Prefab Program Selections (was: RE: Regrouping on "installation profile" idea)

Christopher Faylor
Tue Nov 15 17:05:00 GMT 2005

On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:44:04AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Tim O'Callaghan wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:51:24AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 10:43:11PM -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> > >"Prefab Program Selections"
>> > >
>> > >?  It still has that Unix ugly to it, but it actually says what it means and
>> > >means what it says, so everybody wins.
>> >
>> > I like "selections" but I don't like "prefab".  And, right now, I
>> > think that Igor was telling me that you can't do something like:
>> >
>> > Prefab Program Selections
>> >   C Development
>> >   X Desktop
>> >   ...
>> >
>> > Because setup.exe can't handle that.
>Actually setup.exe *can* handle that, but it'll be
>Prefab Program Selections
>   1.0-1   1.0-1    [] []   1k   C Development
>(with many more spaces -- i.e., the words "C Development" will not be
>readily seen).  We could, of course, reorder the columns in category view,
>but that won't help people using the current version of setup.  So I agree
>with CGF -- the category name ought to immediately make it clear that
>there's interesting stuff beyond the right edge of the chooser...

Right.  I was just representing what you mentioned in private email
where you bemoaned the fact that the above isn't really feasible.  I
don't call the above "handling that".  1.0-1?  1k?

>> > So, it would have to be:
>> >
>> > C Development Prefab Program Selection
>> > X Desktop Prefab Program Selection
>> > ...
>> >
>> > which is a little wordy.
>Nope.  The point is that we want to convey the fact that this *category*
>contains groups of packages that allow performing certain tasks.  The
>names of the packages themselves aren't as important.

"Nope" meaning what?  "FOO Prefab Program Selection" *is* wordy.

>> > I do think we want to convey that these are optional easy-to-use
>> > selections which will pull in all of the programs required for a
>> > standard "use case" (as they like to say where I work).
>> >
>> > How about "standard selection"?
>> >
>> > C Development Standard Selection
>> > X Desktop Standard Selection
>> > ...
>> >
>> > Bleah.  I don't know.  Maybe it just can't be properly conveyed
>> > without all sorts of flashy gui balloons and help.
>> How about 'Bundle' ?
>I like "Bundle", but it still doesn't convey that one only needs to
>install one such bundle for each task that they want to do.  How about
>"Task-oriented Bundles"[*] or something?  The "Task-oriented" part clearly
>shows that these are bundled with a specific task in mind.
>	Igor
>[*] Of course, it'd be ".TASK-ORIENTED_BUNDLES"...

I really don't like the need for underscores or dashes and I *really*
don't like the upper case stuff.  When I see all upper case on a screen
I think there's something not set up right somewhere.


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list