You make it sound like that is some kind of problem.
Fact however, is that the crazier it is, the better it is.
Not that your criticism is crazy in any way of course!
Got confused ... Provide more info
While there is always more info that could be provided, my experience in such matters tells me that the number of persons that get confused by instructions at one time or another cannot be taken down to zero no matter how much info is thrown in; and that beyond a certain point, attempts at adding more info/guidance often just sows confusion.
As an example, if this can be misinterpreted, anything, and everything, can ... and will:
Populate this folder with the contents of an 'OC' folder created for Ventura and/or Sonoma by the OCLP
That is, open the said OCLP created 'OC' folder, copy everything inside and paste into this folder
The benchmark therefore is whether a reasonable amount of info/guidance has been provided. My assessment at this time is that the amount provided is reasonable. Again, more can always be added, but I don't intend to do so at this time as the Cost/Benefit ratio in terms of amount of effort involved vs "
real" usefulness does not stack up in my assessment.
There is a minimum baseline knowledge level of close to zero assumed but the tool does not aim to be a means of teaching the intricacies of setting RefindPlus and/or OpenCore up.
So how does a person with a baseline knowledge level close to zero operate? They need to read Post 1, which clearly says that if you do not know the answer to a query, select the highlighted button; of which there is always one. The highlighted button, which can vary based on previous responses and other factors, is always the "
Safest" option.
So if asked about having drives on PCIe slots displayed as internal drives for example, the "
Most Performant" answer for most is probably "
YES" but "
NO" is highlighted as sure to be issue free. The person that doesn't know what this item means doesn't get the drives shown as internal but also doesn't get affected by any issues.
I don't intend to get into writing stuff up to explain the subject beyond the single sentence provided. If/when the user knows more after "studying" the subject, they can go crazy.
On the specific bit you mentioned as causing a meltdown:
Note that "
Stop" is the safest option here as those that cannot answer should not be going any further.
- Select "STOP" if unsure about what you have in place and/or plan.
- Select "YES" if any of these apply:
- You have, or plan to get, DosDude instances and you plan to run such via OpenCore.
- You have, or plan to get, OCLP instances of 12.x Monterey and/or 11.x BigSur that are patched.
- Select "NO" Otherwise.
I think persons reading the dialogue should be able to independently infer the above; subject to getting that the query is about plans to run "
PATCHED MacOS instances via OPENCORE", if any, and not about DosDude/OCLP in themselves.
It happens to be the case that DosDude instances are invariably patched but OCLP instances may be or may not be.
It happens to be the case that OCLP instances are always run via OpenCore but DosDude instances may or may not.
It happens to be the case that ConfigFactory creates OpenCore instances for "Vanilla" Mac OS 12.x Monterey/Older.
It happens to be the case that Mac OS patched via DosDude always fall into this range of versions (
Potential Conflict).
It happens to be the case that Mac OS patched via the OCLP may fall into this range of versions (
Potential Conflict).
Another thing I learnt over time on FOSS contribs is that most tend to assume they represent the main use case.
I recall a rant from the early days about how there was too much info for "typical" users such as them to absorb.
Anyway, the next release will change:
"...
OCLP patched instances (Excluding 13.x Ventura/Newer)" to "
... patched OCLP instances of 12.x Monterey and/or 11.x BigSur"
Hopefully helps with meltdowns!
