> This is exactly what Eberhard said. But I still think jigdo is better than > a > script because a script has so many dependencies to additional tools that it > is quite error prone for the average user. jigdo could be used even by a > novice user that is capable of burning iso images on every platform. >
jigdo is OK for me, but I think just as bad for the average user than a script. The same user group that can handle a script can handle jigdo ....... If you cannot handle a script, then you won't be able to handle jigdo either. The command line level is the same, I assume. > I am afraid most people will still want to be able to have everything, no >> matter if they use it or not. People are like that. They want to ahve, >> meaning feel or see them, so they know it is theirs. > > Sure there are some of these people. But even then you don't have the > packages duplicated on the FTP servers in the inst- source directory and the > images. > >> Again, I like the idea. Just a bit afraid that ythe average person would >> think it to be strange/difficult. > > I am sure it is not more difficult to explain jigdo to the average user than > it is to explain how to burn ISO images. > I must admit I have not seen jigdo on windows, but I assume it is a command line of some sort? If it is I doubt what you say, just since I did work for an ISP helpdesk many years ago and the sort of user you get there is the one we will be getting with Linux's continued success. Such a user is seriously overloaded with the concept of a command line all together. Burning an iso is mainly a wizard driven thing today and is click click done ..... not so jigdo or a script. Both are just as complex. Those users are the ones that do not use bittorrent and will be hammering our servers. Correct me if I am making wrong assumptions in my conclusions. Andreas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
