Le 2010-10-27 21:13, andre999 a écrit :
To focus on package descriptions, which really
*are* of interest only to more advanced users (very few newbies know
enough about Linux to care about minimalist installs), completely misses
the point that there is a lot of other information about what's going on
in the install that *would* be of interest to newbies.
It depends what you put in the package descriptions. Something like "You
really should install this" is totally meaningless to almost everyone.
A good description is not necessarily highly technical. It is really the
application packages that a newbie would want to select, dependancies
will be automatically selected, as in now the case. If a summary
description is clear, that could be sufficient.
But I tend to think that a full description should be used for
application packages.
I agree, the descriptions should be void of personal comments and almost
technical in style but the use of vocabulary should be such that the
vocabulary is easily understood by users.
In the same spirit, we could have a set of package-related ISOs, and one
or more documentation ISOs. If a non-network user wants extended help
and package descriptions in translated format, he obtains these ISOs.
If not, he doesn't. At the start of the install, the user gets a prompt
with checkboxes for each of the possible ISOs, and can indicate which
are available. For any that aren't, the install doesn't even try to use
what's on them. If the install detects enough available unused disk
space, then the first use of any ISO can copy some or all of the ISO to
hard disk for the duration of the install. Any prompt for an ISO has a
way for the user to say he really doesn't have that one, in which case
it is not prompted for again. All this should minimize the amount of
disk-swapping.
I like the idea of more documentation, but I don't really think that
users would really read extended documentation. I think that if they
wanted more then they would look for the website for more description of
the software.
Lots of disks, but minimal disk-swapping ?
Why not a single DVD, and no disk-swapping ?
That answers the objections of those who don't want to have to download
many ISOs to do an install, and also addresses the needs of non-network
users (e.g. small schools) who want a full-featured set of install media
that can be reused repeatedly for friendly installs without network
access. It also minimizes disk-swapping, unless the system is really
tight on space, in which case the install is at least still possible,
albeit with some disk swapping (assuming the user wants to use multiple
ISOs).
Note that schools would generally have the bandwidth to download a DVD.
So little or no need for disk swapping.
If your are talking about primary / secondary schools, then, here in
Canada, the downloading is normally locked down and there is usually not
enough disk space accorded to the students.
The problem with all this is it makes things more complicated. For
Mageia. For new users. But maybe not so much for experienced users with
a large bandwidth. But are these the users we are addressing ?
As always, network users could opt to download dynamically anything they
didn't have ISO media for, with the same provision for caching, if space
allowed.
Localising the package descriptions shouldn't take a lot of space,
compared with localising the software included.
I really don't understand the real advantage of separating the package
description from the package. To save 1% of ISO space ? At what price
complexity ?
my 2 cents :)
- André
I agree, it should be kept as compact as possible so that the people
writing up the descriptions and the packagers don't get caught up in
scheduling conflicts due to the size of description and translations.
Marc
