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

Re: Debian for kids

Ben Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> > Think about how broad you want the focus to be, and what the terminology
> > should be.
> I'm thinking exactly of that.  And I want the focus to be no broader than
> what works for kids.  It touches on so many different things that to
> pursue each one "in depth" would very quickly dissipate our energy and
> lead to nothing at all of value being accomplished.
> > A lot of the stuff you want to do crosses over into other
> > uses, but won't be more broadly used if you put kid-specific stuff in
> > there and call it "Debian for Kids".
> Well, good!  I'm glad it crosses over.  But I disagree entirely that it
> will not be used.  I have no plans whatsoever of forking Debian.  Every
> improvement will go back into Debian.  All that will end up under the
> banner "Debian for Kids" will be a web site, a mailing list, and perhaps a
> few "task" packages that makes it easier for parents to put together a
> system that their kids can use.
> Even in my wildest fantasies about where this project could end up, I
> envision a pre-installed Debian-for-kids system in bright basic colors
> with decals on it loaded with stuff that appeals to a specific age range
> via an appropriate "task" package.  But still, this system would be
> nothing other than a standard Debian installation, and would largely
> consist of components that are exactly the same as those found on all
> other Debian systems.  The only difference would be *presentation*.  Linux
> is a highly flexible OS and can be made to be many different things for
> many different people.
> > "Fool Proof Debian", "Low-Maintenance Debian", "No Hassle Debian"?  I
> > can't think of a good term.
> Bdale has already addressed this point very well.  These are laudable
> goals, but are not the primary goals of the debian-kids group.  In fact,
> they should be the goals of each and every maintainer.  Think of the
> opposite ... who wants their package to be anything but "foolproof"?  Do
> we really want stuff in Debian that is fragile and easy to screw up?  Do
> we want our packages to be "high maintenance"?  A "big hassle"?  If those
> were our only goals, we'd be better off not forming the group at all.

Ben, all that is totally cool with me.  I was really responding to
things that I had seen like suggestions about making the 'pwd' command
hard to get to; that is, things that relate directly to removing some
administration hassles at the cost of perhaps some flexibility.  I was
thinking that if there was a lot of emphasis or work on that, that it
perhaps shouldn't be limited to a "kids" package, broadening the
benefit.  More giving you something to think about, if you hadn't
already, than even anything as strong as a suggestion!
> > But it's your effort that's going into it, and I wish you the best with
> > what you're doing.
> Many thanks!
> Ben

Reply to: