Re: system-config-dns?

["Chester R. Hosey" <Chester Hosey gianteagle com>]

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 08:51 +0800, John Summerfied wrote: 
> Wht I propose is a wrapper that
> 1. Makes the individual tools easy to find
> 2. Provides a consistent UI
> 3. Is easy to extend
> 4. Can be a standard across Linux distros and *BSD
> 5. Provides authentication and access control over individual tools.
> 
> Not a lot maybe, but better than we have at present.

So basically a menu that invokes external, independent configuration
mechanisms? Hmm. The difficulty in this is writing all of the external
configuration tools and presenting consistent interfaces.

At any rate, that still sounds like an inelegant solution; if you're
going to take on the task of consolidating configuration and
administration tasks into one place, why not shoot for the moon and do
it in a way that doesn't paper over the problem and adds complexity for
no significant benefit?

> > To get behind what? If app vendors wrote individual configuration tools
> > that wouldn't really suit your idea of a generalized configuration
> > management tool. It's not solving the problem, and handwaving about lack
> > of influence doesn't change that fact.
> 
> I've never said this should _do_ the configuration. It should facilitate 
> a repository of configuration tools.

That's easy, but of little actual value. I think we're addressing
different problems. You want a menu -- I want a configuration manager.

> > But why, is the question? Why GNOME, when they aren't really going after
> > the Windows desktop market? What's the point of a set of widgets if you
> > don't have useful programs working with them? Why aren't they more
> > concerned with integrating the apps they do package than working on a
> > project that isn't in directly the path of their core focus?
> > 
> Red Hat's involvement with Gnome predates Mono (and eveb ,NET). I guess 
> that, having made the investment in a project it doesn't control, it's 
> hard to walk away. Besides, if RH switched to KDE as its default desktop 
> I speculate a few users would have a few words to say.

Who flipping CARES about the default desktop? Honestly, I run the
applications that I need which work -- at this point in my environment,
that's Evolution, OpenOffice, and Firefox. Why get huffy about the
choice of default desktop when the same applications are available for
use anyways? People will use and install what works. I can't possibly
describe how little the choice of desktop matters to me when I'm trying
to get work done.

> However, RH has to make a play for the desktop some time; why else push 
> Gnome and have workstation and desktop versions of RHEL 4?

To replace old SCO and legacy UNIX desktop installations. If you can
find good evidence that they're really pushing to replace Windows
machines, please post a direct link.

I mean that. Please.