Re: vpn and stuff

On 09/14/2015 01:35 PM, Thomas Haller wrote:
On Sat, 2015-09-12 at 19:56 +0200, Xen wrote:


Seriously I would suggest to get rid of the CamelCase name. It
breaks compatibility or congruency with a lot of other things and
as a user you are constantly wondering what the name is going to
be. NetworkManager? networkmanager? network-manager? It changes
from situation to situation.

well... I don't like it either, but changing it now is painful too.


It's probably quite easy. I take it your binary is not depended upon, nor your configuration directories, by external tools. I haven't seen anything thus far that was different e.g. between my Kubuntu and OpenSUSE systems. Except that the dispatcher.d/ in Kubuntu contained a script to run /etc/network/ifup.d/ things.

I rather doubt there are any external tools, or at least not a lot of them, that would need to change /etc/NetworkManager to /etc/network-manager.

Even if you keep the Binary name intact, you could still change the config dir /etc/ ... but I don't see for what purpose, that is to say, what reason is there for the process name to be a pretty name? It seems to want to be very important, but that is not in a user's interest.

Soon you'll have all sorts of programs vying for attention: no, look at meeeeee! I don't see where the pain would be.

Just use a semi-major release like 1.2.

It's shame no one in Gnome and KDE ever thought of a way to get better process info for a user in a user friendly way. You can say, could say, and might very well say, that it is nicer for a user to see NetworkManager and ModemManager in the process list when you hit ctrl-esc.

But Gnome has all these pretty names that are unrelated to the real process name. "File Browser" is actually called Nautilus, so any user is readily confused and made powerless.

But as a basic service that should not be as important as you are making it out to be (or that generally just shouldn't be of any more outstanding importance than all the rest of the system's processes or services) there is no point for it to be standing out.

So question: why /should/ the binary be user-pretty?

It's supposed to be a transparent, invisible system right. Not vying for attention and recognition.

If it considered itself less important, my life would be easier too ;-) !.

On 09/14/2015 04:44 PM, Dan Williams wrote:>
I happen to disagree, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. As
it stands, the official name is "NetworkManager", but distributions
apply their own packaging guidelines and some distributions disallow
CamelCase names, but certainly not all Linux distributions. So
distributions that choose to allow only lower-case names will then
obviously create confusion between the package name and the project


But I don't see why the Project Name could not be simply different from the config-dir-name and the binary-name.

I mean, just because e.g. the name for Kubuntu is capital Kubuntu, doesn't mean all packages with Kubuntu in it should also be init cap.

It would pretty much create a visual nightmare. You're just apparently trying to stand out, but if everyone (and everything) did that you'd just get a race for attention. Where everyone is trying to top all the other projects.

The main reason is simply also that because (or because) many systems are case sensitive. You get usability nightmares. How to remember which package or process name or directory tree is capitalized and which is not?

And typing capitals is tiresome anyway. There is a reason they invented caps lock ;-).

openSUSE does allow and invite caps in packages. The current result is that when a package list is sorted alphabetically, the ones that start with an initial cap, end up in front.

The only reason it works well for "openSUSE" is because it does not start with an initial cap.

Also for the package names it is just ugly, but all the same, as soon as case sensitivity doesn't matter it is not so much an issue anymore.

In a command line shell you will just never learn or remember to write Ne.... instead of ne......

So you could easily keep packages and even the Binary as NetworkManager

but change the /etc/... to network-manager. No matter how incongruent that would be.


I would change both binary and config dir to lowercase.
I would keep all end-user representation as NetworkManager (but it is nowhere to be seen, being "invisible").

If your thing is invisible, why should it stand out?.

I would keep your internet name and project name as NetworkManager.

I would invite packagers to keep using NetworkManager if they wish to (doesn't happen in Debian). I would keep your config script/file as NetworkManager.conf.

If I had a say in my system I would never allow it to use capital names....


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]