Re: [OT, FLAME] Linux Sucks
On Wednesday 26 March 2003 03:22 pm, Kent West wrote:
> Hal Vaughan wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >While some people do better with a command line interface, others do much
> >better with an intuitive or graphical interface.
>
> <snip>
>
> >Some people
> >learn and take in information best when everything is neat and orderly.
>
> <snip>
>
> >You may like the curses interface. Good for you. Others may, for MANY
> >reasons, prefer a more intiutive interface.
> >
> >Adding a GUI installer is just as much a part of technical excellence as
> >anything else Debian.
>
> <snip>
>
> I can't _believe_ I'm letting myself get sucked into this thread . . . :-)
>
>
> I believe you may be confusing some of your terms. The opposite of GUI
> is not necessarily CLI, and a curses-based interface is not necessarily
> non-intuitive.
My mistake after only 4 hours of sleep -- I should have been specific in using
the proper terms and specifying the difference between using just CLI and
using a curses interface, which could be considered a form of a GUI.
> A curses interface that says "Press the ENTER key on your
> keyboard to install Foo" is just as intuitive as "Click the button below
> with your mouse to install Foo" (in fact, some might argue that it's
> more intuitive, as almost everyone in the world has pushed a button at
> one time or another, yet millions, maybe billions, have never touched a
> mouse).
Actually, believe it or not, it isn't. I've worked with people that are very
intelligent and quite able to process information, but can work with a "point
and click" interface MUCH more easily than anything that uses a keyboard. Of
course, it's possible to make a curses interface work on a point and click
basis as well. A good "generalized" example of someone who will do much
better with a windows based GUI is someone who uses computers for graphic
design work or video editing, or page layout.
> The problem with a GUI installer on Debian is that Debian doesn't run
> only on i386, like some of the more "popular" distros. In such a
> situation, it's very hard to write a GUI that'll work the same and look
> the same on 11 or 16 (or however many) different architectures.
I've never argued that. Personally, I have no problem with a curses based
install. My frustrations are elsewhere. For example (and I'm not asking
this as a question, but pointing it out as what I see as a problem), why can
Knoppix easily detect all my hardware every time it boots and install the
correct drivers, but a one-time install program can't do the same thing? It
would make the install MUCH easier if it could. The, as a user or sysadmin,
I could either accept the default values or change them if I wanted to.
On the other hand, I also realize Knoppix is not being used on as many
different architectures as Debian, so there is a practical reason why Debian
doesn't do what Knoppix does.
> Granted, the text-based (whether CLI or curses-based) installer needs
> work, but that can be accomplished without resorting to a GUI.
I agree. My major point is that it is wrong and ignorant to trash people just
because they work better with a different interface than the interface one
prefers.
> I think that what most people who clammer for a GUI installer really
> want is a more easy-to-accomplish installation, not necessarily a
> graphics-based installation. Of course, I could be wrong. (That'd be the
> third time this year if I am - doh!)
That's me. I don't need an X based installer -- just one that can take some
of the frustration out of installing.
Hal
Reply to: