Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote:
>
> 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
snip
I think this would be an excellent idea, but I still think it needs to
have better documentation than I have seen in the past. Most users
(note, users, not developers) need a limited number of functions to
accomplish their tasks. Dividing the install into functional areas would
make it much easier to get what is needed, without preventing selection
of pet applications within a group. Most users don't need multiple text
editors, one or two will meet the majority of needs. Likewise with other
programs. A core group with the maintenance utilities needed to make the
system work, like networking, ppp, Drakx, and video tools could be
mandatory then add others on as options.
This is already built into the install, but is cleverly disguised in the
package selection process. Unfortunately, the process is also bloated
with unnecessary tools that most users never need or use and lacks
things needed for a flexible system. My pet deficiencies include some
upgrading tools, 100 dpi fonts, and other usability tools. The present
system also doesn't seem to actually follow the selection list. As an
example my latest install included 4 text editors I had specifically not
selected. I use KEdit for 99% of the text editing I do so I didn't want
CoolEdit, GEdit, or Advance Editor, but I have them anyway.
> 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
Getting scary is the problem, I spend several hours every week helping
newbies with their initial installs. They are afraid to do try linux
because they worry about the integrity of their systems. Partitioning,
and package selection are daunting tasks for the uninitiated. With
simpler documentation, and a function install process vice the current
three choices the task would be less frightening for at least some of
the new users. Allowing new users to try out a functional system out of
the box will give them tools to expand into other programs. This seems
to me to be a more viable strategy than the current "shotgun" approach.
This isn't "dumbing down" linux, which seems to be a problem with many
of the more experienced users. It actually is a more intelligent
strategy, because it opens the use of linux to more users. Linux may not
be for everyone, but it can only grow if it is useable for more. If
nothing else more users will result in more intellectual power to make
improvements.
--
Jim
--
James Mellema, CRNA
--------------------------
Linux User # 71650
ICQ #19685870
