RE: Install Critique

[Rick <rickya@siservices.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


On 11-Feb-98 George Bonser wrote:
- -> 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.  

MS Linux.  Haha.  Very funny.  You're killin me.

- -> 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.

Come back to us George.  SEUL.  The SEUL concept.  Remember that?  We aren't
talking about producing a corporate network server.  The SEUL concept is to
make Linux easy enough for the home/office user.  The common man.  The
sudo-idiot on a computer.  A direct your attention to Omega's sig.

- -> 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.

You've gone from knowing little about Windows to being a 95/NT power user?

If you don't get the "upgrade" it assumes it's being installed on a new system.
 Not that I agree with it anyway.  I wasn't arguing a case for Windows.

- -> 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.

It's a goal, George.  Once again, we are not designing a distro for the
corporate network server.  If someone chooses SEUL to install as a corporate
network server and needs a news feed are an FTP site of this magnitude then
that person probably will have some idea of how to do it to begin with.  At
least I would hope so.

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

Illegal practices?  You did mean in the DOS/Win2 days, right?  Funny all I
remember is that they were the company that made software for the home computer
possible since IBM, whom Bill worked with in developing OS/2, only wanted to
work in the business market.  As a matter of fact he left IBM and the OS/2
project because of problems over the OS/2 project which is why he developed
Windows 2 to begin with.

His idea was to make software user-friendly enough so that, eventually,
there would be a computer in every home.  That concept sounds very familliar.

- -> 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.

You know, when I first came on these lists the concept being pitched was that
of putting Linux on the "average" users desktop, at home and work, and
getting Linux to the point of directly competing with M$ for the "single user"
market.  It doen't sound like this is your goal.

- -> 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.

No.  I used OS/2 for Windows (pre OS/2 Warp).  The only thing I had to know was
that in order to use it with Windows integration I had to select it at install
or forever hold my peace.

The user HAS to know things if s/he wants extended capability beyond a single
user (average user) install.  That's where RTMF comes in.

If you would rather that the idiots stay with Windows then we must be wasting
our time because all the distro's out there will suffice.  Or do you think we
should just improve on Debian so it's easier for us to use?

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

First off, if you are installing a DOS/Win2x,3x program you obviously were
running from a DOS partition.  Second.  I never ran across a program, back then
that was sofisticated enough to repartition my hard drive on it's own.

- ->> 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.

I have yet to run across a program that I tried to install in Win95 that didn't
use install shield and prompt me for every decision along the way with a
description of what it was going to do, and I never had one prompt me for
partitioning my drive at that.

What kind of software have you been installing on a Win box that just runs amok
and repartitions the hard drive?

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

I disagree with the arogant part, but I should hope that a program that has
spent time in development and testing on different systems in different
situations with different hardware would "know what is best for them".

Although I would debate wether Windows software actually acomplishes this as
well as it seems to.  I think we should be able to do at least as well as they
do.

- -> 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.

This could be debated as a blessing if you ask me.  But why should they have to
read any doc's to repartition their hard drive?  Are you saying that we can't
integrate that process into the installation and use some short, informative
pop-up message boxes to lead the way?

- -> 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.

In our application it is our responsibility to make educated decisions based on
the information we can glean from their system so it goes as smooth as possible
and gets the job done right.  Again.  If they want extended capabilities they
will most likely know how to do it.  This is a simple workstation install for
the average Joe.

- -> 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. 

That's a good start.

- -> 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.

That's funny.  I beta tested NT 4.0 for M$ and never read a thing during the
install or normal operation.  I had to check the help system a few times when
setting up the servers and back office, but other than that it was pretty
intuitive.  More of a network enabled version of 95.

Again.  We aren't talking about a server setup.  We are talking about an
average user/single user/workstation setup.  Very little admin involved and
thus little RTFM needed.  That doesn't mean the ability isn't there.  If they
want to explore the limits of the system then they can RTFM like we all did.

Caveat:

One acception to the simple setup is that it should have some kind of setup
wizard to help them put together a home page.  Note that I didn't say web site,
but home page.  But this is after the distro is up and running.


- ---
Rick Jones
rickya@siservices.net
vuja de:
        The feeling that you've *never*, *ever* been in this situation before.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNOGAgkrwMsuKKoVhAQFa1AP6AjKeKJLGzYvlkZW4KCPfPKcBWBbFeXox
KmApG4G4TOinfuTOM/uu8q/KpaemwWMUhT3DhgnCQQTmPROVbKdAKzzId0fnrGd0
73aB4xugFN0/smcYq58+z0FUURz8gdQsXko9dgXx0KZWlDwvKg9yxkcN6+XOqd+B
Ja3iCgvQEU8=
=1Cnd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
===
SEUL-Leaders list, seul-leaders-request@seul.org
===