On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 01:36, Reinout van Schouwen wrote: > > is not intuitive, to me. The other idea, that the menus would contain > > all possible software and install whatever you click on...erm...have you > > thought how BIG the menus would be? Not to mention what to do about > > packages that wouldn't naturally have a menu entry. > > This one is easy, I mentioned the _common_choices_ from the 'What to do?' > menu. > > Anything else a user would like to install can be done via urpmi, or > perhaps an expert-oriented GUI front end. The reasoning being that if a > user knows the name of a different program he wants he's advanced enough > to be able to use advanced tools.
Bad reasoning. Who decides what a "common choice" is? I mean, something like, oh, say, a sequencer isn't a common choice. But that doesn't mean anyone who wants a sequencer is going to be an advanced user. So they see things like office suites in the menus, click on them, and they're installed...how are they to know they have to utilise an utterly DIFFERENT method to install the sequencer? Who's going to tell them "oh, sorry, we decided that wasn't a common choice, figure it out yourself"? -- adamw
