From: Shawn Hargreaves <Shawn AT talula DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: DJGPP is in WAY too many pieces
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:13:23 +0100
Organization: None
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <unz4dDAD+CuzEwie@talula.demon.co.uk>
References: <199706202202 DOT AA292534148 AT typhoon DOT rose DOT hp DOT com>
 <5oh2so$33p AT news DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
 <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 970628113839 DOT 17966B-100000 AT blue DOT cse DOT ogi DOT edu>
 <5p98ac$i2q AT news DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: talula.demon.co.uk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 43
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

George Foot writes:
>I am still in two minds about it myself, and it wouldn't happen soon
>anyway, so further opinions either way would be welcome. If it would do
>more harm than good then naturally I won't make it.

For what it's worth, I'm personally unconvinced as to whether there is
anything wrong with the current distribution format. It strikes me as
being a trivial thing to install: download a bunch of zips (ok, there
are lots of them, but the readme.1st file clearly explains which ones
you need), unzip them, change one environment variable, and add another.
That's slightly harder than just clicking on 'setup.exe', but only by a
marginal amount, and hey, we are supposed to be programmers, right?
Doesn't that mean we are all meant to be at least computer-literate? :-)

The fact is that 99% of the stupid posts (as opposed to genuine
complicated troubles) about installation problems aren't from people who
are confused by the complexity of the process, but from people who
haven't even bothered to read the instructions. This may seem unduly
insulting, but I honestly don't mean it like that: I simply can't
understand _why_ anyone would fail to read it! Do they just not notice
the file? Or are they unable to guess that the name "readme" means
exactly that? Or don't they know how to view the contents???

In my experience, even complete newbies to DOS and to the whole idea of
a command line compiler are able to get it up and running without any
hassles, if they only take the trouble to read the (IMHO very clear and
well-written) instructions first. And if they don't, surely they are
bound to run into trouble eventually, no matter how idiot-proof we try
to make the process? What I would really like to know is why so many
people fail to look at the documentation, even after they run into
trouble. If someone could explain how they manage to miss the readme
file (and I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, I'm genuinely baffled...)
maybe it would suggest ways that it could be made more obvious. 

Think back: when is the last time you saw a post from someone who
couldn't understand the readme, or who had followed the instructions and
still got into trouble? Once people get that far, they are usually home
and dry...


--
Shawn Hargreaves - shawn AT talula DOT demon DOT co DOT uk - http://www.talula.demon.co.uk/
Beauty is a French phonetic corruption of a short cloth neck ornament.