Re: vpn and stuff

[Xen <list xenhideout nl>]

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.
>
> Thomas

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
> name.
>
> Dan


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.

Personally?....

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....

Anyway.