One thing I do like, which Red Hat as been doing for a while, is allowing
the selection and deselection of package groups.
I can do a custom Red Hat 6.2 install, select "Web Server, FTP Server, SMB
Server, NFS Server, Development, and Utilities", change one or two
individual packages, and do the install, getting exactly what I'm looking
for. I know then that I'm not getting the Mars-NWE/Novell connectivity
packages which I don't want even though this machine is a server, I'm not
getting multimedia and X because this machine is a server, and I'm not
getting the printing stuff because I don't have a printer. I also then know
that I'm getting the development and utilities that I want, because this is
a telnet/SSH server that I use a lot remotely, and I need those tools.
Being able to add them to the install with a click of a mouse is excellent.
The package groups give you a lot of control over the installation, and can
select and deselect entire categories of software for those that need to
make machines with specific purposes in mind. I think this is one thing
that Red Hat has over a number of other distributions. You're not stuck
with their "Server, Workstation, or Custom" selection, and you're not stuck
with a giant list of 1,000 packages to choose from. It's a good balance.
And for those that like that, it's there, even an "Everything" selection, so
that you can go through the list of 1,000 packages.
For those anti-Red Hatters, I don't use Red Hat for my personal systems, or
even my work systems. I do support Red Hat though, and started with them
before I discovered Mandrake. They are a good distribution. I am a big
Mandrake proponent, as anyone that knows me will admit.
I guess that was a little more than 2 cents worth.
Don Head
Linux Mentor
Wave Technologies, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[AIM - Don Wave][ICQ - 18804935]
[IRC - EFnet, #WaveTech, Don-Wave]
-----Original Message-----
From: Guillaume Cottenceau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 9:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Cooker] Graphical installer
Anton Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Submitted 26-May-00 by Denis HAVLIK:
> | At the moment, we offer three ways of choosing packages:
> |
> | 1) you trust us to give you a nice set of packages.
> | 2) step 1: you tell the installer what kind of packages you are
> | interested in, and trust us that we know which packages
> | go in which group
> | step 2: by moving a slider left-right, you decide how many MB
> | of packages you really want, and trust us to give you only "the
> | best of" if you move the slider to the left.
> | 3) you want to choose the packages individually
> |
> | I beleive that 1 and 2 are fine, but 3 is a kind of stupid with 1000+
> | packages. This is a major problem, but at the moment noone knows how to
> | improve the process - we are completely open for sugestions here.
>
> The problem with 1 and 2 is the scoring system used. As an example,
> the vast majority of people do not have Palm Pilots, but the various
> pilot-linking apps are scored very highly. At the same time, a great
> number of libraries are scored as ``garbage''. If you don't do an
> expert install and select packages individually (a time consuming
> task) you frequently find need for something that wasn't installed and
> scratch your head in wonder at the things that were included.
>
> The scoring system needs to be built around utility (and obviously
> different for each class of install). Joe User on his desktop machine
> isn't likely to require inn or Zope. Dennis Developer probably has
> little use for fax software on his build box.
>
> When you trust somebody else to give you ``the best of'' you are
> dealing not only with the quality of the software involved, but the
> opinion of the person(s) who did the scoring.
Yes, but how to solve this ? The choices will never match anyone's needs.
But, what we can do right now is to rework the coring system with the help
of you cookers. We are waiting for your suggestions.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau
