Comments on: 37Signal’s David Heinemeier Hansson responds on lessconfig, the advantages of convention http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2006/04/13/37signals-david-heinemeier-hansson-responds-on-lessconfig-the-advantages-of-convention/ An industry analyst blog looking at software ecosystems and convergence Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:21:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: James Governor http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2006/04/13/37signals-david-heinemeier-hansson-responds-on-lessconfig-the-advantages-of-convention/#comment-1482 James Governor Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:14:34 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/wp/?p=581#comment-1482 i guess i need to make a clarification post. i think we may all be in closer agreement than one would think... Windows is a great place to start. What would you say, Jaime? that all Windows desktop users should have admin priveleges? :-) i KNOW that's not what you're saying. And on the web server point it does make some sense to have a dedicated configuration. there is a ton of crap in windows server that needs to be configured- and not everyone gets security setting s right and so on. so a standard configuration makes a lot of sense. very nice point about extensibility. i can't deny that systems and protocols end up being used in new and interesting ways, that the original designers never considered. for me though lessconfig is not intended as an absolute but a guiding principal. and Jaime you're an alpha geek. config is what you do - so i can certainly see your point. solaris is incredibly configurable - but that's not always an advantage is all i am saying. its great for Solaris Kung Fu experts sure, but not everyone has that level of skillz. Am i going to go and tell someone like ben rockwood he isn't allowed to tune his own system configs? of course not. i guess i need to make a clarification post. i think we may all be in closer agreement than one would think…

Windows is a great place to start. What would you say, Jaime? that all Windows desktop users should have admin priveleges? :-) i KNOW that’s not what you’re saying.

And on the web server point it does make some sense to have a dedicated configuration. there is a ton of crap in windows server that needs to be configured- and not everyone gets security setting s right and so on. so a standard configuration makes a lot of sense.

very nice point about extensibility. i can’t deny that systems and protocols end up being used in new and interesting ways, that the original designers never considered.

for me though lessconfig is not intended as an absolute but a guiding principal.

and Jaime you’re an alpha geek. config is what you do - so i can certainly see your point.

solaris is incredibly configurable - but that’s not always an advantage is all i am saying. its great for Solaris Kung Fu experts sure, but not everyone has that level of skillz.

Am i going to go and tell someone like ben rockwood he isn’t allowed to tune his own system configs? of course not.

]]> By: Jaime Cardoso http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2006/04/13/37signals-david-heinemeier-hansson-responds-on-lessconfig-the-advantages-of-convention/#comment-1481 Jaime Cardoso Sun, 16 Apr 2006 23:43:52 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/wp/?p=581#comment-1481 Dan, reading your comment and your post, first, I have to say I totally agree with point #2 on your post and, I'm willing to leave idle (for now) #3. As for #1 (and this comment) I totally disagree. Did you knew there is (was?) a Windows 2003 Server Web Server edition? Basicaly, a Win 2003 with the netwok stack tuned for a Web server (and with some services disconected). Now, the question comes, what should you buy for a mail server? Or a proxy server? Don't you prefer a Solaris system where you can tune the TCP stack with ndd to make it work for any particular server you're setting up? I'd have no quarrel with a master script called Tune-web-server but, by applying lessconfig principles to the extreme, you would remove the ndd command and, that's something I can't let pass. Look at I.M. software. It was built to have people exchanging messages with each other. Now, we're talking about a presence protocol and I.M. is evolving to fields where the original developers never thought of. You're killing all that, by assuming you know what's best for me. Every time you take away a configuration option, you're reducing the value of the Software. For all the people that didn't follow Cote's post, Openwindows had an option to let you have the active windows in the background, instead of the Windows default where the active one goes on top of everything. That feature was precious to anyone doing translations but, for some reason someone decided to remove such features. Dan, what do you sugest? Building a Window Manager for translators? Not only they aren't a big enough market for that but, people don't want to use another tool (or UI) just for a particular task, I know I'd prefer to simply configure my UI to suite my needs of the moment. One of the strongest reasonings behind OSS is that it can be tailored to suite 100% of the needs, corporations don't have to content with 90% anymore. While that falls on the other extreme (and I also don't agree with it) it's curious to see lessconfig came up in a moment where OSS is clearly on top. Dan, reading your comment and your post, first, I have to say I totally agree with point #2 on your post and, I’m willing to leave idle (for now) #3. As for #1 (and this comment) I totally disagree.
Did you knew there is (was?) a Windows 2003 Server Web Server edition? Basicaly, a Win 2003 with the netwok stack tuned for a Web server (and with some services disconected). Now, the question comes, what should you buy for a mail server? Or a proxy server?
Don’t you prefer a Solaris system where you can tune the TCP stack with ndd to make it work for any particular server you’re setting up? I’d have no quarrel with a master script called Tune-web-server but, by applying lessconfig principles to the extreme, you would remove the ndd command and, that’s something I can’t let pass.
Look at I.M. software. It was built to have people exchanging messages with each other. Now, we’re talking about a presence protocol and I.M. is evolving to fields where the original developers never thought of. You’re killing all that, by assuming you know what’s best for me.
Every time you take away a configuration option, you’re reducing the value of the Software.
For all the people that didn’t follow Cote’s post, Openwindows had an option to let you have the active windows in the background, instead of the Windows default where the active one goes on top of everything. That feature was precious to anyone doing translations but, for some reason someone decided to remove such features.
Dan, what do you sugest? Building a Window Manager for translators? Not only they aren’t a big enough market for that but, people don’t want to use another tool (or UI) just for a particular task, I know I’d prefer to simply configure my UI to suite my needs of the moment.
One of the strongest reasonings behind OSS is that it can be tailored to suite 100% of the needs, corporations don’t have to content with 90% anymore. While that falls on the other extreme (and I also don’t agree with it) it’s curious to see lessconfig came up in a moment where OSS is clearly on top.

]]> By: Dan Davies Brackett http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/2006/04/13/37signals-david-heinemeier-hansson-responds-on-lessconfig-the-advantages-of-convention/#comment-1480 Dan Davies Brackett Sun, 16 Apr 2006 00:27:09 +0000 http://www.redmonk.com/jgovernor/wp/?p=581#comment-1480 Wow, I could Fisk Jaime's whole comment. Time for another blogpost I guess. While I get those thoughts down, though, there's one line I can't help but respond to -- there are lots of people out there who DO know what's best for you, Jaime, because *you are not different enough from them to merit your own personal configuration*. If you disagree with the "configuration" (or state, or whatever) of a properly lessconfigged program, there are three reasons: (1) you're wrong, and they know something you don't (2) they're wrong, and their program is therefore bad (3) the program is not the one you want. I know for me the category point is the most frequent. I try to avoid using programs in the second category. And the third one is essential to lessconfig as a philosophy. Horses for courses, don't use a hammer to turn screws, all those cliches. If the program is not doing what you want, you are not its target market! Wow, I could Fisk Jaime’s whole comment. Time for another blogpost I guess. While I get those thoughts down, though, there’s one line I can’t help but respond to — there are lots of people out there who DO know what’s best for you, Jaime, because *you are not different enough from them to merit your own personal configuration*. If you disagree with the “configuration” (or state, or whatever) of a properly lessconfigged program, there are three reasons:

(1) you’re wrong, and they know something you don’t
(2) they’re wrong, and their program is therefore bad
(3) the program is not the one you want.

I know for me the category point is the most frequent. I try to avoid using programs in the second category. And the third one is essential to lessconfig as a philosophy. Horses for courses, don’t use a hammer to turn screws, all those cliches. If the program is not doing what you want, you are not its target market!

]]>