Christopher Chan wrote: >> Professionals need to be "on-call". In fact, for most medical treatment, >> the doctor _is_ "on-call". If we could make the day-to-day >> administration of servers simple and fool-proof, the small business owner >> might be far more happy to consider keeping an expert on-call. >> > > Sure, which is only possible with predefined fixed configurations that > meet the needs of a mom and pop shop and that would be all the tools > does; setup things according to the specification.
All the RFCs are defined as finite-state engines. There really is NO reason that a tool capable of making all the correct configurations need to be "predefined" and "fixed". It's 30 years since I did FSEs in university, but I'm pretty sure we learned that they could _all_ be automated, even then. >> Why would we ever say that? It's way beyond the scope of the proposal. >> > You are saying that a system that creates disk images for installation > and a software auditing tool does not require an experienced > professional. Give me a break. My recollection is that the "disk images" came after the initial proposal, but even so: "yeah". What makes a _second_ disk image any more significant than the first? If the first is correct, then the second, with specific mods to make it reflect a unique machine, is not that difficult. -- derek -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
