Talk:Proposed Freekbox Changes - Revision history

Shawn: /* usability of Gnome */

2006-04-25T23:00:26Z

usability of Gnome

Shawn: /* Some things to consider */

2006-04-25T22:41:12Z

Some things to consider

Rfs: /* One argument for Debian */

2006-04-21T18:09:19Z

One argument for Debian

Halfasspete: format

2006-04-21T17:42:33Z

format

Halfasspete: /* Argument for Ubuntu */ the "never do updates" problem

2006-04-21T17:41:45Z

Argument for Ubuntu: the "never do updates" problem

Halfasspete: /* Easy To Use Is Poorly Defined */ response to Vagrant

2006-04-21T17:36:38Z

Easy To Use Is Poorly Defined: response to Vagrant

Halfasspete: /* Easy To Use Is Poorly Defined */ added Gnome usability comments

2006-04-21T17:33:05Z

Easy To Use Is Poorly Defined: added Gnome usability comments

Halfasspete: /* meta discussion */

2006-04-21T17:23:55Z

meta discussion

Halfasspete: /* meta discussion */ Release Date??

2006-04-21T17:22:24Z

meta discussion: Release Date??

Halfasspete: /* Dapper Drake */ Firefox 1.0.8

2006-04-21T17:18:40Z

Dapper Drake: Firefox 1.0.8

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:00, 25 April 2006
Line 202:		Line 202:
	* Disadvantage: buttons for four desktops on default install. (This is from specific newbie user feedback, that multiple desktops only invite confusion. I feel strongly that features like this should be "opt-in." Apparently Apple and Microsoft agree, as neither one includes this functionality.)		* Disadvantage: buttons for four desktops on default install. (This is from specific newbie user feedback, that multiple desktops only invite confusion. I feel strongly that features like this should be "opt-in." Apparently Apple and Microsoft agree, as neither one includes this functionality.)
	-[[User:Halfasspete\|Pete]] 10:33, 21 Apr 2006 (PDT)		-[[User:Halfasspete\|Pete]] 10:33, 21 Apr 2006 (PDT)
		+
		+	=== usability of KDE ===
		+	I've watched my housemates (previous windows and mac users) use my Freekbox3 at home for about a year now, and here's what I have to conclude from my observations and their comments:
		+	* The menu is in the same place as with windows, and of a similar structure
		+	* All that stuff on the desktop means they don't have to search around as much for the programs and documents they want to find.
		+	* Konqueror is a great file explorer for them. Plus, if for some reason Firefox doesn't work for a specific site, they're already familiar with an alternative browser.
		+	* They trust and feel automatically more comfortable with all the KDE programs out there: they're functional, GUI-based (which they really want), their interfaces all look familiar, and most of the programs just work. I'm not sure if Gnome has as many accompanying programs.
		+	I think it's good to note that I've used both and can get around just fine no matter what (part of the advantage of knowing some basic command-line). And I don't think it would be a good thing to spend too much time deciding which window manager to go with: do we really think that adopters would suffer greatly if we went with one over another? Every person who takes the adoption class fills out a survey. It might be good to put a couple of questions on that survey: "What about the desktop was most confusing? What was intuitive: opening a file, opening a program, saving to a floppy, etc.?"
		+	[[User:Shawn\|Shawn]]

@@ Line 157: / Line 157: @@
 :: I think Gnome is the single most elegant, newbie-friendly (yet capable) interface I've ever seen. It's certainly got Mac and Windows beat for basic use. I would be happy to see a switch to Gnome, if it doesn't cause too many problems with tech support etc. -[[User:Halfasspete|Pete]]
 ::: I think Gnome is one of the more difficult to use, newbie-hostile interfaces available for linux that's a serious contender for the desktop. this is based on sitting about 5 relatively inexperienced users in front of a recent Gnome desktop and watching their brow furrow and eyes squint. [[User:Vagrant|Vagrant]] 02:59, 19 Apr 2006 (PDT)
 #maintenance of the distribution
 #:This is really a lot of work, especially when there are major changes in the underlying distro, such as switching from Woody to Sarge, or from Breezy to Dapper.  This depends a lot on who is willing to do the work.  Vagrant and others have put in a lot of work on Debian.  Dave is currently putting in a lot of work on Ubuntu.  If we switched to yet another basic distro, we would need to start over on some things.

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 == One argument for Debian ==
-Sooner or later we'll grab a FreekBox off the shelf and throw it into place as an infrastructure box. When we do this, we could have a mixed network environment at Free Geek, the standard debian boxen we use on our servers, and an Ubuntu box with its different security model. This is less maintainable. Also not a very big issue, because we could have a standby debian system or two ready to go stashed somewhere awaiting this eventuality. [[User:Rfs|RfS]] 17:15, 11 Apr 2006 (PDT)
+Sooner or later we'll grab a FreekBox off the shelf and throw it into place as an infrastructure box. When we do this, we could have a mixed network environment at Free Geek, the standard debian boxen we use on our servers, and an Ubuntu box with its different security model. This is less maintainable. Also '''not a very big issue, because we could have a standby debian system or two ready to go''' stashed somewhere awaiting this eventuality. [[User:Rfs|RfS]] 17:15, 11 Apr 2006 (PDT)
 : We have a network Debian Installer on the build network, so installing Debian on a box is as easy as Ubuntu.  Should be no problems there. [[User:Dave|Dave]] 14:57, 15 Apr 2006 (PDT)
@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 ::: Richard- though I can see how the current decision would impact how such a problem is handled in the future, it seems that a suitable "emergency plan" could be easily developed under any scenario. I think this issue should be left out of the decision of what distro is chosen, and revisited once a decision is made. -[[User:Halfasspete|Pete]] 11:05, 18 Apr 2006 (PDT)
 == Argument for SUSE Linux and Puppy Linux ==

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 # Automatic updates: Sure Debian may have the quickest bugfixes, but how many adopters have NEVER done an update because they forgot all about apt/synaptic
-:Let's not forget this point. I'm not sure that chosing a distro is the way to address it, but it needs to be addressed. I am concerned that (I believe) the current adoption class does not include walking the user through an apt-get update and upgrade. If the procedure is too problematic for us to do it with the users, how can we advise our newbie users to do it on their own? Michael, what's your sense of how many people have been running security updates? -[[User:Halfasspete|Pete]] 10:41, 21 Apr 2006 (PDT)
+::Let's not forget this point. I'm not sure that chosing a distro is the way to address it, but it needs to be addressed. I am concerned that (I believe) the current adoption class does not include walking the user through an apt-get update and upgrade. If the procedure is too problematic for us to do it with the users, how can we advise our newbie users to do it on their own? Michael, what's your sense of how many people have been running security updates? -[[User:Halfasspete|Pete]] 10:41, 21 Apr 2006 (PDT)
 # Community: While the Debian Community is geared more towards linux Admins, the Ubuntu community has a very strong leaning to Desktop Users and Linux Newbies. This includes  [http://www.ubuntuforums.org forums ] and [http://help.ubuntu.com documentation ] It would be great if the Free Geek community could plug into to Ubuntu community.

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 # No user should have to use a terminal ( I know it's strange, but some people hate it )
 # Automatic updates: Sure Debian may have the quickest bugfixes, but how many adopters have NEVER done an update because they forgot all about apt/synaptic
 # Community: While the Debian Community is geared more towards linux Admins, the Ubuntu community has a very strong leaning to Desktop Users and Linux Newbies. This includes  [http://www.ubuntuforums.org forums ] and [http://help.ubuntu.com documentation ] It would be great if the Free Geek community could plug into to Ubuntu community.
 [[User:Dave|Dave]] 15:09, 15 Apr 2006 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:36, 21 April 2006
Line 187:		Line 187:
	until we come to a well-defined, commonly understood definition of "easy to use", could people desist from calling something "easy to use", and rather describe the qualities and features that they think will meet the needs of the [[User_personae\|end-user]] (also poorly defined) [[User:Vagrant\|Vagrant]] 02:59, 19 Apr 2006 (PDT)		until we come to a well-defined, commonly understood definition of "easy to use", could people desist from calling something "easy to use", and rather describe the qualities and features that they think will meet the needs of the [[User_personae\|end-user]] (also poorly defined) [[User:Vagrant\|Vagrant]] 02:59, 19 Apr 2006 (PDT)

		+	"Newbie" versus "power user" is a false dichotomy. Having things be "immediately obvious" is not necessarily a requirement. I would argue it's more important to have consistency, so that it's easily learned, than that it be immediately usable by a total novice. -[[User:Halfasspete\|Pete]] 10:36, 21 Apr 2006 (PDT)

	=== usability of Gnome ===		=== usability of Gnome ===

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 21 April 2006
Line 186:		Line 186:

	until we come to a well-defined, commonly understood definition of "easy to use", could people desist from calling something "easy to use", and rather describe the qualities and features that they think will meet the needs of the [[User_personae\|end-user]] (also poorly defined) [[User:Vagrant\|Vagrant]] 02:59, 19 Apr 2006 (PDT)		until we come to a well-defined, commonly understood definition of "easy to use", could people desist from calling something "easy to use", and rather describe the qualities and features that they think will meet the needs of the [[User_personae\|end-user]] (also poorly defined) [[User:Vagrant\|Vagrant]] 02:59, 19 Apr 2006 (PDT)
		+
		+
		+	=== usability of Gnome ===
		+	Some of these apply to KDE as well, so this might not be the best way to categorize comments.
		+	* Advantage: The simplicity of the menu system. Applications, Places, and System are a sensible way to break up what a user might want to do with a computer.
		+	* Advantage: minimal desktop clutter and toolbar eye-candy on default install.
		+	* Advantage: applications in the "panel" up top, pretty near the "applications" menu. This would allow us to put common programs in a place even more accessible than the Desktop.
		+	* Disadvantage: buttons for four desktops on default install. (This is from specific newbie user feedback, that multiple desktops only invite confusion. I feel strongly that features like this should be "opt-in." Apparently Apple and Microsoft agree, as neither one includes this functionality.)
		+	-[[User:Halfasspete\|Pete]] 10:33, 21 Apr 2006 (PDT)

@@ Line 127: / Line 127: @@
 ==meta discussion==
-I asked an important question before, that has gone unanswered for some time. When are we trying to release a replacement/update to FreekBox 3? The (ongoing) discussion of whether or not Dapper Drake is in play relies heavily on the answer to this question. Without a target date, any assertions or denials regarding the testing of prerelease software are pretty meaningless. -[[User:Halfasspete|Pete]] 10:22, 21 Apr 2006 (PDT)
+I asked an important question before, that has gone unanswered for some time. When are we trying to release a replacement/update to FreekBox 3? The (ongoing) discussion of whether or not Dapper Drake is in play relies heavily on the answer to this question. Without a target date, any comments about the value of testing prerelease software are pretty meaningless. -[[User:Halfasspete|Pete]] 10:22, 21 Apr 2006 (PDT)
 wiki is a very difficult way to have a discussion. [[User:Vagrant|Vagrant]] 17:11, 14 Apr 2006 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 21 April 2006
Line 110:		Line 110:

	:::::debian typically backports the code required to fix the security bug into an older version of the source code, to minimize introducing incompatibilities with the previous stable release: [http://www.debian.org/security/faq#oldversion debian security faq]. this is very different than using a backported package, such as those from http://backports.org, which i would recommend against if at all possible, because they change too often. [[User:Vagrant\|Vagrant]] 17:07, 14 Apr 2006 (PDT)		:::::debian typically backports the code required to fix the security bug into an older version of the source code, to minimize introducing incompatibilities with the previous stable release: [http://www.debian.org/security/faq#oldversion debian security faq]. this is very different than using a backported package, such as those from http://backports.org, which i would recommend against if at all possible, because they change too often. [[User:Vagrant\|Vagrant]] 17:07, 14 Apr 2006 (PDT)
		+
		+	::::::As if on cue, Firefox 1.0.8 was released in the last couple days in Ubuntu/Breezy repositories. I believe this addresses the "security" elements of my concerns with pre-1.5 Firefox. -[[User:Halfasspete\|Pete]] 10:18, 21 Apr 2006 (PDT)

	::::As for Firefox usability, 1.5 has improved memory handling (very noticeable when using multiple tabs), more intuitive treatment of live bookmarks, and (I think most important) a self-updating feature. Meaning that you don't have to wait for Debian/Ubuntu to add security or other updates to its repository. Also, a growing number of useful extensions require 1.5 or later.		::::As for Firefox usability, 1.5 has improved memory handling (very noticeable when using multiple tabs), more intuitive treatment of live bookmarks, and (I think most important) a self-updating feature. Meaning that you don't have to wait for Debian/Ubuntu to add security or other updates to its repository. Also, a growing number of useful extensions require 1.5 or later.