new look installer... why?

[Eric Dunbar]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:56:40 +1100, David <david> wrote:

> > > Give Ubuntu a better-looking installer, some cool graphics, and you
> > have the desktop market for Ubuntu.
> 
> I've seen this remark before, and I even recall a reviewer suggesting that
> Ubuntu "needed" better installation graphics in order to succeed.
> 
> I can't for the life of me see why it's even an issue for an installer.
> Installation is basically a once only affair, and if pretty graphics are
> going to create a good operating system, we should all stick to Windows.
> Personally, I like the "down-to-business" look of the Ubuntu/Debian
> installers.

The installer is the "welcome to Ubuntu" screen. It's the FIRST
interaction a user has with his or her system and first impressions
can be a problem! A full-fledged "graphical" installer is over-kill in
my opinion, BUT a well conceived, SLICK text-based one ISN'T
(over-kill, that is). Ubuntu lacks that in Ubuntu 4.10 "Warty".

PS If you want a graphical installer, go to Mac OS X! Windows XP
doesn't even have it -- I was flabbergasted when I recently helped a
friend format c: and reinstall Windows. Everything was text based (and
this was on a 2002 vintage laptop).

> Look-and-feel and style issues are appropriate for the desktop, but I
> can't imagine why anyone would care at the installation stage. What I care
> about during installation is information, speed and reliability.
> 
> Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but it seems like a very low priority issue.

It's not high priority but it certainly is something to keep in mind
-- a good installer makes for a happy customer and reviewer. I
appreciate the simplicity of *no* configuration, but all you have to
do is look at Mac OS X to see that simple package selection is not
beyond the typical computer "user". OS X gives you the option to
install language packages, a variety of printer packages (Epson, HP,
etc.), applications, and developer tools (IIRC). Ubuntu does need a
simple interface for such groupings -- an intermediate between the
full blown custom (which requires a pretty hefty dose of *nix
knowledge) and "just take our word for it" installs.

Anyway, I'm sure the team will eventually get around to fixing up the
installer. With Linux it's still pretty important to have the apps
installed when the OS is installed -- yeah, Synaptic is a stunning
improvement over dpkg/yum/rpm/apt etc. but packages still cause
headaches compared to the installer apps on Windows and the simple
"drag-and-drop" of Mac OS X apps. I'd hazard a guess that people end
up installing fewer apps after-the-fact on Linux because it's not the
easiest process (though, there may be less need to do so since many
distros install the kitchen sink, but that's beside the point).

Eric.