Installer options I'd love to see

[Pjotr]

The first sentence by Clem says it all:

pjotr, I understand the rationale, but with the same logic you'd wait for 18.2 or even 18.3?

My reply was (I quote):

No, because the first point release of the Ubuntu LTS (for example: 14.04.1) is always with the same kernel series and graphical stack as the original LTS (for example: 14.04). The next point releases have newer kernel series and newer graphical stacks.

The first Ubuntu point release is about bug removal only.

Relevance: with 18 / 18.1 it'll be the same thing. Primarily bugfixes, no new kernel series or graphics stack. So probably a smoother upgrade from 17.x.

Anyway: it's just a suggestion, with no consequences for myself. I will definitely do a clean upgrade to 18.
Without a separate /home.

[Moem]

The thread seems to have veered ever so slightly off-topic. And that's cool because it's super interesting. By all means, keep going (if you want)!

[chrisonmint]

The thread seems to have veered ever so slightly off-topic. And that's cool because it's super interesting. By all means, keep going (if you want)!

I would suggest that the ability to import from a backup or existing linux installation (not necessarily Mint...):
- fresh install where is leaves the /home alone
- migrating /home and the list of users over (not necessarily trying to replicate the installed package list... that would be tough)

This has been standard in OSX installs for ages and I have got very used to it.

[Cosmo.]

This is either not my day or something is wrong here:

The first sentence by Clem says it all:

pjotr, I understand the rationale, but with the same logic you'd wait for 18.2 or even 18.3?

My reply was (I quote):

No, because the first point release of the Ubuntu LTS (for example: 14.04.1) is always with the same kernel series and graphical stack as the original LTS (for example: 14.04). The next point releases have newer kernel series and newer graphical stacks.

Why should an in-place upgrade be less secure with the argument, that kernel and graphic stack are the same as in the previous LTS?
And why should the in-place upgrade suddenly be safer for 18.1 - so the consequence of the above quote -, when both have changed in the Ubuntu base?
It's over my head.

Regarding the argument about bugs in the .0 release:
Despite the fact, that any software and any version has bugs (which unfortunately don't show at once, otherwise they would have been eliminated before the release), I don't see, why the .0 release should have more. IMHO the LM 17 point-release with the most bugs was .2, not .0. (This is about the Cinnamon edition, I cannot judge about the others.) See the changelog for 17.2 about the removed preloading feature and several threads in the forum (example, short after the release date).
It would be a pity, if LM 18.0 would need at first a follow-up before it gets grown-up. I didn't see such a need for 17.0 or in any previous version and I don't see, why this should suddenly be expected for 18.0.

[Derek_S]

Many of us consider it pretty ideal to have a separate /home partition instead of having the home directory live in the same partition as the OS itself.
I'd love it if the installer would have an option to do that more or less automatically. It would probably be the best option for novice users who don't yet know anything about editing partitions by hand. So the options could look somewhat like this (but in better wording):

• Installation as the only OS (This will erase and overwrite data that is currently on the disk)
  • - Recommended installation: create three new partitions [description of partitions, one of which is /home]
    - Simple installation: create two new partitions [description of partitions]
  Installation next to an already present OS
  • - Recommended installation: create three new partitions [description of partitions, one of which is /home]
    - Simple installation: create two new partitions [description of partitions]
  Something else (advanced options for experienced users)

It would probably result in many, many newbies ending up with their data separated from their OS even if they did not know what that means. That sounds like a Good Thing to me. I've heard that Fedora does this, so I assume it was a concious choice not to adopt this system, but I can't fathom the reasoning.

Hello M0em - What you describe in your initial post does exist, and offers all the options you describe and even more. It is the installer that is included with openSUSE. After reading this thread last night, I decided to dust off my openSUSE 13.2 installation DVD and pop it into my HP laptop, then run through a mock installation. Here is a step by step description:

1.) On the first screen, you are asked to agree to the end-user license agreement.

2.) Then you are asked to configure you network connection. Basically, you need to know your I.P. address, the SSID assigned to your wi-fi router, the type of security used (WEP, WPA2, etc.), and the password.

3.) You are presented with two options: To add the online repositories in order to apply updates during installation and to include add-ons from external media.

4.) Now you come to partition options, and there are many. Naturally, the first choice is to install openSUSE as the only operating system on the disk. If you choose to dual-boot, the installer analyses the system, determining if any other operating system exists on the disk, whether the system is using MBR or UEFI to boot, and in the case of UEFI, whether or not Secure Boot is enabled. If it finds the existing Windows or Linux system partitions are using the entire disk, it picks the largest partition that exists and offers to shrink it down in order to create the unallocated disk space needed to install openSUSE. In my case, I deliberately extended the Windows C:\ system partition to use all of the available disk space prior to running the installation. The installer offered to shrink it from 930GB down to 345GB, then offered me it's planned Linux partition setup.

Linux Swap @ 2.01GB
Root @ 40GB, formatted BTRFS
Home @ 543GB (using the balance of the unallocated space), formatted XFS

Options are listed directly below this as follows:

a.) Create LVM or encrypted LVM, very much like Ubuntu/Linux Mint
b.) Change root file system from BTRFS to either XFS or Ext4
c.) Change home file system from XFS to either BTRFS or Ext4
d.) Deselect the option to create a home partition and have just swap and root
e.) Enlarge swap in order to enable hibernation (Suspend to disk)

In addition to all of the above, you are also offered the option to use their "Expert Partitioner", in which case you can start from scratch and create your very own partition setup, leaving partition sizes, formats, and mount points entirely up to you.

5.) The next screen asks you to look at the time and date displayed and asks you for verification.

6.) Now you can select your desktop: GNOME, KDE, XFCE, LXDE, Minimal X Window, or Text Mode for Server.

7.) Enter your user name and password, and select whether to use the password to login at boot.

8.) Last is your Installation Summary Screen. All the information related to the installation is displayed. If you want to make any changes, this is your last chance to go back and do so. If you click "Next", you proceed with the actual installation.

Personally, I'd rate the Ubuntu/Linux Mint installer as archaic at best to abysmal at worst, and I have complained about it twice before. Here in March 2014: http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... =+openSUSE
And again in June 2014: http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.p ... 34#p880434

From the end of the last post: "I think that for every person showing up on this forum trying to fix their failed Linux Mint installation, there are probably 9 others who just give up on Linux and reinstall Windows. Having a bad experience right from the start is not the way to win people over to using Linux over Windows, and I hope the developers read this and take note. I know it's near impossible to make the installer idiot proof, but it could be a lot better than it is now."

[austin.texas]

And then there is the Anaconda installer (Fedora and Korora) which allows you to chose which programs you do or do not want to install. That happens to be something I like a lot !

Personally, I'd rate the Ubuntu/Linux Mint installer as archaic at best to abysmal at worst

Yes, I have voiced that opinion. "Medieval" was my description.

[Pjotr]

Ubiquity does sometimes have problems with automatically recognizing an existing Windows 8.x or 10 on UEFI machines, which makes it necessary to create and indicate the partitions by hand. Which is no fun for a beginner with Linux.

Other than that, I'm pretty satisfied with Ubiquity. I find it easy and intuitive. More tweak options would be confusing for beginners, I think.

I just hope the Ubuntu developers will fix the automatic recognition of an existing Windows 8.x / 10 before they ship Ubuntu 16.04 (which will be the code base for Mint 18). That said: maybe they've fixed it already, in the Ubiquity of Ubuntu 15.10. I wouldn't know, because I haven't tested that....