On Thursday 20 December 2001 23:25, you wrote: > Sounds like you want linux to become the next windows. This isn't going to > happen. > > At 11:10 PM 12/20/2001 +0700, you wrote: > >2. Integrated Control Panel. Any setting should be access via Control > > Panel. ANY SETTING! > > Mandrake does it better than nearly any other distribution out there. They > do have a relatively integrated control panel, compared to distributions > like redhat, slackware, etc. webmin will let you configure a ton of stuff, There is a version of it for mandrake > > >3. No more stupid name "xyx -123-xxxx.RPM". Just use "install.exe". Paket > >name will be like this: > > a. \mnt\cdrom\startoffice\install.exe > > b. \mnt\cdrom\kde3.0\install.exe > > c. \mnt\cdrom\koffice2.0\install.exe > > > > Example for StarOffice: > > Below is the example to install StartOffice with NEW Mandrake generation: > > a. Insert cdrom, go to \mnt\cdrom\StartOffice\install.exe > > b. When I access "install.exe" the installation will: > > c. Automatic detect whether I already have previously program > > d. If Yes, the istallation offer me upgrade. If no, just make new > >installation > > Nope. .exe is specifically a windows construct, not a unix one. > StarOffice already does have an install program. Besides which, with > windows you have problems with much larger program downloads (since each > program provides .dll files, which may or may not overwrite existing .dll's > without you knowing about it.) whereas with linux, the libraries are > provided separately, leading to smaller downloads of individual files. > > With rpm, there are plenty of GUI based installers -- rpmdrake, kpackage > and so forth -- it's a lot easier to install something than it used to be. > My first linux was slackware 3.x, and believe me, if you don't like rpms, > you really would not like having to compile network support into the > kernel, or having to compile your favorite desktop, instead of simply > selecting the package in one of the GUI rpm package managers. > > >4. Worsktation is NOT Server! > > > > Why you (Mandrake expert) doesn't understand this simple term? Why put > > any server > > capability in the Worstation? > > It's because linux is a *server* oriented operating system -- so are most > Unix-based operating systems. Linux (Mandrake especially) is inherently > more secure (by default) then Windows NT / 2K. > > > Better (the world already proved this) if you have separate product > >development for > > SERVER and Workstation. So, will be Mandrake Server 3.1 and Mandrake > >Workstation 9.0. > > No. Turbolinux already tried this -- and does not release new software > very often and is very rarely used. Their install set (workstation or > server) is 3 CDs. > > > Why shoul be separate? > > a. Worsktation is NOT Server! > > I'm sorry, but I don't think that's a 'reason' for them being separate, > it's a statement. > > > b. The speed growth of both is different. Workstation grow faster than > >Server > > Not necessarily. The number of servers you need, especially with MS > products, can grow exponentially with the number of users you have. With > Mandrake the way it is, if a company should adopt it as their workstation / > server platform, they have only one distribution to support. As opposed to > the MS solution, where Windows 2000 (for example) has 4 or 5 different > versions, all of which are priced differently. > > > c. More fancy stuf in WS. Server usually SIMPLE but STABLE > > What do you mean by 'fancy' stuff? Servers can have software installed on > them that is anything but simple, especially if they are being used as > connection points for diskless X terminals. > > > d. Easy to developt STABLE and TESTED and FIELD PROVED product because we > >will have > > segmented user who TESTING the product. Example: a secretaty who use > >KOffice never > > understant the SERVER problem but she know what the LASTED problem she > >found with > > KOffice! (But the Net Admin doesn't know this WS problem, he do Server > >control) > > Actually, a Network Administrator has nothing to do with Server control. A > Network Administrator, by definition, deals with a corporate local area > network (or possibly a wide area network)--this typically does not include > servers. > > What you mean, I guess, is a System Administrator, who is the one that > actually deals with the servers (ie, updates, installs, and so forth) > > There are also 'Application Administrators', who typically are in charge of > one or more than one application, and who deal with problems both on the > client (workstation) and the server side. At that point, there is no > distinction between a 'server problem' and a 'workstation problem' -- it's > simply a problem that must be solved. > > > e. Why should I download stupid xxxx.iso 640 MB including the Server > >program? > > I was wasting my time to download 640 MB ISO file only for Mandrake > > 8.3, I just > > want to use Workstation program. > > Mandrake 8.3 doesn't exist, and probably will never exist. Typically > Mandrake releases a .0, .1, and .2, then moves up to the next revision > number. Besides which, you have plenty of options (other downloading the > ISO), like, for example, purchasing them for about $5 - $10 off of > cheapbytes. > > > f. Easy migration from Windows to Mandrake. > > As we know, the big challenge is how to prove that migration to > > Mandrake is as easy > > as Windows? But, I already do small survey to our Secretary, > >Administration Staff and > > our Finance Staff ... the result: Windows easier than Mandrake! BUT > > our Net Admin say: > > Mandrake is better. Hey ... our Net Admin still use MS Word to make > >office report! > > Probably because they've only ever used Microsoft. If one uses Microsoft > all the time, then of course its going to be easier, since it is something > that you've been using. On the other hand, if one uses linux (either > Mandrake, Redhat or any of the other great distributions out there) all the > time, then they will consider linux 'easier to use'. > > You have desktops like KDE and Gnome, both of which have a very > Windows-like GUI--How much easier does a 'migration' have to be? > > > g. Good product mean: usually very DIFFICULT to developt but EASIER to > >use! > > Do you know how much time require to make Microsoft? I don't know. > > No. Good products are not 'very DIFFICULT' to develop. Good products, if > developed correctly (ie, by using some type of Software Engineering model) > can be easier to develop than bad ones. > > Besides which, Mandrake includes over 1,200 packages on its 3 CD set -- > have you ever stopped to consider how long it took to develop gcc, glibc, > or any of the other programs like Koffice or KDE that you seem to take for > granted? > > > h. Text VS GUI > > Let the Net Admin using Text file configuration, but the Secretary > >using GUI interface > > to make any adjusment. I mean should be any different way to use > >for make any > > configuration depent on the purpose. > > The Mandrake install allows you to do a workstation install, which does not > install most of the 'server' packages. > > > i. Do you think I will add RAID 5 in my Workstation. And install Apache > >too? FTP Server? > > This is obviously not a reason, but a series of questions. Yes, I've known > some people that have workstations that have RAID 5, and they do run Apache > and FTP servers off of them. > > > j. Server is NOT Workstation! > > Sorry, but you used 'j' as 'a'. > > >That's not ALL, I still THINKING what I want for New Mandrake, but sorry, > > I can't do the revision because I have very limited Linux knowledge. I am > > JUST A USER not the CREATOR. Sorry, if my opinion TOO IDEAL??? > > Not ideal, but MS-centric. > > Michael -- 11:56am up 23:52, 2 users, load average: 0.32, 0.72, 0.54
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
