Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-web-user] Hardened PHP now in Gentoo

[Stuart Herbert]

On Wednesday 19 May 2004 12:30, foser wrote:
> The second time you mention choice. I guess we know what Gentoo is about
> by now, the 'choice' argument is too often used just to end criticism.

If people are arguing against additional choice, then I guess that at least 
some devs don't get that this is an important part of Gentoo.

> Choice is an illusion,

Try telling that to people using <insert distro here> who don't have that 
choice.

> if you there's too much choice it is no use to
> anyone anymore, because nobody really knows what it is all about.

Agreed.  So is the problem choice itself, or the tools we use to deliver that 
choice to our users?

> This
> is already the case with the loads of USE flags/portage options/etc. we
> have. Gentoo shouldn't be about choice for the sake of it, it should be
> about simplicity/managability : stuff that works. It's a trade-off.

Where do we have choice for the sake of it?

Reducing choice does not always increase simplicity.

> I wasn't too happy with the introducation of local USE flags for just
> the reasons that are becoming a problem now. Too much flags, everybody
> adds them at will without good reasons.

USE flags allow users to switch on (and off I guess) optional settings.

What would you prefer?

a) hardened-php patch not available at all in Gentoo
b) hardened-php patch always included

Because those are the only choices you are leaving.

> We used to just say to people
> who wanted a specific (rare) set-up that they could easily edit the
> ebuild themselves to their need,

Thank god we don't do that any more!  I'm all for educating our users in the 
ways of UNIX-like systems, but perhaps that is raising the bar too high.

> but nowadays it seems we have to hold
> hands all the time and add complexity for nothing.

I don't think USE flags are hand-holding.  The principle - that a Gentoo dev 
spends a little time working out how to safely make an optional feature 
available - scales far better than expecting all of our users to try and 
solve the same problem for themselves all the time.

> That's good for
> nobody really.

I agree that adding complexity is not good.

> The installation manual used to be like 5 pages, by now
> it's a book of it's own per arch. I don't think that's a good thing and
> we should be really, really careful about what we can do to stop this
> movement.

The installation manual used to cover just one architecture.

I'm sure our users appreciate the vast improvements that the handbook 
contributors have delivered since those early days.

> You have the choice. The real power is the easy way in which you can
> adapt it to your needs and the simplicity of doing so.

Which is exactly what USE flags currently provide - until someone figures out 
a better way to deliver the same amount of choice.

> Huge loads of nobody-ever-uses them options don't help one bit.

Just because you don't use them, don't assume that no-one else finds them 
useful.

> You should keep it basic for exactly the reason that anyone can adapt
> it easily. Adding layers of complexity leads to a system that needs
> time & effort to get into : you lose what you want, you lose the true
> power.

The simplicity has to be at the point of use.  The major point of use for our 
users is the 'emerge' command.  If USE flags are too complicated, why not 
suggest something better?  I'm not sure that eliminating choice is something 
better.

> The defaults should be good enough, all the extra stuff is mostly cruft
> in 99.9% of the cases.

I agree that the defaults should at least be sensible.  But I don't agree that 
the optional stuff is cruft.  You may not need some of these options, but 
there are users out there who are.

As long as there are developers willing to maintain these optional features, 
why is offering choice (as a principle) wrong?

> That cruft therefore isn't necessary in the distro, keeping the
> playing field clean and open.

I'm *soooo* glad that everyone doesn't agree with that statement.

You want to take a distribution that provides a tonne of flexibility - more 
than any of the competition - and see all that flexibility removed from it?  
Is that really your position?

> We're creating tools to be able to work with our tools, thats in indication
> of going the wrong way.

Then what is the right way to deliver the richness that is Gentoo *without* 
losing the flexibility that others like (even if you don't seem to)?

I guess I've mentioned choice a lot more than twice by now :)

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
Stuart Herbert                                              stuart@g.o
Gentoo Developer                                       http://www.gentoo.org/
                                                   http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/

GnuPG key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319  C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--