On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 07:57:29PM -0400, Hal Burgiss wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 12:15:38AM +0100, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> > there is just a big need for better gui editors for unix
> According to who? Why take a step backwards now when we have such a
> good thing going?
Ok, the thing we have to do is explain to Win-types just _why_ GUI isn't
the best idea for sysadmin.
When you're doing systems administration, you're dealing with the
fundamental operation of the entire environment--system, network,
security, _everything_.
Microsoft has tried, for a long time, to convince people that Operating
Systems admin is trivial--it can be minimized to a few GUI screens that
anyone can understand.
Microsoft, for the same long time, has been the essential cracker's
gateway into installations for this reason. Face it: The OS and its
environment is _not_ trivial. It _cannot_, sensibly, be reduced to
trivial GUI screens, particularly if they are just translating for
underlying commands--as, often, they're even doing for WinNT/2K.
(I discount XP--it's not an OS, it's Win2K with a GatesProfit overlay.)
Linux--Ok, please let's call it by what it is, Next Generation Unix--has
powerful and flexible tools for all aspects of system administration.
Many of the concepts expressed in these tools are complex. Often,
they're very difficult to display in a "simple" GUI context. Now, the
attempt to do so will never cease, and the effort should probably always
continue; but any SysAdmin worth his/her salt won't trust anything that
puts a layer of interpretation between the keyboard and the actual work.
So, call for GUI tools--but don't believe that they're going to replace
the necessity to understand the underlying tasks the commands are designed
to accomplish.
Cheers,
--
Dave Ihnat
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
