Re: Win32 port

[Cory Watson <gphat cafes net>]

>All that needs to be done is to have someone preconfigure the desktop, just
>like what's done for Windows PCs. Even Windows PCs come with tools like
>ping, tracert, telnet and command-line FTP. But somehow the existence of
>these tools never manages to confuse Windows users. They're there, but not
>immediately visible. What's the point of omitting them? What does the end
>user actually gain if these tools were omitted? Nothing.

What happens when they get a new sound card, or video card?  What happens 
when they accidentally shutdown the computer by the power switch and 
XF86Config gets trashed?

Who said I wanted to eliminate such small tools as ping, tracert, and 
telnet?  I want to take away things like sendmail... why?  Because if its 
runnin (which it wouldn't be) it's a waste of CPU time and memory, if its 
on the computer its a waste of disk space and a possible security 
hazard.  Why not just take it off?  Sure, it wouldn't be as beneficial as 
setting up on demand PPP, but each can be done.

>For some reason you seem to view this as an "either/or" proposition. Why?

I totally agree with your position, I wouldn't need something like 
this.  But I feel some people do;)  I'm just waiting for you to give me 
some credit! ;) hehehe

>Using your argument, these tools should be omitted from Windows because
>people don't need them. But I've never seen a Windows user whose experience
>would have been improved in any way by the omission of these tools. I say
>the same thing is true for Linux distros.
>Omitting tools that aren't visible in the first place does not improve the
>end user's experience.

That's a silly thing to cling to, pick something with more meat that 'ping' ;)

>The point is to improve the accessibility of the system for non-gurus. That
>just does not require that things be omitted.

It certainly doesn't hurt.  A combination of removing those apps and 
filling in the difficult places with new/existing ones is the key.

>If you want to talk about security, then fine. There are things that should
>be done diffrently for a desktop than for a server. But you don't need a
>new distro for that. Look at the workstation/server/custom choices RH
>gives. We can quibble about the exact choices made for each install option,
>but the point is that this can be done within the context on existing distros.

I don't like RedHat's installer, I don't find it intuitive enough.  I think 
I could do better;)

>People with these needs do not install operating systems. They buy
>preconfigured boxes and plug them in. Linux in this situation can be
>configured to provide exactly what you describe -- without gutting the system.

But they COULD!

>The end user just does not perceive this bigness you keep referring to.
>Just consider the user interface of NT4 vs Win9x. Do you think for a minute
>that the complexity of NT4 somehow confuses a Win9x user and prevents them
>from having an easy time sending email or printing a document? Of course
>not. The interface is essentially the same. All the complex stuff is just
>not visible.

But do people buy NT?  Why not just make in NT?  Why even have Windows 98?

>Do you just want to same disk space? It's not like the user ever sees this
>stuff or has to deal with it in any way. Even if they install the OS
>themselves, they're just sitting there watching the progress meter. There
>is no additional effort required to watch the install script as it installs
>300 packages instead of 200. It may take a few minutes longer, but it's not
>*harder*. I guess if you want to say "waiting 5 minutes longer is harder",
>then maybe so. But as I said before, the target market does not generally
>install their own OS anyway.

People that want to run Linux often times install their own OS's, I know 
very few people who will purchase a whole new computer JUST for Linux to be 
preconfigured.  When I buy an OS, Ill take it preconfigured (I don't, but 
for demonstration purposes) but I'd surely like to be able to reinstall it 
myself if necessary.

>We need to work at making some things easier. Spending time and effort
>trying to figure out what already hidden capabilities to omit just does not
>improve the end user experience. The only thing it accomplishes is to give
>the user a system that looks and acts like it always has, except it lacks
>that capability to grow with them.

Noone ever said these things couldn't be added when the user wanted them.

>If I go home and delete Apache, PostgreSQL, wuftpd, and whatever else from
>my home machine, my wife will not see any difference when she logs in to
>check her mail. So what's the point? I've just improved her experience how?

You didn't.  You made the distro lighter though.  I'm not claiming that 
removing the packages will cure polio and end world hunger, Im saying that 
while we are making a nice, light distro, why not remove these things?

>Instead of spending time doing that, if I go home and add diald or
>configure pppd for demand dialing, then she gains something. She gets to
>connect without a lot of fuss. That's an improvement. In comparison, the
>deletion of the other packages was just a waste of time.

Not a waste of time, but the ppp is definitely more worth your while, and 
that was an excellent point!

>We need to concentrate on what we can add, not what we can take away.

I agree, but it's not like we have to call a meeting and write a 4,000 page 
thesis to be able to remove a few packages.  It takes all of 5 minutes to 
decide which ones aren't needed.

In closing, I'm not really arguing with you.  I totally understand your 
point, and I agree with you in most respects.  If I was to make a distro 
that was purely for X and GNOME, I wouldn't install things like inetd, 
Apache, and sendmail.  This would trim it down, less stuff to worry 
about.  If you want Apache, then hell, by all means install it.  Your not 
going to trouble me over it, I could care less what you ran, as long as I 
provided a strong base!

Thank you for your criticisms, I enjoy fielding them;)