On Mon 02 Nov 2015 at 11:37:48 +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Monday 02 November 2015 11:16:11 Brian wrote: > > On Mon 02 Nov 2015 at 01:33:01 -0800, Rick Thomas wrote: > > > > > > Requiring a newcomer to install aptitude before she can follow the > > > simple step-by-step instructions she downloaded from the web — or > > > alternatively requiring all the helpful folks who posted those > > > step-by-step instructions to go back and modify them… That’s not what > > > I’d call “newbie friendly”. > > > > The helpful folks at Debian also produce copious documentation (a Guide, > > Release Notes etc). At release time these tend to be up to date and are > > much more useful to newcomers and experienced users than any random web > > page. > > But people often use random web pages. And not all of us are fully > able-bodied. You would appear to be able to read well and fast. Not all of > us are that fortunate.
I do not see the relevance of this to reading the Debian documentation accompanying a release. Unless it is thought to be an optional extra. :) > Minimal should be minimal. But fuller installations should definitely not be > minimal. Having more than one of each application there can be very useful, > in giving the opportunity easily to try to see which one likes. The context is the purpose of priority levels and what part they play within the installer. "Minimal" is one factor in making a decision; the debian-boot thread referenced earlier in the thread gives other reasons. > I deprecate the creeping Ubuntuisation of Debian. Minimal should be minimal. > > Otherwise we should avoid dictating and give plenty of choice. How does Ubuntu figure in this? As far as I can see, it doesn't. As far as choice is concerned, you have the choice to install aptitude or not.
