Re: Do we still need Indy ?

[JF Martinez <jfm2@club-internet.fr>]

> 
> cogNiTioN wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Kevin Forge wrote:
> > 
> > > The moral of this story is that _basic_ ease of use is already
> > > complete and what's left to do is add more comprehensive application
> > > support.  Stuff like ICQ and Net2Phone, little programs for manhandling
> > > clipart and checking what you would look like with your dreadlocks tied
> > > deferentially.
> > 
> > Would she have been able to set up an account? Or install new software, or
> > install Linux in the first place, or...
> > 
> > These are the things need the work, and this is where Indy comes in. (I
> > think); trying to get EVERYTHING on the system to be like that.
> > 
> > While people still use MS products because they are easier to use, there
> > will always be the need for Independence.
> 
> She cannot install Windows.  She cannot install software on Windows.
> Leaving her with Linux and no Root Password ( Her momy has that ) just
> protects me from making too many trips.
> 
> Yes software installation needs some work, but not as much as you think.
> 1. click on the .rpm / .deb
> 2. enter root password on request
> 3. Run the program. 
> 

In RedHat 6.1 (and next Indy) you just insesrt the CD, wait afew
seconns a GnoRPM windows pops up on your dektop.  Then you select
Install and it lists everything on the CD that is not on installed on
your box.

> It can be done and already works that way partially ( witness mandrake
> update ).
> 

Why to make Indy?

Because eight years after Linux birth distribution designers still act
like if every user was a WASP (white anglo-saxon protestant) american
student or engineer in a large organization.

They still largely ignore the problems and motivations of the private
user (check book software is far more important than a Scheme compiler
for a private user).  They still largely ignore those people who have
to assume system administration from the first minute.  They ship
servers who are an overkill for small companies.  They are still
largely server oriented while they should think in worstations for
secretaries.  They still largely ignore the economical conditions
outside USA.

The problem is that distribution designers and the people who write in
magazines are traditional Unixers and that they ignore the needs of
those users who are not.  As a proof look at Linuxworld giving an
"outstanding" note to Mandrake's network configuration: Mandrake's is
the same as RedHat and lets the personal user to his fate.  _I_ would
have given a zero if I had been in Linuxworld's committee.

So why Indy?  A distribution made for and by people who are not white,
anglosaxon, protestant american students.  :-)

-- 
			Jean Francois Martinez

Project Independence: Linux for the Masses
http://www.independence.seul.org