On 09/04/14 03:17, Vaclav Petras wrote:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Glynn Clements <gl...@gclements.plus.com <mailto:gl...@gclements.plus.com>> wrote: If there's no Python installed, the installer can install it. If Python is installed and the version is compatible, the installer can install any required packages. Otherwise, it can at least inform the user of the situation and enumerate the options. This is a good point, the documentation must be in the installer, not a separate file. For example Git installer for MS Windows list three options how to install git and other command line tools with an explanation. The problem is that only part of the users will read it and only part of them will understand all the consequences (I mean, I was not sure when I saw installing Git installation for the first time).
I think part of this discussion boils down to the very old debate about how far we should go in taking the user's hand. Do we really want to compete with programs that "just do the work for you", thus having to think of every possible problem they might face, or do we decide that even though we can lower the entrance hurdle a bit, GRASS does demand some more involvement from the user than other software.
Personally, I am a bit afraid that by going down the first route we concentrate much developer time that could be spent on other (IMHO more useful) things and we also risk to make GRASS less efficient for those that have taken the time to pass the hurdle.
In other words, there are some types of users (those that don't read anything provided by the developers) for whom I am sometimes tempted to just say "RTFM" instead of trying to find ways to make it possible for them to still use GRASS.
Moritz _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
