On Mon, Sep 13, 1999 at 04:53:04PM -0700, Craig H. Block wrote: > After reading the last few months worth of newsletters at debian.org, I am > concerned that the Debian project may be buying into this foolishness. My
I think that the debian project will have the best of both worlds. There will
always be the community driven distribution that we all use. The corporates
(i.e., Corel) will also have dumbed down packages for the newbie types.
Conceptually it works in a traditional manner. First, there is the console
app with all its command-line flags and options. Then there is the
graphical front-end (the X version). This version is more or less about
as hard as the command-line version depending on experience, but equally
as powerful and scriptable. Then there is the dumbed-down KDE or GNOME
versions that are aimed at newbies. These versions may have all the
options of the earlier versions but the basic functions that a newbie would
want are right there on the toolbar.
I don't see this as a problem. Use of the KDE/GNOME version does not negate
use of the console version or the X versions. What I would like to see for
all apps is the following.
One console version package. One X package. One Gnome and one KDE package.
Then, there could be the really big 'all-in-one' package. This would come
in two versions. One ends in KDE; one ends in GNOME. This is for people
who like to use different things at different times, and it would install
the console, X and (DESKTOP ENVIRONMENT) versions simultaneously. This is
sort of how the gmc package works. It installs the console Midnight
Commander and the GNOME/X Midnight Commander at the same time. This gives
you the flexibility of the console MC, and if you want to toss icons around
you have that option (sometimes it's just easier).
One the one hand, you can say 'damn that's just way too many packages to
support.' But wait, we already support multiple versions in this exact manner.
This will be an effort in consolidation and collaboration. It will also
keep the newbies talking to the vets (i.e., the student/guru relationship)
which is good for everyone.
> hope is that Debian sticks to their guns as a distribution for power users
> and does not jump on the grandmatization bandwagon. To the Debian
> organization; please don't worry about the unimportant aspects and concentra
> te on the important ones. I want control, flexibility, stability, and
> content. I DO NOT care how difficult or time consuming (barring
> problematic) an installation process is. If my refusal to compromise any of
> these important aspects means I have to spend more time answering questions
> and entering configuration choices during an installation process or even
> editing configuration files by hand, then so be it!
This addresses another issue, configurability. Just because a package is
installed in a default state (for the newbie) does not prevent you from
getting into the docs/HOWTOs and learning how to edit the config files by hand.
I would prefer a default installation for newbies, because in general the
person who wrote the default config knows what he/she is doing and can give
a newbie something secure to work with. After that, I don't have to make
innumerable changes to the lines in the files. Perhaps I would have to change
just a few. That's ok by me.
'Configurability' and 'security' issues brings up a recent thread on /. about
whether we should distribute linux in server and workstation versions.
Rather, the server version would just like the workstation version except
with nothing omitted. Another way to say this is that the workstation version
is the newbie version with some of the more difficult and security risky
server packages omitted.
(just my $0.02)
--
NatePuri ("natedawg")
Certified Law Student
McGeorge School of Law
Sacramento, CA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ompages.com
http://office.ompages.com/~natedawg
PGP: http://www.ompages.com/PGP.html
UIN: 43504034
IRC: office.ompages.com #ompages
pgp9qEAug0xql.pgp
Description: PGP signature
