Date:	Tue, 8 Feb 2000 09:29:45 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT newmail DOT net>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: DJGPP Setup Utility in the making.
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10002072011470.907-100000@darkstar.grendel.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000208092923.28790E-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel wrote:

> > For example, try to write a simple but comprehensive explanation of
> > Make or Fileutils. 
> 
> IMHO A small description should be enough. 
> 
> Make -: This utility processes makefiles and is necessary for compiling
> most source distributions. It is highly recommended that you download this
> utility and install it as it is used very frequently.
> 
> Fileutils-: This is the DJGPP port of GNU Fileutils. It contains the
> utilities like "ls", "rm" etc. This package is not essential to get DJGPP
> up and running, however please note that some makefiles need "rm" to
> remove files. 

IMHO, these descriptions are so clearly biased, that in essense, they
simply tell "get Make, but don't get Fileutils".  If that's what we
want to say, let's just say it.

But I don't think that's what we want to tell users.  For example,
someone who uses RHIDE (I think many users do) won't need Make.
Unless they also download Allegro, that is.  And someone who uses
Bash or Emacs will need Fileutils (and Textutils, and Sh-utils,
and...) very much.

That's exactly the problem: the required packages are function of
what the user already has or is going to have.  That's why ``simple''
descriptions are hard: they get bogged in interdependencies with other
packages, whose purpose is not yet clear to a newbie.

Let's face it: some problems simply don't have simple solutions.

> Although you have done a superb job in compiling the FAQ Eli , IMHO I
> really think that clueless newbies won't bother to read the FAQ in the
> first place.

I think you are wrong.  I think many of them do.  You only see those
who don't--they are those who keep asking the FAQs here.  But you
don't see the others--those who write to me privately telling how the
FAQ helped them.

> IMHO the trend is that users expect everything to work 
> automagically and be very intuitive and user friendly. I also find that
> most users are pretty reluctant to browse among docs.

What makes you think they will bother to read the short descriptions?
People who expect everything to just work will simply choose the
defaults and let it go.

- Raw text -