[syslinux] Advice/directions to users of Syslinux

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <BLU0-SMTP218A5F5400BB0FCA0312DC28BA70 at phx.gbl>, Ady wrote:

>By adding technical details, it makes it harder for a non-technical 
>user to follow, and such user will probably go away looking for a 
>simpler answer.

Yes.

>If a user doesn't know what "create a new DOS partition table" means, 
>there are many ways to find out, including a web search.

I know what it means, but I have (at least) three different ways to
do it that I can think of right off the top of my head, i.e. use
Windows itself to do it, use Gparted/GpartedMagic, or use FreeBSD,
which can also do it.  Other people can probably expand this list.

My point is that just commanding a user to "create a new DOS partition
table" may not be sufficiently specific to achieve the desired result,
as some or all of these tools may perhaps be creating partitions in
a manner that is incompatible... with some thing or another.

>Having an adequate partitioning scheme and an adequate formatted 
>volume is a requirement to work with these type of (USB) media, not 
>just for Syslinux.

Apparently, yes.  And it seems to me that the simplest way (from the
point of view of the end user) to insure that these things are done
correctly is for the distributors of tools such as Clonezilla,
Ultimate Boot CD, and OpenELEC to follow in the footsteps of, e.g.
the Archlinux folks and the Debian folks and the LessLinux folks
i.e. by just simply distributing images that can be (no-brainer)
block-by-block copied onto USB sticks in order to produce a working
stick... using either dd or whatever the bleep its counterpart on
Windows/DOS might be.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that it is
rather entirely ill-advised for Clonezilla to have four different
recommended install procedures for Windows and an additional three
different procedures for Linux.  Even just from a strictly technical
support (cost) standpoint, this seems to be an extraordinarily poor
choice.

>IMHO, adding information to (and updating documentation already in) 
>the wiki is a good thing. But I doubt a simple user would be 
>interested in reading and understanding *that* much, specially when 
>he is having a problem. Let me put it this way: if I have a problem 
>with my car and I can't get to where I need to, I just want the 
>problem solved. I might be interested in learning how to repair cars, 
>but that's not the moment.

Well said.

In an ideal universe a "simple" end-luser shouldn't have to know a single
bloody thing about partitions, partition tables, drive geometry, for-
matting, or any of that stuff.  Nor should any such ordinary end-luser
ever feel the need to look at ANY PART of the Syslinux Wiki.  Why should
they, if their only goal is, for example, to watch a bloody video on their
TeeVee (using e.g. OpenELEC)?

The Syslinux Wiki and the material in it should be helpful to the kinds
of folks who are constructing bootable images.  but all of the thought,
planning, and heavy lifting... including all of the partitioning,
formatting, etc... necessary to create a working USB stick should already
have been done... by the image preparer... well before the end-luser
clicks on that download button.

The way to make all of this stuff maximally simple for real end-lusers
(including me) is for the Syslinux project to STRONGLY suggest to its
direct user base that they all make it a point to distribute simple,
pre-partitioned, pre-formatted dd-able images.


Regards,
rfg