Re: Unionfs etc Re: Packaging

[James Frazer <jfrazer@xxxxxxxx>]

Right, I agree completely.  There's a lot of imperfections that come 
along with having an OS on a regular PC.  It's just that I'd like to 
install a  *nix type OS for my parents/gf/average-friend without them 
stumbling into system-files and getting confused (it's not like they'd 
know how to do anything with them anyway).

A type attribute set to 'system' or something could mask out all that 
stuff easily enough.  From a UI perspective most users never need to 
venture outside their home directory.  For them it's easiest if the 
world stays flat.


--James



Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :I was speaking from a more theoretical level and not so much practical 
> :in relation to what we currently use.
> :
> :I mean for example -- OS's on much older computers -- lets say the 
> :Commodore 64 (maybe not the best example) -- the user did not know the 
> :OS was running.   They interacted with it without having to know about 
> :any of its underlying structure.  The point is that no unnecessary 
> :complexity is around to make simple tasks confusing.
>
>     Well, being an old hand at the Amiga/C64 I certainly see where you
>     are coming from, but there is a very important difference between 
>     something like the C64 and a modern computer.
>
>     The difference is that the core of the C64, and the Amiga, was
>     basically in ROM, and all the hardware was uniform.  The lack of
>     variation in hardware and the limited flexibility of the software UI
>     components greatly simplified all aspects of those systems.
>
>     But that doesn't exist with PC hardware.  Take the hard drive interface
>     for example, or the graphics card.  Dozens of manufacturers, hundreds
>     of variations in system configuration.  90% of the problem consumers
>     have with desktop systems are related to hardware and software
>     interoperability.
>
>     If we had a single platform and provided DragonFly on an auto-installing
>     CD we could do wonders... the CD could boot into a GUI, just like the
>     Amiga, for example, and it would work every time.  But we don't have a
>     single fixed hardware base and will never have a single fixed hardware
>     base, and that unfortunately means that users have to be aware of many
>     aspects of how their systems interact with operating system software
>     no matter how sophisticated we (or anyone, MS included) makes the 
>     software.
>
>     The absolute best we can do is to try to provide an infrastructure
>     that makes the diagnosis of problems easier and possibly even 
>     automatic, at least in regards to package installation and operation,
>     and to make the packaging system reversable and bullet proof.
>
> 						-Matt