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

["Carlos Garnacho Parro" <garnacho tuxerver net>]

> 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.

yes, I mostly agree, AFAIK (please, somebody correct me if I'm in a
mistake) in BSD and gentoo init (when supported) there is no need for
priorities, and there are distros with sysV init that can get rid of this
too (thanks to chkconfig), but in those systems under certain
circumstances there may be a mix of services with and without chkconfig...
I need a way to fix it :-/, but hiding the priority should be even
neccesary if gst wants to support other init types.

	Thanks