* Tao Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-02 19:16]:
> On 8/2/05, Stephen Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One of the areas we've been working on after Solaris 10 has been
> > labelled "approachability"--a rather vague term for "eliminating
> > both annoying and substantial gaps in the operating system". Areas
> > we've been investigating include simplifying complex operations, like
> > rich networking configurations and service failure diagnosis, but
> > also include irritations for administrators, developers, and users
> > new to Solaris.
> > 
> Sounds like a perfect place for less-experienced Solaris users to share our 
> growing pains.
> 
> [Example of approachability issues with install server set up elided.]
> 
> Is this a good example of what can be posted to "approachability" list?

  Yes.  Installation is seen as one of the components most in need of
  approachability reengineering, and is (not that you need care) a group
  within the larger Approachability/KISS organization within the Solaris
  group.  For the purposes of the community, however, your next point is
  critical:

> I may be wrong, maybe there's a good techincal reason why it can't be
> automated.  However, as an user and someone who wants to recommend the
> OS to others, I'd like to have the opportunity to raise my concern,
> even if I already get the job done, but want to see the job becoming
> easier for others in the future.
 
  Standard operations that do not respect the operator's time are not
  approachable.  That is, designing such that typical operations are
  automatic or otherwise economic is a key aspect of approachability.

> I feel this kind of 'complain' may not be well-received by the
> opensolaris-discuss list, where 'more important' issues are discussed,
> so maybe it's a good idea to have a separate list.
> 
> Hope I am not too off from the idea of your proposal.
> 
> Oh BTW, how do you define the difference between "approachability" and 
> "usability"?

  Depending on one's point of view, each might be expressible as a
  subset of the other.  I think that at this point in OpenSolaris,
  approachability is about eliminating the need for configuration in the
  majority of cases.  Services, although disabled for security purposes,
  come with effective default configurations if they are enabled.*
  Configuration, where needed, is keyed off networked sources where
  available, or generated from a guided set of questions--but as few as
  possible.  If you like, approachability can be considered simpler than
  usability:  it's about being complete in delivering the default
  solution one normally constructs about a particular feature.
  Usability is often about identifying necessary concepts and making
  them consistent across a range of features:  that's some combination
  of synthesis and art.
  
  - Stephen

* In case you ever wondered why smf(5) separated enabled/disabled intent
  from configuration presence/absence, here's one of the abstract reasons.
-- 
Stephen Hahn, PhD  Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]

Reply via email to