Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 18:20:29 +0600 (LKT) From: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel X-Sender: root AT darkstar DOT grendel DOT net To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: DJGPP Setup Utility in the making. (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com 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 :)