Tony, I'd like to discuss this. There may be a way to incorporate this into the new distro. Brian PS. I won't be able to make tonight's meeting. The power outages have caused some rescheduling of my activities. :'( I almost have the linuxfromscratch installed. Had a minor problem building the first compiler (somehow I did build a good makefile the 1st time). Only 35 packages to go! > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Hammitt [mailto:thammitt@kc.rr.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:14 PM > Cc: kclug@kclug.org > Subject: System Configuration [Was: Changing IP Addresses] > > > OK, so what it comes down to is that we need to start using > something like XML with validators for all of the system and > application configuration files. We need a universal standard > way of storing and updating information. Unfortunately, this > would be an incredible, major effort to get started. Also, XML > itself isn't really perfect for the task since commenting is a > pain and the validation engine would need updated to be useful > when there is no network. > > But it would allow us to define a set of acceptable values for > the configuration parameters, validate that they make sense as > a set and provide an easy way to add functionality without > breaking the old config files or programs. > > So, maybe it would take a few years to get it all working, but > then those of us who like hand-editing files can do so and > those GUI config tool fans could have a consistent interface. > What I like best about the idea is that the config files would > all be in the same format, so people wouldn't have to learn to > read each file format, like they do now. > > Unfortunately, the whole scheme is going to seem too much like > the awful windoze registry for some people to accept. (As if > _everything_ about M$ is terrible, not just 99.97% of it :). > > That's what I'd do about the problem. Heck, that's what I DID > about the problem for my code. I have a configuration file > library I use for several projects. It's LGPL if anyone is > interested, I still have to write the validator and some other > features, but it won't be hard. Let me know... > > Regards, > > Tony > > Jonathan Hutchins wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Joshua Bergland" > > > > > I just don't buy the argument that making Linux user friendly will > > > hinder the OS. > > > > I wouldn't buy or make that argument either. However, > "user friendly" and > > "Microsoft Copycat" are not equivalent terms. GUI tools > are nice, and > > they're a good step toward making Linux more accessible to > the average > > user - especially average users who have never known an > environment prior to > > Windows95 where configuration by command line was assumed. > > > > However, those tools should work _with_ standard > configuration files, not > > strike out on their own and overwrite configurations from > the standard text > > files - as linuxconf definitely does. They should work in > a way that helps > > the user see what's going on in the configuration, and > possibly offer direct > > access to the configuration files themselves - but not > without showing > > exactly where that information is being stored. (This is > one of the major > > pains in the Microsoft world - you can't ever be sure a program is > > completely uninstalled, because it leaves fewmets all over > the operating > > system. Likely as not, a re-install will miraculously > recover the settings > > you made in the original, even if those settings cause the > program to > > crash.) > > > > > Unless things change, I can't forsee Linux ever > pentrating the desktop > > > market. Of course, this may not be a goal of Linux either... > > > > Since Linux, in and of itself, is not a market competitor but more a > > philosophy and a development model, I find debate about > "market share" > > pretty obtuse. I know what you mean, but I'm not overly > worried about "our > > side winning". > > > majordomo@kclug.org > > > majordomo@kclug.org >