Is like if you have a very good server, giving you root privileges, skinned like a smooth and cool desktop... And build a lot of things =]
|
Quote:
You should not expect to be able to hand edit and rely on tools. It's one or the other. I think if you were to only edit by hand, it would be fine, but then why use SUSE in the first place? As for the Debian way.....yeah. They definitely have a lot of strong guidelines. But, Ubuntu or Debian, won't stop you from installing your own packages and editing your own files. I can kind of see it being reasonable to follow a methodology that works best with the system you are using. It makes sense to urge this for new users, and sense it is not enforced, it does not prevent advanced users. |
My experience with SUSE is very outdated, but I believe it was only for files their GUIs touched. I also remember the updater was always nagging you: kind of like Windows these days.
Agree with your Debian comments. |
Quote:
gargamel |
Quote:
Just want to note, that usually you break the automatism for the context to which the file belongs, that you modify. In the example of the web server I described, it would mean that after editing httpd.conf or something, for upgrades there would be no automatic conversion, anymore. But other things, like Email configuration, would, of course, continue to work. However, sometimes there are dependencies. Modifying one file in such a chain would break the whole chain. From that point on you'd have to edit all the config files in the chain, not just one, by hand. [/QUOTE] |
Quote:
Perhaps it is just a symptom of society that all people are taught to accept, that they have to conform, be part of a team, not rock the boat etc. etc. but I for one am glad that some Linux distributions don't try to be smarter than you and allow you to do you want. It may be that their are misconceptions that other distributions don't allow you to edit system files, but as you have, yourself, said, you may have to jump through hoops to do it. I ask one simple question, if a computer is a tool why should the operating system not serve you in the way that you want? I think that is the reason that people say, "if you know Slackware, you know Linux" is, because you don't just know what the distribution allows you to know, you are allowed to think freely and allowed to break your system if you want to. You are allowed to have a stripped down speed machine, a boated desktop, a multimedia machine, a server, a toy, whatever you want and all the bits will just work. If some guru hasn't compiled a specific piece of software into a package, you can do it and it will work more often, in my experience, with Slackware. Linux is all about choice and if you, or others, choose to be told how their computer should do stuff, then that is your/their choice, not one I would make but then again that's just me. Oh and I am always right. IMHO. Rant over. samac |
Quote:
I think your rant is missing the point entirely. You are not forfeiting control or choice by choosing to use software that automates some tasks. If you make a choice to use redhat, than that choice is probably made in part because it has helper gui tools and wrappers. Now, you don't have to use those tools or wrappers, and you can still edit config files and such without a problem. Unless you want to use those tools. If you want to be able to use those tools, then you can't edit things manually anymore. This is just common sense. The tools will overwrite the file with the settings you choose through the tools, only after you have made the choice to use the tools. If distributions forced you to use their gui tools for managment and prevented you from editing things by hand, then you may have a point. As they don't, you don't. Quote:
It is not that distributions are trying to be smarter than you, it is that they want to make it easier for people. Obviously, a lot of people prefer the work they have done. This is not for us, and that is fine... Quote:
The reason this is acceptable, is because it is well known that this is how debian works, that all software is in repositories. If you don't like that you should not install debian. It makes no sense to complain after the fact. No distribution will prevent you from editing config files, although many may discourage it if gui tools are the preferred method for a distribution. Quote:
Quote:
The thing that sets slackware apart for me, is that everything is vanilla, it is just a system, no extra wrappers or gui stuff, package management is close to ideal, and yes, you gain an excellent understanding of your system by using it. |
Slackware can be sided with those popcorporate commercial distros and still don't throw even a simple logo on your face. Wait when all those standards compliant start breaking the desktop...
|
Quote:
What you say sounds to me like you want to move the cylinders of an engine by hand, when you drive a car, and rather not having an electronic motor management. Because this is automatic and not under your control. It works the way the car maker has designed it to work. Does this mean, you prefer walking? Because this is the logical consequence of what you say. Sorry for being a bit ironic, don't take this as an offense, but really: You missed the point, here. BUT: There ARE reasons, why I prefer Slackware over all other distros I know. That just doesn't mean, that the others are completely dull and stubborn. In fact, their success allowed the continued development of Linux. Slackware is, in fact, a parasite. It uses and packages components developed and sponsored by others. The result is brilliant, and the crew is doing the best job in the industry, but there's no reason for bashing others who have sponsored Linux to the benefit of all of us. gargamel |
Josh000 and gargamel
Fortunately you are allowed to not get the point, often people are under the impression that there is no other way because the computer program doesn't allow them the opportunity to have the choice. After all just because there is a gui component doesn't mean that the command line backend should be hidden, or just because you shouldn't run as root, root should be hidden. Your analogy with the car falls down as I choose to use to use either my legs or a bicycle or some other mode of transport, I don't have to use the car just because the car manufacturers make cars. I don't need full control and I could not control fully as I never got round to programming in machine code, however my point was simply that programs should not determine how you use your computer, you should. samac |
Hi,
I believe in looking at treating the OS as a 'tool'. That tool should get the task at hand done without trouble or harm. If you are wanting to tighten a bolt and nut you have choices. If the hardware is SAE then you would not use a Metric tool. Sure some may fit but you won't be able to safely complete the task. Distributions are just that a 'tool'. A user should use the tool that will safely complete or enable that same user to work with the desired hardware. Hopefully, the chosen tool will enable the user to work efficiently and proficiently to complete tasks. Some people should use hold your hand distributions while others are comfortable with a system that allows you too tweak or manage the system in a manner that suits their need(s). I like the way 'PV' has the mindset to setup a distribution that allow you to have a OS that will not get in the way. |
Quote:
This is completely reasonable, as otherwise, using both the gui tools and manual editing config files, those choices contradict each other. You are in no way prevented from manually editing and configuring everything and never using the distro specific tools. Quote:
If you use xorgsetup in slack to generate an X file automatically, do you feel that control is being taken away from you, and that the computer is doing thing automatically? xorgsetup is quite similar to tools from other distributions, in the level of control it removes. |
JoshOOO I'm sorry if you don't get this, but your implication that I am saying that you should just use gui tools or cli tools, is just frankly wrong. All I have said is that I should be able to determine what happens on my computer. I use both gui and cli to do that. I just do not want the computer program/OS writers to make that determination for me, and that the specific case was where I made a modification to a configuration file and the OS wrote it back on the next boot.
I can and do expect to be able to use both gui and cli and not have them contradict each other as more often than not the gui is just using the command line as the backend, therefore they should in no way contradict each other as they are to all intents the same program acting upon the same configuration file. In Slackware you can do this, that is why I use Slackware, in some other Linux distributions it is more problematic that is why I do not use them. In Slackware the designer (Pat Volkerding) has designed it so that everyone has the choice and control over their computer, some other distributions try to impose "their way". I hope this clarifies my thoughts in response to your actual question Quote:
samac |
Quote:
Only the *buntus try to "hide" the CLI, but the philosophy behind it is anything but stupid. Exploit the capabilities of Linux, expose its flexibility to end-users, but don't allow or motivate them to screw up their system all too easily. Personally the end-product is not to my likings, but there's nothing wrong with it. Users who have "the impression" that there is no CLI should really NOT be confronted with it. Because they would not be able to use it reasonably. Let me add, that there is a big difference, if you are talking about your own, personal computer, or if you are in professional (or corporate, if you prefer) environment. There are reasons, why the *buntus are so much more popular on corporate desktops than other distros: They cause less effort in the support department (at least, that's one of Canonical's selling points). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And as I said above: Sometimes, depending on the users and the environment, such restrictions can even be helpful and desired. gargamel |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Obviously you are referring to the Canonical way of answering to this challenge, but please note, that there are other ways to provide smart GUI configuration tools without hiding the CLI or the existence of a privileged user account. Personally I have no strong opinion against the *buntus, but they also never really convinced me enough to keep them installed (Xubuntu was not bad, though). Quote:
Quote:
gargamel |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 AM. |