Tim: >> Webmin, and things like it, need maintaining as rapidly as everything >> that it can control. If one of them develops differently, webmin will >> still be trying to configure it the old way. >> >> That was one of the serious drawbacks with with Linuxconf. After a >> while, it was configuring things wrong. Craig White: > seems to be a rather unfair comparison of both breadth and frequency of > maintenance. I never saw linuxconf in an unbroken state. The comment about webmin is just "in principle." It's made from a rather obvious point of view that such utilities can only be designed to configure other things based on what's known about them. Those other things will change over time, necessitating a change in the controlling program *after* the fact. But LinuxConf *was* *widely* recognised for *stuffing things up*, leading to it being dropped from Red Hat Linux releases, at least. > For what it is...it's really a great product. What it isn't is a > substitute for understanding how to maintain your daemons yourself. That's another big part of the issue: Instead of learning to control what you're trying to control, you're learning to adjust some other program. Apart from going about it in a roundabout manner, such third-party controls are often rather limited in functionality, compared to what you can do by directly writing the configuration files, yourself. I've certainly seen that sort of thing for third-party tools that allow one to configure Samba or Apache (not being able to do everything that you might want to). -- Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
