Re: Re: proficiency-level tag for debian packages
I think it's a great idea, but the criteria should be picked more conceptually, i.e. with respect to the level of learning curve. E.g. we could differentiate: GUI or interactive console users command line with necessary manual lookup for options highly customizable software (like emacs and most of server services) advanced with knowledge of debian-way doing things expert -- debian developer There's already some differentiation done somewhere in installer (where one selects the level/number of messages/question to be asked), reportbug utility. marius -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: proficiency-level tag for debian packages
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:41:20PM +0200, Mark Edgington wrote: For example, a package like OpenOffice or Firefox are end-user applications which most users (even those completely unfamiliar with linux) would have a good chance at understanding and being able to use. On the other hand, a package like nmap might not be something my Grandma would be wanting to use every day, and thus it might be better to have a higher proficiency-level rating for such a package. The motivation for such a thing is that it would make it possible for package-management tools to operate in an easy mode which would only display (or display in a separate category) packages which have a proficiency-rating x. This would be very handy in that it would permit using Debian and an apt frontend like synaptic to make it easy for more-or-less computer-illiterate people to install new packages which match their skill-level, without having to wade through hundreds of libraries and technical tools which they would never use. During Debtags[1] meditation, I've been thinking about this a lot. However, it's hard to measure easyness universally enough. For example, I consider openoffice more complicated than abiword, which is more complicated than gedit, for writing text. However, I consider gedit more complicated than abiword, which is more complicated than openoffice, for formatting text. One could say that tuxpaint is simpler than gimp. A graphic designer probably finds gimp to be easier to use than tuxpaint for photo-editing, though. And yet, one can say that emacs is the easiest of it all, because you just have to learn one tool to do everything :) So, my idea on this for Debtags is to delegate this kind of categorization to Custom Debian Distributions. This is because CDDs know who their users are, and know what's appropriate and what's complicated for them. I consider this to be a very good way of having all possibly controversial categorization (easyness, beauty, appropriateness, politeness...) to have a chance of existing when they are needed, without trying to undergo the impossible (or dubious) task of taking decisions that pretend being universal when they cannot be. If you are interested in helping on this, please join [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2], although it's not clear yet how to properly implement CDD-specific tagging and it could be quite a complicated first task to pick up. Ciao, Enrico [1] http://debtags.alioth.debian.org [2] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
proficiency-level tag for debian packages
Pardon me if this has already been discussed, but I wonder if there should be a tag in debian packages indicating the a minimum proficiency level that a user should have in order for a package to be useful to the user. For example, a package like OpenOffice or Firefox are end-user applications which most users (even those completely unfamiliar with linux) would have a good chance at understanding and being able to use. On the other hand, a package like nmap might not be something my Grandma would be wanting to use every day, and thus it might be better to have a higher proficiency-level rating for such a package. The motivation for such a thing is that it would make it possible for package-management tools to operate in an easy mode which would only display (or display in a separate category) packages which have a proficiency-rating x. This would be very handy in that it would permit using Debian and an apt frontend like synaptic to make it easy for more-or-less computer-illiterate people to install new packages which match their skill-level, without having to wade through hundreds of libraries and technical tools which they would never use. Perhaps there's a better way to accomplish this, but the ability to limit the display of packages in this manner is something that it seems would be beneficial to have. -Mark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: proficiency-level tag for debian packages
El Martes 31 Mayo 2005 19:41, Mark Edgington escribió: Pardon me if this has already been discussed, but I wonder if there should be a tag in debian packages indicating the a minimum proficiency level that a user should have in order for a package to be useful to the user. For example, a package like OpenOffice or Firefox are end-user applications which most users (even those completely unfamiliar with linux) would have a good chance at understanding and being able to use. On the other hand, a package like nmap might not be something my Grandma would be wanting to use every day, and thus it might be better to have a higher proficiency-level rating for such a package. The motivation for such a thing is that it would make it possible for package-management tools to operate in an easy mode which would only display (or display in a separate category) packages which have a proficiency-rating x. This would be very handy in that it would permit using Debian and an apt frontend like synaptic to make it easy for more-or-less computer-illiterate people to install new packages which match their skill-level, without having to wade th rough hundreds of libraries and technical tools which they would never use. Perhaps there's a better way to accomplish this, but the ability to limit the display of packages in this manner is something that it seems would be beneficial to have. -Mark I find it a quite interesting idea. If it was implemented, there should be an scale, so that maintainers have some reference in order to tag their packages. Something similar to: Firefox, OpenOffice, koffice, gxine - 100 Thunderbird, Kmail, Evolution - 95 Dia, Inkscape, Gimp, - 90 konsole, gnome-terminal - 50 Libraries - 0 Of course, such scale should be further discussed and studied than my fast-done one... Cesar
Re: proficiency-level tag for debian packages
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 19:06, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote: El Martes 31 Mayo 2005 19:41, Mark Edgington escribió: Pardon me if this has already been discussed, but I wonder if there should be a tag in debian packages indicating the a minimum proficiency level that a user should have in order for a package to be useful to the user. For example, a package like OpenOffice or Firefox are end-user applications which most users (even those completely unfamiliar with linux) would have a good chance at understanding and being able to use. On the other hand, a package like nmap might not be something my Grandma would be wanting to use every day, and thus it might be better to have a higher proficiency-level rating for such a package. The motivation for such a thing is that it would make it possible for package-management tools to operate in an easy mode which would only display (or display in a separate category) packages which have a proficiency-rating x. This would be very handy in that it would permit using Debian and an apt frontend like synaptic to make it easy for more-or-less computer-illiterate people to install new packages which match their skill-level, without having to wade th rough hundreds of libraries and technical tools which they would never use. Perhaps there's a better way to accomplish this, but the ability to limit the display of packages in this manner is something that it seems would be beneficial to have. -Mark I find it a quite interesting idea. If it was implemented, there should be an scale, so that maintainers have some reference in order to tag their packages. This would be rather arbitrary and probably be liable to cause disagreements. I think you could get much the same affect with some well chosen tags and debtags. e.g. you could filter on: command line only tools enterprise tools (e.g. groupware, RDBMS) scientific tools (e.g. octave, R) sysadmin tools (e.g. mrtg) Alternatively create a custom distro based on Debian with only the required packages installed by default.
Re: proficiency-level tag for debian packages
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:09:38PM +0100, Will Newton wrote: On Tuesday 31 May 2005 19:06, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote: I find it a quite interesting idea. If it was implemented, there should be an scale, so that maintainers have some reference in order to tag their packages. This would be rather arbitrary and probably be liable to cause disagreements. Not much more so than with the priorities for the alternatives system. I find this quite an interesting idea, really. I think you could get much the same affect with some well chosen tags and debtags. e.g. you could filter on: command line only tools enterprise tools (e.g. groupware, RDBMS) scientific tools (e.g. octave, R) sysadmin tools (e.g. mrtg) That could work too; however, in that case the proviciency level of your filter would need to be pretty expert-ish, I'm afraid. Which would defeat the purpose, kinda. -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: proficiency-level tag for debian packages
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 19:55, Wouter Verhelst wrote: This would be rather arbitrary and probably be liable to cause disagreements. Not much more so than with the priorities for the alternatives system. I find this quite an interesting idea, really. Alternatives are down a fairly narrow axis - is text editor X more appropriate to install by default than editor Y which can be argued quite sensibly along the lines of popularity or ease of use for the novice. Is KMail easier to use than the Gimp? Does that question even make sense to ask? command line only tools enterprise tools (e.g. groupware, RDBMS) scientific tools (e.g. octave, R) sysadmin tools (e.g. mrtg) That could work too; however, in that case the proviciency level of your filter would need to be pretty expert-ish, I'm afraid. Which would defeat the purpose, kinda. I'm not sure I understand your meaning, could you expand on that a little? I was suggesting that an install that is tagged novice or similar would not by default show packages with those tags in listings and searches, installing them only as dependencies. The only user intervention required would be to enable some kind of expert mode to get at the hidden packages. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: proficiency-level tag for debian packages
Will Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This would be rather arbitrary and probably be liable to cause disagreements. I think you could get much the same affect with some well chosen tags and debtags. e.g. you could filter on: command line only tools enterprise tools (e.g. groupware, RDBMS) scientific tools (e.g. octave, R) sysadmin tools (e.g. mrtg) Even within these categories there is some need for finer grain. For example, groupware clients are mostly easy, end-user, corporate groupware servers are mostly impossible, sysadmin, corporate, server But debtags should cope with this? I can see an installer screen like the old tasksel menu, where I can say to someone over the phone: Yes, now the installer should have brought up a long list of words with tick-boxes by them. Select easy, desktop, internet, end-user, corporate and OurLocalPackages. Now click [Install All Relevant] cheers, Rich. -- rich walker | Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED] technical director 251 Liverpool Road | need a Hand? London N1 1LX | +UK 20 7700 2487 www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: proficiency-level tag for debian packages
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 20:07, Rich Walker wrote: Even within these categories there is some need for finer grain. For example, groupware clients are mostly easy, end-user, corporate groupware servers are mostly impossible, sysadmin, corporate, server If you are installing a groupware server you probably want to do more research than that. Groupware clients like evolution and kmail I would guess would come under the end-user classification. But debtags should cope with this? Debtags would cope with the scheme I proposed above, which I would not suggest would be 100% ideal, but is probably an 80/20 solution. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: proficiency-level tag for debian packages
Will Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tuesday 31 May 2005 20:07, Rich Walker wrote: Even within these categories there is some need for finer grain. For example, groupware clients are mostly easy, end-user, corporate groupware servers are mostly impossible, sysadmin, corporate, server If you are installing a groupware server you probably want to do more research than that. Hence the impossible tag. Having attempted to install a bunch of groupware servers on a machine, I'd agree with you that More Research Is Needed - but having a tag that tells you you only want to do this if you are a wizard will at least ensure others don't try without fair warning :- Groupware clients like evolution and kmail I would guess would come under the end-user classification. Yes, I just like the idea of being able to filter on multiple keys simultaneously. easy + ( end-user | corporate ) you would expect to install, say, the Mozilla packages, some kind of LDAP support, DHCP-clients, and so on. But debtags should cope with this? Debtags would cope with the scheme I proposed above, which I would not suggest would be 100% ideal, but is probably an 80/20 solution. Better than 0! cheers, Rich. -- rich walker | Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED] technical director 251 Liverpool Road | need a Hand? London N1 1LX | +UK 20 7700 2487 www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
