[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

We need easier installation.

I think the improvements in the installation of 2.0 is good, but we need
far better.  I would like to see something along the lines of a rating
system, or a recommended list.  For example if someone were to bring up
the package list of games in the gui package manager (something else
needed), there would be 1-5 stars or something next to the name of the
game.  The user couldn't care less wether the package is in non-free or
contrib, all they care about is that it gets on and he can run it.  This
applies to all the packages.  If I was new, and needed a mail program, how
would I know which was feature laden, and which was not?  How many SQL
servers are out there?  News readers?  Text editors?  In the package
description, I think we should include what task the specific program
would be best utilized for, ie:

gimp: <descript>

Application: Develop graphics for a variety of purposes, web pages, icons,
backgrounds, photo touch-up, etc
blah, blah, blah

Another thing that would help out, would be to have a feature, where the
user can specify what the computer will be doing, ie web server, general
workstation, graphics, or development.  This information could be used to
filter a list of packages more suited for the task at hand.  (All packages
could be viewed if desired, of course).  A general user probably has no
need for all the math applications, or 300 text editors.  

I know the first response is going to be: Ah! then we are like redhat.
But I think more of this depends on how well we implement it.  If it is
done well, I think it will be a big boost to our usablity.  How many times
have you installed a package, only to find out it wasn't what you thought
it would be like?  

I think having a million packages is awesome, I wouldn't want it any other
way.  There is a use for every single one of those.  I want more!  But I
think in all reality, a way to sift through them would be beneficial to
the distribution.


Reply to: