--- Begin Message ---
> But, regarding that, then is linuxconf suppose to be "the GUI tool"
> then? If GUI is needed for admin, what tools do you trust enough to
> justify the need GUI?
>
There are multiple "GUI" administration tools besides linuxconf. YaST
(from SuSE) and the tools provided with OpenLinux, etc. are also quite
nice. The point is, there is no need to insist that X is NOT part of
what should be considered the standard base, that idea in its entirety
is an attempt to halt the evolution of Linux as an OS.
> > With the HD
> > space that ships with servers today having X is not a big deal.
>
> Untrue. Several smaller companies will delegate older systems to
> specialized roles, taking some of the unnecessary workload off of the
> one or two "good new systems" they can afford to keep. A standard
> should span across all systems a group uses in order to be useful.
>
I think you must be referring to VERY small companies. Granted, I work
in global operations for a Fortune 5 company, but I still believe that
HD space is very affordable. It is impossible to even purchase a desktop
with less than 10 G or so of HD now. With 20 G HD's around $300 US I
seriously doubt that any company that sees even modest profitability
would have trouble meeting this negligable ammount of storage space.
> > Also,
> > attempting to train a large first level support staff on administering
> > from the console is not always economical (and often dangerous :) ). I
> > think your idea of he LSB is a throwback to the days of the 386,
>
> Again, it's not looking back, it's looking forward. Linux is entering a
> much broader market than desktop and "do it all server." Devices,
> appliances, lots of new "little" things that don't even work from a
> traditional hard drive. Linux on a Flash Disk is a reality that is just
> coming into it's own. Systems that NFS mount almost everything
> (including X) are becoming far more common (but, now bandwidth limited).
>
> One box doesn't and shouldn't do it all in a correctly working network.
> The networking ideas of different boxes doing different functions does
> date back to the 70's, but it's only now maturing in Linux, and I see no
> reason to impose a inflexible base set on the diverse rolls of these
> systems.
>
Again, I must decent. Lets have a spec that exists for what is there
now. This seem to make more sense and be a lot less confusing than
informing individuals that "just about anything" can be linux. As far as
the base being inflexable, I believe that everyone of us that have
contributed to its deffinition have made certain that it contains a
reasonable ammount of flexability. The problem is, what happens if you
make the spec too flexable? The answer is simple, no one has a good clue
about their target and generally don't even bother with a port.
Gregory S Hayes
-
--- End Message ---