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-debug....why 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
