[Gllug] Sluggishness and confusion

[Steve Nelson]

> Bollocks.  There's no reason why you cannot have hand-edited
> configuration, curses tools and GUI tools all supported and working
> consistently.  Other distributions have managed this.  

Examples?  I don't know of many easy-to-use, supported, actively
developed, and fully integrated GUI tools on Debian.

> Not only would
> that approach be more flexible it would be more resilient and
> consistent, as it would require the development of a standard low-level
> interface that any higher level tool can work with.  That's basic good
> system design method.

I agree.  However in the real world I think Redhat achieves close to
this - CLI is reliable, and easy.  GUI tools are reliable, and easy. 
Curses tools are reliable, easy, but no longer actively supported.


> > If
> > you want an interactive tool, chances are you're the kind of person
> > who would appreciate the chance to use a well designed graphical too.
> > For backwards compatability, keep the curses tool, but point the user
> > to a better alternative.
> 
> Why only have the full functionality in the GUI tool?  The user
> interface and the administrative logic should be entirely separate, with
> the latter being identical in both tools.

I didn't mention functionality.  I am refering to interface, which,
for the majority of users who want an interactive tool, means
graphical.

> > Again - if the admin doesn't want the interactive tool - ignore it.
> > You don't even have to install it.
> 
> But you are then administering your box in a fashion that is explicitly
> unsupported and vulnerable to change.  

I am not aware of any changes to /etc/sysconfig in the last n years
that would render a unix admin no-longer able to manage a system.

> RH have said up front that the
> only supported way to administer these systems is via the GUI tools,
> that the configuration files should not be manipulated by other methods.

If you read the redhat manuals, it is clear that it is perferctly
acceptable to edit the files manually.  I don't buy this 'the only
way' speak - that may be the way that is recommended, which is fine -
you don't have to use it.

> Given that and that the config internals are undocumented, they are
> perfectly within their rights to change the details without warning and
> you will have no basis for complaint.

Sounding slightly fud-ish now, Bruce.  The internals are documented,
the source is there, the change logs are there, and there's a huge
open-source community attached to the distribution.
  
> I'm not slating Red Hat's config system from a position of ignorance,

I know you're not... but some of what  you've said is bordering on FUD
and there is more form than substance.  I agree  that Debian's config
is more attractive and intuitive than Redhat's - I prefer it hands
down.  But that doesn't make Redhat's bad - its perfectly useable, and
has a number of benefits, and and audience, that Debian doesn't have. 
Different animals.

S.
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug