On Wednesday 26 March 2003 03:22 pm, Kent West wrote: > Hal Vaughan wrote: > > <snip> > > >While some people do better with a command line interface, others do much > >better with an intuitive or graphical interface. > > <snip> > > >Some people > >learn and take in information best when everything is neat and orderly. > > <snip> > > >You may like the curses interface. Good for you. Others may, for MANY > >reasons, prefer a more intiutive interface. > > > >Adding a GUI installer is just as much a part of technical excellence as > >anything else Debian. > > <snip> > > I can't _believe_ I'm letting myself get sucked into this thread . . . :-) > > > I believe you may be confusing some of your terms. The opposite of GUI > is not necessarily CLI, and a curses-based interface is not necessarily > non-intuitive.
My mistake after only 4 hours of sleep -- I should have been specific in using the proper terms and specifying the difference between using just CLI and using a curses interface, which could be considered a form of a GUI. > A curses interface that says "Press the ENTER key on your > keyboard to install Foo" is just as intuitive as "Click the button below > with your mouse to install Foo" (in fact, some might argue that it's > more intuitive, as almost everyone in the world has pushed a button at > one time or another, yet millions, maybe billions, have never touched a > mouse). Actually, believe it or not, it isn't. I've worked with people that are very intelligent and quite able to process information, but can work with a "point and click" interface MUCH more easily than anything that uses a keyboard. Of course, it's possible to make a curses interface work on a point and click basis as well. A good "generalized" example of someone who will do much better with a windows based GUI is someone who uses computers for graphic design work or video editing, or page layout. > The problem with a GUI installer on Debian is that Debian doesn't run > only on i386, like some of the more "popular" distros. In such a > situation, it's very hard to write a GUI that'll work the same and look > the same on 11 or 16 (or however many) different architectures. I've never argued that. Personally, I have no problem with a curses based install. My frustrations are elsewhere. For example (and I'm not asking this as a question, but pointing it out as what I see as a problem), why can Knoppix easily detect all my hardware every time it boots and install the correct drivers, but a one-time install program can't do the same thing? It would make the install MUCH easier if it could. The, as a user or sysadmin, I could either accept the default values or change them if I wanted to. On the other hand, I also realize Knoppix is not being used on as many different architectures as Debian, so there is a practical reason why Debian doesn't do what Knoppix does. > Granted, the text-based (whether CLI or curses-based) installer needs > work, but that can be accomplished without resorting to a GUI. I agree. My major point is that it is wrong and ignorant to trash people just because they work better with a different interface than the interface one prefers. > I think that what most people who clammer for a GUI installer really > want is a more easy-to-accomplish installation, not necessarily a > graphics-based installation. Of course, I could be wrong. (That'd be the > third time this year if I am - doh!) That's me. I don't need an X based installer -- just one that can take some of the frustration out of installing. Hal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
