Re: GNOME libs 1.0.7 has been released

["Kelly Lewis" <kellydlewis earthlink net>]

    I agree completely on all points.  My comment about building your (or
one's) own RPMS was not me saying, "A real man makes his own RPMS!!!"  It
was me saying, "Well, it takes time for people to make and test RPMS, and if
you want the latest versions, you can compile them yourself."  However, more
than that, it was me saying, "Compiling can be fun!"  I know many people
simply don't have the time to compile their own software and need
precompiled RPMS.  However, the price of simplicity is a system a few days
or weeks behind the latest code.  I think this is an example of free
software spoiling those fortunate enough to use it; we are concerned with a
system a few days old as compared to a year or more between new releases of
some other operating systems.

    A few thoughts on 1):  I don't find compiling from src that big of a
mess, myself.  If you use make, all created files go into a directory of
your choice, and if you use RPM, all created files go into the appropriate
places in the /src/RPM directory.  Furthermore, you can play with
the --clean option to make even less of a mess.  With make, there is usually
an uninstall command (wrong word, sorry) and a clean and distclean command,
so you can clean up fairly well after this, also.

    Now for 2):  As for being more efficient, it certainly is when all goes
well.  However, if you follow the threads about things compiled with gcc,
egcs, various versions of glibc, etc... you can see that RPMS compiled by
someone else with a different system is not always as smooth one would like
it to be.  Often, these type of problems can be avoided by compiling
yourself.  I believe this touches on both A) and B), since, despite the best
efforts of those who make RPMS, there really is not a "common starting
point."

    Item C) gets its very own paragraph.  I think it is wonderful that there
are so many newcomers to Gnome, which usually means GNU/Linux as well
(although not necessarily).  However, something which is stressed, but
possibly not stressed enough, is that there is a big learning curve.  You
can buy a nice distribution and become fairly productive with it in a short
period of time, but to really use the power of GNU/Linux, you should learn
to compile yourself, build your own RPMS, send in bug reports, and the like.
As for newer users being attracted to Gnome, I personally think it might be
a little premature for that.  Gnome is an incredible project that has come a
very long way since I first started playing around with it.  But it still
has a lot of bugs, and I sometimes wonder if the newer users are ready to
handle them.  I think the media has given the impression that Gnome will
work magic right out of the box (ftp?), when this is simply not the case.
The users need to be part of the solution, and if they are not ready to deal
with the bugs, and the compiling and recompiling, maybe they should come
back in a month or so.  Or maybe I am just completely insane.  I agree with
you that ease-of-use software should have an easy installation process, but
Gnome simply is not there yet.  Talking about what Gnome should be will not
change what it currently is; however, it gets easier and more powerful by
the day.  If a user is not ready for Gnome now, I would suggest trying again
a little later.  And, with the speed Gnome is developing, I really mean a
*little* later.

    I think your idea about a group to build and maintain RPMS is wonderful.
This could be exactly what is needed to make Gnome accessible to new users.

    By the way, best of luck with your Ph.D..

Sincerely,

Ryan D. Lewis


----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Leduc <leduc@control.toronto.edu>
To: <gnome-list@gnome.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 1999 12:27 AM
Subject: Re: GNOME libs 1.0.7 has been released


>
>
> 1)  Yes, it's true that people could compile from src themselves..
>
>     If you have an RPM based system, you're just making a mess..
>     I prefer to keep tar installations to a minimum.  It's cleaner and
>     easier to keep track of things..
>
> 2)  Yes, you could make your own RPMS..
>
>     Several disadvantages with this..
>
>     A) This is a good thing to do once so you know how, but it's horribly
>        inefficient to have everyone do this every time..  It's a bad use
>        of resources.
>
>        It's far more productive to have one person do it once, and the
>        rest of us can use the time to test the software, and send in bug
>        reports, fixes, suggestions, etc..
>
>     B) Potential to introduce variations that could cause unexpected
>        problems..
>
>        One nice thing about one set of RPMs it that you have a common
>        starting point.
>
>     C) One of the purposes of the gnome project is to attract newcomers to
>        linux by providing an easy to use graphical environment..
>
>        What's the point of that if they have to first figure out how to
>        compile the software, then learn how to make RPMs, just to try out
>        this GUI that will make linux easier for the newbie..
>
>        It's contradictory!
>
>        We tend to forget we have a wide range of user types here,
>        with a wide range of experiences..   For many users, it's not
>        practical to expect them to install from source, or create RPMs
>        themselves.
>
>        As for doing a buggy RPM release, and then waiting awhile
>        for an upgrade..
>
>        You have all these people attracted to 1.0 from the press etc..
>        They try it, and it crashes all the time, and thyen they are stuck
>        with it  because there are no new RPMs..  They are going to want
>        to try it again, and the anti-gnome word will start to spread..
>
>        If you are making an "ease of use" software, the first rule of
>        thumb is to make it easy to install..
>
>
>
> I think it's clear that some sort of organized method is needed
> so that RPMs and debian packages can be made available as soon as a new
> update is released.
>
> I think this needs to be coordinated with the gnome team so that the RPMs
> are consistent with the previous ones  (ie there should be a standardized
> set with the final say  going to the package maintainer), and can be made
> available at the gnome site.
>
> Maybe a group of gnome users can volunteer to do this and take the weight
> of the gnome maintainers?
>
> I'd volunteer myself except funding on my PhD runs out in about 6 months,
> so I must limit my participation to bug reports..
>
>
> Ryan
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
>          Ryan Leduc         |    leduc@control.toronto.edu
>                             |
>    University of Toronto    |   'Any mans death diminishes me,
>                             |    because I am involved in Mankind;
>    Dept of Electrical and   |    And therefore never send to know
>     Computer Engineering    |    for whom the bell tolls;
>    Systems  Control Group   |
>                             |    It tolls for thee.'
>                             |
>     Toronto, Ont, Canada    |         John Donne
>                             |
>                             |    http://www.control.toronto.edu/~leduc
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --
>         FAQ: Frequently-Asked Questions at http://www.gnome.org/gnomefaq
>          To unsubscribe: mail gnome-list-request@gnome.org with
>                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
>
>