Making DSL a little easier
Forum: DSL Ideas and Suggestions
Topic: Making DSL a little easier
started by: blip
Posted by blip on June 09 2007,17:02
Hi everyoneI work in IT as a lowly technician and everyday I get people coming into our office saying the usual 'windows seems to have crashed...I seem to have a virus.....the computer is rebooting....e.t.c".
I am staggered by the amount of people and I've worked in I.T along time now.
I really like what you guys are doing and I will give you some money when I can ( promise!).
I'd like to install DSL on all their machines. I do think that DSL needs a firefox a bit more like Ubuntu....it seems a bit simpler to use...i don't know what thats down to ( fonts, spinning wheels when waiting )....as most people need something simple to go on the net.
You've done a wonderful job and I am amazed by the whole thing. People need something simple! It needs a way of making backup really simple ( it is now, I know but maybe one button backs up everything in a sort of hibernate mode)....imagine someone new coming to the table who's never used linux before...
I for one am going to install it on laptops and PCs and show my friends.
I wanted to watch Youtube tonight but had no idea how to get flash going.
These little things mean all the difference between getting people to use it and people giving up....
I do find (if you don't mind me saying) that the installing programs (Mydsl) is ok but there's loads of windows scattered all over the screen after a bit...need a way of making this simpler....
Also need a way of e.g. opening a word doc and some word processor opens just like that (file associations) - I know you can do it but I'm still figuring it out...let alone a new user.
Don't get me wrong...you've done a brilliant job. I am going to move over to DSL now....
One thing I wanted to do was have a number of exact copies of my DSL on USB sticks so if one goes wrong you can carry on with another....is there some way of mirroring a backup or something...so I can put 2 or 3 usb sticks in the PC and it copies everything to the sticks...that way if one goes down I can carry on working.....I am just trying to find out how to achieve this now...
It would be useful to have an easy to use chat faclity...sometimes when I'm stuck I could really do with firing up an icon on the desktop just to ask a quick question...I do appreciate people are busy and can't always reply but if there was a quick way they could see you screen/what you are trying to do then maybe it might make sorting problems out easier. Then again I appreciate often problems need to be documented for new users.....maybe some video tutorials would help how do to basic stuff....
Anyway thank you for all your hard work.
blip x
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on June 09 2007,18:55
| Quote |
| I'd like to install DSL on all their machines. I do think that DSL needs a firefox a bit more like Ubuntu....it seems a bit simpler to use...i don't know what thats down to ( fonts, spinning wheels when waiting )....as most people need something simple to go on the net. |
Basic programs are loaded into DSL - not just because of the 50mb size limit but also because it's the minimum for the same amount of functionality. For non bitmapped fonts other DSL users seem to like using xfstt... Similar browser: try a gtk2 version of FFFor hibernation there's suspend, though I believe that depends on your hardware (acpi/apm etc.) and that the 2.6.x has better support. There's some posts by Juanito that may be of help.
| Quote |
| Also need a way of e.g. opening a word doc and some word processor opens just like that (file associations) |
| Quote |
| I wanted to watch Youtube tonight but had no idea how to get flash going. |
| Quote |
| is there some way of mirroring a backup or something |
btw, there's a couple threads about all of these really... (if you need more info, etc.) but this should be enough to get you started
Posted by mikshaw on June 09 2007,19:08
| Quote |
| imagine someone new coming to the table who's never used linux before |
| Quote |
| there's loads of windows scattered all over the screen after a bit...need a way of making this simpler. |
| Quote |
| I wanted to watch Youtube tonight but had no idea how to get flash going. |
| Quote |
| file associations |
| Quote |
| One thing I wanted to do was have a number of exact copies of my DSL on USB sticks so if one goes wrong you can carry on with another....is there some way of mirroring a backup or something...so I can put 2 or 3 usb sticks in the PC and it copies everything to the sticks |
| Quote |
| It would be useful to have an easy to use chat faclity |
As you probably guessed, I'm more prone to suggesting how to solve your troubles than helping DSL become "easier" =o)
Posted by blip on June 10 2007,10:18
Thanks everyone! Those are all very helpful and useful suggestions - I will re-read. I don't like Flash particularly ( or anthing non open source) but I would love to watch my youtube clips easily in DSL....as I'm new to it all it can take me a whole weekend to do something simple / get something installed...but I am picking it up. Dare I say if I'm finding hard and I work in I.T I imagine your 'average' user ( !) would have given up by now. I do understand though to get everything into 50mb some compromises have to be made...and unlike windows there is no bloatware here...which I love.I am really getting into DSL now...I'm using it as my main OS and it's great.
Last night I got some things working after a long time....(alsa and midi) - I was really pleased I'd got so far. Unfortunately this morning I've switched on the PC and DSL seems to be trying to restore ( from my Kinston 512MB stick) but it's not getting to the desktop. Perhaps something has corrupted? I'm not sure how I can tell this....it's been sitting for 10 minutes and doesn't seem to want to launch X.
That's why if you don't mind me saying maybe it would be a good idea at some stage to be able to use 2 or 3 USB sticks that are mirrored so if something corrupts one can carry one. Perhaps the web / offline storage is the way to go - I see DSL can do this which is fantastic. You mentioned to use 'DD' to copy / backup files...do I use this after I've left the DSL desktop or before ( and it is just the whole backup.tar.gz I back up and that's it?).
Just to clarify about the 'lots of windows' thing....I find when I open MyDSL and install programs I find I get the info window opening of the software, the 'download to' window window and the actual download manager window all 3 of them. Then if I am installing a big program and I want to install something else I get another 3 windows again (am I making it clear? lol) and I end up having to close down an awful lot of windows after installing 2 or 3 programs. I do find that the MyDSL window sometimes 'blanks' or 'corrupts'...perhaps that's down to my PC /graphics card.
Sorry if I sound a bit petty! I am just trying to imagine some of my friends sitting down with it and installing it/ coming across some of the problems I have.
What's weird today is that when my backup USB stick corrupted ( if that's what has happened ) now Fluxbox is loading instead of the other window manager ..I don' t remember ever setting it to this. MMM. Anyway that's for me to sit down and work out!
Thanks for your replies, I hope I didn't moan to much....just chewing the cud.........
Posted by blip on June 10 2007,10:21
PS I did a search for 'flash' in the add/remove programs of Ubunut and then it just installed. It was pretty (suprisingly) painless.
Posted by blip on June 10 2007,11:06
Mentioning my problem with the windows/MyDSL..it seems that this problem I have of the MyDSL window 'corrupting' is not happening in the window manager 'JVM' ...so I have stopped using Fluxbox for now...I do prefer JVM...........don't know why 
Posted by mikshaw on June 10 2007,13:20
| Quote |
| I find when I open MyDSL and install programs I find I get the info window opening of the software, the 'download to' window window and the actual download manager window all 3 of them. Then if I am installing a big program and I want to install something else I get another 3 windows again (am I making it clear? lol) and I end up having to close down an awful lot of windows after installing 2 or 3 programs. I do find that the MyDSL window sometimes 'blanks' or 'corrupts'...perhaps that's down to my PC /graphics card |
The blanking of the mydsl app could happen when there is a problem connecting to the server, but i couldn't say if that is the case with you.
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on June 10 2007,17:24
I see the blanking of the windows when they are not the "newest" top-most window. Once you got back it should be refreshed. No idea why it only does it in fluxbox only as you indicated... but if you like JVM more that's fine (I personally use the terminal to load them).p.s. then I suppose it's only different for flash on ubuntu if you're using AMD64, since it's only available in 32-bit.
Posted by roberts on June 10 2007,17:35
Most of the mydsl download GUIs are fronts to command line versions/entry points. If I only had to support GUI and not command line programs I could, of course, combine them. However, command line versions are very useful for batch processing and other automated tasks.Typically upon a sucessful download the windows close, returning to the browser/list view of the selected extension library.
If many simultaenous downloads are started then many instances of these windows appear.
Posted by roberts on June 10 2007,17:40
I am always looking to make DSL easier to use.Currently, there is no interaction between xtdesk and emelfm.
They are separate programs and as such do not give the feel many users have come to expect.
The Rox-Filer and use of its pinboard option does, however, Rox is much larger than the xtdesk/emelfm. Rox pinboard does not play nice with the current fluxbox window manager.
Having a size limit of 50MB does present challenges.
I am looking at other alternatives to try to achieve this effect.
Posted by blip on June 11 2007,11:57
Roberts - I appreciate you have to keep things down in size. I should probably be less impatient and open one MyDSL download window at a time! Sometimes with a big download one wants to download something else simulaneously....that's all. I'm not sure what the answer is...for every download it requires 2 or 3 clicks...sometimes I get a bit impatient.It did take me a while to learn how to open the contents of my USB stick....I'd saved lots of extensions in there. But as a newbie I didn't realise I had to click on 'mnt' 'sda1' to open my usb stick!. A little icon on the desktop would make things that much easier....I do appreciate there are other distros out there if you want 'easier' but it's just a comment....
One thing I didn't get was I'd saved extensions onto my USB stick. I wanted to run these from the file manager emelfm...but when I do it's saying I must run them as 'DSL' in the little window below. So then I tried to hunt down how to achieve this. If there was a way of just clicking on it and it running - that would be so much easier. Just food for thought.
Posted by Juanito on June 11 2007,12:54
| Quote |
| If there was a way of just clicking on it and it running - that would be so much easier. Just food for thought. |
Posted by blip on June 11 2007,13:35
Thanks Juanito. Unfortunately I can't get my PC to boot from USB ( I boot from CD )...I'll try that tonight.Thanks for all your patience everyone.
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on June 11 2007,15:25
If you don't boot from usb, you can use the cheatcode "mydsl=sda1" to achieve the same effect.Also, there has been some users who have created their own icons for mounting/opening. I'm not sure if anyone has implemented automount back, though.
Posted by blip on June 11 2007,15:55
Wow that's incredibly useful (mydsl=sda1). Thanks!
Posted by roberts on June 12 2007,01:25
Read the Getting Started document. It will make using DSL much easier. The mydsl= among other options are explained.
Posted by blip on June 12 2007,13:20
Yes sorry it was in front of my face every time DSL boots. Doh! RTFM as they say
Posted by blip on June 12 2007,16:48
Hi everyone. I've been thinking about DSL again...it's quite incredible the way you got it compressed into 50MB...to have firefox and all those apps....when you look at Ubuntu it's a whole 650MB. DSL boots up so fast as well.
Years ago ( and even now) I was a big fan of Acorn. Risc OS was a brilliant OS. You would switch it on and in seconds up it popped - it didn't need any disks, started almost straight away. I really think that's the way it should be with computers. So credit to the programmers. I'd love to see DSL run on a UMPC or something....
People need something simple to get on the web and print....I know so many peeps fed up with Windows when all they want is to get on the web / book tickets / write a bit of wordprocessing....maybe it's time for a brand new computer running DSL all embedded into the OS........Amiga nearly got there ( they might yet ) ......I'm going to buy a silent mini pc and give it a go.
Thanks again for all your hard work everyone...I will contribute some money next month!
Posted by humpty on June 19 2007,03:05
For frugal, there's really no need for backup images.The only real difference between boot-ups is backup.tar.gz. You can specify where to load this with the restore= boot option. If you point this to a good copy of backup.tar.gz (or even if the file doesn't exist) then you can boot up every time.
Posted by WDef on June 20 2007,00:05
@blip:I believe Robert is also a big fan of RiscOS so you've probably made a friend there :=)
I think that's partly where he got the idea for uci apps
Posted by roberts on June 20 2007,04:25
I was seriously looking to bring a Rox like deskop to DSL. But Rox Filer pinboard is not compatible with much of core DSL. Together with all the Rox wrappers and other overhead that it would imply. Still it would be a worthy project, but most difficult to try to merge with all the exising framework that makes up DSL. Nevertheless, I am planning to bring better useability to the next major release of DSL. Stay tuned, I am making progress and am enjoying the new capabilities.
Posted by lucky13 on June 20 2007,16:29
| Quote |
| I was a big fan of Acorn. Risc OS was a brilliant OS. |
It still is, and it's now open sourced. Its license only allows it to be used, though, on ARM processors -- not x86, PPC, etc.
< http://lucky13.blogsavy.com/2007/05/19/riscos-5-code-released/ >
| Quote |
| You would switch it on and in seconds up it popped |
The same was true of earlier versions of MacOS, DOS, etc. See the following link about a test of common computing tasks between a brand new dual core box and an old Mac.
< http://lucky13.blogsavy.com/2007....mputers >
If you really like RISCOS, try the rox.dsl extension. Rox is based on RISCOS. I've been setting up my computer to take full advantage of rox -- including moving all my executable (scripts and binaries) into AppDirs -- which has made it very user-friendly (and very modular, too). My blog has several pages with rox tips, and a few more on the way now that I have a little more time.
Posted by lucky13 on June 20 2007,16:41
| Quote |
| Rox Filer pinboard is not compatible with much of core DSL. |
I'm curious what's incompatible aside from the version of fluxbox. I'm still moving things around and tweaking. There are a couple things that need a little more finesse. It would be easier to start afresh with things than work backwards -- IOW, start with rox and make things fit with it instead of hunting down things that would need to go in the same appdir. E.G., make an application like siag a dsl/uci so all its files go into one localized and movable appdir. Setting up a wrapper is the easy way around apps like siag now, but it's just not the optimal/rox way.
Posted by roberts on June 21 2007,06:55
I can only imagine the feedback if I dropped fluxbox.With a traditional hard drive install, rox.dsl together with orobus window manager makes for a nice base for a Rox desktop pinboard & panel. With a traditional hard drive installation, disk space is usually not an issue. Extensions are not an issue, when then are formally and permanetly installed and therefore do not have to deal with issues that come with the dynamic nature that is DSL's live CD and frugal installations Adding rox wrappers for every application and every extension, not only adds to the size of core and therefore ramdisk usage but makes for much work and changes every specification that is currently DSL.
The fact is I have shared some of my Rox ideas with Lucky13 and he with me. The fact that UCI are trivially mapped into compressed rox binaries which I named CRB type extensions is also a nice lauch point for a Rox like system.
Still, it remains, problematic for me to "move forward" retaining all the DSL apps and Rox together with its unique demands (AppDirs, and wrappers) and remain under 50MB, and support all the extension types.
Some may argue then don't limit yourself to a size barrier.
But to trying to merge means having certain combinations which would produce undersireable results (fluxbox and pinboard)
And for me to introduce yet another complete but separate image (distro) is just too much to undertake as this time.
Believe me, I am not knocking Rox, I truly like the environment. If I were to start with a clean slate and start a new distro without having to support all of the past infrastructure I would do it. I have actually proto-typed just such a live CD system together with a small collection of "crb" extensions.
Nevertheless, I like the challenge of DSL and moving forward .I will once again try to make DSL even more dense and offer similar features while retaining our existing small fluxbox and original apps within 50MB. This together with a new kernel will become DSL 4.0.
It remains my goal to try to maintain the 50MB limit while striving to improve useability of DSL while continuing to support our exisitng user base, their machines, and repository of extensions.
Posted by blip on June 26 2007,09:24
I appreciate what you've said Robert. Don't jump on me for saying this everyone as I do understand for DSL to remain light and quick compromises need to be made...but the ttwo things I think would make life a lot easier would be a package management tool ( with graphics like Yast ) and some kind of filing tool ( so icons pop up on the desktop ).I did look at Rox filer last night and it makes viewing documents so much easier. There's a lot to be said for images over text.
Posted by Juanito on June 26 2007,10:23
Does Synaptics count as a package management tool?
Posted by mikshaw on June 26 2007,12:50
[jump]A graphical package manager and icony file manager are both available through myDSL.There's a lot to be said for text (and/or hotkeys) over images, and I think I'll say some before this coffee kicks in and makes me rational...
A picture paints a thousand words, as they say, but I tend to disagree when it comes to a 48x48 pixel image. There are very few icons I look at and can even figure out what the image *is*, nevermind what it symbolizes. If I'm going to have to learn what each icon does, I might as well learn a hotkey instead. Hotkeys take less system resources, and they don't produce any visual clutter. And finally, how many icon-laden desktops are in existence that don't already use a text label next to the icon? Very few I would guess. So apparently the image itself serves little purpose beyond decoration. Or at least that's my opinion.
[/jump]
Posted by lucky13 on June 26 2007,13:15
| Quote |
| package management tool |
It's called "MyDSL."
| Quote |
| I did look at Rox filer last night and it makes viewing documents so much easier. There's a lot to be said for images over text. |
People are going to have very different views about this because some are a lot more graphically-aware than text-aware. I think that's why Apple has had success with left-brain types like artists compared to more right-brain types like researchers and accountants who simply want something that crunches numbers, never mind if the inputs and outputs are graphical.
Rox has a big edge when looking at images since they can be viewed as thumbnails instead of as file names. I don't think it makes much difference if you're looking at file.txt in rox or emelfm -- either way you're looking for a file name unless you associate a unique icon for files (which I do by adding MIME-types to distinguish between different kinds of text files, such as adding .log for files that pertain to the computer -- but the same could be done in emelfm by adding the MIME and giving it a unique color).
mikshaw:
| Quote |
| There are very few icons I look at and can even figure out what the image *is*, nevermind what it symbolizes. |
I agree with you about certain icons, particularly for applications. I think, though, there are ways to use MIME types to associate data with certain icons -- whether the icon says "text" or "spreadsheet" or has a very clear representation of what that file is (see any of the screenshots posted at my blog).
As far as having an icon AND text, I don't have a problem with that since a box full of MIME-type-text icons isn't going to be very useful. The text under those icons generally tell you a file name, not a file type. That's different from well-conceived and more generic application icons that represent what application is (e.g., an envelope for an e-mail application). I think one of the best sets of icons in this respect were the ones included in NeXT, but early versions of Mac were also more intuitive (before there were myriad applications available).
I'm not pro- or anti-icon, I just want useful and intuitive icons. I'm familiar enough with certain applications that I know the logos and make associations that way. That works well on my own computer. If I'm setting something up for someone else, I don't make any presumptions and try to use icons that are basic and represent what pressing them will do.
Posted by WDef on June 26 2007,16:02
| Quote |
| package management tool |
It's worth remembering that the two most successful desktop OSs (whether we like them or not) do not have package management tools.
It's arguable whether, for a common-or-garden user who just wants to get on with it with common applications, a desktop OS needs package management at all. Locating and resolving dependencies etc can sometimes be so much work you wonder if it's worth it. And I have to wonder whether, for non-cpu intensive progs on modern systems with plenty of capacity, the gains of using shared libraries versus static compiling (and thus having no dependencies) are always worth it also.
Fedora/Red Hat users will well know what I'm talking about. Recall Eric S Raymond's now famous I-quit-Fedora rant:
< http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/13640 >
(Yes, he ignored the warnings and was a bit silly - but that's another issue).
Obviously package management comes into its own is for (eg) remote upgrading an entire server, for example, or for undertaking repairs to a broken system.
Posted by lucky13 on June 26 2007,16:36
| Quote |
| It's worth remembering that the two most successful desktop OSs (whether we like them or not) do not have package management tools. |
Actually, they do. Most users, though, either don't know they have those tools available to them or they bypass them altogether and cobble their systems together with applications they buy, encounter, etc.
Apple has used Darwin Ports and a project called Fink (edit: apt-get for OSX). Windows has used various implementations of package management since at least NT. And while it's somewhat limited, Windows' control panel has the add/remove programs dialog which is supposed to make it easier to keep track of applications and their libraries via the registry (which itself operates similarly to databases like those used by apt, yast, etc.). The manager detailed in the MS link below is for their own packages related to their updates. I'm not pointing it out as being comparable to Synaptic but it does relate to your last point about upgrading the OS. As far as comparisons could ever go between that and something like Synaptic, it's a lot easier for Debian or any other distro to aggregate lists of applications in their repositories than it is for MS and other companies to aggregate applications because MS generally doesn't sell or offer software from other vendors. Debian can do it because the packages are "free;" MS can't because those things usually aren't free.
< http://www.oreillynet.com/mac....me.html >
< http://darwinports.com/ >
< http://www.finkproject.org/ >
< http://technet2.microsoft.com/Windows....fr=true >
Posted by roberts on June 26 2007,16:44
First let me say that DSL 4.0 is not going to be Rox. I have already posted the many reasons why I have made this decision. Yet, I also posted that I will be trying to address some of the issues of ease of use.I know that doing this, I will never please everyone. There may be some users who will say that DSL 3.x was the last good version. But I have experienced that before. I recall those who said v0.5.3.1 was the last good one and again v0.7.3. Seems anytime I make major changes there will be those who do not like change.
There is much on-going debate about UI and application centeric versus document centric, icons versus text menus and on and on.
I know that we have some users who currently do not like icons and don't use them. Some boot with no icons and use midnight commander. Some use DSL only at the CLI or only an open xterm. I have tried to build the mydsl infrastructure to support both. DSL will continue to offer these capabilites.
On the otherhand, the current icon system used by DSL is clunky and separate from the file manager. Basic operations work as expected. But many users have to expect a closer integration of these. Having a real desktop, drag and drop support, many and easily maintained associations using mime types. DSL 4.0 will be available soon and tries to support both the existing no icon users and those who expect a more familiar environemnt as just described. And, yes we will still be under 50MB.
As far as package management goes, I have answered this many times. My interest in DSL is as a live CD or emulation of one. As such MyDSL applications are never really installed and thereore no package management is needed, simply reboot or delete from persistent store. MyDSL extensions were never inteneded for a traditional hard drive instalation. My focus and interest has never been a traditional hard drive installation. I know that many will do this and many will force install extensions to such. But that was not the design. Think of it, MyDSL extension, as using a foreign package on a Debian system.
Posted by WDef on June 26 2007,19:18
Sounds like a definitive position there from Robert.@Lucky13: Thanks for the info, I'm sure all that's correct but it doesn't change my points. Personally I wouldn't consider Windows "Add/remove programs" as package management at all in the full sense that we know it in linux, and afaik developers in windows and Mac usually go out of their way so that things install without the ordinary desktop user having to locate dependencies or even know that these exit. But that's all by the by and probably not worth going into.
Posted by roberts on June 26 2007,20:44
DSL with MyDSL, as designed, was to make it simple to add/remove applications and without the need of dependency checking or overrunning your installation with extra unwanted packges. Package management by using MyDSL with live CD or frugals is really as simple as file managment. That is why the prompt if you downloaded and dynamically loaded an extension onto the ramdisk, the system prompts you to copy the extension(s) to a persistent store.
When using the boot tme autoloading, the "removal" of a "package" is also just as easy. Simple delete the file from the mydsl directory on the persistent storage device. It really is as simple as file managment.
Posted by lucky13 on June 26 2007,21:22
| Quote |
| ...afaik developers in windows and Mac usually go out of their way so that things install without the ordinary desktop user having to locate dependencies or even know that these exit. |
I thought that's the reason for various Linux packaging systems (apt/deb, rpm, tgz, etc.). People freak out when that doesn't work right and they have to track down dependencies on their own.
Posted by WDef on June 27 2007,11:22
Sorry Lucky but I've lost track of what your point is.Mine are these (to reiterate):
1) dsl does not need a full-blown package management system with dependency management and autofetching.
2) Most desktop users of the 2 most popular OSs don't really know what a full-blown package and dependency manager is, and don't really want one, even if it exists.
3) I predict that linux desktop systems aimed at basic users are likely to dump package management in the existing sense in favor of self-contained apps using things lilke Klik or Zero Install in the not-to-distant future. As Robert has said, DSL pioneered this with the uci format (following RiscOS, apparently).
Advanced users will continue to use yum, apt etc. because they need that level of control.
That's all I have say on this :=)
Posted by blip on June 27 2007,12:29
This is a very interesting topic. Thanks for your detailed reply Robert.It always comes down to people preferring different things I guess. I will have to use the hotkeys as I am sure they are much quicker.
Personally I do find looking at icons much easier than pages of filenames...it depends what you're used to I guess.
MyDSL is very elegant and quick...the way you can delete dsls from the root / they don't load is very easy. Hats off to you there.
I didn't mean to start a big debate over my little comment! I did find though e.g. I wanted to install real player. Is this possible? How do I find realplayer?
That's the only reason I mentioned having a Yast like tool ( or Ubuntu use a similar thing where you can search for programs and just install them) - it makes it very easy for a noob that's all. I've learn t how to use apt-get and the repositories...so that's ok...but I struggled at first. I guess it's like driving a car/ you need to learn how to drive before you get going and computers are the same.
It's very unfair of me to suggest these things when I know you have a 50mb limit...big graphical interfaces probably consume so much more room....I keep thinking of these issues with Amiga and workbench..I never touch Directory Opus so using a filemanager is a little new to me - but it can be very quick. I guess we're all used to doing things one way after years of windows
It will be interesting to see what you do in DSL4. DSL is like having Risc OS over again...lean ..fast. Maybe this weekend I'll try and skin it and go back to relive my Acorn days.........ahhhhh
Posted by lucky13 on June 27 2007,15:56
| Quote |
| Most desktop users of the 2 most popular OSs don't really know what a full-blown package and dependency manager is, and don't really want one, even if it exists. |
I don't think most Linux users do, either. That's why there's been mass migration from Red Hat and RH-based distros for RPM to Debian for apt and now to Ubuntu since its repositories are more bleeding edge and the tools used by default in Ubuntu are more automagical. And I agree with you that tools like zero-install will likely eventually attract more users.
Linux users increasingly want the same ease as in Windows of just downloading something, double-clicking, and then it installs itself. Windows can do that more transparently because MS has standardized most of the libraries (DLLs) that things need; anything with an odd library will add it to the system during installation. In contrast, Linux has disparate libraries which is why there's a certain frequency of encountering dependency issues. Otherwise, there's really very little difference between installing something in Windows and precompiled binaries from apt-get, yum, slapt-get, etc.
I can't agree with you that advanced users who need control will choose tools like apt that install precompiled binaries. Some indeed do, but most will continue compiling from source themselves.
Posted by ^thehatsrule^ on June 27 2007,17:13
blip: see mydslMost don't bother to browse the .info even if they are encountering problems...
Extension dependency checks can be very complicated.. Even if you wanted to add that kind of layer to mydsl, there wouldn't be enough manpower to moderate it (and the focus has been already stated). However, a search kind of function would be nice... which may be easier for users than to manually go through each list, or using web/ftp browser.
When you talk of "yast" I believe you are talking about the frontend (to yum?) in particular... as synaptic is for apt.
About text and icons: pesonally I'm flexible with both, I have some machines set up where it's only icons (i.e. toolbar, or wmdrawer, etc) and some where it's only text (and even some with text/ascii-based "icons").