Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:20:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> To: fjwcash@gmail.com Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Upgrading to 7.0 - stupid requirements Message-ID: <200803230420.m2N4Kl6O078184@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <b269bc570803222059o7b52c8d8p9fa0fdbfed273ba0@mail.gmail.com> References: <868x0ezh9u.fsf@zid.claresco.hr> <200803192028.m2JKSZen098816@lurza.secnetix.de> <20080323000707.GA33311@fupp.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <b269bc570803222059o7b52c8d8p9fa0fdbfed273ba0@mail.gmail.com>, Freddie Cash writes: >Oh, gods, please, no! That is one of the things I absolutely hate >about Debian (and its derivatives). There are some packages on Debian >where they use separate text files for each configuration option >(ProFTPd, for examples). It is a huge mess of directories and files >that makes it a *royal* PITA to edit at the CLI. > >Yes, a scheme like that is better for GUI tools, but it really makes >things more difficult for non-GUI users/uses (like headless servers >managed via SSH). Try managing a few hundred mostly-but-not-entirely-identical machines and you really begin to appreciate the value of this approach. It is orders of magnitude easier to drop one file into the central config repository that does *one thing* than it is to manage a dozen not-quite-identical copies of a monolithic configuration file, keeping in sync the parts that are supposed to be in sync, and keeping the parts that are supposed to be different, different. If FreeBSD were able to do this, it might have a bit more traction at my place of employment. -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200803230420.m2N4Kl6O078184>