System Configuration

[Brian Densmore]

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 at speedscript.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 11:52 AM
> Cc: kclug at 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 at kc.rr.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:14 PM
> > > Cc: kclug at 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" <kclug at mrj412.com>
> > > >
> > > > > 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 at kclug.org
> > >
> > >
> > > majordomo at kclug.org
> > >
> > 
> majordomo at kclug.org
> 
> 
> majordomo at kclug.org
>