That’s kind of like asking why we’re not all driving Ford Model T cars, after all you could drive in them just fine. Technology moves on, best practice moves on, Hell, everything moves on.
anyone who thinks web tech is best practice on the fucking desktop should be expelled from the whole field
said ford would consume way too much gas and produce way too much noise, among other things. but what’s the problem with the current installer? that it doesn’t have curly corners, and that it has too many options which is confusing to those with no reading comprehension?
So I suppose you never use a browser to run a web application on the desktop :thinking_face: Anyway it;s a client server architecture designed for remote installation on servers as well as local installations. It makes sense to have one installer do both.
As to the old installer, when you knew about the un-obvious features, it was brilliant from a user perspective, but I’m willing to bet that from a developer perspective, it was hard to maintain, hard to add new features to, and fragile.
It certainly worked and was full featured, but the interface wasn’t very good. Having to edit the network interfaces to configure them wasn’t good UI for example (the partition editor works the same way). It also took until my second install (that was quite some time ago) to figure out that I could pick what software I wanted to install.
Anyway, a lot of things could be made clearer for first time users.
It worked perfectly well to install though? Like why does it matter if its old
That’s kind of like asking why we’re not all driving Ford Model T cars, after all you could drive in them just fine. Technology moves on, best practice moves on, Hell, everything moves on.
anyone who thinks web tech is best practice on the fucking desktop should be expelled from the whole field
said ford would consume way too much gas and produce way too much noise, among other things. but what’s the problem with the current installer? that it doesn’t have curly corners, and that it has too many options which is confusing to those with no reading comprehension?
So I suppose you never use a browser to run a web application on the desktop :thinking_face: Anyway it;s a client server architecture designed for remote installation on servers as well as local installations. It makes sense to have one installer do both.
As to the old installer, when you knew about the un-obvious features, it was brilliant from a user perspective, but I’m willing to bet that from a developer perspective, it was hard to maintain, hard to add new features to, and fragile.
I’m already running too many browsers in some trenchcoat on the desktop.
that does not warrant a browser. not only JS can do HTTP requests
It certainly worked and was full featured, but the interface wasn’t very good. Having to edit the network interfaces to configure them wasn’t good UI for example (the partition editor works the same way). It also took until my second install (that was quite some time ago) to figure out that I could pick what software I wanted to install.
Anyway, a lot of things could be made clearer for first time users.