Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

Maki · 2008-04-29 13:45:58

Newbie friendly distro's have nice GUI configuration utilities and are easy to use but they very complex on the internals on the system, wich makes it hard to do some stuff that isn't as an option in the gui config apps. On the other hand we have KISS user friendly distro's which take litle more time to set up, but are easier to understand and configure if you know how to do it, but they don't have gui configuration apps. So here the question asked here is, how do you make a distro that its both simple for the Power user, and for the regular user. ( which is sci-fi at the moment, and also apply to Windows & mac )

.:B:. · 2008-04-29 14:24:15

You don't.

ornitorrincos · 2008-04-29 14:28:32

you can't, at one point both ways of seeing the distro will conflict and there will be some problems between "the newbies" and "the power users", which usually resolves with "the power users" leaving the distro because they have the knowledge to make one for themselves. People are lazy and won't work for other people if they don't get something in exchange (something they can use, for example)

tomk · 2008-04-29 14:28:53

Start with Arch, to satisfy your clued-in users, and build a shedload of optional GUI stuff on top.

Simple, really.

Maki · 2008-04-29 15:35:45

ornitorrincos wrote:

you can't, at one point both ways of seeing the distro will conflict and there will be some problems between "the newbies" and "the power users", which usually resolves with "the power users" leaving the distro because they have the knowledge to make one for themselves. People are lazy and won't work for other people if they don't get something in exchange (something they can use, for example)

you can really do that if you make a distro independent system ( like packagekit, policykit ... ) that will be easy to maintain, only the backend will be provided by distro's user. The only problem is to make all the hardware configurable with no problems, and to make all the configurations work with the system.

carlocci · 2008-04-29 15:43:47

tomk wrote:

Start with Arch, to satisfy your clued-in users, and build a shedload of optional GUI stuff on top.

And we'll call it Ubuntu

Stoffi · 2008-04-29 16:03:58

I got an Idea, which won't be exactly what you asked for, but almost.
if one creates a GUI app, which reads and lets the user edit the config files himself.
which would probably end up being a reduced text editor, which only open config files, and maybe finds them for the user.

cactus · 2008-04-29 16:06:56

carlocci wrote:

tomk wrote:
Start with Arch, to satisfy your clued-in users, and build a shedload of optional GUI stuff on top.
And we'll call it Ubuntu

No way..it would be called .. Aqueduct.
I mean.. those things are built with roman style arches.
amiright?

Just look at all those freakin' arches!

http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/a/images/a … mes.lg.JPG

tomk · 2008-04-29 17:33:24

carlocci wrote:

tomk wrote:
Start with Arch, to satisfy your clued-in users, and build a shedload of optional GUI stuff on top.
And we'll call it Ubuntu

I think that name is already taken....

My post was only half in jest, and the word 'optional' is the key. There are already various optional front-ends for different aspects of Arch - a choice of pacman GUIs, ArchAssistant for netcfg, something gradgrind wrote for locales, etc. Anyone who's interested can gather this stuff together, enhance/integrate as required, and throw it in a repo somewhere - it doesn't even need a new distro IMO. It would be like those plastic body kits for cars - you throw all this eye-candy on top, but underneath it's still a standard Arch install, that works as Arch has always worked.

bavardage · 2008-04-29 17:42:32

Well maybe someone should attempt a user-friendly distro built on Arch base - Ubuntu is based on the more hardcore debian distro.

Sigi · 2008-04-29 18:12:59

bavardage wrote:

Well maybe someone should attempt a user-friendly distro built on Arch base - Ubuntu is based on the more hardcore debian distro.

See, there is it again ... "someone should" ...

GGLucas · 2008-04-29 18:18:02

.

Last edited by GGLucas (2022-06-24 09:09:24)

Maki · 2008-04-29 18:18:27

Sigi wrote:

bavardage wrote:
Well maybe someone should attempt a user-friendly distro built on Arch base - Ubuntu is based on the more hardcore debian distro.
See, there is it again ... "someone should" ...

http://kdemod.ath.cx/bbs/viewtopic.php?id=688

daf666 · 2008-04-29 18:24:03

carlocci wrote:

And we'll call it Ubuntu

No! it should me called Arch Linux Vista Enterprise Edition Ultimate!

Mikko777 · 2008-04-29 18:24:35

bavardage wrote:

Well maybe someone should attempt a user-friendly distro built on Arch base - Ubuntu is based on the more hardcore debian distro.

http://kdemod.ath.cx/wiki/doku.php

I'd love to get *kits working in arch too

Edit: Maki beat me to it

Last edited by Mikko777 (2008-04-29 18:25:25)

Sigi · 2008-04-29 18:36:53

Maki wrote:

Sigi wrote:
bavardage wrote:
Well maybe someone should attempt a user-friendly distro built on Arch base - Ubuntu is based on the more hardcore debian distro.
See, there is it again ... "someone should" ...
http://kdemod.ath.cx/bbs/viewtopic.php?id=688

I haven't said that I don't like the idea itself or that no work is done in this field. Nice to see that much progress on shaman-arch btw.

I just don't like the "someone should" feature requests which pop up more and more. If you have an idea, implement it...

iphitus · 2008-04-30 00:04:06

cactus wrote:

carlocci wrote:
tomk wrote:
Start with Arch, to satisfy your clued-in users, and build a shedload of optional GUI stuff on top.
And we'll call it Ubuntu
No way..it would be called .. Aqueduct.
I mean.. those things are built with roman style arches.
amiright?

Just look at all those freakin' arches!
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/a/images/a … mes.lg.JPG

I want to start one just to use that name!

In all seriousness, you can discuss your keyboards to dust and the concept will never get anywhere until someone writes some code. Actions > Words in arch.

patches ftw!

Redroar · 2008-04-30 03:47:43

If someone were to make a DesktopBSD equivalent, only built on Arch....that'd be great.

Fact is, there's no reason it can't be done. DesktopBSD is FreeBSD, but with administration tools, a graphical installer, etc. You can uninstall all that stuff and be left with FreeBSD (or so it's website says), and I imagine the same could be done with Arch. But it takes someone to sit down and do it. Personally, I have neither the time nor the desire to do it. Arch fits the bill perfectly for me, and while I know quite a few people that would prefer something that is graphical...they usually don't care that Ubuntu is 10% slower, and since they won't mess around with the wonderful contents of /etc anyway.

But yeah, Aqueduct! It would be the perfect transition distro. Those who got frustrated with the difficulty for any low-level changes in Ubuntu, but who aren't ready for the full jump into CLI-ness.

finferflu · 2008-04-30 09:20:57

Just look at what the KDEmod guys are doing.

funkyou · 2008-04-30 14:29:42

Yes, we are working on "something", but we would like to have it in a presentable state and write more code and stuff before talking

And no, it will _not_ be a "new" distro or something... We dont want to leave Arch and we dont want to fork it or something, because its already perfect as it is... What Redroar wrote about DesktopBSD comes near to what we want to do, and now i stop talking

If you want to know whats going on, take a look into our svn or forums, or just join #shaman-arch @ freenode and ask us directly

finferflu · 2008-04-30 19:28:33

I love you guys
I'm not planning to use KDE anytime soon, but I'm really happy about what you are doing. I think it's great, and I will surely check it out.

tesjo · 2008-05-01 03:18:04

I agree with the first couple replies, you cannot have this best of both worlds distro. With a gui (or automated OS provided script) you are balancing between functionality and useability, that is you cant include all functions without over cluttering and making the gui unusable. When a power user need extra functionality he must go to text files and personal scripts, and then doesn't like system being bloated with unnecessary tools or running unnecessary processes.

There are definitely good guis though, for me I backup dvd's with k9copy even though I don't use kde and its great.

One last thought I tested the rc of windows server 2008, and found the controls and configurability nice (for a gui). It did run much better than the vista client, but no sftp or ssh, thats funny.

Redroar · 2008-05-01 04:38:21

This is what I see. The reason Ubuntu fails for power users is that it is very unfriendly to someone who tries to configure it like you'd configure Arch. Now the thing that I could see (and has been done with DesktopBSD) is optional GUI tools laid on top of pure Arch goodness. This means that at any time you could stop using or uninstall any of the GUI tools if you wish, and become a power user. This would make a transition much easier for many people, as rather than uninstalling Ubuntu and jumping straight into Arch, they could try to do without the GUI stuff. But they are still there as sort of a safety net for the newbie power users.

But anyway, I do not see these things as mutually exclusive. The reason Ubuntu is hell on power users is because the programmers changed the system to accommodate the tools, rather than the tools to accommodate the system. If you make things that simply edit rc.conf, and the rest of /etc without changing the layout or anything else, then I see nothing wrong.

I think that the KDEmod guys are on the right track, personally, and I wish them luck.

peets · 2008-05-01 05:44:56

It may be too early to speak, because I haven't really tried using the features, but the Transmission bittorrent client has many interfaces: GUI, cli, daemon + remote calls, maybe more. If you want to be a newbie and do a quick one-time use, it's easy thanks to the GUI. If you want to use it seriously and integrate it with other stuff, there's the other interfaces. But I haven't gotten around to using them yet. So I think it's possible. I don't know what it would mean at the distro level. Maybe that KDEmod "something". Finferflu's #21 post applies to me as well!

yesterday · 2008-05-01 15:03:57

Redroar wrote:

This is what I see. The reason Ubuntu fails for power users is that it is very unfriendly to someone who tries to configure it like you'd configure Arch. Now the thing that I could see (and has been done with DesktopBSD) is optional GUI tools laid on top of pure Arch goodness. This means that at any time you could stop using or uninstall any of the GUI tools if you wish, and become a power user. This would make a transition much easier for many people, as rather than uninstalling Ubuntu and jumping straight into Arch, they could try to do without the GUI stuff. But they are still there as sort of a safety net for the newbie power users.
But anyway, I do not see these things as mutually exclusive. The reason Ubuntu is hell on power users is because the programmers changed the system to accommodate the tools, rather than the tools to accommodate the system. If you make things that simply edit rc.conf, and the rest of /etc without changing the layout or anything else, then I see nothing wrong.
I think that the KDEmod guys are on the right track, personally, and I wish them luck.

It really depends on what "power users" want to do. Many people run ubuntu LAMP servers, which could be defined as a "power-user" activity. Plus, there is nothing really stopping you editing /etc files in Ubuntu. Or your personal config files in ~. Also, to be fair, most of the GUI tools are really GNOME gui tools -- most of these tools are available for Arch as well. The main problem is that your app configs aren't vanilla -- you have to really delve and delve to find out what exactly is configured which way. Does setting your timezone using vi make you a more of power user than if you set it with a X11 GUI? Either way, most users learn basic system commands via the command line anyway, since most instructional material out there uses the cl. Guides telling someone to "type sudo /etc/init.d/networking ... " are more common than "Go to System Tools-> Preferences->Session" etc

Last edited by yesterday (2008-05-01 15:04:08)

Arch Linux

#1 2008-04-29 13:45:58

Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#2 2008-04-29 14:24:15

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#3 2008-04-29 14:28:32

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#4 2008-04-29 14:28:53

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#5 2008-04-29 15:35:45

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#6 2008-04-29 15:43:47

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#7 2008-04-29 16:03:58

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#8 2008-04-29 16:06:56

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#9 2008-04-29 17:33:24

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#10 2008-04-29 17:42:32

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#11 2008-04-29 18:12:59

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#12 2008-04-29 18:18:02

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#13 2008-04-29 18:18:27

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#14 2008-04-29 18:24:03

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#15 2008-04-29 18:24:35

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#16 2008-04-29 18:36:53

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#17 2008-04-30 00:04:06

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#18 2008-04-30 03:47:43

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#19 2008-04-30 09:20:57

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#20 2008-04-30 14:29:42

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#21 2008-04-30 19:28:33

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#22 2008-05-01 03:18:04

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#23 2008-05-01 04:38:21

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#24 2008-05-01 05:44:56

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

#25 2008-05-01 15:03:57

Re: Newbie friebdly vs. user friendly distro's

Board footer