On Sunday 09 March 2003 10:19, Benjamin Pflugmann wrote: > - In section 3, you may want to mention another advantage of Mandrake > (of course, it's not exclusive to Mandrake): That of this effort > being possible. In other words, the current state is only possible, > because contrib exists and there were people (besides Mandrake > employers, who do a great job) who were willing to put time and > effort to get the missing packages in.
There's also the fact that because Mandrake is so spiffy and developer-friendly, many developers are using Mandrake themselves, so they build Mandrake packages right from the start. (This wasn't true even a year ago, and it's made it much easier for me to explain to people why they should choose Mandrake over Redhat or SUSE....) > - In section 6, setting up online software resources, for the > uninitiated, it is not obvious that "Mandrake Contributions section" > refers to what you meant with "online" before. Also, your mentioning > of "95% of apps being there", immediate rose the question of "where > do I get the other 5%", which you don't answer. > > Either make clearer, that those 5% are only apps I need, when I got > to experienced user level, or say it in a way, that the question > does not arises, or explain how to proceed for that 5%. > > 95% of the apps you will need are going to be on the CD's, or in the > > Mandrake Contributions section online. > > ... > > 95% of what you'll need is included with Mandrake Linux. At least one of these has to change; after all, if 95% of what you need is included, and 95% is included or in the Contributions section online, then 0% must be in the Contributions section online.... The problem is this: of the remaining 5% that aren't on the CD, 95% are available in Mandrake contribs. And then, of the still-remaining 5%, 95% are available through PLF. Of the even-stiller-remaininger 5%, 95% can be rebuilt from SRPM/built from source tarballs/converted from apt/installed using some custom installer package. Of the ben-stiller-show-didn't-remain-on-the-air-very-long 5%, 95% need a little work to get running on most Mandrake-based systems. And so on. The farther down the chain you go, the more there is to explain, the less it helps, and the less accurate is the idea that the apps you won't need until you're experienced are the apps that are harder to get.... Also, it's simply not true. For example, the most important part of the system, as far as the intended user is concerned, is kernel-multimedia, which is not included with a default Mandrake install. And 50% of what you need isn't available at all, because it doesn't exist, which is why you should contribute (seek out projects that sound interesting and test bugs for them, etc.). This is very important--but it'll also scare off much of the target audience. I think, all in all, the best solution is to just strike both 95% references, and say something like, "The first step is to get Mandrake Linux. You can get the core..." the first time, and, "You will need to access the Mandrake Contributions section online." Then, if you think it's necessary (I don't), add a separate paragraph here saying something about how there are other sources for software, and new software is being created all the time, and as you go along, you'll continue to discover more, or whatever (in other words, hint that seeking out new software, getting it to work with Mandrake, helping in the development in other ways, etc. is something that'll come naturally and be fun, because if you don't scare people off, that is actually what often happens...). > - In section 7, I like that "(If you have to ask, you don't)" part :-) > > But a link to some resource about SMP (in a technical dictionary?) > would be nice, anyhow. > > - Use a <UL> in section 9d, to make that list stand out more. I agree, this does not to be just a tiny bit more prominent. Links to the appropriate pages would probably do the job just as well as underlining the categories, as well as being useful on their own. (Also, please move rosegarden from Score Editing to Sequencers.) > - Is it intention that you don't mention PLF in section 9f? I think the description "of other restricted software" in the last paragraph, with a link to pclinuxonline, is good enough, since pclinuxonline has a quite-visible link to PLF themselves. On the other hand, since this page isn't hosted in the US, it might be worth mentioning PLF directly--after all, for Canadians, some of what's in PLF actually is free.... Also, the link to pclinuxonline is broken (it links to "w.pclinuxonline.com" instead of "http://www.pclinuxonline.com";).
