Re: The future of Debian install??
On Friday 08 March 2002 13:36, David Jardine wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 11:12:53AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > >>"Francisco" == Francisco M Marzoa Alonso <fmmarzoa@gmx.net> writes:
> >
> > Francisco> An elitist... well, if you can configure X from scratch
> > Francisco> faster than the computer itself, then you should think
> > Francisco> about go to the Guinness show. Computers are done to make
> > Francisco> our lifes easy and to let us avoid repetitive tasks. I'm
> > Francisco> not psychologist, but I think making repetitive things
> > Francisco> faster is not a manner of evaluate inteligence (or is
> > Francisco> it?). A monkey can do that kind of things faster than an
> > Francisco> human if it is trained.
> >
> > This is getting seriously off topic, but this is somewhat of a
> > hot button with me. You are touching on the tools vs appliance
> > dichotomy here.
> >
> > A refrigerator is an appliance. I can walk to a refrigerator
> > in Hong Kong, and I know how it works: open door, put <object> in,
> > <object>'s temperature drops. Sure, there are minor variations (auto
> > defrost or not), but by and large, appliance don't require training
> > and manuals.
> >
> > A tool is something else. Take an Axe. Please note that
> > complexity is not an issue: an axe is far simpler than a
> > refrigerator. But as anyone trying to split firewood know, using an
> > axe requires training. An Axe is dangerous: hit the chunk of wood
> > wrong, and it can rebound off and take off your foot. It is, however,
> > more flexible and can do more things than the appliance (toaster,
> > refrigerator) -- chop trees, tear through doors and walls in rescues,
> > chop wood to kindling, Executioners axes, war axes, throwing axes --
> > lots of variations for the tasks.
> >
> > Microsoft has made money trying to convince people a general
> > purpose computer, one of the most versatile tools invented by man, is
> > really a mere appliance, and needs no training to use well.
> >
> > I beg to differ. A computer is a marvelous, versatile,
> > flexible, configurable tool, and, I prefer to actually learn how
> > to use ones tools.
>
> You can fiddle with your house, your garden, your car, your
> computer, maybe even your refrigerator and your toaster, to
> learn how they work and to configure them to your taste, but
> most people don't have time for all of them. People using
> Debian are probably more interested in the computer than the
> other things (I certainly am) and it seems to me pointless
> for Debian to try to cater for other types.
>
I am one of those how 'care about', and I 'enjoyed' my debian installs (Was
running RH). I believe you should 'know' your hardware, at least the basics
(video card, network card, etc). Using the appliance analogy above, it sucks
to pay a repair man $50 an hour to find out your fridge was unplugged.
On the other hand, debian is possibly the easiest distribution to maintain,
so therefor would be a big win for new users/converts. The stumbling block
for these new users, the install (hey, doze didn't ask me any of this, I'm
scared!!).
I would prefer not to loose the current option of install, but I can
certainly see the value of auto-detecting. Why not make an option at the
beginning of the install, say 'auto-detect', build a tool that would go out
and find as much about the system as it could, store this info in a cache
file, then begin the regular install. As the install program stepped through
the install, it would check the cache for any information about that step. If
it finds something, it changes the default values, and notifies the user that
auto-detect values were used.
Pros:
1) This option gives us the option of running manual or auto-detect.
2) Provides method new users to work-around the stumbling block.
3) Without them knowing it, debian will teach them about their system.
4) The install program would remain 'light' as the auto-detect code would
reside in a separate tool.
6) I'm sure others on this list can think of more...
Cons:
1) A separate install disk might be needed to hold the auto-detect code
2) I'm sure others on this list can think of more...
Just my 2cents, OK, now I'm broke!!!
John
Reply to: