Re: SEUL: Observatons

[Greg Bell <winston@atlantic.net>]

J. Otto Tennant wrote:
> [... I delete a lot ...]
> > Dan Stromberg wrote:
> >
> >     What happens if a user doesn't want X?? If the whole basis of SEUL
> > is dependant on X then that user gets left out.
> >
> > > Just do the X config first.  A CD-ROM has plenty of room for X servers.
> >
> >   Please lay this beast to rest.  First there isn't a cdrom, second
> > there isn't a SEUL (YET) and the first prototype will probably be disk
> > based.
> 
> The S. E. U. L., these days, will have a CD-ROM drive, 16 MB of RAM,
> more than 512 MB of disk, and a fairly capable monitor.
The above doesn't ask if the 'targeted' system will have a cd player but
instead say the SEUL will be released on a CDROM.  If you have read the
list you have seen that this idea has popped up and will not go away. 
The creation/maintenance/distribution/costs/manpower involved for a CD
rom distribution are just too great for SEUL to take a chance on it. 
Not that at a later date this might be viable but for pity's sake there
isn't even a SEUL program (for the time being) why waste our time and
energy discussing a CDROM distribution???

> 
> I can't speak for the originator of the concept of SEUL, but I suspect
> that the concern is for the bloke who just bought a PC.
> 
> I don't think you want to focus on some bloke with a 386 and 4MB of
> memory.
> 
> (There might be a _different_ project, about redeploying doorstop
> systems to Lower Slobovia.  Indeed, there might be some of us interested
> in defining a Linux-based system using doorstops.  A doorstop might be
> able to run Linux and free applications --- providing valuable training
> to South Bronx, Bangladesh, Ruritania, and Lower Slobovia.  Indeed, we
> should probably form a group to do that.)
> 
> But the market for SEUL addresses those who bought a fairly recent
> package and wonders if all of the odd failure messages from W95 are
> really necessary.
> 
> > >
> > > I think working on curses stuff is a waste of time.  It'll really form a
> > > bad first impression.  At a minimum, we could grab widtools and slap
> > > something together.  That's easier to do than curses programming anyway
> > > (mind you, I'm good with curses, I just think it's kinda dead)
> 
> [I'm not following proper protocol in quoting or replying, but ...]
> 
> How hard would it be to layer something between "curses" and any of the
> varieties of X?  A "curses" implementation which "does" X?  A "termcap"
> entry which basically says "do X"?
> 
> (Not that I'm advocating using "curses".  It is beyond dead.)
  What alternative can you off following theses restraints.  The
installation media will be by disk(s) (the lower the number the better)
or even better is a ftp download but for the time being we should be
focusing on the disk idea.  With disks there is a limit to the size of
the program, therefore the complexity.  There was an adage when I was in
the military K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) and surprizingly enough it
is valid and applies here.
All of which is besides the point as there isn't a SEUL program, yet.
                     Greg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple End User Linux Mailing list
To be removed from this mailing list send a message to majordomo@txcc.net
with the line
unsubscribe seul-project
in the body of the letter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------