Re: [Computerbank] Debian PGI Installer

[Daniel Stone <dstone@trinity.unimelb.edu.au>]

On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 09:36:15AM +1030, David Lloyd scrawled:
> > I don't see why a GUI is necessary.
> 
> No, you don't.

Thanks for your exhaustive explanation.

> > Sometimes it's just easier to use the arrow keys. Good UI design makes
> > stuff easy to use, not a cutesy little pointer. Can you name a current
> > BIOS which has a GUI? Not really; they all have tried and tested, good
> > UI design. Which doesn't involve a mouse.
> 
> I stuffed up in my original post. I meant to say:
> 
>  * creating a graphical and text interface...
> 
> You don't *have to* use the GUI.

Ah, right.

> > If you have any problems with the installer, why has no-one heard
> > about them until now?
> 
> Now that's an amusing assumption.

Where did you send them to?

> > I think Desktop Penguin is the best build for
> > Computerbank. While it may not be suitable for Microbits, Computerbank
> > builds a great deal of machines with a huge amount of repetition and
> > very, very little variance, which means something like DP is perfectly
> > suited to the task.
> 
> Maybe so.
> 
> However, one can build PGI in a number of ways. For example:
> 
>  * ask trillions of options
>      - if you that's what you need
>  * got hundreds of machines, all same spec?
>      - build a no frills, stick in CD (or do over network) install no
>        questions asked
>   * install the trillions of options version ONCE and then use
>     Ghost4Unix to ghost it to other machines

I'm aware how flexible it is, but I'm just not seeing why Computerbank
should go through all the work of switching to something that provides
no real benefit I can see. *shrug*.

Not to demean your work or anything, I just really don't see why.

Regards,
Daniel

-- 
Daniel Stone                                     <dstone@trinity.unimelb.edu.au>
Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne

PGP signature