Arvid Ephraim Picciani schrieb:
On Monday 07 April 2008 13:52:21 Thomas Bächler wrote:
If I assume a user has no idea what 'lo' is, I can still give him a working system by hardcoding the 'lo' interface to rc.sysinit.
Your assumptions are worse then i thought.
I just assume as few knowledge as I can, as long as maximum control and flexibility is assured. In this very special case, I can assume no knowledge at all without removing any flexibility from smarter users. There could be no better situation than this.
Then I look at the user under the assumption that he knows what 'lo' is: he still has a working system,
ubuntu is "working" too.
Actually, from what I hear from experienced Linux users, it's not. I never tried myself though.
his flexibility has not been reduced at all, he is as happy as before (in fact, he won't even notice). To go further: if he really wants to configure 'lo' differently (which he doesn't), he still can.
weird. exactly the arguments ubuntu devs use.
I am insulted by that comment and expect an apology.
I am following KISS and trying to make things simpler, while you want to keep things more complicated, because you think that's what Arch is about.
ubuntu-simple and arch-simple are different.
ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, as soon as we make a change that makes life easier for them. In this case, I am being insulted for _thinking_ about adding one line to a
Arch implements many aspects of simple: - Simple to understand the underlying system (scripts, package management and so on) - Simple to modify the system (making packages is soooo easy in Arch) - Simple to use and configure Most people seem to forget that last point. If we can make the system simpler to use (and thus more robust and error-proof) without adding unnecessary complexity, then we have to do it. But instead of being happy about it, _some_ of our user base start screaming script, that would make the lives of many people easier (wow, one extra line, that certainly adds so much complexity, Arch is really becoming Ubuntu these days).
just not archlinux.
If you had actually read that document, you would understand my point completely. I quote: "'Simple' is defined from a technical standpoint, not a usability standpoint. It is better to be technically elegant with a higher learning curve, than to be easy to use, and technically crap." What you don't get is that if you have to make a decision between two equally technically elegant decisions, and one of them improves usability, you go for usability. What you and some other people here seem to think is that usability automatically implies technical non-elegance.
This is absolutely not related to this topic, so I won't comment on it here. I will say it one last time: Adding the _necesity_ to configure something that doesn't need to be configured is crap, from a technical and a usability point of view and thus defeats the Arch Way.