Asa Dotzler must die.

bruno · 2005-07-15 00:31:49

I'm not the only NetBSD fan that likes pacman

And I'm still a starter in NetBSD, this guy has more experience:

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=9993

sweiss · 2005-07-15 14:11:05

Since the command line is the big issue with user friendliness, I've had some thoughts...

You need the console mostly for 2 things, package management and system configuration.

Package management has 2 graphical applications that I know of: KPackage and Synaptic.
If we were able to add support for new package managers in those tools, without having it to be hard-coded, I think it would have made things a lot easier. What I basically mean is having KPackage and Synaptic being able to read a certain format of XML files which can be used for adding support to whatever package management system there is. This XML file should include the commands for installing, upgrading, removing packages etc., with information regarding how they should parse the output. It should also have the ability of defining our own new features with ease for package managers who can do more than others. Maybe a small API, or using an already existing programming language with a certain module (I'm having Python in mind). This is less critical though.

Next, configuration. Linux does need some form of a control center. I think this can be achieved again, using XML files which will provide an interface for the real configuration file. It will not replace the real configuration file, it will be a GUI system for editing configuration files. For example samba configuration - the samba package will include a samba.config (like a .desktop file - it should be a standard for this to work) which will include a way to change the configuration.

These files should be project specific - The project maintainers should provide them in their package, the way they provide their normal configuration files. It shouldn't be distro-specific.
That way we will have a unified interface for configurating software, while people can still maintain their legacy way of doing direct editing on the configuration files. Maybe Webmin already does that, maybe it needs some improvements, I'm not sure - but that's the general idea I had.

I think it might work, at least.

Dusty · 2005-07-15 14:35:19

sweiss wrote:

Package management has 2 graphical applications that I know of: KPackage and Synaptic.

jacman, lazypac :-D

Next, configuration. Linux does need some form of a control center.

Linuxconf, webadmin, drak*

The tools you suggest have been created. Smart people just choose not to use them.

I think 'user-friendly' is a misnomer. When people say 'user-friendly' they don't mean "easy to use". The command line is easy to use. When people say 'user-friendly', they mean "easy to learn". Point and click doesn't take a lot of practice. However, it is not easy to use. Its inefficient and its restrictive.

As a computer user, in fact, a user who *uses* a computer a lot more than the average person, I'm offended by the use of the term 'user-friendly'. It invariably applies to something that is not remotely friendly to me. I'm a user! This is descrimination against people willing to learn.

Dusty

sweiss · 2005-07-15 15:04:13

Dusty wrote:

sweiss wrote:
Package management has 2 graphical applications that I know of: KPackage and Synaptic.
jacman, lazypac :-D
Next, configuration. Linux does need some form of a control center.
Linuxconf, webadmin, drak*

The thing is we need tools which are not distro specific. So you could switch distros and still keep on using KPackage the way you have been, for example. Hell, it shouldn't be even Linux specific for that matter, should also be usable in other unix-like operating systems perhaps, as there are a lot of common things.

Same thing goes for the configuration applications - The application should offer "framework" for making easy GUI-like configuration. The configuration interfaces should be created by the project developers rather than the framework's maintainer. And in order for this to work it should use something easy which doesn't take too much time to build, like usage of simple XML files.

Dusty wrote:

I think 'user-friendly' is a misnomer. When people say 'user-friendly' they don't mean "easy to use". The command line is easy to use. When people say 'user-friendly', they mean "easy to learn". Point and click doesn't take a lot of practice. However, it is not easy to use. Its inefficient and its restrictive.
As a computer user, in fact, a user who *uses* a computer a lot more than the average person, I'm offended by the use of the term 'user-friendly'. It invariably applies to something that is not remotely friendly to me. I'm a user! This is descrimination against people willing to learn.
Dusty

Ok, call it newbie friendly then You still have the old way of doing things if you want to use it. Maybe this GUI tool should also be a bit educational (like maybe telling you where the file is located, or tell even show you the real file side-by-side with the GUI, so you have a clue what the file looks like at least).

Dusty · 2005-07-15 15:10:56

sweiss wrote:

The thing is we need tools which are not distro specific. So you could switch distros and still keep on using

Why would you switch distros?

No, I'm serious: If the tools were all the same, then there would be no difference between distros. In other words, there would only be one distro. This is not necessarily a bad thing; it would reduce duplication of effort by a long shot (I mean, there's people making gentoo, Arch Linux, Debian, and RPM packages for firefox 1.0.5, probably as we speak). But there is no way you could get people to agree to use them. So why bother trying?

Dusty

sweiss · 2005-07-15 15:21:19

Well this really is a tricky question

But distros contain a lot of things - different builds/packages/architectures etc.

All of these matter for the knowledgeable users though rather than the newcomers. The difference will be under the hood, these tools are only to be used from the GUI.

System administrators of servers don't normally use a GUI on their server, so they have other preferences in mind, such as wether the packages are bleeding edge or stable and secure or how easy it is to manage the file layout, customizing their system etc.

But still, a very good question. I just think that the most common component in the various distributions is the desktop environment, so it would be easier to get unification there rather than in other places.

phrakture · 2005-07-15 15:21:23

sweiss wrote:

Ok, call it newbie friendly then You still have the old way of doing things if you want to use it. Maybe this GUI tool should also be a bit educational (like maybe telling you where the file is located, or tell even show you the real file side-by-side with the GUI, so you have a clue what the file looks like at least).

Independant studies have show that people who have never touched a computer before learn the command line much faster than a GUI (this was done on both window/dos and linux)

There were numerous studies on this... can't find any though...

sweiss · 2005-07-15 15:22:59

Maybe they do learn it faster, but they have to learn it A good GUI should be pretty much self-explanatory.

iphitus · 2005-07-15 16:07:08

A good manual is self explanatory too.

sweiss · 2005-07-15 16:25:06

True. But these are not the old DOS days, people expect graphical interfaces. Especially given the fact this article is about converting existing computer users. They shouldn't unlearn everything they have learned.

Gullible Jones · 2005-07-15 19:06:57

They don't have to unlearn anything, they just have to learn new things.

phrakture · 2005-07-15 19:15:53

man, I hate these arguments - they never go anywhere. The fact is that a user switching from windows to linux is going to have to switch paradigms... be it gui -> console, control panel -> text files, whatever - something *has* to change... because if nothing changed, we'd all be using something that was equal to windows, wouldn't we?

sweiss · 2005-07-15 19:29:51

It doesn't have to be "like Windows". It just has to be more intuitive, that's all. Better yet, the system should teach its users, rather then the users having to learn the system.

For example I'd really like to see things like "Welcome to KDE" or "Welcome to GNOME" tutorials when a new user launches those for the first time. It could even include a section regarding basics of the command line. But it should be a part of the environment itself, rather than some website somewhere.

renners1 · 2005-07-15 19:31:19

Linux is not ready for Joe Average simply because it's not supported well enough by 3rd parties.

I recently installed Wireless LAN at home... got everything running in 5 mins on Windows.... took me hours to install drivers, learn about iwconfigs etc etc to get it working on Linux.

Until this kind of thing is sorted, Linux will remain in a niche.

phrakture · 2005-07-15 19:40:18

renners1 wrote:

I recently installed Wireless LAN at home... got everything running in 5 mins on Windows.... took me hours to install drivers, learn about iwconfigs etc etc to get it working on Linux.

Yeah, but you're talking archlinux only... knoppix, I know, will auotdetect wireless networks... add wifi-radar on there and you're set with wireless in about 20-30 seconds

renners1 · 2005-07-15 19:45:18

phrakture wrote:

renners1 wrote:
I recently installed Wireless LAN at home... got everything running in 5 mins on Windows.... took me hours to install drivers, learn about iwconfigs etc etc to get it working on Linux.
Yeah, but you're talking archlinux only... knoppix, I know, will auotdetect wireless networks... add wifi-radar on there and you're set with wireless in about 20-30 seconds

oh, ok. never tried knoppix! Arch is the only distro I've installed the wifi on... maybe it's not a good example. I appreciate you guys are working on improving this is next release.

Cheers, Renners

bruno · 2005-07-16 10:22:21

I think the main problem about Linux is that there is not enough "core" defined. I think that's also precisely why it got so popular.

Let me explain: on Debian-based distros you can have full package compatilibity between them and Debian. When I say you "can" have it's because some distro makers chose not to. A bit stupid IMHO.

But what I'm saying is that you can have a different installer, different GUIs, different management tools and still it all fits. Same with VectorLinux and Slackware, or PC-BSD with FreeBSD. Full compatibility is the key.

Linux alone (the core you could define as Linux, like the stuff from LFS, kernel + a few tools) is not enough to garantee full compatibility between packages in the same architecture and the same kernel. There are different init types, file structures and package managers.

This "problem" is somewhat compensated by open-source: everybody can access the source of a package and repackage. But is not that easy to provide commercial software from a single vendor and expect it to fit. :?

But at the same time this "not enough core definition" problem is what made Linux so popular. It can be anything you want it to be. It's an OS kit, not necessarily defined by a community on which you can take part, but also a tool to grow your own OS, in your own style, to your own needs!

So the "not enough consistency" problem is at the same time the "can be anything you want" virtue.

Argh. :shock:

But if Linux communities would ever unite on a single OS project and work as organized as Debian or the BSDs in designing its userland it would certain rock the world and overcome whatever OS you may think of

bruno · 2005-07-17 18:39:50

Interesting reading, found it while looking for Thunar (the new XFCE file manager) resources:

http://xfce-diary.blogspot.com/2005/07/ … orktm.html

Gullible Jones · 2005-07-17 23:43:46

In my experience, Gnome is one of those things that... just works. It's annoyingly bloated, but not nearly to the extent of Windows XP's desktop, but it does work out of the box.

On second thought, I shouldn't say that... Gnome works out of the box, but GStreamer doesn't. GStreamer whines if you use ALSA instead of OSS output, GStreamer gives errors unless configured properly, and GStreamer is always slow and a bit piggish. And now it's integrated into Gnome... So no, some things don't work that well.

KDE I don't know much about... I do know that, last I used it, I got horrible warbling audio output from ARTS no matter how I adjusted the configuration. I ended up ditching the standard media players for amaroK with the Xine engine... But KDE won't let you uninstall Noatun, JuK, and Kaboodle without getting rid of a ton of other stuff, unfortunately.

XFce, on the other hand, seems to be one of those things that works quite well. I have only 2 problems with it. The first is the stupid rat logo, which makes me think of dirty code with places for rodents to hide in; the second is the lack of icons that do not appear to have been drawn by a 2-year-old and/or covered in dirt... But I digress.

As for mono, I've had limited experience with it - specifically, trying to get Muine running. Of course, when I tried that, Muine needed something from the Testing repo, so it couldn't work on my system...Okay, so that means I basically have zilcho experience with getting a Mono application running. Uhh... Yeah.

Edit: as far as Thunar goes, I sure hope it's a lot leaner and faster than Nautilus.

sarah31 · 2005-07-18 03:14:14

Cripes. This thread has gone of topic.

I just want to say that such views as the one in this article are really non-issues. Linux is not an OS for the majority of the people out there .... so what? Who cares? Does any one that actually uses it day in or day out really that concerned about such an opinion?

So linux is not ready for John and Jane Q. Public? Wow what a crushing statement.

Next.

Gullible Jones · 2005-07-18 03:51:50

Don't say it's not ready for the public until you've seen Linspire. As far as distros go, it may suck utterly - and the package management system is absolute crap, they make people pay to access their repo - but it's as easy to use as Windows.

tmadhavan · 2005-07-18 08:12:37

People do care, even those who don't realise it directly. The entire library system of S. Wales (that's including databases, til now using Unix) is being moved to Windows.

I mentioned this in passing to someone there and they said 'oh, well it'll be easier'. Hmmm, never mind the fact that it is a LIBRARY, using taxpayer's monef to fuck up a system that is dodgy at best. Bad enough with public comps running windows (they crash evey 10 mins or so), but now it'll be a joke.

How many thousand pounds is wasted...... all because of ignorance. It's not even a question of training - they have Unix techies.

I'll have to start stealing books to justify the expense....

bruno · 2005-07-18 19:20:37

sarah31 wrote:

Cripes. This thread has gone of topic.
I just want to say that such views as the one in this article are really non-issues. Linux is not an OS for the majority of the people out there .... so what? Who cares? Does any one that actually uses it day in or day out really that concerned about such an opinion?
So linux is not ready for John and Jane Q. Public? Wow what a crushing statement.
Next.

My gripes with Linux are not necessarily those of the article:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … ht=#101428

I'd like Linux to be a single OS, but you can't say all binary packages from Linux distros will work on other Linux distros on the same architecture. So we call it distros, but they're really different OSes sharing a kernel. *BSDs Linux emulation proves even a different OS can achieve almost the same degree of compatibility with RedHat packages than Debian or Slackware for example.

Just an example, not suggesting RedHat as a standard. But FreeBSD Linux emulation is RedHat-based and when the first commercial RH-specific apps appeared they claimed to be able to run Linux apps better than many Linux distros. This was before LSB.

Bruno

Dusty · 2005-07-18 19:48:34

bruno wrote:

I'd like Linux to be a single OS

Problem is, what you are suggesting is that we all have to use what you use.

Dusty

Euphoric Nightmare · 2005-07-18 20:14:10

I think that would be stupid, the best thing about linux is choices....I would be quite pissed off if I HAD to use redhat...The fact that there are so many distributions i don't think is even potentially an issue. I think that the reason nobody tries linux is because they are afraid, or lazy.

Arch Linux

#26 2005-07-15 00:31:49

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#27 2005-07-15 14:11:05

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#28 2005-07-15 14:35:19

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#29 2005-07-15 15:04:13

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#30 2005-07-15 15:10:56

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#31 2005-07-15 15:21:19

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#32 2005-07-15 15:21:23

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#33 2005-07-15 15:22:59

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#34 2005-07-15 16:07:08

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#35 2005-07-15 16:25:06

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#36 2005-07-15 19:06:57

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#37 2005-07-15 19:15:53

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#38 2005-07-15 19:29:51

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#39 2005-07-15 19:31:19

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#40 2005-07-15 19:40:18

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#41 2005-07-15 19:45:18

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#42 2005-07-16 10:22:21

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#43 2005-07-17 18:39:50

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#44 2005-07-17 23:43:46

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#45 2005-07-18 03:14:14

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#46 2005-07-18 03:51:50

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#47 2005-07-18 08:12:37

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#48 2005-07-18 19:20:37

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#49 2005-07-18 19:48:34

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#50 2005-07-18 20:14:10

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

Board footer