(resent due to problems with the list....)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 18:17:54 +0100 (BST) From: Andrew Savory s010@uea.ac.uk Reply-To: Andrew Savory A.Savory@uea.ac.uk To: alug@stu.uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: [ALUG] Obvious plug <g>
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999, Mark J Ray wrote:
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.
Why? I personally think if we can't have a single configuration point that is GUI-based, we are doomed (from the point of view of getting less able users to shift to nux).
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.
Something of a pointless distinction. Obviously, a GUI interface that is obstructive is going to be worse than useless (aka Windows). But if it's done properly, I see no valid arguments against it.
Not in general use, perhaps, but if you want to do something more complicated than an iMac can do, prepare to learn.
Okay, at this point it would be useful to define the user. I'm thinking of the clueless newbie who quite frankly won't want to do more complicated tasks, and certainly won't want to type obscure commands into an even more obscure command line interface.
You, madam, are talking nonsense. Complexity *is* what the user wants, although only the brave admit it.
That is possibly the daftest thing I've ever heard. The last thing the average clueless newbie wants is rafts of complexity. To be honest, I think even advanced users would be happy with simplicity - who really relishes the prospect of delving through layers of text files etc to set things up?
Flexibility breeds complexity. Accessibility provides a natural brake on it.
Flexibility may indeed breed complexity, but the truly smart system should hide this from the user. Saying accessibility provides a brake is to unfairly segregate the IT-rich from the IT-poor : why should those with less IT knowledge than us not use the same systems as us?
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.
Sorry, I disagree. I've used RedHat's GUI config tools before to provide me with a working skeleton that I can then modify to suit myself. Often quicker than ploughing through man pages to find the information I need.
Is this, a family of completely dissimilar distribution-, release- and even system-specific fundamental tools where you want to go?
Of course not. What I'd like to see is a common format for all config files, and then a set of configuration tools to sit on top of that - written to be as cross-distribution and cross-platform as possible.
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.
Sounds like WebMin to me (http://www.webmin.com/webmin/).
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.
Random hyperbole won't help your case, Mr Ray. Although I agree that your original email was full of random prejudices and misunderstandings ;-)
Andrew.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- A.Savory at uea.ac.uk All views are my own - who else would want them? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ 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' ]
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 03:15:56PM +0100, Andrew Savory wrote:
(resent due to problems with the list....)
bleah... rewriting this because of problems with the list. Hopefully should be fixed now and the digest will be much improved soon (although daily).
Why? I personally think if we can't have a single configuration point that is GUI-based, we are doomed (from the point of view of getting less able users to shift to nux).
So overlay it, don't make the GUI the single point. That is a wrong step. You can edit the text files when nearly everything else is in tatters. I doubt you can do that as well with a GUI.
Okay, at this point it would be useful to define the user. I'm thinking of the clueless newbie who quite frankly won't want to do more complicated tasks, and certainly won't want to type obscure commands into an even more obscure command line interface.
You don't expect them to want all their hardware to work "just so"?
Of course not. What I'd like to see is a common format for all config files, and then a set of configuration tools to sit on top of that -
Why should something like fetchmail, with its plain english config, be forced into a standard format? I think that would be rather difficult to define.
Sounds like WebMin to me (http://www.webmin.com/webmin/).
Now let's have a generic adaptive plugin and a user-land config tool too.
-
Andrew Savory -
Mark J Ray