Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:42:03 -0400 From: <scratch65535@att.net> To: freebsd-ports <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Checking port option descriptions Message-ID: <ipqotbtp084uvimbt3o360cusgjgn15msd@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <3de26d31-e4e0-ddc4-27ae-03bab473849b@ohlste.in> References: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1609160951090.12548@wonkity.com> <3de26d31-e4e0-ddc4-27ae-03bab473849b@ohlste.in>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:11:51 -0400, Jim Ohlstein <jim@ohlste.in> wrote: >"[S]ome" being the operative word here. I don't disagres with your basic >premise, but the truth is, at the end of the day it's up to the user to >understand the consequences of his decisions. If a user doesn't know >what 'XYZ' is, then adding 'Include protocols for use with XYZ servers' >probably doesn't tell him or her that much. On the other hand, if a user >knows what 'XYZ' is, then 'Enable XYZ' is likely enough information with >which to make a decision. > >So in this case there are likely to be two categories of users: those >who know what 'XYZ' is and those who do not. Those in the former have >the information either way. Those in the latter have three basic choices: > >1) Educate themselves before possibly adding software to their system >that they do not fully understand, thereby moving into to the former >category. > >2) Choose the default, on the (very possibly mistaken) assumption that >the porter "knows what's best." Unfortunately that assumption may be a >bad one, as the porter/maintainer is more likely to choose something >that satisfies "most users" and loads people with unnecessary >dependencies (thus defeating much of the benefit of building your own >ports), or worse, to choose options that work best for him or her. Most people want to *use* the machine they're integrating. For them it's not a pastime or hobby. Very few such people have the time or energy to "educate themselves" enough to understand the interactive effects of the many MANY options for each of the ports they want to install. In part, that's due to the useless "comments" Warren rightly calls out in his post. So yes, in hope of being safe, they'll accept the defaults. With real, thoughtful, information-rich comments, that might actually happen less often. The same problem affects software development and causes a lot of code to be re-written from scratch rather than maintained. Told to comment their code, too many programmers write things like " x=x+1 ; // increment x" and are baffled when more experienced engineers are scathing during code review. After all, they did comment each line, so what's the problem? If people want to understand what the code does, they should study it!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ipqotbtp084uvimbt3o360cusgjgn15msd>