Re: Newbie Idea

[Donovan Rebbechi <elflord@pegasus.rutgers.edu>]

On 27 Apr 1999 jfm2@club-internet.fr wrote:

> I disagree with Donovan here not about dropping packages (I already
> explained why it we should not make Indy, at least the real version, a
> crippled distrib) but I remeber being confused in front of a distrib
> who had tons of software like 6 web servers so I skipped package after
> packege I was not interested in and ended missing what I was looking.

perhaps one way we could "have it both ways" would be to put "redundant"
packages on a second CD and not have them show up in the install. 

> No don't, this is supposed to be a distribution made by users for
> users not a distrib made by an elite telling the unwashed masses what

I hope I didn't sound like "the elite", ugh. Actually, end users really
have an eye for things that experienced users overlook. This "package
selection" dilemma is a good example. Thinking about it more deeply, I am
starting to feel like the "uninformed" were right all along. But coming up
with a solution that will work is something of a challenge.

I think I remember being able to find the F1-package descriptions as a
newbie, but some of the packages ( eg "UUCP", "bind", "NIS"   ) were just
beyond my comprehension at the time, so I just selected everything. 

> I agree about Indy 0.1 (and 0.2) being far from what is needed but for
> one part we didn't have lots of {,wo}manpower and in addition Indy is
> a distrib who needs to be on end user stores and with paper doc coming
> with it in order to be of use for the people we target.  Until then we

one thing we can do ( I can make a start ) is write some docs about the
"groups" of packages, what those groups mean, and who might want to use
which groups of packages. 

The group descriptions are a little confusing in places ( I am still a
little confused by the meaning of "X windows with emacs". I guess it
means the athena build of emacs ... )

-- Donovan