By my mind rpmdrake need internet connection ??
So what if updates or installs are necessary with the CD ?
Eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian T. Schellenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 11:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
