[forgotpwd16]

>and it probably also annoys all the other users who are accustomed to using typical GUI preference windows accessed through the menus to change their configuration

How is this a problem with dconf? GNOME Settings for example is typical GUI preferences and works as a front-end to the dconf database.

[MichaelCollins]

Last time I tried to use it, "GNOME Settings" (or whatever it was calling then) was woefully incomplete and I had to figure out that dconf-editor existed (which wasn't in the menus.)

Same problem with Firefox; hamburger->settings will take you to a GUI that contains maybe 0.01% of all the settings Firefox actually has. You have to be "in the know" to know that about:config exists. I think the first time most firefox users find out about about:config is when they're angrily searching the web for a solution to their problems, which is basically how I discovered dconf-editor too. You don't find either of these by searching through the GUIs like a normal computer user, nor will you find them by poking around in your dotfiles like a seasoned console jockey.

[sillystuff]

And, once you have more than a trivial number of changes in about:config, you search for something that will allow you to have sane configuration management, and discover, the 'user.js' file.

Any setting in about:config can be set in user.js and your user.js file can be diffed, grepped, version controlled, edited with your favorite editor, and copied between profiles/machines.

Sadly, Mozilla is moving a lot of config out of about:config/user.js and into multiple random sqlite files, so sane config management is getting harder with each new release.

[enduser]

It's not exactly a feature to have several layers of abstraction, when a text editor could suffice.

[overlisted]

Unix will never to achieve true user-friendliness and wide adoption if we treat settings like this. The reality is that most people need a graphical, hard to break way of changing their settings to use your software.

Edit: Although I agree that some situations may require a readable text format, like a dotfiles repo. I personally use the `dconf-editor` program to find the right keys and the `dconf load` command to sync them from a regedit-like file format

[umanwizard]

> Unix will never to achieve true user-friendliness and wide adoption if we treat settings like this.

I don't care. They can use OSes designed for their needs, like macOS and Windows.

Not sure why there is such a persistent idea that "everyone using Linux, including entirely non-technical users who just want an appliance" is actually a desirable or realistic goal.

[GekkePrutser]

Agreed.

And the funny thing is that everyone does use Unix. Everyone with a smartphone does as both iOS and Android are derivatives of Unix-OSes (Darwin and Linux). Only Fuchsia will be truly non Unix. If it ever makes it out the door.

However those mobile OSes (or ChromeOS) are of course not what we're talking about when we say we love Unix. The same will happen if Linux ever makes it mainstream. Consumers might love it but we won't. I'm happy for it to stay a niche thing. My niche.

[pxc]

I recently disabled a service from running upon user login on a Windows PC, with a commitment to doing it in a way that can be automated and stored in source control.

I had to check literally more than a dozen locations in the registry (some in different hives) just to see where the thing was actually set to autoload. I then had to create new keys in still another location whose type was simply arbitrary binary data, and the only way to determine what actual value was needed there was to examine the registry before and after disabling and then reenabling the startup profile in the GUI.

The Windows registry is an absolute fucking shitshow, and it's a big part of the reason that the OS is inherently hostile to automation. The inherent invisibility of the registry and the systematic underdocumentation of registry schemas for applications and OS components makes figuring out how to do anything in a repeatable way a fucking quest.

> I personally use the `dconf-editor` program to find the right keys

For GUI applications, config files are often undocumented anyway. But to me having to run an application and see how it messes with its configuration in some database when you click buttons is an insane way to figure out how settings are declared or stored. I would so much rather the configuration format be plaintext and documented than be expected to reverse engineer my apps' friggin' config files!

[jrockway]

It might not actually matter. Reboot Windows. Sound starts playing out of your monitor, which you didn't even know had speakers. How do you fix it?

(The answer is not to type "sound" into the search bar. That takes you to the "new" sound control panel, which doesn't have all the old features, including disabling sound devices. So you have to open the control panel, go to Devices & Sound, and then you can search around to disable a device.)

The fundamental difference between Windows and Linux here is that if you write an instructional blog post to fix this problem for Windows, you can put some drive-by malware installer on it and make some money. You could obviously malware up similar Linux documentation, but by the time you get discovered you will have only infected 1 person, simply because it's much less widely used. Unfortunate!

[likeclockwork]

Plenty of users find editing configs in a text editor very friendly. Changing away from that would be LESS friendly to those users. Which users are most important to be friendly to?

[kevin_thibedeau]

I find text configs very friendly up until the point that a package manager blows away my changes. This system harks from an era before fully automated software updates when a full time employed sysadmin was expected to manually oversee every single update. It's far easier to automate incremental changes to a binary database than to non-destructively modify a free form text file.

[pxc]

> I find text configs very friendly up until the point that a package manager blows away my changes.

Neither of these is a complete answer, but

1. Distros like NixOS and GuixSD address this successfully by emitting the config files themselves. They don't statefully edit your configs but instead store them in their own language and then translate them as wholes.

2. You can mitigate much of the pain of this with something like etckeeper, which essentially gives you version control for /etc.

[stormking]

The problem here are UI designers who adore Apple but cannot afford a Macbook. So they target the Linux desktop.

[thayne]

There's no reason you can't have both. KDE for example does a pretty good job of having GUIs to edit config, but that config is stored in human editable text files.

[pessimizer]

> Unix will never to achieve true user-friendliness and wide adoption if we treat settings like this.

You're responding to complaints that settings done this way are user-hostile, opaque, and require a ton of insider knowledge to even find. So if the only goal is user-friendliness, we're moving away from it, not towards it.

[Quekid5]

That text file and your editor is two layers of abstraction (at least, because there's parsing involved, e.g. how to i specify timouts? sizes? Can I use "MiB", "s", "ms", etc?).

The thing we want to optimize for is "how easy is to change a setting". Firefox's "about:" seems like a reasonable approach for expert users.

[pessimizer]

> how to i specify timouts? sizes? Can I use "MiB", "s", "ms", etc?

These issues neither disappear nor improve when you hide the settings in a mystery binary.

[Quekid5]

I agree, which is why I mentioned the "about:" thing.

It would be nice to have a base level of types that all programs could agree on.

[nequo]

But the abstraction that is the text editor is shared across many programs. You can use your favorite text editor to edit any of the plain-text configs that you need. Firefox’s about: and the way to edit it are specific to Firefox.

[Quekid5]

Well, yes, but we were imagining a world with a sort of universal "about:", I think?

You wouldn't even need that many basic types to cover about 90%+ of the state space. Of course, there would be bonus points if applications could define their own types in a UI-meaningful way.