On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 07:10:25PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 10:52:11PM +0000, Wulfy wrote: > > Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > > >Of course, some things simply cannot be done without a GUI. Or at least > > >they cannot be done efficiently. > > > I've seen people before say that there are things that can't be done in > > a GUI, but most of the GUIs seem to be crippled in one way or another > > that is not inherent in their "GUIness". > > > > Can you give me an example of something that can't be done (even if only > > efficiently) in a properly written GUI with a working X Window System? I > > accept that X may have to be restarted after the action. > > I think the question got turned around. I don't doubt that it is > possible to make a GUI do anything that a text-mode app can do; it may > even be possible to do it as securely. > > What I'm curious about is Roberto's claim that "some things cannot be > done without a GUI..." > > Like what? Limit it to things that need to be done with somewhat-root > privilages (i.e. not viewing the night sky). > > I'm really interested in this. If there's something that root has to do > that requires a GUI and hense requires X, then I better start writing a > non-GUI app to do it. > Sorry. My statement was not meant to imply that there is anything that requires root priviledges *and* a GUI (other than brain-dead things like the Oracle installer). Just that some productive tasks are impossible or nearly so without a GUI. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature