The pfSense Store

Author Topic: ER: less cutesy names, more to the point...  (Read 4009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rcfa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
ER: less cutesy names, more to the point...
« on: March 31, 2011, 06:01:55 pm »
Tons of openSource (and other) projects have cutesy, catchy names usually derived from some acronym.

That's fine for the project, but useless for the user.

If I'm looking for DNS settings, do I really need to have a degree in openSource trivia to know that Unbound is the place to look for it?

If I want to fix settings in the http proxy, do I really care to know that it's squid I'm using?

You get the idea: it's sometimes obnoxiously difficult to find the things one needs, because packages, services, settings menus, etc. are all named after the project, rather than after what they do.

e.g. PostfixForwarder should be an SMTP Forwarder/Proxy
e.g. Status > OpenVPN should be Status > VPN (OpenVPN) and
      Status > IPSec should be Status > VPN (IPSec)

Because things are not named by what they are, but simply after the project, or slightly better after the protocol, and then sorted alphabetically, related things can be at opposite ends of the menu list.

Think about it: if you go to a restaurant, are the food and drinks mixed up and then listed in alphabetical order? Or do you have a category with soups, appetizers, etc. and then maybe sub-categories e.g. beef, chicken, fish, and vegetarian?

It's likely much too late to do this for the 2.0 release, but I think the way things are named and sorted in the menus and package lists should be changed.

Offline rpsmith

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ER: less cutesy names, more to the point...
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2011, 06:09:56 pm »
+1

I couldn't agree more!

Roy...

Offline fableman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ER: less cutesy names, more to the point...
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2011, 03:16:00 am »
+1

Layout and feeling is very important to get a professinal look and feeling.




Most speed test sites got problems with 1/1Gbit FTTH

Offline SteveB

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ER: less cutesy names, more to the point...
« Reply #3 on: April 01, 2011, 11:24:13 pm »
+1

Nothing is obvious to the uninformed.

Offline submicron

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 741
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • I like pie!
    • View Profile
    • BSDPerimeter
Re: ER: less cutesy names, more to the point...
« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2011, 01:46:13 am »
At the end of the day, there are multiple tools which perform the same tasks.  If you're going to install some extra software on a firewall, its a good idea to know exactly what's being installed.  Being an IT professional is constantly learning. 
I do not respond to PMs demanding help.

Offline rcfa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ER: less cutesy names, more to the point...
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2011, 02:11:35 am »
At the end of the day, there are multiple tools which perform the same tasks.  If you're going to install some extra software on a firewall, its a good idea to know exactly what's being installed.  Being an IT professional is constantly learning. 

There are other ways of communicating this. e.g. instead of having a package called "squid" you could have a package called "proxy.http (squid)"
You could also have a "proxy.sip (whatever)" and a "proxy.ftp (yaddayadda)"

At the end, when things are sorted, proxies are all in sequence, listed by protocol. You can also get rid of the "(something)" and have the name of the package in the description, and in the title of the parameter editing page.
Having a menu and package structure that's oriented by the function of items doesn't mean one can't detail what it is that does fulfill that function.

If I go out dating, I'm not looking for Mary, I'm looking for a chick I dig. If she happens to be called Mary, so be it, and if I end up hooking up with her, of course I'll remember and want to know her name. But that doesn't mean I'm going to search for Mary when I start out with this quest.

The package and menu structure are about searching her, not about already knowing her, so when I look for an http proxy, I don't care what it is, because pfSense uses what it uses, take it or leave it. It's not like I have the choice between a dozen of different web proxies or IDP software packages. It's squid and snort, but regardless of that, I want to search by function not by name. Think "single white female no kids mid-20s" not "Mary"

Hey, it's Friday night, what do you expect me to write at this time? ;)

Offline Supermule

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1494
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Re: ER: less cutesy names, more to the point...
« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2011, 02:43:43 am »
I couldnt agree more. I have raised the exact same question without answers...
Kind regards Brian


Offline Brawndo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ER: less cutesy names, more to the point...
« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2011, 11:48:23 am »
+1 I think this suggestion would definitely improve the interface, as well as helping user become familiar with what the packages actually do. When I see the project name next to the description of what it actually does, a mental association is created. Exploring all the neat little open source apps can be fun and interesting when you're at your comfortable desk and not under any time constraints, but when you're in a noisy uncomfortable datacenter trying to make something work at 3am, utility is virtue that is greatly appreciated.

Offline submicron

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 741
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • I like pie!
    • View Profile
    • BSDPerimeter
Re: ER: less cutesy names, more to the point...
« Reply #8 on: April 02, 2011, 04:07:24 pm »
So you're saying you feel more comfortable installing apps you don't understand into production as long as they're named a certain way?
I do not respond to PMs demanding help.

Offline Cry Havok

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Backup: n. What you should have done yesterday.
    • View Profile
Re: ER: less cutesy names, more to the point...
« Reply #9 on: April 02, 2011, 05:33:44 pm »
I can see the point - a standard naming convention makes it much easier to manage an unfamiliar platform. I don't think the package names need to be removed, but the menu structure would benefit from a more standard naming convention (function, not package name).
If you're planning on PMing me to ask me to look at a thread, or for individual support, don't.

Offline sporkme

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ER: less cutesy names, more to the point...
« Reply #10 on: April 02, 2011, 06:43:17 pm »
So you're saying you feel more comfortable installing apps you don't understand into production as long as they're named a certain way?

I think you're arguing that by making it more difficult, this will somehow stop the uninformed from using/breaking pfSense.  That is a futile battle.  They will still wander into the forums asking questions.

+1 for convenience/clarity for all users

Offline submicron

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 741
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • I like pie!
    • View Profile
    • BSDPerimeter
Re: ER: less cutesy names, more to the point...
« Reply #11 on: April 02, 2011, 10:03:24 pm »
Nope, I'm arguing that people who can't spend a little time with Google to understand the tools they're using, probably shouldn't be installing/configuring a firewall.  Similarly, I wouldn't want a mechanic to install brake pads on my car if they couldn't be bothered to look in the manual and understand how its intended to be installed properly.  Making some arbitrary naming scheme to indicate the function of a package (especially when there is already a description) isn't really going to fix the actual problem.
I do not respond to PMs demanding help.

Offline rcfa

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ER: less cutesy names, more to the point...
« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2011, 03:11:15 am »
Nope, I'm arguing that people who can't spend a little time with Google to understand the tools they're using, probably shouldn't be installing/configuring a firewall.  Similarly, I wouldn't want a mechanic to install brake pads on my car if they couldn't be bothered to look in the manual and understand how its intended to be installed properly.  Making some arbitrary naming scheme to indicate the function of a package (especially when there is already a description) isn't really going to fix the actual problem.

You really miss the point here. I ask for pfSense to refer to "high-performance, street-legal racing brake pads of dimension X" while currently it refers to "ECB yellow-stuff for souped up ricer".

Now if you waste your time, you can look up and realize that ECB yellow-stuff indeed are such brake pads, and you may learn that ricer and souped-up have a certain connotation in specific circles of car enthusiasts, but things should be named by their generic function and not by some cutesy project name or some unofficial insider slang.

After all, I'm not asking to have "http" to be renamed into "a universal means of getting some sort of information from the information superhighway", but I'm asking for an "http proxy" to be called "http proxy" rather than "squid" or "diapers" or whatever stupid/cutesy name a developer may give his baby.

PS: if you just started to google diapers trying to figure out what project I was referring to: it's a project I just started, which consists of zero lines of code and is used by nobody, but I can assure you it's an http proxy, and surely you know about it, right? Anyway, now you know why I don't care about squid, but I do care about an http-proxy. If it's squid, apache, etc. is utterly irrelevant except on the copyright page or some footnote. Because pfSense uses what it uses, and I configure it from a web interface, so it's not like I need to know about specific config files that are software specific.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 04:54:56 am by rcfa »

Offline Cry Havok

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Backup: n. What you should have done yesterday.
    • View Profile
Re: ER: less cutesy names, more to the point...
« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2011, 03:53:51 am »
As well, there will be people who have to support pfSense boxes others have built. By having a standard naming convention/menu structure that abstracts out package names it makes it easier for those folks.
If you're planning on PMing me to ask me to look at a thread, or for individual support, don't.

Offline Supermule

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1494
  • Karma: +2/-1
    • View Profile
Re: ER: less cutesy names, more to the point...
« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2011, 04:03:20 am »
Exactly Mr. Havok! ;)

Couldnt have said it better :)

As well, there will be people who have to support pfSense boxes others have built. By having a standard naming convention/menu structure that abstracts out package names it makes it easier for those folks.
Kind regards Brian