Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] expectations of users

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Hamish Greig <hgreig AT bigpond.net.au>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] expectations of users
  • Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:03:40 +1100

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:56, evraire AT tuwg.com wrote:
> I think knowing your way around a linux system should be a requirement,
> and by that I mean the same as Andrew: "We can edit almost any file in /etc
> ourselves. We grok the file tree hierarchy and know what basically all the
> main directories are for."  Like Hamish, I believe users should be expected
> to know a few of the basic *nix tools, although I believe he and I differ
> on what's included in that set of tools.
>

I do expect a minimum of knowledge but more importantly I expect a
willingness
to research and learn.
Some tools are often learned simply by needing to fix something and finding a
solution in a web search. To me, never having learned these tools means a
user is either a newbie, is lazy or has been harassing the shit out of their
previous distro's bugtracker (and getting fixes served up on a rpm-gilded
platter)

>   Its important to distinguish between experienced linux users and linux
> developers.  A linux user probably knows what the difference between KDE
> (or Gnome) and X-Windows is, knows the likely file to edit to get a
> particular module loaded, knows how to get around the directory structure
> in a command prompt and knows how to use man to get help.  A linux
> developer would know some addtional tools, such as gcc, diff, patch, and
> might have additional skills like bash coding and stuff.  The latter might
> be able to figure out the inner workings of sorcery, our package management
> system, whereas the former could not (and wouldn't be interested to).

I think this definition of an experienced user is a little lacking.
IMO an experienced user has patched and compiled a kernel(one of the first
things a SMGL-er must do), has at some stage built binaries from source
(simply using ./configure and make), has manually configured some files
in /etc and knows that all Linux config files are text/readable and so the
first place to look for help is there.
The binary distros, in order to ease transition from a windows environment ,
have removed many of the controls inherent in linux, instead forcing their
defaults (that they will support) onto the user via some GUI wizard.
I don't want to force defaults onto our users so I believe an ability to
configure software without a GUI wizard is necessary here.

>   I think it is wrong to turn away users who simply want to run their
> system off our distro simply because they don't do their share of
> development, especially if you're interested in increasing your user base.

I think only wanting the latest software (instead of months out of date like
in binary distros) is not a singular valid reason to be using any sourcebased
distribution. Along with this power comes the responsibility of learning how
to manage your system. A user that won't learn for themselves can be a real
frustration to the community.

Hamish
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/y/L/8fSufZR6424RAj4RAJ9LpWiETiXGTmoLLrSa+YZ7ScVIWgCfW3R5
E5TIneSNYeU65bW/nkgQ9D4=
=vJN/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page