Feature Request

[Ethan Bonick]

> On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 16:20, Ethan Bonick wrote:
>
>>
>> My problem had been that the other distros dont have the configuration
>> tools redhat does. I just thought Linux was about choices and we just
>> seem to be losing them as we "progress." Dont get me wrong I dont want
>> ot go back to RH5.2 text only install, but I would like to be able to
>> configure the install a little bit.
>
> But you have to be realistic about configuration tools.  If you are
> looking for a vast increase in the number of options, and thus the
> complexity, of basic things like filesystems, there will be an
> exponential increase in the codebase necessary for configuration
> tools.   There are only limited resources available.   As linuxconf
> demonstrated, you have to be REALLY good at writing configuration tools,
> or you end up with a big mess.
>
> For configuration that supports more things than the redhat-config-*
> tools, have you tried webmin?  IMO, the webmin developers do a much
> better job at keeping up with things than linuxconf did.
>

I was talking about admin config tools not install time config options. I
just want to have more than one choice when installing, you know something
like two or three choices. But then how many do you stop at to not have
too many but be enough to please most? It's a very complicated issue. I am
fine with ext3 being the default journal. I just hadn't seen anything on
as to why they made it that way. If you do something that affects people
they usually want to know why and many will concede once they've heard
your position. It's when you say something ie: SCO and then offer no
proof, they people dont belive or wont side with you. It's like doubting
Thomas, he had to see the holes in Jesus's hands. I think people want to
know why it was done.

Please no off topics about religion or SCO. Was only using as
illustration. :)

-- 
Ethan Bonick
etbonick_AT_networkinggeeks.com
http://www.networkinggeeks.com