On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 06:20:07PM -0500, hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 01:02:01PM -0800, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 03:24:56PM -0500, Michael Pobega wrote: > > > Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > >On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 02:07:39PM -0500, Michael Pobega wrote: > > > > > > > >>The one thing I really don't understand, though, is why people use > > > >>Ubuntu. > > > >> > > > > > > > >bleh. responsing anyway... > > > > > > > >I return to the example of my mom. Many people don't want to "update" > > > >their system. They want it to just work and stay that way. Many users, > > > >especially novices, don't deal well with change and don't want > > > >it. Ubuntu, if you don't upgrade, is perfect in this respect. At the > > > >time it is released, it just works. If you leave it there, if will, of > > > >course, just work forever. > > > >[...] > > > But it's the same way with Debian Stable/Testing. If you want a system > > > that just /works/, you can run Stable. If Stable is too outdated/doesn't > > > support your hardware, give Testing a run. If you really need a few > > > programs (For me running Testing, I'll use checkinstall as an example) > > > and don't mind a few bugs you can always install from source (Since > > > everything in the repositories is GPL/BSD anyway). > > > > okay, clarification. and this is no defense of ubuntu. I am > > indifferent. Ubuntu has a default environment that just works and is > > fully implemented. Debian does too, but its not so obvious as you have > > to select it at the last stage of installation. So, yes running debian > > stable (or frankly just not upgrading any install of debian at some > > point where you're satisfied with it) is effectively the same > > thing. But getting there is not as direct as with ubuntu. ubuntu > > caters to the windows user who wants to plug in the disk and have a > > full blown working desktop without any real intervening stuff. (I know > > this is not reality...). In debian you can do that, but you have to > > know to pick that selection at the end. > > Do you mean that to gt Debian to appeal to this wider audience all we > need to do is have a different installer? Well, hmmm... maybe it is that simple. probably not. and I think the curernt installer is damn good. However, for the group we're discussing here, there are a lot of choices that people aren't used to seeing in a OS install. I could see an installer image that is tailored just for desktops. The only questions/choices would be timezone, locales, language, and then it just piles on a full desktop. What are the advantages? Gives novices a working and comfortable installation out the door. Include tailored configs of MTA, automatic partitioning, maybe some sane default apt mirrors, and other under-the-hood stuff that novices are not equipped to handle. Disadvantages? another image to maintain. others? I think my point is that a novice installing debian encounters a lot of under-the-hood stuff (partitioning, MTA, mirror selection) that they have never seen before and it leads to confusion. In other parts of this thread (or maybe the other one) there was talk of putting a newb down with an installer disk and a computer and watch what happens. The things I think will cause problems are this "under-the-hood" stuff. Just decide on some reasonable sane defaults and go with it. Do away with tasksel, do away with most of base-config and most of the debconf that comes up in the first boot and you'll find a lot more people with running and decently configed debian boxes. Will it be right for all of them? no. but they'll be up and running instead of faltering at the first step -- installation. .02 A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature