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!