Re: [hpoj-devel] Comments on parallel performance, questions on USB

[<rj...@wo...>]

On  7 May, Joe Piolunek wrote:
> On Sunday 06 May 2001 02:08 pm, rj...@wo... wrote:
> 
> <...>
>> I am planning to attach a G55 to a headless Linux box that hides under
>> a desk.  I have no need or desire for cute display stuff.  It will
>> get in the way.  
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone has claimed that the xojpanel app is particularly 
> important in itself. You never *have to* run it. You can avoid building it by 
> specifying '--without-qt' at configure time.
> 
I didn't mean to imply that someone claimed it was required.  It was
that you need to read the code to figure out whether and when it is
required.

> If you are instead referring to a future "xhpcontrol" application, do you 
> mean that you would need a command-line version?
> 
In my opinion, all applications should have a command-line version if
possible. The wonders of scripting are manyfold, and there are always
times when setting up a GUI is inconvenient at best.  When dealing with
remote support it is often difficult to get more than an terminal
emulation session over to their system.  

In one case that I know, the decision to support only an HTML GUI access
for service resulted in the requirement for a site visit.  The site
visit would cost as much as the equipment.  So the "broken" (actually
misconfigured) equipment was returned for a full refund as inherently
defective.

> My opinion of GUI applications in general is that they should look nice, and 
> there should be more of them, particularly if we want to attract the average 
> desktop user to "free" operating systems.
> 

Yes indeed.  There are also times where cute graphics are appropriate.
Absence of a friendly GUI capability is just as big a mistake as absence
of a command-line version.  They are both needed, just at different
times for different reasons.

R Horn