Re: System administration with GNOME.

 You have a point there, and a good one (gnome running on 

 But then this will be quite shitty to create unless one seriously 
thinks about it in terms of design.

 My take is:

 -Please no central configuration files. I hate registries.
 -Use existing configuration tools, since all OS's have their own 
usually text based stuff and in the worst case one can edit 
configuration files by hand.
 -Make a central tool that 'ships' with the correct set of plugins a 
la linuxconf. Allow plugins to be added. We could have plugins for 
firewall, protsentries, device settings, apache.
 -Like linuxconf, plug yourself in the init sequence, preferably at 
the end so that we can reset stuff that might be misconfigured.

 In the end, I think that making a better linuxconf would be the right 
way to go.

 I can send you a little tool that changes irq settings for /dev/ttyS* 
stuff. It's just a small dialog that uses setserial. Now if setserial 
is common to all then you can use it for all arches. Which leads to 
another point: check all that is common and put it in a common 

 The rest can go by version, OS, distro, kernel version, cpu type ....

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 3/26/00, 1:00:33 PM, Miguel de Icaza <> wrote 
regarding Re: System administration with GNOME.:

> >  As a point in its defense, linuxconf has all major access:
> > GUI(gnome-linuxconf), text, web which is really a good thing (TM). I
> > think, it might need some cleaning, many plugin writers and some folks
> > to turn gnome-linuxconf into a more attractive and better organized 

> Also, I have to point out that LinuxConf is not designed to say, work
> properly with Solaris nor BSD.  And GNOME is not really tied to Linux
> at all.

> And the source code is not really something I like.

> Miguel.

> --
> To unsubscribe: mail with 
> as the Subject.

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