[TriLUG] different versions of 7.2 for sale]

[Brent Fox]

On Tuesday 30 October 2001 02:04 am, Jon Carnes wrote:
> On Monday 29 October 2001 23:49, Brent Fox wrote:
> > Hmm...we have had some requests for a step list in the past and we've not
> > done it for a couple of reasons.  The main one is that the screen is
> > already a little crowded with the help text on the screen.  The jump in
> > screen resolution from 640x480 to 800x600 in 7.1 make this a little
> > better, but things are still tight.  A secondary reason is that we
> > couldn't decide how useful it would be.  I think it would be useful, but
> > less so than the help text, especially to a new user.
> >
> > The usability studies we've done show that Linux newbies really use the
> > help text, so I'd be reluctant to hide that somehow.  We will consider
> > this feature for a future release.
>
> Whoa!  Partner... That "step list" screen on the side is one of the most
> attractive features of Mandrake.  I regularly give Mandrake to Newbie
> users, and that is one of the reasons, the install is laid out so well.

I think you misunderstood me.  I said that we have considered it in the past 
and have not done it for various reasons.  But I also said that we would 
reconsider it for a future release.  I didn't say we would never implement 
such a feature.

>
> Intuitively folks know that they are going to go through the displayed
> steps.  The context sensitive help lets them know what each step is
> designed to do, and this is more helpful than us old jaded folks realize!
>
> Everyone I give Mandrake to is impressed by this feature!  They all wonder
> why MS doesn't do it, and I have always wondered why Redhat doesn't do
> it...  It's a mistake not to implement this feature!
>
> I had a an old Toshiba laptop that I tried to put RH on early last year,
> and it just didn't work.  On a lark, I downloaded Mandrake and installed it
> on the laptop.  The difference was night and day.  Mandrake install was
> clearly laid out and the questions were backed up with context sensitive
> help.  At anytime, I could backup to a point in the list and start over,
> not that I had to, because I let it do its default thing, and *man* it flew
> onto my harddrive and never missed a beat.  The three big things it did
> that RH didn't were detect the proper settings for my screen, detect and
> setup the PCMCIA network card, and detect and setup the built in modem.
> Oh, and I forgot to mention that it also auto detected and setup the sound!
> (my jaw almost hit the floor when it started playing music on the
> reboot...) Those are four vital things that all installs should do well.

The Red Hat installer should detect all PCI devices, provided that they are 
in kudzu's PCI table.  I don't know why it didn't detect your PCMCIA network 
card, modem, and sound card.  It should have.  It is not clear to the user 
that the installer is configuring the modules needed by the modem and sound 
card in the installer, but it does.  We definitely have room for improvement 
here, as far as telling the user what hardware we are detecting.

> That install absolutely blew me away!  It was far easier than MS, and it
> was far more complete than RH.... I was an instant convert (just ask the
> folks at the LUG).
>
> After the boot up, there are the apps that come on Mandrake by default.
> Every production tool that you use in a standard business is there!  You
> can literally punt your old MS out the window and never look back.  That
> too is extremely impressive.
>
What production tools does Red Hat lack?

> Now here is a suggestion that you are going to *hate!* After boot, include
> a menuing system that mirrors the functionality of Windows, but points to
> gnome/KDE apps.  Maybe enable it via a checkbox: New converts check here
> for start menu on your desktop...

I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting.  The KDE and GNOME menus 
are pretty similar to the way Windows works.  Are you talking about *exactly* 
mirroring Windows?  fvwm95 does this, and it seems to be universally hated.  
Red Hat used to ship it, and it was dropped in favor of GNOME and KDE.

>
> With Mandrake Linux is accessable (meaning installable) to anyone.  It's
> the next step after the install that is important to maintaining the
> convert.  The new user needs a touch of the familiar in order to gain that
> "intuitive functionality" that makes something instantly usable.

Well, what questions does Red Hat ask that Mandrake doesn't?  The basic 
questions are language, keyboard, mouse, partitioning, packages, root 
password, firewall, and Xconfiguration.  On a desktop system, how can you 
avoid asking any of those questions?  Well, you could remove firewall maybe, 
but it seems like a personal firewall is a good idea, security-wise.

The biggest hurdle for newbies seems to be partitioning, mostly because they 
have not had to partition a machine before.  Windows came installed on their 
computer, so the never had to mess with it.  We have tried to make 
partitioning easier by providing automatic partitioning.  If the user selects 
automatic partitioning, they have three choices: 
1) Remove all Linux partitions from the system
2) Remove all partitions from the system
3) Keep all partitions and use existing free space

I don't know how much more simple we could make it without making assumptions 
that might not be true.  The problem is that partitioning is a fairly complex 
topic for the newbie, and there's only so much you can sheild them from.

>
> Whatever you do, don't dismiss the way Mandrake does its install (well
> don't use tiny stars for check boxes!.. but otherwise).  It rocks compared
> to Red Hats.

When I hear people say Mandrake's installer rocks compared to Red Hat, I want 
to know exactly what that means.  What I'm getting at is, is Mandrake's 
installer really easier to use or does it just look better?  Because if it 
just looks better, that's a very subjective thing.  To me, purple backgrounds 
are ugly, and a themable installer is a little silly.  I'd rather the 
development time be spent on more useful things.

Granted, they do have some features that we don't, such as the step list.  
Our bootloader screen is currently pretty confusing.  We will do better.  
There are other areas that we can improve, but I'm a little confused when 
people say our installer is hard to use.  We select defaults that make sense 
for most people.  On a bare hard drive, you can do a workstation install with 
GNOME and KDE simply by clicking "Next" until the end.  Sounds pretty easy to 
me.

>
> Now don't get me wrong, I love RH and use it on all my servers - well the
> VA Linux modified version.  I wish RH did to its own OS distribution what
> VA Linux used to do!  patch it and add to it, to make a killer OS for
> servers that was always up-to-date.  I would buy the official box-set for
> everyone of my servers to get that service!

We have a limited number of people and a limited development schedule.  I 
would argue that VA didn't have to shoulder the burden of creating the entire 
distro, therefore they had the time and the resources to make those kind of 
tweaks.  Man, we'd love it if somebody else would build the foundation for us 
and we could just slap a coat of paint on it.  That would be great.

>
> BTW: this is something that Mandrake is doing with its Cooker releases.
> Not quite as good as VA Linux, but then Mandrake is aimed at the
> workstation.  But Mandrake has the right idea here.  The major Revs take
> too damn long.  The world of Linux changes too damn fast and you simply do
> not want to install a 3 month old distribution and then patch it and patch
> it and patch it... and hope that you've got something stable and current.

We are working to address this issue.  There is a difference between being 
up-to-date and being bleeding edge.  We want to provide stable, reliable 
updates, not just the latest stuff pulled from CVS.  If you want to run the 
nightly builds of KDE and Mozilla, then that's up to you.  

>
> (Yes, I know all about the auto-update, but it's always, and I mean always
> hosed my machine or just plain not worked, and I don't trust it, and I
> probably never will because it follows a shot-gun style of upgrading and
> doesn't do any intelligent choosing and balancing of the apps/libraries
> that it upgrades).
>

I don't know what you mean by auto-update.  Do you mean up2date?  I also 
don't know what you mean by choosing and balancing of the 
apps/libraries...what do you want it to do?

> With the Cooker releases, Mandrake has some savvy guys putting together a
> nice current release that is patched and tested.  It's not as tested and
> tried as some of VAL's old releases, but in most cases, they are better
> than my efforts, and it takes me far less time to download and use these
> than it does for me to install and patch a system on my own.
>
> So that's my 6 cents on the matter.  I truly hope that Red Hat improves
> its installer.  It always kills me at Installfest to hear newbies asking
> for RedHat and then I always feel that it is my duty to talk them into
> Mandrake.  I want their first experience with Linux to be as pleasant and
> easy as possible - and the Mandrake Installer truly does impress them more
> than RedHat's.

I don't know why you feel it is your duty to talk them into Mandrake.  
There's so much more to a distro than the installer, which is essentially a 
throw-away piece of software.  You install the box, and you don't see the 
installer again until you upgrade.  

We are always trying to improve the installer.  Usually, those improvements 
go into more enterpise oriented things like Kickstart.  But we do not want to 
ignore the desktop users.  It is a challenge to build one product that 
appeals to newbies and sysadmins running database servers and everyone 
between.

Thanks for your comments, I really do appreciate them.  They have sparked a 
couple of ideas for me in areas that we can improve upon.  It's a little hard 
for me to be objective because I stare at the thing all the time.

Cheers,
  Brent