On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.com> wrote: >> On 2012-06-04T11:21:57, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Andrew, >> >> I am getting a slightly defensive-to-aggressive vibe from your response >> to Florian. Can we tune that down? I much prefer to do the shouting at >> each other in person, because then the gestures come across much more >> vividly and the food is better. Thank you ;-) >> >>> Now you're just being silly. >>> Are you seriously claiming interactivity is the only way to discover >>> information about a program? >>> Quick, someone tell the iproute developers that no-one can add an IP >>> address because 'ip help' and 'ip addr help' aren't interactive! >> >> I think the interactive tab completion is indeed cool. No, of course >> it's not the only way, but it does make things easier. You are of course >> right it doesn't need to be baked in; one can also dump the syntax tree >> and have bash/zsh/emacs do the completion. That does make dynamic >> completion a bit less efficient, though. > > True. But "less efficient" is a LONG way from sensationalist words > like "impossible". > It's this kind of tired hyperbole that tends to generate a > "defensive-to-aggressive vibe" on my part.
Who said impossible? Looks to me like you're the first person in this thread to use that term. >>> Plenty of people didn't see the point of Pacemaker either. >>> And I don't recall anyone saying "they hate the existing [resource >>> manager] and this effort solves all their problems" about the first >>> few years Pacemaker development. >> >> I don't quite see this is a valid comparison, sorry. The crm was >> developed because the existing "resource manager" that heartbeat >> implemented was way too limited; the CRM was something radically >> different. That was a huge effort that couldn't possibly have been >> implemented in an incremental fashion. > > My point would be that despite the above, there /still/ wasn't the > level of public outcry that Florian apparently deems necessary for new > work. Nonsense. > And if Pacemaker couldn't generate it, it makes an unfair criteria to > require of pcs. > >> >> (When we're talking about Pacemaker (versus the crm), it is obvious that >> that wasn't really a technology-driven move.) > > With the implication being that technology-driven moves are bad? Who made that implication? > How do you explain HAWK then? Shouldn't Tim have written a patch to > py-gui instead? I think a UI that runs in a browser, as opposed to requiring a graphics library and rendering engine that is only ubiquitous on Linux and practically non-existent on other platforms, is a significant usability improvement. Of course, Tim could also have written a server-side library that translates GTK2 into HTML5 and would allow the pygui to run on a server unmodified, but that's a bit much to ask. >>> Open source has a long and glorious history of people saying "I'm >>> going to try and do it this way" and Chris has every right to try >>> something different. >>> Personally I'm hoping a little friendly competition will result in >>> both projects finding new ways to improve usability. >> >> Of course. Still, people will ask "which one should I choose", and we >> need to be able to answer that. > > The same way the Linux community has answers for: > - sh/bash/tsch/zsh/dash... > - gnome/kde/enlightnment/twm/fvwm... > - fedora/opensuse/debian/ubuntu/leaf... > - mysql/postgres/oracle/sybase > - ext2,3,4/reiserfs/btrfs... > - GFS2/OCFS2 > - dm_replicator/drbd > - selinux/apparmor > - iscsi clients > - chat/irc/email clients > - programming languages > - editors > - pacemaker GUIs > > Linux is hardly a bastion of "there can be only one", so I find the > level of doom people are expressing over a new cli to be disingenuous. Who expressed doom? > Every argument made so far applies equally to HAWK and the Linbit GUI, > yet there was no outcry when they were announced. This is likely to be an irrelevant tangent, but the pygui (afaik) had two problems: it only ran on Linux (for all practical purposes), and it was unmaintained (for all practical purposes). Neither of the two are true for the shell. > It seems duplication is only bad to those that aren't responsible for it. > >> And as a community, yes, I think we also should think about the cost of >> choice to users - as well as the benefits. >> >> Even developers will ask questions like "I want to do <X>; where do I >> contribute that?" >> >> I like things that make it easier for users to use our stuff, and still >> I need to understand how to advise them what to do when, and how the >> various toys in the playground relate ;-) > > Presumably you'll continue to advise SLES customers to use whatever > you ship there. > Doesn't seem too complex to me. Yep, that's what I referred to as leaving recommendations to distro maintainers and product managers. Not desirable, but if that's the case, then people at least have a right to know. I will add that this probably invalidates efforts to unify documentation, and it probably doesn't facilitate distro packaging, either. >>> You don't have to like that there is a new shell, but can we >>> concentrate on being constructive about Chris' work (or at least be >>> respectful of his right to continue it) please? >> >> It is of course his right to continue it. But you are trying to shut up >> critical questions, which isn't nice either. > > "New cli bad! Hulk smash!" is hardly what I'd call a critical question. Was said by whom, where? > Chris had the requirements from product management, did an analysis of > the alternatives, picked one and got to work. > He doesn't need our approval to do pcs, so focusing on that aspect > seems more 'moot' than 'critical'. > >> In particular since Florian >> (and, well, I guess myself) aren't asking anything users/customers won't >> ask either, so having answers would be good. > > Questions I have no problem with, but "I don't see the point" and > "[thing that /is/ possible] is impossible" are not questions. > Nor are they particularly helpful. "I don't see the point" is actually something that would count as a paraphrase of what I wrote. I already covered the "impossible" part. Florian _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
