On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 14:38 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Okay, let me phrase it differently. Moving our OS forward is great, but
> there's no reason to _encourage_ this forward movement to be in directions
> that fit in less well in existing production environments. The situation
> where it's a great step forward for remote administration if and only if you
> set up a whole new special infrastructure is counterproductive.
No, doing things right (e.g. in a way so you can plug-in networked
config backends) to start with is far better than having to deal with
with retrofitting things later. Plus, people will never start to build
networked config backends unless we actually start deploying software
that will use it.
Making e.g. g-p-m run when no-one is logged in solves a *bunch* of other
problems; sorry if granting you these capabilities (that you didn't have
earlier btw) as a system administrator causes you so much pain, e.g.
that you can't hand-edit a bloody file in /etc using vi or emacs (but
you will be able to run command tools as I mentioned in the other mail
to tweak things).
The whole proposal was put on the table to make life sweeter for system
administrators like yourself. To gain feature parity for power
management on the server and the desktop. To provide the same unique and
powerful interface for configuring it. To attract admins not as trained
as yourself. To enable remote administration in the future. And,
frankly, this feature has not landed yet, I was just sharing some ideas
from upstream. Sorry if it's too visionary for you.
David
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
