On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 01:36, Chad Perrin wrote:
> As such, it's no surprise at all that people judge a distribution by its
> installer, and I don't see that as the Bad Thing you seem to think it
> is.
I didn't say it was a "bad thing" per se.
What I said was a "bad thing" is someone who keeps trying different
distros, trying to find the "perfect installer" and only spends 6 months
installing different versions of Linux, trashing their hard drive a few
times and just keeps on sticking with Hostageware (especially if "Linux
trashed my NTFS partition").
What's the best distro for a user? I don't know.
But what I _do_ know a strategy** that works:
- Find someone who does what you do (application-wise)
- Have them help you install the same distro they use
- Have them help you get running
- And you now have the best tech support
(someone who does what you do, and runs your distro)
Because people run apps, not OSes**. Get them using the applications on
Linux, not installing Linux, trying out different installers, etc...
[ **Attributes: Brian Ashe, LEAP ]
No wonder many people don't stick with Linux. Worse yet, why many
people keep using Hostageware, be it on Windows, or
emulated/virtualized/remoted under Linux. Because they think of Linux
as an OS, installer, etc...
Frankly, about 66% of the people who want to get into Linux typically
just want out of Hostageware right away. We throw Linux at them -- the
whole UNIX shift in mindset, the KDE/GNOME desktops and then the
superstore hardware issue on top of all that. I don't know how many
times I've "pulled people back to Linux" by just introducing them to
Freedomware on Windows.
TheOpenCD is one great idea: http://www.theopencd.org
[ NOTE: I actually used to produce CDs of Freedomware for Windows
before this project started up, including for LEAP at a CTS event. ]
> Really, the only other variables that directly affect the
> differences between distros are support and likely future plans for
> design of the installer and software management systems. That support,
> again, tends to tie into the software management system.
> There are other things associated with various distributions, of course,
> and they can factor into one's choice of distribution. For instance,
> the strength and prevalence of the community that exists around a given
> distro might make a difference. That's not, strictly speaking, a part
> of the distribution, though. Even if the Debian community dried up
> tomorrow (yeah right), the Debian distribution would still be the Debian
> distribution, with no (immediate) changes to it.
> So, to make a long ramble short: I don't see how judging a distribution
> by its installer is so bad. Obviously you do.
> The rest . . . is just flame bait.
Or one, big, continued "versus" marketing that just reminds me of why I
dislike the same 20, 50, 100+ vendors offering me the same technology
under a different name.
UNIX, by its very open nature, as always converged into 2 or 3 common
ideas and approaches. These technological approaches have always
converged over time. Brand names have nothing to do with it --
especially not in the era of GPL/LGPL Freedomware.
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ Beware of advocates who justify their preference not in terms of what they like about their "choice," but what they did not like about another option. Such advocacy is more hurtful than helpful.----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:27:30 EDT