[csw-maintainers] Alternatives without automatic selection

[Philip Brown]

On 12/8/10, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:
>
>> On 12/3/10, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
>>> This is an original way to say: if the features of a current product
>>> aren't complete and adequate do not use it. I don't think that in the
>>> real world that you like so much this is an acceptable attitude. Or is
>>> it?
>>
>> I think it is more accurate to say, "some 'features' cause more
>> problems than they solve, so adding every requested 'feature', is not
>> always the best path".
>> This is a very "real world" practical attitude, that most software
>> companies follow.
>
> You speak from experience or just perusing a common preconception?
>

Speaking from experience, that comes from:
- reading software industry publications
- having worked for multiple companies that do software development
- being an author of many publically released programs.


>> I did not understand your comment
>
> I mean that you propose a rigid behavior where a more flexible one
> serves better the user.
>
> By the way, I'm always wondering who's the real user of our work: the
> system administrator, the end user, Philip Brown, &c ?


There is no single "real user". As I've said before.. and as it says
on our "core principles" pages...  Our packages should be designed to
meet the needs of all levels of user(both "novice users" AND "large
sites"), as much as possible.

http://www.opencsw.org/about/core-principles/

  "In summary, CSW packages should be as useful to a “newbie” solaris
user, as they are to the 10-year veteran in a “fortune 500″ company.
Neither should be favoured to the detriment of the other."