On Tue, 9 May 2000, Steven wrote:
> No. If the user already has ppp configured, then
> Arachne should not configure it again. This is a
> sure way to annoy experienced Linux users.
Of course, this is what I am saying. And Arachne does the same for DOS:
if you already have any packet driver (for ethernet card or dialup PPP)
present in your system, you don't have to use Arachne's PPP wizard for
DOS. I added wizard only because there were too many users complaining
that they don't know how to connect to Internet...
> The vast majority of Linux users will already
> have ppp configured. And the remainder will
> have a ppp configuration tool in their distribution.
> This tool will be more appropriate than any Arachne
> wizard.
Such PPP tool usually require X11 to run, and what's worse, both PPP
frontends I know usually are parts of GNOME/KDE desktops.
And I
> Linux is not DOS. Every full Linux distribution
> comes with ppp configuration tools and READMEs.
Nobody really reads READMEs, because there are tons of them ;-)
And in fact, I am not sure that it was good that Linux got oriented only
on strict Unix/POSIX compliance: of course, DOS binary compatibility would
be too big performance and security flaw. But for example I think that
"SYSTEM V" scheme of runlevels and init scripts is too complex for single
users workstations, and that it is not easy to understand and use for most
users. And there are definitely some very useful system calls in DOS,
which are missing in Linux, which for example uselessly emulates ANSI or
VT100 terminal escape sequences even for console; I think direct console
access makes sense for fullscreen applications...
> In contrast, the DOS installation disks do not
> include ppp and many DOS users do not have ppp
> configuration tools on their systems.
But many DOS users do. And don't forget that I would like to make my own
mini-distribution of Linux, which will use Arachne as graphical
frontend...
> It is, therefore, very useful for Arachne to do
> ppp configuration for DOS users. But this is
> _not_ useful for Linux users.
It useful for Linux newbies, and as I would like to see much more Windows
and DOS users move to Linux, I am willing to offer them as user friendly
tools as they are already used to. If you want to help me with that, you
are welcome, if you think that Linux is good because it is hard to
configure, it is your problem. Hardcore Linux users had plenty of time to
come with fullscreen graphical non-X based web browser, which would as
user-unfriendly as they like applications to be, and they can still try to
write some. But I am programmer who specializes on user interface, so I
really like writing user-friendly front ends for cryptical configuration
files or so... Howgh.
--
http://arachne.cz/ (Arachne Labs: internet - software - linux - mp3)
