Re: I can't beleive this
On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, ivan wrote:
> >These kinds of people really want the system pre-installed and certainly
> >shouldn't be doing upgrades etc. These folks should probably be leasing
> >their computer (preferably something along the lines of an Imac.).
>
> No argument - but the only way that any Linux distro is going to be offered
> as an alternative pre-installed O/S is if the installation procedure
> becomes as simple as Windows. Sure, there is some fine tuning required
> with Windows installation but the bulk of the work is done for you which
> makes it quick and easy for the shop technician.
I just wish that people would stop trying to compare Linux with Win95/8. I
really isn't ever going to get there, in my opinion. It is better
compared with NT/Server. Linux is designed to provide network services for
multiple users. Win98 is not.
The key point in my mind is that people want the machine to be easy to
operate ... just look at the pictures ... please don't force me to read
... and this is easy to understand when places like California rank 49th
of the 50 US states in reading. The problem comes in when you want to
offer BOTH an easy-to-operate interface yet also allow intimate control by
direct manipulation of configurations but must try to prevent one from
interfering with the other. Yes, ok you have a GUI, but have you had to
build a "glue" layer with intermediate configuration files to support that
and if a direct edit is made to the target configuration, does that break
the glue layer OR does a subsequent GUI manipulation of the environment
cause direct modifications to be undone or broken?
It comes down to how many hands can be on the steering wheel. In reality,
only one. If the SYSTEM is going to make a lot of decisions for you, then
the system programmer is really at the wheel and you are only giving
directions. If you want to take the wheel, is there a way for the system
to give up control gracefully and reaquire control without crashing. If it
assumes that everything will be in the same state that it left it (it
assumes it is the only driver) then there are going to be problems (SuSE
YaST and the Caldera desktop stuff).
Any "system admin agent" is going to have to do some kind of discovery at
EVERY STARTUP if it is going to share the driving with a skilled admin. If
it tries to keep its picture in a glue layer and assumes that the system
in always in a state reflected by that layer, there are going to be
nothing but problems.
If the system programmer tries to take control by force and locks down the
config files to prevent them from direct maintenance by the
user/local-admin, there is going to be a war and the system programmer
(the distribution honchos) are going to loose as that crap gets ripped
out of the system or the user moves to another distro.
It is a difficult thing to design a system that can drive for you but also
gracefully give up control and pick up again later and keep in sync with
any changes you might have made in the meantime.
Reply to: