Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 10:19:41 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, FreeBSD Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Microsoft brainrot (was: r-cmds and DNS and /etc/host.conf) Message-ID: <19970928101941.03210@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199709272127.OAA11524@usr08.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Sat, Sep 27, 1997 at 09:27:02PM %2B0000 References: <19970927143934.ZN26834@uriah.heep.sax.de> <199709272127.OAA11524@usr08.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
(following up to -chat) On Sat, Sep 27, 1997 at 09:27:02PM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: >>> The easy answer to this is that there isn't a Motif-based listbox >>> setup for the nameserver code, where you just fill in the names you >>> want, and it does the rest. >>> >>> The less easy answer is "it's hard enough to set up that it's not >>> worth doing for most people". >> >> Writing a Motif-based program would take a tremenduous amount of time. > > If you make it grammar-based, you write it once, and it works for a > crudload of command line configurators that know how to be run over > pipes. Like disk partition tools, install tools, etc.. Correct. But why? > So you can pretty much amortize the cost over a hell of a lot of code. Well, it makes the lossage less, agreed. >> Why do it if the basic nameserver setup takes about 10 minutes? (No, >> not the caching-only server, this one only takes a couple of minutes.) > > Each. Time. How do you find out your configuration with this horrible, complicated, you-only-see-as-much-at-a-time-as-I-want-to-show- you-and-make-sure-you-keep-alternating-from-keyboard-to-mouse Motif application once you have entered your initial configuration? >> I've seen the listbox-style cr*p that ships with some M$ operating >> system. The listboxes look nice, are terrible to use > > Speak for yourself. 99.99% of the computer users in the world prefer > that type of interface -- which is why they are MS users instead of UNIX > users. Wrong on both counts. 99.99% of the computer users in the world don't understand the question -- which is why they are MS users instead of UNIX. In fact, I'm very surprised to find you defending this position. > UNIX users are, as a class, intellectual elitists who don't > undertand that the average I.Q. is 100 because that is how a 100 I.Q. > is defined. And as a class, they are unprepared to make the necessary > allowances. There's a good reason a moron can run Microsoft OS's: so > that that morons won't be too intimidated to buy them. Well, again I'd say wrong on both counts. Morons can't run Microsoft's OSs. Even people of normal intelligence (whom I think I can understand quite well) feel intimidated by them. That's not to say, of course, that they don't feel intimidated by UNIX as well. >> (it's a pain in the rear to add all the same standard MX records to >> each host using this kind of `editor'), > > This is why you connect to www.microsoft.com, go to the download area, > and pull down the configuration template mechanism, if you're an IS > person who needs to set up a lot of machines. I'm not going to try, because I'm sure it won't work for me, but I'd bet that there are bugs in it which makes it more of a nuisance to use than a help. And it probably does the same sort of things to your config files that Microsoft mailers to do outgoing mail. > For non-MX (and other ancillary network configuration) type stuff, you > use DHCP *OR* you use a non-TCP/IP protocol to avoid name-number data > translation altogether. > > Normal mortals don't like TCP/IP because it bears no resemblance to > reality. I don't have to name my car to remember where I parked it. What's your license plate, Terry? >> but the vendor of that cr*p didn't get the underlying nameserver >> working correctly at all. (For example, the server never hands out >> authoritative answers, even if it is for sure an authoritative server.) > > This may be intentional laxity. In their opinion, you are supposed > to buy an NT server and configure WINS naming instead of DNS. Make up your mind what you're arguing. >> And finally, using the shicky-micky listbox interface usually screws >> the nameserver setup at all. > > But it's easy. Then why don't you do it and import the configuration to your UNIX box? I'd like to see it, if only to pick holes in it. How do you set up a HINFO RR? An ISDN RR? > It's a hell of a lot easier than running an editor and > shelling out to a man page every five minutes, or worse, shelling out > money for an O'Reilly book, which is made necessary by all the bogus > complexity associated with the task, and trying to balance the thing > on your knees while typing in secret code words. To be fair, I think that O'Reilly's DNS book is too confusing. TCP/IP Network administration will give you more info that any Microsoft toy config tool can. > For something designed by a bunch of bonifide computer scientists, > you'd think they would be able to grasp the concept of putting > configuration databases in third normal form. 8-|. Who are you talking about here? Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970928101941.03210>