On 16 Aug 2002 12:12:41 +0200 Michel Fodje <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 10:47, Chris Higgins wrote: > > Mandrake Linux is what I use on my desktop, I put redhat or > > debian on servers. I'm considering dropping Mandrake for my > > desktop - and let me take a second to explain why. > > > > Unix style operating systems are based on a very different > > OS architecture to Windows style systems. This is seen > > clearly in the component model for applications. Loads > > of little applications that do a specific job well. > > Loads of lightweight processes that can communicate with > > each other to deliver an overall solution. > > I agree that the underlying systems are very different but the overall > solution is what we are concerned about. A component model does not > mean that we should have two programs, one for receiving mail and one > for sending mail, or separate a word processor in to a text editor, > and all what not, to get the same thing done. People expect all word > processors to work in a similar manner. I agree completely . > There is very little room for innovation here. I disagree (gently) > > The 'power' of the Unix approach is that you are not > > forced to take any single path to solve your problem, > > you choose the path that means most to you - the one > > that best fits your needs. > > How is this different from choosing to use KDE rather than GNOME or a > text console? Or Choosing to use Mozilla instead of IE or Eudora > instead of Outlook under windows? It's not, but you highlight my point in your reponse "KDE rather than GNOME"... Why pick one or the other ? Why have to make that choice ? I'd be a lot happier with just 'X windows' and pick whatever KDE apps you want, and whatever Gnome apps you want. Rather than at the moment having to install both KDE and Gnome and then choose a single environment rather than mix and match the ones that you want. > > > The Windows approach is clearly different, it says > > "there shall be only one way, and you will use it". > > > Again despite my distaste for M$, I don't see any truth in this > statement -- could you provide some evidence to support this? Microsoft are designing / developing and pushing a single environment for end users. This is typified by the recent marketing push for the Windows 'Experience'. They don't want anything other than their own software on their operating system. They want everything then to look / act and feel exactly the same way. I'm not saying that this is wrong, just different to the traditional Unix way - where choice is a major component (with all the issues that brings) > > > The windows approach makes it easier for beginners > > to get a handle on - simply because they have no > > choice, and no-one else has any choice in how things > > are done.. So beginners and experts alike have to > > do things the same way. > > I think you, as well as many others are incorrectly comparing windows > (The OS) with a Linux distribution which is more than just an OS. We're talking about new users here, the distinction is too subtle to be understood. I've been in computing for over 20 years, I know that a linux distribution is vastly more than just an operating system. However the distributions are being marketed and promoted as just that - a replacement operating system for your computer. > Think of a barebones Linux OS and you may realize that there not as > much choice as you think. The problem is, there is no choice > available for beginners in Linux (OS) and that is what Mandrake is > trying to create IMHO. There is loads of choice with a bare-bones linux os... I pick my kernel version , BSD or SysV init scripts, I pick my shell (tcsh/csh/bash/sh/ksh...), I choose a filesystem layout that fits my needs... I choose my servers - email - sendmail / postfix / exim / etc... > > > The recent push of Linux to the Desktop taken the > > windows approach, and we're trying to build a > > huge single monolith of an operating system without > > all the flexibility of the back-end.. > > Again confusing the OS with the distribution Doesn't invalidate the point though :-) > > > Gnome is a classic example , if you install gnome > > then to hell with you if you don't want Nautilus. > > Choice is being lost.. > > Gnome is a desktop environment, if you don't want a DE don't install > GNOME or KDE or XFE. just install a window manager and run what ever > apps you want. If you think you should be able to disable the file > manager in a DE just file a bug report with that project. I don't ... I just have a window manager running on X. > > > I can't stand Aurora (personally) but I can quite > > happily accept that it is probably useful for some > > people out there. > > I can't stand it either but I don't want to see [ok] messages unless I > have to. The only use for those messages is for feedback, which can > be replaced like mandrake did already with bootsplash. However I think > there is more room for improvement there. It's not a matter of choice. It is a matter of choice - people need to be able to choose.. If I want Aurora - then I should be able to install it. I do agree with you that the default for beginners should be nice blank screen, or something similar... but if a beginner wants to step up to intermediate then they should have that choice.. and if that means that they get a graphical representation of the boot sequence, then it should be available as an option. If they want to scrap the lot and see the init scripts run as usual then they should have that choice too. > Its a matter of something that Aurora does that you don't like. If > just worked the way you expected, you won't be interested in wether > you are running Aurora or bootsplash. So again it is the interface. > > > I fully accept that the 'beginner' install needs to > > make most of the choices for the end user, and that > > the expert install needs to allow people to > > thrash the hell out of their machine - but maybe > > it's time for an 'intermediate' install. > I don't think an imtermediate install with provide anything extra to > the user experience. You either know what you are doing or not. There > is no'kinda-sorta'. Until the beginners want to start looking under the hood, but don't want to have to submit kernel patches.. There is a huge ground between beginner and expert, and we need to allow people explore the path. Simply saing that your either know what you are doing or not is very naive, and typifies the elitist attitude that causes most beginners to throw their hands up in despair. > > Linux has taken on the world because it offered > > choices... Let's not kill Mandrake because we fail > > to continue offering choices. > You did not explain why you use Mandrake for the desktop and redhat on > servers. I'm interested to hear your explanation of why Mandrake > is/was good enough for your desktop and not redhat or debian. I started using linux in 1992, so I've been through the hoops of building my own installs from scratch.. Redhat/Debian suited my server requirements, and Mandrake suited my desktop needs. Personal preferences / familarity and choice. > > > Just my 0.02 Euro > -- Chris Higgins Horizon e: chris.higgins at hts.horizon.ie tel: +353-1-6204900 fax: +353-1-6204901
