> remove all servers and the multiple apps of the same apps, settle on one for
> each,, one word processor, one spreadsheet, one text editor,, one of
> everthing...
I kind of like that idea. Peanut linux or other small distributions probably
already do something along that line -- if they can shoehorn linux+kde and
whatever else in 85 megs, that is. Everyone can tell there is just a lot of
duplication in any decent-sized distribution -- you've got kapps that
duplicate much of the xapps functionality -- just look at all the different
clock applets, editors, etc. It's easy to counter a question like "How do
I edit a file in Linux" with a dozen or more conflicting responses, all
custom-tailored to one of the different editors that is included.
> no choice of console or X at boot, make it always boot to GUI...
Well, that in itself doesn't take up much extra disk space, but Mandrake
already boots to GUI. That's all right but to take it to another extreme
(login wizards that distort the idea of passwords and so forth, for instance)
is unwise. You can eliminate the extra window managers (or at least not
install them).
> then once they have the hang of it,, introduce them to the pleasures of a
> full distro...
Or just point out they can get their favorite extra stuff by installing
from the CD or what have you. I think you can do this without necessarily
going to a different distro -- just tailor the individual installation
functions to include one that basically says "install basic working system";
however, that install must provide enough stuff as to make the system usable
without having to add a bunch of extra packages. For instance, Mandrake now
has "workstation" and "development" and some other install profiles (such as
server) but if one does a basic install of "workstation" he still needs to
bring in development stuff if he wants to (say) recompile a kernel -- but
it's possible to have the 'basic install' install components like the C
compiler & development stuff, but not install other components like python,
perl, tcl, etc.
> I had the idea to do that about 2 years ago... I wanted to make a linux
> intall based on redhat and make it as close in spec and appearance to
You almost could have done that with fvwm95 :).
> worse, it asks you if you want to install a package by name, and that name
> is nothing a newbie would know or recognice or know.
I think you've made a very good point. Windows at least calls its notepad
'notepad.exe' so someone new can come to the system and say - aha - "notepad"
- that's what I want. "emacs" What does that do? In fact, Laura Conrad and I
were just diecussing this point recently. To the uninitiated, many of the
Linux names for programs are just something that somebody made up[1], sounds
cute (maybe in a language other than English) :) or what have you. Partly,
of course, this is because there are so many choices available. If you have
twelve editors, you can't just call one of them "EDITOR" and be done with
it :). I'm not suggesting renaming the linux utilities, of course, as that
would just be confusing as well. But a distribution aimed at novices could
just opt to install one of a set of editors and tell the user 'to edit files,
type edit' and edit could be a symlink to {vi,emacs,pico,...} if need be.
> 1. A current 2.4 kernel...
> 2. a poll to ask everyones opinion on what is the easiest most useful of
> each app type that should be included in this distro.
> 3. One of each app type only... use the above poll to determine what app
> should be chosen for each app type.
So far so good...some servers should be included, postfix / apache
probably for starters. No need for innd,postgresd, etc. Again, the
current installation profiles need to be tweaked - one shouldn't have
to go for a server install to get a few necessary (plus some that
aren't - depending on what you want to do) plus 'workstation' plus
'development' to get a basic workstation with some development and
server capability -- which I think is what many want.
> 5. market it as linux for windoze users... the power of linux with the ease
> of windows. (that may not appeal to us, ,but it will appeal to windoze
> users..)
As others have mentioned, that might not fly, but it certainly could be
marketed as an "easier, gentler Linux" while still maintaining the power
that's under the hood. It would still be Mandrake, or whatever distribution
one decides to use as a base. It just wouldn't present the new user with a
cornucopia of differing and (sometimes) conflicting packages.
> 6. possibly even a file manager that calls / (c drive) /home (my docs) and
> /usr (prog files) and /proc (linux) and /mnt/floppy (a drive) /mnt/cdrom (d
I'd be against that because it unnecessary clouds that it's Unix under
the hood. If you want, you can already do that with symlinks, and MS likely
got the idea of "my documents" from /home anyway, since previous MS products
lacked completely the concept of a separate storage area for data.
[1] Disallowing programs that are strictly Unix-derived, of course - awk
is still called awk, for example.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David E. Fox Thanks for letting me
[EMAIL PROTECTED] change magnetic patterns
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on your hard disk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
