Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
David Walluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > see urpmi.addmedia(8) > > OK, but I'm trying to add the output of `rpm -qa`. I don't know if this is > the format of 'hdlist' or not. I know I can add cd-roms and ftp's. I would > like to add my local config so it checks there, or does this not make any > sense? i don't understand what you mean. it doesn't make sense for me :(
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
> see urpmi.addmedia(8) OK, but I'm trying to add the output of `rpm -qa`. I don't know if this is the format of 'hdlist' or not. I know I can add cd-roms and ftp's. I would like to add my local config so it checks there, or does this not make any sense?
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
David Walluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 9 Apr 2000, Pixel wrote: > > i don't know if you ever tested urpmi. It does just this. As for me, i use it > > everyday :) > > > > see rpmdrake for a graphical interface to this > > > > Where the the docs on urpmi? I want to know if I can add a local config > from packages.rpm and not have to have the RPMS on my hard drive. Maybe > some examples. see urpmi.addmedia(8)
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
But the point is, I think, that if you don't have one, the install program could figure that out and omit it. I have one, but this rule seems quite reasonable to me. [Modulo the fact that the mkisofs proram in Mandrake was broken anyway, last time I checked, so it's not much use even if you *do* have one.] On Sun, 09 Apr 2000, you wrote: | agreed on hdd space. But! you might be how many linux users have cd-rom | burners. I know i was. mmm, don't know the exact numbers tho. | | Survey Anyone??? | | might help to post a survey on "how many linux users have cd-r burners" and | other relative questions. this might help iron out "what (s/w) should be | include by default". (just a thought) | | | On Thu, 15 May 2036, you wrote: | > Mandrake 7.02 installs a lot of useless software by default. For example CD | > Burning software is installed even if no burner is present. | > | > Disk space shouldn't be wasted like that. | > | > | > Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 | -- | | My ICQ#: 36645898 | | - | Created with Mandrake 7.0! | http://www.linux-mandrake.com -- "Brian, the man from babbleon-on" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brian T. Schellenberger http://www.babbleon.org Support http://www.eff.org. Support decss defendents. Support http://www.programming-freedom.org. Boycott amazon.com.
Re: [Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style]
mmm, yea...(too many things to think of) true...thought of this too when i was installing on my old computer which doesn't have cd-r. new hdd's offer allot of space (this would be an issue on real old hdd's tho...< 1-2 gb). there's probabely more important issues at stake besides something like this...this i see more of a "luxury" and can be worked around by either uninstalling or doing a custom install. one reason why i haven't griped much about it myself. (which acts as a ftp/http...very well i might add to because of mdk!) On Thu, 15 May 2036, you wrote: > Actually I meant that, CD Burning software should only be installed if a CD > Writer is detected, because otherwise there is no use for the software. > > CPT KIDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > agreed on hdd space. But! you might be how many linux users have cd-rom > > burners. I know i was. mmm, don't know the exact numbers tho. > > > > Survey Anyone??? > > > > might help to post a survey on "how many linux users have cd-r burners" and > > other relative questions. this might help iron out "what (s/w) should be > > include by default". (just a thought) > > > > > > On Thu, 15 May 2036, you wrote: > > > Mandrake 7.02 installs a lot of useless software by default. For example > CD > > > Burning software is installed even if no burner is present. > > > > > > Disk space shouldn't be wasted like that. > > > > > > > > > Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 > > -- > > > > My ICQ#: 36645898 > > > > - > > Created with Mandrake 7.0! > > http://www.linux-mandrake.com > > > > Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 -- My ICQ#: 36645898 - Created with Mandrake 7.0! http://www.linux-mandrake.com
Re: [Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style]
Actually I meant that, CD Burning software should only be installed if a CD Writer is detected, because otherwise there is no use for the software. CPT KIDD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > agreed on hdd space. But! you might be how many linux users have cd-rom > burners. I know i was. mmm, don't know the exact numbers tho. > > Survey Anyone??? > > might help to post a survey on "how many linux users have cd-r burners" and > other relative questions. this might help iron out "what (s/w) should be > include by default". (just a thought) > > > On Thu, 15 May 2036, you wrote: > > Mandrake 7.02 installs a lot of useless software by default. For example CD > > Burning software is installed even if no burner is present. > > > > Disk space shouldn't be wasted like that. > > > > > > Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 > -- > > My ICQ#: 36645898 > > - > Created with Mandrake 7.0! > http://www.linux-mandrake.com Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
agreed on hdd space. But! you might be how many linux users have cd-rom burners. I know i was. mmm, don't know the exact numbers tho. Survey Anyone??? might help to post a survey on "how many linux users have cd-r burners" and other relative questions. this might help iron out "what (s/w) should be include by default". (just a thought) On Thu, 15 May 2036, you wrote: > Mandrake 7.02 installs a lot of useless software by default. For example CD > Burning software is installed even if no burner is present. > > Disk space shouldn't be wasted like that. > > > Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 -- My ICQ#: 36645898 - Created with Mandrake 7.0! http://www.linux-mandrake.com
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
On 9 Apr 2000, Pixel wrote: > i don't know if you ever tested urpmi. It does just this. As for me, i use it > everyday :) > > see rpmdrake for a graphical interface to this > Where the the docs on urpmi? I want to know if I can add a local config from packages.rpm and not have to have the RPMS on my hard drive. Maybe some examples.
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
Mandrake 7.02 installs a lot of useless software by default. For example CD Burning software is installed even if no burner is present. Disk space shouldn't be wasted like that. Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
"Eric MC DECLERCK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You are right, this is the whole problem when installing individual > packages. > A way to overcoming this is downloading or consulting www.rusfus.com, select > the package and there you'll find what is provided, needed and the > changelog. > But the best way were of course installing as by the installation of the > distribution, there dependency problems are detected and resolved. > Eric i don't know if you ever tested urpmi. It does just this. As for me, i use it everyday :) see rpmdrake for a graphical interface to this
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
O.K. here's some info. just read a post a couple of days ago in the news.soundblaster.com /creative.linux newsgroup. i'm really getting tired of complete newbies buying the linux package and expecting a "windowz" (duh) type of enviroment (and having users ask..."gee, how do i do (some eazy task)). lol I think some of these distrobutions should take alittle curtousy to place "notes" on the package stating "This s/w package is for users with some knowledge of computers (or so and so)" Didn't even realize this until the past week. lol. On Sat, 08 Apr 2000, you wrote: > Really? > > At the Electronics Boutiques around here the large sign for Mandrake > 7.0 was at the very front, where they usually advertise the latest > video games. > > At Best Buy they had dozens and dozens of copies of Mandrake 7.0 > (Macmillan) on one of those big aisle-end displays, along with a > somewhat smallter number of Corell distributions. (The RedHat and > Caldera distributions were in the usual place on the shelves.) > > In fact it's hard for me to go into any computery store (Best Buy, > CompUSA, even Barnes & Nobles computer area) without tripping over > Linux distributions. There's multiple shelves of *games* for Linux at > the local Electronics Boutique. > > Of course I'm in the Triangle are of NC, USA, which might be a little > more Linuxy than most places, but since these are big national chains I > figured it wasn't all that localized . . . > > Also, you can order laptops from Dell, among other places, with Linux > pre-loaded. I don't know about local stores--I haven't bought a > computer from a local store since . . . well, since I got my TRS-80 > Color Computer in 1981. I always order 'em. > > Heck, I could have orderd a laptop with Linux preloaded in 1997 > (Hyperbook sold 'em, though ironically they don't anymore); I chose to > get Windows, though; it seemed to make more sense to get the paid > system preloaded and the free system myself, since they charge the same > price either way. > > My experience is that Mandrake 7.0 supports my LaserJet Series II quite > well, FWIW. Of course it only has one tray . . . RedHat did *not* > support it well at all, though! > > PS: I know I sound like a broken record on this, but I think that > Caldera OpenLinux is really good for newbies, too. > > > On Sat, 08 Apr 2000, you wrote: > | On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Brian T. Schellenberger wrote: > | > | > > | > > | > Besides, Mandrake can only make money from CDs and they *do* need to > | > stay in business. So, yes, make free downloads available; be true to > | > the spirit of open source. But they ought to optimize for what will > | > keep them in business, not what will put them out of it! > | > | Actually i thought the money was in the support and service contracts, NOT > | the cd's. A company of a few hundred couldn't possibly live off the sales > | of a lowcost cd/book set. Especially with cd's being burned for 1.00 at > | most places. > | > | I personally would like to see someone make a KDE distro. KDE 2.0 would be > | great, especially with ORB, Kparts and an Office Application. The > | Kdevelop offers ease of programming and well, i could go on.. my point > | though is build a distro that is easy for the user, straight into a > | powerfull gui, and work out a sales deal with E-Machines or something. > | > | Everyone keeps on saying linux is making it into the desktop market, yet i > | can't get a PC at the store with it loaded.. hell, its hard to find > | Mandrake at the store. I know staples has a few copies of the older > | versions, but its hard to get any recent version at the store. > | > | I would also recommend that Mandrake work with Corel and get the libsmb > | and other additions they have. Corel linux, while a bit buggy, is the > | *only* version i could possibly recommend to the naive. > | > | Until we have unified print services that are easily configurable, even > | for laser printers, specifying trays, and sending off to NT and especially > | Laserjet print servers is necessary. I dont see linux getting in. > | > | BUT, its not that far off. > | > | Keep up the cooking mandrake! looking good. > | > | -byron > -- > "Brian, the man from babbleon-on" [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Brian T. Schellenberger http://www.babbleon.org > Support http://www.eff.org. Support decss defendents. > Support http://www.programming-freedom.org. Boycott amazon.com. -- My ICQ#: 36645898 - Created with Mandrake 7.0! http://www.linux-mandrake.com
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
Really? At the Electronics Boutiques around here the large sign for Mandrake 7.0 was at the very front, where they usually advertise the latest video games. At Best Buy they had dozens and dozens of copies of Mandrake 7.0 (Macmillan) on one of those big aisle-end displays, along with a somewhat smallter number of Corell distributions. (The RedHat and Caldera distributions were in the usual place on the shelves.) In fact it's hard for me to go into any computery store (Best Buy, CompUSA, even Barnes & Nobles computer area) without tripping over Linux distributions. There's multiple shelves of *games* for Linux at the local Electronics Boutique. Of course I'm in the Triangle are of NC, USA, which might be a little more Linuxy than most places, but since these are big national chains I figured it wasn't all that localized . . . Also, you can order laptops from Dell, among other places, with Linux pre-loaded. I don't know about local stores--I haven't bought a computer from a local store since . . . well, since I got my TRS-80 Color Computer in 1981. I always order 'em. Heck, I could have orderd a laptop with Linux preloaded in 1997 (Hyperbook sold 'em, though ironically they don't anymore); I chose to get Windows, though; it seemed to make more sense to get the paid system preloaded and the free system myself, since they charge the same price either way. My experience is that Mandrake 7.0 supports my LaserJet Series II quite well, FWIW. Of course it only has one tray . . . RedHat did *not* support it well at all, though! PS: I know I sound like a broken record on this, but I think that Caldera OpenLinux is really good for newbies, too. On Sat, 08 Apr 2000, you wrote: | On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Brian T. Schellenberger wrote: | | > | > | > Besides, Mandrake can only make money from CDs and they *do* need to | > stay in business. So, yes, make free downloads available; be true to | > the spirit of open source. But they ought to optimize for what will | > keep them in business, not what will put them out of it! | | Actually i thought the money was in the support and service contracts, NOT | the cd's. A company of a few hundred couldn't possibly live off the sales | of a lowcost cd/book set. Especially with cd's being burned for 1.00 at | most places. | | I personally would like to see someone make a KDE distro. KDE 2.0 would be | great, especially with ORB, Kparts and an Office Application. The | Kdevelop offers ease of programming and well, i could go on.. my point | though is build a distro that is easy for the user, straight into a | powerfull gui, and work out a sales deal with E-Machines or something. | | Everyone keeps on saying linux is making it into the desktop market, yet i | can't get a PC at the store with it loaded.. hell, its hard to find | Mandrake at the store. I know staples has a few copies of the older | versions, but its hard to get any recent version at the store. | | I would also recommend that Mandrake work with Corel and get the libsmb | and other additions they have. Corel linux, while a bit buggy, is the | *only* version i could possibly recommend to the naive. | | Until we have unified print services that are easily configurable, even | for laser printers, specifying trays, and sending off to NT and especially | Laserjet print servers is necessary. I dont see linux getting in. | | BUT, its not that far off. | | Keep up the cooking mandrake! looking good. | | -byron -- "Brian, the man from babbleon-on" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brian T. Schellenberger http://www.babbleon.org Support http://www.eff.org. Support decss defendents. Support http://www.programming-freedom.org. Boycott amazon.com.
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Brian T. Schellenberger wrote: > > > Besides, Mandrake can only make money from CDs and they *do* need to > stay in business. So, yes, make free downloads available; be true to > the spirit of open source. But they ought to optimize for what will > keep them in business, not what will put them out of it! Actually i thought the money was in the support and service contracts, NOT the cd's. A company of a few hundred couldn't possibly live off the sales of a lowcost cd/book set. Especially with cd's being burned for 1.00 at most places. I personally would like to see someone make a KDE distro. KDE 2.0 would be great, especially with ORB, Kparts and an Office Application. The Kdevelop offers ease of programming and well, i could go on.. my point though is build a distro that is easy for the user, straight into a powerfull gui, and work out a sales deal with E-Machines or something. Everyone keeps on saying linux is making it into the desktop market, yet i can't get a PC at the store with it loaded.. hell, its hard to find Mandrake at the store. I know staples has a few copies of the older versions, but its hard to get any recent version at the store. I would also recommend that Mandrake work with Corel and get the libsmb and other additions they have. Corel linux, while a bit buggy, is the *only* version i could possibly recommend to the naive. Until we have unified print services that are easily configurable, even for laser printers, specifying trays, and sending off to NT and especially Laserjet print servers is necessary. I dont see linux getting in. BUT, its not that far off. Keep up the cooking mandrake! looking good. -byron
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
No, no, no, no. You don't want redundant info; if you are cramming it onto a CD, that's just silly, and if you are downloading on a slow link it's just annoying. Besides, if we are trying to serve the beginning user (the start of this thread), the focus should be on the CD, not on grabbing cooker RPMs off the net. *THAT* is not a naive-user approach! Besides, Mandrake can only make money from CDs and they *do* need to stay in business. So, yes, make free downloads available; be true to the spirit of open source. But they ought to optimize for what will keep them in business, not what will put them out of it! On Fri, 07 Apr 2000, you wrote: | I agree with Micheal, Brian and what you have to say Taras. | | I love the fact that I have all this power in Mandrake, but, I do not like the way | it is installed or presented. | | One of my biggest complaints is the fact that some single packages do not include | the whole package. | | What I mean by this is, I try to install Package A, then find I need Package B, | then find that Package B needs Package C. | | I would prefer to install Program A wich has inside of it, all the required parts | of B and C that is needed to make the program run. During the install, the | program checks to see if the needed parts are already on the system, or install | them if they are not. | | Yes this will make each package much longer due to the redundant libraries in each | package, but, now when you need a program, you only download one thing with no | concern about needing other things as well. | | BUT, now when I download XFree for instance, I download ONE file. It would | include all the fonts, parts, pieces, libraries etc. During the install of X, I | would be asked about what options I want to install. | I could then keep a single version of the install program on my Setup server and | when I choose to install it, I have no worry about needing 20 other packages and | thier dependancies. | | This is a usability issue that will make or break the distribution, but has no | effect on the power or versitility of the distribution. | | We want the power, but, we want it in a manageable context. | | Just my 2c | | best regards | | Dalton | | | Taras Glek wrote: | | > I totally agree with you, Dalton, but I would like to add a couple of points. | > If software is installed, the user should know its there. Put shortcus to | > applications into KDE and GNOME menus. I find it very annoying that Mandrake | > includes AbiWord but doesn't add it to any application menus. | > It would be very nice if every installed gui application was listed somewhere | > in the GNOME/KDE application menu. | > | > I too want the default install to be much smaller since manyh potentially | > unneeded packages are installed. | > For example wine and wine-debugwhy is wine-debug installled and is wasting | > my space? | > | > Dalton Calford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > > I have been using Mandrake since version 5.3, in fact, I learned linux | > > via mandrake and have always supported the distribution (yes, even with | > > buying copies...) | > > | > > The one thing that I found as a begginer and even now that I am getting | > > truly familiar with the system, is that Mandrake, like most of the linux | > > distributions, is suffering from software bloat. | > > | > > Too much is included with the base system. It confuses the user. | > > Alot gets installed, and never gets used. | > > A new user does not know what is needed and what isn't but they must | > > either accept the few hundred meg of software or go through a confusing | > > selection process that they have no way of understanding. | > > | > > I have to say that I prefer mandrake over the others but, I think there | > > is a better method of handling this. | > > | > > Mandrake should be split into a 'base' package and then all the other | > > packages put into stand alone installs. | > > | > > What should be in the 'base'? | > > I would suggest X, a trimmed down version of KDE and all the graphical | > > configuration tools. | > > | > > Why not emacs and joe and all the other handy-dandy utilities? | > > | > > For the basic user, all those utilities just waste disk space. | > > Mandrake is filling the 'Entry level Linux' for windows users who want | > > to walk on the wild side. | > > | > > There should be packages that maintain all the different possible uses a | > > person may want including things like Licq or Apache, but, these things | > > (including VNC) should not be standard parts of the installation. | > > | > > The packages should be standalone in that they contain in one place all | > > the libs and required files so that when you install the package you do | > > not need to go looking for updates to other packages just so you can run | > > it. | > > | > > This way, a end user can easily add to thier system without worrying | > > about getting other unneeded programs that might be security holes. | > > |
RE: [Cooker] Distribution Style
No, rpmdrake works just fine with a CD. Indeed, it's the only way I've ever used it personally. On Sat, 08 Apr 2000, you wrote: | By my mind rpmdrake need internet connection ?? | So what if updates or installs are necessary with the CD ? | Eric | | > -Original Message- | > From: Brian T. Schellenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 11:49 PM | > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > Subject: Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style | > | > | > | > First, there isn't a need to make these into a single package; you just | > need for the dependencies to get resolved as done by rpmdrake already | > (but not by kpackage). | > | > Second, the general idea of having a less overwhelming "basic" | > distirubtion to start is good, but make the kitchen sink available. | > | > I personally think that a look at Caldera OpenLinux is a pretty | > good model of how to do a user-friendly install. | > | > But I still want to be *able* to select packages at install time. | > | > AND (this is big . . ) | > | > I should be able select packages the *same* way at install time and | > afterwards. The install-time package installer lets you select | > multiple packages and resolves all dependencies, but I can't find | > anything after I install that does this: | > | > - kpackage allows multiple selection but doesn't resolve dependencies; | > - rpmdrake resolves dependencies but doesn't allow multiple selection. | > | > And I find both of them unnecessarily awkward in terms of "just | > finding" my cdrom packages, though that may be my own fault due to | > customization I've done. | > | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000, you wrote: | > | I agree with you.. for instance what does joe computer user want with | > | sendmail for instance since he most likely is used to use his isp's | > | mailserver as smtp server.. | > | | > | I hate to say this.. but take a look at windows and see what is | > installed at | > | the start.. very little infact.. | > | | > | It would be alot cooler to have a nice menu some OBVIOUS place | > where all the | > | packages that can be installed is listed. And there should be 2 | > levels of | > | that menu aswell (atleast) so you would have to select like | > advanced to get | > | to all the packages. | > | | > | As I see it now it is a bit too hard to get hold of the packages after I | > | install my system. (I am speaking of joe computer user here | > mind you :). And | > | I think the descriptions should be even more informative than | > they are. The | > | description should be worked out with an enduser and not merely | > by us geeks. | > | | > | Almost no joe computer user will ever want any -devel packages but he of | > | course installs it right away since he has no idea that he wont need it. | > | | > | And he probably wonders why his newly installed linux machine has 15-20 | > | different text editors. | > | (The really funny thing is that the most user friendly of them 'pico' is | > | included in a mailreader and not as a text editor). | > | | > | I can probably go on all night with things to point out.. but I | > guess you | > | guys get it. | > | | > | The new graphical installer takes you far.. but it is still not | > as easy as | > | corel linux for instance.. | > | you need to go the last mile aswell. | > | | > | I would like to think that we (the users on cooker) can help | > you guys out in | > | selecting wich packages should go in the 'base' or what we | > should call it. | > | | > | | > | my 12 cents.. | > | Michael Irving | > | - Original Message - | > | From: "Dalton Calford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > | To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > | Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 10:12 PM | > | Subject: [Cooker] Distribution Style | > | | > | | > | > I have been using Mandrake since version 5.3, in fact, I learned linux | > | > via mandrake and have always supported the distribution (yes, | > even with | > | > buying copies...) | > | > | > | > The one thing that I found as a begginer and even now that I | > am getting | > | > truly familiar with the system, is that Mandrake, like most | > of the linux | > | > distributions, is suffering from software bloat. | > | > | > | > Too much is included with the base system. It confuses the user. | > | > Alot gets installed, and never gets used. | > | > A new user does not know what is needed and what isn't but they must | > | > either accept the few hundred meg of software or go through a | > confusing | > | > selection process that they have no way of understandin
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
I would say have a base package (kernel/modules/core utils rpm tool) Xwindows with (flip coin K or Gnome core) then start with "stuff" Goal is to be able to have a disk/ "Zip cart" combo that can be used to run a "clean room" but also be able to do a normal install also it bugs be that my menus are miles long with 80% dead links do to the link files being part of K/Gnome
RE: [Cooker] Distribution Style
By my mind rpmdrake need internet connection ?? So what if updates or installs are necessary with the CD ? Eric > -Original Message- > From: Brian T. Schellenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 11:49 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style > > > > First, there isn't a need to make these into a single package; you just > need for the dependencies to get resolved as done by rpmdrake already > (but not by kpackage). > > Second, the general idea of having a less overwhelming "basic" > distirubtion to start is good, but make the kitchen sink available. > > I personally think that a look at Caldera OpenLinux is a pretty > good model of how to do a user-friendly install. > > But I still want to be *able* to select packages at install time. > > AND (this is big . . ) > > I should be able select packages the *same* way at install time and > afterwards. The install-time package installer lets you select > multiple packages and resolves all dependencies, but I can't find > anything after I install that does this: > > - kpackage allows multiple selection but doesn't resolve dependencies; > - rpmdrake resolves dependencies but doesn't allow multiple selection. > > And I find both of them unnecessarily awkward in terms of "just > finding" my cdrom packages, though that may be my own fault due to > customization I've done. > > > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000, you wrote: > | I agree with you.. for instance what does joe computer user want with > | sendmail for instance since he most likely is used to use his isp's > | mailserver as smtp server.. > | > | I hate to say this.. but take a look at windows and see what is > installed at > | the start.. very little infact.. > | > | It would be alot cooler to have a nice menu some OBVIOUS place > where all the > | packages that can be installed is listed. And there should be 2 > levels of > | that menu aswell (atleast) so you would have to select like > advanced to get > | to all the packages. > | > | As I see it now it is a bit too hard to get hold of the packages after I > | install my system. (I am speaking of joe computer user here > mind you :). And > | I think the descriptions should be even more informative than > they are. The > | description should be worked out with an enduser and not merely > by us geeks. > | > | Almost no joe computer user will ever want any -devel packages but he of > | course installs it right away since he has no idea that he wont need it. > | > | And he probably wonders why his newly installed linux machine has 15-20 > | different text editors. > | (The really funny thing is that the most user friendly of them 'pico' is > | included in a mailreader and not as a text editor). > | > | I can probably go on all night with things to point out.. but I > guess you > | guys get it. > | > | The new graphical installer takes you far.. but it is still not > as easy as > | corel linux for instance.. > | you need to go the last mile aswell. > | > | I would like to think that we (the users on cooker) can help > you guys out in > | selecting wich packages should go in the 'base' or what we > should call it. > | > | > | my 12 cents.. > | Michael Irving > | - Original Message - > | From: "Dalton Calford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 10:12 PM > | Subject: [Cooker] Distribution Style > | > | > | > I have been using Mandrake since version 5.3, in fact, I learned linux > | > via mandrake and have always supported the distribution (yes, > even with > | > buying copies...) > | > > | > The one thing that I found as a begginer and even now that I > am getting > | > truly familiar with the system, is that Mandrake, like most > of the linux > | > distributions, is suffering from software bloat. > | > > | > Too much is included with the base system. It confuses the user. > | > Alot gets installed, and never gets used. > | > A new user does not know what is needed and what isn't but they must > | > either accept the few hundred meg of software or go through a > confusing > | > selection process that they have no way of understanding. > | > > | > I have to say that I prefer mandrake over the others but, I > think there > | > is a better method of handling this. > | > > | > Mandrake should be split into a 'base' package and then all the other > | > packages put into stand alone installs. > | > > | > What should be in the 'base&#x
RE: [[Cooker] Distribution Style]
I agree to ! There is a 'workstation' install available (this is the smallest I think, never used it). But with the workstation-install there is no way to setup partitions ! (the first what has to be doing)It sets his own and don't look if there are several HD's. Of course the strictly needed packages must be determined and a way to add packages and doing several other things (editing, etc..) in console (in case of X didn't work). Eric PS: (there is a bug?) in the new isdn4k-utils or isdn4net (cooker). They didn't find ippp0 !! > -Original Message- > From: Taras Glek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 11:05 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [[Cooker] Distribution Style] > > > I totally agree with you, Dalton, but I would like to add a > couple of points. > If software is installed, the user should know its there. Put shortcus to > applications into KDE and GNOME menus. I find it very annoying > that Mandrake > includes AbiWord but doesn't add it to any application menus. > It would be very nice if every installed gui application was > listed somewhere > in the GNOME/KDE application menu. > > I too want the default install to be much smaller since manyh potentially > unneeded packages are installed. > For example wine and wine-debugwhy is wine-debug installled > and is wasting > my space? > > Dalton Calford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have been using Mandrake since version 5.3, in fact, I learned linux > > via mandrake and have always supported the distribution (yes, even with > > buying copies...) > > > > The one thing that I found as a begginer and even now that I am getting > > truly familiar with the system, is that Mandrake, like most of the linux > > distributions, is suffering from software bloat. > > > > Too much is included with the base system. It confuses the user. > > Alot gets installed, and never gets used. > > A new user does not know what is needed and what isn't but they must > > either accept the few hundred meg of software or go through a confusing > > selection process that they have no way of understanding. > > > > I have to say that I prefer mandrake over the others but, I think there > > is a better method of handling this. > > > > Mandrake should be split into a 'base' package and then all the other > > packages put into stand alone installs. > > > > What should be in the 'base'? > > I would suggest X, a trimmed down version of KDE and all the graphical > > configuration tools. > > > > Why not emacs and joe and all the other handy-dandy utilities? > > > > For the basic user, all those utilities just waste disk space. > > Mandrake is filling the 'Entry level Linux' for windows users who want > > to walk on the wild side. > > > > There should be packages that maintain all the different possible uses a > > person may want including things like Licq or Apache, but, these things > > (including VNC) should not be standard parts of the installation. > > > > The packages should be standalone in that they contain in one place all > > the libs and required files so that when you install the package you do > > not need to go looking for updates to other packages just so you can run > > it. > > > > This way, a end user can easily add to thier system without worrying > > about getting other unneeded programs that might be security holes. > > > > If a user wants emacs, install the emacs package, if they want to surf > > the web, add a program that does it. > > > > At our office, we remove all browsers and make sure the firewall stops > > all such traffic, but the standard linux installs include Netscape as a > > default choice. > > > > The people who have made this distribution have done an excellent job, > > but, too much of Redhats legacy of 'everything and the kitchen sink' has > > got it bogged down. > > > > What I am suggesting, is, stepping back and spliting the developement > > into two areas > > 1) a very basic linux system with very little on it. > > 2) add-on packages to extend the basic system. > > > > A basic system of 80-100 MB (even less if possible) that becomes the > > stepping stone of the distribution that allows everything else to be > > added would make downloads and installations faster and more reliable. > > > > A smaller system with limited items in it allow the user to learn one > > thing at a time instead of having everything in his face at once. > > > > I hope I have not offended anyone with this suggestion, and that perhaps > > it can lead to some discussion on how to make the distribution a little > > better. > > > > best regards > > > > Dalton > > > > Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 > >
RE: [Cooker] Distribution Style
You are right, this is the whole problem when installing individual packages. A way to overcoming this is downloading or consulting www.rusfus.com, select the package and there you'll find what is provided, needed and the changelog. But the best way were of course installing as by the installation of the distribution, there dependency problems are detected and resolved. Eric > -Original Message- > From: Richard Wackerbarth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 2:22 AM > To: dcalford; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style > > > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000, dcalford wrote: > > > One of my biggest complaints is the fact that some single > packages do not > > include the whole package. > > > > What I mean by this is, I try to install Package A, then find I need > > Package B, then find that Package B needs Package C. > > > > I would prefer to install Program A wich has inside of it, all ... > > > Yes this will make each package much longer due to the > redundant libraries > > in each package > > Why is this better than a package loader which determines the > dependancies and > downloads all the missing files? > >
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000, dcalford wrote: > Hi Richard > > Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > > Why is this better than a package loader which determines the > > dependancies and downloads all the missing files? > > That assumes that the package loader has access to the net. Well, if you don't have connectivity, how are you going to download even one file? > Many machines first need the packages to be manually downloaded onto a > local net or onto a zip or series of floppy's I will acknowledge that you may be doing the download on some machine other than the target. However, downloading a directory which has the pieces you need is not that much more difficult than downloading a file or two. If you have a slow link, eliminating the duplication may be quite important. > The package loader assumes the machine has some form of connection to the > net or a central repository where all the files may reside. So does any other scheme. > This is still > the minority of machines in the world. Alot of people still are in areas > that net connections are rare and they need to copy files onto zip disks > for transfer to thier home machines. > The idea of having to download 700+ MB of packages just in case you may > need one for the one program you need to run is foolish, but for 90% of > users, thier only choice because they do not have the time to learn better. So what we need is a dynamic site that creates custom directories of the parts needed. There is no way we can solve the problem of the individual who has no idea what he wants. For example, do I want "GNOME" or is "KDE" sufficient? Unless that user is prepared to make a few iterations, his only real solution is to get everything. That's what the CD sets are good for. Now, I can see a facility that allows you to generate a description of the target machine (present and desired) and upload it to obtain the custom directory of needed files. This would also work with a web interface that allows you to choose what you want. Basically, I am advocating running the package manager on the remote server.
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
yes...time for linux distributors to begin catching up with their new market in which not every customer is a system adminisitrator, whatever one of those is...mandrake, in particular, ought realize that many of its customers will be individual users installing linux on their home machines...the mindset that divides the world into servers and workstations needs to reorganize itself to meet the larger universe of computer users... frank -- use http://www.reckage.com for quickly informed browsing
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000, dcalford wrote: > One of my biggest complaints is the fact that some single packages do not > include the whole package. > > What I mean by this is, I try to install Package A, then find I need > Package B, then find that Package B needs Package C. > > I would prefer to install Program A wich has inside of it, all ... > Yes this will make each package much longer due to the redundant libraries > in each package Why is this better than a package loader which determines the dependancies and downloads all the missing files?
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
I agree with Micheal, Brian and what you have to say Taras. I love the fact that I have all this power in Mandrake, but, I do not like the way it is installed or presented. One of my biggest complaints is the fact that some single packages do not include the whole package. What I mean by this is, I try to install Package A, then find I need Package B, then find that Package B needs Package C. I would prefer to install Program A wich has inside of it, all the required parts of B and C that is needed to make the program run. During the install, the program checks to see if the needed parts are already on the system, or install them if they are not. Yes this will make each package much longer due to the redundant libraries in each package, but, now when you need a program, you only download one thing with no concern about needing other things as well. BUT, now when I download XFree for instance, I download ONE file. It would include all the fonts, parts, pieces, libraries etc. During the install of X, I would be asked about what options I want to install. I could then keep a single version of the install program on my Setup server and when I choose to install it, I have no worry about needing 20 other packages and thier dependancies. This is a usability issue that will make or break the distribution, but has no effect on the power or versitility of the distribution. We want the power, but, we want it in a manageable context. Just my 2c best regards Dalton Taras Glek wrote: > I totally agree with you, Dalton, but I would like to add a couple of points. > If software is installed, the user should know its there. Put shortcus to > applications into KDE and GNOME menus. I find it very annoying that Mandrake > includes AbiWord but doesn't add it to any application menus. > It would be very nice if every installed gui application was listed somewhere > in the GNOME/KDE application menu. > > I too want the default install to be much smaller since manyh potentially > unneeded packages are installed. > For example wine and wine-debugwhy is wine-debug installled and is wasting > my space? > > Dalton Calford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have been using Mandrake since version 5.3, in fact, I learned linux > > via mandrake and have always supported the distribution (yes, even with > > buying copies...) > > > > The one thing that I found as a begginer and even now that I am getting > > truly familiar with the system, is that Mandrake, like most of the linux > > distributions, is suffering from software bloat. > > > > Too much is included with the base system. It confuses the user. > > Alot gets installed, and never gets used. > > A new user does not know what is needed and what isn't but they must > > either accept the few hundred meg of software or go through a confusing > > selection process that they have no way of understanding. > > > > I have to say that I prefer mandrake over the others but, I think there > > is a better method of handling this. > > > > Mandrake should be split into a 'base' package and then all the other > > packages put into stand alone installs. > > > > What should be in the 'base'? > > I would suggest X, a trimmed down version of KDE and all the graphical > > configuration tools. > > > > Why not emacs and joe and all the other handy-dandy utilities? > > > > For the basic user, all those utilities just waste disk space. > > Mandrake is filling the 'Entry level Linux' for windows users who want > > to walk on the wild side. > > > > There should be packages that maintain all the different possible uses a > > person may want including things like Licq or Apache, but, these things > > (including VNC) should not be standard parts of the installation. > > > > The packages should be standalone in that they contain in one place all > > the libs and required files so that when you install the package you do > > not need to go looking for updates to other packages just so you can run > > it. > > > > This way, a end user can easily add to thier system without worrying > > about getting other unneeded programs that might be security holes. > > > > If a user wants emacs, install the emacs package, if they want to surf > > the web, add a program that does it. > > > > At our office, we remove all browsers and make sure the firewall stops > > all such traffic, but the standard linux installs include Netscape as a > > default choice. > > > > The people who have made this distribution have done an excellent job, > > but, too much of Redhats legacy of 'everything and the kitchen sink' has > > got it bogged down. > > > > What I am suggesting, is, stepping back and spliting the developement > > into two areas > > 1) a very basic linux system with very little on it. > > 2) add-on packages to extend the basic system. > > > > A basic system of 80-100 MB (even less if possible) that becomes the > > stepping stone of the distribution that allows everything else to be > > added would make down
Re: [[Cooker] Distribution Style]
I totally agree with you, Dalton, but I would like to add a couple of points. If software is installed, the user should know its there. Put shortcus to applications into KDE and GNOME menus. I find it very annoying that Mandrake includes AbiWord but doesn't add it to any application menus. It would be very nice if every installed gui application was listed somewhere in the GNOME/KDE application menu. I too want the default install to be much smaller since manyh potentially unneeded packages are installed. For example wine and wine-debugwhy is wine-debug installled and is wasting my space? Dalton Calford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have been using Mandrake since version 5.3, in fact, I learned linux > via mandrake and have always supported the distribution (yes, even with > buying copies...) > > The one thing that I found as a begginer and even now that I am getting > truly familiar with the system, is that Mandrake, like most of the linux > distributions, is suffering from software bloat. > > Too much is included with the base system. It confuses the user. > Alot gets installed, and never gets used. > A new user does not know what is needed and what isn't but they must > either accept the few hundred meg of software or go through a confusing > selection process that they have no way of understanding. > > I have to say that I prefer mandrake over the others but, I think there > is a better method of handling this. > > Mandrake should be split into a 'base' package and then all the other > packages put into stand alone installs. > > What should be in the 'base'? > I would suggest X, a trimmed down version of KDE and all the graphical > configuration tools. > > Why not emacs and joe and all the other handy-dandy utilities? > > For the basic user, all those utilities just waste disk space. > Mandrake is filling the 'Entry level Linux' for windows users who want > to walk on the wild side. > > There should be packages that maintain all the different possible uses a > person may want including things like Licq or Apache, but, these things > (including VNC) should not be standard parts of the installation. > > The packages should be standalone in that they contain in one place all > the libs and required files so that when you install the package you do > not need to go looking for updates to other packages just so you can run > it. > > This way, a end user can easily add to thier system without worrying > about getting other unneeded programs that might be security holes. > > If a user wants emacs, install the emacs package, if they want to surf > the web, add a program that does it. > > At our office, we remove all browsers and make sure the firewall stops > all such traffic, but the standard linux installs include Netscape as a > default choice. > > The people who have made this distribution have done an excellent job, > but, too much of Redhats legacy of 'everything and the kitchen sink' has > got it bogged down. > > What I am suggesting, is, stepping back and spliting the developement > into two areas > 1) a very basic linux system with very little on it. > 2) add-on packages to extend the basic system. > > A basic system of 80-100 MB (even less if possible) that becomes the > stepping stone of the distribution that allows everything else to be > added would make downloads and installations faster and more reliable. > > A smaller system with limited items in it allow the user to learn one > thing at a time instead of having everything in his face at once. > > I hope I have not offended anyone with this suggestion, and that perhaps > it can lead to some discussion on how to make the distribution a little > better. > > best regards > > Dalton Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
First, there isn't a need to make these into a single package; you just need for the dependencies to get resolved as done by rpmdrake already (but not by kpackage). Second, the general idea of having a less overwhelming "basic" distirubtion to start is good, but make the kitchen sink available. I personally think that a look at Caldera OpenLinux is a pretty good model of how to do a user-friendly install. But I still want to be *able* to select packages at install time. AND (this is big . . ) I should be able select packages the *same* way at install time and afterwards. The install-time package installer lets you select multiple packages and resolves all dependencies, but I can't find anything after I install that does this: - kpackage allows multiple selection but doesn't resolve dependencies; - rpmdrake resolves dependencies but doesn't allow multiple selection. And I find both of them unnecessarily awkward in terms of "just finding" my cdrom packages, though that may be my own fault due to customization I've done. On Fri, 07 Apr 2000, you wrote: | I agree with you.. for instance what does joe computer user want with | sendmail for instance since he most likely is used to use his isp's | mailserver as smtp server.. | | I hate to say this.. but take a look at windows and see what is installed at | the start.. very little infact.. | | It would be alot cooler to have a nice menu some OBVIOUS place where all the | packages that can be installed is listed. And there should be 2 levels of | that menu aswell (atleast) so you would have to select like advanced to get | to all the packages. | | As I see it now it is a bit too hard to get hold of the packages after I | install my system. (I am speaking of joe computer user here mind you :). And | I think the descriptions should be even more informative than they are. The | description should be worked out with an enduser and not merely by us geeks. | | Almost no joe computer user will ever want any -devel packages but he of | course installs it right away since he has no idea that he wont need it. | | And he probably wonders why his newly installed linux machine has 15-20 | different text editors. | (The really funny thing is that the most user friendly of them 'pico' is | included in a mailreader and not as a text editor). | | I can probably go on all night with things to point out.. but I guess you | guys get it. | | The new graphical installer takes you far.. but it is still not as easy as | corel linux for instance.. | you need to go the last mile aswell. | | I would like to think that we (the users on cooker) can help you guys out in | selecting wich packages should go in the 'base' or what we should call it. | | | my 12 cents.. | Michael Irving | - Original Message - | From: "Dalton Calford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 10:12 PM | Subject: [Cooker] Distribution Style | | | > I have been using Mandrake since version 5.3, in fact, I learned linux | > via mandrake and have always supported the distribution (yes, even with | > buying copies...) | > | > The one thing that I found as a begginer and even now that I am getting | > truly familiar with the system, is that Mandrake, like most of the linux | > distributions, is suffering from software bloat. | > | > Too much is included with the base system. It confuses the user. | > Alot gets installed, and never gets used. | > A new user does not know what is needed and what isn't but they must | > either accept the few hundred meg of software or go through a confusing | > selection process that they have no way of understanding. | > | > I have to say that I prefer mandrake over the others but, I think there | > is a better method of handling this. | > | > Mandrake should be split into a 'base' package and then all the other | > packages put into stand alone installs. | > | > What should be in the 'base'? | > I would suggest X, a trimmed down version of KDE and all the graphical | > configuration tools. | > | > Why not emacs and joe and all the other handy-dandy utilities? | > | > For the basic user, all those utilities just waste disk space. | > Mandrake is filling the 'Entry level Linux' for windows users who want | > to walk on the wild side. | > | > There should be packages that maintain all the different possible uses a | > person may want including things like Licq or Apache, but, these things | > (including VNC) should not be standard parts of the installation. | > | > The packages should be standalone in that they contain in one place all | > the libs and required files so that when you install the package you do | > not need to go looking for updates to other packages just so you can run | > it. | > | > This way, a end user can easily add to thier system without worrying | > about getting other unneeded programs that might be security holes. | > | > If a user wants emacs, install the emacs package, if they want to surf
Re: [Cooker] Distribution Style
I agree with you.. for instance what does joe computer user want with sendmail for instance since he most likely is used to use his isp's mailserver as smtp server.. I hate to say this.. but take a look at windows and see what is installed at the start.. very little infact.. It would be alot cooler to have a nice menu some OBVIOUS place where all the packages that can be installed is listed. And there should be 2 levels of that menu aswell (atleast) so you would have to select like advanced to get to all the packages. As I see it now it is a bit too hard to get hold of the packages after I install my system. (I am speaking of joe computer user here mind you :). And I think the descriptions should be even more informative than they are. The description should be worked out with an enduser and not merely by us geeks. Almost no joe computer user will ever want any -devel packages but he of course installs it right away since he has no idea that he wont need it. And he probably wonders why his newly installed linux machine has 15-20 different text editors. (The really funny thing is that the most user friendly of them 'pico' is included in a mailreader and not as a text editor). I can probably go on all night with things to point out.. but I guess you guys get it. The new graphical installer takes you far.. but it is still not as easy as corel linux for instance.. you need to go the last mile aswell. I would like to think that we (the users on cooker) can help you guys out in selecting wich packages should go in the 'base' or what we should call it. my 12 cents.. Michael Irving - Original Message - From: "Dalton Calford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 10:12 PM Subject: [Cooker] Distribution Style > I have been using Mandrake since version 5.3, in fact, I learned linux > via mandrake and have always supported the distribution (yes, even with > buying copies...) > > The one thing that I found as a begginer and even now that I am getting > truly familiar with the system, is that Mandrake, like most of the linux > distributions, is suffering from software bloat. > > Too much is included with the base system. It confuses the user. > Alot gets installed, and never gets used. > A new user does not know what is needed and what isn't but they must > either accept the few hundred meg of software or go through a confusing > selection process that they have no way of understanding. > > I have to say that I prefer mandrake over the others but, I think there > is a better method of handling this. > > Mandrake should be split into a 'base' package and then all the other > packages put into stand alone installs. > > What should be in the 'base'? > I would suggest X, a trimmed down version of KDE and all the graphical > configuration tools. > > Why not emacs and joe and all the other handy-dandy utilities? > > For the basic user, all those utilities just waste disk space. > Mandrake is filling the 'Entry level Linux' for windows users who want > to walk on the wild side. > > There should be packages that maintain all the different possible uses a > person may want including things like Licq or Apache, but, these things > (including VNC) should not be standard parts of the installation. > > The packages should be standalone in that they contain in one place all > the libs and required files so that when you install the package you do > not need to go looking for updates to other packages just so you can run > it. > > This way, a end user can easily add to thier system without worrying > about getting other unneeded programs that might be security holes. > > If a user wants emacs, install the emacs package, if they want to surf > the web, add a program that does it. > > At our office, we remove all browsers and make sure the firewall stops > all such traffic, but the standard linux installs include Netscape as a > default choice. > > The people who have made this distribution have done an excellent job, > but, too much of Redhats legacy of 'everything and the kitchen sink' has > got it bogged down. > > What I am suggesting, is, stepping back and spliting the developement > into two areas > 1) a very basic linux system with very little on it. > 2) add-on packages to extend the basic system. > > A basic system of 80-100 MB (even less if possible) that becomes the > stepping stone of the distribution that allows everything else to be > added would make downloads and installations faster and more reliable. > > A smaller system with limited items in it allow the user to learn one > thing at a time instead of having everything in his face at once. > > I hope I have not offended anyone with this suggestion, and that perhaps > it can lead to some discussion on how to make the distribution a little > better. > > best regards > > Dalton > >
