Yes, I like the idea of using Python or some other scripting language to create configuration tools. Especially if the language is extensible, like Python. Python is nice because there are a lot of drop in capabilities to add GUI interfaces very easily. I really don't know what state XML is in. I got my "new" CD burner today so I'll start playing with burning a rough draft of a distro. Based on the LFS and/or gentoo systems. I picked up a refurb'ed Plextor, from Hyper Microsystems (http://www.hypermicro.com/). They've been very good so far. Not the cheapest place, but good service and quality products. LFS is real bare bones. I need to pull down several add-ons for it. I'll do the installer in Python and see how it works. Can I use the KCLUG logo for the lilo logo screen? Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Hammitt [mailto:tony@speedscript.com] > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 11:52 AM > Cc: kclug@kclug.org > Subject: Re: System Configuration [Was: Changing IP Addresses] > > > I did some further thinking about this and it seems to me > that we could > just have Python code as the configuration file format. It > has variable > assignments, heirarchy, class structure and system call > capabilities and > Python is installed by default on most distros. > > The only issue is that the kit is like 22MB on disk, which is > a lot for > a handheld =-] But I'm sure that there's some subset of the codebase > that could be pruned down to run just the configuration file things. > > Python's tight integration with C would make extending the code pretty > simple compared to other approaches like XML where we'd have > to write the > integration code ourselves. That and it can have normal > looking comments. > > Anyway, it's just a thought. Comments? (Mike?) > > Later, > Tony > > > Brian Densmore wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > majordomo@kclug.org > > > majordomo@kclug.org >