Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

[Da Rock]

On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 09:24 -0700, Les wrote:

> CLI has an advantage because of the ability to express compound and
> unique capabilities using small tools.
> That particular capability has not made it to the "drag and click"
> crowd, not because it cannot be done, but because of a lack of vision in
> understanding what they are missing.  The closest equivalent is the
> ability to create compound database relationships in Microsoft SQL with
> the GUI, but even there it is not well implemented.  And you still have
> to use the keyboard to express some aspects of the process.  And this is
> the major strength of UNIX, small programs that do one thing well,
> coupled with the ability to combine them with pipes, scripts and
> redirection to accomplish complex tasks with a minimum of effort.  That
> is why most admins with experience in all kinds of systems generally
> support them via a CLI of one form or another.  Additionally many of the
> tools and techniques of UNIX and other CLI systems have been expressed
> on other systems simply because they give the user that power.
> 
> Point and click is faster for things you do repetitively on single
> items, CLI scripting, piping and redirection work better in a more
> flexible way to perform complex operations on a one time unique basis
> across a number of similar items, or for a really difficult complex task
> that must be done repetitively.  These last two describe most of the
> Admin tasks.  The first most user tasks.  Additionally GUI's restrict
> input to only effective operations and minimize errors of entry, so they
> are making inroads to Admin tasks for things done less often that are
> prone to input errors, such as the add-user add-group and other
> occasional somewhat unique tasks done by Admins.
> 
> Personally I am a programmer.  I appreciate that some kinds of programs
> could or can currently be automated better with a GUI, but I also know
> that a GUI is limiting in some aspects, while freeing in others, and the
> issues for programmers is where does one become more valuable than the
> other.  In other words, we need both tools and concepts to be the most
> effective in our class of work.  I really like dabbling in the bits and
> stuff on unique things.  I hate having to regenerate a "window
> application" in C code, and would much prefer to find a GUI that will
> create a good basic Window or two that I can then flush out with the
> appropriate code.  One of the best things about GUI's I think are the
> "balloon hints", which can help you understand the "next step" or an
> error on the fly.  These reduce debug times, increase my effectiveness
> and let me concentrate on the "good stuff" rather than on the mundane.
> 
> But finding, or creating such tools is difficult, and finding the
> correct balance a truly mystifying task to a bit oriented guy like me.  
> 
> On Linux and networking and the bits for networking, I know the
> underlying formats, protocols and even a lot of the code, but I still
> don't have a good clear "big picture".  To me it is like examining an
> elephant through a microscope.  I know what the hair, hide, blood, and
> veins look like, but I have no concept of the elephant yet.  (a bit of
> an exaggeration, but I am sure you get my drift).
> 

Here! Here! I'll agree with that! Definitely me too- and a very good
analogy if I do say so myself...

> A gui that shows a network with my system, my router and my other local
> systems would help me see that.  Balloon help to describe each bit and
> what it does would be even better, so I could mouse over the router, and
> it would bring up the router system window and tell me what it does.
> Mousing over the workstation would show me the required bits to make it
> work with the router as a menu, and each would then have a good
> explanation of how it interfaces to the rest of it.  Then I could get a
> graphical view of the elephant.
> 
> None of this network, admin stuff is difficult, it is just very complex
> by the number of bits that all have to be right to make it work
> effectively and without errors.  As I tell my students in programming,
> there is no magic, just misunderstood technology. (and yes I know there
> is a quote about this or maybe three or four, but I didn't know that
> when I first started using the phrase in the 70's.)

So here I have a question: do you teach programming? At what level-
shell, C, or assembler?

If so, what text books do you use to teach (or recommend)? (even if it
is assembler...)