Re: Caldera installation - something Debian should learn
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 1999 at 08:46:01PM -0700, R Garth Wood wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > "proof by assertion" is no proof at all.
> > Then I shall invoke my favourite: proof left to the reader.
>
> if you wish to convince people, then the onus is on YOU to provide proof
> in support of your statements. it's not up to your readers to do your
> homework for you.
>
> if you make a claim, it's up to you to back it up with evidence and/or
> logical argument.
You should talk to the guys that writes math texts!
Well, what I was going to explain was cut so I guess we'll
bever know what nugget of wisdom I was going to bestow.
> > > i use postgresql on a daily basis. it's a great tool. one of the good
> > > things about it (and any other unix-based SQL database) is that it is
> > > quite easy to extract the data from it into plain text format so the
> > > data can be manipulated with standard text processing tools (awk, sed,
> > > perl, etc) for generating reports in plain text, html, TeX, postscript
> > > or whatever.
> >
> > Great then you agree with me.
>
> no i do not! i categorically and emphatically do not agree with you.
Well it sounded as if you were.
> as i said, postgres is great for applications-level stuff but it sucks
> at the systems-level.
I promise we won't use postgres for the system level stuff, ok?
> > > however, it's not the right tool for the job of a configuration
> > > system. One reason for this is that there is a lot of low level
> > > stuff (network interfaces, IP addresses, hostname, etc etc etc)
> > > which has to be set up at boot-time BEFORE postgresql can be
> > > started.
> >
> > After init anything can be started. You're right in pointing out that
> > it would be problematic but not that hard, either.
>
> you seem to have missed the point, so i'll make it again:
>
> text files work when the system is in a semi-configured or even
> misconfigured state. high-level and complex applications like postgresql
> require at least a minimally configured and working environment before
> they'll even start.
Is it possible to start an app after init? Yes. Then it's possible.
Maybe you're too stuck on this postgres thing. Think db in general
not postgres specifically.
> > > text files work right from the moment the kernel is booted and init
> > > is started. This single fact is of absolutely vital importance - it
> > > means you can recover your system from anything short of a complete
> > > catastrophic disk failure (e.g. a fire).
> >
> > a database could use data correction, if a text file is corrupt
> > what're you gonna do?
>
> edit it with vi (or ed or sed or cat or ......) of course.
With data correction you don't have to intervien. That's the point.
> > > with text config files, i can do that with a boot floppy and vi (or
> > > even cat and/or ed in a pinch). with postgres, i can't.
> >
> > I think a command line db editor would be small and straight-forward.
> > In fact it would resemble a file system.
>
> why re-invent the wheel? we already have a hierarchical file system, and
> we already have tools capable of editing, generating or manipulating
> text files.
Well you can read the thead again. There's lots of reasons.
> > > robustness requires that the machine is usable or recoverable even
> > > in the worst-case scenario...not just the best case.
> >
> > Given a random disk-corruption function a database with
> > data-correction will do better than a text based dataset everytime,
> > and with no effort from the user.
>
> proof by assertion is no proof at all.
Don't know what you mean there. It's pretty ovious to me.
> > If you want all the benefits I have outlined at length use a db.
>
> i don't think you have outlined any benefits for using a db for
> configuration files rather than text files. you've made some general
> assertions about databases being better, without providing specific
> details about how they are better and without showing how those benefits
> are in any way relevant to configuration files.
True but I think most can extrapolate. If you can't I'm sorry
but I don't have the time to explain. I can't offer even book
to read. Maybe someone else knows of one?
> databases are very useful tools, but it is a big mistake to think that
> every problem can be solved with them.
Well ok, maybe not world hunger, maybe.
> > > > > program. In a text config file you can leave a human language
> > > > > comment saying "Do X if you want Y" or "uncomment the next line
> > > > > to do blah".
> > > >
> > > > You can put that in the db as well.
> > >
> > > no, you can't.
> > >
> > > [...my explanation of why not deleted...]
> >
> > So then you can. Great we agree.
>
> are you stupid or something? or just being an annoying smart-arse?
You don't work for the postal service, do you? (ok that was
being a arse)
No it really sounded as if you where agreeing with me. Honestly.
> what is it about the phrase "No, you can't" that could possibly be
> interpreted as agreement?
Can't remeber you cut it.
> it does you and your arguments no good at all to attempt to "win" by
> putting words in other people's mouths, especially when those words are
> in direct contradiction to that person's own statements. i doubt if any
> of us on this list are naive enough to be taken in by such immature
> tactics.
Let's not get crazy now. I think I have been nothing but curtious
to everone. If anyone feels that they have been slighted please
bring it to my attention immediately.
> > > even worse, this will greatly slow down the evolution of programs. in
> > > order for a new feature to be implemented, you now have to also update
> >
> > What feature?
>
> how the fuck would i know? A new feature. *any* new feature. You know,
> one that hasn't been done before. Something new. as in something novel
> or unique or original. an improvement.
I don't know what you're talking about now. If you're
going to use that language please keep it to yourself.
Let's just let this point drop.
> > > the configuration tools to support the new feature. you have to do
> > > this for each of the configuration tools that are available (GUI,
> > > curses, command line, etc).
> >
> > What if you only had to write the UI code once and it could be
> > rendered in text, X/gtk or openGL? Wouldn't that be cool?
>
> it may be "cool", but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a Good Thing.
> that depends on what the price for such "coolness" is.
>
> utility is more important than "coolness".
Ok wouldn't that be useful?
> > > only the detail of "making it easier for novices to configure unix".
> >
> > It will be easier for everybody. Windows made the following mistake:
> > make everything look like stuff in the real world and computers will
> > be easy to understand.
>
> no. Windows makes the mistake of assuming that extremely complex things
> *CAN* be simplified to the point where any moron can configure it just
> by pointing and clicking.
>
> some things are inherently complex. some things absolutely require
> knowledge, experience, insight, and intelligence...in short, a clue.
> This fact isn't a problem to be solved, it's merely a truth about the
> world which has to be accepted - no software can ever be a substitute
> for having a clue.
Right that was what I was trying to say.
> > Smile man, it's friday!
>
> you're wrong again. it's saturday here. 2:30PM to be precise.
Heh. That's funny. Ok just smile, then. OR don't.
> ironically, you're wrong on this point in the same way you are wrong on
> all your other points: you assume that your situation is a universal
> truth, that your situation is exactly the same as everyone else's
> situation.
Okaaay...
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| R Garth Wood | Making waves... |
| Stormix Technologies Inc. | |
| rgwood@stormix.com | |
Reply to: