system-config-network & Zeroconf

Matej Cepl mcepl at redhat.com
Fri Mar 7 11:31:11 UTC 2008


On 2008-03-06, 11:34 GMT, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> "IPv4LL" is as "gnomeish" as "DHCP" is. There are RFCs named
> after both of the terms.

Yes, and I hate whenever DHCP turns in any window or menu or 
dialog. Wasn't the main goal of DHCP to make networking invisible 
(kind of Zeroconf 0.1 ;-)?).

(Letter A randomly inserted to satisfy my three-years old 
daughter ;-))

> So, if you don't want to see "IPv4LL", then what would you suggest as
> a replacement for the string "DHCP"?

I would love not to see these in any menu or dialog at all, if 
possible.

> Quite frankly, if you are configuring your network in such a
> professional way that you actually might play with these options you
> should be grown up enough to deal with the real terms and actually
> also *want* to deal with them.

Agree, which probably makes all my complaints moot.

> This blog story of Havoc's is related to this discussion:
>
> http://log.ometer.com/2008-03.html#5

No, I wasn't suggesting for a second that users are stupid. I was 
thinking more about “Designing for People Who Have Better Things 
To Do With Their Lives Than Operate Your Software” 
(http://www.joelonsoftware.com/uibook/fog0000000249.html) 
I thought that mantra “Every time you provide an option, you're 
asking the user to make a decision.” (or even s/asking/forcing/) 
would be a good for Gnome design philosophy, right?

But, yes, probably this is such a minor thing, that it doesn’t 
matter that much.

Matej




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list