[OT] Debian mailinglists [was: RE: Debian or Ubuntu?]

[charlie derr]

Derek Broughton wrote:
> Florian Diesch wrote:
> 
>> I just don't know *any* GUI config tools that supports this things.
>> And that's just the basics, with text file based configs you easily
>> get versioning, template or rule based generation, automatic
>> distribution, ...
> 
> Nobody, at any point in this thread, has argued against "text file based
> configs".  I've argued against editing them with a text editor 

To be a bit more pedantic, I'd say that I have the impression you're arguing for (someday) not allowing others to be able to edit 
config files with a text editor.   Until there are truly bulletproof well-tested solutions in existence (and not just vaporware in 
our dreams), I think most of us would disagree with that goal.   Even after certain applications do have truly bulletproof 
well-tested (I'm going to grant that this might be possible for some applications, though I'd think there vary well may be 
applications/services that this would be extremely tough to do this for (and maybe not worth the effort)) solutions that exist, I 
think many of us might still wish to be able to use a text editor to make our modifications (instead of using the GUI tool you're 
proposing).


I also think that in some respects, calling this a "GUI" issue is somewhat misleading.  As others have pointed out, having a way 
to "test" or "verify" a specific config is really the holy grail here.   Having this checking built into the interface (so that 
it's impossible to even craft a config file with an invalid entry) doesn't really seem more valuable to me than a utility which 
could be run against a config file and alert on invalid entries, syntax errors, etc...   I actually think that looking at it this 
wasy (as completely separate from the "GUI" part of your solution) would be a better way to proceed because then those of us who 
truly abhor GUIs could still benefit from the work.   But I'm not going to start coding anything like this, for at least 2 reasons:

1)  I don't think that there's that much of a benefit.   There's value in being able to edit text files and reading the 
documentation describing the options for whatever software one is configuring.   When it comes down to it, we're better off if the 
  folks who are administering important services have a greater breadth of knowledge (and understand the level of attention to 
detail that is so important to being a good sysadmin).


2)  It's really really hard for all but the simplest services/applications.   Others have talked about the halting problem, and 
while I'm not yet completely convinced that it would be impossible to create a solution such as you describe for some specific 
software packages, I think that many of the specific services that have been mentioned (ssh, apache, ...) have such incredible 
variation in how they're used in practice as to make this a very tough task.


But please don't let me talk anyone out of writing code that proves me wrong on either one (or both) of those points.   I think 
ubuntu would do very well to implement any of this functionality being discussed (even if it upsets some to talk about removing 
the ability to configure services/applications using a text editor).


> - and you
> don't get _any_ of those benefits using vi.

Well maybe that's true, but with emacs, I get all kinds of benefits :-] (and I really really want to continue to be able to use it 
to edit text files if I choose).

	be well,
		~c