thenktor wrote:* Core/Basic: you need some special system and know how to set up Slackware.
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.
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).
OK, I see two main points here:
- Enhance documentation with networking (hostname, domain, dhcp, ...), netconfig and add a comment about the current live + missing network setup problematic
- Add more and easier networking to basic
Did I miss something?
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.
, 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".