Suggestion for a new Download page

[Eric Rostetter]

Quoting Jonas Pasche <mail at jonaspasche.de>:

> I see a small problems for unexperienced users when they find
> documentation for yum _and_ apt for their distribution because they
> don't know either of it and thus cannot simply make a decision which one
> they want to use.

This should spawn one or two faq entries.  First was are yum and apt.
Second, which should I use if I'm not already using either one?

Anyone want to write up those FAQ entries, or even a short doc covering
those topics?

> user communities. I'm thinking about a sentence like "If you don't know
> anything about these tools, we suggest you to try yum first, as it comes
> with fewer options and fewer complexity than apt. You can always choose
> between both tools, even later, if you want to try apt instead."

That's kind of what the proposed FAQ entry would say, more or less...

> Okay, I don't have a problem to have link to yum or apt on the Download
> page, as long as there is a strong note that installing yum or apt alone
> _does not provide any updates_. It only installs a package manager,
> nothing else, just like paying for a gym membership doesn't make your
> body slim. :)

Due to the need to link to a version of yum/apt for each OS version,
this would have to be a link on the download page to a separate page
which listed them all, and had the above disclaimer.  Otherwise the
download page would be too long, etc.  Anyone agree with that?

> > a) What is fedora-legacy?

With what, other than a link to the "About" page?

> > b) What are these yum and apt things?

Okay, someone write it up and I'll put it out there.

> > c) How do I get started?
> > (redhat 7.x, redhat 8.0, redhat 9 instructions)

Great.  As someone writes up those docs, I'll put them out there.

> > d) What else is there to know?

What else *is* there to know?

> > e) How do I participate?

Already there.

> Thanks; I'll note these title for further updates to the documentation
> page. Anyway, at least questions a) and b) could be answered by a single
> paragraph in the FAQ, which is - from my point of view - the place where
> short answers should go.

Short answers yes.  But we've already covered a) in the About page.
b) could be covered here, but it should also be covered in the FAQ.
To cover it in the docs page, we'd need a longer, more general answer
than the FAQ.

> Jonas

I really do get some good ideas out of these discussions, believe it
or not.  So thanks.  But it would be even better if people wrote these
docs they'd like to see and submitted them.  I'll try to do it if no one
else does; I know I can write them, it is just a matter of finding them
time.

--
Eric Rostetter