Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Duane Malcolm <d.malcolm AT auckland.ac.nz>]

Maybe a set of tutorials that encompases the required knowledge. This 
would be a positive step. It would also be more friendly to direct them 
to the tutorials.

I'm still learning and it has been from doing that I've learnt.

Duane

Hamish Greig wrote:
> 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

_______________________________________________
SM-Discuss mailing list
SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss

Attachment: pgpA0LiqKm1bO.pgp
Description: PGP signature