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

[simon colston <simon@example.com>]

On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 11:58:11 +0900
Matt Doughty <mdoughty@example.com> wrote:

> 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?
> > 
> > 
> 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.  

And I would also hate to see any power lost to the CLI user.  I hope and believe that both can be achieved however.  That's where the real skill will come in and what will make Linux superior to Windows - catering for both ordinary and power users.

> > 
> > 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 doesn't necessarily have to be a GUI in my opinion.  I recently installed the free (beer) version of Sybase on a Linux machine.  There is a very nice script that sets up all the configuration files and which can be used to change the configuration as needed.  Didn't need a GUI and didn't have to bone up on the syntax of Sybase database configuration files.

> It makes sense that those who are developing GUIs
> would have GUI config tools and that is the crux of this whole discussion.

These GUI config tools are just editing a bunch of text files ultimately.  Could also be done through vi.  And in the same way wouldn't it be nice if we had this for other parts of the system?

> 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 don't *expect* anything!  I am extremely grateful to those people who give their time so freely (including yourself, answering questions on this list) and I wish I could contribute more myself.  

> 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.

I agree.  'better' is a subjective thing.  A CLI and GUI are very different things and maybe both have a place in the future of Linux.

-- 
simon colston