From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: User-Friendlyness of Guix and non-scaryness, printing messages Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 15:47:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20170528194734.GA22284@jasmine> References: <87bbe3e5.AEAAKL2r-KIAAAAAAAAAAAOtUOAAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZGcQo@mailjet.com> <87y3tw4kw3.fsf@gnu.org> <87r2zfx0xt.fsf@gnu.org> <427678e8.AEUAKjfDcSgAAAAAAAAAAAPB0agAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZKceD@mailjet.com> <20170528204437.6dfd35c4@scratchpost.org> <20170528192058.GF15883@jasmine> <20170528214029.58dafacf@scratchpost.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47908) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dF4A7-00020X-Ed for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 May 2017 15:47:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dF4A4-0003mE-CE for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 May 2017 15:47:39 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:35311) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dF4A4-0003mA-80 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 May 2017 15:47:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170528214029.58dafacf@scratchpost.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Danny Milosavljevic Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 09:40:29PM +0200, Danny Milosavljevic wrote: > On Sun, 28 May 2017 15:20:58 -0400 > Leo Famulari wrote: > The scripts I mean are: > > Command-line interfaces are not suitable for usage by "non-technical > > users" anyways; they demand a GUI. >=20 > Yes, but these were technical users - the deepest technical users, too. Right, but my point was that new tools are unfamiliar and intimidating even to technical users. I might know how to use GCC, but I will still find the interface and output of another language's compiler strange and basically useless until I learn how to use it. > > So, I'm wary of sacrificing a flexible and powerful CLI on behalf of > > users who really will never use a CLI. Now, I'm not saying there is > > nothing to improve. Rather, I'm saying that the existing Guix CLI is > > pretty good, and we should be careful about changing it. >=20 > I agree. Let's talk about it first :) >=20 > Also, I agree about not touching "guix build". That one is mostly for > package authors and it makes sense that it prints the stuff > immediately. Okay :) By the way, I know that my tastes are old-school and that I am very conservative about changing things. We should think about this sort of change before Guix 1.0. --C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAlkrKVYACgkQJkb6MLrK fwiwIg//egb7CEDIxQqQVzOYp6DHq9VP5FtmTOgxg70RiRsKSm+snj5tb/II5Fg6 +ifs6eTuFBpRHCyZujwCIHiE9PhM9fFCfMJfmxCvdJWDrjMl9G8BFZZDygwyQ/zS 6sgbWEWyCCcTDE34mra5d3G1hV2w+HcNwTHfZ232AAY6s9KJcHzjmpiyG48tHmNP GlEfNkmNK9PLCRb1gMqX0bN8rT1Ntc5uD2wkx1erGBx7zuergML9NEpleB6nirEb X86u3wUqc0PlJ+GMs3AgJ/hK1LPg3u2v9psdTsojYawocHa1PnWVvc40ZAa2EUlV 8eTtQMN/WShkalCmZ9k1GF+AzXVZndkALp6sOxMbYKLM+yep4sS15iX2kIeZBwbl ww98CTHj4pIe9YWtw+ZtWkrFTjFpCQIfm5WjIcdgIbrJMI4BZDVP6Zb/xqLJ2MaQ 7l0GImzKNOLSup6uVEDJ28OCzEwxhPDgDeWIUobE82uDY0SJjLuEDDkbmRSnX+oO HOLwMdEmdwTMdxEvTVPGbI7ptgNQ0o16pei2YkR+9PCzxOw5xtxjreawjYGYyld7 lc2Xgx64WU0RheKb+uYKXcX/2p7jCqMtjE5SxbZ1XmWLg37BIjsHk298IOxcWTeN WTXBUA/FV2G3cTUWSLqpDyucAYqNZEDpRQH5PvFrl+afW5jd1p0= =EIXD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --C7zPtVaVf+AK4Oqc--