Re: [tlug] CLI admin how-to ideas?

[Matt Doughty <mdoughty@example.com>]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:31:21AM +0900, simon wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt Doughty" <mdoughty@example.com>
> To: <tlug@example.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 12:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [tlug] CLI admin how-to ideas?
> 
> 
> > > there are several projects trying to cater for this need.
> >
> > At this point it isn't a realistic goal and it really contradicts the spirit
> > of the community.  Unix is a powerful system for those who are willing to
> > learn to use it.  Most people in the comunity have no interest sacrificing
> > power and flexibility for 'ease of use'. As a result alot of design decisions
> > are made that don't cater to the 'ease of use'.
> 
> And this is where you lose me.  I don't think anyone has to sacrifice anything.  The CLI will always be there and will still be the
> most important and powerful interface to the system.  What I envisage is something in addition to the existing interface - less
> powerful, but doing some of the sysadmin jobs in a simplified (hopefully not oversimplified) and standard(ish) manner.  (And I
> understand that the devil lies in the 'simplified' and 'ish'!)

What I mean is simply this.  If it comes to a decision to give the end user
more power or to allow for easy GUI intergration the first option will almost
always we taken.  I mean look at microsoft for the antithesis of this.  NT has
a command line but there are so many things you _can't_ do from it.  This has
more to do with MS GUI centric world view than anything else. Developing two
forms of access to the same configuration tasks take considerably more effort.
Consider the ammount of effort it takes to create a GUI tool to deal with all
the possible permutations of a config file.  Now contrast that with a "here are 
the docs and vi good luck!" approach.  I mean you certainly have a point that
there is no harm done with a GUI tool shipped with the software in question
that has a limited functionality, but that sort of thing takes effort and
developers will need to see a compelling reason.
  
> 
> Agreed.  The configuration tools have to come from within the project itself.  Many window managers and desktop environments have
> good configuration tools (for configuring themselves) for that very reason.

Ahh but there is a big difference between the wm/desktop crowd who are 
obviously very interested in GUI interfaces in their own right and the
rest of the commmunity.  It makes sense that those who are developing GUIs
would have GUI config tools and that is the crux of this whole discussion.
The people in open source developement do it because they want to and 
expecting them to focus on features that are important to you rather than
those they consider important is being unrealistic.  I personally don't have
a problem with doing everything with vi. If someone wants gui tools they
need to join the project and help develope those tools as opposed to 
complaining about them not existing[1]. My objection is more towards projects
that try retrofit their gui to the software in question rather than towards
gui config tools built as part of the project.  We don't hate graphical 
interfaces but those retrofitted hacks are dangerous especially in the hands
of a neophyte.
> 
> > [3]: When will those pesky hackers see the light emanating from Redmont and
> >      follow MS down the enlightened path. ;)
> 
> I use emacs.  There are two ways to configure it.  Open the .emacs and edit it manually or use the menus and configuration buffers.
> MS are not the only people in the world who have systems with configuration tools.

This of course is quite true. MS is however responsible for this attitude that
GUI tools are somehow inherently better and a naturally evolutionary step by
the masses who can't even begin to grasp the power of a CLI.  It is this
attitude exactly that tends to get my hackles up.

--Matt

[1] I'm sorry that I seem to keep violating this particularly mutilated horse.

-- 
"Take away them collisions and the common channel and it's like Christianity 
 without Christ." -Jim Breen (speaking about "full-duplex" Ethernet)