Comments on: Re: lessconfig http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/03/28/re-lessconfig/ One foot in the muck, the other in utopia Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:45:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Jaime Cardoso http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/03/28/re-lessconfig/#comment-133 Jaime Cardoso Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:21:40 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/wp/?p=69#comment-133 Dan. Obviously, I don't agree with you. You say that a user shouldn't be an expert to use the software, and I agree, that is why there is the discussion of the defaults that make sense, to stop "the company makes its money in two phases: (selling and installing)" (an altered quote from your own post). One thing is to have sensible defaults, another totally diferent thing is to remove the configuration options, that is the Windows way, Users are to dumb to understand how this works so, I'll say they all have to work this way. I'm all for making your software usefull by non experts but, that can't be acomplished at the expense of upseting the experts that also like your product. I could give you a million examples on why I don't agree with you but, I'm sticking with the same. My wife is now discovering the wonders of UNIX. She is a translator and, I put her at work with a Solaris 2.5.1 box I still have (with Openwindows). when she saw this Windows feature, she understood that she could be reading from a windows and writing to another windows the translated text. For her, it was a great feature, it saved us the cost of a 21 inch screen or the trouble of finding a specific SW with that specific feature, all we had to do was to change the configuration a little bit. Everyone wins (well, except me that have to maintain a SS20 that I was planing on killing - Note to self: find out if there is anyway I can do the same With OpenOffice or Solaris 10) Dan. Obviously, I don’t agree with you. You say that a user shouldn’t be an expert to use the software, and I agree, that is why there is the discussion of the defaults that make sense, to stop “the company makes its money in two phases: (selling and installing)” (an altered quote from your own post).
One thing is to have sensible defaults, another totally diferent thing is to remove the configuration options, that is the Windows way, Users are to dumb to understand how this works so, I’ll say they all have to work this way. I’m all for making your software usefull by non experts but, that can’t be acomplished at the expense of upseting the experts that also like your product.
I could give you a million examples on why I don’t agree with you but, I’m sticking with the same. My wife is now discovering the wonders of UNIX. She is a translator and, I put her at work with a Solaris 2.5.1 box I still have (with Openwindows). when she saw this Windows feature, she understood that she could be reading from a windows and writing to another windows the translated text. For her, it was a great feature, it saved us the cost of a 21 inch screen or the trouble of finding a specific SW with that specific feature, all we had to do was to change the configuration a little bit. Everyone wins (well, except me that have to maintain a SS20 that I was planing on killing - Note to self: find out if there is anyway I can do the same With OpenOffice or Solaris 10)

]]> By: Dan Davies Brackett http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/03/28/re-lessconfig/#comment-132 Dan Davies Brackett Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:48:40 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/wp/?p=69#comment-132 @james: great example. @jaime: if the coolest feature of your UI is that you can make is so that users have *no idea* what a window is going to do when they mouse over it on any particular machine, that's a pretty bad UI. And with respect to incompetence and lack of knowledge, generally speaking the person halfway around the world actually *does* know better than you what your config should be. Because he's an expert in the software, and you're not, and you *shouldn't have to be* to use it! (plug: I wrote a big, long post on this subject on my blog.) @james: great example.

@jaime: if the coolest feature of your UI is that you can make is so that users have *no idea* what a window is going to do when they mouse over it on any particular machine, that’s a pretty bad UI. And with respect to incompetence and lack of knowledge, generally speaking the person halfway around the world actually *does* know better than you what your config should be. Because he’s an expert in the software, and you’re not, and you *shouldn’t have to be* to use it!

(plug: I wrote a big, long post on this subject on my blog.)

]]> By: Jaime Cardoso http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/03/28/re-lessconfig/#comment-131 Jaime Cardoso Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:15:47 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/wp/?p=69#comment-131 If you consider "lessconfig" as having more carefull chosen defaults, I'm all with you. Any product should behave properly out of the box. On the other hand, if you're talking about removing configuration options, Well, I'm totaly against it. We can't premiate incompetence and lack of knowledge. We have to give users who know the hability to make a better use of our products. I'm guessing it's once again the Microsoft vs. UNIX vision, who knows best what's best for you? Is it you or is it some guy on the other side of the world? It's kind of strange to read about lessconfig when, not that long ago, one of the reasons for OSS superiority was that closed source SW couldn't be extended to fit your particular needs. If one believes that, closing / making change harder is the worst idea that could be brought to the table. Remember about Openwindows? the coolest feature that GUI had was that you could bring the active window into the front OR NOT, it was up to you. You could make an Windows active with a mouse click or simply by placing the mouse over it (mouse click or mouse position). If you consider “lessconfig” as having more carefull chosen defaults, I’m all with you. Any product should behave properly out of the box.
On the other hand, if you’re talking about removing configuration options, Well, I’m totaly against it. We can’t premiate incompetence and lack of knowledge. We have to give users who know the hability to make a better use of our products.
I’m guessing it’s once again the Microsoft vs. UNIX vision, who knows best what’s best for you? Is it you or is it some guy on the other side of the world?
It’s kind of strange to read about lessconfig when, not that long ago, one of the reasons for OSS superiority was that closed source SW couldn’t be extended to fit your particular needs. If one believes that, closing / making change harder is the worst idea that could be brought to the table.
Remember about Openwindows? the coolest feature that GUI had was that you could bring the active window into the front OR NOT, it was up to you. You could make an Windows active with a mouse click or simply by placing the mouse over it (mouse click or mouse position).

]]> By: james governor http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2006/03/28/re-lessconfig/#comment-130 james governor Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:42:31 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/cote/wp/?p=69#comment-130 example - Microsoft IIS used to be more config -which made it insecure and relatively expensive to install properly. Now it is lessconfig - secure by default, and more effective therefore. example - Microsoft IIS used to be more config -which made it insecure and relatively expensive to install properly. Now it is lessconfig - secure by default, and more effective therefore.

]]>