Freddy Freeloader wrote:
Okay, I've counted you in as one of the people I can e-mail when I finally try to get this together.Michael Pobega wrote:Referring to it as Sid seems like a good idea to me, but really no matter what it will be referred to as Unstable by the community; Which will probably just scare users away. The way I see it, is that the Debian mainsite shows that 3.1 Stable (Current) is the only "/workable/" release, and is very outdated. Testing (Which /apparently/ has bugs) is a bit more up to date, but not perfect. And Unstable will just break your system, but comes with the most updated programs!I've been reading the last 30 or so posts on this thread with some interest. Tried going to newbiedoc site but it never responded when I tried to connect. I may have some interest in getting involved too. I'm not the most experienced, or knowledgable, Debian guy around but I can write, or edit, and I would like to get more involved in the Debian project.In reality, running Debian Sid at this point in time is almost as unstable as running Ubuntu Edgy 6.10; Hell, even running Ubuntu Feisty 7.04 is more unstable than using Sid.I really think the mainsite has too much of an outdated, old look to it. I think that is one of the main things that scares people away. I mean, compare for yourself:http://debian.org/ http://ubuntu.com/
Don't worry about being overly experienced, to be honest I've only been using Debian for a short while now (Compared to most of you, a *really* short while. One month for Debian and Two months for Ubuntu, before that was distro tests and Windows). Although I'm inexperienced time-wise I've read at least a thousand+ pages of documentation on Debian and Ubuntu, and I've probably in the past three months gathered as much knowledge as most people get in one to two years.
As long as you have experience explaining and dumbing things down a bit, the extents of your knowledge aren't really too important.
I agree that the dated look of the debian.org site may have something to do with new user adoption. It kind of threw me when I first started using Debian 2-3 years ago. I looked at it and wondered why in a world of graphics it was text only. It made me think "old and outdated" and maybe even "not very professional" in reference to Debian itself. It's a rare marketing scheme that prefers to make the product it is marketing appear old, dated, and unexciting on first blush. I think the reason the site is that way is because it reflects, probably unconsciously, that Debian really is mostly about stability, usability--once it is set up, flexibility, and server and system administration. To me Debian has a "business-like" feel. Odd that it does considering its political philosophy, but that's sort of how I perceive it. I like that feel to it because it says stability, solidity, lots of strength under the hood. It's the total opposite of Windows and that is one of the reasons I really like it. I will take substance over style any day of the week.Obviously is does back up the Debian distro in a way, but even the site isn't without it's problems. I personally think it gets the job done, but I think it needs a bit more color. Like maybe how they did the navbar (Blue rounded box around it), they could blanket the whole page in something like that? I don't know, but something to take debian.org out of that white text on black bg feel, and into a bit more of a "fun to visit" site. Without compromising it's professional feel.
But this thread isn't about the site, it's about documentation for newer users, so let's get back on topic.
This is the beauty of Linux, I felt so stupid 3 months ago and in the past three months alone I've learned so much; Everything from the difference between filesystems, to how to change your computer's hostname, to how to get a working Apache with PHP5 and MySQL support. That's what I love about Debian/Linux/GNU, you learn so much if you don't take the wuss' way out.I also sort of feel the same as some others have expressed on this thread about Ubuntu leaving them cold. It does me too. I've tried it a couple of times and I've always been left feeling that the OS was "dumbed down". Sort of like the feel I get from Windows. My first install was from a set of cd's made when woody was testing. Was it easy? Did I understand some of the questions? Absolutely not. Did I learn a bunch? You bet. That was what hooked me. I was fascinated. I was getting to look under the hood. I was getting to start to learn how the system worked. It was as far away from the disappointing experience of Windows as I could get. I really struggled that first 6 months but I rarely booted back into Windows once I had a working Debian install. Within a year my entire lab had been moved to Debian.
Could the installer be made easier for someone who is not very curious? I suppose so but I would absolutely hate seeing Debian go the way of Ubuntu. I'd probably move to Slackware, a *BSD, or Gentoo if that happened.I would hate to see a graphical installer for Debian. I think the curses installer does just fine, a graphical installer would only bring in people thinking that Debian is Windows. The curses installer is easy enough to use as it is, and I also think the curses installer gives the installer an easier/friendlier feel. I mean, look at the Ubuntu LiveCD; It barely works on ATI cards, drags on nVidia but is the source of 99% of mishaps in Ubuntu installations. Debian doesn't need a LiveCD installer, I personally think that they are pointless and take much longer to use (LiveCDs lag, while the curses installer runs perfectly with no trouble at all).
Maybe an option would be useful, but like I said, curses is amazingly simple in my opinion; It just takes a bit of direction to use if you're a BDU, which is where these docs come in ;D