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 05-21-2008, 04:56 PM
Mario Vukelic
 
Default

On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 01:20 -0500, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> Beware, this is /exactly/ what killed off the Libranet linux mailing
> list.

Wasn't the reason for the death of the Libranet list the death of
Libranet as such?

Anyway, if all the knowledgeable guys [1] should become unhappy because
every time they post an offtopic message, ´╗┐they are bitched at, that
can't be good for the list either.

I mean, I posted around five thousand messages to this list trying to
help people, and very rarely a wildly offtopic one - it happens. I
rarely ever get a "thanks" from the people I helped, and I generally
don't mind. As soon as I post an even mildly offtopic one, someone is
always quick to complain, and that just might make me mind at some
point.


> Next the frequent contributors will start thinking they should
> have the ability to have political leanings in their .sigs!
> Heavens, what next?

If you take a look at the the sigs that are actually posted, I think you
will find that the regulars have usually none or harmless ones. The sigs
that I must try hard not to complain about usually don't come from the
frequent posters. And you know what, I complained once on the list and
once in private; given what I have to read in those sigs, I think I'm
doing an amazing job and I just think other people could cut some
slack, too.

[1] I'm not saying that there aren't others of these than those who
participated in the list


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-21-2008, 04:58 PM
Mario Vukelic
 
Default

On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 09:34 -0400, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
> less error prone from
> whoopsy-fingers on the keyboard.

I have to disagree very much. A single command is much easier to get
error-free than a manual repetition of the same thing for 300 times


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-21-2008, 05:14 PM
Mario Vukelic
 
Default

On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 11:30 -0300, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Nobody, at any point in this thread, has argued against "text file based
> configs". I've argued against editing them with a text editor

What the heck is the advantage of text file-based configs supposed to be
if nobody is allowed to touch them with an editor? Might just as well be
binary blobs then.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-21-2008, 05:16 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

Chris G wrote:
>
>>>> And the best user interface is always no user interface whenever
>>>>> it is possible for the machine to do it correctly by itself.
>>>> I can't argue with that :-)
>>> I can! The problem with the machine doing it correctly by itself is
>>> that it almost inevitably has to make some default assumptions.
>>> That's all very well if they're correct and it's all very lovely and
>>> nice but the odd case when they're wrong can be infinitely frustrating.
>> Yes, but this is the precise circumstance where you don't want a GUI
>> with the same wrong assumptions trying to force them on you.
>>
> I see no basic difference between a GUI assuming something and a
> CLI/editor configuration assuming something. Either can make a
> (wrong) assumption, assume nothing at all and leave you to make the
> setting yourself, or show you what it has assumed and allow you to
> change it (this last is my preference).

Text editors usually don't assume anything about the meaning of the
content they edit. So they aren't specifically helpful other than
letting you paste in large chunks of stuff from a known-working copy or
do bulk search/replace transformations that are much harder in
field-oriented config tools, but they are predictable and never harmful,
plus you always have the full compliment of external tools that know how
to manipulate text, most of which work as filters within sensible editors.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com





--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-21-2008, 05:20 PM
"Steve Lamb"
 
Default

On Wed, May 21, 2008 10:14 am, Mario Vukelic wrote:
> What the heck is the advantage of text file-based configs supposed to be
> if nobody is allowed to touch them with an editor? Might just as well be
> binary blobs then.

We can edit them through Perl, Python or shell scripts. Those are fine.
But an actual text editor is verboten. And no, I'm being serious since
at one point he did say if we didn't like the configuration tool this is
OSS and we can always alter it to suit our needs. In short he has an
irrational objection to system administrators while having irrational
faith in programmers. He forgets, of course, that many system
administrators are also programmers.

--
Steve Lamb


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-21-2008, 05:21 PM
Mario Vukelic
 
Default

On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 11:18 -0300, Derek Broughton wrote:
> If the designer didn't add
> a "duplicate this" button, you could always just use the underlying
> copy/paste of the GUI environment.

I fail to see how this is different to editing the config file.


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-21-2008, 05:22 PM
MHR
 
Default

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 8:37 AM, James B. Byrne <byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca> wrote:
>
> This indeed turned out to be an SELinux policy problem which I have since
> resolved.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, nice shooting, Tex! (Ghostbusters)

Not so fast - please post the solution, too, for posterity (and those
of us who don't use SELinux but might, someday, in the not too distant
far future...).

Thanks.

mhr
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-21-2008, 05:31 PM
Mario Vukelic
 
Default

On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 10:20 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> He forgets, of course, that many system
> administrators are also programmers.

And that some editors are really just specific incantations of a much
more complete system. I mean where does the "text editor" part begin and
end in Emacs?


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-21-2008, 11:11 PM
Florian Diesch
 
Default

Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:

> Florian Diesch wrote:
>
>> I just don't know *any* GUI config tools that supports this things.
>> And that's just the basics, with text file based configs you easily
>> get versioning, template or rule based generation, automatic
>> distribution, ...
>
> Nobody, at any point in this thread, has argued against "text file based
> configs". I've argued against editing them with a text editor

So it's fine to edit them as long as I don't use an editor?


> - and you don't get _any_ of those benefits using vi.

The nice thing about text files is that there are so many tools to
work with them. Shouldn't be much of a problem to integrate them in a
modern vi clone like vim.


Florian
--
<http://www.florian-diesch.de/>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature, please! **
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-22-2008, 12:25 AM
Steve Lamb
 
Default

Florian Diesch wrote:
> The nice thing about text files is that there are so many tools to
> work with them. Shouldn't be much of a problem to integrate them in a
> modern vi clone like vim.

Esp. if one uses one of the many vims with an embedded scripting engine.
vim-python with built in mercurial, anyone?

--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 1FC01004 | And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

--
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 02:56 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ę2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org