This has just given me an idea. Instead of just having some preset
installation configurations like "Workstation", "Development and "Server", we
could have get of checkboxes, with each option representing a function (i.e.
not a programme). That way, we can mix and match functions (i.e. be able to
select multiple checkboxes). For example, someone could choose to have their
machine set up as both a server and a general-purpose home machine, and then
Drakx would install the preset programmes for both. Of course, the user must
have the option of being able to fine-tune the programmes to be installed. We
could even have subgroups, where the user can choose to install certain
functions of a main group. For example, a user could choose the Workstation
install, but not install multimedia players (e.g. MP3 and video players along
with their associated libraries). This could be useful for office
environments that need small and clean installations on each machine (it also
can be used by employers to stop workers from watching movies or playing
games during office hours :-) ).
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:59, Bob Currey wrote:
> I think "dumbing down" the automatic install is needed if it will ever be
> for the masses.
>
> I think added selectivity in the "custom" install based on purpose would be
> best for the techies that like to play to get at least the right packages
> for starters. Like my situation is a "Home Server/Desktop". The server
> option removes the GUI entirely. The other options remove the server
> capability. The end result was a month of how-tos and attempts needed to
> get things running. Yes, I learned a lot, but most people would have given
> up long before.
>
> It just needs to be a bit more flexible without getting scary. Those who
> want to see scary can click "expert". I would have tried "yes" for shadow
> passwords, but figured they were trying to impress on me how little II
> really knew, and figured my likelihood of sucess at approx. nil, given
> that. I remember seeing a contest where C programmers took pride in making
> their programs unreadable a few years back. I'm not a glutton for
> punishment.
>
> BobC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Mark Weaver
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 10:25 AM
> To: Mandrake Newbie List
> Subject: Re: [newbie] Mandrakesoft CEO defends Linux
>
>
> All of the above and anything else that folks can think of to do with
> Linux. For me there is no other OS worth my time or energy.
>
> --
> Mark
>
> "If you don't share your concepts and ideals, they end up being worthless,"
> "Sharing is what makes them powerful."
>
> Linus Torvalds
>
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote:
> > If everything "has a purpose" then what exactly *is* Linux's purpose? Is
>
> it
>
> > to run desktop workstations? Servers? Supercomputers? PDAs? Web pads?
> > Wristwatches? Linux has been proven to run well on all these devices, and
>
> it
>
> > is continuing to push both downwards (towards embedded devices, etc.) and
> > upwards (towards high-end servers, etc.), while consolidating its
> > position in the middle (desktop computers, etc.).
> >
> > While I believe that Linux can be an excellent alternative to M$ Windos,
> > I must admit that my greatest fear is that it will be "dumbed down" to
> > cater for ordinary users. This fear, while not totally baseless, is
> > unlikely to eventuate. There will always be serious computer users, who
> > don't want a "dumb" OS. There are, and always will be, apps to cater for
> > these people, especially since these are the people who code most Linux
> > apps anyway. KDE too "dumb" for you? Use WindowMaker, or BlackBox, or
> > XFce... Think the default Linux kernel is too bloated? Recompile it and
> > include only what
>
> you
>
> > need. Linux is the most scalable OS ever to exist, and this scalability
> > is increasing with time. Linux can be whatever you make it to be. Want it
> > to run a Windos competitor? With GNOME and KDE it already is. Want it to
> > work
>
> at
>
> > the enterprise level? Kernel 2.4 supports the high-end processors like
> > the Itanium in multiprocessor configurations and up to 64GB of RAM. Want
> > it to run a PDA? Compile a tiny kernel and run something like QT-embedded
> > or GTK-embedded. And the most important point is that Linux excels in all
>
> these
>
> > scenarios. See my point?
> >
> > On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:35, Adrian Smith wrote:
> > > this will be a shock to you all, but i have an opinon here. =)
> > > i agree with Tom -- although i fully confess Tom is much better at
>
> saying
>
> > > than I am. probably because i am an obnoxious and arrogant and Tom
>
> isn't.
>
> > > but i can't figure this one out ether, why do you guys care so much
>
> about
>
> > > converting windoze users? should we make 18 wheelers with automatic
>
> stick
>
> > > shifts so that everyone who drives a car can drive a semi-truck?
> > >
> > > a honda accord has a purpose. a freightliner tractor/trailer rig has a
> > > purpose. they are not the same purpose.
> > >
> > > a hunting rifle has a purpose. a 50mm vulcan cannon has a purpose.
> > > they are not the same purpose.
> > >
> > > windows has a purpose. linux has a purpose.
> > > they are not the same purpose.
> > >
> > > use the right tool for the right job.
> > >
> > > if i wanted linux to be like windows, why wouldn't i have just kept
>
> using
>
> > > windows? i may not be the sharpest crayon in the box, but i just don't
> > > understand this. no product can be everything to everybody. no
> > > product. name any one *specific* product that fills every need held by
> > > every
>
> person
>
> > > on the planet.
> > >
> > > i think the "must be like windows" concept is a bad thing.
> > >
> > > i'll try to stuff a sock in my mouth now. =)
> > >
> > >
> > > Adrian Smith
> > > 'de telepone dude
> > > Telecom Dept.
> > > x 7042
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > >>> Tom Brinkman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9:29:15 PM 1/17/01 >>>
> > >
> > > OK y'all !! This marks the last time I'm gonna start a thread
> > > starting with a news wire URL, well maybe ;> Actually I thought it was
> > > a business story that kind'a illustrated Linux's present state, and the
> > > perception of.
> > >
> > > The first full install I did of Mandrake was ~500mb. A current 'du
> > > -ch /' with my windoze drive umounted is ~4 gigs! ... and I've
> > > uninstalled a lot of the apps I don't use, and there's linux stuff on
> > > the windoze drive, not in that count. I like it just the way it is,
> > > the installer that is. What brandNewbie doesn't install several times
> > > before they 'settle in' ? ...and for experienced users, it's easy,
> > > albeit time consuming, to install just what you want. As much or
> > > little. LM's installation let's YOU choose. I believe there's nothin
> > > that needs changin. I like the current trend in Mandrake's installs.
> > >
> > > As to the 'convert windoze users', and get "linux on everybody's
> > > desktop' vein this thread has denigrated to. WHO CARES? Seriously, be
> > > more concerned that Linux continues to attract the people that built it
> > > to begin with ... the people all over the world that contribute to this
> > > free, open source, volunteer effort. Without them, Linux is dead.
--
Sridhar Dhanapalan.
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be rebooted to acknowledge this change.
