What is on Your Mind?

Hello

Couldnt think of a better place than "What is on your Mind".

So me have that project https://www.unix.com/shell-programmin...k-scripts.html.

Eventhough i tried to describe it well in its thread and its README.md on github, i've been asked what for it is.
Where i already fail to understand why "a line based Text User Interface for scripts" isnt a good description???
To me that question sounds like: "What is the command 'echo' and 'printf' good for?"

What i'd like to get, if you already tried out, is feedback to keep improving it.

Reason i'm asking is, i have one feedback telling me how easy it is to apply, and one feedback telling me its all but natural or easy approach and that he wouldnt know how to start or use it.
Beeing asked what they liked or dislike, neither of them replied.

Now, having only 2 feedbacks which are quite opposite to eachother and beeing left alone when trying to get more details from those 2 guys, i feel the urge to ask here.

Actualy I have two questions, for either of which i hope you already did at least try TUI.
A last 'question'.
If you have TUI installed, please post your system here, and if some commands giving trouble - name them, so i'd know which files need to be fixed for which systems.
As obvious visible some errors might look, on another system they may not occour at all.

I start figuring, the hardest part to contribute one owns project to "the community" is to get a large enough 'range/amount' of people using it, so feedbacks/requres/suggestions/errors are reported back 'automaticly'.

And to have the proper description, to attract only those who can handle it.
(As in: It makes no sense to have the bank accountant using Photoshop CS3000 (idk, wc), and the artist to use the latest Abacus)

Any advice/feedback?
Thank you in advance.

I haven't tried it before, here's my thoughts on the installation process:

1) I find it ironic that I must edit a config file to get a text UI installed where I want it to.

2) It's disquieting that it would default to installing in /usr/ and have no easy way to change it.

Perhaps it could accept a PREFIX like ./configure does, and default it to /usr/local ? This is not what everyone would want, but could prevent big problems in the future, and would be much easier to change than editing 8 different lines.

Code:

        app=tui

        [ -f install.sh ] || cd "$(dirname "$0")"

        if [ -z "$PREFIX" ]
        then
                echo "You have not specified a PREFIX, so $app will install in /usr/local ." >&2
                echo "This is probably not what you want.  Run PREFIX=/usr $0 to install in standard paths." >&2
                PREFIX="/usr/local/"
        fi

        DIR_BIN="$PREFIX/bin"
        # Default paths:
        DIR_COMPL="/etc/bash_completion.d"
        DIR_APP=$PREFIX/share/$app
        DIR_CFG=/etc/$app
        DIR_DOC=$PREFIX/share/doc/$app
        DIR_MAN1=$PREFIX/share/man/man1
        DIR_TPL=$DIR_APP/templates

Thank you Corona.
That is one of the points why i'm asking, on RedHat based systems, these paths are the system defaults and are used by the packaging system (rpm) too.

Might i ask what system you are using / did install TUI on?

Note to self:
Need to store the PREFIX from within the installation script, and reuse it for those installed command rely on "/usr/share/$app/*".

My Gentoo system uses /usr too, which is kind of the issue -- I want to do a temporary installation, not a root installation. I want to easily differentiate between things I've installed with emerge and things I've installed by hand.

When you install via RPM, emerge, or whatever other official package manager, /usr is normal. When you install from source, by hand, /usr/local/ is normal (and much easier to clean up should anything go wrong.)

Did anyone try with the updated install.sh script yet?
Or did experience any unexpected behaviour (bugs/errors, help 'screen' outputs) otherwise?

Thank you

I have yet to try your package but this caught my attention:

A line based Text User Interface for scripts is indeed sounding like "printf and echo" and many might ask why, with "echo" and "printf" at hand, they should use this instead. How about finding a title which reflects what sets the package apart from these standard instruments of output? Something like (ok, i admit this is not meant seriously, but i can't resist):

The blinking underlined coloured flashing eye-catching script-library of doom!

bakunin

Getting your point.
Seems the strive for a the best descriptional title was counter-productive.

But i'm a bit confused...
I mean, ncruses its short-description is: "Ncurses support utilities"
And to be honest, the full package description is beyond my understanding, regarding that i understand this to be a 'cli 3d window' environment kind of thing...
Saying: I would not expect this behind such a description.
Please correct me if i'm wrong.

Some ideas:
Simple-Description: "Text User Interface - framework for script"
Hyper-Enthusiast-Selling: "TUI - A scripters heaven"
Realist: "TUI - tools for scripters

Catch-phrase-attempt: "TUI :: Why Code & Compile when you can Script & Run."

Otherwise, only similar ideas such as yours come to mind

Have a nice weekend