Re: New Linux Distro Project - Anyone Interested????

From: Al (al_at_***.com)
Date: 12/21/04 

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:36:53 -0500

I do thank You Sir..... Would appricate it though if you could
repost (paste) this message on the Forum at the site... There is
SOOOOO much good info to think about here, I'd like to have it all in
one spot!!!

Thanks Again.

Al

(Top Posting because I can)

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:28:43 -0600, "Ranando King"
<rk@magictouchcorp.com> wrote:

>A bit of a ham, aren't you? LOL. Ok...Keep reading...
>
>"Al" <al@***.com> wrote in message
>news:1vvgs05gs01f66vog3ft4ov4j17hk42fgu@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:27:45 -0600, "Ranando King"
>> <rk@magictouchcorp.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Ok.
>> >Read it.
>> >Nice idea.
>> >A few questions though...
>> >
>> >1. I take it that with the all the "(Yes ONLY 1)" tags in the goal
>> >description, you're of the impression that variety is the bane of
>existance.
>> >Why? Now don't think I'm questioning your personal ideals. I'm only
>> >wondering how you might deal with the fact that someone who likes and
>uses
>> >your distro may want different apps than the 1's you're providing...
>> >
>>
>> And they will be available, but not with the distro... For instance,
>> the "standard" in Small Office software is "MS Office". You better
>> have "something" that is 100% compatable with it in the distro....
>> (However, I really don't need 15 different clones of it in 1 distro).
>>
>> I also like Firefox. With that and Netscape, the average user can do
>> about anything wants on the web. So why do most distros come with 6 or
>> 7 web browsers??
>>
>> Go into ANY small office in the USA. Chances are most of them have M$
>> Office on them. Do you think there is anything wrong with that? Or
>> should the company also install Star Office, Open Office, Wordperfect,
>> Joe's Spreadshheet, Tom's Superwriter, etc, etc, etc....
>>
>> K3b is all I ever needed to burn with... Yet, some distros have
>> included up to 5 different piece of burning software.. Silly..
>
>Make note of this. By default MS Windows comes with 3 different editors:
>Notepad, WordPad, and Edit. Why? Notepad is a quick and basic text editor
>with no bells and no whistles, but it's severely limited in how big of a
>text file it can open. WordPad can do everything Notepad can and then some,
>including opening larger files and handling "Rich Text" with all the pretty
>formatting. Edit is just like Notepad, except that it runs from console
>mode. So why include all 3?
>
>Simple. If all you need to do is edit some small text file and you've been
>using the console mode, all you need do is type "edit filename" to edit that
>file. If you're in Windows just wanting to edit "readme.txt" then notepad
>will do that for you with minimal memory overhead and no useless functions
>to get in your way. If you want to edit some file and add in font and style
>changes, then WordPad is your program. The fact that all 3 editors are there
>makes the system a little more convenient to use. Sure, they could have used
>WordPad in all 3 cases, but for the 1st & 2nd cases, that would have been
>needlessly cumbersome and awkward.
>
>You're right. Most linux distros do seem to come with about a million ways
>to skin a cat. But the reason they do so is because some members of their
>target audience prefer to skin a cat with a machette while others use a
>carving knife, and still others will want to take the cat to their local
>furrier. :-p
>
>Could you not just include these alternate programs in your distro, but only
>install 1 by default when the user chooses a "Typical Install"?
>
>>
>> >2. No programs that start with X? If that includes programs like Xserver,
>> >XF86*, Xorg, xinit, xterm, xdm, etc... then aren't you going to have some
>> >measure of difficulty starting X Windows? (Rhetorical and sarcastic. ;-)
>> >I.e. aren't you alienating some useful applications, or are you planning
>to
>> >re-invent the wheel on those?
>> >
>> If you read my page you'll note the joking nature of it.. Of course
>> you need these programs.. But I find some of the names rather silly.
>> XMMS, Xamp, Xine, Xradio, Xnview, Xpaint, Xwpick, Xwd, XMira... (For
>> what it's worth, I think WinAmp is just as silly)
>
>I just keep waiting for some of these Xpert programmers to become Xaspirated
>at this Xcessive use of X-names.
>
>>
>> >3. No compiler!?!?! Ok. So you just ruled out installations entirely,
>> >right? Again, I'm not trying to be sarcastic. It's just that it's fairly
>> >hard to install the average linux package without a working C compiler on
>> >the system somewhere.
>> >
>>
>> My Mom is 70 years old.... I want to get her a new game for the
>> computer... Hey Mom, before you run it though, you'll have to compile
>> it..... Hmmmm, When I installed P3 on my Win Box or M$ Office, I don't
>> remember compiling it before I installed it....
>>
>> Microsoft would have been out of business LONG ago with that
>> mentality. The developer should compile software for the OS, not the
>> end user...
>>
>> What I was saying was, there is no need to include a bunch of
>> development tool that MOST everyday Joe users will NEVER Use..
>
>If by "development tool" you mean IDE then I agree. Include it in the
>distro, but don't install it by default. That way, if your user ever gets
>the inclination to be more than just a "user", the tools will already be
>available. If you're referring to the compiler itself, well, that's a must
>have. The trick here is to do an installation while hiding the fact that a
>compilation had to be done. Ever seen the installer for the linux nVidia
>drivers or the VMware setup program ("vmware-config.pl")? They both hide the
>actual commands needed to compile their modules from the user. It could
>always be done better of course. My point is that in a simplified linux
>system where certain things are guaranteed to be in place, it shouldn't be
>that hard to have an install script for every application and/or module that
>hides the fact that the software had to be compiled first.
>
>> >
>> >Just humor me and try answering these questions. I'm trying to get a
>better
>> >understanding of the direction you want to take this distro.
>> >
>> A Small Linux for the everyday user. An OS that flys. An OS that will
>> get that junk PII back out of the cellar. A distrubution so easy my 70
>> year old mom could use it. An install that is simple. A non bloated
>> system....
>>
>> The SITE Root Zone is the bonus in all of this for me...
>
>You and I share a similar vision in that respect. I too would like to
>develop a distro designed from the ground up that's simple enough to install
>and use that it's capable of weining people and companies off of Windows, so
>consider all of this food for thought.
>

Quantcast