Bug 136725
Summary: | Overcomplex NTP configuration | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Owen Taylor <otaylor> |
Component: | system-config-date | Assignee: | Nils Philippsen <nphilipp> |
Status: | CLOSED WORKSFORME | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | snickell |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2005-10-12 12:24:06 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Owen Taylor
2004-10-21 22:09:35 UTC
[ ACK, the code is from s-c-date ] NTP configuration _is_ overly complex ;-). - "Use Local Time Source": this is if you have a locally attached authoritative time source (a "reference clock" in NTP documentation jargon), like an RF time receiver, and you want to use that. It puts "server 127.127.1.0" into ntp.conf - "Enable NTP broadcast": Broadcast for an NTP server on the local subnet(s), puts "broadcastclient" into ntp.conf I agree that these options warrant tooltips/help/some mor guidance for the user not knowing about NTP. I could also hide these behind some "Show advanced options" though you probably don't want that as well ;-). The problem is that when we disallow access to these options completely, people start to ask questions why it's in s-c-date and not in firstboot. Regarding multiple servers and how they're configured: Trust me, the code is less complex (and buggy, hopefully) than it was when you could only configure one and it had to deal with e.g. admins configuring multiple servers manually in ntp.conf. Doing it like in gnome-keyboard-properties isn't quite feasible because the user needs to be able to add his local NTP server to the list. Having an extra entry line to add these would be even more complex than what we have now. If youhave an idea how to do this differently without losing functionality, I'd like to know. Perhaps putting the first entry into the list when the user enables NTP would be a starter? If NTP configuration really was overly complex, it wouldn't belong in firstboot. But the reason it does belong there is: - Simple configurations work for most users. If I recall correctly, XP enables it by default pointed to a MS server. I've been told that OS X, it's off by default by default but one click to configure. - It really is a big win for the user. But you are saying that "NTP configuration is complex" because: - Users might have a locally attached authoritative time source. (0.1%, 0.01%?) - The user might have a NTP broadcasting server on the network (if they have a sysadmin to set that up, they probably have a sysadmin to kickstart their box...) - The user might want to set up multiple upstream servers (for better robustness? to improve accuracy by a couple of milliseconds) I'm not happy about having this complexity in s-c-d, but it basically doesn't hurt a lot, because the user running s-c-d says "I care about my date/time". But in firstboot the user basically is being asked to figure out what a authoritative time source is before they can log into their shiny new OS the first time. I don't see any reason to worry about questions people ask why things are in s-c-date and not in firstboot. The answer is simple: "The purpose of firstboot is to set up a machine to be usable; putting every possible option in it isn't possible" About the multiple servers questions - generally we've found that [ Controls configuring item ] + [ list of items ] + Add is a confusing combination of controls. What we've traditionally done in GNOME is to have Add fire up a separate dialog. Really, probably the best way forward here for FC4 to RHEL5 is to work with the UI folks to come up with designs for the firstboot and s-c-d. Hmm, what about: Don't show these options in firstboot or hide them behind "Show more/advanced/complex configuration options". Should be doable and the backend code is ready for this, as if it is already configured, it leaves the option in place. If the corresponding UI widget is hidden, it should still leave an option set in place. I'm a bit confused about "What we've traditionally done in GNOME is to have Add fire up a separate dialog" -- how does that fit within your former example of gnome-keyboard-properties, i.e.: Selected options: Available options: Option 1 Add Option 3 Option 2 Remove Option 4 (I've left out Up and Down buttons, I don't think they're needed in the context of NTP). One idea would be to have a New button which inserts a new line in "Selected Options", similar to adding a new folder in Nautilus or the new file selector. What do you think? I've added tooltips for the options in CVS so users have at least an idea what they mean: BTW I'm still waiting on feedback on hiding the more esoteric options as well as the redesign of the NTP server list/interface. My tendency for firstboot would not be to show them at all. Though the multiple server bit is likely harder to deal with that way. What I'd probably do for that would be to allow only a single server in firstboot, unless the ntp.conf *already* has multiple servers in it. (Which is a weird edge case.) I was making an alternate suggestion for the server selection based on the feedback that the keyboard-properties style didn't work. For infrenquently used controls (and how often do people configure ntp?) clarity is a lot more important than speed. So, that's basically why I'm suggesting the separate-dialog style. There is no ambiguity in how you interact with it - it's immediately obvious. Owen and Seth, please take a look at current system-config-date (1.7.99.0). While this doesn't address your problem with multiple NTP servers, I think the interface is more in line with what we have elsewhere, i.e. instead of text entry -> add button -> list gets extended we have only the add button which doesn't pop up dialog but inserts a new entry labeled "New NTP server" which gets selected to be subsequently edited by the user (very much like the file chooser or nautilus IMO). Please let me know what you think. No answer is still an answer ;-). Closing due to inactivity. |