[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] initscripts changes
thomas at archlinux.org
Mon Apr 7 11:45:29 EDT 2008
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
> ubuntu-simple and arch-simple are different.
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
> 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
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
"'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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the arch-general