System configuration

[James Knott]

Marcus Brubaker wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 22:19, William Park wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 09:45:33PM -0500, cbbrowne-HInyCGIudOg at public.gmane.org wrote:
>>
>>>>I though linuxconf was the bees knees! Where d'it go ?
>>>
>>>The plans were vastly more ambitious than the outcome, and the project
>>>crumbled under the complexity.
>>>
>>>The complexity of building extension modules was such that only the most
>>>devoted of developers were prepared to put the effort into building
>>>them.
>>>
>>>Interest in Linuxconf collapsed shortly thereafter, alongside the
>>>failure of similar ambitions in Caldera's COAS system.
>>>
>>>The tools that are of ongoing relevance are:
>>>
>>> a) Webmin, which has an easier system for integrating in modules
>>>    written in Perl, instead of in C++, and
>>
>>I could write Linuxconf in shell (and its friends), if they paid me.
>>
> 
> 
> The sheer amount of arbitrary text processing required makes perl an
> easier choice for those kinds of modules, hence the success of Webmin
> and, relative, failure of Linuxconf.  Of course, by an informal
> extension to the Church-Turing Thesis we can claim that all languages
> are equally powerful, so yeah, you could do it shell.  But I don't know
> if there's enough money out there to make it worth my while to write
> something like that in shell.  Ick....
> 

Well, there's always Visual Basic.  ;-)


--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml