First, there isn't a need to make these into a single package; you just
need for the dependencies to get resolved as done by rpmdrake already
(but not by kpackage).
Second, the general idea of having a less overwhelming "basic"
distirubtion to start is good, but make the kitchen sink available.
I personally think that a look at Caldera OpenLinux is a pretty
good model of how to do a user-friendly install.
But I still want to be *able* to select packages at install time.
AND (this is big . . )
I should be able select packages the *same* way at install time and
afterwards. The install-time package installer lets you select
multiple packages and resolves all dependencies, but I can't find
anything after I install that does this:
- kpackage allows multiple selection but doesn't resolve dependencies;
- rpmdrake resolves dependencies but doesn't allow multiple selection.
And I find both of them unnecessarily awkward in terms of "just
finding" my cdrom packages, though that may be my own fault due to
customization I've done.
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000, you wrote:
| I agree with you.. for instance what does joe computer user want with
| sendmail for instance since he most likely is used to use his isp's
| mailserver as smtp server..
|
| I hate to say this.. but take a look at windows and see what is installed at
| the start.. very little infact..
|
| It would be alot cooler to have a nice menu some OBVIOUS place where all the
| packages that can be installed is listed. And there should be 2 levels of
| that menu aswell (atleast) so you would have to select like advanced to get
| to all the packages.
|
| As I see it now it is a bit too hard to get hold of the packages after I
| install my system. (I am speaking of joe computer user here mind you :). And
| I think the descriptions should be even more informative than they are. The
| description should be worked out with an enduser and not merely by us geeks.
|
| Almost no joe computer user will ever want any -devel packages but he of
| course installs it right away since he has no idea that he wont need it.
|
| And he probably wonders why his newly installed linux machine has 15-20
| different text editors.
| (The really funny thing is that the most user friendly of them 'pico' is
| included in a mailreader and not as a text editor).
|
| I can probably go on all night with things to point out.. but I guess you
| guys get it.
|
| The new graphical installer takes you far.. but it is still not as easy as
| corel linux for instance..
| you need to go the last mile aswell.
|
| I would like to think that we (the users on cooker) can help you guys out in
| selecting wich packages should go in the 'base' or what we should call it.
|
|
| my 12 cents..
| Michael Irving
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Dalton Calford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 10:12 PM
| Subject: [Cooker] Distribution Style
|
|
| > I have been using Mandrake since version 5.3, in fact, I learned linux
| > via mandrake and have always supported the distribution (yes, even with
| > buying copies...)
| >
| > The one thing that I found as a begginer and even now that I am getting
| > truly familiar with the system, is that Mandrake, like most of the linux
| > distributions, is suffering from software bloat.
| >
| > Too much is included with the base system. It confuses the user.
| > Alot gets installed, and never gets used.
| > A new user does not know what is needed and what isn't but they must
| > either accept the few hundred meg of software or go through a confusing
| > selection process that they have no way of understanding.
| >
| > I have to say that I prefer mandrake over the others but, I think there
| > is a better method of handling this.
| >
| > Mandrake should be split into a 'base' package and then all the other
| > packages put into stand alone installs.
| >
| > What should be in the 'base'?
| > I would suggest X, a trimmed down version of KDE and all the graphical
| > configuration tools.
| >
| > Why not emacs and joe and all the other handy-dandy utilities?
| >
| > For the basic user, all those utilities just waste disk space.
| > Mandrake is filling the 'Entry level Linux' for windows users who want
| > to walk on the wild side.
| >
| > There should be packages that maintain all the different possible uses a
| > person may want including things like Licq or Apache, but, these things
| > (including VNC) should not be standard parts of the installation.
| >
| > The packages should be standalone in that they contain in one place all
| > the libs and required files so that when you install the package you do
| > not need to go looking for updates to other packages just so you can run
| > it.
| >
| > This way, a end user can easily add to thier system without worrying
| > about getting other unneeded programs that might be security holes.
| >
| > If a user wants emacs, install the emacs package, if they want to surf
| > the web, add a program that does it.
| >
| > At our office, we remove all browsers and make sure the firewall stops
| > all such traffic, but the standard linux installs include Netscape as a
| > default choice.
| >
| > The people who have made this distribution have done an excellent job,
| > but, too much of Redhats legacy of 'everything and the kitchen sink' has
| > got it bogged down.
| >
| > What I am suggesting, is, stepping back and spliting the developement
| > into two areas
| > 1) a very basic linux system with very little on it.
| > 2) add-on packages to extend the basic system.
| >
| > A basic system of 80-100 MB (even less if possible) that becomes the
| > stepping stone of the distribution that allows everything else to be
| > added would make downloads and installations faster and more reliable.
| >
| > A smaller system with limited items in it allow the user to learn one
| > thing at a time instead of having everything in his face at once.
| >
| > I hope I have not offended anyone with this suggestion, and that perhaps
| > it can lead to some discussion on how to make the distribution a little
| > better.
| >
| > best regards
| >
| > Dalton
| >
| >
--
"Brian, the man from babbleon-on" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian T. Schellenberger http://www.babbleon.org
Support http://www.eff.org. Support decss defendents.
Support http://www.programming-freedom.org. Boycott amazon.com.
