On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 05:20:08PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 03:00:33PM -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote: > > On Tuesday 04 April 2006 13:51, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 22:49:00 -0700 > > > > > > Christopher Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 11:49:10AM +0100, Adam Funk wrote: > > > > > I'm getting a new computer at work with Ubuntu on it, but I'm > > > > > used to using Debian (at home and at my previous job). I > > > > > understand that they have some similarities. > > > > > > > > > > I'd appreciate any suggestions about common pitfalls when making > > > > > this transition, things that will catch me by surprise, etc. > > > > > > > > You have to install a mail server and mailx and mutt after the > > > > install, it's not done for you. There might be other things you > > > > expect to be there, but aren't--those were the biggest things that > > > > tripped me up when I tried Ubuntu. > > > > > > one of the symptoms of "user friendliness". Ubuntu, I assume, makes > > > the assumption that they are pulling in windows users who want a > > > windows type mail environment with MUA talking smtp and pop to > > > smarthosts out on the 'net at large instead of a local mail > > > distribution system. I'm sure there are other symptoms of a similar > > > nature where they are moving away from the *nix heritage in the > > > interest of user-friendliness. I wonder how that plays out in the > > > long run? > > > > I think in the long run there'll always be config files that are easy to > > edit, but we're just seeing more and more tools that make Linux easier > > and easier to use. In the long run, it's a good thing. > > > > I notice so many geeks with that kind of concern. There's this idea in > > many circles that Linux is being ruined because this and that are added > > that make it more user friendly. Every time someone suggests something > > that makes an install easier or an easier config method, there is > > always hostility in this group and elsewhere. If the real issue were > > that people didn't like those programs, the solution would be simple: > > don't use them. Just keep using a text editor to edit config files. > > > > After all, even with Linspire, you can always edit the config files and > > skip the user-friendly gui editors. I think the real reason so many > > geeks don't like these programs is that Linux has, for years, been a > > playground of the geeks. At first you could say, "I don't use Windows, > > I use Linux," and people would ask what it was. The words "operating > > system" were enough to immediately brand one as a geek who was a master > > with computers. Lately, as Linux as gotten more recognized, one can > > still be recognized as a true geek by using it instead of Windows. I > > think the resentment and frustration is not from the fact that there > > are other ways to edit config files now, but that the once hallowed > > geek space is being filled with non-geeks and true geeks no longer feel > > like they have a special playground all their own with terms that mark > > them as computer masters. True, one can switch to BSD, but I think > > many realize it won't be hard to port any of the Linux programs to BSD > > and continue the invasion. > > The real problem with nice configuration programs is that they don't do > enough of the job. They're fine when you want a relatively > straightforward configuration and once you've set it up, it just works. > They are a complete misery when things don't work as expected, which is, > in my opinion all too often. Then they leave you clueless, because you > haven't learned how things fit together while using the editor on the > configuration files. And worse, you oftern don't even know what they've > done to what configuration files, so you have a hard time even finding > out how to undo the damage. > > That said, I think the syntax of > configuration files is usually execrable. And the semantics is never > well-defined. Just try to figure out from, say, the lilo documentation > which options go into the boot stanzas, and which outside. Or even try > to get a clear definition of just how it knows where the first stanza > starts and ends. It ain't easy. > > The art of configuration is a black art, is not approached in any kind > of uniform fashion, is poorly documented. When it works, having a nice > configurator is, well, nice, but when it doesn't (all too often) it's > worse than having none at all. > > No. I object to most configuration "wizards", but not because I want to > hand-edit text files by hand, using emacs. Or vi. Or nano. Or even > (does anyone remember?) teco. I've been able to make very little sense > out of that w3web-based configuration system that was dropped recently
Aha! I remember. Webmin. > because it couldn't recruit a maintainer. But CUPS seems to do its job > fairly well. And X, well, it's horrible. It really ought to have a > try-it-and-see mode for each of its components, so you don't have to > completely configure the whole thing before you get *any* feedback about > whether any of it was even slightly workable. (some other distros are a > little bettor on this than Debian). > > And I really think a Debian install should automatically check the > entire configuration into a revision control system of some sort. So > that when you screw things up you can get beck to the version that used > to work. And that includes configuration-like things in /var and > elsewhere. > > -- hendrik > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
