On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:36:11 -0800 (PST) Shane Stixrud <shane@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I would be insulted if I didn't know you were just making a generalized > statement :). Who here hasn't spent more than 2 minutes trying to figure > a missing period in a named conf file, or more than two minutes setting up > ldap for the first time, or more than two minutes figuring out where to > find a specific option and value for /etc/modules.conf etc... The > problem is each time you touch something you haven't touched in the > past one must spend significant time figuring out how to make the change > even if they already know what they want to change. This is not true for > all configuration files, but it is for many. The amount of neurons I have > dedicated to configuration syntax and where the lists of values and > their descriptions are stored is many more than I would like. lol, naw i think you mistook my meaning. I'm not saying that all config editing can be handled in under two minutes. What i am saying though is that no more time than that is needed to comprehend the config file format. Once you've seen one config file, you've seen em all; more or less. A standard config file format isn't going to lessen the burden if understanding what all those config options etc mean. Even if that config file is presented in a pretty gui gconf-editor like tool. > The "non-initiated" see this as complex and on this specific issue I > agree, it is more complex than it needs to be.. I am just used to it and > shrug it off. > > If for every "key": its default, possible values (on, off string, float > etc..) is readily accessible and for every key there is a simple > description much of this complexity is eliminated. I just don't think this is really the significant part of what makes configuring a system difficult. Happy to be proved wrong. Sean -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
