“[…] I am talking about the architecture, problems that can not be solved without incompatibilities or at least a lot of work. A ‘modern GUI-based OS’ is, for me, a OS that does not require a user to know or use a command line tool, even for rare system-administration tasks. That does not mean that it should be impossible to work with the command line and a text editor, but the command line must not be the only way to do an administration task.” Read the article at KDEdevelopers.org.
The Linux Platform and Modern GUI-based Operating Systems
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I hate to think that everyone will adopt the ide that everything has to be configured with a gui. The simplistic nature of distro’s like Slackware and the BSD’s to me are the fastest and most reliable of sys admin. But that’s just one guy’s opinion.
Making it easy is like kryptonite to linux users!
I find gentoo’s portage to be absolutely great (as a former slackware & LFS user). It makes all the admin updating easy. I assume this is the same with BSD’s port system. The only problem is that don’t I find these tools easy to think of in a GUI context. I’ve probably spent too much time using a command line.
Anyway, most things are easy if you do them often enough. The tricky thing is making it easy for first time users.
I would like to see a nice GUI config editor as a general purpose frontend to /etc textfiles and man entries. It would be really easy to do this in KDE, as it would just be an editor component, combined with a left panel tree view for the config files themselves, and probably a tab between the editor and man pages.
Everyone keeps ranting and raving about how GNU/Linux isn’t ready for the desktop, because you still need to know what you’re doing to use it. IS THIS A BAD THING?!!!?! In my opinion something that teaches you how to use it is much better than something that lets you use it without learning a damn thing, because face it, computers are complicated, and any time you try to slap a nice happy face on it like WinXP or MAcOS X all you get are enormous gaping security holes, viruses, worms, and other crap people don’t know how to fix because they don’t know how their computer works.
Linux is ready for MY desktop at least
Yes, I agree that a command line is great. I’m much faster and more comfortable with one, and I feel it gives me more power and controll. It should ALWAYS be there for power users to get to (even if it takes 30 clicks and 5 “do this and you’re in deep trouble click yes to continue” screens to enable it).
That said, I think he’s right. While the command line is great and many power users love it, there are many times when it can be a problem. I also think that (like the article’s author) that you should be able to do everything from a GUI. I may like a command line, but there are many people who ABHORE it and won’t touch a computer with a 10′ poll if they have to use one. While some tools are here now (KDE and Gnome both give you ways to mount things) many of the GUI interfaces I’ve seen are nothing more than a large string of text-line GUI widgets that perfectly match the config file that they would edit. In other words, they are no better than using the command line. We need good GUI tools (not just hacks like described above), especially for the complex things like Samba, Apache, and other such things. I would love to be able to do alot of things with just a few clicks of the mouse, sometimes I would really prefer that over the command line.
There is a place for both, and I assume the author would agree with me. But just because you and I like the command line doesn’t mean that we don’t need to develop good GUI tools. They are VERY important. And since many developers prefer the command line and know how to use it, it’s this kind of things is often overlooked. This is one of the areas where having commercial distros like RH and Lindows and such is a major boon.
GUI’s are easier to get started (managing a system)
but
commandline (scripting as in UNIX and derivates) is far more powerfull
some examples:
– repetitive actions
– embed logic (algorithm) in your scripted tasks
– scripts behave according to system settings (in /etc fi)
just my 2 dollar cent
He’s not saying we should just do everything for the user. When he’s talking about GUI tools he is saything that it should be possible to controll these things without having to use the command line. I would like to know how that makes users stupid, as you seem to imply? That doesn’t even make sense!
Let’s look at windows. These days you can’t change much of Windows behavior in the command line. But the fact that you can’t makes users stupid? And almost all the security problems in Windows are the result of bad coding or bad decisions (let’s let macros run automatically and send email and change things without the users knowledge!).
As for OS X, I think that it’s a PERFECT model of what we should be doing. All the Unix stuff is there incase you want to use it, but no normal user EVER has to use it. Everything that a normal person could possibly need to do can be done through a nice GUI. This is the kind of model we should be shooting for.
And what massive security holes, worms, viruses, and such does Mac OS X have? It may not be OpenBSD, but it’s still VERY secure. I’d put it up there with Linux.
freedesktop.org to the rescue…
Most of the integration problems he is talking about should be solved by dbus. The idea is to have a shared communication bus to allow programs to talk to each other. This can be used to solve issues where licesnes don’t mix because each program only talks to the bus.
The big thing about dbus is that it looks like people are agreeing on it. From what I have heard gnome is commited to dbus. Many kde developers plan on moving to dbus for kde4. There is also the really cool HAL project that will handle all of the different devices hooked up to a computer and expose them to the desktop environment using dbus.
Note: for technical details don’t trust my ramblings, go to freedesktop.org are read the real descriptions
The GUI should cover all the main system tasks, and the command line should have a better help system.
GUI can become extrememly powerful over directly editting config text files if designed right.
A GUI config application can:
1) check for correct data input
2) limit certain settings when need be
3) allow you to apply the settings much more quickly
A good example, please don’t flame me, is IIS. You can in the matter of minute setups: a certificate, multiple virtual directorys, aliasing, filters, permissions all of which validates your settings before they are applied. Now yes, you can do the same with httpd.conf but it would take much longer and you have to be much more careful when applying the settings.
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=5371#176356
I hate to think that everyone will adopt the idea that everything has to be configured with a gui.
Where did you get that from? The article itself doesn’t load for me at the moment, but the OSNews teaser itself says clearly: “That does not mean that it should be impossible to work with the command line and a text editor, but the command line must not be the only way to do an administration task.“. In other words: CLI and GUI, not either-or.
Furrfu.
Thats what users want and its unfortunate. Most people want click and go and dam the security thing. Nevermind that fact that your HD is shared to the world. Whats net-bios? Ports 135, 137, 138, 139 is that where the cool sailors hang out? EPMAP ? Isnt that made by randmcnally?
It took me a while to realzie that most people dont want to know how their computer works. They just want it to work. An OS should:
1) ship secure (old concept, i whole heartdly embrace). And let users make the modifications to enable services.
2) wrap most of the stuff in the GUI (admin tasks) for most users.
3) give people the option for a non-supreme gui environment. What I mean here is you can run a gui but doesnt have it do everything under the sun. Let the people who know how to mangage a system manage it.
In general option 1 a mandatory. As for option 2 and 3 give people a choice. Some basic admin tools are ok or even ncruses tools are fine. But give the people a choice:
a) some admin tools, no admin tools or tons of tools.
b) some gui tools or some ncruses tools or none.
c) no intergration or tons of intergration or moderate.
You have too many camps. I have pitched my tent on CLI and ncurses and typically minimal gui interaction.
i think the popularity of linux benefits everyone. it’s a win-win situation.
linux is shaping up their gui tools (the influence being microsoft). to think that linux gui cannot be improved is to be in complete denial. improving the gui will only make linux more accessible.
microsoft(or others) are shaping up windows’ cli tools. this opens up different avenues of problem solving on a widely used operating system.
example 1: i love the command line. i use it most of the time in linux. BUT, when it comes to samba, i LOVE swat. and i hate dealing with samba without swat. swat comes with the coolest online documentation. every single option has a link right next to it, which explains in great detail, what the option is for and how it works.
example 2: windows is very easy to get started at. many of your choices are limited to the important ones, which are clearly displayed in the gui. but there have been times when i need cli. the native one isn’t very good. i install CYGWIN, and now windows is great! i have all my gui plus a few key cli things. ssh daemon, rsync (awesome mirroring tool), cron (kicks the crap out of at), and others.
this whole windows vs linux thing is making BOTH better products.
I think developers should consider if their code could be usefull in other applications and if so decouple user interface and functionality.
cdrecord is a good example. Its functionality should be put in a library making it possible to properly build a GUI.
I can and will not force unpaid hackers to do this, but the open-source world needs to think more about the design of code interfaces. KDE and GNOME are doing a great job at the UI level, but they still rely on a lot of legacy commandline tools and config files.
Most people use there computer to get work done that is not generally computer centric. They wanna produce a dvd, a brochure, a web page et al… they do not require to ‘learn’ about the operating system to get the job done. In fact, most people do not know how aq car really works yet they still drive them everywhere…
Linux is great if you’re interested in learning about auto-mechanics, uh well, the innermost workings of your computer… Windows, don’t bother it’s all moot… MacOS X can handle both. Yeah, the lack of low-end and user built computers etc. O know… some people just go out and buy that BMW, they don’t try to build one.
Oh BTW, you can customize that BMW just as much as the Honda boy, ‘cept better!
IMHO…
I’d rather drive an old BMW/Mac than a… aw you’se get the point
I remember reading in a FreeBSD book about this GUI-everything applied to Windows world (servers in particular). So if you want to do everything from a GUI, Windows is there, and it does almost everything, and it doesn’t make things any better.
It would not be an insurmountable task to build a GUI skin for all the major command line apps and config files. Projects like Webmin do it. I did one for mpgtx some time ago. Apple is doing a great job skinning familiar command line apps. Unix (and open source) makes it relatively straightforward to do this. But still, it does take time, particularly if you want it to be friendly, consistent, and useable. I would say that progress it being made every day, but it will be some time before you can put away the keyboard on your desktop Linux pc.
There are powerfull wrappers for cdrecord out there, giving you a nice GUI to burn CDs.
You don’t need libraries for this, this is not windows, if you have dynamically created content, just pipe it into it
when I want to make a 1:1 copy of a CD, I just du a
readcd <stuff> | cdrecord <stuff>
(can’t use cdrdao as it doesn’t support IDE burning)
You can also do a mkisofs … | cdrecord
and that’s similiar to what gui cd burning programs do.
now what is a problem with libraries: Using the commandline is very powerfull. I couldn’t use a GUI program with my configuration simply cause of their lack of supporting kernel 2.6 ide burning. It’s something I would have to wait for. But as it uses the command line, you can configure it (the options it gives cdrecord) and so even set options it itself doesn’t know.
Also I could get a way better program to burn and hadn’t to throw away a beloved gui app but just could configure it to use the other tool.
So built-in library support not only has benefits and how it is solved today, it works very neat. Without exotic config, you can just click’n’burn. And if you have one – then you know what you do, can reconfigure stuff and don’t have to miss that click’n’burn.
cu
Ford Prefect
ok. this is just too simple for words. Hes just wrong.
the entire “i’m more comfortable with cli” or “cli lets me do more” or “i can find what i need in cli faster” ad nauseum is a fallacious argument. the reason it works better for you is that your have that much experience with cli and if you had spent all that time infront of a gui then you would find a gui easier! a gui is not just a pretty way of displaying text BUT AN ENTIRE DIFFERENT APPROACH TO INTERACTING WITH A COMPUTER! As i tablet pc owner i can’t tell you the joy of folding the screen owner and just browsing the net (it’s how i read my morning paper
) and sending msn messages in my own handwriting WITHOUT TOUCH THE KEYBOARD AT ALL! just like ppl didn’t like moving from assmembler to languages people, cli is evolving fully into gui. there is nothing wrong with cli, but there is nothing wrong with gui either! its a completely self-coherent all encompassing approach to interacting with a computer. i think many computer literate ppl (minus mac fans who seem to know this too well) fail to appreciate it especially those who learned computing before gui and may /USE/ gui but don’t really /GET/ gui s.
just to add something i forgot is that even programming is showing this change in some places. modern gui s (ie ides) use the gui to display text, but still don’t offer a graphical way of coding so in a sense there still is no gui way of programming! there was i this one language we used in high school where you “drew” your code by dragging flowcharting like symbols to the main work area. it made look at code much easier since it literally resembled the flowcharted process it was doing. it was also decently fast once you learned the keyboard shortcuts (gui != not keyboard, gui == not text oriented). gui is not just a tool but a paradigm <shudders at word> shift.
! just like ppl didn’t like moving from assmembler to languages people, cli is evolving fully into gui. there is nothing wrong with cli, but there is nothing wrong with gui either! its a completely self-coherent all encompassing approach to interacting with a computer. i think many computer literate ppl (minus mac fans who seem to know this too well) fail to appreciate it especially those who learned computing before gui and many /USE/ gui but don’t really /GET/ guis.
I don’t think you get it. A gui makes simple things easy and difficult things impossible. The command like makes simple things difficult and diffiult things possible. Advanced users like the command like because YOU CANNNOT DO EVERYTHING IN A GUI. Try piping serveral small programs together in a unique way in a gui. You can’t. I agree that for normal administrative tasks that a gui would make things more accesible but it shouldn’t and won’t ever be the only way. When you have a need for advanced tasks a gui just won’t do.
It’s funny how everyone takes it as a given as if GUIs were more “usable” by definition than the command line. If that were true, why do humans communicate with language instead of pointing at things?
Computers have a different place in our society than they had 20 years ago. Computers are much more powerful than they were 20 years ago. We know a lot more about how the human mind works than we knew 20 years ago. Why do we still build UIs based on 20 year old paradigms?
http://www.acm.org/cacm/AUG96/antimac.htm
Libburn is a freedesktop.org project that is attempting to provide a replacement for cdrecord.
http://icculus.org/burn/
I would rather have my old archaic command line if I have to choice between it and a “modern” GUI-based crippled management tool. MacOS X is a perfect example of lack of customizability due to a one-size-fits-all GUI approach and obfuscation of the underlying system leading to a decline in user experience, despite everything else it has going for it.
The command line isn’t the enemy — it’s a lack of CLI standards. Developers of command line applications ought to come up with consistent methods of writing configuration files, argument naming schemes, and the like. Take a look at the way xscreensaver’s configuration file goes and then compare it to, say, vim’s. GCC’s -v option works like Madplay’s -V. Some programs turn on features with +feature and off with -feature and vice versa for others. Some don’t differentiate correctly between STDERR and STDOUT. Some output to the console by default and others that are otherwise very similar automatically write directly to disk.
Because system administration is exponentially more efficient and powerful using customized scripts via the command line.
Is it me, or do some people just feel like abusing the purpose of a Graphical User Interface? Now he wants a graphical user interface for the cp, mv and ls commands!!!
The graphical user interface has it’s limits you know. It’s great for simple, single and direct commands. But when it comes to batching, sequencing and automating multiple complex commands, it’s a curse.
Any Linux user who is comfortable using a file manager and a terminal will tell you how much flexible, powerful and efficient the command line interface is compared to a file manager.
Yes, graphical user interfaces are beautiful, but why would any system/network administrator want to install X on a server, for example, just to configure an app? It’s counter productive and inefficient, not mention it’s a resourse nuisance.
…seems linux user still deep fall in love with CLI !! while rest of us has evolve from dark ages of DOS.
With Mac OS X you have GUI for every task on Unix, if not built in, then via third party adds (like for rsync and wget) or can write your own guis to command line stuff using AppleScript (like I did with rsync).
Does Linux need better gui tools for some tasks? Sure. Does the CLI have to be hidden from sight? Nope.
I don’t understand why so many of you linux guys, goes into defence-mode the moment you hear the word “better gui”. It can’t be because you are afraid of loosing the CLI, coz’ it has allready been written that the CLI doesn’t have to go away just because the GUI gets less inconsistent. (and why would it go away?!)
It seems like you only want linux to be used by people who are coders, computer hackers or EXTREAMLY interested in operating-systems.
* Don’t underestimate the imtimidation-factor of cryptic commands! *
Hi
While the command line looks like DOS it is not at all comparable. We do need better distribution independant gui tools like gnome system tools and recent development of kde system tools.
The developer is discussing a mechanism to do this and yes he is a linux developer.
He has a important point when he says that gui tools should be based on libraries rather than command line wrappers
Stop trolling
Regards
Rahul Sundaram
He has a important point when he says that gui tools should be based on libraries rather than command line wrappers
I do not think this is the right approach though. GUI programs presently ARE command line wrappers and it should remain this way. It’s the UNIX way to seperate mechanism from policy. This is good programming. Tools should be accessible with or without a graphical user interface. All (well, not all, because it is not always possible with graphic programs) good programs should be written to do one thing and do it well (and efficiently). Most programs don’t need a GUI to function and therefore should not REQUIRE one. GUI wrappers can simplify tasks for the uninitiated but they should never be the only way.
“It took me a while to realize that most people don’t want to know how their computer works. They just want it to work. ”
This is also the attitude they have to their own bodies (and minds).
The GUI in the sense of a program that allows you to make easy modifications to a particular configuration is a good idea… only as long as one can still do this from the CLI. The CLI has and most likely always will be a more powerful tool, however GUI is something that is needed.
Nowadays you have people purchasing computers with Linux installed on them. They play and find out that they can set up an email server. Sounds cool. So they follow an online tutorial, but make changes of there own that they think are correct (after all, it is their computer it should be set up like they want it.) The email server is set up and runs wonderfully by allowing itself to be an open-relay for the world of spammers.
Same scenario, this time however there is a GUI involved. The GUI, being that it is made to look for security and other problems, notices that this system setup will make the system an open relay and makes sure that this is changed or at least tells the user why the setup should be changed. The user makes the suggested changes and viola the server is setup and running, but not as an open relay.
The possibilities of security and problem solving with a GUI are easier to handle than they are with a handtyped config file. You could say that a script can check that for you, but where are those scripts? They definitely aren’t anywhere that a new user can find them…
As for me, I would like a mixture of GUI and CLI… I think that the initial setup is almost always going to be easier to setup with a GUI as the information is all there and it will check to make sure that I didn’t make a dumb mistake (eht0 instead of eth0 or something like that.) After that I would prefer the CLI to update the configs as needed.
I would have to say that with both of them, no one loses and everyone gains.
By Microsoft Fan (IP: 205.150.182.—) wrote:
>
>Making it easy is like kryptonite to linux users!
>
Keeping it difficult is like kryptonite to widespread
linux adoption. If you want people to use it, make it
easier to install applications. Get rid of ‘dependency
hell’. The ‘geek factor’ doesn’t help anyone make the
switch to linux.
Yes, they do exist too and they also need to use a computer!
If all those apps were in libs, making a special frontend would be easier for them. Because you are so lucky to have all your fingers, doesn’t mean everybody does.
Also elderly people, they can have artritis and stuff like that. Typing in on a keyboard can be very difficult.
Decoupling the input and the program itself, can help providing alternative ways of using a computer.
Btw, I’m not handicapped in any way myself, but I do think that they have it difficult enough. As the whole western world is requiring everybody to use a PC (banking, taxes, …), I think we have to think about them also. Life costs already enough for them. The cost of a Windows license can be too much for them.
Remember, one day YOU will be old too, with cramped fingers 🙂
“It seems like you only want linux to be used by people who are coders, computer hackers or EXTREAMLY interested in operating-systems.”
Good. Fewer idiots to suffer that way. If you’re not willing to put forth the effort, you shouldn’t be using a computer in the first place.
“…seems linux user still deep fall in love with CLI !! while rest of us has evolve from dark ages of DOS.”
Are you saying that a desktop OS should not have a CLI?
Are you making the mistake of likening DOS to bash?
If you answer YES to any of the above questions then you yourself obviously have no clue of what is what and still live in a hole.
Too many run the assumption that since Linux is an OS, then it must be just like Windows. They want everything to work like Windows, same start button, same networking gui, same web browser!!!… and of course Linux must still be free, solid, and secure.
Did they ever think that just maybe they cannot live without their Windows, and shouldn’t? Stick with Windows. Do not switch to Linux. It’s not for you.
On the other hand there are those that have an open mind. Different OS, thus different way to connect to the internet. Hey, it could be the same, but then what’s the point? There are many ways to eat an Oreo.
“Computers have a different place in our society than they had 20 years ago. Computers are much more powerful than they were 20 years ago. We know a lot more about how the human mind works than we knew 20 years ago. Why do we still build UIs based on 20 year old paradigms? ”
OK, Stew now’s your moment in the sun. What 20 year old paradigms are so obsolete that they can no longer be used?
BTW Are 20 year old paradigms the only thing that can be obsolete?
It is really amazing to wonder how people read. Do people even read or are people just drones program to scan for the string “GUI” and then output something random about cli being nicer.
********************************************************
Rahul Sundaram:
He has a important point when he says that gui tools should be based on libraries rather than command line wrappers
abraxas:
I do not think this is the right approach though. GUI programs presently ARE command line wrappers and it should remain this way. It’s the UNIX way to seperate mechanism from policy. This is good programming. Tools should be accessible with or without a graphical user interface. All (well, not all, because it is not always possible with graphic programs) good programs should be written to do one thing and do it well (and efficiently). Most programs don’t need a GUI to function and therefore should not REQUIRE one. GUI wrappers can simplify tasks for the uninitiated but they should never be the only way.
*****************************************************
The author is not saying to use the GUI or to ignore the command line. What he is saying is that functionality should be provided via libraries and accessed via CLI, GUI or whatever else turns you on. Maybe voice recognition or a direct link to your brain. This is the ideal way to do things.
For example, suppose you had an OS feature called hello world, which output “Hello World!”
You would have a library which contained the function
char* getHelloWorld(); //pardon my simple c string
Then the CLI version would just do
printf(getHelloWorld() );
The Gui version might do
<Create Window …>
<Create Frame …>
<Create Crazy images …>
Create TextBox myTextBox;
<Orient window widgets>
myTextBox.text = getHelloWorld();
In the Complete Voice system, it might do
<setup voice link …>
<setup voice object myVoice …>
myVoice.createFromText( getHelloWorld() );
VoiceLink.send(myVoice).
Or whatever the case maybe. The CLI is just another interface to the system. A truly ‘free’ OS would not dictate the use of one input over another.
well its not much harder to have cli binaries that you use
in gui tools. just fork away and setup the pipes and you have the same functionality ass you would have with a lib.
the system tools should be small so they take litle space on the hd so you can have a samll / and bigger /usr disks
so if the system gets all corupted the / filesystem is ok and you can use the system tools to recover.
i like the unix way of doing things and i dont se the point of having all the sys utils in libs when its really easy to write
really powerfull gui frontends to the cli.
There is a big different to writing GUI front ends for some CLI program as opposed to using libraries.
1. Program Speed: you now have to launch a new process
2. The GUI program has to have all kinds of parsing code to extract needed texts. Consider a simple command line program which runs, but emits a warning. It prints out something like this:
“Warning 50: System could not find the specified file.”
3. Ties the program to a specific local. The GUI is then tied to the specific language/locale used in the CLI. What if you want to write an Armenian GUI, but the CLI is just in english?
4. Restricting features like callback routines…I don’t see where any of the CLI utilities would benefit from such a thing, the barrier still exists.
Just as Windows was not built with networking/security in mind and it was patched on, MS eventually came to their senses and dumped the win9x line. Unix was not built with a GUI in mind, yet people still insist on patching on top of it.
I think I misunderstood what was being said about the libraries. Still, gui front-ends will be less capable than cli, even if they shared the same libraries.
Good. Fewer idiots to suffer that way. If you’re not willing to put forth the effort, you shouldn’t be using a computer in the first place.>>>
1)I’m willing to put forth the effort to become the master of my GUI and it’s subsystem of menus.
2)I’m willing to put forth the effort to learn many GUI driven programs such as iMovie, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, ect
3)My 80 year old, blind in one eye, severely dyslexic but genius level IQ Great Aunt was willing to put forth the effort to start learning about computers when she was 74. (Mac OS and Windows 95 made this possible for her. It takes her almost an hour to type a few paragraphs, but she loves to send me lovely photos she takes with with her digitial camera.)
4) 50 year old brilliant archivist and technophobe who has worked hard to build up the collection of historical nevada documents and is writing a grant to get them digitized has labored very hard at learning her computer but will never grasp more than the basics.
5) Her widely respected history professor husband just wants to type his next book
6) The nice kid with cerebral palsy can grasp and point the mouse better than he can type. (I wonder how the hell this guy types.)
7) The blind guy doesn’t much care for a GUI, but as long as he’s got good voice recognition software, he can dictate some great term papers.
8) One of 2 Rhodes Scholars in my state and an internationally renown scholar routenly needs help using the computer to do research. (He also thinks that if you’re not reading Chaucer, Langland, and Gower in the original Middle English that’s a sign of sloth and you need to put forth the effort.)
9) The film student who works upstairs just wants to get his latest short film edited. He cares more about composing a shot, or lighting, or getting a really cool, easy to use DV camera so he can get on to what he is burning to do than devoting hours of time away from muse to learning the intracacies of the OS on the Mac he’s running Final Cut Pro on.
So in conclusion:
a) Willingess to learn to use a computer does not = willingness to learn to use a CLI, nor does it = willingness to learn to use a GUI.
b) Intellect/handicap has no bearing on a person’s ability to use a computer well, or to learn it to do certain tasks well, given the right interface.
c) Because a person is disinterested in the CLI doesn’t mean they are disinterested in learning about computers.
d) There is no one size fits all in how to use a computer or best interface.
The true fact of the matter is just as most people don’t give a rat’s ass about Chaucer in the original dialect they also don’t give a rat’s ass about the innerworkings of their OS so long as they can accomplish their tasks. Besides which, the moment the IT department got XP boxes to deploy, they locked them down damn tight. (After installing a million and 1 patches). They’d do the same thing with *nix boxes, only more so, so it’s not like I could go kanoodling through the more interesting parts of XP if I wanted to devote the effort. And at home where I can run any OS I want? Hell, I’d rather spend my evenings reading a book, and I think computers are wicked keen.
Your stance is as silly as demanding a person learn astophyisics just to have the privlidge of gazing at the stars.
I think writing the core program functionality into a library is a good idea because from there you can create any interface you want whether it is command-line, GUI, SOAP, etc…
Some kind of standard config file format would also greatly simplify editing. Almost every Windows app has used the .ini format for their configs which has made reading/writing them easy. Perhaps XML would be a nice format since other documents are migrating to this format too. Some kind of XML parsing ability would probably have to be built into the o/s though.
Just as Windows was not built with networking/security in mind and it was patched on […]
Please explain why you think Windows NT was not built with networking and security in mind.
Sure I will explain by quoting myself in the entirety.
”
Just as Windows was not built with networking/security in mind and it was patched on, MS eventually came to their senses and dumped the win9x line. Unix was not built with a GUI in mind, yet people still insist on patching on top of it. ”
While I guess it might have been more clear to say “Just as Windows 9x was not built…”, I think any reasonable person would have gathered that I was talking about that when I said they dumped the win9x line. How’s this for clarity.
“Just as Windows (not NT) was not built with networking/security in mind and it was patched on, MS eventually came to their senses and dumped the win9x/win16 line. Unix was not built with a GUI in mind, yet people still insist on patching on top of it. ”
Happy pappy?