[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: About using Linuxconf



On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Shaya Potter wrote:

> 
> However, if you don't like this, this shouldn't preclude using 
> linuxconf.  I think it is set up to use the sysv scripts that are already 
> on the system.  

That's good.  Many people already maintain other systems with
SysV init style start ups and its a familiar way to administer
*nix systems.  Having to learn how to parse dropin files (such as
the example you posted) and make sense of them _outside of
linuxconf_ so that the system is maintainable _without it_ is a
problem.  Basically, an admin tool should be a front end to the
underlying (whatever the underlying is).  That way, you can use
the tool or not and still be using the same configurations, etc.  

> 
> I didn't understand what you meant by it being harder to 
> maintain/administer the system w/o the utility.  It is just as much a 
> utility as sysvinit is a utility.  From what I understand it in reality 
> is like a replacement init.  The utility part is just that it makes the 
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's a problem.

> system easier to configure (using the methods I mentioned b/4).  Also it 
> should be, IMHO, just as easy to administer the dropins as the scripts 
> are now.  It even might be easier b/c lets say I change a file that 
> inetd uses.  Linuxconf will realize this (if the dropin says to monitor 
> that file) and restart inetd automatically.  IMHO, this will Debian much 
> easier for new users to unix to use.

It needs to to that without making it harder for experienced unix
users to administer with their bare hands (without linuxconf).
Relying on init to start the run level specific programs and the
rc.d stuff is the way it is on many other systems.  replacing
that with linuxconf does what I said earlier -- distances linux
(in this case debian) from mainstream unices.  Having linuxconf
work in conjunction with the SysV init startup is fine as long as
linuxconf doesn't do anything at all unless you (the
sysadmin) tell it to.  I still think that making it available as
a .deb is fine in any case.

> 
> I thought one of our goals is to be the easiest distribution to use, and 
> I think this tool/program would make our system many more times easier to 
> use.

This is a good goal.  Unfortunately, making linux easy to use is
quite complicated :-)  Linuxconf might be the way to go, but only
if it offers the ability to not have to rely on it.  The power of
*nix is in its configurability.  This is also the source of much
of its complexity.  The trick is to have a tool that makes it
easier to configure without making it more difficult to configure
the old fashion way.  The last thing I want is "the Linux
Registry".  Not unless its going to be NT compatable ;-)

Thanks

Richard G. Roberto
richr@bear.com
011-81-3-3437-7967 - Tokyo, Japan


--
*******************************************************************************
Bear Stearns is not responsible for any recommendation, solicitation, offer or
agreement or any information about any transaction, customer account or account
activity contained in this communication.
*******************************************************************************


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com


Reply to: