[olug] linux web server management ?

[Christopher Cashell]

At Wed, 18 Dec 02, Unidentified Flying Banana Aaron W DeLashmutt, said:
> Not to start a big bashing fest or anything... but;
> I think solutions such as apt get, urpmi, and portage are horrible
> ideas for newbies.

I would have to completely disagree.  Software packages can be a great
benefit for new users, as it aids them in getting a working system while
they figure out what they're doing.

> Why are you even using linux in the first place if all you are looking
> for is ease of use.  There is a such thing as EASY, its called windows
> XP.

So the only reason to use Linux is if you are looking for ease of use?

People who want to try Linux and learn as they go, instead of being
experts prior to starting, are doing something wrong?

Is there a reason that Linux can't, or shouldn't, be easy to use?

Maybe we should pass a new rule that everyone should be required to
build their first Linux system from the ground up, using Linux From
Scratch[1], before allowing them to use a real distribution?

Most people start using Linux, not for "ease of use", but because they
want to use it.  Maybe they want to learn more about Unix, maybe they've
heard good things about Linux and want to try it out, or maybe they just
feel that Linux might be a workable solution for a problem they have.

The fact that they may want to be able to *use* it without spending 6
months learning about it first isn't wrong.  Not everything is going to be
easy to use, and I don't think many people will come to Linux expecting
that, but there's no reason at all to make things unnecessarily difficult
for people.  Not everyone wants to know the deep, detailed intricacies
of software package dependencies.  And not everyone needs to.  Your
average computer user can't write a computer program either.  But that's
okay too, because not everyone wants, or needs, to be able to do so.

> No problem being a noob, everyone has to start somewhere... but read
> the docs, howtos, everything available.  Almost all information is
> available, including dependencies.

That's true.  But why should people start at the very bottom?  Why
should they have to learn everything in advance, before they are able to
play with the system?  If you force something like that, you're going to
end up with a whole lot of annoyed and frustrated people who have no
interest in spending 6 months learning about an Operating System before
being able to play with it or use it.  Very few people will stick with
it under those circumstances.

> You aren't going to learn anything using tools like apt-get except how
> to bitch when you can't get something to work... or when a needed
> 'debian package' isn't available.

You aren't going to learn anything if you get frustrated and give up 5
minutes into your attempt to install a Linux system because you don't
(yet) understand how or why your attempt to install foo is failing,
either.

You can't force someone to learn.  It has to be their decision.  

Taking up the attitude that anyone who doesn't immediately take the
hardest way available will just turn into a whiner isn't exactly a fair
generalization, either.  It will likely guarantee that any newbies who
hear it will think little of you, though. 

> These are the reasons the acronym RTFM has become so widely known.

Yes, it's because a lot of people do expect someone to hold their hand
and explain every little thing for them, so they don't have to work or
think on their own.

However, it's also frequently used where it shouldn't be[2].  Not all
documentation is well written, easily accessible, or easy to find.
Sometimes people are just being lazy, in which case, "RTFM." is a
reasonable response.  But sometimes people are really trying, and would
love to "RTFM", but they don't know where the manual or documentation
is.

> -Aaron DeLashmutt
> 
> ps.  After this email, Im going to get my warm fuzzy feeling using
> 'Windows Update' to update my libraries and secure my box.

 [1] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
 [2] I was on a mailing list for a project once, where someone asked
     what the syntax for a certain option was.  One of the developers
     threw out a quick and unfriendly, "RTFM." to the person.  A short
     while later, it was pointed out that the option wasn't documented
     in the manual, due to an oversight on the developers' part.

--
| Christopher
+------------------------------------------------+
| A: No.                                         |
| Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? |
+------------------------------------------------+