Re: [tlug] CLI admin how-to ideas?

["simon" <simon@example.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Doughty" <mdoughty@example.com>
To: <tlug@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: [tlug] CLI admin how-to ideas?


> > there are several projects trying to cater for this need.
>
> At this point it isn't a realistic goal and it really contradicts the spirit
> of the community.  Unix is a powerful system for those who are willing to
> learn to use it.  Most people in the comunity have no interest sacrificing
> power and flexibility for 'ease of use'. As a result alot of design decisions
> are made that don't cater to the 'ease of use'.

And this is where you lose me.  I don't think anyone has to sacrifice anything.  The CLI will always be there and will still be the
most important and powerful interface to the system.  What I envisage is something in addition to the existing interface - less
powerful, but doing some of the sysadmin jobs in a simplified (hopefully not oversimplified) and standard(ish) manner.  (And I
understand that the devil lies in the 'simplified' and 'ish'!)

As to a contradiction to the spirit of the community - I wouldn't know.  It seems to me that as Linux gains greater acceptance then
the ratio of "users" to "sysadmins" will increase.  If you mean by the community the hackers who are writing all this wonderful
stuff then I don't know.  Some of them seem to want wider acceptance of Linux and for it to compete with Windows.  Part of that will
is bound to involve making some parts of the system more accessible to non-experts.


> > Whether you think it's a good thing or bad I find it difficult to imagine a future for Linux without more _and better_
user-friendly interfaces to sysadmin functions.
>
> This is chasing an uncatchable target.

I agree - *if* you are aiming to do it the Windows way and make everything 100% GUI.  Personally, I don't think this will happen -
for all the reasons that everyone loves the CLI.

> You see the reason why MS has
> succeeded[1] in developing workable gui tools is that they control all
> aspects of the system.  They have the ability to make sure that config
> tools version match with the software they configure.  In the *nix community
> most of the developers of the software you want to configure with your
> gui tool of choice have no connection with these gui tool projects.  They
> don't care if webmin can configure their software or not. It is the lack of
> continuity between the configurator and the target software that makes these
> tools so dangerous. It makes it distinct possibility that you could get a
> mismatch of software and damage the system badly[2].

> until these tools are being co-developed with the software they configure as
> an integral part of software package they will continue to be more dangerous
> than anything else. It could happen in the future but I wouldn't hold my
> breath.  The fact is that the people who do the developement don't see the
> need.[3]

Agreed.  The configuration tools have to come from within the project itself.  Many window managers and desktop environments have
good configuration tools (for configuring themselves) for that very reason.

> [3]: When will those pesky hackers see the light emanating from Redmont and
>      follow MS down the enlightened path. ;)

I use emacs.  There are two ways to configure it.  Open the .emacs and edit it manually or use the menus and configuration buffers.
MS are not the only people in the world who have systems with configuration tools.

--
simon colston