__/ [ Sandman ] on Wednesday 15 March 2006 18:37 \__
> In article <dv9mb5$2f7g$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > YaST is very good but Synaptic (Ubuntu) is even better IMO.
>> I only ever installed GCC, XMMS and SSH using Synaptic. I installed Ubuntu
>> 3 times and the main upside was that I needed to visit no auxiliary
>> resources (Web sites), let alone use CD's that sometimes suffer from wear.
>> Use of broadband and centralised resources (libraries) is definitely the
>> way forward.
> Indeed. I've done four Debian installs in two weeks now, and they've
> all went problem free. You downlaod the net install CD, pop it in, it
> asks for network information and what kind of system you want (these
> are servers, so nothing more than 'base system' for me) and five
> minutes later it has booted into a working OS, after which the only
> thing I had to apt-get was curl and screen (and a new kernel image).
> Smooth and pain free. Of course, the Debian text-based installation
> procedure isn't very sexy. :)
While it works for you and me, it repels the user who is accustomed to
Control Panel -> Add/Remove software. Familiarity is often a crucial bit;
whether it is an optimal route or not is virtually irrelevant.
I know Linux users who 'attempt' to have friends, colleagues and family hop
onto Linux by raving with some command-line vanity. Rather than encourage
adoption, they promote negative stereotypes (sometimes intentionally so).
I often try to do the very opposite. I try to show people how darn simple
things are, giving the impression that any dumb ass (as in me) can handle
the job. This makes Linux far more inviting. I have own personal opinion on
the way Linux users perceive their use of the O/S, which sometimes they
don't desire for anyone else to have.
If you are interested in a short write-up...