[nos-bbs] Re: Tweaks to build simplifed setup JNOS
ve3bnf at gmail.com
Thu Sep 14 15:48:44 EDT 2006
I tend to agree Barry , and thank you for your "help desk service" for me,
what I would like to see is a better effort made in documenting the setup of
Jnos and other flavours. What I see now is the documentation seems to assume
a prior knowledge and understanding of xnos and new users (like myself ) are
lost in the setup....altho I am not 100% functional yet I have a much better
understanding of the process and with more research will have a full
understanding of what needs to be done.
I see alot of basic questions come through that , in my opinion, would be
answered if the project documentation was "dumbed down" for new users , no
offence to anyone intended , I am new to all this too
Dave , ve3bnf
On 9/14/06, Barry Siegfried <k2mf at nnj.k2mf.ampr.org> wrote:
> ["Maiko Langelaar (ve4klm)" <maiko at pcs.mb.ca> wrote]:
> > > I'm building an easy to install JNOS ...
> > > First step was to move all the config files into one place
> > > Comments in general on the move of files and renaming ?
> > I have no plans on doing so for the official version (not anytime
> > soon).
> > To me, the issue is not so much directory and file structure.
> > Perhaps a more important issue from the WINDOWS point of view, is
> > that most users don't even know where configs are stored, transparent
> > to the general user, so does it really matter what the files are called,
> > or where they are stored ? That *is* the windows way, isn't it ?
> And that *is* unfortunate. Anyone whose sole experience in computing
> is operating on a Windows platform is learning absolutely nothing
> about computing and how it works.
> > An alternate method of simplifying JNOS setup is perhaps an installer
> > program (so that the user never needs to see the directory and file
> > structure). I made a prototype installer some time ago just to do that.
> > It OBVIOUSLY requires more work (understatement), but that was the
> > idea. To keep general users AWAY from the configuration files.
> I take a slightly different point of view on this. I feel that the
> more we *insulate* people from how to configure their programs properly,
> the more we are simply dumbing down the users of xNOS. And the more
> we dumb down the users of xNOS, then the more those of us who do have
> some knowledge about how the program works with all of its config
> options are required to provide assistance when these people get into
> trouble. The burden then falls to us. Time and time again I have
> seen thie happen and I know that Maiko and I both have gotten sucked
> into situations where we are providing "help-desk" type services
> for people who haven't a clue about where to start looking in order
> to solve a problem or something that is mis-configured. This can
> get out of control VERY quickly.
> > I mean, look at the darn REWRITE file. You don't know how badly I want
> > to *get rid* of it, in the sense that it would be nice if the USER never
> > had to deal with it. Heck, I have trouble with it. You need a PHD or
> > worse.
> Yes. We all have had trouble with rewrite at one time or another in
> our NOS experience. But how else can we learn? It is also probably
> not quite as bad as it is to configure sendmail on a linux machine.
> Can we hardcode NOS to do some of the things that we always put into
> rewrite? Of course we can, but even if we do that there is still
> *some* degree of personalization we have to do to make parts of NOS
> do what we want them to do. And in order to do that, we need to
> know SOMETHING about where the config files live and how to edit
> > On another note, the people that are going to use your installs need
> > to know that the directory structure may not conform to the official
> > structure, so that if they search for help topics, they may get
> > frustrated.
> Yes, this *could* be a problem, but it hasn't been a show stopper
> for me or anyone else that uses the NOS that I use. Like Bill,
> 15 years ago I was extremely frustrated that some config files
> were dumped here and some were dumped there for apparently no
> other reason than this is where the originators of them decided
> to place them without any regard for how they functionally
> integrated with the already existing other config files in NOS.
> I dunno, for me it has been a help to "organize" the directory
> and file structure of NOS into something coherent that made
> sense from both a functional standpoint and from a standpoint
> of making it more organized where new config files could be
> placed without having to guess where the best places for them
> to live would be.
> 73, de Barry, K2MF >>
> <|> Barry Siegfried
> | Internet | bgs at mfnos.net |
> | HomePage | http://www.mfnos.net/~bgs |
> | Amprnet | k2mf at nnj.k2mf.ampr.org |
> | PBBS | k2mf at k2ge.#cnj.nj.usa.noam |
> nos-bbs mailing list
> nos-bbs at lists.tapr.org
Homer: Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem Remember when life's
path is steep to keep your mind even
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the nos-bbs