On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 03:20:27PM +1100, David Kempe wrote:
> > Ewwww, linuxconf. There are better ways to do it, and they all don't
> involve having a stupid system configurater listen on port 98.
>
> Stupid or not, linuxconf doesnt have to listen on port 98 to work properly.
> Just comment it out of inetd.conf and run it from the command line and it
> works fine.
"Works fine" - If you call working fine replacing config files with what it reckons
are "sane" - then yes, it does.
> Sure it has some errors in parsing scripts and may break stuff etc - which
> is an difficult problem for any configuration program that has to handle
> many differnt config files, daemons etc
>
Linuxconf is __STUPID__. It ties the user into using it, and if you break it with
linuxconf, you have to fix it with linuxconf. A little hard when the machine won't
boot, no? Linuxconf is a badly written POS, and it forces the config files to change
when it runs on startup. One of reasons I like Debian, but one downside is that
linuxconf is apt-get'able.
</rant>
> I reckon configuration programs are useful for some things, tho im yet to
> see one that handles everything perfectly.
>
If you assume all configuration is done in config files that are readable text, I have
- vi(m), elvis, emacsen, joe, etc....
*ducks, running*
> Dave
>
>
>
> --
> SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
> More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
>
--
Steve
"I'm a sysadmin because I couldn't beat a blind monkey in a coding contest."
--Me
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
