Re: [Setup-tool-hackers] RE: 2.4: System Tools - Please try them

[Seth Nickell <snickell stanford edu>]

On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 11:34, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> El mar, 03-06-2003 a las 20:15, Seth Nickell escribió:
> > On Tue, 2003-06-03 at 04:19, Carlos Garnacho Parro wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 14:55, Mark Finlay wrote:
> > > >> > Of the top of my head my list of tool that i actually would use as a
> > > >> > user are:
> > > >> > - Time tool
> > > >> > - Network tool / internet connection wizard
> > > >> > - Printer tool
> > > >> > - Software managment tool
> > > >> > - Password changing tool
> > > >> >
> > > >> > And as an adminstrator:
> > > >> > - User tool
> > > >> > - Samba tool
> > > >> > - NFS tool
> > > >> > - Authentication tool
> > > >> > - Apache tool
> > > >>
> > > >> Oh and a services tool - but i really think that this should just work
> > > >> too.
> > > >
> > > > Its an admin tool. The question is "do I want to be running an FTP
> > > > server, web server, NFS server, mail server?"
> > > 
> > > and how could you focus it? I still see necessary the concept of
> > > runlevels, so the only proposal I can make is to have separate lists for
> > > each relevant runlevel, and an option menu to switch between runlevels. of
> > > course the concept should be abstracted as much as we could, for example
> > > (in debian):
> > > 
> > > runlevel 0 ----> stopping the computer
> > > runlevel 2 ----> graphical mode
> > > runlevel 3 ----> text mode
> > > runlevel 6 ----> rebooting the computer
> > 
> > Most people don't care about the bootup sequence. They care about
> > whether the service is running or not. A single checkbox would do just
> > fine. It would be especially nice if when you checked the box, the
> > service actually started and when you unchecked it, the service stopped
> > (and of course, this also effects the "runlevel" settings... however
> > RH's setup tool does it). It would be even cooler if there was some way
> > to check if the service was running (for services which support this,
> > like atalk, httpd, etc) and only show the checkbox as checked if it was.
> 
> uuh, well, unfortunately I think that there are distros that just can't
> get rid of the priority stuff, redhat relies in chkconfig to do this,
> but there are other distributions that don't, in spite of the fact that
> they use sysV init too... and not caring about priority could be even
> dangerous in those systems :-(

Perhaps it should show priority on those systems only. If we're reduced
to lowest-common-demoninator for the tools, that won't be a particularly
attractive option for distro adoption.

-Seth