On Sun, May 31, 1998 at 12:03:05AM -0500, David Engel wrote: > > That doesn't acount for the machines on which X doesn't run.. > > Reportedly, linuxconf supports text-only and web interfaces in > addition to an X interface. There is a demo of the web interface on > the linuxconf page (http://www.solucorp.qc.ca/linuxconf). > Unfortunately, I can't try it because our firewall doesn't allow web > access on nonstandard ports. Does it provide http or require you run a webserver? This is a problem with pachages like dwww. They're just cgi-bin and require that you configure a browser to use them. If there are also X and text interfaces, this is prolly not a bad idea (do you REALLY wanna risk web access to your system config?) I sure wouldn't without SSL3. Oh wait, encryption is bad right? Only people who need it are hackers and terrorists. Oops. heh (for anyone who did NOT catch the dripping sarcasm, it's there trust me..) > On Sat, May 30, 1998 at 08:53:17PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote: > > But, moving to such a 'registry' system could be biting off a big mouthful - > > it would certainly need some dedicated and skilled programmers to get it off > > the ground. > > A registry type system has the big advantage of making it easier to > share configuration data among multiple packages. However, any > registry system for Linux mustn't make the mistake made by MS. The > registry absolutely must be editable using a plain text editor. I've > seen to many cases where even a guru couldn't repair a corrupted > Win95/NT registry and the only recourse was to reinstall the whole > system. Not to mention that at least Win95 tends to corrupt the registry itself. I think though that the current /etc system is probably good enough if it's worked on a little. There could be some more organization I think, for example: /etc/network/resolv.conf /etc/network/fqdn : /etc/shell/shells /etc/shell/profile : /etc/cron/cron.d/ /etc/cron/daily : The main /etc just has too many files in it. That and there is no /etc/fqdn and currently if there were nothing would use it. > On Sun, May 31, 1998 at 12:19:25PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > yeah, linuxconf looks cool. if it weren't for two problems with it, i'd > > use it myself and recommend it to others. > > > > 1. it replaces sysvinit with it's own bizarre startup script system. > > apparently the author has done some work on this so that it is more > > compatible with the existing sysvinit standard. > > I believe recent versions of linuxconf have at least partially solved > this. RedHat 5.1 includes both sysvinit and linuxconf so this is > probably true. I've been told it does work with sysvinit, so... > > 2. like all similar configuration tools that i have looked at and had the > > misfortune of using, it makes it very dangerous to edit the text file > > configuration with a text editor as nature intended :-) > > Again, recent versions of linuxconf reportedly handle this. It is not > clear to me yet, however, if linuxconf also maintains its own > database/registry that it keeps in sync with the text files. It doesn't keep its own database. Several people have corrected several others about that. It reads the files itself. ----------- I have been looking at it.. Kinda impressive. I think I would still rather not use sendmail though. => Learned some stuff while playing with the demo at least.
Description: PGP signature