Re: Installation
On Sat, September 8, 2012 10:07 am, Worrier Poet wrote:
> On 09/08/2012 11:51 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:37:55 -0700, Weaver wrote:
>>
>>> I know how hard it can be to see the forest when you are too close to
>>> the trees, so I thought I would re-post something I put up in another
>>> forum where Miguel de Icaza's recent communication was being discussed
>>> and in answer to Vaughan-Nicholl's recent article of semi-acceptance.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> The most 'untechie' person on the planet can use any Linux distribution
>>> once it is installed.
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>> The reason they don't is the install procedure.
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> I think it's not that easy.
<snip>
> To add to Camaleón's points I'd also observe that -- even when users do
> install Windows, they usually do so from an installer (possibly a
> really, really bad one customized by the computer manufacturer)
No, this is an unnecessary complication.
I'm talking about installing from Windows discs.
that
> doesn't ask (m)any questions about what's already on the system. Windows
> installers don't give a rap about whether or not you'll be able to boot
> the OS that was previously on the system before Windows was installed.
This is beside the point and no comparison as the Debian installer allows
for this.
I am not condemning the Debian installer.
I'm suggesting a couple of small modifications in regard to explanation at
the partitioning/filesystem selection stage.
> There's a kind of hubris to that that we (the FOSS community) wouldn't
> be thrilled to see coming from our own distributions, I think.
>
> But making those assumptions makes it pretty easy for Microsoft and its
> business partners to make an installer that's easy to use. All it has to
> do is re-pave the highway.
Which is what they do.
It's not hard to understand that this is just another monopoly protection
strategy, but again, not the point under discussion.
I am not recommending that we copy the Windows installer.
>
> GNU/Linux/HURD/BSD users have a lot of freedom to configure things just
> the way they want them. That requires them to do anywhere from a little
> to a lot of learning. The people who are turned off by the effort of
> finding out how to choose a partition scheme (pretty darned easy by
> default in Debian, for instance) or a file system (also not hard by
> default in the d-i) are probably not going to enjoy the party once
> they're here.
I wouldn't classify either of those activities as 'easy' from the Newbie
perspective.
This is the perception that we have to deal with in order to assume more
market share.
>
> The people who do take interest in such things -- like I did back when I
> used DOS and Windows -- probably aren't going to balk at all at what
> they find in the d-i expert install. I didn't. I went straight from all
> Windows to all GNU/Linux without bothering with virtual machines or dual
> booting or any of that stuff. Just saved my data to a safe place, took
> all the machines to Debian testing, and stuck our data back on the "new"
> systems.
Neither am I suggesting that the average newbie leap straight into the
'expert' installation option.
This is something that I would include in the new user (or automated)
category.
When you take somebody on a journey do you allow them to get a glimpse of
the map from time to time, or do you maintain it as a secret in order to
elevate your supposed level of existence?
>
> Actually, the hardest part of the switch was finding a way to convert
> some of the data from proprietary formats to open formats.
These are things that come afterward and dealt efficiently in the
file-saving process of libreOffice, for example.
We are discussing the installation procedure.
As I said previously, the majority of the market are interested in an
email programme, a browser and an office suite.
If they want to branch out from there later, they can with the help of
documentation, Google searches and with enquiry on lists as the rest of us
do.
And they'll probably, after tasting a little success, journey on from
there, as the rest of us have.
>
> Good fortune to you!
And you.
And try not to worry too much.
Regards,
Weaver
--
"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al
Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a
propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an
identified entity representing
the 'devil' only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified
international leadership for a war against terrorism.
The country behind this propaganda is the US . . ."
-- Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook
Reply to: