On 2/26/21 9:06 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Do, 25.02.21 23:58, Petr Menšík (pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >> No, I don't think so. Anyone who manages the system should have basic >> understanding how to configure it. If not obvious, needs good >> documentation at hand. Extremely high level is not writing lines into >> configuration file in documented format. I think we switched to nano >> editor to make it friendly. Sure, he won't be able to google help from >> the machine. Fortunately, most of us have got smartphone able to google >> almost anything. > > I am sorry, but I think we have to agree that we are designing > software for a different group of people. I certainly don't want to > assume a level of Linux expertise from our audience that they all can > reconfigure DNS. I think it's a general problem of developers like us > to assume that everyone has the same level of understanding of our > favourite technology as us. i.e. don't assume that because you know > DNS quite well, everyone else does too, or even just heard of DNS at all... I am not sure about it. It is not really different. People missing expertise have to fill bugs or report issues to people with appropriate level of expertise. I would not ask my mum to fix this and she would not even attempt to. She would just complain to me it does not work as it should. Because it does not hide failures, the person with expertise can check the problem and fix it properly. Sure, it will cause interruption. But makes the service more reliable for everyone. Usually auto-configuration is for people without the expertise, I hope we agree in that. > Note that as I understood it the original reporter's issue wasn't even > caused by concious editing of the configuration file, but was done > automatically by some other tool/copy pasted from elsewhere? i.e. it's > a bit much to expect people to understand enough DNS to fix up stuff > manually that other tools broke for them. And the original reporter > is a seasoned a Linux guy, even. The tool was broken by not enough tested change in F33. It should have been found during testing period. Even seasoned Linux guy haven't noticed it was broken until hidden fallback were removed. So again. Broken configuration must appear broken to be fixed. The fix should be prepared by someone with expertise, but they have to receive a bug report first. > > And the idea that "nano" was a flagship of user friendliness sounds, > …umm… a bit strange to me. I mean, maybe it's not as arcane as > vi, but come on it's admittedly just one step down from there. > >> But you forgot some decision were made for the user without his >> knowledge or his approval. That is wrong. > > We make decisions for our users all the time. *All* *the* > *time*. Fedora is a product of developer decisions. > > Lennart > I would just point you to related DNS flag day 2019 [1]. Those guys were pilling workaround over workarounds in DNS server software. After 20 years they have realized it costs a lot of unnecessary work. So, it might may sense to provide workaround, but it should always include plan, when it would be removed again. Sometimes the other party has to be pushed to follow the rules instead of bending our own. Cheers, Petr 1. https://dnsflagday.net/2019/ -- Petr Menšík Software Engineer Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/ email: pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
