Qubes 4.0 Getting Started

[marmarta]

A new Getting Started page for Qubes 4.0 - with pictures (requires QubesOS/qubes-attachment#16 ) and updated text.

[andrewdavidwong]

Thank you for doing this, @marmarta. Looks good overall. I'll push some revisions when I get a chance.

One problem: According to our doc guidelines, this should technically be a section on the existing Getting Started page (alongside the 3.2 version). However, this would be rather awkward, and the Getting Started page might be a legitimate exception to this rule for independent reasons. On the other hand, having two separate pages is also awkward, because the existing Getting Started page is linked from many places, and many of those places don't easily allow for two separate links to two different versions. We shouldn't remove the current Getting Started page until 3.2 is no longer supported. Do you or @marmarek have any thoughts about how to address this?

Since 3.2 is approaching EOL soon anyway, one idea is to put this new page in place of the existing one and provide a link at the top pointing to the old one, e.g.:

This is an introduction to Qubes 4.0. Looking to get started with Qubes 3.2? Please click here.

[marmarek]

Since 3.2 is approaching EOL soon anyway, one idea is to put this new page in place of the existing one and provide a link at the top pointing to the old one, e.g.:

This is an introduction to Qubes 4.0. Looking to get started with Qubes 3.2? Please click here.

Good idea.

[andrewdavidwong]

Revision pushed.

The intro section is probably still too technical (and focuses too much on the implementation) for the intended audience of this document. However, that's a longer-term UX problem that we can address outside of this PR.

[andrewdavidwong]

GitHub won't let me request a review from @marmarta, only from @marmarek. However, I'd like you both to take a look at the changes I've made to make sure you're comfortable with them.

[marmarta]

Looks good from here!

[andrewdavidwong]

After installing 4.0.1, I noticed that we seem to use "qube" to refer to any kind of VM (including TemplateVMs?), not just AppVMs. If that's the case, then "qubes and templates" doesn't make sense.

• If we use "AppVM," then we might as well use "TemplateVM" and "VM" in general.
• We can't use "apps and templates" because "app" is ambiguous between AppVMs and applications.
• If we use "app qube," then we should also uses "template qube" for consistency.

[marmarta]

True enough; I prefer to use 'qube' (because it seems VM scares away some folk), but for others 'VM' is much clearer. Which one would you prefer?

[andrewdavidwong]

True enough; I prefer to use 'qube' (because it seems VM scares away some folk), but for others 'VM' is much clearer. Which one would you prefer?

Well, I personally prefer "VM," but we've been discussing it for years now (see QubesOS/qubes-issues#1015). The problem is that if "qube" is supposed to mean some proper subset of VMs, then it's hard to guard against lax misuse of the term as a synonym for "VM," which leads to inconsistency.

So, suppose it's just a synonym for "VM." Then we can't say there are two main kinds of things -- qubes and templates -- because templates are a type of qube. So what do we call the first type of thing (previously known as "AppVM")?

[unman]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 08:19:48PM -0800, Andrew David Wong wrote: > True enough; I prefer to use 'qube' (because it seems VM scares away some folk), but for others 'VM' is much clearer. Which one would you prefer? Well, I personally prefer "VM," but we've been discussing it for years now (see #1015). The problem is that if "qube" is supposed to mean some _proper subset_ of VMs, then it's hard to guard against lax misuse of the term as a synonym for "VM," which leads to inconsistency. So, suppose it's just a synonym for "VM." Then we can't say there are two main kinds of things -- qubes and templates -- because templates are a _type_ of qube. So what do we call the first type of thing (previously known as "AppVM")?

qube is supposed to be a friendlier term for non technical users. For that audience, I think that the qube/template distinction works reasonably well. I don't think that qube is intended to be a synonym for "VM", and we should use it throughout. In technical documentation, and in discussions where appropriate, then VM maybe used, with clarifications as necessary to distinguish templates/appVMs and qubes not based on a template. If there were some example where someone could be shown to be confused by the use of "qube" this would be helpful. I am not aware of any such case, but might have missed it.

[andrewdavidwong]

qube is supposed to be a friendlier term for non technical users. For
that audience, I think that the qube/template distinction works
reasonably well. I don't think that qube is intended to be a synonym for
"VM", and we should use it throughout.
[...]
If there were some example where someone could be shown to be confused by
the use of "qube" this would be helpful. I am not aware of any such
case, but might have missed it.

The Qube Manager manages all VMs, including TemplateVMs. Most of the actions it advertises (start/stop qube, delete qube, clone qube, backup qubes) also apply to templates. So, it's easy for users to get the idea that "qube" can refer to any type of VM, including templates.

There are many ways a term that is ambiguous between "AppVM" and "VM" can be confusing. Here are some examples of statements that are true on one definition but false on the other:

• "In general, software installed in a qube will not persist across restarts."
• "There's no need to update your qubes."
• "A qube is intended for activities like web browsing and video chats."
• "There's a special kind of qube called a 'template' where you install your apps."
• "Every qube is based on a template."
• "Not every qube is based on a template."

[marmarta]

why has this not been merged in the end? does it need another rewrite/edit?

[andrewdavidwong]

why has this not been merged in the end? does it need another rewrite/edit?

It looks like it's waiting on review approval from @marmarek.

[andrewdavidwong]

I decided to just go ahead and merge this. Sorry it took so long, @marmarta. Next time will be faster.