Suggestion: Change the link names on http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/debian-installer/

[Matthew Wilcox]

After watching the Nth person bitch on IRC that they downloaded the ia64
image when they meant to download the amd64 image, I have a constructive
suggestion for improving matters.

Changing the architecture name would be very disruptive, so that's out.

But we could easily change this:

# netinst CD image (generally 135-175 MB)
[alpha][amd64][arm][armel][hppa][i386][ia64][mips][mipsel][powerpc][sparc]

to this:
# netinst CD image (generally 135-175 MB)
[x86 32-bit][x86 64-bit][PowerPC][ARM (new ABI)][ARM (old ABI)][DEC Alpha][HP PA-RISC][Itanium][MIPS][Little Endian MIPS][SPARC]

(I realise this opens us to all kinds of bikeshedding around the exact
wording, the ordering and so on.  My suggestion is that someone just make
a decision and stick to it, because almost anything would be better than
the alphabetical arch-name list we currently have).

--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Simon Paillard]

Hi,

On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 09:50:54AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> After watching the Nth person bitch on IRC that they downloaded the ia64
> image when they meant to download the amd64 image, I have a constructive
> suggestion for improving matters.
>
> Changing the architecture name would be very disruptive, so that's out.
>
> But we could easily change this:
>
> # netinst CD image (generally 135-175 MB)
> [alpha][amd64][arm][armel][hppa][i386][ia64][mips][mipsel][powerpc][sparc]
>
> to this:
> # netinst CD image (generally 135-175 MB)
> [x86 32-bit][x86 64-bit][PowerPC][ARM (new ABI)][ARM (old ABI)][DEC Alpha][HP PA-RISC][Itanium][MIPS][Little Endian MIPS][SPARC]

Seconded, thanks for the suggestion.
That would look like :
http://teubr.eu.org/~spaillar/debian/webwml/english/releases/lenny/debian-installer/index.en.html

Notice the 0 that is specific to multi-arch. I don't understand yet.

> (I realise this opens us to all kinds of bikeshedding around the exact
> wording, the ordering and so on.  My suggestion is that someone just make
> a decision and stick to it, because almost anything would be better than
> the alphabetical arch-name list we currently have).

IMHO, it doesn't need to be sorted. It should instead do the same as
http://get.debian.net/ and display the arch form the user first.

If this need any order, that should be sorted by inst score from popcon:
http://popcon.debian.org/ 

--
Simon Paillard


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Simon Paillard]

On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 07:25:19PM +0100, Simon Paillard wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 09:50:54AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > After watching the Nth person bitch on IRC that they downloaded the ia64
> > image when they meant to download the amd64 image, I have a constructive
> > suggestion for improving matters.
[..]

> > # netinst CD image (generally 135-175 MB)
> > [alpha][amd64][arm][armel][hppa][i386][ia64][mips][mipsel][powerpc][sparc]
> >
> > to this:
> > # netinst CD image (generally 135-175 MB)
> > [x86 32-bit][x86 64-bit][PowerPC][ARM (new ABI)][ARM (old ABI)][DEC Alpha][HP PA-RISC][Itanium][MIPS][Little Endian MIPS][SPARC]
>
> Seconded, thanks for the suggestion.
> That would look like :
> http://teubr.eu.org/~spaillar/debian/webwml/english/releases/lenny/debian-installer/index.en.html

Fixed now.

Frans, any opinion about this ?

Looking at http://www.debian.org/releases/lenny/ and
http://www.debian.org/releases/lenny/installmanual
I ever wonder if a table with a line per arch, and a media per columb
would not be more appropriate.

> > (I realise this opens us to all kinds of bikeshedding around the exact
> > wording, the ordering and so on.  My suggestion is that someone just make
> > a decision and stick to it, because almost anything would be better than
> > the alphabetical arch-name list we currently have).
>
> IMHO, it doesn't need to be sorted. It should instead do the same as
> http://get.debian.net/ and display the arch form the user first.
>
> If this need any order, that should be sorted by inst score from popcon:
> http://popcon.debian.org/ 

That would be for a next step I guess.

--
Simon Paillard

---

? debian/release_data.wml
Index: debian/installer.wml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/webwml/webwml/english/template/debian/installer.wml,v
retrieving revision 1.14
diff -u -r1.14 installer.wml
--- debian/installer.wml 19 Feb 2009 02:27:21 -0000 1.14
+++ debian/installer.wml 24 Nov 2009 23:32:00 -0000
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
   <set-var %attributes />
 
   <when <not <get-var format />/>>
-    <set-var format="[<a href="<get-var url />">@ARCH@</a>]" />
+    <set-var format="[<a href="<get-var url />"><: print ( $arches{@ARCH@} or '@ARCH@') :></a>]" />
   </when>
   <when <not <get-var arch />/>>
     <set-var arch="<stable-images-arches/>" />

---

[Gerfried Fuchs-6]

* Simon Paillard <simon.paillard@...> [2009-11-01 19:25:19 CET]:
> IMHO, it doesn't need to be sorted. It should instead do the same as
> http://get.debian.net/ and display the arch form the user first.

 The same? You sure? Including something like this?

#v+
WARNING: Oops, it seems you have no JavaScript enabled or your browser
don't support it. I won't be useful for you without JavaScript support.
Please go to http://www.debian.org/CD/ to get Debian or enable the
JavaScript support on your browser if possible.
#v-

 :)
Rhonda


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:17:07PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> Do you really think that having "AMD64", "Intel x86" and "Intel IA-64"
> instead of amd64, i386, ia64 will make people magically choose AMD64 if
> they're looking for 64-bit Intel support?

I hadn't realised that Simon had made this change.  That was the whole
_point_.  Put the popular architectures first, and call them something
meaningful, ie:

[x86 32-bit] [x86 64-bit] [PowerPC]

The exact names are debatable of course, but expecting people to deduce
that 'amd64' is the right link to click on for their shiny new Intel
Xeon system clearly isn't working.

> The current pages would IMO be more improved by adding a clear link to a
> *separate* page with info on "how to choose the correct architecture",
> which contains a clear description of what each architecture is.

I'm not sure that's a great idea either.  Why should users have
to learn what Debian's internal name for their architecture is?

> If you want to really improve the links to images, which you're very
> welcome to do, then please do it by *redesigning* the pages with the links
> instead of forcing changes into an existing layout where the changes do
> more harm than that they improve things.

I have no objection to changing the layout.  I want to make this page
more new-user friendly (since it's rather key to getting new users into
Debian).

--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Frans Pop-3]

On Thursday 26 November 2009, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:17:07PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Do you really think that having "AMD64", "Intel x86" and "Intel IA-64"
> > instead of amd64, i386, ia64 will make people magically choose AMD64
> > if they're looking for 64-bit Intel support?
>
> I hadn't realised that Simon had made this change.  That was the whole
> _point_.  Put the popular architectures first, and call them something
> meaningful, ie:
>
> [x86 32-bit] [x86 64-bit] [PowerPC]

Changing things this way still does not make it fit in the current layout
of the page and will still reduce readability (IMO).

Also, making this change *only* for the image links is IMO not a good idea
because it just introduces yet another identification for architectures.
We already use too many different names and descriptions in different
places.

> Why should users have to learn what Debian's internal name for their
> architecture is?

Because that is what they see/need when they look at the sources.list or
package names?

> I have no objection to changing the layout.

I would prefer a full redesign over just changing the layout. The current
pages are problematic exactly because they try to fit everything on a
single page and thus allow little room for explanation.
But OTOH that's also their great strength for users who *do* know what they
want, so solving the issue by linking to separate page(s) that add a good
explanation of what's what is still an option too.

An alternative could be to have a single page per release per architecture.
Such pages would allow for much more information about the architecture
(including links to related architectures) and more information about the
different images.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Frans Pop-3]

On Thursday 26 November 2009, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:17:07PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Do you really think that having "AMD64", "Intel x86" and "Intel IA-64"
> > instead of amd64, i386, ia64 will make people magically choose AMD64
> > if they're looking for 64-bit Intel support?

I just see that my message (that Matthew replied to) did not make it to the
d-www list, probably because of the size of the two attachments.

However, the message can be seen in the archive of the d-boot list:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2009/11/msg00515.html


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Gerfried Fuchs-6]

* Frans Pop <elendil@...> [2009-11-27 00:27:07 CET]:
> On Thursday 26 November 2009, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Why should users have to learn what Debian's internal name for their
> > architecture is?
>
> Because that is what they see/need when they look at the sources.list or
> package names?

 I have no powerpc in my sources.list, and package names don't carry
powerpc for me neither.

 On the other hand, enabling users to learn isn't a bad thing in itself.
If it is additional, we shouldn't depend too much on educating our users
- offering it is enough.

 One suggestion that is pretty easy to implement and also should be
helpful straight ahead: Why not make amd64 and i386 appear in *bold*
letters? That way they stand out and people are more likely to
recoginize and choose them. Ordering and discussions on renaming one way
or another might confuse, having it clearly standing out is a concept
that everyone should easy be able to understand.

 You can afterwards continue to discuss wether allcaps or lowercase or
the arch part from the package filename is the best option. ;)

 So long! :)
Rhonda


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Alexander Reichle-Schmehl]

Hi!

* Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@...> [091127 11:43]:
>  One suggestion that is pretty easy to implement and also should be
> helpful straight ahead: Why not make amd64 and i386 appear in *bold*
> letters?

Would it be to much to ask to replace the single "amd64" with "amd64 /
Intel EM64-T" (or however it's called) on the webpages?  That might
reduce the "your ia64 image doesn't boot on my intel box" complaints.

Best Regards,
  Alexander