FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-20-2008, 05:32 PM
Mario Vukelic
 
Default

On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 12:51 -0300, Derek Broughton wrote:
> That's still an argument against specific implementations, and not the
> concept of GUI config tools.

I'm sorry but admins who are reduced to point & click monkeys by
Window's GUI config tools can provide all the arguments that are
necessary.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-20-2008, 05:37 PM
Mario Vukelic
 
Default

On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 11:02 -0300, Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> I can. There really aren't that many questions that need to be
> answered.

Depends on the config ...

> I've never seriously used postfix, but I have administered Exim, and I
> have seen Webmin modules for it. They were _deficient_ but not
> intrinsically

Webmin is such a bad example that it hardly qualifies at all. It's
really only a way to let you edit the file through a browser. A real GUI
tool that protects the naive user from stupidity is guaranteed to impede
the knowledgeable user by "knowing better".


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-20-2008, 05:37 PM
Bart Silverstrim
 
Default

Mario Vukelic wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 13:08 -0300, Derek Broughton wrote:
>> But as someone who has brought down major
>> banking systems by making the wrong config change
>
> I guess you wouldn't want to tell me the name of the bank so I can avoid
> them? If they are making live changes on important systems without
> testing them in a test rig first, I don't trust them with my money,
> either.

A) just because a system is tested in a test rig or test net first
doesn't mean the rollout portion will go 100% slick as eelsnot. The
important issues are testing if the upgrade or alteration SHOULD work
and having proper *contingency plans* in place if something goes wrong
during the upgrade to the live system.

B) I strongly suspect if we "laymen" knew %90 of what happens behind the
scenes outside our domain of knowledge we'd all start in with the "I
wouldn't trust that <bank | hospital | restaurant | school | agency |
etc.> either" blanket statements. Until someone finds the magic employer
where bosses are gummi bears and servers eject pizzas and are powered by
magical flutes that keep the IT insfrastructure from never failing, I'm
going to refrain from such statements, personally.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-20-2008, 05:41 PM
Mario Vukelic
 
Default

On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 10:59 -0300, Derek Broughton wrote:
> In an ideal world, it _should_ be the only interface.

Please make sure that I won't be part of this world, thanks


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-20-2008, 05:43 PM
Bart Silverstrim
 
Default

Mario Vukelic wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 12:51 -0300, Derek Broughton wrote:
>> That's still an argument against specific implementations, and not the
>> concept of GUI config tools.
>
> I'm sorry but admins who are reduced to point & click monkeys by
> Window's GUI config tools can provide all the arguments that are
> necessary.

Sorry, did I miss the part where you weren't saying you're avoiding a
method or tool simply because you don't like to do something that may
associate with you with those lowly primitive mouth-breathing yet often
well-paid click-monkeys and you have an actual valid reason showing that
the CLI is inherently better to use in all cases?

My statement so far appears to still be valid. No one is arguing
anything other than the implementation of tools that currently exist,
and no one has yet to produce a valid argument that wizards, graphical
configurators, and CLI tools cannot coexist depending on the situation
at hand.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-20-2008, 05:45 PM
Mario Vukelic
 
Default

On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 11:05 -0300, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Hahahahaha! I just saw an admin upgrade 3 servers last week, without doing
> anything more than a superficial check of any of them. It was days later
> that he actually figured out what he'd done wrong and fixed it...

> In the case of an SSH server, wouldn't it make more sense to use a config
> tool that actually _did_ try to establish a new connection before
> finalizing the changes?

Have you ever worked in a Windows-only shop with the usual assortment of
MSCPs? Have you ever edited MS SQL Server with its idiotic GUI config?

If you had, you would know that
A. No GUI tool can help when your admin is an idiot
B. GUI tools that try to help braindead MSCPs, make real admins cry
and change the job, leaving only the monkeys.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-20-2008, 05:48 PM
Paul
 
Default

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Bart Silverstrim <bsilver@chrononomicon.com> wrote:

Mario Vukelic wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 12:51 -0300, Derek Broughton wrote:

>> That's still an argument against specific implementations, and not the

>> concept of GUI config tools.

>

> I'm sorry but admins who are reduced to point & click monkeys by

> Window's GUI config tools can provide all the arguments that are

> necessary.



Sorry, did I miss the part where you weren't saying you're avoiding a

method or tool simply because you don't like to do something that may

associate with you with those lowly primitive mouth-breathing yet often

well-paid click-monkeys and you have an actual valid reason showing that

the CLI is inherently better to use in all cases?



My statement so far appears to still be valid. No one is arguing

anything other than the implementation of tools that currently exist,

and no one has yet to produce a valid argument that wizards, graphical

configurators, and CLI tools cannot coexist depending on the situation

at hand.
This is getting ridiculous.*

May I suggest taking it to private email please?


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-20-2008, 05:59 PM
Mario Vukelic
 
Default

On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 13:37 -0400, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> A) just because a system is tested in a test rig or test net first
> doesn't mean the rollout portion will go 100% slick as eelsnot.

In general I agree, but we are talking about important bank systems. An
important bank system that is down for a few minutes can cost the bank
millions of Dollars, or finish off the bank completely, if it was the
wrong one that went down. Such systems usually have test rigs that are
1:1 copies of the live system, often on mainframes that can switch
between the two systems seamlessly.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-20-2008, 05:59 PM
Derek Broughton
 
Default

Avi Greenbury wrote:

> But if I'm editing something where I *know* the value I want, and where
> I want to put it, I really can't think of anything more efficient than
> opening the file up, putting the right value in the right place and
> saving the file.

A web page with a drop down box and a text field would be more _efficient_.

> For a GUI tool to be powerful enough to satisfy the needs of the 'power
> users', it must also be powerful enough that idiots can break their
> systems.

Why? That smacks of really poor programming in the first place. Computer
programming is deterministic - whenever "X" happens, then "Y" (OK, not
entirely true, as you can add randomness, but the whole purpose of config
files is usually to enforce determinism). Any deterministic system can be
completely modeled, and so there should, in theory, be _nothing_ that a
power user would want to configure that can't be done with a config tool
that would prevent him doing it incorrectly.

> That's one way people stop being idiots - they break and they learn.

Idiots _never_ stop being idiots. You surely know the saying: "The
difference between ignorance and stupidity is that the former is curable"
(Twain, I think).
--
derek


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-20-2008, 06:00 PM
Mario Vukelic
 
Default

On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 10:51 -0300, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Of course I didn't hand edit it. I used a GUI mail (actually news program
> that enforced proper syntax.
>
> And yes, it asked me questions: who do I want to send it to? What's your
> own address? What's the subject? What's the message.

It didn't enforce parentheses matching, obviously.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:31 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org