CLI Database - Beta 2

Discuss anything related to command line tools here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2663
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

CLI Database - Beta 2

#1 Post by Andrew Lee » Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:04 pm

I am thinking of cleaning up the CLI DB a bit now that we've had spent more time with it. Here are some things off the top of my head:

- Get rid of fields that are not very applicable to CLIs. Specifically, I am thinking of:
  • Icon
  • Screenshot
  • Write settings to (assume CLIs are portable)
  • Runs on (assume runs under Windows 7 and above. Exceptions can be specified in description)
  • Path portability (can't think of anyCLIs having issue with this)
  • Stealth (non-stealth should be the rare exception, since CLIs should get their settings from input arguments or settings file)
- Replace screenshot with optional usage format eg. youtubedl <url>

- 1 download field instead of 2 (32-bit, 64-bit)

- Change background color and formatting to distinguish CLI site from main site. Currently the 2 looks too similar.

- Get rid of parent-child feature.

- Get rid of these status flags: Collection, Package, Tool, Unix, Port, Discontinued.

- Do we even need the Adware status flag for CLIs?

- Replace categories and additional features with tags (use cases).

That's all I have for now. As always, please leave your comment and feedback!

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 5952
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: CLI Database - Beta 2

#2 Post by Midas » Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:47 am

Most of these are fine, IMHO. I just want to make a couple of remarks.

I fear the deprecation of so many portability related infobits in creating/maintaining CLI database entries will de-sensitize users to the need to actively look for the system traces they may carry -- after all, there's nothing preventing CLI tools from incurring in the same bad practices of some GUI development.

Same goes for the Adware flag: it's real easy for an innocent enough CLI to go online and drop some form of executable/script that will start displaying ads without the user consent. I recall some program induced changes made to Firefox links that would result precisely in this and the problem is prevalent enough on mobile devices to be a major concern.

And that's about it.

billon
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:28 pm

Re: CLI Database - Beta 2

#3 Post by billon » Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:54 am

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO and NO
From the very beginning I strongly believed that CLI DB should be exactly like the regular DB but CLI
But with the obvious connivance of others, it turned into indistinct crap
Now you want to make it even more indistinct crap
Nobody need such "DB", absolutely nobody
Andrew Lee wrote:
Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:04 pm
to distinguish CLI site from main site. Currently the 2 looks too similar
That's the main point, they should looks absolutely similar

I strongly disagree with every your idea

Specular
Posts: 434
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: CLI Database - Beta 2

#4 Post by Specular » Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:34 am

billon wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:54 am
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO and NO

But with the obvious connivance of others, it turned into indistinct crap

I strongly disagree with every your idea
Some of the points are to roll back features introduced that I'm pretty sure you were against... :P

In terms of replacing screenshots with usage examples that seems reasonable. CLI programs are about feeding arguments, after all and few differ in appearance or have dedicated text-based UIs (TUI).

Icons is I suppose debatable, in that in some instances CLI programs do have icons (eg: ImageMagick) it's just that in use they're typically intended to be run via a system console such as CMD.exe/Powershell which never displays the icon of the running program and so their icons don't share the same visibility as GUI programs.

With Writes settings to/Path portability, they're maybe okay to remove? An outlier that comes to mind is youtube-dl's config file which, although optional and not necessary to use the program, is nevertheless expected to be in a fixed, non-portable location (the root user directory) unless the user inserts a different config path into every command they use with the program (see: its topic on this forum). Maybe others have examples of CLI programs writing/expecting settings outside the application dir.

Stealth is probably a field worth keeping since some programs do create files/directories (automatically) outside of the application/working/temp directories (eg: youtube-dl which stores cache files in the root user directory). That said, by-and-large CLI programs ime tend to behave as expected in terms of file creation locations.

Download I have no real strong thoughts on except that CLI programs often still offer both 32 and 64 bit versions so it just depends whether the reduction to a single link is for time saving/entry maintenance purposes.

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2663
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: CLI Database - Beta 2

#5 Post by Andrew Lee » Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:21 am

I fear the deprecation of so many portability related infobits in creating/maintaining CLI database entries will de-sensitize users to the need to actively look for the system traces they may carry -- after all, there's nothing preventing CLI tools from incurring in the same bad practices of some GUI development.
I have an entire directory full of CLIs (just like I have another directory full of portable GUIs) that I have collected over the years. I don't remember ever having to deal with portability issues. The main issue I have had to deal with is not being able to run some of them as I migrated upwards, but even that is quite rare.

I would suggest excluding CLIs that are 1) not portable 2) adware from the DB. The "stealth" field (discussed below) will hopefully help take care of the "system traces" bit.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO and NO
From the very beginning I strongly believed that CLI DB should be exactly like the regular DB but CLI
But with the obvious connivance of others, it turned into indistinct crap
Now you want to make it even more indistinct crap
Nobody need such "DB", absolutely nobody
Haha! OK, OK. If you let me remove the icon and screenshot, maybe that will give enough visual cues to differentiate between GUIs and CLIs, which is what's bothering me now. When I look at the page, short of either looking at the URL or inferring by the app names, I can't tell whether I am on the GUI or CLI site at a glance.
Some of the points are to roll back features introduced that I'm pretty sure you were against... :P
Astute observation :lol:
With Writes settings to/Path portability, they're maybe okay to remove? An outlier that comes to mind is youtube-dl's config file which, although optional and not necessary to use the program, is nevertheless expected to be in a fixed, non-portable location (the root user directory) unless the user inserts a different config path into every command they use with the program (see: its topic on this forum). Maybe others have examples of CLI programs writing/expecting settings outside the application dir.
Exactly. I have never come across any problems with CLI portability. Settings are either supplied via command line or stored in a text-based settings file somewhere, and the latter could be easily archived and migrated to a new system. Not so for the Windows registry.
Stealth is probably a field worth keeping since some programs do create files/directories (automatically) outside of the application/working/temp directories (eg: youtube-dl which stores cache files in the root user directory). That said, by-and-large CLI programs ime tend to behave as expected in terms of file creation locations.
I think you've got a point here. Noted with thanks!

billon
Posts: 844
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:28 pm

Re: CLI Database - Beta 2

#6 Post by billon » Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:37 am

why even ask if you have already decided everything
why you want to break more already broken "db" is mystery to me
all your latest ideas are insane
from my side i don't want to have absolutely anything with such castrated parody of a db

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 9915
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: CLI Database - Beta 2

#7 Post by webfork » Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:58 pm

billon wrote:
Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:37 am
from my side i don't want to have absolutely anything with such castrated parody of a db
Did someone suggest that you'd be responsible for the new website? I appreciate your efforts on the current database but I haven't seen anything around expectations of you to maintain whatever becomes of the eventual CLI site. It is entirely your prerogative what you want to volunteer on.

For example, I very rarely make any changes or updates to game entries or forum posts because I'm not much of a gamer. Nobody's ever asked me why I don't do improvements/cleanup on that content.
Last edited by webfork on Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: (added "for example" bit)

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2663
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: CLI Database - Beta 2

#8 Post by Andrew Lee » Thu Jan 28, 2021 4:43 am

billon wrote:
Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:37 am
why even ask if you have already decided everything
why you want to break more already broken "db" is mystery to me
all your latest ideas are insane
from my side i don't want to have absolutely anything with such castrated parody of a db
Not sure where you get the idea that I've already decided everything. I am just throwing out ideas to try to move the CLI DB forward.

I get it that you are having an emotional outburst, that's fine by me. The problem is that you are not giving me a clear idea of your position at all, other than my latest ideas are all insane (ALL? seriously?)

There are many possible options, for example:

- The CLI DB is a stupid idea, we should abandon it.

- The CLI DB should stay as it is, don't change it.

- We should make these changes to the CLI DB, not not make certain changes that I have suggested.

- I have even toyed with merging the main DB and CLI DB as a possibility. Not very high on my list, but I am just laying it out here.

- If you hate my latest experiment with solutions-based CLIs, don't worry, I am not planning to make it public. Only thing I got out of it so far is the suggestion to replace screenshots with command-line usage examples.

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 5952
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: CLI Database - Beta 2

#9 Post by Midas » Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:11 am

Well, looks like my esteemed colleague went on a strike to manifest his disagreement... :|

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2663
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: CLI Database - Beta 2

#10 Post by Andrew Lee » Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:15 am

Sigh.. I hope that's not true..

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 5952
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: CLI Database - Beta 2

#11 Post by Midas » Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:51 pm

Is it me or the CLI database is not hiding private entries by default?

BTW, while trying to come up with an easy check and control strategy, I got extremely disoriented by the havoc in the CLI database -- e.g., just look at that YORI entry... :o


Also, few entries link back to their respective forum topic.

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2663
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: CLI Database - Beta 2

#12 Post by Andrew Lee » Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:18 am

Midas wrote:
Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:51 pm
Is it me or the CLI database is not hiding private entries by default?
The full history of why it is can be found here.
Midas wrote:
Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:51 pm
BTW, while trying to come up with an easy check and control strategy, I got extremely disoriented by the havoc in the CLI database -- e.g., just look at that YORI entry... :o
Maybe hiding private entries would be a good start? :D

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 5952
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: CLI Database - Beta 2

#13 Post by Midas » Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:51 am

Andrew Lee wrote: Maybe hiding private entries would be a good start? :D

I for one completely agree. :!:

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2663
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: CLI Database - Beta 2

#14 Post by Andrew Lee » Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:25 am

Midas wrote:
Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:51 am
Andrew Lee wrote: Maybe hiding private entries would be a good start? :D
I for one completely agree. :!:
Done!

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 5952
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: CLI Database - Beta 2

#15 Post by Midas » Thu Feb 11, 2021 7:09 am

Good. But care to explain why is the cURL entry (https://cli.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=554) private despite having 15 votes?

Post Reply