RE: Install Critique

[George Bonser <grep@oriole.sbay.org>]

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Rick wrote:

> I explained this to you "privately" yet the concept still evades you, or you
> are just ignoring it.  You see RTFM and RTFRM as a prerquesite to using *nix and
> find fault with DOS/Windows users for not doing this.  I would agree that it is
> the best course to take but it isn't the way of the computer world any more.

There is no point in producing documentation if the assumption is that the
user will not read it. If your goal is Microsoft Linux, good luck. There
are simply some concepts about linux that WILL make it more difficult than
Win95 just as WinNT Server is more difficult than Workstation.  

In a way we need to wake up and smell the coffee.  Linux is a multiuser,
server capable platform that is not going to be as simple to operate as a
single-user client platform.

I have been avoiding a pissing contest but I need to make some views
clear.  Does Win95 partition your disk for you?  Hell no.  If it does not
find a FAT partition, it reformats your drive. If you want to partition
it, you need to do that manually with another program.

If the goal is to produce an operating system that installs itself and
does not allow the user to make a mistake while preserving all existing
operating systems on the disk AND installing itself correctly no matter
what environent the user is in ( are you going to have news and need a
huge /var partition, FTP and need a huge /home partition? ) you are
inhaling.  SOME THINGS are simply going to have to be specified by the
user and that user IS going to have to read some documents and have an
idea of what they are doing.

> 
> Why do you suppose they invented plug-n-play?  Why do you suppose systems come
> with the software pre-installed?  Why do you suppose Debian has dselect, dpkg,
> dpkg-ftp, and make-kpkg?  Why do you suppose M$ has such a huge clientel?

M$ has a huge clientel because they killel all competition with illegal
practices back in the DOS/Win3 days.

M$ is going to be seriously hurting very shortly (around the first of next
year) due to a few different things: 1) The Sun UltraSPARC-5 with Solaris
2.6 for $3000. This will stop NT penetration into Unix houses dead. 2)
Caldera's anti-trust suit that was just ammended last week to include
Win95 and is scheduled for jury trial in November. 3) Java on the server.
Forget Java on the client, IBM and HP have now joined Sun in the concept
of Java on the server. No more updating 1000 PC workstations with the
latest upgrade of a spreadsheet program ... you update one program on the
server. Coupled with deployment of gigabit ethernet on the corporate
network, the client downloads the app whenever they enter click the icon. 

M$ will likely own the single user desktop but Linux can easilly own the
corporate desktop as a "fat" client. Linux executes Java as native binary
and is aware of certian concepts such as NFS, automounting, NIS, etc.


> 
> Do the words ease of use come to mind at all?  How about intuitive?

Fine, but don't try to make it read the user's mind.  Have you ever
installed OS/2 Warp? One of the reasons that it is difficult is that IBM
went to great pains to allow you to keep your Windows partition. The user
HAS to read the documentation if they are to install without damaging the
existing system. There are just too many choices. To some extent the user
HAS to know what they are doing.  Linux will never be for the totally
clueless any more than a jet fighter is for the average auto driver. I
would rather that the idiots STAY with windows. Windows is the operating
system for idiots.


> Have you ever installed a DOS/Windows program?  Even in the old Win2x DOS3x
> days the installation process was normally printed on the label of the first
> disk, it's hard to remember, are you ready?

Yeah, the installation process goes like this .... insert disk and type
a:\install

The install program looks at your disk, if it does not see a DOS
partition, it formats the drive.  

> 
>         To install place disk 1 (install disk) in floppy drive and type
>         a:\install
> 
> Now in Windows 95 you put a CDROM in and it has autorun which does it for you. 
> Or you do install new software and it searches your CDROM's and flopies for the
> install/setup file and prompts you to run it.

Yeah, and if it does not find a Windows partition, it formats the drive.

> 
> Hmmm?  Does this mean that those people are stupid for not RTFM or RTFRM?

No, it means that the OS is very arrogant and "knows what is best for
them".

> Could this mean that they are used to a "user-friendly" approach to installing
> software?  Is this a devious plot by M$ to increase the computer illiteracy of
> the public so they can't use other OS's that believe they should RTFM or RTFRM
> for an hour or more before installing their new software?

The only reason that MS does not require you to read 1/2hour of
documentation is that if you install Win95 on a disk formatted for
FreeBSD, it simply reformats it.  It does not ask, it just does it.

> 
> - -> I have also had a lot more experiance with unix and variants than I have
> - -> with DOS/Win and OS/2.
> 
> I have also had more experience with unix variants than with DOS/Windows and
> OS/2.  It doesn't mean I'm incapable of thinking in simple end-user terms,
> wether it be a *nix end-user or DOS/Windows end-user.

Oh, well, Linux is not going to ever get as simple as Windows.  It just
has more capability. It has more knobs.  You ARE going to have to read the
instruction manual.  If you think differently, you are kidding yourself.
Yes, we can make it much better and reduce the frustration level but we
can not make installation completely turn-key unless we make arrogant
assumptions about the users wishes.

> If I'm able to point at my distro of choice and Linux and say "that is just
> completely wrong.  It needs to be easy enough that my mother could do it". 
> Then I'm ahead of the game.  I can weed out those problems right off the bat. 
> And that doen't mean making it good enough for *my* tasts.  It means making it
> idiot proof.

"Just when you think you have gotten it idiot proof, they invent a better
idiot". 

I would rather start the installation process with a screen along the
lines of ...

STOP! You are about to install a very powerful operating system that puts
you in complete control of the system.  It makes only a few basic
assumptions and will allow you to destroy an existing operating system if
you command it to.  Please read the installation documentation BEFORE you
continue. Failing to do so could result in the overwriting of any existing
partitions if you tell it to. 


> Getting SEUL to the point that they don't have to RTFM or RTFRM should be a
> high priority goal.

And that is never going to happen with Linux any more than it will never
happen with NT Server, or OS/2 Server, or SCO, or Solaris, or any other
multiuser, multitasking operating system.  

I have in my lap at the moment a 968 page text on NT Server. A multiuser
OS is never going to be as easy as DOS ... it simply can not be, there is
too much admin, too many concepts, Unix is too large for anyone to
understand all of.  You can GUI a lot of it but at some point the user is
going to have to have a fundamental concept of what they are doing or they
are going to be hopelessly lost.


George Bonser 
If NT is the answer, you didn't understand the question. (NOTE: Stolen sig)
http://www.debian.org
Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.

===
SEUL-Leaders list, seul-leaders-request@seul.org
===