On Wednesday 10 September 2003 16:36, Jesper Fruergaard Andersen wrote: > On Friday 05 September 2003 20:06, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > > I would really hate that. Then I would have to look for an other disto > > > again. For some reason distos always seem to become more and more > > > "userfriendly", that is harder and harder to use if you don't want to > > > use the shiny gui interface they always seems to come up with. > > > > You are wrong. 'userfriendly' does not imply harder to use (for power > > users). Just because all those that have tried so far have failed, > > there's no logical step to say that it's impossible. Compare MS > > Exchange's method > > It does not imply but it seems to be that way in practice. > > > of > > configuration with Sendmail's - yes, we have postfix now but sendmail > > fits what I'm talking about better. Exchange's interface is easy to use > > and will set everything you want correctly - if the program doesn't work > > the way you want it to it's due to a bug in the server, not the > > interface. Sendmail will do everything you want it to but you have are > > much more likely to make a configuration error. > > > > Most people will say to this, "but Sendmail is more powerful!" What's > > that got to do with the price of fish? Exchange's real configuration lies > > partially in the registry and partially in configuration files (in a > > non-text format), either in it's application directory or active > > directory. From a programming perspective, isn't attaching a user > > interface on to the configuration files just as hard for either? With > > postfix, parsing and configuring it from a gui would be much easier than > > either. > > Whether you use text files or non-text files to store the configuration > does not make much of a differenct if you want to write a gui on top of it. > What to note is that the gui is enfact on top of the configuration file so > at best you can hope not to loose any expressive power. To keep the > expressive power of the configuration files you can try to immitate the > structure of the file in the gui, for a more complex program the probably > will not make a good gui. To make a good gui you probably have to > restructure it somehow and then make some more or less complex translation > back to the configuration file. In that process you will probably loose > some expressive power. That is anyway how it seems to be in practice. Only > some part of what the program is capable of doing can be configured from > the gui, that is the part that the GUI writer fount to be most important. > But ofcause as long as the gui supports you every need to the program that > is fine and I do prefer a gui to some simpler programs. > Then there is the issue of being able to do the configuration by some other > programe. It is i lot easier to make a script that outputs a configuration > file that a script that interacts with a gui. > Then you could just have the configuration files with the gui on top and > let the the people that want a gui use the gui and the rest can just modify > the configuration file by hand. That might be a good solution. The problem > is that the way the translation from the gui to the configuration file > often is implemented is by making some intermediat configuration file that > maps closely to the gui and translate that to the real configuration file > and as this approach gets implemented through out the system the system > becomes very dependent on those intermediat configurations files and it > becomes hard to be allowed, by the system, to edit some of the > configuration files by hand. > > > The point of userfriendlyness is not to limit users in what they can do > > so that they don't trip over themselves. The point is to make all options > > available (and easily understandable) and prevent configurations that > > meaningless in the domain of the application. > > That is one way to define userfriendlyness and it has some good points to > it. For one it does not in any way imply that a gui is the better choise > over a text file.
All very good points! I think we agree - guis are good but their current implementations suck. That's about it innit? ;-) Jason -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
