Ximian Desktop Installer, Red Carpet, and MonkeyTalk

An anonymous reader submits: "Long-time Linux users forget what it is like to try to install something for the first time. Ximian has done a nice job writing scripts to hide the inner workings of a Gnome installation. TuxReports has snapshots of the Ximian installer. Do you believe that all Linux distributions should use such a friendly series of dialog boxes in order to attract more users to Linux?" Update: 07/14 21:13 GMT by M : Tuxreports has provided a non-PHP page for us to link to... whoops. Sorry about that.

Comments

Re:how about this?

[flsquirrel]

I think a lot of it depends on the Distro. Let's face it, I'm not sure Debian will ever be as friendly as Mandrake, but I don't think that's a bad thing. Personally, I would much rather have the Debian staff working to get woody stable than be writing cute little graphical wizards. Mandrake on the other hand, yeah, I think it's wonderful what they're doing trying to get linux into the hands of more people by easing the installing process. But isn't that why despite wild differences many Linux distro's fare reasonably well in popularity?

So to answer the original article: What Ximian and others are doing is a wonderful. But I think there's no reason for all the distro's to jump on the user-proof bandwagon.

Ximian Rules....

[reaper20]

If the Ximian release of gnome2.0 is anything like their 1.4 release, we should really be in for a treat. They manage that slick easy to use polish without dumbing everything down. My only complaint is the 'doorman' or whatever it's called goes a little bit too newbieish.

Other than that, I always point users to the Ximian stuff, especially if they're coming from windows. It doesn't behave like windows, but it's set up really professionally.

My complaint is this: Why aren't distro's packaging ximian gnome as the default gnome distro? We all know Redhat kind of ignores the linux desktop, concentrating on the server stuff. If I was them, I'd package ximian and have an instant polished gnome desktop. Redhat employs enough gnome hackers, that in a sense, they're already subsidizing the cost of Ximian gnome anyway.

Not to take anything away from the RH gnome install, but why reinvent the wheel, Ximian has done most of the work already.

And I think everyone agrees that jimmnac and tigert could be the best linux artists anywhere ... droolworthy work from those two.

Re:Ximian Rules....

[battery841]

Ximian and Red Hat, in some ways, are competitors on two fronts.

First, Red Hat provides the Red Hat Network which is a competitor to Ximian's Red Carpet CorporateConnect.

Second, Red Hat provides "priority downloads" with the Red Hat Network, so you can download packages from Red Hat faster. Ximian on the other hand, offers Red Carpet Express to help speed up Red Carpet downloads.

Flexibility Is Key

[MasterOfMagic]

I agree that wizards are good for people that don't know the basics about configuring packages and programs. They are a good way to get people to use software that they might not otherwise may be able to set up properly. However, wizards often suffer from WYSIAYG (What You See Is All You've Got). If a setting that may be important for a small number of users is left out of a wizard, then you hinder their ability to configure. However, general GUI configuration utilities are good too. For example, SWAT is a great example of a GUI configuration utility that is not a wizard.

While graphical is good for beginners and some advanced users, you also should provide flexibility. Configuration files were made to be edited by hand! This is why Linux is so popular, flexibility. By hiding configuration behind a wizard and storing that configuration in a proprietary, non-text format like some large software vender who shall remain nameless, configuration files provide for flexibility. Not to mention that big configuration files (sendmail.cf for example) allow the user to learn from their mistakes, and it is a right of passage to set up one correctly for the first time. It used to be the same for X, but now with all of the wizards (which don't work on all new cards :-)), people don't have to learn to use their computer.

Take a note from Apple

[dowobeha]

I run a Mandrake box. My wife has on OS X laptop. No point for guessing which system is easier to install new software on (hint - it's not the one that has an AMD inside).

I love Linux. I love GNU. I love open source software.

But my next machine will be a Mac.Why?

Because package management is a breeze. I don't have to know the difference between /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin. Because I can drag a program I'm tired of to the trash can.. Because I can go to one location - the Applications folder - to find any new program I install. Or, if it's a command-line app, I can go to one location - /bin - for everything.

If the open source community wants to know how break into the desktop market, look no further than Mac OS X. Whether you like the system or not, in OS X is a *nix system that has a highly user friendly interface, excellent graphic-based package management, and all the other bells and whistles that the mass desktop market craves.

Re:The Easier the Better

[donnacha]

Why do you want ALL distros to use it? I use debian because it is complete, yet minimally so. I want my configuration to be done with joe or vi, not pretty menus. This is good for a redhat or mandrake, distros that are geared towards n00bs.

Well, obviously, it should be a choice but, when you get down to it, we're all n00bs outside our specific areas of expertise and most people just don't have time to develop macho,hacker cred.

I may be envisaging too rosy a picture here but, it seems to me that all the people who spend so much time contributing to OSS projects do so because they want to see as many people as possible benefiting from "what computers can be".

It's just plain wrong that, for instance, millions of office workers in poorer countries are laboriously doing by hand tasks that can, with simple, existing tech, be automated. If the only path towards eliminating this waste is an "easy" option from M$ that costs $$$$$, or a free alternative that's too tricky to actually implement, the waste will remain.

Re:Well, it's already here in a lot of ways

[__past__]

I honestly hope that this won't end up in a flamewar, but I have a question to all gentoo-users that I wanted to ask for quite some time now.

If the outstanding feature of gentoo is its BSD-like package management, why don't you use BSD in the first place? For example, FreeBSDs ports tree is quite mature, huge (~7,300 ports last time I checked, and there isn't the distinction between libfoo and libfoo-devel common in the Linux world) and comfortable, especially with the help of portupgrade and friends.

I my understanding (as a BSD user coming from Linux) the cool thing about ports/pkgsrc/emerge is the elegance through simplicity. You just know whats going on on your system. (Try that with Windows ;) You have a chance to tweak things, and - important if you, like me, use some rather obscure packages noone else would ever think of including in a distribution - it's braindead easy to create a port/pkgsrc/whatever-gentoo-calls-it yourself.

IMHO, this elegance is found in every place of BSD systems. For example, the kernel config file is, well, just that - a simple, documented file. No make menuconfig. No xconfig. No applying loads of cool patch sets found anywhere on the net.

So, for someone who likes ports/pkgsrc/emerge, I'd say a BSD ist a cool system to use it on ;-). However, I only read comparisons between Gentoo and other Linux distros, not between Gentoo and the BSDs. Could anybody using both please share his/her opinions about the relative merits?