Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
>No...that's exactly what I'm thinking. There should be a consistent way to
>configure/manage a package, so multiple front-ends can be driven w/o
>requiring changes to the basic package. Maybe even a set of low-level
tools
>to deal with modifying configuration files,
On Tuesday 05 February 2002 14:52, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> sh-httpd could be modified to include POST, but it might be better to
> use something like mini-httpd, or perhaps a web-server written in an
> scripting alternate language (if we include something like java,
> ruby, &c). If we stic
> >Nothing nailed down so-far...the "whole enchalida" is up for grabs! I'd
> >especially like to see a clean, extensible, understandable method for
> >setting up complex networking configurations & static routes, since we're
>
> Something like a meta-defninition that goes in the package (currentl
>Nothing nailed down so-far...the "whole enchalida" is up for grabs! I'd
>especially like to see a clean, extensible, understandable method for
>setting up complex networking configurations & static routes, since we're
Something like a meta-defninition that goes in the package (currently
/var/li
> hehe, Linuxconf more like Webmin :)
>
> OK, that pretty much eliminates any CGI except shell then. It's likely
> the best option, being the perl is not possible on a floppy. I imagine
> licensing would be a issue with vitually any other scripting language
> anyway.
Not necessarily, althoug
On Tuesday 05 February 2002 08:16, Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
> IMHO, there's nothing inherently wrong with GUI config tools
> (properly secured). I would like to see a consistent configuration
> system for the next generation LEAF that allows text-based menu
> configiguration via scripts on the
> > Personally, I think there's something fundamentally wrong
> > with managing a firewall/router through a web-based interface, but it
> > seems that I'm the only one who feels this way...
>
> Nope, your not alone. _Many_ of us feel exactly that way, but may don't
> and this limits the user base.
> I would agree with everything there, but I feel that the standard CGI is
> fine _on_ the distribution. SSL will be absolutely necessary for
> anything run externally, which brings us back to the chicken-n-egg
> question is sh-httpd configurable for SSL ?
If you've got the space, sh-httpd (
On Monday 04 February 2002 08:21, Angelacos, Nathan wrote:
> Lynn wrote regarding the Mosquito distribution:
> > I have been busy looking at some CGI options myself lately. :)
>
> Personally, I think there's something fundamentally wrong
> with managing a firewall/router through a web-based interf
Lynn wrote regarding the Mosquito distribution:
> I have been busy looking at some CGI options myself lately. :)
Personally, I think there's something fundamentally wrong with
managing a firewall/router through a web-based interface, but it seems that
I'm the only one who feels this way...
I'v
10 matches
Mail list logo
