> Assume I want to enable the VLAN I just created.
> Assume that the VLAN is for my LAN port.
> Assume I want to create a static IP range for it where the tag number is the third octet (e.g. 192.168.10.0/24).
> Assume that I want to enable DHCP and use all available IPs in the /24.
>I’m happy for all the other options to be under an “Advanced” section, but why not just use sensible defaults?
How is this very specific usecase a 'sensible default' flow for everyone?
I strongly disagree with every one of these assumptions and I can think of several usecases where none of these make sense.
I think the interface is generic because it has to be. One person's usecase (as in OP's case) might be completely different to someone else's.
What they could do though, is have screens specifically for executing common flows together like what they describe, but IMO in no way should it be the only way to do those things, nor should it be assumed that everyone wants to do it that way.
ranger_danger•2mo ago
> Assume I want to enable the VLAN I just created.
> Assume that the VLAN is for my LAN port.
> Assume I want to create a static IP range for it where the tag number is the third octet (e.g. 192.168.10.0/24).
> Assume that I want to enable DHCP and use all available IPs in the /24.
>I’m happy for all the other options to be under an “Advanced” section, but why not just use sensible defaults?
How is this very specific usecase a 'sensible default' flow for everyone?
I strongly disagree with every one of these assumptions and I can think of several usecases where none of these make sense.
I think the interface is generic because it has to be. One person's usecase (as in OP's case) might be completely different to someone else's.
What they could do though, is have screens specifically for executing common flows together like what they describe, but IMO in no way should it be the only way to do those things, nor should it be assumed that everyone wants to do it that way.