On 2013-10-14, Rob wrote: > unruh wrote: > > On 2013-10-14, Rob wrote: > >> Steve Kostecke wrote: > >>> On 2013-10-12, unruh wrote: > >>> > >>>> That is good to hear, but does not solve the problem that ntp.conf is > >>>> there for the admin to make changes to in order to solve problems > >>>> peculiar to his system. I may not want the freebsd pool servers-- > >>>> because they are bad or because they are too far away. I may want to set > >>>> up 5 (not 2) additional servers, some of which are refclock servers. To > >>>> have to edit an init.d file, whose purpose is to start ntpd, not to > >>>> configure it, is just supid. Somebody on the freebsd distro has no idea > >>>> what he is doing. > >>> > >>> This is an issue with FreeNAS, not with FreeBSD. > >>> > >>> FreeNAS is an appliance, not a general purpose OS. These sorts of > >>> appliances often utilize a GUI to handle configuration tasks and store > >>> the resulting data in a custom data store. Configuration files, such as > >>> /etc/ntp.conf, are generated at the appropriate times from this data > >>> store. > >>> > >>> A real world example of the risks of relying on a GUI. > >> > >> No, a real world example of bad design. > >> > >> A GUI is fine but it should always manipulate the actual configuration > >> files, not some generic storage used to generate the files. This mistake > >> has been made many times in the Unix world. > >> > >> This is why the Windows Registry is such a good idea. You have a > >> universally accepted configuration store that both the GUI tools and > >> the relevant software can access and update. > >> > >> When FreeBSD (and Linux) had a registry, problems like this would not > >> occur. ntpd would just read its configuration from the registry, and > >> it would be a breeze to change poolservers with either the GUI or the > >> generic registry editor, without confusing anyone. > > > > Linux has a registry. It is called /etc/ > > Easily edited, not by some registry tool, but by any editor the user > > might want to use. > > This has to be nominated the "unruh stupid comment of the month".
The Windows registry provides a mechanism for the saving and retrieval of values from a structured set of named values. So does /etc. Neither one enforces policy nor good design. I don't see how the registry offers any advantages over /etc with respect to the configuration of ntpd. To borrow from your paragraph above, ntpd just reads its configuration from /etc/ntp.conf, and it is a breeze to change pool servers with either a GUI (if you felt one was really necessary) or a generic text editor, without confusing anyone. Also, unlike the registry, which provides no means for annotating or providing any information at all about the meaning or effects of a value, /etc/ntp.conf can include comments to guide the inexperienced user. Regards, Gary _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
