On Nov 20, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Thomas Pfaff <tpf...@tp76.info> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:28:34 -0800
Ted Unangst <ted.unan...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 20, 2009, at 8:03 AM, Thomas Pfaff <tpf...@tp76.info> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:45:31 +0100
Peter Hessler <phess...@theapt.org> wrote:
mixerctl inputs.master=[0,255]
mixerctl outputs.master=[0,255]
Still, is a simpler sysctl interface something people want?
mixerctl
can be reserved for people wanting to screw around with the
gazillion
of options available.
Mixerctl and sysctl already have the same interface. And saying
mixerctl has too many options is silly considering how many options
sysctl has.
Sure, but sysctl snd.* won't have that many options. Do you really
like the mixerctl interface?
"only look at the options you care about" works equally well for
mixerctl as sysctl. :). You know you're looking for snd but that's
only because you just invented it. Typical users will be no better off.
What do I do? I find a volume I like and I put it in /etc/
mixerctl.conf. The interface is just fine for that. I guess I have
trouble imagining a situation where:
A: you want to type commands into a terminal to adjust the volume
B: you adjust the volume frequently enough you want to optimize this
C: you adjust the volume infrequently enough you don't remember which
knob to turn.
By analogy, there are a shit ton of programs in /usr/bin but that
doesn't mean I run ls to find the one I want. I memorized the
important ones and ignore the rest.
I don't think ease if use is a bad thing, I just think your suggestion
doesn't change anything.
