Re: System administration with GNOME.

Mo McKinlay wrote:
> #  -Please no central configuration files. I hate registries.
> That's an interesting view. In concept, the registry is a good idea - I
> mean, find all your configuration stuff in one place, instead of 37
> million different places. The problem with them is that either

I agree with a central storage of settings is good as long as this is
not the final and only place for the data. I read the LJ article about
KDE 2.0 by Kalle Dalheimer (stop throwing stones please :) and I kind
of liked the idea that he described of a central binary configuration
cache. This would hold any changes to files made during the current
session and would of course be flushed to the proper files periodically.

The main thing to keep in mind is that if the binary "register" is
somehow lost or corrupted due to user fault or system fault, the
controlling program or daemon should discard the database so that
the files aren't corrupted themselves.

> #  In the end, I think that making a better linuxconf would be the right
> # way to go.
> Please, a MUCH better linuxconf.
> IMHO you want to make it pluggable, so that distributors can create
> snap-in administrative modules specific to that distribution, etc.
[Get them stones ready again]

I would suggest to make a framework/GUI as machine/OS independent
as possible (python/PERL/glade?) and have machine/distro/OS modules
that plugs into the framework. Windows 2000 has this pluggability
and so does many other tools-frameworks. If the framework is good
enough I think many vendors/distributors will gladly make their
own modules to unify the system management tasks as much as possible.

(At least I hope so)

Kjartan Maraas

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