jfweber@bellsouth.net wrote:
On April Thursday 2005 12:06 pm, Marc Chamberlin wrote:
Colin Carter wrote:
On Thursday 28 April 2005 15:43, JD. Brown wrote:
An interesting article about v9.3 to be found at www.theinquirer.net.
Ummm what is so hard about clicking on am rpm file and ¨ install w/ yast"choice pops up... if you stick your cd or dvd into the drive before hand it also will resolve dependencies?
Just asking... it's not so hard to install Linux , once you get past the idea that you reinstall over and over and over what you origionaly installed as a solution to problems. ( it isn´t and doesn´t solve the problem.
Well I will try to respond to your points each - I agree that an installation of Linux is not too bad, provided nothing goes wrong and nothing out of the ordinary is requested by the user during the installation process. The real issue and way to judge an installation is to look at how robust the process is when something goes wrong, as often happens. This is one of the real weaknesses of BOTH Linux installations and Windows installations. If Linux wants to win out over Windows, and truly be perceived as a better operating system then it needs to do a far better job of guiding the user to a solution, not just bailing out and dumping the problem. This is where having a really effective/intuitive model of the Linux OS would be wonderful to have. I would like to see it better modularized with easy to understand components that break down into further easy to understand parts. I have never had the pleasure, so far, of being able to do a SuSE/Linux upgrade on any of my computers without experiencing a great deal of difficulty somewhere. In fact I have given up on doing upgrades, and I hear a lot of others have as well. I now tar up all my data and home directories, or install them on separate partitions, and install each new SuSE version from scratch. There are just too many interdependencies between version levels, modules that trying to untangle the linguine after doing the update is just too daunting. It is a poor trade off however because after doing a new installation I have to go back through all my applications an reconfigure them which is aggravating as well. (and just TRY to talk an average user through the process of re-setting up his firewall remotely!!!) As for your point about simply clicking on a rpm file, sure would be no problem if A it always works without any sort of hassle/problem and B EVERYBODY used rpm files to do their installations. That way there would be a consistent paradigm at least. But the sad fact is neither is true. RPM installations often get into dependency conflicts as you pointed out, sometime a needed module is missing entirely, not even on the distro disks, and sometime it leads to you having to toss out something else that you want. All of these issues are beyond the average home user's ability to correct, and prove difficult even for a seasoned engineer like myself sometime. And, not everyone uses this paradigm. E-gads I have even seen installers require you to jump through the Configure - Make - Make install process so many times it makes my head hurt. IMHO there is no excuse for not distributing the appropriate binaries but that is just my opinion! And what is the poor user to do if that process blows up on him! This is what I am talking about in referring to robustness of an OS and the environment provided to the user. I am quite prepared to argue that it is simply not ready for the mass home/small business market. A user must be able to rapidly understand the models, to a depth that is still intuitive and yet allows him to fix most problems that crop up without requiring the aid of some guru.
THE only scarey part I can see in an install is the partitioning .. until one gets a handle on it and away they go.... the change from the absurd idea ( even for Windows) of having one drive called C:\ no matter how big or small it may be is beyond belief stupid. Everyone should have learned by now, even windows folks to set up a separate drive for their files/data etc. .
I couldn't agree with you more...
stuff deleted....
I'm afraid that model is unlikely to happen to Suse, and similar distros, Most of us who are at least semi pro in admin would prefer that the general Joe NOT be able to foul up our systems w/ installing his own chosed stuff... And I believe Ben has spoken in the past about guys who just insist on doing that stuff no matter how many times you take thier intet connection or email account away from them...
Well I think you missed the point of this article. We are NOT talking about some software shop with dedicated administrators to help out. We are talking about the average home user, small business person, etc who is A his/her own administrator muddling his way through the installation processes and B does NOT have a degree in computer science/engineering! There is a vast number of people out there in the world trying to work on their own computers and admin them. THEY DONT HAVE AN ADMIN PERSON to go to! This attitude amongst Linux software engineers seems to be widespread, that it is their job to hand hold everyone through using Linux and that all novice Linux users should have some Linus geek/guru they can go to. It is just not realistic however!!! If the software and/or its environment does not provide an adequate guide to a solution, for each problem that may be encountered, then IT IS BROKE PERIOD and engineers, developers and others in this field should take that as a red flag that their model/software needs fixing. But as far as your point goes, I will argue that the SuSE/Linux OS needs to be robust enough the handle both your needs as a sys admin to control and regulate your users, and it needs to be robust enough to allow a novice user to control and regulate his own computer(s). Neither environment should restrict the user or set of users from adapting their computers to solve their (and in your case - collective) needs/problems. And neither environment should require you to get a PhD in computer science in order to understand how to operate/configure/update your computer as needed.
Suse Pro can be used at home easily, at least my kid and grandkids and her totally non tech husband can as well. OTH it is better suited perhaps to SO/HOs and larger cap companies. Which still takes in a lot of folks who are currently suffering from malware, various virii , and server slowdowns they never can figure out...USing that oh so easy and comforting Windows software.
BTW, IF my Mum were still alive she´d be using Suse too.. <G>
and they would be happy until something new came along that they need to adapt their computer too, and you or some other Linux guru weren't around to help them... THEN they have a problem and will judge the SuSE Linux environment by what will appear to be a failure on its part. Keep in mind Microsoft has LOTS of users and therefore LOTS of "experts" around helping each other. Linux does not yet. It is not enough for the Linux world to say we too can be as bad as what Microsoft puts out. Linux has to adopt the attitude that it can do better if it ever wants to replace Microsoft or seriously compete against her. To get there, IMHO Linux has to adopt the road with the goal of making each of its users self sufficient and that is going to require a LOT of rework in its models, gui's and standards. I realize that "standards" in the Linux world is almost an oxymoron, but I think that until it begins to seriously happen Linux will not be able to compete against the Microsoft mediocre standards. Ergo it is not ready for prime time mass marketing and is only suitable in niches where some guru is handy. Marc...
j