[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
SEUL: re: seul
Micah Yoder <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Actually, I think we should have Ethernet support. Auto detecting
>Ethernet cards seems to be possible (NT does it).
the issue here is that NT had an enormous development effort behind
it, when building all of its hardware detection stuff.
i am of the opinion that hardware detection is important, but we
can only hope to get so much done. so, we should try to build
some hardware detection programs, but (when we actually get to
focusing on particulars like this, NOT YET) prioritize what hardware we
want to focus on supporting. this should be based on what hardware
is most common on the average user's pc, including analysis of
name-brand hardware, which is fairly dominant right now.
>Perhaps we could even do some kind of "automatic" TCP/IP setup on an
>ethernet network, as NT can do.
yes. good thing to keep in mind.
(under the installation scheme i've been thinking about, this
configuration option would only be presented if the user indicates
he is in a setup appropriate for it, anyway. so don't panic
about confusion or space issues, yet!)
should also think about a dhcp package - this is commonly used
on various networks i've encountered.
>Perhaps we should set up a separate mailing list for discussion of a
>Linux office suite? Would the folks at txcc want to do this?
good idea. this discussion needs to be a bit more threaded
(based on the very high traffic the list is getting).
someone should check if there may be a newsgroup simliar to this, also.
email@example.com (Arnold Hennig) wrote:
>I have only been able to use the rpm that came with the disk with the
>files that came on the disk. [...]
>In short PLEASE don't use a format that is not universal.
i would probably like to go with something like a tar (perhaps gz'd)
format, with some additional info specific to the installer thrown
in somehow. that info could probably be added as just an extra
file in the tarball, and extracted pretty easily by the installer.
with a gz'd file, space issues should not be that bad, either,
but we'll see how that goes as we progress.
>Another thing, I know that installing from thirty floppies is time
>consuming, but it does NOT require previously existing network connections
>to work. Of course CDROM should be the medium of choice, but it should be
>designed in such a way as to allow floppy installations. (I still have
>this crazy idea that some folks who can't afford the hardware to run
>Win95 et al, can still have as good a system on humbler hardware by going
>to Linux, and I am in fact currently installing Linux on such a machine.)
your idea is not so crazy.
as i said earlier, multiple installation methods should _definitely_
be supported. pushing the cd-rom as a method of choice is good, though,
since it is probably the easiest for the average user. of course, there
is the issue of updates, but i think most users who are picky enough to
want the most recent stuff can be asked to upgrade off stuff on the
net or on a supplemental cd/disk; seul should be friendly toward upgrades,
>Re the comment on the size of a script complex enough to be really fault
>tolerant: I would think you could cut the size of it down tremendously by
>making it a compiled program. Our target user is not likely to want to try
>to tweak it, although the use of config files should make this a doable
agreed. distribute source for the installer. anyone advanced enough
to hack the installer should have a working installation to do it on
and be able to compile.
i think this _would_ matter if someone needs to modify the installer
just to get their only installation to work, but if they're capable
of doing that, i can think of alternate methods for them to use.
>2) If you're installing Linux, you obviously intend to use Unix anyway,
>why not select a good, typical Unix interface, and tweak the
>configurations so as to produce the most intuitive and easy to use version
>If the interface is well designed, it won't matter whether it copies
>another interface or not.
good point. but familiar-to-the-user is a big shortcut to well-designed.
if it looks like we are capable of putting the effort in to build
a really nice ui, i would have to agree with you, but we should
be careful when deciding whether this is feasible for us to do.
> People like to share files!
> And they generally don't think of ASCII files as a viable medium.
>Now, it's not necessary to run MSWORD or WORKS on Linux, but unless the
>"End user" can easily share his files with his brother-in-law, etc., he's
>not going to be happy. To the best of my knowledge, there is not currently
>a good way of dealing with this. Correct me if I'm wrong, and please point
>me to it.
correct. does anyone know about word or works file formats?
is there free source for routines to read/write them.
any licensing issues? would it be possible to crack the format,
or is it really incompatible with linux apps?
(i don't work much with wp's, so i do not know much about these
Greg Bell <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>With all theses ideas floating around what is needed, for this project
>to work is some sort of guidance committee to compile all these ideas
>into a sound working thesis that can give a direction to the
>implementation of SEUL.
>I understand that this would take some commitment from those people that
>are on the steering group but if this project is to work we must have
>some sort of guidance.
>To this end I would like to place myself into the running for membership
>on this committee
i could also commit to this, at least for a few months. i will have
much less time after the start of september.
Simple End User Linux Mailing list
To be removed from this mailing list send a message to email@example.com
with the line
in the body of the letter.