IMO, the number of packages per-se is not a problem as long as you can manage them without arcane commands, aliases, pipe - filters, or scripts. (they all have their place, but less , the better) My point is that I don't really want to keep on my head a Unix hacker hat. I (and presumably many other humans ) like simple things,which allow me to type a short command (preferably the whole system should be simple enough to be explained in one-two pages in handbook) , wait for completion, and get on with my life. When I said people should pay more attention to Redmond and Cupertino, this is what I meant. UIs are important. Easy service management, fault reporting and so on should be automated. We shouldn't waste our time doing what the computer should do in the first place. Most people want to get the job done, so they can proceed with what is important for them. I am very sorry if this is so offensive to some people that they feel attacked, but unfortunately there aint much I can do to alleviate this. > > 1) The number of packages that the base system has. > 2) The user interface by which the packages are presented. > > I believe (and, please, correct me if I’m wrong), that all of the complaints in this thread have been about the UI, not about the underlying mechanism. That’s not to say that they’re unimportant (quite the reverse), but that they can be solved concurrently with the task of preparing the base system for distribution in packaged form. >Received on Wed Apr 20 2016 - 07:00:38 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:04 UTC