Pete wrote:
> He had chosen an expert install and wanted to
> know what packages he needed.
Windows doesn't even *have* an ``expert'' install!
> He then asked me why everything was
> installed by default,
The reasonable presumption is made that if you install something, you
want to run it. IMHO it should all be running by default, but only
listening to localhost (lo interface). That way you can try out all of
the services on the machine, from the machine, but need to make
configuration changes to expose them to the rest of the world.
Those configuration changes should be well documented, and explicitly
referred to in a document *clearly*linked*from* a greeting message that
comes up on first boot, and is available from the XDM login.
> and why everyone was trying to make Linux like the
> particular operating system he was trying to get away from.
That's easy enough: to minimise transition trauma.
> I couldn't possibly do a standard
> install, because when I do a standard install with a different operating
> system it installs a bunch of stuff I don't want.
Actually, the Windows equivalent of a ``custom'' install puts in some
stuff (MSN comes to mind, and more recently WMP) even if you explicitly
ask it *not* to during the install. Also *application* installs will
often install system stuff you don't want (I remember an MS-Office
install downgrading the existing IE to a more vulnerable version!) or
sometimes do want (a friend had his sound-card burst into life after an
IE upgrade) but shouldn't have needed anyway.
> I think one way to do that would
> be to not start services by default and work on informing the user that
> the functionality that they want is there, but they need to enable it.
Agree, only I would enable all of the services only in ``safe mode,''
see above.
> Then work on making it easier for the users to understand how to enable it.
Agree.
--
We are confronted with insurmountable opportunities
-- Pogo
