Control Center -- Does it matter or not?

[Reiver_Fluffi]

The control centres were created in response to a need. Ubuntu is much harder to use because it doesn't have one, and Mandriva better off for it. The Mandriva Control Centre is not easy to use without experience, but it is getting better. In my opinion it is better than the Suse control centre.

 

The 2007 control centre is better, but still not very intuitive, especially for newbies. Hopefully the 2008 control centre will have a complete overhaul.

 

Even though Ubuntu doesn't have a centralised control centre, it does have a collection of UI tools, pretty much the same as what is available under a centralised config system. IMHO the true diference between Ubuntu's de-centralised, and Mandriva's centralised tools is a matter of convenience, rather than ease.

 

As tyme says, some GUI tools can be a pain in the backside, especially when you have made manual changes to the config files because the GUI tool can't fulfil your needs, rendering that tool useless for you thereafter.

 

So yeah GUI tools help, but at the same time they can be a hindrance, some times a show stopper as reliabilty is not guaranteed for every scenario.

[Gowator]

Control Centers are essential. The average computer user is not a geek. While command line is absolutely the best method of system management, the average user is looking for a gui. Also, a new user is not up for memorizing all of the config files. Documentaion is still at a geeky type of level. A Control Center overcomes the geekville and enables linux to present well to the average user. Distros without gui approaches are not concerned with a majority of users but rather only the geeks.

 

 

B)

Yes but does that all need to be in the same control centre?

 

Control centre != GUI config tools.

 

and in most cases control centres do a lousy job of duplicating pre existing GUI controls without the proper functionality and at their worst they actually prevent the use of the correct GUI tool to configure the app.

 

Just one example....

Say you configure a printer and its working great but you can't get it to work across the network.....from a control centre. So you eventually either have to edit the cupsd.conf or use the proper GUI ... but your distro has deliberatly disabled the GUI control so you can't mess up the file they make or every time you want to cancel a print job it rewrites the config file or crashes etc.

 

Hmm... funny. I am lazy and usually never use the MCC. biggrin.gif

but to be fair your an advanced user so you can use one or the other and if the MCC messes something up you can fix it....

My experience with noobies is if they mess something up in MCC then not only can't they fix it but its harder for someone else to fix it too. 90% of the time its not a problem, it just prevents them using their system to its full potential and most people that doesn't matter so much but that 10% of cases ....

 

check my last 1000 posts ... not a single one where networking is involved from the MCC because most of the time MCC messes up networking its truly screwed.... and without preproducing the mess its pretty hard to dig someone out of. This is a concious effort on my part because I used to try and help then someone would genuinly trying to be helpful say "Run MCC" .. and the 10 pages of work are all lost as MCC screws it up back to where it was.

[arctic]

Hmm... funny. I am lazy and usually never use the MCC. biggrin.gif

but to be fair your an advanced user so you can use one or the other and if the MCC messes something up you can fix it....

Yes, I know. For advanced users, GUI tools are not that important. For noobies I still think, they can be important (depending on the tech-level expertise). What you describe as things that cannot be done with GUI tools are tasks that are mainly not done by newcomers. They require already some advanced computer knowledge, even in Windows. I think you will agree with me on this. At least, I never saw a complete newbie trying to set up a printer network in Windows, Mac or Linux.

 

There will never be a perfect GUI tool, that's for sure, especially when it comes to networking stuff, but I guess that it is okay to include those tools so that people actually get an idea WHERE to start. If they manage to do what they want to do is another question and that is where support forums like this one come into play for answering such questions. B)

[Gowator]

There will never be a perfect GUI tool, that's for sure, especially when it comes to networking stuff, but I guess that it is okay to include those tools so that people actually get an idea WHERE to start. If they manage to do what they want to do is another question and that is where support forums like this one come into play for answering such questions. B)

Maybe not perfect but the cups config tool does work well.

.. also i think lots of noobies do want to share printers.. because being a linux noobie != computer nooble....

 

If they are already doing this through Win/OS-X etc. then installing mandriva which is linux so must be good at network stuff (right?) .... if you see what I mean....

[Bobbert]

I think that the control center is an essential part of linux if it is to become widespread. I think all of us agree that using the command line will solve our problems more effectively and gives us more control. However, any of us that use windows probably know how to use 'regedit'. I think that most windows users who consider themselves advanced have never heard of 'regedit' or would have any idea what to do with it. If you want a broad base of users who want to do their word processing, image editing, emailing, etc. and do not have the time to learn a command that they may only use once in their life (or even something they may use more often, an example: regedit), then a control center is absolutely necessary.

[Gowator]

I think that the control center is an essential part of linux if it is to become widespread. I think all of us agree that using the command line will solve our problems more effectively and gives us more control. However, any of us that use windows probably know how to use 'regedit'. I think that most windows users who consider themselves advanced have never heard of 'regedit' or would have any idea what to do with it. If you want a broad base of users who want to do their word processing, image editing, emailing, etc. and do not have the time to learn a command that they may only use once in their life (or even something they may use more often, an example: regedit), then a control center is absolutely necessary.

Yes but which one?????

 

Gnome and KDE finally got together on a standard but distro's like mandriva and suse do all they can do to wreck that standard because they feel their control centres are better.....and they see their control centres as something to keep users using their distro and not use others.

[arctic]

Hmm... isn't it with Control Centers like with distros? Choose whatever works best for you. = Freedom of choice. ;)

[ianw1974]

I think that the control center is an essential part of linux if it is to become widespread. I think all of us agree that using the command line will solve our problems more effectively and gives us more control. However, any of us that use windows probably know how to use 'regedit'. I think that most windows users who consider themselves advanced have never heard of 'regedit' or would have any idea what to do with it. If you want a broad base of users who want to do their word processing, image editing, emailing, etc. and do not have the time to learn a command that they may only use once in their life (or even something they may use more often, an example: regedit), then a control center is absolutely necessary.

 

You can't really compare regedit to the command line in Linux. I would compare the MS-DOS type command line, which at best is nowhere near as powerful as the Linux equivalent.

 

Looks like we're done with the distro bashing, and KDE/Gnome bashing. Now we're on to control centre bashing

 

I wonder whats next

[Artificial Intelligence]

distro Theme bashing perhaps? :P

[ianw1974]

We could certainly start a theme bashing - but I think galaxy would take a big hit in this area ;)

 

forum bashing? Nah, we had that one too ;)

[Gowator]

The thing is I think control centres REALLY are an issue.

 

If they should be an issue is perhaps another question but they are certainly perceived as an issue.

 

The fundamentals are what people expect BUT linux is not windows.

 

Even 90% of the XP CC is hidden away .... and 90% of it works differently (like registering com components) , its just in the same menu as the user CC.

 

The difference is that MS don't make a CC module for photoshop or oracle.... Adobe and Oracle do that and Adobe put it in photoshop and Oracle make a .cpl in the control panel and have a config prog.

 

The expectation is somehow that distro's provide a CC for mysql and gimp.... they usually don't...BUT there are plenty of GUI's for mysql including web based admin and mysqladmin.

 

At the same time both KDE and Gnome have CC's and they have worked hard to make them mutually usable, this in itself speaks volumes....

 

But at the same time ... and this is what I think detracts some distro's make their own and deliberatly cripple the Gnome/KDE ones.

 

This is I largely believe branding and partly incompatibility and partly because they get caught up in it. Once you make the GUI for say printer config (when the cups one was crappy) how do you then take it away when CUPS make not only a decent one but one significantly better and certaily more functional than the distro one?????

 

90% of the distro CC's are already covered in other tools specific to apps except usually the app CC has much better functionality than the distro one...

 

IMHO the very worse case is when the distro one is incompatible with the app one. That is it can't handle everything or screws the config file. The second problem is when CC's add stuff in a smoke and mirrors way.... you want internet connection sharing BUT they set up a firewall.... then the user doesn't realise they have a firewall NOR have the CC to control that firewall. All they control is the ICS part....so when soemthig else stops working they have no idea where to look nor have the tools to do so.

[Ixthusdan]

It is true that windows has command line controls that work better than gui controls. And a windows "tech" (I use the term loosely) fixes windows thru the command line more often than a gui, although all one has to do is look up the info and follow the instructions, a daunting task for the average user. And, like linux, there are circumstances in windows where the command line will fix a problem that could not be corrected by any gui tool.

 

And this is where linux could move ahead. A control center that actually woked would be an improvement for the average user. Note that I am not addressing geekdom, since we all already like linux. The average user is not a geek. And while the control center is indeed distro specific, it is also not a focus. It should be. In other words, Gowator, the fact that it does not work is an indication of a problem, a negative for linux, and not a negative for the concept of "control center." Now I know that all of us geeks shout the mantra "CLI, CLI". but that does not cause the average user to be convinced nor does it improve the use of linux. Control Centers are essential.

[Gowator]

It is true that windows has command line controls that work better than gui controls. And a windows "tech" (I use the term loosely) fixes windows thru the command line more often than a gui, although all one has to do is look up the info and follow the instructions, a daunting task for the average user. And, like linux, there are circumstances in windows where the command line will fix a problem that could not be corrected by any gui tool.

 

And this is where linux could move ahead. A control center that actually woked would be an improvement for the average user. Note that I am not addressing geekdom, since we all already like linux. The average user is not a geek. And while the control center is indeed distro specific, it is also not a focus. It should be. In other words, Gowator, the fact that it does not work is an indication of a problem, a negative for linux, and not a negative for the concept of "control center." Now I know that all of us geeks shout the mantra "CLI, CLI". but that does not cause the average user to be convinced nor does it improve the use of linux. Control Centers are essential.

 

Firstly what is a control centre? So far as I can see its a clone of the MS control centre?

Secondly who is making/writing the CC ?

 

Thirdly as I said earlier control centre !=GUI config tools. Lots of GUI config tools exist.... many of these work perfectly and are written by the same people/team as the actual package.

 

It seems to me the "idea" of a CC is that Microsoft's linux equivlant should be writing it ...???

 

The whole concept is flawed because this isn't windows.... Microsoft are not writing the peripheral parts of the OS like Xorg or the DM/WM ... or the base applications....

 

If you transfer this concept to Mandriva writing a disto .... then the concept is not the same...Mandriva do not write the SW... they simply package it ....

 

One very important point ... the packages they include are open source/GPL ... and this is fundamentally different to the MS model.

 

If MS change something then they write the equivalent changesin the CC tools.....

 

In opensource this is not the same.... because mandriva are not writing the packages they are just packaging them.

 

Whatever they write in their CC is already old....

 

Now what is already being missed is that there are already GUI config tools ranging from inclusive de-facto standards like say webmin to GUI config tools like mysqladmin .... or cupsadmin etc.

 

These tools are written specifically for one app.... they include the latest options and directives and most importantly are compatible.....

 

MCC on the otherhand does not.. its an ongoing battle to maintain as the underlying apps change outside the control of mandriva. This is why it never has and never will work properly. but the most important thing is it breaks the real config tools written by the developers.

 

Worse still is it breaks many of the apps..... some of these are open source AND commercial and mandriva uses them and breaks them ... and this then affects the opensource's credibility.

 

I have lost count of the number of noobies here who have screwed up networking because Mandriva installed shorewall when they asked for internet connection sharing. This doesn't even include the peope who actually installed it deliberatly as a firewall to find the mandriva implentation screwed beyond all recognition to the point shorewall had to make a disclaimer on thier site for mandriva users suggesting they completely overwrite the mandriva config ....

 

This still doesn't address the over riding fact that Mandriva is just repeating the GUI tools already available and trading compatibility and depth of configuration for "look n feel".

 

Lets take a noobie task like adding a printer. If you can't use the CUPS config tool included in CUPS then you shouldn't be using a computer... just like if you can't work out where to put the key in a car and release the parking brake you shouldn't be driving.....

 

The problem is mandriva REMOVES the config tools because of incompatibility with its MCC..... THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG..... morally and practically.

 

I have no problem having a menu and a CC dedicated to CC .... what I do have an issue with is removing the native GUI config tools to replace with semi-functional ones with "look n feel".

 

The same goes for desktop CC.... leave it with the DM designer when its appropriate....

 

Why does mandriva see a need to replace and hack out parts of the KDE CC???

 

IMVHO the absolute minimum is to not interfere with the native ones.... because the underlying SW changes outside of mandriva then the people writing the software usually have a better config utility than MCC.... but its OK for Mandriva to simplify it..... but they shouldn't break the real tool.

If they have to choose at some moment in time between the one which breaks the config file and the native one then it should always be the native one ....

 

The reason for this is once they break with the native one its a one way path to maintaining the mandriva one! Add to that from that point on the mandriva one will always be locked into a cycle at least 1 step behind the development of the app and any security updates with it....

[michaelcole]

Well said i agree don't break other things, just adapt to them.

 

Also for the business case for the Distro's having someone having to rewrite code each time a new version comes out is a waste when they could be using those resources better else where.

 

I understand sometimes it is better to fork than continue, but if you are going to fork the application then really make a break from the other app and make it better so others can use it too, and know it is different.

 

How many times have all of us tried to use some configuration written on a web site to find that it is a subtle change of version - make - model from the one we are using.

 

This is not only a Mandriva problem but all commercial distros i have seen..

 

Even JAVA has this problem.. Check out their instructions for installation. You have to really read it not cut and paste.. (Why when they make it?)

Edited September 27, 2006 by michaelcole

[Gowator]

Well said i agree don't break other things, just adapt to them.

 

Also for the business case for the Distro's having someone having to rewrite code each time a new version comes out is a waste when they could be using those resources better else where.

 

I understand sometimes it is better to fork than continue, but if you are going to fork the application then really make a break from the other app and make it better so others can use it too, and know it is different.

 

How many times have all of us tried to use some configuration written on a web site to find that it is a subtle change of version - make - model from the one we are using.

 

This is not only a Mandriva problem but all commercial distros i have seen..

 

Even JAVA has this problem.. Check out their instructions for installation. You have to really read it not cut and paste.. (Why when they make it?)

Yep this is true..... but its perhaps more subtle....

 

Forking a SAMBA config from SAMBA for instance.

 

Lets face it Mandriva developers are not even in the same league as SAMBA developers.... moreover as you say they only need to adapt what is available and when a web config tool is available this is pretty much just adapting the css for 'look n feel' ....or applying styles to gtk apps or kde apps.

 

In the same way the KDE SAMBA config works great.... and doesn't break the "real" tool though its more limited...I don't know about Gnome ones but I know enough that Gnome would never release a tool they knew was breaking something....

 

Mostly like you say its a waste of developer time....and effort

 

Its interesting you point out

This is not only a Mandriva problem but all commercial distros i have seen..

and I agree and I think the reasoins are at least twofold...

 

Firstly I think distro's tend to get over concerned with 'branding' ... OMG the cups config SW contains a different look n feel and a ad fpor the commerical company that make it (albeit FREE and OPENSOURCE)

 

IMHO why kick this company in the face ????

Most importantly IMHO .... this company actually deserve far more respect than mandriva.....

 

What do mandriva do? They take other peoples work and rebadge it (that sounds harsh but that's more or less the truth) and this is OK in a GPL environment but its not morally correct to take away the CUPS logo etc.

 

Secondly as Aussie John rightly pointed out we use the CLI all the time with noobies ... why?

As I said.. for starters a lot of the GUI tools don't work well and when they mess up its usually a catastrophy ... and undoing the mess is 10x the work....

 

Secondly I don't USE mandriva.... I have a VMWARE install for helping others.... I don't USE it for anything except that!

 

The whole second half of the reason is I think WHY would SAMBA or other opensource projects deal with ANY commerical distro....

There is ONLY one reason ... to be paid..... look at it from their perspective.... they make a FREE as in beer and GPL project which smeone decides to sell as part of a distro....

 

If I was the maintainer I would gladly GIVE it to FREE as in beer distros BUT I would NEVER GIVE IT to commercial ones..... it undermines the whole point of making it FREE in the 1st place.

 

If I was developing a commerical quality app to GIVE AWAY I personally would concentrate on FREE as in beer distro's...and if someone wants to SELL my work then they can damned well pay ME before i make even the smallest effort towards helping them... indeed I would not even return emails from a commercial distro except to say "you want me to work on your commercial distro then you pay me"