Hi
I feel its would be worth while considering the idea of the ability to
configure any single host
over the network or set of server farms using the configurator tool.
This would enable administrators to use it as compliance engine across the
organisation.
Features Like:
Auto update
Jump start software installations from known location
regards
divyank
----- Original Message ----
From: Yip Wai Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, February 1, 2008 7:52:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Slugnet] Re: Linux System Configuration
On
Wednesday
30
January
2008
01:19:46
am
Kokhong
Cheng
wrote:
>
Hi
all,
>
>
Thanks
to
Joel
and
Chris
for
your
feedback
and
ideas.
I
have
yet
to
>
study
all
available
solutions
mentioned,
but
I
would
like
to
make
>
further
comments.
>
>
Instead
of
the
superficial
middle
layer
interfaces,
I'm
more
focused
on
>
the
core
system
facilitating
the
systematic
storage
and
access
of
>
configuration
parameters.
I
believe
that
such
a
centralized
system
is
>
not
so
well
received
right
now
due
to
several
factors,
namely
inertia
>
(towards
the
old
system),
uncertainty
towards
a
new,
undefined
system,
>
and
also
the
bad
example
of
the
Windows
registry.
>
>
First,
I
speak
not
of
user
interfaces
to
generate
configurations,
i.e.
>
Webmin,
linuxconf,
etc.
These
generate
old
style
configuration
files
in
>
the
end.
I
am
talking
about
implementing
this
at
the
operating
system
>
level,
yes,
just
like
Windows
-
having
a
central
registry
where
all
>
applications
store
and
access
their
configuration.
Applications
till
>
Win3.11
still
used
INI
files,
very
much
like
conf
files.
But
nowadays,
>
pretty
much
every
Windows
application
is
using
the
registry.
I
believe
>
this
can
be
done
for
Linux
applications
too,
provided
the
interface
to
>
the
configuration
system
is
clearly
defined.
>
>
The
registry
is
a
beast,
yes,
but
I
think
it
is
the
particular
>
implementation
and
the
organization
of
the
Windows
registry
that
puts
>
most
people
off;
of
course
regedt32
is
horrible
too.
But
apart
from
>
that,
I
think
they
have
pretty
much
figured
out
what
a
registry
needs
to
>
be.
I
don't
think
the
/etc
is
very
friendly
either.
Well,
at
least
>
/proc/sys
is
well
organized;
in
fact
it
is
exactly
how
we
should
be
>
modeling
the
management
of
userspace
application
configurations!
>
>
The
config
manager
will
be
backed
by
a
structured
data-store.
Most
>
systems
I've
seen
use
either
the
.reg
format
or
XML
format.
I
personally
>
feel
that
it
should
be
backed
by
a
REAL
database,
e.g.
SQLite
instead
of
>
being
an
XML
file.
>
Interesting
idea,
let's
throw
a
few
thoughts
around
shall
we?
First
of
all,
why
the
inclination
towards
a
REAL
database
format?
What
are
the
pros
that
a
DB
offers,
over
flat
files?
Speed
might
be
one,
but
how
big
are
conf
files
going
to
get?
What
I
am
worried
most
about,
is
the
idea
of
storing
all
your
eggs
in
one
basket.
What
happens
if
the
registry
gets
corrupted?
How
good
are
the
tools
to
recover
them?
Putting
all
configurations
together
+
using
a
binary
format
for
them
=
bitch
when
you
need
to
recover
something.
Best
have
a
backup
lying
around,
cos
when
that's
dead
no
daemons
will
be
able
to
boot.
Also,
one
will
have
to
take
note
of
what
happens
if
a
user
wants
to
install
a
program
by
themself?
For
example,
I
have
specific
builds
of
mplayer/mencoder
that
is
not
available
with
rpms.
They
have
their
own
conf
files
under
/home/waipeng/etc/xxx/.
In
this
case,
you
need
to
put
aside
parts
of
the
registry
for
user.
Just
some
thoughts
for
now,
maybe
other
weird
cases
will
pop
up
while
working.
Cheers!
Wai
Peng
_______________________________________________
Slugnet
mailing
list
[email protected]
http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_______________________________________________
Slugnet mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet
