digiryde wrote: > > This is my opinion..... > > I sit on both edges of the OS fence (I use M$ aat work and Linux at home.) > Unfortunately, I can not see giving most of the users I work with any linux > packages at all. They would never get past the installations. Does this > mean they are ignorant. Yep! But, you would not want me doing brain > surgery either. > > I think LM should be working towards an "ignorant user" install option as > well (I like the ideas in the previous message!). If you really want to > convince the companies of "proprietary products" that the platform is one > they need to pay attention to, then we have to convince the general public > of the value of Linux as well. That is never going to happen when they can > not do the first 5% (installation) in relative ease and lack of thought. M$ > has the right idea when it comes to that 95% of the market that is computer > tech illiterate. They take away the choices. It keeps them (the user) from > being overwhelmed. The whole point of this is that it would cater for users. Most people would NOT choose "custom/expert server" and be prompted with a choice of samba/dns/dhcp/sql etc, but a typical MCSE who hasn't might, and would find this much better than trying to find out what samba is useful for. > To me, an "ignorant user" pacakge would come with a desktop or two to choose > from at install time, but only one gets installed. Yeah - this flies in the > face of what most of us want on our systems. But, before we are going to > get the "masses" to use Linux/Un*x of any type, the confusion of > installation (read too many choices) has to vanish. The installation > package would also contain the mainstream "products" that are being used and > agressively developed in the Linux/Un*x world. But, only one or two choices > from each type, and GUI based. Embrace what has worked for M$ (ease of use > up front, limited choices to the end user, ...) and extend it beyond their > ability (Read stability, powere, etc in addition). I hate being forced to > make money on M$ products, and would love to see M$ replaced with a sane > platform. Believe it or not, it starts at the installation for most of my > users. These users would choose "desktop" and be presented with the choice of office/web/email/productivity/multimedia/themes/games/. If someone can't realize what these are used for, they should consider whether they are capable of doing brain surgery or whatever it is they do (even being a secretary!). Most servers wouldn't have these installed, unless it's a "terminal server" which could even be another type of installation. I just made a detailed list of the kind of stuff I would like to see, since this is where I spend most of my time choosing packages (we run samba mostly, no NFS, no DNS, no DHCP, but do run SQL, apache.) Buchan > > > > > > > Larry Marshall wrote: > > > > > > > Keep all the packages up-to-date > > > > > > Probably not a popular opinion but it makes more sense to keep most of > > > those packages one version behind the cutting edge in your official > > > distributions. All you need to do is look at what's going on right now > > > with RH7.0 to see that being on the edge can spell lots of trouble. If > > > you're going after the Windows user you can't have things crashing and > > > being incompatible as they just aren't going to buy into the "download > > > this and compile" model. > > [snipping my own drivel ...] -- |--------------------------------------------------------------| Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone +27824722231 email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Centre for Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za South Africas first satellite: http://sunsat.ee.sun.ac.za Control Models http://www.control.co.za |----------------Registered Linux User #182071-----------------|
Keep in touch with http://mandrakeforum.com: Subscribe the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" mailing list.
