I just spent another 3 hours taking a new user through the damn installer. Let us use the old installer please, this is unbearable pain.
Like create a bullet points list for me on how to create an encrypted mirrored / mount point. Don’t forget about the boot partitions. Go do that exercise and try explaining it to someone who has never used linux.
Boot MUST be handled for the user, you should NOT expect the user to deal with /boot[/efi]
I would think the pain could be mitigated in two very obvious ways.
Just offering a different perspective…
You are free to fork the older code and make your own installer out of it. That is at least what the liberty of opensource is known for. You can not expect maintaining two projects when we have the goal to create a new one which should serve for all situations.
The source code should be here:
It looks like the older versions are available over the branches.
There are not just new Linux users here. Also more advanced users which depend on the options to make more complex setups. If you want to report issues or propose changes please read the README file.
You already started an other topic on which you complained about the installer I guess we not need to repeat this again.
I will add the anaconda tag so that also they can give their opinion and maybe help to find the correct code if you really like to take the work for maintaining the old installer…!
The team working on the new installer are very open to improving the installer and fixing user experience regressions.
I’m expecting to see improvments in f45 installer vs. the f44 one based on feedback the team got right here in the forum.
You can raise bugs against the installer to bring issues the developers attention.
As for going back to the old installer, there are technical reasons that that is far from simple to do. It’s part of the reason the new installer was developed.
Hi,
I think your request should be posted in Project Discussion - this section here is a support forum but you request aims at structural changes that require a different audience.
See also Feedback: Anaconda Web UI partitioning
I suggest you use the netinstall/ Everything installer - it still has the old installer
Fork this fork that. Honey bunny I have a life, a dayjob, family, and on top of it 8h/day contribute to open source - half of it Fedora. For over a decade. We all do that - some people use the things I make, and I use the things they make. THAT is the liberty of open source. You yelling at everyone giving feedback to fork things if they don’t like it is NOT the way. And I recall you were even told off there by Alexandra. So stop this attitude all the time.
This isn’t the first time that I bring up the SAME feedback, nothing changed in a long time, the team working on it is not “very open to improving it and fixing user experience regressions” - that’s a load of nonsense. Every time I re-iterate that the boot needs to be handled automatically as it is in the old one, I get told that there are no use cases for it despite the people saying that have no clue. Meanwhile I run pretty much 99% of the user (non-contributor) “front line” communities for Fedora and do know what our users actually face. I’m tired of this attitude that Fedora Linux is made only for Fedora contributors. About time it changed. Start listening to the countless posts here, on reddit and other platforms.
I can’t advise the average joe to use a custom installer or iso - even if I was willing to spend godknowshowmuchtime building it. It’s outrageous that someone even dares to suggest that. Or Everything iso (netinstall) for that matter - another suggestion that assumes that I don’t know what I’m on about. I’m not looking for help with my individual problem. I’m looking for people willing to finally listen. I will keep starting new threads over and over, every time I get fed up with helping new users with this useless new installer.
Anyway, if you want a more constructive feedback than “its bad” - been there, done that, didn’t help. So a bit more desperate approach of just being noisy might work better, I don’t know.
Firstly, you have a very specific request. And so far, you are the only person with this particular request ever appearing in this forum. (If you have any other examples of similar request I would like to see links to them).
You say that you have to describe this setup to some new users often. Why?
Do new users actually ask for it? for which use cases? Or is it you who are guiding newcomers to not use the defaults during the installation and do the installation your way instead?
Secondly,
please describe the use case and provide full and complete description of the partitioning you want to achieve and the steps you make for it.
P.S.
The old anaconda is not coming back. There is simply no future path to keep the old Anaconda UI, unless someone invests the time to port it to the newest GTK version, which would require quite a lot of effort.
We can complain about it, or we can work together to make new Anaconda UI better.
If you really want the old anaconda, you can use the netinst (everything) iso, I think?
I’m not “the only person” with this request or problem. I represent more than 50 000 end users that won’t create an account here. We help 20 NEW users every single day. Have you looked at the linux adoption metrics recently? More than double in one year? Again, I must emphasize END USERS - this forum and all typical Fedora communication channels cater contributors only, not the end user. Not the windows refugee. Not the average gamer. (Royal you, the fedora council) you have no idea what the end users actually need or want or how they use the OS. I do and it’s exhausting trying to be heard when everyone sticks their head in the sand. I have to keep repeating myself, saying the same things over and over. Here comes probably 4th time I say the exact same thing about the partitioning during install:
Use cases are countless, literally any non-default schema should have the boot still handled by the installer. For example off the top of my head, the most common use cases are:
The use cases themselves do not matter - what is important is that the user can do any of that, without having to deal with the boot/efi.
Missed the point.
You keep appealing to the authority, while I am asking about the specifics.
This is not helpful. And I am not interested in such discussions.
I am asking for specific examples with a full partition table of the system you have after the installation (at list the output of the lsblk and similar tools, or the logs of the installation from a successful run of the GTK UI), and the specific questions new users ask, which lead them to such partitioning choices.
You can use your knowledge to help or to complain. Your choice.
Speaking strictly as a user of Fedora who has no coding knowledge of contribute if I wanted to, I made this thread about a specific issue with the installer which appears to have flown under the radar, possibly I didn’t tag it appropriately.
Here’s the relevant section of my lsblk since it got mentioned.
$ lsblk
NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINTS
sda 8:0 0 953.9G 0 disk
└─sda1 8:1 0 953.9G 0 part /home
sdb 8:16 0 3.6T 0 disk
└─sdb1 8:17 0 3.6T 0 part /mnt/Linux Data
zram0 251:0 0 8G 0 disk [SWAP]
nvme0n1 259:0 0 232.9G 0 disk
├─nvme0n1p1 259:1 0 1.9G 0 part /boot/efi
├─nvme0n1p2 259:2 0 9.5G 0 part [SWAP]
└─nvme0n1p3 259:3 0 221.4G 0 part /
nvme1n1 259:4 0 1.8T 0 disk
└─nvme1n1p1 259:5 0 1.8T 0 part /mnt/Linux SSD
Thanks for reaching out, but you have a rather the opposite issue than discussed in this thread - problems with the old GTK UI. I will comment on your thread.
Thanks, I saw this thread was stalling out so I took the opportunity to raise something actionable.