[Gllug] Sluggishness and confusion

[Bruce Richardson]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 11:53:39AM +0000, Steve wrote:
> > Bollocks.  There's no reason why you cannot have hand-edited
> > configuration, curses tools and GUI tools all supported and working
> > consistently.  Other distributions have managed this.  
> 
> Examples?  I don't know of many easy-to-use, supported, actively
> developed, and fully integrated GUI tools on Debian.

The Debian project doesn't see that as their job.  Look to the various
user-friendly offshoots of Debian (Xandros, Progeny, Libranet etc).  If
the basic system is done properly, it is not hard to build 

> 
> I agree.  However in the real world I think Redhat achieves close to
> this - CLI is reliable, and easy.  GUI tools are reliable, and easy. 
> Curses tools are reliable, easy, but no longer actively supported.

Why?  It is quite explicitly a bad design decision.

> > Why only have the full functionality in the GUI tool?  The user
> > interface and the administrative logic should be entirely separate, with
> > the latter being identical in both tools.
> 
> I didn't mention functionality.  I am refering to interface, which,
> for the majority of users who want an interactive tool, means
> graphical.

Great.  So give them that tool.  Just don't make it the primary tool.
There is no reason why it cannot either sit on top of good cli tools or
share a common set of scripts with them.  That would be good design, as
opposed to bad design.


> > But you are then administering your box in a fashion that is explicitly
> > unsupported and vulnerable to change.  
> 
> I am not aware of any changes to /etc/sysconfig in the last n years
> that would render a unix admin no-longer able to manage a system.

That's like saying "We all know this table only has three legs but Red
Hat have never yet put anything heavy on the wobbly corner".  It is not
a good argument for a square table only having legs at three corners.

> 
> > RH have said up front that the
> > only supported way to administer these systems is via the GUI tools,
> > that the configuration files should not be manipulated by other methods.
> 
> If you read the redhat manuals, it is clear that it is perferctly
> acceptable to edit the files manually. 

Some of them.  Others, which you do have to edit or extend if you want
to get perfectly simple and reasonable functionality, are either not
documented at all or are quite clearly labelled "do not touch".

> > Given that and that the config internals are undocumented, they are
> > perfectly within their rights to change the details without warning and
> > you will have no basis for complaint.
> 
> Sounding slightly fud-ish now, Bruce.  The internals are documented,

No, quite important parts of them are not.  Find me the documentation
for the ifup-local extension and prove me wrong.  It's a crap mechanism
but it is there, so it bloody should be documented.

My first objection to much of the Red Hat config stuff is simply that it
is of mediocre quality, often achieving the trick of adding unnecessary
complexity while actually restricting flexibility.

My second objection, which is the one that you've taken issue with, is
to the design decision only to support the GUI tools.  It is no good
saying "It hasn't killed anybody yet".  It is fundamentally a bad design
move.  Not only are they moving ever further down that line, rather than
bringing the end-user and low-level tools back into sync, but it has a
detrimental effect on the quality of the whole system.  Good
build/design quality requires good discipline, documented procedures and
documented interfaces that are adhered to.  Not only do Red Hat not
make such a set of procedures and interfaces externally available, so
that third party developers can work to those standards and contribute
their own improvements, but they don't work to them internally.  If they
did, the quality of the system would improve across the board.

> down.  But that doesn't make Redhat's bad - its perfectly useable, and
> has a number of benefits, and and audience, that Debian doesn't have. 

You do not need to have poorly designed internals to have thos
advantages.  There are historical reasons why Red Hat's internals are as
they are but carrying on that way only more so is not a good thing.

-- 
Bruce

It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that
his head smells.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20050210/ce868f70/attachment.pgp>
-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug