On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:29:40 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>>>> Wait - YaST has documentation?
>>>>
>>>> Um, yes.  man yast for starters.
>>>
>>> Surely that just tells you the command name and what switches it has?
>>
>> TRY IT.
>>
>> That *is* in fact what documentation is, though, so yes - it has
>> documentation, and it's included in the man page.
> 
> Right. Well knowing what the command switches are isn't going to help me
> configure Apache, is it?

Yes, it won't.  But if you want to configure apache, you read the Apache 
documentation.

Or if you've got the yast http module installed, you can try yast2 http-
server longhelp for command-line help.

Or in interactive mode, you would click the "Help" button.

Similarly, reading a book about how to use OS/2 isn't going to tell me 
how to use OS/400.  You have to read *relevant* documentation.

>>> You're assuming that I'm just doing it wrong, and not that it's
>>> actually a poorly designed system.
>>
>> I'm assuming you can be taught.  You seem to have an aptitude for
>> learning, but you also seem to think that if you believe something is
>> impossible, then it damned well is impossible - and nothing anyone says
>> is going to change your mind.
> 
> If somebody told you that the Earth is in fact flat, would you take the
> time to sit down and have a rational conversation with them? Or would
> you just be like "psssh, yeah RIGHT! Bye..."

So, to carry the analogy out, you believe the "Earth is flat" and you're 
not willing to be convinced otherwise?

> Likewise, if you use a piece of software and it's clunky and awkward to
> use, and somebody else is all like "it's divine and perfect and flawless
> in every way, you're just using it wrong", are you likely to investigate
> what they're saying?

Um, nobody's saying that.  What I'm saying is that if you ask questions 
on relevant forums, you can actually get help to configure it and learn 
how it works.

Unless you'd rather just bitch about how impossible everything is.

But you seem to enjoy learning new things.  Which means more than just 
reading books and websites - occasionally it means talking to people who 
know more about the topic than you do.

See how that works?

>>> In my experience:
>>>
>>> 1. The user-friendly front-ends tend to be quite fragile. If something
>>> breaks, you still need to go edit the underlying text file by hand.
>>
>> My experience with the supposed 'fragility' of those tools is
>> different. <shrug>   Maybe 10 years ago it was, but not today.
> 
> Well, I suppose short of me spending the next 10 years using Linux all
> day, there's not much we can do to resolve this particular point.

You could try asking some questions!

>> Or you use Webmin, which actually *does* (a) work the same regardless
>> of distribution, and (b) can manage the services on multiple
>> distributions.
>>
>> I mean really - I used it to manage configuration on SunOS, exactly the
>> same way I used it on RedHat and SUSE.
>>
>> But of course, you want to believe that doing so is impossible, so I
>> must've imagined it, right?
> 
> Like I said, the normal way to configure Linux applications is via
> exiting textual configuration files. I never said it was "impossible" to
> do it any other way. I just said that that is the main cultural focus.
> Which is different from the cultural focus on Windows. That's all I was
> trying to say. Sheesh...

When I pointed out that, hey, there are some tools (some of which are in 
fact standardised across different distributions) that mean you *don't* 
have to edit text files, you responded with incredulity.

As if my experience in doing so was actually invalid or something.  Or 
that I was lying, or that I had invented it in order to make you feel 
foolish.

I assure you that *none* of those are the case.

>>> I haven't seen much "evidence to the contrary". The entire Unix
>>> philosophy seems to revolve around doing everything from the command
>>> line.
>>
>> If you haven't seen much evidence to the contrary, you haven't been
>> looking.  Really, you haven't.  I talk to Linux developers fairly
>> regularly, and to application developers on occasion who work on OSS
>> applications for Linux.  Banshee isn't just a front-end to CLI tools.
>> Neither is F-Spot.  Neither is Photivo.  Neither is OpenOffice. 
>> Neither is [...] - the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on
>> and ON.
> 
> OK. So I've actually heard of one of the items on that list. I'll give
> you that.

My point is that while hard-core *nix utilities do tend to be that way, 
it's a mistake to think that that's the *only* way Linux programs are 
created - as a front-end to some cryptic CLI interface.

More and more Linux programs (especially end-user programs) are not front-
ends to CLI tools but are programs in their own right.

Oh, GIMP - another Linux tool that's not a GUI front-end to cryptic CLI 
tools.

Banshee - Mono-based music player
F-Spot - Mono-based photo management tool
Photivo - photo manipulation software
OpenOffice - Office productivity suite
GIMP - Image manipulation program

>> As I recall, it was seen as an appropriate punishment.
> 
>> As I recall, they have a specific release of Windows for the EU that
>> allows IE to be removed (completely, IIRC).
> 
> My spider-sense says something about Windows Media Player... I guess I'd
> have to spend a few hours Googling it to find the real answer.

Yeah, there might've been something about WMP as well.  I didn't follow 
it that closely.

Jim

Post a reply to this message