[TriLUG] different versions of 7.2 for sale]

[al johson]

It's important to remember why the installer is so important. Let's say a
newbie comes to a Trilug installfest and gets Linux installed on his
computer by an expert installer. He takes his new Linux computer home and
then the system crashes (probably because he did something wrong--but he's
just a newbie so you can figure that mistakes will be made). However, if it
is very easy to reinstall the whole system (because the installer is easy to
use!!) by himself/herself, then he/she can re-install Linux and have their
system up and working again with minimum pain and suffering. But if the
installer is written with the assumption that the person doing the
installation knows what they are doing, then it is highly likely that that
person will never be able to reinstall Linux or use Linux again. That's why
it's important to have an installer that's extremely easy to use. I've had
friends who have had to load and reload RedHat many times to get their
servers they way they wanted. One even told me they had to do this 30 times
at first to finally understand the loader. And I'm told they sort of go
through this with just about every new distribution. Although a newbie could
indeed do this for a workstation (assuming his/her computer is set to boot
from the CDROM) it is not likely that they will do this. Finally, I'm told
that THE major problem people have with Linux is that their system is not
properly installed!! Therefore it would seem that the installer should be
given a very important place in any new distribution. It is the first thing
a new user sees and you know what they say about first impressions.--AL
=================================
----- Original Message -----
From: Brent Fox <bfox at linuxheadquarters.com>
To: <trilug at trilug.org>; Jon Carnes <jonc at nc.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [TriLUG] different versions of 7.2 for sale]


> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> TriLUG mailing list
> http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug