Re: SEUL: Re: What's the diff to SEUL ? (fwd)

[Rick Jones <rickya@siservices.net>]

William T Wilson wrote:
> 
> My guess is not many.  Either they have Windows, and we can loot it, or
> they have OS/2 or some other version of Linux, and they know their
> hardware as a matter of survival, or they have DOS, and their computer is
> too feeble for SEUL anyway.

OS/2 does a default setup.  You can change it if you want.  Having OS/2
does not mean they know their hardware "as a matter of survival".

Why do you make comments like somebody using DOS has a system too feeble
for SEUL anyway?  I know people that don't want Windoze, they learned on
programs that use DOS, and got used to it, heard about bugs in Windoze
and decided they didn't want to loose data.  How many Linux users are
there out there that don't use a GUI?  Is there system too feeble for X?

You seem to presume quite a bit.  And if it isn't the case, your opinion
seems to be that that's their problem.

What if they want to put it on a fresh-bought hard drive?  An old system
with nothing on it to test before putting it on their main system?  A
young beginner putting it on his parents computer because he had no
trouble on his after dad's system got a partition virus?

There are a bunch of *valid* "what if's" that you want to blow past.  I
thought the idea was to take our time and get it as close to perfect as
possible?  As opposed to throwing it together and shooting it out the
door.

> The only case is those people who had a data catastrophe and have decided
> to go with SEUL instead.  For those people we'll have to rely on
> user-cluefulness and probing.

You aren't relying on user-cluefulness, you're forcing the user to have
to be clueful.  That being the case, what is the difference in this dist
and the others?  Nothing.  RH and Debian both can do just as much for
that user as this dist.