Not a bash, just the facts

[Chanchao]

On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 14:25 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> > Well, let's see.  On windows (IF you need Sun's JRE in the first
> > place because all websites seem to run fine without it) you click
> > the download link and let it open up.
> 
> Actually, it's click to download, double click to run the installer, 
> click-click-click-click-click-accept through the wizard. Then it 
> installs.

I stand corrected. :)

> And Linux is not Windows, so comparing them is not valid. Analogy: you 
> are complaining that your helicopter doesn't have a steering wheel 
> like your car does.

No, I'm complaining that the thing doesn't go certain places unless I
pop the hood (or whatever thingy covers helicopter engines) and work on
it. Beware the Analogy Police though. :)  Let's not get carried away
with this. :)

> > I wasn't kidding when I called this rediculous!! :)
> 
> I think you are trolling. 

I will admit this topic is a personal pet peeve and not directly related
to providing user support. I do however consider it an urgent and
important issue, one that can make Ubuntu a lot better/friendlier when
addressed, and as such I don't consider it trolling. 

> Either that or you don't understand Linux and/or package managers.

Perhaps not, perhaps I do. The point is though that my mum and my sister
FOR SURE don't understand Linux and package managers, but ARE otherwise
qualified enough to use computers and I can see Ubuntu getting real
close to where they can comfortably switch over.  But not until it plays
their music and videos and shows fancier websites out of the box. (or
almost out of the box)

(Note objectively that a lot of the restricted formats require going
OUTSIDE the package manager to install them. I accept that a package
manager is a core part of using Ubuntu and that my mum would need to
learn to use it IF she wants to install new software.  My issue is not
with the concept of package managers, which I think are great.)

> Sun's download bundle contains the JRE files. For security reasons, 
> and because it's damn good policy, the contained files do not have 
> the executable bit set. You have to do that manually. Install 
> into /opt and away you go.

Great policy.  However when doing such things I think the immediate next
step always HAS to be to allow users to do this easily and graphically.
Like inform them this is an executable file, that they have to trust the
source it came from, at which point they can authorize making it
executable through a checkbox or button.   Asking users to open
terminals and doing chmods and chowns and chgrps is a non-starter, for a
desktop installation, quite obviously.  I can tell you right now my mum
won't use it if she has to go into terminals for ANYTHING.  If the
majority of the Ubuntu people are comfortable with my mum not using it
and only people like you and me using it, then I can accept that, too. 

She IS a human being though, so I'm led to believe that she's included.

Cheers,
Chanchao