Linked by Paul Hankes Drielsma on Tue 15th Apr 2003 06:40 UTC
I can't take anymore comments like "Debian/Gentoo/OpenBSD/etc. are not good/user-friendly because they lack a graphical installer." Searching the web, I couldn't find a comprehensive site describing the good and the bad about graphical installers for various OSes throughout the years, so in this article I hope to debunk a few of the myths on the basis of my own personal and professional experience.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
I must say I totally agree with the article.
Text based installers are fine. Of course, end-users would prefer a GUI based one, but I don't think end users should be installing nor maintaining an OS in the first place.
An OS should be installed and maintained by a specialised company or other knowledgeable person. Like with a car: who still changes the oil himself?
So, in my opionion it is not the installation process that is the problem. It is the service and knowledge of computer vendors that is the problem.
A user should be able to have a technician look after his PC and keep it in good condition for a reasonable amount of money. He should not have to worry about installation of software, virus updates and whatever.
It is time for the IT industry to start and take responsibility for their products. It should be the responsibility of the vendor to make sure the system is installed and maintained properly. Of course, this cannot be done for free, but if you spend the money you would otherwise spend on SW licenses on proper maintenance instead, Open Source systems could be very attractive.
A vendor should be liable for damage to my system if it has catched a virus that used a hole for which a patch has been available for months.