Salix Forums

There is no issue here, as the intended purpose of the 3 installation modes are specifically stated in the installer:

Core installation:
"Only the minimum essentials for a console system to start are included. A graphical environment is not provided. This is ideal if you are an experienced user and want to customize your installation for any specific purpose, such as a web server, file server etc. "

Basic installation:
"This installs only a basic desktop environment, with very few extra applications installed on top, such as a web browser and the gslapt package manager. Ideal for advanced users that would like to install a lightweight system and add their own choice of applications. "

Full installation:
"Everything that is included in the iso is installed. That includes a complete desktop environment and a complete selection of matching applications, always following the "one application per task" rationale. "

It is clearly stated that Basic is meant for advanced users and Core for experienced users. If you don't consider yourself one of those (as you say that you don't) you should go with the Full option.

That said, as I am certain more people will have the same problems, because it's mostly people that don't read instructions and consider themselves "experts" are the ones that are going to be using the live editions for installing Salix, I believe the best way to solve these kinds of problems would be to completely remove the Core and Basic options from the live installer.

OK, I see two main points here:

1. Enhance documentation with networking (hostname, domain, dhcp, ...), netconfig and add a comment about the current live + missing network setup problematic
2. Add more and easier networking to basic

Did I miss something?

I see no problem with 1. I guess the guys writing the Startup Guide wouldn't mind detailing more about networking.

But I'll never see 2 happen. Basic is not intended to be easy and fully-featured. Thus no wireless networking "feature" and no easy network manager like wicd. Period.
After all you can't argue the experienced users which don't want wicd and possibly unnecessary wireless clutter could use core. It's a whole lot more work to setup. And finally I believe in the right tool for one certain job and that's definitely not always core just because you know how to do it the "hardcore" way.
If you want wicd and need wireless networking you can still install it (e.g. just use the installer cdrom as repository), that's what basic is for. If you don't know how to do that or don't want to do it, that's what full is for.

I don't think there's any more to say about 2.

thenktor wrote:* Core/Basic: you need some special system and know how to set up Slackware.

@thenktor,

My point is that there is a reason to have Basic, in addition to Core. From the point of the range of users (it's not about the intended use of the specific installation being a server or something else instead), what would be the difference between Core and Basic under the current default features?. By changing the default features in Basic to ease network connection expands the potential user base.

@gapan,

I don't consider myself an advanced user, or not *that* advanced if you want. Yet, I indeed eventually managed to install all what I needed using Basic, including gaining network connection. So let's get beyond my personal specific knowledge.

gapan wrote:I believe the best way to solve these kinds of problems would be to completely remove the Core and Basic options from the live installer.

First, with the same logic, you could also take out many choices and features from many other places. I don't believe that path should be the way to "solve" the issue. In addition, I already said that the real issue is not about the Live installer. The issue is about which features are to be included in Basic, whether using the Live or the standard installer.

My point is that even for the targeted users of Basic, there should be some kind of logic behind the selection of features. The reason for this same question to pop up in several forum topics is the user's impression that a user is receiving from the several descriptions, guides, FAQs... And yes, I read them before even downloading the ISOs.

Let's see an example; why to add a web browser by default in Basic, if it is aimed at advanced users? Having to manually configure network connections is not a problem of GUI against CLI, or LIVE installer against the standard one. An advanced user should be able to read the relevant document and follow the instructions whether GUI or CLI.

The part that raises the bar for even more-advanced users is the request for the user to know and understand about the network jargon so to be able to provide the data to netconfig. In contrast, manually adding, for example, a web browser, requires less jargon and less knowledge level.

I'm trying to debate the logic behind the default features. Taking Core and Basic out, either from the LIVE Installer or the Standard one, only complicates the matter more and doesn't resolve anything. Instead of including more users that would be able to take advantage of Salix, you would be excluding more middle-knowledge users.

The way I see it is not taking out Basic from either installer, but instead changing the reasoning about which features are included by default and which features are to be accomplished and personalized by the user starting from the default state of Basic. I'm not suggesting a random change. If there are reasons not to ease the default network connection features in Basic, then let's debate those (for example, the space in one CD, if that's one of them).

Shador wrote: OK, I see two main points here:

1. Enhance documentation with networking (hostname, domain, dhcp, ...), netconfig and add a comment about the current live + missing network setup problematic
2. Add more and easier networking to basic

Did I miss something?

@shador,

Probably that would resume the suggestion. And if there are some constraints, let's open that to debate / feedback.

I see no problem with 1. I guess the guys writing the Startup Guide wouldn't mind detailing more about networking.

Well, I'm new here, so I don't know if the guys taking care of the Startup Guide and the documentation in general need some specific topic with such suggestion.

But I'll never see 2 happen. Basic is not intended to be easy and fully-featured.

Basic should not be Full featured, no.

Thus no wireless networking "feature" and no easy network manager like wicd. Period.
After all you can't argue the experienced users which don't want wicd and possibly unnecessary wireless clutter could use core. It's a whole lot more work to setup.

Since I am not an experienced user, I don't know if wicd or alternative or whatever else should (or shouldn't) be included by default in Basic to achieve the relevant features. That's for you, the developers and maintainers of Salix, to evaluate the adequate methods for the several range of Salix users. Moreover, I wasn't taking about specific cases of wired or wireless (which I don't have nor use, but since we are not talking about my particular case anymore then I guess it's OK that you mentioned it again).

And finally I believe in the right tool for one certain job and that's definitely not always core just because you know how to do it the "hardcore" way.
If you want wicd and need wireless networking you can still install it (e.g. just use the installer cdrom as repository), that's what basic is for. If you don't know how to do that or don't want to do it, that's what full is for.

I don't think there's any more to say about 2.

You closed the debate, and since you are the devs, there is nothing more to say about it, whether I have a different valid reasoning or not. I still think there is some possibilities to improve Basic (expanding potential users that could take advantage of it but currently can't). If that means leaving out other items because space constraints, I am able to express what I think are valid points. Apparently the case is closed before that .

I thank you all for replying to the topic, and please add more details about the network connection in the documentation. At least less repeated (I should said similar, not exactly the same) topics would be opened and some more middle-knowledge users would be able to take advantage of Basic.

PS: @gapan, please do NOT take Core / Basic out of LIVE. That's not at all the point I raised and you would only get "cons", no "pros".

I did not end the discussion because I need approval through always enforcing my opinion. Quite the opposite. But in fact we both weren't raising any fundamentally different arguments anymore and the ones we used weren't convincing to either of us. You know our stance, we know yours and it doesn't seem probable that either one changes unless something new comes up. I fully understand your position. You've pretty extensively laid that out. It just doesn't change my opinion.
Please, don't take this personally. It never was. But when the existing "keys" (arguments) fail, there is no use trying them on the same "door" over and over again unless you'd discover a new "key".

@shador,

I don't take it personally. Though, I don't agree with you about that I tried the same arguments again and again. I needed to write them again in a more clear way just because misunderstandings. I "needed" that, but was not something I was looking forward to do. Moreover, part of my reasoning was not expressed at all.

Anyway, you are the masters here, no matter what, so that's the end of it.

I do appreciate the replies, and I'm looking forward to the additional documentation to be eventually published in the wiki. Thanks.

Adys wrote:Anyway, you are the masters here, no matter what, so that's the end of it.

That's not at all the attitude with Salix. Development takes place as a more or less democratic process between the contributors, which is possibly anybody. There's nobody who really has the final say. But sometimes somebody needs to draw a line. Anyway to my understanding that's the current view of most of the devs like gapan and thenktor too.

Every distribution has a design philosophy. It may not be spelled out in writing or clearly defined but it's there. What I'm reading from Adys is a fundamental disagreement with the direction or philosophy that the Salix OS developers have chosen.

Adys, you are one outside voice. So am I, FWIW. You made your case and the Salix OS developers who posted here don't agree with you. You now get to decide if you can live within the Salix OS design or not. The lovely thing about Linux is that there are lots of choices, as in roughly 600 active distributions. Maybe, just maybe, one is a better fit for your personal philosophy. Maybe, OTOH, Salix OS is the best choice for you even if it isn't a perfect match for your ideals. The choice is yours.

@Caitlyn,

I'm not disagreeing with the direction or philosophy of Salix. I am debating one specific narrow aspect, which is the logic behind the "Basic" software selection installation.

When Salix Team though about "what we should add in the Basic option?", they could have decided, for example, not to add a web browser, or not to add any GUI package manager. But they included them, following some kind of logic; either some target task or goal, or some target user (or rather both) should be in mind.

It is/was not just about "giving an advanced user the possibility to customize the OS as he wants". That's the general idea of providing anything in addition to the Full software selection installation. After the general idea, Salix Team at one moment decided which features would be included in Basic, and which would be left as a future choice and task for the user to perform if he wants / needs to.

That last specific logic about those specific features in Basic is the one I don't agree with, or that I don't understand.

For example, if the decision to left out easier network connection features would be related to space constraints (for the ISO to get into one CD only), one could argue that maybe there are less important or less relevant features that could save space, instead of easier (for the user) network connection features in the Basic software selection choice (yet, keeping the Core selection for the most experienced users).

I am of the opinion that, as an example, the office-related packages should be left out. My reasoning is that those packages are updated much frequently than the Salix ISOs, mostly with bug fix releases. For example, Libreoffice has 2 major releases per year, with almost one minor release per month for bug fixing. As with the rest of the decisions, who is the user (and the target use) that would choose Salix LIVE to use office tools? And who is the user that needs office tools right immediately after Salix installation (using either the LIVE or the standard installation discs)? Are there any better options, like links to download latest available office packages for example? These questions are relevant not only for the Basic selection, but for the Full software selection too.

To be clear, those questions are representing the logic about the decision for building Salix ISOs. I don't mean that I need an answer for them. For example, an alternative decision (question) could be: "if a user would need office tools as an emergency, would he / she choose Salix LIVE to use them?, Or maybe such user would choose another lighter / faster / updated LIVE CD for that specific task?". Or another example could be "would a user that just installed Salix want office tools right there already ready to use, even if there are 2 major versions with 100s of bug fixes for easy download?". "If the user would update those office tools anyway right after Salix was installed, maybe there is a better way to provide access to office tools while using the saved space in the ISO for other important features?".

When a user wants to evaluate the OS, how much he / she wants to evaluate the already known office tools included? The user wants to evaluate the OS itself. If the same known office packages can be very easily added later if the user wants to, then why waste such amount of space and bandwidth twice, specially if it means not having enough space in the original ISO to add important features? If the office packages are included in the ISO, wouldn't the same user try to update those huge packages anyway right away (given the amount of bug fixes?

The same kind of questioning (decisions) is part of any distro.

So, it's not that I don't like Salix or that I disagree with Salix's philosophy. I am just raising a point about a specific matter, giving the repeated similar topics about this feature (and probably with potential users not even asking but instead choosing a different OS).

There are different, very different sort of network connection manager (or none). So "basic", even if the name is maybe bad-chosen, is for advanced users, slack users, who wants to install exactly what they want, but also want a working X configuration. X configuration is not so easy to get from the "core", so that the reason of existence, because it relies of lot of packages.
"Basic" is for people who want exactly to choose what to add and what to configure, not for poeple who want the minimum packages installed. Not at all. So, if you want a minimal system....use "full". In fact even if it is "full" it does not include all packages. Most are still on the repositories, it is just the full selected packages proposed on the CD, that's all. "Basic" does not configure network because you can choose different kind of tool which can then be configured in different ways. It's then up to you.

All in all, it seems you take most attention to the words "basic" and "full" than to their respective descriptions. "basic" is NOT a fully working basic system or "full" is NOT a bloated working system either.

I am of the opinion that, as an example, the office-related packages should be left out. My reasoning is that those packages are updated much frequently than the Salix ISOs, mostly with bug fix releases. For example, Libreoffice has 2 major releases per year, with almost one minor release per month for bug fixing. As with the rest of the decisions, who is the user (and the target use) that would choose Salix LIVE to use office tools? And who is the user that needs office tools right immediately after Salix installation (using either the LIVE or the standard installation discs)? Are there any better options, like links to download latest available office packages for example? These questions are relevant not only for the Basic selection, but for the Full software selection too.

Seems you prefer then a rolling-release distribution, like Arch. Salix (and Slackware) has no goal AT ALL in using the latest developpement version of any software but having a stable (and frozen) distribution, with upgrades from time to time.
And the Live ISOs will have others versions with bugfixes.

About Libreoffice (and other office suites/tools) present in the Live version....well the one included right now is working good and I have no problem in using it. You could also install the Live on a USB key, with a persistence option, and then having bug-fix updates, and then you will have no problem.
Moreover, there have been proven that they are a lot of different usage of this LiveCD. But maybe you like Salix but not the LiveCD. No problem. If you prefer to have a bleeding edge CD, then search for some bleeding edge CD distribution and burn a new CD every week. You're free to do so. But Salix is not a bleeding edge or rolling-release distribution, its live version neither.

For bugfix packages updates included in the Live version, we will provide an easy solution for people interrested => upgraded salt modules to download (on USB key or any other writable media) and upgraded ISO (for people wanted to burn it again).

@JRD,

I don't think I am confusing the name (Core, Basic, Full) with possible target uses and/or users (but who knows, maybe I'm just wrong). Just as you say that "Full" doesn't mean "all / bloated", the selection of features and packages installed by default under the Basic software selection could potentially change so to low (descend) the minimum knowledge level required for it, as I already explained.

But even if Basic stays in the future as it is now with v.13.37, just by adding better information (and steps) about network connection and its manual setting and configuration in the wiki, it would greatly expand the potential user base, while reducing those similar forum topics already mentioned.

About using a rolling release, maybe I didn't explain the example as I intended (since you and Caitlyn both mentioned this).

Using a stable version of LibreOffice (or another office-related software) is not the same as using an old one. I usually use versions x.3 to x.6 ( ie. 3.4.3 to 3.4.6 ) and I skip versions x.0 to x.2 ( ie. 3.5.0 to 3.5.2 ). It has nothing to do with older or newer versions, nor to rolling release.

Office-related packages take a considerable space / size of the ISO (in relation to other type of packages). My reasoning about it (and this is not only about Salix ISOs) is that other (not office-related) type of packages could be included instead, maintaining the ISO size compatible with one CD. Alternatively, simply make the ISO size much smaller. For any user interested in office-related packages, a relatively small-sized script and/or download links (visible at the default desktop or at the default menu) should be enough so to add the relevant packages after the OS installation. Smaller ISOs, less wasted bandwidth (specially if the user would download updated stable packages right after the OS installation). In addition, by taking out the office-related packages, the frequent (but wrong IMHO) reasoning about leaving other packages and features out because of ISO size would be irrelevant. All this is also valid for LIVE systems, not just for the OS standard installation ISOs.

Still, there might be other reasons not to add some feature and/or packages. Regarding this particular feature (network connection in the Basic software selection installation), I simply expressed my point of view and what such change would accomplish.

So, as I said in my previous answer to Caitlyn, my comments here were about a specific feature in Salix Basic software selection installation, not about the whole OS.