On 8/18/20 2:34 AM, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On 8/17/20 11:04 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
A few days ago I got email from a user who was attempting to install
CentOS. I've included their full message below, but, to summarize,
when one clicks on the "CentOS Linux" link on the front page of
centos.org one is given a matrix of choices, and no guidance. On
choosing one option - say, x84_64 ISO, one is then given another list
of options and no guidance. Pick one of *those* options and you are
yet again given a list of options and no guidance.
Now, it could be argued that someone who doesn't know what to choose
is not our target audience, and I suppose that would be an ok
position to hold. But wouldn't it be great to lower the bar just a
little, and offer some guidance as to which links one should click?
I'd like to see several things:
1) On the front page, where it says "We offer two Linux distros:",
there would be at least some hint of what this choice entails
2) On the download page - https://www.centos.org/centos-linux/ - a
little explanation of what the various options there are.
So far, this is all just edits to centos.org. The next two steps
involve pushing changes to the mirror network, and I honestly have no
idea what is involved there.
3) Adding phrasing to
http://isoredirect.centos.org/centos/8/isos/x86_64/ that indicates
what that inscrutable list of links means.
and finally, possibly not even possible:
4) Add words to http://centos4.zswap.net/8.2.2004/isos/x86_64/ (as a
random example) that say what the various options mean. This is
probably not possible, since these are just autoindex generated
pages. We could, however, offer Apache httpd and nginx configuration
recommendations which will provide that additional information for
sites that chose to follow the instructions.
Oh, sweet. I just noticed that below the /8/isos tree there is no
description similar to
http://centos4.zswap.net/7/isos/x86_64/0_README.txt. Wonderful choice,
dropping each and every hint that [barely] existed.
And, really, #1 and #2 are the most important here.
Rich, I fully agree with that user and frankly, I command him for
reaching out and telling you ( and us ) his concerns. I for one would
have quit and not looked back. Been there, done that.
Leaving that aside, AFAIK the main web site is not under community
control. It was taken over by RedHat eons ago ( not that it was
accessible for us, the members of the CentOS teams, before that anyway
) and I bet that there are most 5 people who can modify it. If memory
serves I am part of the wiki translation team for 12 years or so and
AFAIK none of those who can edit the wiki had ever had any sort of
influence on the pages published on www.c.o. We actually had to _beg_
to have links in the main website point to the wiki ( which _was_
under our control ) so that we could publish information we thought
that could/would be useful for the users.
In an ideal world, we would have some sort of AJAX that would
dynamically describe each and every iso link on the main pages of the
web site. But that's a job for web designers and content publishers. I
fully recommend to whoever will be tasked with this project to look at
the wiki maintained by the arch community. THAT is how things should
be done, from my point of view. And, with all due respect, I mean that
as opposed to access.r.c and www.r.c which are awful to navigate
unless you know exactly what you want.. and sometimes not even then.
wolfy
PS: I created the very very first 0_README.txt file that is now
included in the isos/$ARCH folder. A file which usually is ignored for
the simple reason that end users almost never reach it but whose
content should be published BEFORE the users attempt to download an iso.
The full message follows:
>>
I stumbled on your address on a Centos Faq page. I hope you can give me
some sort of answer.
I have been searching for a way to ask a question, but have not located
a forum. As I am fairly new to Linux generally, I am exploring
varieties, and Centos surfaced as an interesting option. But, again, I
have a problem no one else considers worthy of asking or answering: how
do I choose? Apparently the user in the download directory is supposed
to know what they are looking for.
When I followed the link to "download CentOs", I chose a link with
".iso" on it. This opened another page, so I picked another likely
candidate. I went four or five branches deep before I gave up. I have no
idea why I would want one branch or the other. Should I just leave
CentOs to the experts?
I really wish that on the home page there was a specification for "user
level". Do developers assume that the user is expert, and that someone
who is not qualified will get exhausted and go away? It seems very
unkind to make that assumption and not say so. If I am not the intended
user, please tell me! Otherwise, could someone please explain how to
choose which version of CentOs to use?
If you could forward this letter to someone who can take the time to
answer my question, I will be grateful.
<<
_______________________________________________
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
