[OT, kind of] Re: End of the past... things to come...

[Nils Philippsen <nils wombat dialup fht-esslingen de>]

Hi,

<RANT>

[This is long and _very_ direct, I guess I won't make many friends with
this]

On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Fred W. Smith wrote:

> Red Hat 6.0 which installed very nicely. The problem is not with the
> installation, but in the configuration.

No, it's not (see below).

> I am not to be completely classified with the masses, because I install
> server operating systems and configure them every day for a living. But I
> agree with what you said about not everybody being a programmer. I am not
> one and don't have time to learn right now. But I can take a server
                                                               ^^^^^^
> operating system whether Novell or Windows NT and in a few hours time have
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Excuse me, but I consider those two as the jokes when it comes to server
purposes -- NT has to be rebooted every time you change anything in the
configuration, Novell behaves like it's the only one in the LAN (two
words: everything broadcast (nearly) -- take your favourite LAN analyzer,
hook it up to a network with some Novell servers, watch IPX/SMB/UDP
broadcasts and vomit).

Once upon a time (yes it comes to mind as some bad nightmare) I installed
NT 4.0 for a friend of mine, nothing special, not a server, just a
desktop, a (HP Scanjet) scanner, ISDN, Excel, CorelDraw. It took a
complete weekend and just too much reboots to get the damn thing working
(I don't talk fine tuning here -- it worked, then I kept my fingers from
it:-) just due to (which I figured out later/was told by someone who
had the same problem) the damn silly scanner driver installator
(InstallShield? I laugh) which blew up the CONFIG.NT which in turn made
the installation of further software impossible (in most cases). This is
just plain crap.

> it operating a network and connected to the internet as a web server, e-mail
> server, or just as a proxy server. I just have not been able to do that with
> Linux. Every time I try to do another step in the configuration process, I
^^^^^^^

Then you do something wrong. The web and mail server nearly always work
out of the box. If you directly edit /etc/sendmail.cf, it's your problem
(hint: m4 is your friend). The proxy (I use squid here) is a little
complicated, but no real obstacle.

> have to read a separate man page, look up the configuration documentation

Is it because there's no GUI abstraction layer between you and the
configuration? I'd like to see you edit the registry without a frontend.
Most configuration files are rather easy understandable and
selfdocumenting nowadays.

> for the .conf file or try to use the gui which by the way does not work all
> the time, in the mean time I have a business to run in order to make a
> living. I'm sorry, I just don't have the time it will take to learn how to

Let me ask you: who else? I regard the notion that you don't have to learn
anything to install and configure NT for a fairy tale, in fact the books
on how to setup and configure Windows are the biggest ones in this
category (compared to the Un*x books I know, that is).

> set up and administrate this software. I think it is great, I think it has
> great possibilities but I made the decision today to put it on the shelf for
> about another year and come back and see where the linux world is by then.

Given that linux (and the stuff surrounding it, just to avoid
GNU/*-thingies:-) AFAIK is made by people who'd rather do something
well than usable by trained apes (not to offend anyone, just a little
exaggerating here) you'd always be one step behind if you insist on some
kind of "config abstraction layer" or how else you may call it.

> 
> The author of this e-mail is correct, If you want us working stiff's to
> implement linux in the small business world, it will have to get easier to

The question is what you want: Do you prefer "easy" installation and
configuration and take instability (at least NT, but Netware is not
something I would consider as easily installable/configurable then) and
the lack of configurability, or do you want a rather rock solid system
which can be tweaked at almost any point to one's own needs and take the
burden of a steeper learning curve (in the beginning, it becomes flat
quite quickly)?

If I'm the one to choose, I happily take the system which, once
configured, just plain runs and doesn't cause me headaches and sleepless
nights.

</RANT>

Don't get me wrong -- I'm always for ease of use when it comes to end user
applications, but with a server stability and configurability (this
includes crash recovery (which you won't encounter often if you think
before you do)) comes first, I won't trade this for some ease-of-use-thing.

I for myself am glad with everyone who chooses to use Linux instead of the
"alternatives", but the primary goal of this community (as far as I can
see, correct me if I'm wrong) seems not to be "world domination ..." at
any cost but to make something which works (and works well), ease of use
is fine but not the thing to which everything must surrender.

I'm sure I wasn't really fair in this post (but who is, and I'm too lazy
to rephrase everything now) so take my apologies for any offence I made
with my statements.

Anyway, have a nice day,
Nils
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nils Philippsen                  @college: nils@fht-esslingen.de
Vogelsangstrasse 115             @home:    nils@wombat.dialup.fht-esslingen.de
D 70197 Stuttgart                phone:    +49-711-6599405
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence.                          -- Edsger W. Dijkstra