Yes, I like it your way. The main idea was to make it easy to get a GOOD
install from the get go with the capabilities needed.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sridhar Dhanapalan
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 4:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; civileme
Subject: Re: [newbie] Mandrakesoft CEO defends Linux
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
