Re: tlug: Re: limits of acceptability

["Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" <chak@example.com>]

Chris Sekiya <chris@example.com> wrote,

> On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Scott Stone wrote:
> 
> > hm, I thought that all the comments were annoying so I deliberately took
> > them out.  It's easier (for me) to read the 'clean' config file output
> > produced by turboxcfg.  You think this was a mistake?  I could easily have
> > turboxcfg add some comments if you think it would help matters any.
> 
> Given the choice between:
> 
> * Editing a 16Kb config file that contains extensive comments about what
>   option does what, or
> * Editing a 4Kb config file while switching to another VC that has the
>   XF86Config man page displayed ...
> 
> ... I'll choose the former, every time.

I agree!  Config files with comments and non-used options
commented out instead of removed are very convenient -
especially if you basically know what the file is about, but 
again forgot the exact syntax.  The same holds for having a
couple of commented out example entries in places like
`/etc/fstab' and `/etc/exports'.

While the use of text-based config files makes life harder
for authors of config tools, I regard it as a big plus of
Linux (more precisely the Un*x approach) that config tools
and direct hacking of config files can *co-exist*

BTW, I think it is good design if a config tool tries to
display configurations in a visual layout that is close to
the layout of the config file.  This makes it easier for
experienced users to use the tool and it helps newbies to
make the transition to the gory details once they are up to
it.

Manuel

------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Technical Meeting: 12 December, 12:30 at Temple Univ. Japan
*NEW LOCATION* a map is available at http://www.tuj.ac.jp/maps.html
Next Nomikai: 15 January 1999, 19:30 Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691
------------------------------------------------------------------
more info: http://tlug.linux.or.jp                     Sponsor: PHT