Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:13:01 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HAL must die! Message-ID: <20110318231301.GA21827@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <20110318213641.GA37871@lpthe.jussieu.fr> References: <20110318213641.GA37871@lpthe.jussieu.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:36:41PM +0100, Michel Talon wrote:
> Chad wrote:
> >
> > Everybody who thinks it's a good idea (by way of analogy) to write
> > command line utilities that default to not letting you specify any
> > options at all, and if you use one option to do something non-default
> > you have to specify *all* options even when the specification is
> > exactly the same as the default -- raise your hands.
>=20
> In fact i am just now writing something which does that: either mostly
> automatic, or with full "expert" options if you know what you are
> doing. There is no real middle ground, in my opinion, and i just don't
> like the Unix style commands, with tons of options and unscrutable man
> pages. I think this Unix approach has not led to considerable adoption,
> generally. To come back to HAL, i have been usually happy with HAL. You
> just have to know that if you want to modify some simple X
> configuration (typically change the keyboard language) you have to do
> it in a HAL config file, not in xorg.conf. The only problem is that
> the HAL config files are in xml crap, not in usual form. In fact the
> main HAL problem is a documentation problem, like for many other softs.
> How many new features of FreeBSD are correctly documented presently?=20
Wait -- what? Really?
Let's say your application has the following options with defaults:
foo: one
bar: two
baz: three
qux: four
Let's say someone wants qux to be five instead of four. Are you saying
you're writing your application to *force* them to specify *all four*
configuration settings, even when three of them are default? Are you
further saying you're doing this because you think it's a good idea from
a UI standpoint, and not just out of laziness?
--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
--dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAk2D5v0ACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKUnEACg+p1aTnaFhkIyg9TBr0do3lwn
MxgAnRyL+Hph3vpJHQvIl3WK1YjaRjup
=kI65
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110318231301.GA21827>