How Goes it with Breezy?
cjwatson at ubuntu.com
Wed May 11 18:58:13 UTC 2005
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 08:34:39PM +0200, Vincent Trouilliez wrote:
> Hmmm... Ubuntu is supposed to be simple and use reasonable defaults for
> human beings, not add unnecessary complexity by providing two things
> that do the same thing. So the graphical installer should be default, as
> it potentially lets us make it more user friendly, which is the prime
> objective of Ubuntu, to get everyone on it. I don't see why we would
> have to have both the ext and graphical installer, if the graphical one
> works, and since it will be based on the existing text installer anyway,
> why wouldn't it work ?
Please see http://udu.wiki.ubuntu.com/GraphicalInstaller. We won't be
doing a graphical version of the normal installer for Breezy; instead,
some folks will be working on a live CD installer which will focus on
reusing as much of the normal installer code as possible in a graphical
environment (http://udu.wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuExpress). If that works
well, we'll probably move to sending out just the live CD in shipit to
cut down on costs, but continue to offer the install CD (with the
traditional installer) for download for people with non-trivial needs.
> Obviously, there is always the "expert" mode, which could potentially
> allow for a text installer, if for some reason the graphical one fails.
> I think Mandrake works this way. Graphical installer by default, which
> always worked for me, but a text installer in "expert" mode, just in
Once a fully graphical installer exists, that will be relatively
straightforward to do in our environment, yes.
Colin Watson [cjwatson at ubuntu.com]
More information about the ubuntu-users