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

Re: Linuxconf

At 12:03 AM 5/31/98 -0500, David Engel wrote:
>On Sat, May 30, 1998 at 07:02:52PM +0000, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote:
>> Um, linuxconf is X based isn't it?  If so, it's not going to be useful as a
>> catch-all easy way to configure Linux because you still have to configure X. 
>> I have ideas how to fix that problem, but as of yet not NEARLY enough
>> experience with C to even begin the project on my own.
>> 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.

Linuxconf comes with 4 interfaces, cmd-line, ncurses, web, and graphical,
their are 2 or 3 graphical versions, java, gtk and some other toolkit.

>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.

Yes, they are essentially beefed up SysV scripts that can provide extra
information to linuxconf if you use linuxconf as an "activator", otherwise
the scripts run normally.  It's very similar to what I proposed he add to
linuxconf about a year ago, cept that since we weren't going to go with
linuxconf he didn't feel it was worth the effort at the time till red hat
decided to go with it.

>> 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 edits the files directly, even keeps the comments (which I'm not so sure
is a good thing, as the comments can be outdated by linuxconf makes changes).


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: