|
Description
No more editing .conf files! Lets bring a new level of usability to Ubuntu. All configuration files should have a GUI. I know the old school developers don't want to make things easier for newbies (preserving the l33t?), but this is the direction we need ot head in.
Tags:
(none)
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
Ssdg wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 01:04
|
Sometimes it's easier to write what you want on a text than on a window.
And, for example, how do you think you will repair you graphical configuration if X don't want to start? do you whant to start X, try to configure it one time, try and fail, restart it whith the old X.conf, try again, fail again, restore again, etc...?
Or a web server? do you really think it's usefull to start X on a server? I don't think so because drawing windows cost time to the computer and it's not a server purpose to loose time taking care of the administrator.
So I disagree with the "ALL" but yes, it could be interesting on some of them, like the ones "cron" uses. (because it's used to make desktop's backups sometimes)
|
|
AndrewC wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 01:55
| |
The problem with that idea is that pretty much every config file has a different format, so you couldn't have one GUI for them all. Plus, most .conf files will never need to be touched by a normal user anyway.
|
|
vexorian wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 03:35
| |
You are assuming this is not what's being done in work already, anyways, .conf files are SO useful, it is not about "133t" but because they are zillion times more flexible than what any GUI could achieve. , don't ever replace them and force us into GUI only ways.
|
|
sparc128 wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 05:33
| |
Don't think that GUI's are the answer....the best Windows Admin's I know use command line whenever they can...these people are blown away with what I can do in .conf and command line. Windows 2008+ is going in this direction. To go GUI for all .conf would be step backward not forward.
|
|
comi wrote on the 5 Mar 08 at 09:13
|
And what if your "GUI"/system doesn't load? xorg.conf? grubs' menu.lst? fstab?
Imagine you've never edited a configuration file by hand, only with a GUI, then you would be lost.
Apart from that, GUIs would never be up to date.
|
|
Rabbid wrote on the 2 Apr 08 at 09:01
| |
That would be a LOT of unecessary GUI. The only .conf-file i've edited was because i wanted to do some "1337 n3rd"-shit :P
|
|
yaroman86 wrote on the 12 Jun 08 at 03:49
|
GUIs are bad for low-level system configuration. Example:
The system changes, or additional information is added to the .conf. The GUI updates? No.
On top of that we have the problem of the fact there's no way to make a GUI for every conf out there. No way to predict which ones will come.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 12 Jun 08 at 04:17
|
I would have to totally disagree Yaroman86..
You can monitor the file for changes whilst editing. Not that they should be changing randomly anyway.
And editing low level system files with a text editor is the worst for system configuration. One typo, and you may not be able to use the config file at all. Also, there is no easy way to validate that your changes. Furthermore, you need to have intimate knowledge of the manual often to know what command to add.
By using a gui, you prevent typo's, add validation, and constrain the inputs. Windows server 2003 does this successfully, and OSX server (which uses standard unix daemons) does too.
If you were in any way correct, Preferences wouldn't exist in gnome..
Comi, we can form a generic "Schema-like" standard which developers can define in their developer tree, which explains the layout of the file, what inputs are expected, and what each option does. Then the developers can manage the options. And they could develop libraries to use the schema file for validation (which would simplify code and improve security).
+1 for this idea. Its possible, and everything which can be done in a file, should be possible from a GUI somehow. And I believe it can be done in a clean way.
|
|
Ubun2ideas wrote on the 2 Jul 08 at 22:55
|
Let's face facts, if Ubuntu is to succeed as a viable alternative on the desktop, it needs to appeal to the 'point and click' crowd. I'm no linux guru, so I don't know if all .conf files need a GUI, but I support the general concept of providing more GUI tools for system configuration. +1
|
Post your comment
|
