Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/02/08/09:28:31
On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> 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.
I was thinking of a user with a dial up connection who is wondering about
getting djgpp up and running with as least download of bytes as possible.
So what I was suggesting was not "get make, but don't get Fileutils", but
something like "if you want to make a choice, it may be more important to
get make than fileutils". But as you later said this also depends on the
kind of user.
>
> 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.
I agree on this matter. However I was thinking about a newbie who would be
a bit bewildered at what he has to download from the huge amount of zips
available. In this respect the Zip-picker does a very good job in
recommending the files IMHO.
>>
> > 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.
>
But maybe there would be some people who are new to the unix world and are
a bit confused at whether they need emacs, or Bash etc.. Shouldn't these
people get a bit more help instantly.
As a side topic I think that M$ does have quite a bit of help available
for users when they need them. (whether this "help" is relevant is another
matter however). But I think that M$ at least have got the idea correct
here, that to anticipate as far as possible (without being a nuiscance"
any needs the user might require.
Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread
:)
- Raw text -