapesse · 2011-02-05 19:40:52

LOL. You guys spend to much energy on this. Calm down. Easy...

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. :-)

boromeus · 2011-02-05 19:44:59

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.)

Last edited by boromeus (2011-02-05 19:46:51)

Unia · 2011-02-05 19:48:13

boromeus wrote:

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.

corenominal · 2011-02-05 20:06:49

Thread closed.

jotapesse wrote:

Hugs and kisses to everyone. :-)

+1 smile

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#76 2011-02-04 16:49:24

Re: Reversions

#77 2011-02-04 17:08:19

Re: Reversions

#78 2011-02-04 17:15:46

Re: Reversions

#79 2011-02-05 19:18:05

Re: Reversions

#80 2011-02-05 19:27:09

Re: Reversions

#81 2011-02-05 19:40:52

Re: Reversions

#82 2011-02-05 19:44:59

Re: Reversions

#83 2011-02-05 19:48:13

Re: Reversions

#84 2011-02-05 20:06:49

Re: Reversions

Board footer