From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Subject: Re: website: say what Guix is at the very top Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 18:11:04 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87inc0gzoz.fsf@elephly.net> <1e6cee12-07d0-6d08-1dcf-35ce19bdd58d@tobias.gr> <87d1266zr7.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59243) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edJ68-0005xD-F2 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 12:08:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edJ67-0008NJ-KR for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 12:08:00 -0500 Received: from tobias.gr ([2001:470:cc92::1]:58556) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edJ67-0008MK-78 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jan 2018 12:07:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87d1266zr7.fsf@elephly.net> Content-Language: en-GB List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: rekado@elephly.net Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Ricardo, Ricardo Wurmus wrote on 19/01/18 at 09:04: >> I don't know who wrote the current intro, but I think it's pretty good. >> Have you got negative feedback from curious visitors? > > Unfortunately, I have. The most common feedback is an expression of > confusion about the difference between GuixSD and Guix. > > But to be fair: this email was not triggered by negative feedback, but > by my own failure to find a succint explanation of Guix on the home > page. I had hoped to find a concise intro that I could send someone to > explain what this Guix thing is all about but none of the sentences on > the home page really did the job well enough. > > I ended up opening the Introduction section of the manual and edited it > to reduce the number of words. Thanks for your explanation here and elsewhere in this thread. I think I share your view now. Kind regards, T G-R