Thank you for your reply.
We have a problem of miscommunication.
Shador wrote:Adys wrote:The Full Software selection seems more closer to an "out-of-the-box-ready" situation for less experienced users.
Actually both are targeted at advanced users. They're just intended for different setups. Basic is more like a core for desktop system users that want a highly-customizable setup, but don't want to go through core.
Salix is not for 100% newbies IMHO. I am using relative terms. Still, your own answer there is exactly my point about the Basic software selection. According to your own description, currently there is not much difference between the Core and the Basic selections, in terms of the user that would choose one or the other. Once you offer the Basic software selection option, by improving the network connection "issue" (partly by additional documentation and partly by additional features installed under "Basic") you are in fact targeting a wider range of middle users. Typical examples are the ones in those topics about similar network connections like this one. In fact I found similar suggestions already and even a positive response about such suggestions (although, evidently still not implemented).
Adys wrote:Now, the Basic software selection should be different from both, Core and Full selections, in the sense of the target type of users.
Why? They should have a different target, that's right, but not necessarily a different target type of users.
There could be users interested and capable of using more than one type of software selection, but, again, by improving network connection features in the Basic software selection, there is an additional range of users that could be able to install Salix. Currently, the answer for this wide group of users is either reinstall using Full (and the user already had that chance before and for some reason he actually wanted the Basic selection), or don't install Salix. You are basically saying that, in terms of user knowledge that would install Salix, Core and Basic are almost the same. Maybe not the same use to the final system, but it is still "skipping" the middle range user. This may not be the intention, but when looking at this from the user's side...
Adys wrote:If the netconfig step was at least mentioned somewhere in the wiki in relation to the Basic software selection, then my guess is that less topics would had been opened about the Network Connection after a Basic install.
This point is probably missing in the documentation because it's a problem with the Live installer. With the standard installation netconfig is invoked during setup.
You are missing one of my points / suggestions. One level of user needs the documentation to follow the instructions. He doesn't know which tool (either GUI or CLI) he needs to run so to achieve the final goal: network connection. In the case of the standard installer, the steps indeed request the same information as the "manual" netconfig. But the user needs to know what to answer. There is a wide range of users that, when given the appropriate direction, will be able to find the relevant information and then answer to the steps (whether during the standard installer or by netconfig) correctly. Under the Basic selection, there is a range of users that could easily be incorporated to potential users of Salix, but currently are forced to different options (either Full software selection or not installing Salix).
Adys wrote:Once the intermediate user gains more experience, he would be able to do it by himself and to use the Core software selection
Do you feel Salix is an educational game? With increasing levels where each level allows to solve the next one?
That's not the intention of the different package selections. They're meant to provide a starting point for different use cases:
- Core: headless systems like servers, anything special
- Basic: custom application selection
- Full: just get me going
And once again, the users choosing Core or Basic selection are almost the same under the current Basic selection. By improving the Network Connection features available in Basic by default, the range of users would be much wider. To avoid confusions, I indeed understand that the features are there. But by making them more easily available, the impact should be notable. To give you an example of the opposite, having a web browser installed by default in Basic, in the current situation, has almost no impact on the range of users that would choose Basic during the install (meaning, currently the same user would choose Basic anyway, whether you have a web browser already included or not).
While you are talking about "use cases", I am talking about "useR cases". They are of course related, but not the same. By improving both the documentation about network connection and easier availability of the features in Basic software selection, the previous "use cases" are still there, but now you would be adding more "use cases" and more "useR cases".
Adys wrote:IMHO, having more hardware support and the ability to resolve technical situations (like configuring the network connection)
How many machines are desktop machines? How many desktop machines have wireless chips? How many of those desktops with wireless actually use it? Do they need wireless drivers?
I don't know how many. Currently, there is not enough documentation about these cases (with similar forum topics opened about this same issue, and probably users that didn't take the time to post the question and got disappointed) and, again, this particular feature, network connection, is too important for users to be ignored. If you find that a web browser installed by default is important in Basic, then I would tend to think that making network connection features as easy as possible for more users is even more important. Independently of how many different cases, as with any other hardware support, the more and easier the better from the user's point of view.
I'm not saying that "every single" feature must be st_pid proof. I'm saying that this specific feature, connectivity, involves so many technical details and is so important to any user, that anything that facilitates it means a huge difference.
Adys wrote:I would even take out big office-related packages so to gain space for the LIVE system, but that's another topic
You wouldn't gain any space, unless you also remove that software from the full selection.
Yes, that's what I mean. But I only mentioned this because of the comment about the available space in one LIVE CD. This is OT here, unless you would want to hear possibilities / opinions of items to exclude from the LIVE CD so to gain space in favor of network connection "easy of use" features, in case “space” in the CD is the main problem.
Adys wrote:
About the web browser (among others) being useful for the Basic software selection, it is still odd (from the user's point of view). I mean that setting the network connection and/or adding packages from sources or running scripts are all things that require more knowledge than adding a web browser from repositories after the network connection is established.
You're not getting the point. First of all for a user with a Slackware background, it's not at all difficult. And apart from that the problem is entirely the Live installer here! With the standard edition the network setup is part of the setup (like bootloader, locale, ...) unless the full edition with a network manager is installed.
And once again, I am talking about a wider range of users, not just the same that could already use Core software selection and start from there anyway to obtain the same result.
And again, whether it is the standard installer, or the live installer, there is a range of users that needs a little more info. More documentation about network connection would mean easier installation for more users that are currently not covered. Easier network connection features in Basic software selection means even a wider range of users that would be interested in using the Basic software selection.
Adys wrote:the most newbie ones that need all sorted out "automatically"
Basic is not intended for newbies. You need a fair understanding and experience with linux to be able to select your applications yourself. That's not the case for newbies.
Yes, Basic is not for newbies. That's why Basic is not "all sorted out automatically". That's what I said. Under the current situation, Less knowledge -> Full install. Much more knowledge -> Core or Basic are available. Middle knowledge -> either use Full, even if it is not what you are interested in, or go search something else.
But if the network connection in Basic could be made easier and more documented, more middle-knowledge users would be able to use Basic, with less forum topics opened about this issue.
Adys wrote:For example, I have no idea where to find the host and domain info that netconfig is requesting from me. (Any hints about this would be very welcome. Since the LIVE system is automatically capable of connecting, does the LIVE system could help me find this info?).
No chance finding that information anywhere. That's like parents asking where they could find that name of their newborn child when asked to pick a name.
With the Live edition it's set to some sane, temporary default. But once you're doing a normal setup it makes sense to pick a name for the machine, called hostname. The domain is the group of computers this machine is part of. This should be a domain, you own as in google.com. But usually just 'localdomain' is fine. The resulting name of your computer is accordingly "myname" or "myname.localdomain".
I'm just wondering how you managed to run installers in the past. After all even Windows asks you to choose hostname and domain/workgroup/whatever.
You can change those values anytime using the Hostname tool in the menu.
All that should be part of the documentation. It is not a coincidence that there are several forum topics about network connection after a Basic software selection installation. The default hostname (desktar?) could be mentioned in the (currently nonexistent) network connection docs too. That info seems trivial to more experienced users, but it sounds like old Latin (or Chinese, or...) for others that, otherwise, could perfectly use Basic as a valid installation method.
You mentioned Windows. Well, IIRC, the domain is not obligatory, depending on the Windows version (I mean for the user to type "something") under a Windows home desktop system. But Salix installer won't continue with typing "something". The text in the installer could be clearer here. And after the "hostname" ("computer name that the user would like") and "domain" ("in many cases, not important so the user could use 'localdomain' as default"), the user would need to know / understand several decisions. Of course newbies don't know what dhcp or loopback mean. But many middle-knowledge users won't either. During the Basic software selection installation, the network connection is the
only step that has no alternative other than deeper knowledge. whether the user used the LIVE installer or the standard one is irrelevant in this regard.
For a middle-knowledge user, the network connection jargon might be even scary, specially without clear documentation about it. OTOH, the same user would be able to install a web browser and apply critical updates by following the current documentation, if not for the lack of the network connection. For the middle-knowledge user trying to use the Basic software selection installation, this may very well be a deal breaker.
Good. If such links and more documentation and explanation would be added to the Salix Wiki and Start up Guide, the jargon would be less scary too. And if the network connection features in Basic would work easier for the final user, then that would be much, much better yet.
BTW, I eventually got it working
for the VM, and I also installed more packages successfully (the latter was not a problem at all). The documentation for the other tasks, and the features already included, are useful for middle-knowledge users (yet there is potential for improvements and i will eventually post comments about them in respective topics). The only steps that really gave me troubles (while testing both, the LIVE installer and the standard one, both using Basic software selection) were the ones about network connection. I still need to investigate how to configure it in my
real hardware, with the cable modem and the VPN (which is the way the ISP works here).
Even if, at least for now, my problem is solved, the bigger picture about the Basic software installation and repeated topics related to network connection should not be left without improvements, IMHO. I am open to discussion about it, if you are interested in a middle-knowledge user's point of view.
. So which item / tool / package / whatever is there already available and working in the LIVE environment, but it is not available in the Basic installation? Is there any wiki page or step by step instructions available (which I was not yet able to find)? I have already read about Wicd in the wiki / FAQs before opening this topic, but the steps described there are not matching what I found in the Basic installation.