On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Pixel wrote:
> we don't think this as user-friendly. Either a server is useful and should be
> enabled, or it is not and should not be installed (and the server must be kind
> of hard to install).
It is *THIS* point that's important here. "Either a server is useful and
should be enabled, or it is not and should not be installed" is a
viewpoint from developers, as well as experienced users. I'm afraid 90%
users out there are clueless, and think, "hey, we can install everything
first, and investigate what it is at some time later. I don't know what
those name means, but it's interesting. It will probably be useful in
future."
And it get r00ted soon.
And clueless users complain: "Linux is worthless. They are HACKED so
easily, even worse than Windows. I regret my choice of installing
linux. Blah blah blah......." (don't want to repeat Prana's words)
I'm not sure, if it's decided by management level, then I can say nothing
(since managers are supposed not to have any knowledge about what they are
deciding; not so sure in other countries, but in Hong Kong it's 101%
so); however, if it's decided by developers, I'd be rather sad, since a
majority of users' action is not even considered before making conclusion.
Abel Cheung
