on Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 03:17:47PM -0500, Christian Convey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: > >>For instance, if Linux would just say, "Hey, you plugged in a USB device > >>that I don't really know how to use. I can tell it's a mouse of some > >>sort, but I don't know how to use it. What's the name of a module that I > >>should try for it?" then it would be a lot more like my Windows > >>experience. > > > > > >You should not use Debian. Find a less geek-oriented distro. We > >won't mind. Honestly. > > Heh heh - I was waiting for an email like this. Et tu, Ron? ;)
FWIW, the flavor of the week is apparently Ubuntu, which appears to do a
really good job of delivering on the promise of "GNU/Linux for
(every|any)one", without pandering (something, say, Lindows/Linspire's
been accused of).
> First off, I was talking about a distro that non-techies could use. My
> initial inquiry was (to paraphrase):
>
> Is the need for manual configuration of devices a consequence of the
> basic Linux hardware model, or is it something that can be made
> easier for users?
False premise, false dichotomy.
...and for the short answer: Yes, it can be made easier.
It's not a need. It's an is.
That is: the manual configuration used by Debian is more or less a
reflection of "that's how we've done it", which is largely a reflection
of "it was easier than figuring out how to work the magic".
Particularly given Debian's support of a broad range of architectures
(around a dozen).
But it doesn't have to be that way. And in the past few years,
automated hardware detection systems have made some very impressive
advances. Pretty much all the "Live CD" distros (Knoppix, Mepis,
Gnoppix, LNX-BBC, Damn Small Linux, etc.) automatically detect hardware
and configure themselves to it, booting to a desktop or command prompt
in a couple of minutes.
The good news: autodetection's becoming standard on more and more
GNU/Linux distributions. And quite good.
> I was trying to understand wherein the difficulty arose. Because that
> suggests differing courses of action when making a user-friendlier
> distro: (a) revisit Linux's whole hardware model, or (b) revisit the way
> udev is typically setup, etc.
I can't speak to udev itself as I've not dealt with it. But generally:
- When new features are first added, there's a "visually inspect, set
configurations, check system response, if it works, good".
- After time, either experience or specs get clarified to the point
that the process can be fully automated.
Depending on the complexities involved, this can happen quickly or
slowly. The upside is that the textual nature of things GNU/Linux (both
in terms of determining system characteristic and configuring settings
appropriately) generally makes automating the manual process pretty
straightforward once the kinks are worked out.
> Also, if it was a basic issue with the kernel's approach to hardware, I
> would know to not recommend Linux at all to non-techies that
> occasionally plug in the new device. If it's a higher-level issue
> (which I think it is), then perhaps it's just a matter of finding the
> right distro for my parents, friends, etc.
In general with GNU/Linux: newer HW support frequently lags. You might
want to check with a more "user friendly" distro or a recent bootable
distro (Knoppix, Mepis) to see if it detects the hardware. Sometimes
you can clone this configuration (usually just a matter of loading the
right modules). The bootable distros tend to lead the curve on
automated HW detection, and are updated frequently (typically every few
weeks).
> Secondly, I think it's helpful to occasionally compare the way things
> are vs. the way things will ideally be with software.
No.
We *never* do that. Nope. It's against the rules.
</kidding>
Seriously: GNU/Linux (and Debian) are in large part
knowledge-accumulation systems. Which means that very often they're
about seeing how something is done elsewhere, and adding that to our own
toolkit. While some see this as imitative, I see it as acknowlegeing
that which is good. And there's quite a bit of novel stuff going on as
well.
So: yes. If you see something that might be improved, suggest it.
Realize that a lot of stuff has been suggested before, and that
sometimes there are pretty good (or at least very well established,
stable, and functional) reasons for things to be as they are. And
sometimes there aren't.
> This is what I'm asking about. If the answer is, "This is the ideal
> form of the software for geeks, and our ideal will never be easy for
> non-techies to use", then so be it. But I don't think it makes sense
> to just say, "Linux 2.6.9+udev. Love it or leave it, 1d10t." Because,
> I assume, there remain useful enhancements we can make to device
> handling under Linux, that will make the experience easier for
> non-techies.
Debian itself is sort of a geek's distro. Or something of a
meta-distribution, as it itself is the basis of multiple other
distributions (Storm, Progeny (_also_ a meta-distro), Linspire, Knoppix,
Mepis, Ubuntu, LibraNet, Xandros...), largely in the strength and
richness of its packaging system.
Several of these distros are themselves very much geared to the newbie.
Among them, the bootables and Ubuntu. Try 'em on for size. Many of
them are largely convertable to/from a straight Debian system, with
varying levels of pain. There are FAQs for most of these (official or
otherwise) on making such conversions.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
KQED FM: The DUMB spot on the dial:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=rhpdc.95571%24gA5.1259567%40attbi_s03
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
