Espresso is now Ubuiquity

[lloyd@foolswisdom.com]

On 4/27/06, Jordan Mantha <mantha at chem.unr.edu> wrote:
> lloyd at foolswisdom.com wrote:
> > On 4/27/06, Jordan Mantha <jordan.mantha at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/27/06, Matt Galvin <matt.t.galvin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity
> >>> It might be best to simply refer to it as something like "the Ubuntu
> >>> Installer" or something similar so that we don't have to worry about
> >>> the name changing. Additionally the name "Ubiquity" does not even hint
> >>> at the applications real functionality.
> >> In that case I would do something like "the Graphical Ubuntu
> >> Installer, ubiquity," to distinguish it from the text-based installer.
> >> I agree that the name really doesn't give much info to the reader but
> >> they will want to know the name if the try to file a bug report.
> >
> > Graphical differentiates it enough, including code names in user
> > documentation is not appropriate.
>
> Well, it isn't a code name, it is the package name, which people will
> need to know if they need to file a bug. It would be helpful for people
> to know what the graphical installer's name is.

You can call it what you want, to a user it is a code name. Imposing
this sort of detail on a user is not fair, nor does it help Ubuntu's
adoption. Is it Linux for everyone?

How many users file bug reports? Are those technically savvy users
able to find out it the package name? Are people that see a bug report
without the package name able to direct it to the correct area?

--
Peace be in you,
Lloyd D Budd
http://www.foolswisdom.com/~lloyd/