Re: [Sheflug] GUI vs. text & sysadmin issues.

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <nospam [at] sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>]

>>>>> "Al" == Alex Hudson <eah106 [at] york.ac.uk> writes:

    Al> In terms of Guis & sysadmins, I have to say I still believe
    Al> that GUI sysadmin tools should be better than their text-mode
    Al> equivilents,

As long as they allow you access to the underlying config file, and
comment it so that you can edit it without worrying about breaking the
next upgrade, at worst you can ignore it.  So I agree ... in terms of
usefulness.  Everybody, no matter how experienced in some areas, can
benefit from modelessness and self-documenting interfaces in others.

But until developers start taking (a) orthogonality of the
configuration and the tool (too many tools just barf if you edit the
config file), (b) security, and (c) online docs a lot more seriously,
the typical GUI is going to be dangerous in the hands of the newbie,
and a drag on the power user/sys admin/wizard.

    Al> I acknowledge your point about GUI writers; yes, usually
    Al> GUI-driven software is feature-driven, and often security is
    Al> an afterthough.  Although, to an extent this is present in all
    Al> cases.

Yes.  The problem with GUIs is that because they have a wider, less
clued audience, many of whom don't know anybody who is clued, they are
more likely to be uncritically accepted.  This multiplies the danger.

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
- <sheflug-request [at] vuw.ac.nz> - with the word 
 "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.