Re: [OT] Get users educated, was: Re: Windows and DLLs

["Jesse D. Sightler" <jsight pair com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Nils Philippsen <nils@wombat.dialup.fht-esslingen.de>
To: Jesse D. Sightler <jsight@pair.com>
Cc: Tim Moore <tmoore@tembel.org>; gnome-list@gnome.org
<gnome-list@gnome.org>
Date: Saturday, October 03, 1998 6:36 AM
Subject: [OT] Get users educated, was: Re: Windows and DLLs


>On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Jesse D. Sightler wrote:
>
>> Yes, but many people do not realize that this is what the somewhat
confusing
>> error messages from PRM -Uvh mean.
>>
>> These people then often go on to do a RPM -Uvh --force --nodeps to make
it
>> work.  If you don't believe that people really do this, then let me
remind
>> you that not only have I done it, but several others on the mailing lists
>> seem to have as well (based on other comments in other threads).
>
>If someone doesn't think about what (s)he does -- let her/him suffer. It's
>the easiest way people will learn to inform themselves about what they do.
>Be informed or let it be. I don't want to suggest _not_ answering to such
>people but bring correct answers (not --nodeps --force, but "you have to
>fetch the package xyz-1.1-4.i386.rpm prior to installing this").

Yeah, but that isn't the error message received.  The error message is that
file /usr/lib/gpackge.so.1 and a dozen or so other filenames are all
required by package foobar.billy.rpm.  And those messages come while
upgrading gpackage.rpm.

Doesn't it seem a bit needlessly confusing to give users messages that
"upgrading" a package will cause problems because apps need the old version?

> I by
>myself use --force from time to time, but I know what I do and I don't
>complain if it breaks. We really need to get the steadily growing userbase
>of open source software to _think_ more (bad people'd say (me of course
>not): ... than they did while using windows) about what they do, how they
>do it, why they do it this way, and so on. Getting people educated with
>this type of software is very important or I may prophecy the OSS
>community in its whole real headache for the future. The point is not
>"GUIs are moot, only morons use them", the point is "you have this app
>(may even have a GUI), now inform yourself about its usage. Read the
>documentation, do the tutorial that's on its homepage, ...".

Ok, so where is it documented that doing an upgrade from one version of an
RPM to another sometimes requires not doing an upgrade in order to make the
upgrade not break old package dependences?  Where is it mentioned that the
long list of possible dependency warnings that the user is confronted in
mean that they should install two versions rather than upgrading?  I haven't
seend it.

>Do you know why so many people can drive a car (I'm speaking for Europe,
>can't tell for the US -- no offence intended)? Because they have to get a
>driving licence _before_ doing it. They even pay money for it (mine cost
>~3100 DM which is about 1900 US$ -- I really did learn a lot in the
>course). And to "upgrade" from a Volkswagen to a truck they have to
>"upgrade" their licence, too (realize the similarity to operating systems:
>Windows <-> car (nice color, air condition, automatic gear switching
>(don't know the correct term), ...) , UNIX <-> truck (used to get work
>done, "bad" looks (UI, anyone?), no automatic gear switching (at least
>over here in Europe), ...)). What I want to say is that people have proper
>knowledge of what they do in this field, why should it be different with
>computers? If I use a {coffeemachine, chainsaw, lawnmower, vacuum cleaner}
>for the first time I inform myself about how to use it (handbook, mum,
>grandpa, boss, colleague, ...). Few people don't do this and it almost
>always ends with a catastrophy.

That's certainly a different philosophy than that of most American's.  :)
Seriously, most trucks here ARE automatic, and very few people bother
reading docs (actually reading docs usually makes for a good joke here <g>).

>With regard to the car/truck example I don't want to say that people
>should abstain from using a truck (and it should be horrible to use, and
>so on), if people improve easy use of a truck, more power to them -- but
>people driving a truck should always have in mind that it is far heavier
>than their car "at home". If I use UNIX's "rm" instead of DOS' "del" or
>Windows Explorer trashcan I must have in mind that deleted files are gone
>and I should not make mistakes with this command. The same for rpm: It
>_is_ much more powerful than the Windows Install Wizard procedure, today
>it _has_ this "archaic" user interface (may change, I think there are a
>lot of frontends for rpm, people not comfortable with rpm should use
>them), and using it implies a little more thinking/learning than using an
>Install Wizard.

But, once again, this is NOT a problem with the difference between command
line and GUI.  :)  If they did it with one of the GUI frontends, they would
get the same archaic and confusing messages, and they would once again be
apt to do a force with the GUI instead of the command line.  Either way, the
results are equally bad.

>
>>
>> IOW, this aspect of "upgrading" is needlessly confusing and archaic,
IMHO.
>
>Use a frontend.

I have never seen a front end that would solve this particular kind of
problem.  That sorry excuse for an RPM front-end "GLINT" definately
wouldn't.:)  Although, I will say that some of the newer GNOME-based
front-ends for RPM appear to be somewhat promising.

----------------------
Jesse D. Sightler
http://www3.pair.com/jsight/