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

[Rick Jones <rickya@siservices.net>]

William T Wilson wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, George Bonser wrote:
> 
> > The problem is that it makes Linux look like a cheap knock-off of Win95.
> > It could telegraph that Linux is a wannabe Win95.

In my opinion we should stay as far from Windoze "look and feel" as
possible.  People are using Linux, not Windoze, and I think they should
experience an entire change.  I think it's possible to create an
intuitive, attractive, interface without copying Windoze.

 
> Yeah, that's a good point.  Maybe we can re-design the taskbar and replace
> My Computer with some sort of penguin.  :)  I think the taskbar/start menu
> concept is great; but if we could cross the taskbar with the Apple menu
> from the Mac and add some new features, that'd be the best.

As above, I think Linux should come off as it's own.  Anything that puts
one in mind of Windoze or Mac for that matter does just that and shows
that those developing for Linux concider those interfaces superior
enough to bring them into the Linux world.

The first impression should be of an entirely new experience, if they
are more comfortable with a Windoze look and feel the can make that
change on their own.

> > Hmmm.  Would a DOS boot disk be possible ( using Caldera OpenDOS, of
> > course) that would ask the user which drive would be used for Linux and
> > run defrag and FIPS before doing a loadlin and asking for a second floppy?
> 
> We're trying to avoid using two floppies.  I don't have a problem with it
> myself, but...

Nothing wrong with making a dos disk an optional, secondary disk called
from the install disk if the user answers yes to needing to repartition
and keep what they have.  What about other OS's?  OS/2, DR-DOS, PC-DOS
etc.

> 
> The trouble with this is that it makes our space really tight.  A DOS
> "preparation disk" that would manage all the Win95 fixing, then prompting
> the user for the real install disk, which would be linux based.  Perhaps.
> The DOS disk would not be necessary for those not wishing to preserve a
> Win95 install.