Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO [long]

1999-09-21 Thread Ian Zimmerman 
> "Paul" == Paul McHale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Paul> I also agree we need configuration GUIs in Linux.  If you still
Paul> enjoy the endless research to execute a simple command, by all
Paul> means don't use the GUI.  There are many times when I need a
Paul> administrative task done more than I need to be doing it!  I say
Paul> endless for one reason.  If it is so non-intuitive you need to
Paul> go through 5 pages of help, you'll probably forget it in short
Paul> order.  Next time you'll be looking it up again.

The word "intuitive" applied to computers is an Orwellism.  You are
NOT born with innate knowledge of menus and mouseclicks, this way or
that.  What you really mean when you say "intuitive" is "familiar".
You have used some kind of interface before and naturally find it
easier to learn other interfaces if they are similar to the one you
know.  Now there may be many people who know the same interface you
do.  They may even be the majority of computer users.  So what?  That
still doesn't make the interface superior.

Paul> Point is, if you want the marketplace, you better go after the
Paul> market people.  The market people want windows offers.  This is
Paul> not by mistake.  Microsoft has invested major $$$ in searching
Paul> for what users want.

Wrong, or at least just a small part of the truth.  Microsoft has
invested even more major $$$ in persuading people that they wanted
what Microsoft had to offer.  THAT is what 90% of marketing is
concerned with today, and that is why I want no part of it.

And the "people" we're talking about are not the end users.  The end
users didn't invent the (deplorable) "I just want my job done and want
to know nothing about my tools".  It is the MANAGERS that like people
working like robots.

Paul> Time and time again the best argument for Linux is stability.  

MY major argument for Linux (Unix in general) and against NT is
CONTROL vs. the lack of it.  If you don't know what I mean I'll
explain privately.

Paul> To continue to grow, it must start capturing people who are less
Paul> interested in how it works and more interested in what is can do
Paul> for them.  

What IS this general obsession with growth?  How dirty, smoggy,
stinking must our cities get before we all understand that there are
limits to technology?  Why does everybody equate bigger == better?

-- 
Ian Zimmerman
Lightbinders, Inc.
2325 3rd Street #324, San Francisco, California 94107

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO [not so long, but OT]

1999-09-21 Thread Keith G. Murphy 
Art Lemasters wrote:
> 
[cut]
>  BTW, I recently worked a contract for a corporation that uses
> nothing but NT servers and workstations.  The machines were rebooted
> every two or three days, and complete images were installed to them
> once a week or more.  Granted, though, the employees there were actually
> allowed to send and receive e-mail to their workstations via the
> Internet with no UNIX server to protect them!
> 
Semi-serious question:

How does a UNIX server protect them against viruses (I assume that's
what you mean)?  Do they die in the arid environment of the server?  ;-)

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO [long]

1999-09-21 Thread Art Lemasters 
Those who want to build Debian Linux systems for simple users
may do so.  The tools to do so exist.  Some systems could be built
for such users, some to accomodate NT admins. and yet others for and
by UNIX admins.

 BTW, I recently worked a contract for a corporation that uses
nothing but NT servers and workstations.  The machines were rebooted
every two or three days, and complete images were installed to them
once a week or more.  Granted, though, the employees there were actually
allowed to send and receive e-mail to their workstations via the
Internet with no UNIX server to protect them!   

Art

RE: To the Debian Project, IMHO [long]

1999-09-21 Thread Paul McHale 
You Wrote:
If you present someone with a challenge they will usually rise to it (as
long
as it is within their sphere of competence). So let's make life easier, not
more difficult.

Reply:
This is an interesting way to lead into the following ...

You wrote:
Let's tell the truth "Linux is like
Unix. You need to know. We can help you, but your a big boy/girl now, and
you have learn how to take care of yourself". Microsoft didn't and takes a
bashing from the general users who complain that it doesn't live up to
expectation, and it doesn't, you still have to know, despite what Microsoft
or others may say.

Reply:
I agree Microsoft still requires knowledge.  But the knowledge is somewhat
transferable between programs.

I also agree we need configuration GUIs in Linux.  If you still enjoy the
endless research to execute a simple command, by all means don't use the
GUI.  There are many times when I need a administrative task done more than
I need to be doing it!  I say endless for one reason.  If it is so
non-intuitive you need to go through 5 pages of help, you'll probably forget
it in short order.  Next time you'll be looking it up again.

Don't get me wrong, people still need to learn some Unix.  Point is, if you
want the marketplace, you better go after the market people.  The market
people want windows offers.  This is not by mistake.  Microsoft has invested
major $$$ in searching for what users want.  Namely:

1. Simple peer to peer networking with resource sharing.

This means you don't get in line for a cap and gown when you finally get it
working.

2. Simple install.

Most Linux variants are here.  I think RedHat is the easiest to install.
Debian is the easiest to maintain due to apt-get.  My opinion.

3. Must integrate seamlessly into existing "standard".

Like it or not, the desktop standard in the majority market holder. At this
point, that is clearly Microsoft.  Linux needs to be a drop in replacement.

4. Simple maintenance.

Linux is not rocket science.  It just takes more ongoing administrative
effort than windows NT Server.  The major difference I see is the GUI.  I
don't run X, maybe that would change my opinion.  I have run it before, but
not on debian.  Any comments here welcome.  I might be missing a big part of
debians administrative aids.

Time and time again the best argument for Linux is stability.  I have run NT
workstation for over a year now.  That's 24x7.  I just don't turn it off.
It has been rock solid.  Under development conditions, I reboot maybe once
per month.  90% of those reboots are because I have changed/installed
something.

I am not knocking Linux.  I am just interested in the comments regarding
level of development.  Fact is, replacing Microsoft on the desktop requires
one of two things.  First you have to offer something they don't/can't/won't
provide and you absolutely must have.  Second, Linux offers enough that the
difference between the two is negligible.

It seems you don't like the progression of Linux from a standpoint it's
going to put it into everyone's hands.  Within the lazy man's reach if you
will.  If I were in marketing, I would yell YOU BET.

To continue to grow, it must start capturing people who are less interested
in how it works and more interested in what is can do for them.  I.e.. a
marketing person.  Remember, they have computers to.  Maybe the question is,
should Linux be pushed beyond the server market into the desktop.  That is
the major hurdle.  A system administrator may be able to justify the extra
time.  I know a died in the wool Unix administrator who chose NT 4.0 server
because he had other tasks (programming) and needed low administration.

Just my rambling opinions.  Thanks for reading.

paul

-Original Message-
From: Simon Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 7:15 AM
To: Stephan Hachinger
Cc: Debian User
Subject: Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO


Hi Stephan,

No offence taken, with your mails, and don't get me wrong I quite like GUI
interfaces for some jobs, command line for others. I just
pick the tool I prefer for the job at hand. As far as I am concerned this
thread is not about the GUI/OOUI/command line debate, but
about the marketing focus, which can do a LOT of harm.

If I go to a hardware store and by a drill to put up some shelves at home I
have to know how to use a drill, what kind of wall I am
going to be drilling, the type of rawl plugs I will use, etc. It is actually
quite a complicated business, and the thing is most of
us accept this as normal. Why make using a computer different. To be alble
to write with pen and paper I had to learn about ink,
hand position, types of paper (don't use a biro on bond because it smears
easily, etc.), all things that have nothing to do with the
actual activity of writing a letter, just the mechanics of writing a letter.
Tod

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-20 Thread Simon Martin 
Hi Stephan,

No offence taken, with your mails, and don't get me wrong I quite like GUI 
interfaces for some jobs, command line for others. I just
pick the tool I prefer for the job at hand. As far as I am concerned this 
thread is not about the GUI/OOUI/command line debate, but
about the marketing focus, which can do a LOT of harm.

If I go to a hardware store and by a drill to put up some shelves at home I 
have to know how to use a drill, what kind of wall I am
going to be drilling, the type of rawl plugs I will use, etc. It is actually 
quite a complicated business, and the thing is most of
us accept this as normal. Why make using a computer different. To be alble to 
write with pen and paper I had to learn about ink,
hand position, types of paper (don't use a biro on bond because it smears 
easily, etc.), all things that have nothing to do with the
actual activity of writing a letter, just the mechanics of writing a letter. 
Today I rarely use pen and ink, I use computer and
printer, but does that mean that I don't have to learn the mechanics of my 
writing materials? Am I born with a mouse attached to my
left hand? Is there an instinctive power-on reflex? Do I come into this world 
knowing that opening seventeen instances of a
spreadsheet program on a 486 with 16MB RAM is not a good thing to do?

All this is basic computer use skills. I HAVE to learn. If somebody tells me 
"here is your computer it just works" what do I expect?
If someone says "here is your computer, it's fairly simple to use, but you'll 
have to learn a few things to keep it running
smoothly" the effect is subtly different.

Unix has been famous for cryptic commands and general user unfriendliness it 
most circles. This is not necessarily good. When the
usage message for a command is in excess of 5 pages (tar --help) it makes you 
wonder. I like an easy life, the same as the rest of
us. I also like my challenges, it adds spice to life. If you present someone 
with a challenge they will usually rise to it (as long
as it is within their sphere of competence). So let's make life easier, not 
more difficult. Let's tell the truth "Linux is like
Unix. You need to know. We can help you, but your a big boy/girl now, and you 
have learn how to take care of yourself". Microsoft
didn't and takes a bashing from the general users who complain that it doesn't 
live up to expectation, and it doesn't, you still
have to know, despite what Microsoft or others may say.

__ _   Debian GNU User
   / /(_)_ __  _   ___  __   Simon Martin
  / / | | '_ \| | | \ \/ /   Project Manager
 / /__| | | | | |_| |>  <Isys
 \/_|_| |_|\__,_/_/\_\   mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

'I used to be schizophrenic, but now both of us are all right'


> - Original Message -
> From: Stephan Hachinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Simon Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Debian User 
> Sent: 18 September 1999 21:05
> Subject: Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO
>
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > Again some criticism about your opinions...
> >
> > >Ok, ok, I sit corrected in several respects, but I am still adamant that
> > any attempt to paint Linux as an out of the box solution
> > >with no prior knowledge is a real danger to the on-going comercial success
> > of Linux. I worked in tech-support for Xerox for about 7
> > >years (Xerox used to sell Apple Mac, IBM PS/2 and Dell in Latin America),
> > and I would say that at least 70% of the problems we had
> > >we with users who not only did not know what they were doing (no problems
> > with that) but who did not WANT to know what they were
> > >doing. Microsoft has fixed the image of it's OS as "just use and ignore
> > it". Let's not fall into that trap.
> > >
> > >Fixing the customers expectations is paramount for a successful install. If
> > you fix the expectations as "zero cost, zero learning"
> > >then you are NOT going to have a successful install. I am fairly competent
> > with Debian, but the last time I looked at RedHat, I did
> > >not want to do any real config changes until I had read the corresponding
> > man pages and other documents, and these are both Linux
> > >based
> > >
> > >In short. If you use a tool you have to know it. If you want to use a tool
> > well you have to learn how it works. You don't get
> > >something for nothing and you definitely don't want to tell your customers
> > to expect the world for nothing.
> >
> > OK, I know what you mean. I've been using Debian for a short time and
> > Windows for a quite long time now, and I worked together with many people on
> > PC projects. I also think in

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-19 Thread Godric 
Simon Martin wrote:

>I am still adamant that any attempt to paint Linux as an out of the box 
>solution
> with no prior knowledge is a real danger to the on-going comercial success of 
> Linux. I worked in tech-support for Xerox for about 7
> years (Xerox used to sell Apple Mac, IBM PS/2 and Dell in Latin America), and 
> I would say that at least 70% of the problems we had
> we with users who not only did not know what they were doing (no problems 
> with that) but who did not WANT to know what they were
> doing. Microsoft has fixed the image of it's OS as "just use and ignore it". 
> >Let's not fall into that trap.


I agree. I also worked on Tech support for a large company using Windows
and found the same thing. IMHO the real issue is that there needs to be
*two* kinds of Operating Systems, as we have now - the Windows kind
where the user can install and use it without too much knowledge, with
the slick GUI's, and the GNU/Linux kind as found in Debian distribution
which can be configured, and most importantly taken apart to see how it
works, and then put back together again, so giving people the chance to
learn and understand about Operating Systems. 

IMHO there are two important issues. First, what we must not do is allow
GNU/Linux to just imitate Windows - we must have and maintain a
GNU/Linux distribution which is for techies and people who want to
become techies. Let Corel and others have a distribution which they can
make easier, but let us 
This leads to the second important issue - free software. Debian is
important because it is committed to the principles of free software,
*and* because it gives us the chance to help develop it, to participate.
I may be wrong but there seems to me to be a  sense of community among
Debian users/developers which you just don't get with Windows and the
stuff produced by big corporations.
As Corel and other corporate concerns develop GNU/Linux I am sure they
will go the same way - it will be them, the corporation, and us, the
users, plus restrictive license agreements which take away freedoms.

To sum up - what IMHO is important is not the commercial success of
GNU/Linux, but keeping GNU/Linux tweakable, learnable, interesting and
composed of free software with all the advantages that brings in terms
of community and development. 

Godric

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-18 Thread Stephan Hachinger 
Hello!

Again some criticism about your opinions...

>Ok, ok, I sit corrected in several respects, but I am still adamant that
any attempt to paint Linux as an out of the box solution
>with no prior knowledge is a real danger to the on-going comercial success
of Linux. I worked in tech-support for Xerox for about 7
>years (Xerox used to sell Apple Mac, IBM PS/2 and Dell in Latin America),
and I would say that at least 70% of the problems we had
>we with users who not only did not know what they were doing (no problems
with that) but who did not WANT to know what they were
>doing. Microsoft has fixed the image of it's OS as "just use and ignore
it". Let's not fall into that trap.
>
>Fixing the customers expectations is paramount for a successful install. If
you fix the expectations as "zero cost, zero learning"
>then you are NOT going to have a successful install. I am fairly competent
with Debian, but the last time I looked at RedHat, I did
>not want to do any real config changes until I had read the corresponding
man pages and other documents, and these are both Linux
>based
>
>In short. If you use a tool you have to know it. If you want to use a tool
well you have to learn how it works. You don't get
>something for nothing and you definitely don't want to tell your customers
to expect the world for nothing.

OK, I know what you mean. I've been using Debian for a short time and
Windows for a quite long time now, and I worked together with many people on
PC projects. I also think in a way that there are two extremes concerning PC
users: There are some who want to dive deep into the secrets of the system,
and others only want to use it for doing their work. And I (I belong to the
first group) realized, whatever I worked on, that the second group of users
also got very good results out of their work.

Let's look on what the computer was invented for: Scientific calculations.
But people had to have very good knowledge and time to use it. And what the
computer can do now (at least sometimes): Help at work and calculate things
without needing much time for administration any more. Although I like to
administrate a system properly, IMHO it is very admirable that people can
now work with computers almost with zero administration. And it makes life
easier and makes the computer work for what it was created: Solving
problems.

So, IMHO, it is not good to think that people that can only work with GUI
interfaces and "dumb" OSes are stupid or worth less. I think it's very
understandable if someone wants to concentrate on his problems and not on
his systems.

Now, what do this thoughts end up to? I think there should be both kinds of
OSes: The "just use and..." ones and the ones which require proper
administration and can be tuned properly.

Why should we let MS control the market of the "just use and ignore it"
OSes? I there should be a Linux for EVERY person, and distributions like the
coming Corel-Linux, which are almost completely GUI-based, will improve the
success of Linux. But "Linuxes" also have to be tweakable.

I think that's why there are different distros: That different users can
reach different aims. Admins who want to tune it thorougly as well as home
users who want to use it without reading any manual, just to show to
extremes.

That's what Linux should be, I think. And if Debian should become easier to
install or something like that, there should be discussions about how the
future Debian can solve problems in a better way than last versions. But
there should not be a flame war about UNIX philosophy because it's no use
starting such a war. Time and users will tell where to go finally and which
philosophies are right. Why can't there be just peaceful coexistence between
different users and philosophies???

And: About the last paragraph: I think good software can be used without
knowing any manual. It has some help functions that quickly guide to the
required functions/params. You can see what command you must call. That's
good software. I want to dive into internals of OSes. But, personally, I
don't read manuals very often. And I succeeded with WIN and with Debian this
way. So that philosophy can't be that bad.


That was my opinion about this. I already have used WIN and LINUX, and DOS,
and the GEM UI, and DR DOS, and CALDERA DOS, and so on. Intolerance brings
no solution.

Did not want to offend anyone:).


Kind Regards,

Stephan Hachinger

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-18 Thread Simon Martin 
Ok, ok, I sit corrected in several respects, but I am still adamant that any 
attempt to paint Linux as an out of the box solution
with no prior knowledge is a real danger to the on-going comercial success of 
Linux. I worked in tech-support for Xerox for about 7
years (Xerox used to sell Apple Mac, IBM PS/2 and Dell in Latin America), and I 
would say that at least 70% of the problems we had
we with users who not only did not know what they were doing (no problems with 
that) but who did not WANT to know what they were
doing. Microsoft has fixed the image of it's OS as "just use and ignore it". 
Let's not fall into that trap.

Fixing the customers expectations is paramount for a successful install. If you 
fix the expectations as "zero cost, zero learning"
then you are NOT going to have a successful install. I am fairly competent with 
Debian, but the last time I looked at RedHat, I did
not want to do any real config changes until I had read the corresponding man 
pages and other documents, and these are both Linux
based

In short. If you use a tool you have to know it. If you want to use a tool well 
you have to learn how it works. You don't get
something for nothing and you definitely don't want to tell your customers to 
expect the world for nothing.

__ _   Debian GNU User
   / /(_)_ __  _   ___  __   Simon Martin
  / / | | '_ \| | | \ \/ /   Project Manager
 / /__| | | | | |_| |>

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-18 Thread Nitebirz 


On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Simon Martin wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Ok, so this is my 2 cents worth.
> 
> GUI utilities are ok, command line utilities are ok, simple dialogs
> are ok, this is not the issue. The real issue is not to fall into the
> Microsoft or RedHat paradigm. 

Please, do not compare the two.  I run Red Hat, Debian, SuSE and FreeBSD,
and I truly believe the Red Hat guys do not deserve these criticism.  If
you run Red Hat you can use both the GUI interface or the command line
utilities, just like in any other flavor of Unix (and I am including
Solaris here too).  


> This is a flavour of Unix, Unix is not
> trivial, Unix is a fairly mature fully featured operating system and
> you have to know at least a little about what you are doing and be
> prepared to read the manual before you do something useful.
> 

That's fine.  However, many other users may just want to run a stable,
efficient OS that they have not had a chance to run so far.  I do not see
why we should limit ourselves to the "techies" or "geeks" of the world,
especially since many corporations as well as small and midsize businesses
could also benefit from running Linux as long as we also make it easy
enough for them to get the basic configuration up and running.

> IMHO one of the reasons that there is a contest between NT and Linux
> is that Microsoft said that NT was so simple to install and use,
> unfortunately tuning and other administrative tasks can be a real
> pain. Linux never made any bones about the fact that you have to
> learn to be able to use it. It's not out of the box and run. I think
> that the efforts to dumb down the operating system and say that
> anyone can use it would hurt the Linux image, maybe irreparably.
> 

I disagree here.  The main reason why there is a contest between WinNT and
Linux is not due to customer disappointment at how difficult WinNT is to
set up or run.  Rather, the main cause is the lack of stability and
scalability of that other OS.  Add to that the strings attached to a
commercial OS manufactured by a semi-monopolistic company, and you have
all the ingredients you need for people to dislike WinNT.

> Apart from that all real computer enthusiasts are masochists any way.
> Tell someone that this is a system that only real men can use (sorry
> about the sexist remark but "real people" does not convey the same
> meaning) and you'll have them fighting to get at it (how do you think
> I started) and have a real sense of achievement when they manage to
> get the system to boot, and now PPP, and now bind, and now sendmail,
> and now ...

Again I disagree here.  I do not think we are able to decide who is and
who is not a "real" computer enthusiast.  This is starting to sound like
those inquisitors back in the 1950's trying to decide who was a "good
American".  

In any case, I also doubt that the best route for Linux is to convert it
into an exclusive property of computer hobbysts.  No matter how much wemay
dislike it, that is not our decision to make.  In our societies, it is the
market the one that usually makes those decisions.

> 
> Let Microsoft take the bashing from users who do not WANT to know.
> Stay just that little bit above the rest. Have all the tools in any
> and every form. Drag'n Drop is good, but so is rcp.
> 
> And now it's back to work.
> 
> __ _   Debian GNU User
>/ /(_)_ __  _   ___  __   Simon Martin
>   / / | | '_ \| | | \ \/ /   Project Manager
>  / /__| | | | | |_| |>    \/_|_| |_|\__,_/_/\_\   mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use 
> 
> iQA/AwUBN99PNSTe2wIotMrcEQLUpQCg0g4Y22gkoXHf51aeQt3upQ8qK6UAoOTS
> qWoAPRGuyBGgw6H5LnWQK1BQ
> =0P97
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
> 
>

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-16 Thread Stefan Nobis 
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason Wright
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

JW> Also, I spend a lot of time in my job working on servers on the
JW> other side of the world, hidden behind slow, overloaded WAN links.
JW> Sure I *can* (and sometimes do) use ssh to run GUI apps on these

I know, what you mean.

But if a program is good designed, then it's easy to give it a
textmode and a graphic mode UI and last but not least even a command
line interface.

Even a command line driven interface can be easy to use and a nice and 
pretty GUI can be hard to use.

JW> Or if your box is hosed and X won't come up and you can't get it
JW> out of single user because, say, /usr is trashed so you HAVE to
JW> fix it from the command line.  If you've learned on a GUI and
JW> never learned the formats of the underlying config files, you're
JW> hosed and quite possibly out of a job.

Where is the problem? A GUI is nothing bad - it's very good! If i'm
good in my job, i'm happy if i can easy do my job with a nice and easy 
to use GUI. And if there are problems i'm able to edit config files by 
hand with a text editor.

If you use a GUI you don't become dump!

JW> Granted, none of these things are common for the casual user, but
JW> such situations are very common for me.  I find that command line

It's very good, if this is possible to do. And here Unix is much
better than NT. But it's not very good if all you have are simple and
not very easy to use tools. Best is, if both are available.

-- 
Until the next mail...,
Stefan.

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-16 Thread Stefan Nobis 
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Simon
> Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

SM> dialogs are ok, this is not the issue. The real issue is not to
SM> fall into the Microsoft or RedHat paradigm. This is a flavour of

Hmmm... don't think so.

SM> Unix, Unix is not trivial, Unix is a fairly mature fully featured
SM> operating system and you have to know at least a little about what
SM> you are doing and be prepared to read the manual before you do
SM> something useful.

OK, if i want to design a big network, i have to know many things
about networks. But that has nothing to do with this or that os. It
should be plain and simple to setup an os.

An os is a tool - it should help me in getting my job done. Some tasks 
are complex, ok, then you have to learn something. But the UI of the
os and the tools to fullfill the task should be as simple to use as
possible (and still be flexible).

SM> IMHO one of the reasons that there is a contest between NT and
SM> Linux is that Microsoft said that NT was so simple to install and
SM> use, unfortunately tuning and other administrative tasks can be a

The main problem with NT is not problems in tuning it or some other
nice to have features. The main problem is, that NT is not scalable
and most important it is not reliable and stable. If NT would be as
stable as Solaris or even Linux, than NT would be a killer system,
because MS knows that even experts like it, if complex tasks are
simple to solve.

I work with NT once in a while and at home i work with Linux. Linux is 
very flexible and i like this. But there are many tasks which are much 
simpler to do in NT. For example the registry of NT is no problem -
but missing tools to edit the registry even from a boot disk is a
problem.

SM> real pain. Linux never made any bones about the fact that you have
SM> to learn to be able to use it. It's not out of the box and run. I

Here everything goes wrong! As i said above: If i plan to make a (big) 
network i have to learn about network-basics and network-theory. It's
a problem when MS claims with NT you have not do know anything about
network-basics. But it is very good, if you can do your tasks with
easy to use tools.

Let's take some network-settings as example. If you want to use DHCP
with NT or Win, it's quite easy - go to network settings an say to get 
IP address automatically. If you want to use DHCP with Linux you habe
much more to do. Why? Is there anything good if activating DHCP is not 
as simple as for NT?

One pain with NT is, that often there is only one way to do this or
that and this way gives you not all possible options that should be
available. Here Linux is better. But a tool have not to be a pain to
use in order to be flexible.

-- 
Until the next mail...,
Stefan.

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-15 Thread Ralph Winslow 
Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 09:56:24AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> 
> > Info keybindings are virtually identical to Emacs, and thus don't feel
> > at all stupid to this Emacs user.  In fact, I would be VERY annoyed if
> 
> But consider what it used to be like - the curses info browser was very
> confusing because the motion keys weren't bound quite in the same way as
> those in Emacs (or anything else for that matter).

On the other hand, I wouldn't be too tough to make the key bindings
depend on the EDITOR environment setting (I always wondered why I found
the dselect keys so difficult ;-)  THAT would be the right way to do it
INNVHO, but I'm not going to volunteer because it works great whatever
the keybindings are, and it's just not that hard to deal with, anyway.
> 
> > the info maintainers heeded Havoc's advice and redid the keybindings
> > in the image of, say, vi.
> 
> I'd be surprised if any effort to improve ease of use chose to
> standardise on vi (unless nethack has a sudden burst of popularity,
> anyway).
> 
> > Keith> Dselect?  Nice in many ways; yes, it's the non-standard
> > Keith> keystrokes and lack of visual feedback ("has my search finished
> > Keith> yet?") that are probably the worst things.  Other than that *I*
> > Keith> can't think of a much nicer way to address package installation
> > Keith> in ncurses.
> 
> > That's right.  And I have to disagree that the general flow of control
> > in dselect "doesn't make sense" and "this has _zero_ to do with the
> > power of the tools".  Change the flow of control and I bet you'll lose
> > some flexibility somewhere.
> 
> Better prompting and visual feedback would probably go a long way to
> making the flow of control seem better - one common source of problem
> is your idea of what's going on diverging from that of dselect.  It
> would also be nice to be able to defer conflict resolution sometimes,
> not to mention the *!?# recommends handling and the forced display of
> the help screen.
> 
> --
> Mark Brown  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
> http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
> EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
> 
>   
>Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature

-- 
-
Ralph Winslow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The IQ of the group is that of the member
whose IQ is lowest  divided by the number
of members.

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-15 Thread Simon Martin 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Ok, so this is my 2 cents worth.

GUI utilities are ok, command line utilities are ok, simple dialogs
are ok, this is not the issue. The real issue is not to fall into the
Microsoft or RedHat paradigm. This is a flavour of Unix, Unix is not
trivial, Unix is a fairly mature fully featured operating system and
you have to know at least a little about what you are doing and be
prepared to read the manual before you do something useful.

IMHO one of the reasons that there is a contest between NT and Linux
is that Microsoft said that NT was so simple to install and use,
unfortunately tuning and other administrative tasks can be a real
pain. Linux never made any bones about the fact that you have to
learn to be able to use it. It's not out of the box and run. I think
that the efforts to dumb down the operating system and say that
anyone can use it would hurt the Linux image, maybe irreparably.

Apart from that all real computer enthusiasts are masochists any way.
Tell someone that this is a system that only real men can use (sorry
about the sexist remark but "real people" does not convey the same
meaning) and you'll have them fighting to get at it (how do you think
I started) and have a real sense of achievement when they manage to
get the system to boot, and now PPP, and now bind, and now sendmail,
and now ...

Let Microsoft take the bashing from users who do not WANT to know.
Stay just that little bit above the rest. Have all the tools in any
and every form. Drag'n Drop is good, but so is rcp.

And now it's back to work.

__ _   Debian GNU User
   / /(_)_ __  _   ___  __   Simon Martin
  / / | | '_ \| | | \ \/ /   Project Manager
 / /__| | | | | |_| |>  

iQA/AwUBN99PNSTe2wIotMrcEQLUpQCg0g4Y22gkoXHf51aeQt3upQ8qK6UAoOTS
qWoAPRGuyBGgw6H5LnWQK1BQ
=0P97
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-15 Thread mmiller 
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:19:37AM -0500, Keith G. Murphy wrote:

> It would also be sad to leave behind the Unix heritage of simple
> utilities that can pipe to each other to do useful things.

This is more than a heritage, this is a cornerstone of a useful
computing environment.  I thought VMS was annoying because I had
to explicitly read and write temp files to 'pipe' programs
together.  Then I found out how good I had it when I was condemned
to Windows NT.

No doubt that a feature-rich GUI has its place.  But don't forget
the (hopefully) many of us that are irritated when we experience:

$ type sed
sed is /bin/sed

instead of

$ type sed
/bin/sed
-
Programs don't create data.  People create data.
Every program is a filter.
  -- Mark Gancarz,  'The Unix Philosophy'

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-15 Thread Stefan Nobis 
I think most people miss some important points:

- A text or graphic mode UI is some times the most effective user
  interface, some times a command line driven interface is more
  effective.

- Even the best of the experts is very happy if a good tool is easy to 
  use, so it costs less time to do a job.

- Ease of use is not only for lusers or beginners! I'm a system
  administrator and programmer and i like programs which are easy to
  use, cause i like to have my job done instead of learning how to use
  a tool.

- What advantage has a command line tool with 3000 options, extremly
  flexible, but no one is ever able to remember all these options? The 
  user interface and the ease of use is one of the most important
  parts of every program - only this way a tool can really help in
  doing a job more effective and less time consuming.

Take samba as an example? If all you do every day is working with
smb.conf then you know one day nealy all the options. But if not? If
you have to tweak smb.conf only once in a while? Then every time you
have to work through the manpages - but hey, there is swat. That
little small tool really helps you to just do your job.

-- 
Until the next mail...,
Stefan.

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-15 Thread Mark Brown 
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:53:52AM -0400,  Raymond A. Ingles wrote:

> 1) Allow "quick install" from floppies
> It'd be really nice to have a system for having a single package 
> installed on a floppy, or set of floppies in a way where a user
> can stick the disk in, and dselect would read and install whatever

What advantages would this have over "dpkg -i" other than checking
dependancies before installation?

> 2) "Simple" install
> When trying to install debian, I am simply overwhelmed by the number
> of packages I have to deal with, and I consider myself to have above
> average knowledge of UNIX programs! When first installing Debian, 
> a simple walkthrough of Q/A would solve most of these problems. 

This sounds like what the profiles/task lists are trying to do.

> 3) Insist on better package descriptions
> When digging through packages, I'd frequently come across a package
> I don't recognize. I can't even tell if it would be something I'd
> want, because there's no description!

You can do this yourself already by report a bug against the packages 
or mailing the maintainers.  For whatever reason the description 
probably makes perfect sense to them and unless someone says something
they won't realise that people are having trouble with it.

Generally, if an individual package doesn't do something you'd expect
or could be improved the best thing to do is talk to the maintainer -
most will welcome useful suggestions, and it's much more likely to
achieve something than pointing out general trends.  

-- 
Mark Brown  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/


pgpHEgxYAfC4F.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-15 Thread Mark Brown 
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 09:56:24AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:

> Info keybindings are virtually identical to Emacs, and thus don't feel
> at all stupid to this Emacs user.  In fact, I would be VERY annoyed if

But consider what it used to be like - the curses info browser was very
confusing because the motion keys weren't bound quite in the same way as
those in Emacs (or anything else for that matter).

> the info maintainers heeded Havoc's advice and redid the keybindings
> in the image of, say, vi.

I'd be surprised if any effort to improve ease of use chose to
standardise on vi (unless nethack has a sudden burst of popularity,
anyway).

> Keith> Dselect?  Nice in many ways; yes, it's the non-standard
> Keith> keystrokes and lack of visual feedback ("has my search finished
> Keith> yet?") that are probably the worst things.  Other than that *I*
> Keith> can't think of a much nicer way to address package installation
> Keith> in ncurses.

> That's right.  And I have to disagree that the general flow of control
> in dselect "doesn't make sense" and "this has _zero_ to do with the
> power of the tools".  Change the flow of control and I bet you'll lose
> some flexibility somewhere.

Better prompting and visual feedback would probably go a long way to
making the flow of control seem better - one common source of problem
is your idea of what's going on diverging from that of dselect.  It 
would also be nice to be able to defer conflict resolution sometimes, 
not to mention the *!?# recommends handling and the forced display of
the help screen.

-- 
Mark Brown  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/


pgp6UPI8jQA8E.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-14 Thread Craig H. Block 



> When trying to install debian, I am simply overwhelmed by the number
> of packages I have to deal with... 



I have a solution for that problem using a setup script as follows.  I
simply copy this script and a selections file into ~/deb21 after
bypassing dselect during initial install.  The selections file
(dpkg-selections) can be generated from an existing install with dpkg
--get-selections.  A person could design a custom interactive interface
to generate the selections file and avoid dselect's selector
altogether.  This script is a good example of dselect's and dpkg's power
and flexibility.

#! /bin/bash

grep -q "/dev/hdc /cdrom" /etc/mtab
if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
   mount /dev/hdc /cdrom
   if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then exit; fi
fi
grep 2/4 /cdrom/.disk/info
if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then echo "Wrong CD"; umount /dev/hdc; exit; fi 
umount /dev/hdc
if [ ! -f /var/lib/dpkg/methods/multicd/shvar.multi_cd ]; then 
   dselect access
fi
if [ ! -f /var/lib/dpkg/methods/multicd/available ]; then dselect
update; fi
dpkg --set-selections < ~/deb21/dpkg-selections 
if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then echo "Could not set selections"; exit; fi
dselect install
dselect config
dselect remove

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-14 Thread Ian Zimmerman 
> "Keith" == Keith G Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Keith> Havoc Pennington wrote:

Havoc> For example, look at "info" or "dselect" - regardless of
Havoc> whether you personally like them, the many people that _don't_
Havoc> like them don't like them because the keystrokes are really
Havoc> stupid and the general "flow" through the programs doesn't make
Havoc> sense. However, this has _zero_ to do with the power of the
Havoc> tools.

Info keybindings are virtually identical to Emacs, and thus don't feel
at all stupid to this Emacs user.  In fact, I would be VERY annoyed if
the info maintainers heeded Havoc's advice and redid the keybindings
in the image of, say, vi.

Keith> Dselect?  Nice in many ways; yes, it's the non-standard
Keith> keystrokes and lack of visual feedback ("has my search finished
Keith> yet?") that are probably the worst things.  Other than that *I*
Keith> can't think of a much nicer way to address package installation
Keith> in ncurses.

That's right.  And I have to disagree that the general flow of control
in dselect "doesn't make sense" and "this has _zero_ to do with the
power of the tools".  Change the flow of control and I bet you'll lose
some flexibility somewhere.

dselect is the No. 1 reason I prefer Debian to Red Hat, period.

-- 
Ian Zimmerman
Lightbinders, Inc.
2325 3rd Street #324, San Francisco, California 94107

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-14 Thread Keith G. Murphy 
Havoc Pennington wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As someone who's written lots of code toward making free Unices easier to
> use, let me just say that I think this supposed conflict between power and
> ease of use is total nonsense.
> 
> Even if a tool is for power users, it can be pleasant for those users to
> learn and use or it can have an atrocious interface from hell. "Atrocious
> interface from hell" does not equate to "powerful," just "annoying."
> 
> For example, look at "info" or "dselect" - regardless of whether you
> personally like them, the many people that _don't_ like them don't like
> them because the keystrokes are really stupid and the general
> "flow" through the programs doesn't make sense. However, this has _zero_
> to do with the power of the tools.
> 
> On a programming level, command-line tools are often written in such a way
> that adding a GUI frontend is difficult and requires changes to the
> command-line stuff. But this is not a fundamental conflict, just poor
> planning when writing the command line tool.
> 
> Co-existence is very possible, and taking a position on one side or the
> other is just pointless.
> 
I absolutely agree, but...

Developer time is limited, especially "free" time.  If there's a choice,
any administration tool needs to be command-line oriented for maximum
flexibility.  And please don't get into the RedHat situation where it's
hard to change a configuration file without messing up the GUI
administration tool.

It would also be sad to leave behind the Unix heritage of simple
utilities that can pipe to each other to do useful things.

Dselect?  Nice in many ways; yes, it's the non-standard keystrokes and
lack of visual feedback ("has my search finished yet?") that are
probably the worst things.  Other than that *I* can't think of a much
nicer way to address package installation in ncurses.

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-14 Thread Raymond A. Ingles 

 I'd like to repeat a suggestion made to this list over two years ago. I
loved it when I saw it, and I think it bears repeating. I saved it because
it gave what I thought was a wonderful example of user-interface design.

--
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: DEITY TEAM: Ideas (Long)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 14:52:53 -0600
From: Mike Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Ok guys, ready for my comments on dselect? There are some doozies in here,
and some not-so-doozies. Also, there may be many points that can't work 
simply because of the way packages are set up. The ideas are in no 
particular order.


1) Allow "quick install" from floppies
It'd be really nice to have a system for having a single package 
installed on a floppy, or set of floppies in a way where a user
can stick the disk in, and dselect would read and install whatever
is on it. The main reason for this is for the user's ease. If the
package being installed has dependancies, they should be listed 
with some sort of "You need XXX to install this, where can I find
it?" message.

2) "Simple" install
When trying to install debian, I am simply overwhelmed by the number
of packages I have to deal with, and I consider myself to have above
average knowledge of UNIX programs! When first installing Debian, 
a simple walkthrough of Q/A would solve most of these problems. 

EXAMPLE: (inaccurate, but you get the point)
Are you going to access the WWW from this system?[Yes]
What is your prefered Reader?[NETSCAPE]
Are you going to read email on this system?  [Yes]
What is your prefered Reader?[ELM] 
Do you want X installed on this system?  [Yes]
Will you be writing programs for X?  [Yes]

If all questions are displayed at once, some questions can "grey out",
or options become unavailable as each question is answered.

3) Insist on better package descriptions
When digging through packages, I'd frequently come across a package
I don't recognize. I can't even tell if it would be something I'd
want, because there's no description!

4) Graphical Install
It is possible to make a GUI work in text, but often you'll end up
in a situation where too much information is displayed in a manner
that the user just can't comprehend because of all the text on the
screen. I also understand that X may not be an option. Mid-way, you
can use text with IBM-ASCII symbols to make nice borders around
everything to seperate them out evenly.

5) Better keystroke selections
I dont' know how many times I got upset when I selected a package 
with "return" only to exit the selection process. "d" to read more
of the description? "+" "-"?

Here's an idea of what I'm thinking of: (done in non-ibm ascii, because I'm
not on an IBM.. and done without any planning, so I can do better :)
 __  ___  _
/ Location \/ Selection \/ Install \
---/ \
||
|  <-  Base  X11  *Communication*  math  development  games  design  ->  |  
||
|  PACKAGE   Description   Status|
|  - |
|  Elm   A mail reader Installed |
|->Netscape  A WWW Browser SELECTED  |
|  tin   A News reader   |
|  ppp   A communication protocol  Unconfigured  |
|  slip  A communication protocol  FAILED|
|  dip   Manager for SLIP  DE-SELECTED   |
||
||
| Press  on any item to select or de-select it. Press  on any |
| Item to get more detailed information on it.   |
--

In this particular design, you use tab to rotate through the "tabs", left
and right arrows to select the groups of packages you are dealing with, up
and down to scroll through the possible selections, and space to select. 

Return gives the description of the package, as well as a reason for its
status. In the case of slip above, it would search the package and say 
something like:

"file /usr/bin/slip is mis

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-14 Thread Guilherme Soares Zahn 
Well... my personal oppinion surely agrees with Havoc's, and I'm just addind my
$2c...

I sure don't want to see ONLY X-friendly configuration programs, specially 
because
after you get some insight on the matters this proves to be a slow, sometimes
unreliable and, sometimes, even impossible way to configure what you want (just
remember the problem with Win95's hardware configuration... if your hardware is
misconfigured and you can't run the GUI, then you can't hace access to the 
tools that
let you correct the mistake - so you're stuck!)...

On the other hand, the GUI-versions of those tools are of great value to the 
user
that has little time to read the whole documentation about some feature (say, 
SAMBA)
and want to do his learning 'as time allows it', going from a basic setup to an
advanced and optimized one setp over step, in a reliable way... For this 
purpose, you
can have either a well-commented configuration file (and, in the case of SAMBA, 
I've
never seen one that's 100% complete - RedHat's one is good, Debian's one is 
better,
but each one has it own tweaks, and I may want to try a mix of both) OR a
well-documented GUI-tool, like gtksamba, which organizes the parameters in 
groups and
calls the man file for each parameter when asked... This is a great way to do 
your
learning and to walk over the gap that separates the regular user from the power
user... This was the road I have chosen years ago in respect to Windows (using 
the
excellent documentation that the Norton Utilities used to provide for its 
tools), and
that's the road I've chosen to learn more about Linux.

In the perfect world, the GUI tools and the console tools will both be 
available, and
completely independent - i.e., you can choose to install and/or uninstall each 
of
them whenever you want to w/out messing with the other.

...just my $2c...

Guilherme Zahn
(still a 'pseudo' power-user)

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-14 Thread J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\) 
On Mon, Sep 13, 1999 at 16:53:04 -0700, Craig H. Block wrote:
> This counter productive philosophy, started by the biggest and best example
> of what software should not be and you know who I'm talking about, is
> propagating at the expense of the truly important measures.  Extrapolated to
> the end result, it's computer fascism.

See http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/Godwin's-Law.html .

> After reading the last few months worth of newsletters at debian.org, I am
> concerned that the Debian project may be buying into this foolishness.

The project now has a couple of people in it who know to do PR. That doesn't
in any way mean the project is sacrificing its values to marketing. The
Debian project is still what the developers make it. If you disagree with a
direction the project is taking, become a developer and do something about
it (see http://www.debian.org/devel/help).

HTH,
Ray
-- 
Tevens ben ik van mening dat Nederland overdekt dient te worden.

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-14 Thread Havoc Pennington 

Hi,

As someone who's written lots of code toward making free Unices easier to
use, let me just say that I think this supposed conflict between power and
ease of use is total nonsense.

Even if a tool is for power users, it can be pleasant for those users to
learn and use or it can have an atrocious interface from hell. "Atrocious
interface from hell" does not equate to "powerful," just "annoying."

For example, look at "info" or "dselect" - regardless of whether you
personally like them, the many people that _don't_ like them don't like
them because the keystrokes are really stupid and the general
"flow" through the programs doesn't make sense. However, this has _zero_
to do with the power of the tools.

On a programming level, command-line tools are often written in such a way
that adding a GUI frontend is difficult and requires changes to the
command-line stuff. But this is not a fundamental conflict, just poor
planning when writing the command line tool.

Co-existence is very possible, and taking a position on one side or the
other is just pointless.

Havoc

Re: To the Debian Project, IMHO

1999-09-14 Thread NatePuri 
On Mon, Sep 13, 1999 at 04:53:04PM -0700, Craig H. Block wrote:
> After reading the last few months worth of newsletters at debian.org, I am
> concerned that the Debian project may be buying into this foolishness.  My

I think that the debian project will have the best of both worlds.  There will
always be the community driven distribution that we all use.  The corporates
(i.e., Corel) will also have dumbed down packages for the newbie types.

Conceptually it works in a traditional manner.  First, there is the console 
app with all its command-line flags and options.  Then there is the 
graphical front-end (the X version).  This version is more or less about
as hard as the command-line version depending on experience, but equally
as powerful and scriptable.  Then there is the dumbed-down KDE or GNOME
versions that are aimed at newbies.  These versions may have all the 
options of the earlier versions but the basic functions that a newbie would
want are right there on the toolbar.  

I don't see this as a problem.  Use of the KDE/GNOME version does not negate
use of the console version or the X versions.  What I would like to see for
all apps is the following.

One console version package.  One X package. One Gnome and one KDE package.

Then, there could be the really big 'all-in-one' package.  This would come
in two versions.  One ends in KDE; one ends in GNOME.  This is for people
who like to use different things at different times, and it would install
the console, X and (DESKTOP ENVIRONMENT) versions simultaneously.  This is
sort of how the gmc package works.  It installs the console Midnight
Commander and the GNOME/X Midnight Commander at the same time.  This gives
you the flexibility of the console MC, and if you want to toss icons around
you have that option (sometimes it's just easier).

One the one hand, you can say 'damn that's just way too many packages to 
support.'  But wait, we already support multiple versions in this exact manner.
This will be an effort in consolidation and collaboration.  It will also
keep the newbies talking to the vets (i.e., the student/guru relationship)
which is good for everyone.

> hope is that Debian sticks to their guns as a distribution for power users
> and does not jump on the grandmatization bandwagon.  To the Debian
> organization; please don't worry about the unimportant aspects and concentra
> te on the important ones.  I want control, flexibility, stability, and
> content.  I DO NOT care how difficult or time consuming (barring
> problematic) an installation process is.  If my refusal to compromise any of
> these important aspects means I have to spend more time answering questions
> and entering configuration choices during an installation process or even
> editing configuration files by hand, then so be it!

This addresses another issue, configurability.  Just because a package is
installed in a default state (for the newbie) does not prevent you from 
getting into the docs/HOWTOs and learning how to edit the config files by hand.

I would prefer a default installation for newbies, because in general the
person who wrote the default config knows what he/she is doing and can give
a newbie something secure to work with.  After that, I don't have to make
innumerable changes to the lines in the files.  Perhaps I would have to change
just a few.  That's ok by me.

'Configurability' and 'security' issues brings up a recent thread on /. about
whether we should distribute linux in server and workstation versions.
Rather, the server version would just like the workstation version except
with nothing omitted. Another way to say this is that the workstation version
is the newbie version with some of the more difficult and security risky
server packages omitted.  

(just my $0.02)

-- 
NatePuri ("natedawg") 
Certified Law Student
McGeorge School of Law
Sacramento, CA  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ompages.com
http://office.ompages.com/~natedawg
PGP: http://www.ompages.com/PGP.html
UIN: 43504034 
IRC: office.ompages.com #ompages


pgp9qEAug0xql.pgp
Description: PGP signature