[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: The Strengths and Weakness of Fedora/RHEL OS management



On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Florian La Roche wrote:

(oh, right semantics is not your problem, you don't even do typing/schemas
but I'm sorry 90% of unix conf woes are semantics only).

I think this is pointing at a key item: apps apply too much semantics
on how they read config settings. Maybe common ways could be worked out
if bigger projects would cooperate on a common lib/infrastructure for this?

So true. I think the key (pun intended) point the semantic argument is missing is that application configuration semantics by their very nature is easily changed/fixed. So while syntax is a pita to fix due to its functional elements, semantic problems can be identified and patches subjected by novices in many cases. I note that in same cases changing semantics may be more difficult say for example changing dhcpd.conf's subnets directive from using "10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0" to 10.0.0.0-24 but this is the exception not the rule.


I still agree that this would be a very good goal to aim at, but also know
much much work it is to get there. And we already see in this thread on
how hard it is to agree on common/acknowledged things. ;-)

That I am afraid is an established fact, I do have "faith" that as a community we are capable of moving this in the right direction though... I think the blood bath may be unavoidable however :)

P.S.: So while the french are used to bedins and bathrooms without paper,
     it might take us until development is done by robots to get sane
     and easy to use config files that support updates. They might also
     not be needed anymore by that time. ;-)

Leave it to the french to spoil and otherwise good analogy *sigh*

Cheers,
Shane


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]