On Sunday 25 March 2001 17:34, you wrote:
> Hi Greppers & Groaners,
>
> What a sound thread this is I have but one suggestion that
>would help
> thos with only one blade to their prop.
>
> I used to use ESIX SVR4 before I moved (most of the time) to Linux. I
> used the following ploy many a time when I was learning the ropes. Many
> Man pages do have examples if you look for them ( mkisofs is an example)
> if on SVR4 in Xterm all I used to do was list the man page that I wanted
> and then kill the man app which on that system did not clear the screen
> but left you with the part of the man page you needed I could then just
> copy the command line to the command prompt and run it. This taught me
> not only the command but the general syntax of the Bourne shell; of
> course to do this in X is even easier just open two terminals and you
> can cut and paste.
>
> If it was a "Manual Page" standard to have the most commonly used
> command line parameters for the program in the 2 or 3 examples then
> there would be no problem. One could even have a man page of most
> commonly used syntaxes.
>
> The reality is though, that Linux/UNIX is a powerful and complex
> operating system with many tools that can work alone or in combination
> with each other and to get the best out of it requires of necessity a
> full understand of why it is the way it is. To many that subscribe to
> this list it is a thing of beauty and elegance but to the average
> Windows user who wants to change to another OS it can be an absolute
> nightmare (just read some of the "newbie" list).
>
> There is a simple answer to this and that is to make the distros less
> complex. What pray is the point of having five different desktops
> installed on a system. Here's a very simple reason why it's a bad plan.
> If I am running Windows as an ignorant user and find something I don't
> know how to do I can ring up my friend Marcia down the road and ask
> "have you managed to do this yet?" if she hasn't I ring my friend John
> in the next town and low and behold he's done it and talks me through
> the procedure on his screen. I'm sure you see the point.
>
> The real beauty of a free OS implemented in this way is that once people
> become proficient and used to the basic operation of the system they can
> go to any number of websites and download a more sophisticated desktop,
> application or whatever when they desire. I believe that Linux will not
> succeed until some steps are taken to limit it's diversity.
>
> 'Scuse the rant
>
> Regards,
>
> Colin H. Close
"It needs to be simpler, but limiting choice isn't the way to do it," said a
certain linux CEO. I have to agree from my own feelings.
Having the choices is what linux is all about. For example, most developers
believe strongly in free software, so strongly that soon you will see
Netscape disappear from the downloadable distro, and you will not see new
software added to the downloadables that have license problems. We are
hoping some free browser will soon be able to provide equal functionality,
and when it does....
But does that mean you cannot use non-free software with the distro? Not at
all. You can rpm the NVidia 3D accelerator right off our CD of commercial
software in the release that's being prepared, because we want you to be free
to choose, even if you choose non-free software. On the other hand, we
certainly are not going to promote it and we will continue to solicit your
support to write to NVidia and ask them to change their policy so we can
really support the card.
But there is a distro, selling rather poorly, which has a single desktop.
And there is another, which used to be around, that took the desktop in its
own direction and did not share back the results, with a resulting "niceness"
for the user that slammed into a dead end when the desktop was enhanced by
the desktop makers.
And there is a third distro that has a single desktop which is available. It
does not have much of a following, and it has problems staying current
without the resources needed to do so, but it is available in a very small
size, comparatively speaking, about 150Mb.
We are doing a balancing act between free software and the need to pay
internet fees and employees and give investors returns on their dollars. We
see that those who have limited choice, with the exception of a predatory
company like Microsoft, which filled a gap that does not now exist, just
haven't done well at all in customer satisfaction and sales. (And Microsoft
has done well only in sales, I believe. I have never met a happy Microsoft
customer, and only one system administrator who thought it was great.)
Well, we want to listen to our customers. If you find a few people who want
a simple distro, simple in terms of pre-chosen software, we can make a couple
and probably even keep them reasonably updated, as subsets of our main distro.
In the new release, the customer can roll his own. If he wants a KDE
Desktop, he can have it. If he wants GNOME, he can have it. If he wants to
change to a different menu structure (mostly for GNOME), he can do that. If
he wants only a server; it works, though it may install a minimal graphical
desktop.
But the problem for the customer remains--choices are not made for him. I
think that "problem" is permanent with this distro. It is part of the
culture of this effort.
As for simplicity, and examples... That is what mandrakecampus and
mandrakeexert are supposed to be about. put a www before and a com after,
and check them out--still in formative stages.
Civileme
