Quoting Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Thomas Charron wrote:
> > Yep, it's a whole world better then the old days of downloading
> Slackware
> > install floppies on a 9600 baud modem.. ;-P But in oder to get to the
> point
> > of mass acceptence, a user shouldn't have to look at the docs. I know, I
> know,
> > it's one of the worst things to say, but my mom certainly doesn't want to
> read
> > about /dev/hda1, etc.. ;-P
> Have you done a RH6.1 install? It's entirely point and click, and you
> don't need to know anything about your hardware, so long as the stuff you
> have is well supported. If you do a standard WS install, I think you have
> exactly 5 options to click on, and your system is DONE!
Actually, I'll have to setup a simple RH6.1 install from scratch using the
workstation install. I haven't done it since the new graphical configuration
tool..
> > it is, under Win32 *everything* uses the registry, and
> > adding/updating/maintaining the values contained in it is much easier. A
> I'm not even going to comment on that... :)
> What I will say is that I think the guys who develop the distributions
> need to be more aware of system administration issues than they are.
I guess I should modify my statement a bit.. The *IDEA* of a registry is a
nice idea. I'm definatly *NOT* saying the Win32 registry is the best of
systems. Primarily, becouse it can store data easily, and there is no file
formats to worry about..
>> developer reading the registry only needs to know the key names, that it.
> From
>> there, they go through the OS to retrieve/set these values. Primarily,
>using a
>> key/value system, there is no file format to deal with, and hence, no
>parsing
>> involved.. The registry itself would be a *VERY* nice thing, if the OS
>id
> > more maintence and watchdogging of it.
> I definitely can't support that. One of the nice things that Unix does is
> make all its configuration easy by putting the config options in ascii
> text files. The registry is a mess. And try fixing it remotely.
That's becouse of the *FORMAT* of the registry. Who says a registry system
CAN'T be kept in easier to maintain text files. Or even XML. Technically, we
already use registries, it's just a matter of these registries are ASCII text
based, and use a different format under each program.
> I agree there too, though I don't especially like the layout of linuxconf.
> But having a central app to manage all that would be a great feature for
> non-techies. So long as it is remotely accessible (which linuxconf is...)
Yep. I was merely using linuxconf as an *example* of a primary configuration
location. Once again, Linuxconf is a front end to text based registries for
applications. If we had some sort of an 'agreed standard', it would make
expanding the use of applications such as this infinitly simpler. And creating
new configuration 'modules' would be much easier as well..
> Yeah I agree, but I think for me there's a lot of area covered by that.
> My enthusiasm probably wouldn't dwindle so long as I'm doing something
> productive to make Linux better. I just don't want to write docs... :)
;-P Well, something I'm not sure you answered, but asked everyone else..
What do *YOU* think Linux needs, and would be excited to see? That may well
answer you're question..
---
Thomas Charron
<< Wanted: One decent sig >>
<< Preferably litle used >>
<< and stored in garage. ?>>
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
