On Friday 04 May 2001 20:26, Charles Samuels wrote:
> Upon reading the latest article at The Dot, I've come to the conclusion
> that we need to write a Generic System Configuration tool.

I feared somebody would.

> Isn't this the responsibility of the vendors?  Yes, and no.  Yes, becau=
se

YES! Definitely!

> they're the jerkwads that can't decide on the standard for configuring
> these things, but no, because they're a) incompetent and can never do i=
t
> right and b) we want the best for our users and ourselves.  Or at least=
 I
> think we do on point b... ;)

a) bullshit
b) they know their distribution specifics and changes better than we coul=
d=20
ever keep up with

> How do I indend to acheive this?  We'll be abstracting both the configu=
re
> system, and the user-interface. and both of these components will be
> dlopened.  This is to make it possible to have a console version, and a=
 KDE
> version, with the same configuration backend.  You want a console versi=
on
> for only a few specific modules, particularly stuff to configure the X
> server ;) Welcome is the other tools, however.

Sounds like a linuxconf rewrite. Better forget this, SuSE, Caldera and=20
Mandrake, Redhat are all working on configuration tools. SuSE and Caldera=
=20
implement them as kcontrol modules. Both do a pretty good job at it, just=
=20
wait for the new versions.

Matthias