Re: LILO 21.6-2
On Saturday 06 January 2001 16:22, Chris Rutter wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
> > You don't have sym-links to the root directory? Why not?
>
> There's absolutely no need or necessarily a desire to do so; besides
> which, the point is moot: if you're in the automation arena, you'll
> notice that kernel-package no longer produces them.
OK, done that.
> Trying to create a GUI interface to something with the free-formality
> and complexity of lilo.conf, even totally disregarding the idea of
> trying to allow interoperation between a human editor and your
> configurator, is /seriously hard/ to achieve plausibly.
Generating files that satisfy 99% of all users is quite achievable. Having
an option to allow the other 1% to edit the files by hand should satisfy
everyone.
> * human prefers editing all files by hand, beautifully laid out in every
> typographical sense;
>
> * your configurator generates a perfectly adequate file, and human has
> no desire nor understanding to ever modify it in any way;
>
> * your configurator is not advanced enough to cater for the user's needs;
> not even close;
>
> * your configurator generates a file that's /almost perfect/, but just
> needs one or two tiny tweaks (like adding `lba32', say) -- human wants
> to use your program to do the hard work but preserve the tweaks.
>
> You could perhaps model this by offering a few options during the postinst:
>
> 1) ignore lilo.conf and never touch it again, leaving it all to the human;
>
> 2) generate a template file in /etc/lilo.conf.template, and then switch
> back to mode (1);
>
> 3) generate the master file, /etc/lilo.conf.
1 is done.
2 will be done as soon as I figure out how.
What exactly do you mean by 3?
> the other slightly easier and simpler examples of this sort of thing,
> and for the time being, it might be better avoided, or at least /not/
> shoved in people's faces as it now is: never the best way to endear
> people to your work [viz. M$].
The comparison with MS is unfair. MS don't do public betas and what they
deign to give you is what you have to use. Software in unstable is a public
beta. Which features of the public beta go into production is dependant on
input from users. I've been discussing these issues with more than 20 people
and my latest package solves almost all the issues that have been discussed
(the next one will solve all of them).
--
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: