-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 8 Oct 2003, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > > >>That's not obvious to me. Packages (programs) installation has >>been simplified in rpmdrake2 (ending up with, among others, >>current two-different-interfaces which is so critized - even if >>it's logical and drastically simplifies the GUI). Simple >>categories are available, good documentation in powerpack manuals >>and online (and even with a clickable "Help" button now). >> >>If newbies don't use Packages Installation, I think it has more >>to do with the fact that a computer is frightening in general - >>they won't use other tools as well, outside of mozilla and >>evolution and openoffice, until a trusted computer literate >>friend shows them another one - probably not an administration >>one. >> >>And I'm sure many other persons use rpmdrake2 and are very happy >>with it. > > rpmdrake2 is wonderful. But, it still keeps surprising me how people > think. The last few days I've been helping a person trying to get mandrake > running. He's not so computer illiterate, but only knows windows and dos. > Somehow, he tried to install all kinds of programs from source or binary > tarbal, without even trying to use rpmdrake (ofcourse he might have not > found the programs he was looking for because only 1 CD was added as > media, since he only downloaded the first CD).
But, which media are available are of no consequence, if the user didn't even try rpmdrake ... The problem is that Windows users are used to getting "free software" (really "Shareware" or "freeware") by downloading from obscure sites on the internet. Maybe the first thing that a new user should see is "Mandrake Linux most likely includes more than 95% of the software you will ever need to use, but not all of it is installed by default. Use the Mandrake Control Center (or rpmdrake) to install more software that is included in the distribution.", or something to that effect. > So could rpmdrake > provide info on packages, even if there is no media available for it? > How? Telepathy? > >>I fail to see how merging two functionalities would end up with >>an easier tool, whereas this suggestion keeps poping up. I think >>people design interfaces they'd like to use, and since they are >>not newbies, we end up with that suggestion. > > I see a long thread coming again:) I do want to comment two things: > -Real newbies are few, people know the add/remove stuff of windows > -I do see the logical distinction, but I also see disadvantages of current > approach. Perhaps a compromis is possible, if we all think very hard:) > > >>> - This application should feature _programs_, not >>>_packages_ >>>This is not just about terminology. What I mean is: >>>list only packages that are programs and hide >>>everything else. A definition of a program is "a >>>package that has one or more menu entries". E.g. if >>>it's not in the menus, it's not a program and >>>therefore shouldn't be listed. >>>"So what do we do with those other packages", you ask? >> >>I feel that is a good proposal. I don't know the best way to >>integrate this suggestion in rpmdrake though. Maybe another >>"sorting method". Maybe the default one (although the default one >>is already "mandrake choices" e.g. a short selected list of >>packages that are sensible to newbies). > > i like it as well. Something like we have in the menu? I want to play > video, listen music, type a letter? > Most things can be found quite easily by searching the summary (I have tried a few searches), however some summaries could be better ... but then these are problems with the packages, not rpmdrake. > >>I don't know. Between 7.0 and 7.1 times we decided for the Menu >>and Rpm-Groups new architecture, which is a bit different, I >>don't know why because I didn't decided for them. Warly maybe you >>remember? > > o it would be so nice to have the exact same groups in both. I > sometimes have to check the files list of the rpms to find the executable > I need (or go through the whole menu). > And it would make packaging easier, instead of having to look the groups up in the mandrake rpm howto if I am not sure, I could look in the menu ... This could also be used by rpmdrake to tell the user where to find the menu entry ... Another thing that might be useful is to be able to launch the program in the menu entry for a package that is installed, but the problem is, who do you run it as? It's fine when using rpmdrake in user mode, but when running as root it could be a problem ... > >>We decided for Media on this list around 3 months ago, this was a >>sort of "community decision" I'd say, so I think it's >>counter-productive to change them all again, except of course if >>everyone on this list would strongly agree with "channels" >>instead of "media" (which I personally don't, but I may be the >>only one ;p). > > I don't like channels either, actually, i liked source,but I can live with > media. Channel is confusing IMHO. Media is more descriptive, the problem people have with it is due to the common uses of it (ie "Installation media" often refers to CD etc so people don't think further), compared to the full meaning (newspaper is a medium, internet is a medium etc etc). >>> - Add more sources/media/channels automatically >>>I know that Mandrake will never implement this, but >>>what the hell :) one can dream. >>>The biggest problem with RpmDrake is that sources are >>>still too complicated to configure. Therefore I >> >>Olivier Thauvin's easy-urpmi should be integrated in the media >>configuration tool, when I have time :/ however I'm not very much >>in favor of pushing newbies to use external packages (at the time >>cooker was easily addable graphically, so many people broke their >>system by trying to install "programs ugrades"). > > It would be really wonderful if it could be integrated. But make it > difficult to add non-compatible sources (other arches, version, etc). I think this is already done. But, there are some other problems: - -no proxy support (AFAIK) - -refuses to not try and get the media list from the internet The combination of these two problems (and the fact that urpmi.web also wants to get media lits from the internet) makes it difficult to deploy it easily in a network which has several urpmi media, but no easy access to the internet (for example here at the university, we have 9.1, cooker, and I have a PLF also, but we can't access the internet without an interactive program, and then ideally we must use the proxy too). Regards, Buchan - -- |--------------Another happy Mandrake Club member--------------| Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/g/sYrJK6UGDSBKcRAoxRAKCBOXbyh7//dFFzKHoPIk3P7DdkEwCgmS/0 b4r42T/P86w5aUoPovS18UE= =rUbb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ***************************************************************** Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. *****************************************************************
