Resent per error on list:
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Mark J Ray wrote:
- List: alug@stu.uea.ac.uk
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 03:54:05PM +0100, Andrew Savory wrote:
To place a GUI abstraction on this and expect it to cope with everything is a wrong turn.
No, it's not.
Yes it is.
No it's not ;-)
If the underlying config files are ordered and structured sensibly, it should not be a problem. And quite frankly, a GUI interface is often far, far easier for novice users than hacking a text file.
No, you're talking about a GUI interface (== A Good Thing), while I was talking about a Control-Panel like GUI obstruction.
Either way, GUIs, when implemented properly, work to effectively limit the damage a user can do be presenting him/her with a set of possible options, rather then risk them typing things in where they should not, or even walking around in the dark not knowing where to start.
I don't see why you should have to understand the structure of the system.
Not in general use, perhaps, but if you want to do something more complicated than an iMac can do, prepare to learn.
In a proper GUI, you should only need to enter the relevant section for what you want, or be asked.
for concealment of the complexity (in the quoted paragraph) is to argue against Linux.
You, sir, are talking nonsense. If to argue for concealment of complexity is to argue against Linux, why then are almost all the major distributions trying to do just that? Take RedHat, with their extensive GUI config tools (for better or for worse). Take Debian, with their extensive package management system. All attempts to make things less complex for the end user. Why? Because at the end of the day, complexity is not what the end user wants. Accessibility, flexibility and stability is what it's all about.
You, madam, are talking nonsense. Complexity *is* what the user wants, although only the brave admit it. What's the first thing a sane user does when contemplating the install? Looks to make sure that most (all?) of their hardware is supported.
1. Define "sane" in terms of a computer user.
2. I don't remember the last time someone asked me if their hardware was compatible with Windows or any other OS for that matter, they assume so.
If it doesn't support their super-widget-drive 2935, they don't install. Flexibility breeds complexity. Accessibility provides a natural brake on it.
Correct.
What is done by most distributions is not concealment of the underlying system, for it is still accessible when you need to do something not forseen by the config tool admins. No-one can really say that using one of the current generation of distribution-supplied configuration tools really helps you to make a start on manual configuration. Is this, a family of completely dissimilar distribution-, release- and even system-specific fundamental tools where you want to go? Well, that's your choice. As soon as it moves to try concealment (as RedHat's *cfg tools look as if they will soon try), you make a lot of enemies, including me.
What is needed, now that we're starting to get the FHS kicking in and a regular structure for configuration files under /etc, is a tool that uses this structure and puts nicer interfaces on the parts it knows about, while still allowing you to hack it directly if needed. It could even adapt to config file formats it doesn't understand, as far as possible.
Quite. It needs to have properties of AI in that sense.
Now please make some attempt at thinking my points through before responding, instead of just flaming at random prejudices and misunderstandings, else the list's Signal-Noise ratio is doomed.
Point is, the average user, ime, doesn't want to know about hardware or configuation tools. They just want it at the level of abstration they can understand, and for it to work. When this isn't available, they call in the spotty kid next door.
Windows, imo, has done a good attempt at producing configuration tools for particular jobs. Unfortunately, when it doesn't work, it general has dire consequences, and since the registry isn't a dream to administer, the average user is doomed to reinstallion and that, in the words of Microsoft themselves, increases the "TCO".
James.
[ This email came to you via the Anglian Linux User Group list ] [ If you only wish to recieve event announcements, email the ] [ SUBJECT of "unsubscribe" to this list and "subscribe" to ] [ alug-announce@stu.uea.ac.uk -- We do need your support, tho' ]