Unionfs etc Re: Packaging

[James Frazer]

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