Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 11:41:13 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), kelly@fsl.noaa.gov, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Message-ID: <199509261741.LAA13904@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199509261728.KAA07825@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199509260349.VAA12578@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199509261728.KAA07825@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert writes: > > > An easy argument to make, with no administrative utilities present, but > > > not a valid one. > > > > Until decent administrative utilities are present, it will continue to > > be a requirement of a 'normal' user. Don't put the cart before the > > horse. > > The horse is a machine-administratable setup (which is what I'm arguing > for) that pulls the tool cart behind it. I disagree. As we have seen time and time again in FreeBSD, even after the framework in place for automatic tools, the automatic tools never materialize. So, we've changed the system for no apparent reason, thus making it different with no gain. Also, will the tool work on text and graphic screens? Will the setup be modifiable w/out the tools? (ie; can I use vi to modify my setup?) > If I write an administration tool that uses a particular layout, will > you modify the layout to conform to the tools needs? That seems to be > the only argument that will make the layout the "cart" and the tools > the "horse". Show me a sample frame-work which can do all of the above, and then I think discussions about changing the framework is more appropriate. I contend we don't have an acceptable technology for even building the toolset framework yet. That's what I meant when I said you were putting the cart before the horse. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509261741.LAA13904>