Slashdot Mirror
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.
If you corrupt your box with this Ximian Gnome, you will not be able to upgrade Red Hat without uninstalling Ximian beforehand, or manually replacing all Gnome RPMs after the upgrade.
This is something they don't tell you in all those "friendly installers".
Other things may break, such as the Red Hat Network, when a Gnome related updated comes down the line. Of course if you plan to only use Red Carpet after installing Ximian, then that's not a problem.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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.
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.
... droolworthy work from those two.
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
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.
:-)), people don't have to learn to use their computer.
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
Installing Ximian is sticky in the same way that Installing an updated IE on a Windows system reached in and changed operating system components.
.ximian in the name and was able to successfully update to Limbo. But it ate a couple of days threshing around.
I had Ximian on Redhat 7.3, then when I upgraded to the Limbo beta the installation notes warned of dire conflicts between unnamed ximian RPMs and recommended removing Ximian from the machine.
There is no option I could find to roll back Ximian, the same way that there was no option to roll back an IE upgrade on Windows.
In the end I used GnoRPM to nuke eavery rpm with
Worth bearing in mind that Ximian is a major brain transplant for your OS and that may have impacts later. But on the positive side, it was very slick and the red carpet thing was nice.
But I am happier with the stuff in Limbo, it rocks!
TuxReports had snapshots of the Ximian installer.
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).
/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.
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
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.
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
****
"I'd never want to join a club that would have me as a member" - G. Marx
for the Mac & Windows. Some are "blessed" by the OS Distributor and some are crafted according to written guidelines provided by the OS Distributor. The OS X installer is GREAT in that respect.
The situation MUST become the same for Linux. There must come to be some "blessed" slick GUI installer that can also run "headless" from a command line.
It should implement a state transition engine and run from a state machine which goes from an initial state "not-installed", through paths for the distros, dependencies to a terminal state of "software registered."
To make the situation complete, it must detect the distro (and therefore the install paths, dependencies and destination directories,) the GUI in use, if any, and be able to completely install AND UNINSTALL by walking backwards through the installer log undoing what was done and cleaning up all debris.
The installer "experience" is standard for the user because everybody is using the same packages or near clones of these packages to install any and every ol' thing.
And this is a lot easier for a user (or a SysAdmin,) to deal with than the ideosynchratic and often badly written readme.txt files written by somebody who just doesn't "get it" and can't remember what he didn't know when he first started out.
And the excuse that "it wasn't easy to write so it shouldn't be easy to install" is the refuge of lazy-ass, elitist, nerdy schmucks who don't have friends to watch over their shoulder, correct their grammar and actually try and test out their installation instructions to detect all the "missing" information.
Its called QA folks and you'd better get used to it or you're wasting your time pretending that you're IT pros.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
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.
Do you believe that all Linux distributions should use such a friendly series of dialog boxes in order to attract more users to Linux?
Actually, I'd like to see Linux preinstalled on more computers so that users don't have to install at all.
...
/* Package installer version 66.6 */
....
printf("Translating all source code for requested package.\n);
printf("--- Successful ---\n");
printf("Half of text in requested package will print in Esperanto. The other half will print in pig-latinized-Klingon.\n");
printf("Creating random name for package executable...\n");
printf("Searching drive for obscure installation location...\n");
printf("Oops! There are 348,899,001 extra dependencies that this package relies on. Do you wish to go through them one by one?"\n);
printf("Just kidding. Compilation was successful. Package is hiding in...\n");
printf("...You don't actually think I'm going to tell you where to find this, do you?! Hahahaha!\n";
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
I think most people here would prefer to install linux by manipulating the hard drive with magnets ...
# I'm going to try to keep this message as politically correct
# as possible. I think the Ximian GNOME is a very pretty desktop
# and the hackers there do an extraordinary amount of work on
# them. But it throws a huge wrench in our upgrade process. We
# just want to warn our users that there are packages on the system
# that might get messed up during the upgrade process. Nothing
# personal, guys. - msw
You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
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?
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.