Slashdot Mirror
Simple Comprehensive Config Tools?
"I admit it, I'm a Linux newbie. As I write this, it is Day Two. I've been both impressed and unimpressed with the out-of-box experience. The variety of Linux I've picked up was RedHat 6.1 for my Intel machine. I hate lowlevel hardware tweaking like determining IRQs, and have hated it for 19 years, but I figured I could go through a little more of it.
Impressed:
I was pleased to find that there were gui or text-mode-gui things to help me get many items configured. There were a series of tools on most of the basics like mouse, monitor, graphics card, sound, net card, modem, ppp, and so on. If I knew the name of the tool or could find it (by using the Win32 laptop still attached to the Web), I was able to get my subsystems all working with a little effort. I'm not afraid of vi or bash or emacs, but the gui setup was well-adapted to letting me run around and choose options without having to remember or learn keystrokes like C-x C-s at the same time.
Unimpressed:
Very few things seemed to be organized, either in the online help, or the tools available. Most of the things I found were by searching the support requests on the RedHat page, not in any prepared documentation. Once I found *mention* of setserial(8), I could use it or get the manpage. Once I found the /etc/inittab(5), I could tweak it to get that graphical login that rh6.1 install didn't make. And so on, for problems I faced in an unsupported PnP Sony 17" monitor stuck in 640x480 SVGA, and other problems I've yet to figure out.
If I had a *comprehensive* one-stop-shopping place to go, it would help a lot. It doesn't have to know all the esoteric PnP techniques, it just has to know how to execute the tools that have already been written.
Perhaps it would let you browse all /dev/* entries, click on each one, and it would start the configurator tool that is responsible. Or at least point the user at what /etc/*.conf file was useful. I would hope to see loopback tests and more importantly, what to do or where to look if something's not working resources, even if they're just URLs back to the distro or author of the uberconfig tool."
And isn't that something Corel must have put into their distribution?
As far as I know, KDE 2.0 is supposed to have such a tool. I've only seen screenshots of it, though; can anyone else elaborate on that tool's quality?
We need software which is not just user-friendly, but also hacker-friendly
I use debian and am a little partial to debconf which does a great deal of the important setup information for many packages. This was reventle (about a month ago) given its own package and can have various levels of importance with regard to prompts.
However your best bet is linuconf or maybe a gnome app (sorry can't think of the name because I only used it once)
which allowed for editing system files and such.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
I thought that Linux is not supposed to be the next Windows clone. Why is it that lots of people are calling for these idiot-proof tools, when most of them happen to be the idiots?
If you want to have an idiot-proof OS, stay in winblows or go to the MacOS group, and get over it, gimps...
The organization i work with/for/own a slice of is actually in the process of creating such a tool that will do all that speare is asking for and then a whole lot more. its simple, secure, graphical, network aware and... well... there is so much to say about it that you may as well just wait till its out... it will be GPLed and the release is slated for the first week of march (we have 5 full time developers working on it). watch yer freshmeat =)
Man, that's just TASTELESS. Grow up...
dont like the current offerings? make a new one!! or join a group thats got something going.. maybe linuxconf?
It tastes like GRITS.
Because the "idiots", as you put it, are the ones who buy the software, and Linux isn't going to be very commercially viable unless the "idiots" can set it up and use it. And Linux will have to be commercially viable to get the same attention from large developers that Windows does...
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
Since Corel is based upon Debian I think that the various config methods (notibly debconf and things related to apt) are the norm.
Corel I believe has added some of their stuff for the install and probably improved the apt front end greatly with some form of gui or something.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Try using Xconfigurator for you video problem. Make sure you know the type of video card and how much memory is on it first though... It will then ask you what type of monitor you have. 17" Sony is one of the options
the new 7.x release of Mandrake w/ Cooker (beta), DrakX, linuxconf and Econf as defaults?
Remember guys, this is Amerika. Just because you have the most votes, doesn't mean you get to win.--Fox Mulder
Dude, you need help!
Dude, you need to get naked and petrified.
If you think this is the case look at all win32 api documentation then tell me about it. Generally the user interface in windows is more idiot proof than most (except the mac). However it does not mean that any idiot could do anything they want from the OS in an idiot proof manner.
What must be stated is that if all you want is to play games then you can easily do this in liunx in an idiot proof manner. However if you want to do something complex in a simple manner you may be stretching it. Any OS that tried to do something complex in an idiot proof wawy usually fails because of the complexity or because of lacking flexibility.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
I've played around with Linuxconf and the Gnome configuration tools, and have been generally unimpressed with the "embed everything into one tabbed panel" approach of the two. I use simple console-based tools or vi to edit the config files, but would welcome a set of *loosely integrated* tools, each specialized to work with modems, mice, etc. under X.
One approach, although windows-like, would be to make each applet a dynamically-linked library. A central "control-panel" applet could enumerate the shared libraries in a directory, calling some function like 'struct cp_ops init_panel(void);" to get a list of the functions to call for opening the applet, closing the applet, or assigning the applet an "owner window" (if such a thing exists). Among the "struct cp_ops" members could be a name, description, etc. This would be highly extensible, and wouldn't be limited to any one "master" application: other client programs could easily link in the "official" control panel operations, or simply reimplement them by calling into the applets directly.
I'm sure there's some really good argument for the ORBit/COM-like OO approach to configuration tools, but in practice I just haven't seen it work. If the embedded applets wouldn't do funny things like disappear when I press OK (GNOME), I would probably be singing their praises right now.
Is the aforementioned (and simple ) approach adequate? Is there some use or situation for which it would fail?
Webmin is an excellent configuration tool that everyone should check out once. It's particularly good at configuring server processes such as sendmail and DNS.
http://www.webmin.com
Automation and GUIs are great, as long as the "traditional methods" don't get broken. SMIT on AIX can be great, but some of the /etc stuff doesn't work, any more. Even worse, some of that is still there. So I would say that any GUI config tool should work through existing /etc stuff rather than around it.
/etc stuff is there and works, but it was typically machine generated. The original data is often back in /etc/sysconfig, and if you use linuxconf again later, your changes are ignored and wiped over.
RedHat skirts around this issue, a little. The regular
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I aaaam naked. Petrify me baby!!!
All these add are gui *front ends*. Meaning that nothing changes. Thank you.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
I don't really have an answer here, more of an expansion to the question, I guess. Since tools like linuxconf can be so dangerous (big gaping security hole waiting to be exploited in the machine isn't properly configed, and who is going to be most likely to not know what config is dangerous? First time users. Not to mention breaking things that you don't understand...), is that really the best answer? I think that a better solution to this would be a very detailed set of installation and/or config documents. For some things, this isn't that big a deal - if you can't get quake3 running in the first 20 minutes the machine was booted into *nix/BSD, you'll live. But if you don't know how to deal with basic config and setup, you can leave yourself open to being rooted, and that is a danger not only to yourself, but to everyone who has a computer that is network accessible from yours. Not a problem for the home box with nothing but loopback, but a serious problem for someone installing linux in their office, or on a college campus, or attaching to a DSL or cable modem. Personally, the way I first did this was by looking for man pages associated with everything in /etc. But that's time consuming, and there's plenty of stuff you don't learn that way. I suppose that for a given item you want to setup, that might not be that bad a method, for the moment. Still, I like the notion of a big pile of documentation. IIRC, red hat used to sell a package where you got these two immense reference manuals along with the distro cd and some other cds of software. Something like that would be good for a first time install, I think. Although it would have to be done just right - easily cross referenced, available in text or digital form, and up to date. Having meandered about this notion, I think it'll never happen, because it is that most feared and hated part of the programming project - documentation. Bummer, dude.
Now, in an attempt at answering, I would say that YaST is a really good tool for this, although I don't know if it can be shoehorned onto anything other that suse. YaST is fun and fabulous, although it doesn't do everything. But what it does, it does nice.
itachi
Trolls, flamebait, and spamming is on the rise here at Slapdash. However, the problem does not necessarily lie with the content of such posts , but rather the quantity. There are few trolls out there that are worth reading, because it takes a certain amount of intelligence and creativity - things the average troller lacks. No, the average troller is someone who barely knows anything about computers, and only seeks attention by trying to mimick the likes of MEEPT, 70%, 80md, opensourceman, and the naked and petrified guy.
In my sickness and irrationality, I am dedicating this post not to the bottom feeders or spammers, but the instigators. For this installment, I will be giving you some information about Craig McPherson , the young man responsible for starting the Naked and Petrified posts.
Craig McPherson has high karma (hence the +2 Bonus), that was earned not from posting quality comments, but through meta moderation. Somewhere along the way, he brought us an insight into his abnormal sexual fetishes - turning young girls into stone.
Glancing at his homepage , we can tell he is a sick puppy indeed. The time and effort wasted on dirty pleasure is only testament to how deep the sickness really is. To make matters worse, he is also an admin at Lacey Online, a page dedicated to the young actress Lacey Chabert who is not even eighteen. Sick indeed.
What is most disturbing, perhaps, is that Craig McPherson seems like an intelligent person who articulates himself well. But don't let that fool you, he is a very sick young man. Did I mention that he was sick? Anyway, here is some more information about him:
Name: Craig McPherson
Age: 18
Current location: Fayetteville, Arkansas
Occuption: Student at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville
Hobbies: Computers in general, Linux
AIM: cmcpher476
ICQ: 10262746
IRC: nick Craig on SandNet - #ASFR, Craig476 on DalNET - #chabert, Craig476 on EFNet - #distributed or #romcoders
EMail:
bigmac@itookmyprozac.com
craig@laceyonline.com
cmcpher@ipa.net
Stay away from him, and don't mod up his sick posts.
Thank You.
-Trollin the trolls
There are always ways to get around GUIs but they are usually not easy. All it takes is some knowledge about what the config file looks like and then you can edit it.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
The impression that everything is not organized comes from someone who knows nothing about Unix; I mean, "once I found
I understand the need the GUI generation (and most of non-geeks) have for easy to use tools, especially if Linux wants to take over the desktops (which I'm not sure is a good idea anyway), but I really worry about it turning Linux into something it's not, which is difficult to use for the experienced user.
Please be careful with automated tools. To try to put all the Unix miriad configuration files under ONE tool has a huge potential for chaos. It's almost inevitable the thing is going to get out of sync as already happens with linuxconf, unless you refrain from doing any kind of configuration by hand.
My feeling is that half the problems of the Windows family are caused just by that - the GUI and the need to make everything easy.
Maybe if Linux would split into 2 things, one of them being what already exists and the other some distribution for the masses. If something like this does happen, I'll bet anyone the version for the masses will not be nearly as stable and flexible as the original design.
Please, guys, make your install/config tools, but be careful!
ok, this is the best naked and petrified post yet(imo). if there are any that people think are as good please give me a link to them.
you know the trolling kicks ass when its better than The Glorious Meept
Hi. I'm CmdrTaco. I run this site... but I forgot my login password!! D'OH!!!
Anyway, kid, I'm very interested in what you have to say. At least, I WAS. You see, I WOULD have e-mailed you, but you failed to include an e-mail address. I WAS looking forward to moving the site away from a flawed http/html/perl solution to an ultracool JAVA solution, but I see you don't give enough of a damn to supply an e-mail address. So I guess you don't want to help out. So I guess I don't care about your idea anymore.
*BUT*, I can be convinced. Post your e-mail address here. EVEN BETTER, your phone number, and I promise, we'll get down to business IMMEDIATELY!
I'd better get at least your e-mail address, preferably your phone number, within 24 hours, otherwise you can forget about your idea!
I think we can start of with a sem-apropriate quote from Brian Behlendorf:
The point I'm trying to make here is that traditionaly under unix configuration has been quite a complex thing. Practicly everything under wintel has been designed with a cutsie little 'properties' dialogue in mind. Most of the time under unix the system and tools are vastly more configurable. Just look at the network thingy in a windows control panel, it's unwealdy, obease and not entirely effective at getting the job done, now imagine what it might look like under linux with the 10 fold greater flexibility the architechture lends to configuration. It may well be possible to design simple dialogues to hland the simple stuff like ip address, dialup and the like (effectively just the definitions at the top of all the config scripts and a few enable dissables). What you are unlikely to see however is an 'apply' button that asks you to 'please wait while I recompile the kernal', it's just plain silly. A certain degree of configuration can be hidden from the user by dialogues but until some big changes under the hood are implemented sooner or latter your going to have to roll your sleaves up. The question you then need to ask is how much flexibility are we willing to sacrifice for user friendliness?When I first installed Linux, I knew very little about the nuts and bolts of an operating system. Having been a Mac user for years, I had no idea as to the workings of an OS, how an OS did the things it did. Using Linux (LinuxPPC) forced me to quickly develop an understanding of the things that make an OS tick.
IMHO, I like the lack of GUI config tools, and, with the exception of kernel config, I hardly ever use them.
abnormal to think about having sex with a 60 year old woman (i'm 25)? I would like to bang my g/f's mom, preferrably in the ass. She's hot as hell.
thank you.
Although I can appreciate many people's desire to
have GUI config tools to help with configuration
in linux (devices, xwindows, daemons, startup, etc), I'd like to point out the following:
most GUI tools of this ilk are linux-specific.
One thing I always tell friends (esp. when configuring apache, bind, sendmail, etc) is that
they should go straight to the config files. One
of the strengths of linux is that configuring it
gives you an introduction to other unices as well.
If you can configure apache's httpd.conf on linux,
then you can also configure it on freebsd, solaris, aix, and just about any other UNIX it will port to. That's a valuable skill to learn --
and one that the GUI tool won't help you with.
By all means, play around with GUI configurators,
but learn what they actually configure and where.
Look at the config files. Learn to configure these
things with vi and you'll go a long way towards a
wider world.
(one thing I did like about AIX Smit is that it
displayed the CLI syntax once it kicked off a
configuration task -- not bad).
any gui tool in unix (imho) should always allow the user to hand edit the file in question if they want to... there is not reason not to, really...
also, conventions must be kept to and prior modifcations/changes should be respected and held to.
I can tell by your eloguent response. I pray that you do not procreate.
thank you.
Simpler installation attracts people like the "newbie" who want to try things, but it frustrates more experience users. There cannot be a one size fit all distribution, Corel tries to address the naive user market, RedHat tries to address moderate to experience user, etc. If he has installed Corel instead, he don't even have to deal with /dev stuff.
- Etam
Any linux config tool should not require X *cough*redhat*cough*mandrake*cough*. Some of are trying to set up Linux on 486s or 386s with 4MB or 8MB of RAM with small 135MB hard drives. I ain'ts gots no steenkin' room for X.
what about Transmeta? Is it true you just fetched coffee for the really smart people and were just a tool to garner mindshare?
thank you.
FR33 K3V1N!!!1!!! 0h W417... 7H475 R16Ht... ... W3LL, 61\/3 K3V1N B4CK H1Z C0/\/\Pu7eR!!!!1!!!!
Linuxconf has gotten a lot better over the past 6 months, and I find it adequate for 90% of my configuration needs. You can add users, edit mounted disks, modify the network setup, config Apache and Samba, and even edit the default init level (one of the problems mentioned in the post.) It seems to play fairly nice with existing text config files, and the web interface is a really neat idea.
Now when it comes to configuring hardware, I think Red Hat's simply the best, with Kudzu and Xconfigurator. Kudzu runs at bootup and, if new hardware is detected, will install and auto-configure the needed drivers. Xconfigurator, the well-known X config tool, is adequate, but this is one area that could use a make-over. I anticipate better tools after the release of XFree86 4.0.
I've never had a problem getting supported hardware to work with RH 6.1. Didn't even need to edit any text files!
The dream of one unified tool to manage your system is but a dream.
/etc.
Todays computer systems are complex things, just tcp/ip reqiures a 600 pages book to cover the basic, and people think that thinks that it could be melted down to one single "network control panel" are dreaming.
The traditional unix way of handling complexity is to break things down into smaller packages which could be managed on their own, imho a sensible aproach, top-down. But the drawback is obvious, you get the 2367 config files
I hope not for one tool to manage my system but rather a set of tools, perhaps integrated by a "front-end", the best aproach I have on this so far is made by http://www.linux-mandrake.com/ , things like http://www.linux-mandrake.com/lothar/ , the lothar project seems to be heading in the right direction. But as with all software theese things take time to mature and become really usable.
/N
The dream of one unified tool to manage your system is but a dream.
/etc.
Todays computer systems are complex things, just tcp/ip reqiures a 600 pages book to cover the basics, and people think that thinks that it could be melted down to one single "network control panel" are dreaming.
The traditional unix way of handling complexity is to break things down into smaller packages which could be managed on their own, imho a sensible aproach, top-down. But the drawback is obvious, you get the 2367 config files
I hope not for one tool to manage my system but rather a set of tools, perhaps integrated by a "front-end", the best aproach I have on this so far is made by http://www.linux-mandrake.com/ , things like http://www.linux-mandrake.com/lothar/ , the lothar project seems to be heading in the right direction. But as with all software theese things take time to mature and become really usable.
/N
Unix Console was released yesterday. It is not exactly what you're looking for, but if you're a Mac user setting up a Linux box it may help. Basically it allows you to use most of the monitoring/configing tools on a unix box graphically, in a nice little app. It logs you in via telnet and then sends the command line commands when you perform certain tasks. Granted, it's optimized for Solaris, but it seems to do most of the things Webmin does.
(Runs on MacOS)
"In individuals, insanity is rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." -Nietzsche
We need both. Every GPLed config tool and installer should be included on every Linux distro too. What's up with this one flaver, one installer. What distro has a choice of installers? Or is it that "this here Linux distro ain't big enough fer the two of us, pilgrim"?
...alley: The adult video, Statues.
MY FAVOURITE PASSTIME IS TO ROUND UP A BUNCH OF 16-YEAR-OLD FEMALE CHEERLEADERS IN SHORT SKIRTS, AND TRANSFORM THEM INTO A BUNCH OF PETRIFIED MARBLE 16-YEAR-OLD CHEERLEADER STATUES!!!!!!!!!
IF THE MPAA TRIED TO STOP ME FROM DOING THIS, I'M GOING TO BUST THEIR ASSES BACK TO THE STONE AGE. NOBODY STANDS BETWEEN ME AND MY PETRIFIED MARBLE CHEERLEADER STATUES!!!
***WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON MARS*** (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on 07:24 PM January 17th, 2000 CST
(#109)
Everyone *CLAIMS* the lander was shot down by aliens.
This is FALSE.
Those of us REALLY in the know are aware that the lander was
ACTUALLY ambushed by a squad of petrified cheerleaders who
weren't wearing any panties so you could life up their
cheerleader skirts and see their PETRIFIED BUTTOCKS.
But WAIT, I know what you're saying. Petrified cheerleader
can't move. How did they ambush the polar lander?
EXACTLY. They didn't have to do a thing. They polar lander
saw them, the guys at NASA controlling the thing got
erections and started masturbating, and they lost control of
the lander. But they STILL have the camera pictures of the
petrified girls, and they're STILL wacking off to pictures
of
"THE FAMOUS PETRIFIED CHEERLEADERS OF MARS"
Natalie Port-man, Natalie Port-man
Doin' the things that a Natalie can
Is she a woman, or is she a statue?
Nobody knows, Natalie Port-man.
Natalie Port-man, Natalie Port-man
Got turned to stone by a frying pan
When she's underwater does she get wet?
YES she does, and it's really hot,
that's what I think, Natalie Port-man.
Roblimo Man, Roblimo Man,
Roblimo Man gr0ks Natalie Port-man,
He have a fuck, Natalie orgasms,
Then she turns to stone, Natalie Port-man.
JonKatz Man, JonKatz Man,
JonKatz Man writes an article about Natalie Port-man.
Slashdot insults, Natalie doesn't care,
Because she's a statue, Natalie Port-man.
AC-Man, AC-Man,
AC-Man hates JonKatz man.
So does everyone else, but they like Natalie Port-man,
Hot naked girl, Natalie Port-man.
Natalie Port-man, Natalie Port-man
Doin' the things that a Natalie can
Is she a woman, or is she a statue?
Nobody knows, Natalie Port-man.
Y0V F0RG07 N4K3D 4ND P37R1F1ED!!!
Y0V N33D 2 4DD 4 \/\/H013 107 0F 5747V3 57VFF 70 7H3 1157!!!! 4ND M4YB3 GR175 F0R U4R137Y!!!!!
Seriously now, I bend over backward to write in-depth, meaningful "NAKED AND PETRIFIED" articles for this site, and THIS is the thanks I get? C'mon. Include the Naked and Petrified movement in your list. We need all the help we can get!
I've had over 100 moderation points spent on my posts so far (20 on the Open Letter to ESR, 34 on my "First Post!!!", and 1 on about 50 other posts). 1 4M 50 31337!!!!
Any reason you're being such a jerk? There's not really much merit to what you say. But I'll address it anyway.
I guess a lot because people aren't buying into this. I guess it's in the same vein as "Gee well I guess because people are black/jewish/gay/straight/different in any way we will hurt them, torture them, and then cremate them in ovens it is just abhearent.
Is it "abhearent" to give someone an eternal, peaceful life if they choose to accept it? I'd never really turn a girl to stone long-term against her will. If I ever implied I would, it was just to upset the Politially Correct crowd out there. And it worked! Your analogy is very poor. First, generally when hurting someone, the activity is being performed AGAINST HIS/HER WILL! And even if the person were masochistic or something, you'd still be HURTING someone. You've got no way of establishing that being transformed into a statue could be considered "harm," especially if it were a willing transformation.
In a word no. Basically this is just an indication of a control oriented invididual who wishes to have unlimited sexual contact without any consequences. An ego taken into extreme preportions.
I simply want a world of statues. A world where there are ONLY females, and the females are statues, because males are bad and don't deserve to live, and it is wrong to force females to live in an animate, biological state and to grow old and die. Being a male, I have no place in this world. I will be dead. But I will be happy that I fulfilled my purchase in life. Can the dead be controlling and egotistical? If I were controlling and egotistical, why would I want the females to remain stone after I died? I wouldn't be getting anything out of it after my death. So why not set it up to restore them after my death?
BECAUSE I'M NOT MOTIVATED BY PERSONAL GAIN!! I only want what's best for the women and the world.
Including you? I doubt it from your views. Since cells will be replaced with crystaline formations (you said stone) that will be the basis for this new "life form". It get's a little fuzzy about exactly how the need to reproduce is eliminated. As a biological person I may elect not to reproduce or to sit in a bunker under ground for the rest of my life. See the need for sex has been eliminated.
The statues the girls will be transformed to will not be "alive" in the biological sense, but they WILL be CONSCIOUS, which to many people is perfectly good definition of "alive" even if the consciousness isn't inhabiting a body that is biologically alive. Don't you know anything about statues? When's the last time you saw a statue reproduce? The girls will not need to perform any biological functions, and will be incapable of moving or reproducing in any way. They will be STATUES. Say that out loud.
Statuephile? Sounds like a new doctorine. I have a hard time believing that this is something other than something quite recent. Have you ever had sex before with a real person? Other than your mother? Well people find it interesting because there is a massive endorphin release from doing said act. If you have a method of releasing endorphins directly into your pleasure center of your brain I would love to hear about it.
Those who live only for the lusts of the flesh (endorophins included) are doomed to die to the lusts of the flesh, after living lives of sin and decadence.
We've been around forever, but it's only within the past decade that, thanks to the Internet, we've begun to find each other, and organize. For most, there IS no doctrine, it's just a sexual interest, they don't believe in any particular philsophy as I pretend to do in these troll-posts. It's just what they like instead of, or in addition to, sex. Most enjoy sex as well. Some don't. To each his or her own.
Yes, I have had sex, with a woman, when I was 18. I didn't enjoy it, just as I knew I wouldn't. And I'm never going to do it again. Because I choose not to.
So you think that the christian second comming of christ will bring about an end to sexual reproduction? Ineresting unless he kills all of us there still has to be a method of reproduction that is simple and quick and sexual reproduction fits the bill.
There's simply NO excuse for this. You obviously haven't even read the Bible. If you did, you'd know that we'll ALL be transformed into our spiritual bodies at Christ's return. The Bible states over and over again that we have exactly TWO bodies, no more, no less. One is a physical, earthly, mortal body that is prone to sin and death. The other is our spiritual body, which is celestial, immortal, not subject to the desires of the flesh, and is incapable of feeling pain, being damaged, lusting, or reproducing. When a person dies, he instantly enters his/her spiritual body, the body in which he will eventually stand judgement. When Christ returns, all who remain alive will ALSO enter their spiritual bodies, and we will be the same as those who have died. We will not all perish, but we will ALL be changed into our spiritual bodies.
If you read the Bible, you'd know this stuff. There's NO excuse not to!!!
Don't trip over your shoes billy or maybe all the used porn magazines that you colored the skin grey on to make them look like statues. Your father and I have really had concerns about your welfare ever since you started handing out with those terrible slashdot kids. You have started to do strange things and quite frankly we are concerned. Now take your prozac and a glass of warm milk and get ready for military school in the morning ok?
That was just a mindless, insulting troll and doesn't deserve a response. So it won't get one.
Any reason you're being such a jerk? There's not really much merit to what you say. But I'll address it anyway.
I guess a lot because people aren't buying into this. I guess it's in the same vein as "Gee well I guess because people are black/jewish/gay/straight/different in any way we will hurt them, torture them, and then cremate them in ovens it is just abhearent.
Is it "abhearent" to give someone an eternal, peaceful life if they choose to accept it? I'd never really turn a girl to stone long-term against her will. If I ever implied I would, it was just to upset the Politially Correct crowd out there. And it worked! Your analogy is very poor. First, generally when hurting someone, the activity is being performed AGAINST HIS/HER WILL! And even if the person were masochistic or something, you'd still be HURTING someone. You've got no way of establishing that being transformed into a statue could be considered "harm," especially if it were a willing transformation.
In a word no. Basically this is just an indication of a control oriented invididual who wishes to have unlimited sexual contact without any consequences. An ego taken into extreme preportions.
I simply want a world of statues. A world where there are ONLY females, and the females are statues, because males are bad and don't deserve to live, and it is wrong to force females to live in an animate, biological state and to grow old and die. Being a male, I have no place in this world. I will be dead. But I will be happy that I fulfilled my purchase in life. Can the dead be controlling and egotistical? If I were controlling and egotistical, why would I want the females to remain stone after I died? I wouldn't be getting anything out of it after my death. So why not set it up to restore them after my death?
BECAUSE I'M NOT MOTIVATED BY PERSONAL GAIN!! I only want what's best for the women and the world.
Including you? I doubt it from your views. Since cells will be replaced with crystaline formations (you said stone) that will be the basis for this new "life form". It get's a little fuzzy about exactly how the need to reproduce is eliminated. As a biological person I may elect not to reproduce or to sit in a bunker under ground for the rest of my life. See the need for sex has been eliminated.
Important Poll for Slashdot, please answer
If you could transform any 5 (or 10, or 50, whatever you feel like) young women into statues:
1. What females would you choose, in order from my favorite downwards?
2. Why would you choose those females?
3. What kind of stone (or other immobile substance, natural or manmade) would you transform them into?
4. Describe the pose each girl would be in.
5. Describe the facial expression each girl would have.
6. Explain what each girl would be wearing, if anything.
7. Explain what you would do with the girls after they were petrified.
8. Anything else you'd care to add here.
Thanks for your participation!
Ladies (and faeries), you can list men instead of women if you're so inclined. I don't discriminate.
I spend all my time fantasising about petrification; more specifically, thinking about magically transforming cute naked teenage girls into cute naked teenage marble statues, and then admiring and them and perhaps having some sexual contact with them and perhaps masterbating while looking at them and ejaculating on their petrified bodies.
I have no normal sexual desire at all. I consider sexual intercourse or any sexual contact with a biological person to be the most disgusting thing imaginable. Petrificaion is all that I care about. I spend like 4 hours a day masterbating while thinking about cute girls like Natalie Portman and Lacey Chabert being turned to stone.
Maybe there's nothing wrong with this. I dunno. You tell me.
So you want to advance science?
You want exploration?
You want excitement?
You want to waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money?
FUCK MARS
Work on a way to turn cute teenage girls to stone!!
That's what would REALLY help out humanity!!!
So, you say that the 99% should be able to supress and trod all over the 1%, and the 1% are supposed to just sit there and take it?
I realize my letter was too harsh. But after being crushed under the heel of the sexualist regime for my entire life, I'm sure you'll feel a little pent-up anger is justified. Just as Linux, BSD, and BeOS folks are rather justified in feeling a certain amount of hostility towards Microsoft.
But I apologize for my confrontational tone. Can we not just accept that statuephiles are statuephiles, and sexualists are sexualists, and live in peace without insulting on another?
I'm prepared to, if the other side is willing to at least try to be respectful.
And if not, I'm currently in legal discussion about begining to file suit against those who practice discrimination against statuephiles in states that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, and pressing for laws in states where homosexuals are protected under Hate Crimes laws for statuephiles to be protected as well. If such laws cannot be passed, I may challenge the constitutionality of every law that protects or favours homosexuals but not of other sexual-orientation groups such as heterosexuals, heterostatuephiles, and homostatuephiles. I will not rest until the SUPREME COURT itself has struck down every one of those discriminatory laws. There are also a number of people I have in mind to take to court for slander, libel, and threats against me and others in the statuephile community.
Want to compromise, or want to get legal?
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SEXUALISTS ON SLASHDOT
Dear Slashdot,
I'm a statuephile, but I have many sexualist friends (it's hard not to, seeing that the world is probably at least 99% sexualist), and many sexualist enemies.
I don't really have anything AGAINST sexualists. I can't say I understand their philosophy at all. And I consider what they do -- carnal acts involving the intersection of human genitals -- to be absolutely disgusting. I consider sex to be the most disgusting thing in the world. But they have their desires, just as I have mine. So I don't criticize them. I do unto them as I would have them do unto me.
But do I get the same treatment in return? No. Because I prefer preservation rather than destruction, glorification over violation, I'm called a "bad guy", a "freak", "sick", etc. etc. etc. I've even been compared to a rapist! Try figuring that one out... next they'll be comparing Bill Clinton to a good president.
Anyway, just another example of the tyrrany of the majority. Anything that is different is wrong. Anything that seems strange to them must be sick, twisted, perverted, and evil.
But regardless of how the two sides treat each other, there is one simple fact:
SEX IS KILLING OUR WORLD!!!
Sex kills. Sex can cause life. But sex DOES cause death. Sex spreads disease which are ravaging and destroying millions of lives and hundreds of cultures of this worlds. Not only practicing sexualists are affected, innocent children often inherited these sexually transmitted diseases from their sexualist parents.
Sex destroys. The gratitious sex in societies all over the world today result in millions of unwanted births and a population explosion that is rapidly depleting the resources of our world. It can't last forever. The sexualists will eventually see the folly of their ways. But it'll probably be too late.
Sex damns. Almost everyone in the world today engages in premarital sex, homosexual sex, or some other kind of sex that violates God's law. This has reached UNACCEPTABLE levels. We're becoming a world of lost people.
And yet, anyone who doesn't buy into the destructive sexualist paradigm is a "freak." Sex violates. Sex hurts. Sex demeans. Sex insults. Petrification glorified. Petrification preserves. Petrification perfects. Which sounds better to you?
People are too guided by their penii and clitorii to even think about these things clearly!!! They see statuephiles as a threat to their destructive paradigm and immediately say "VILLAIN!!" "FIEND!!" "FREAK!!", then they go out, get drunk, and search for someone who's genitals they'd like their own genitals to come in contact with. All they care about is where their next piece of "action" is coming from.
THAT is their life. Hollow, empty, just a constant quest for sex, sex, and more sex. That is the life of a sexualist. They refuse to see past their penii or clitorri and look at what they're DOING to the world. They refuse to look at the consequences of their reckless lifestyles.
All I advocate is HAPPINESS. I envision a world ruled by thousands of happy, nude, petrified teenage girls. It's a dream, but it's fun to think about.
And I'm some kind of monster because of this. Just look at all that's been said about me so far.
It's getting hard to care about the world. The sexualists will never change. They'll never realize that what we REALLY need to do is band together, find a way to turn girls to stone, and make it happen. In the Statue Age, the girls will be happy. The world will be happy.
Now, I know most people reading this are going to read it and say "his philosophy is something I've never heard before, and I don't agree with it, so that means he MUST be crazy." Typical Slashdot attitude. Typical WORLD attitude. We're all tempted to think like that sometimes. You guys in the majority have it easy. But please think about who you're judging.
I'm not asking you to agree with my beliefs. I'm not asking you to be a statuephile. I'm not asking you to march in any Statuephile Pride Marches. I'm just asking you to ACCEPT my beliefs, odd though they may be to you, just as I accept your beliefs, odd as they are to me. I think that putting one's genitals inside of what basically amounts to a moist bag of mucous, vomit, human waste, and foul fluids of all sorts is DISGUSTING. You think that transforming young women into statues is DISGUSTING. We agree on that. But can't we just accept each other's beliefs, and move on?
If you can at least agree to that, then all I'm asking you, for the sake of all of us, is PLEASE, reply to this message, and say "I will accept your beliefs, as long as you accept mine. We are all brothers and sisters. Lets not dwell on differences." Please do that, at least for YOURSELF.
Good day, and God bless.
Regards,
Anon. Coward #232362369
I HEAR THEY HAVE WAYS OF TURNING TEENAGE GIRLS TO STONE!!!
DID YOU KNOW THAT IN SOME STATE A FEW YEARS BACK, IN THAT TOWN NEAR AN FBI PLACE, FIVE REALLY FINE-ASS 16-YEAR-OLD GIRLS VANISHED FROM THEIR HOMES AND NOBODY COULD FIND THEM!!!
THEN, A YEAR LATER, THEY FOUND FIVE NAKED TEEN STATUES IN THE LIKENESS OF THE FIVE GIRLS!!! STATUE EXPERTS EXAMINED THE STATUES AND CONCLUDED THAT THE DETAILS SEEMED TOO FINE TO HAVE BEEN MAN-MADE!!!
ONE OLD WOMAN SAID THAT THE FBI WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR TURNING THE GIRLS TO STONE
!!!!!!********* BUT SHE DISAPPEARED TWO DAYS LATER ****************!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WARNING: THE FBI TOOK AWAY THE OLD WOMAN BECAUSE SHE KNEW THE TRUTH!!!! THE STATUES ***********MUST*******8 HAVE BEEN THE PETRIFIED GIRLS, OTHERWISE THE OLD WOMAN NEVER WOULD HAVE DISAPPEARED. IT MUST BE THE FBI.
THE FBI WANTS TO TURN OUR TEENAGE GIRLS TO STONE! THEY WANT TO TURN OUR DAUGHTERS TO STONE! THEY WANT TO TURN OUR SISTERS TO STONE! THEY WANT TO TURN OUR GIRLFRIENDS TO STONE!!! THEY WANT TO TURN OUR FRIENDS TO STONE!!!
******************WHAT ****** ***WILL** ---YOU--- ---DO--- %%%WHEN%%% ***THE*** ---FBI--- $$$TURNS$$$ !!!###@@@###!!!YOUR!!!###@@@###!!! FAVORITE SEXY 16-YEAR-OLD GIRLTO STONE??? WHAT WILL YOU DO??????
STOP THE FBI BEFORE IT'S TOOOOOOOOOO LATE!!!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------
I don't really have anything AGAINST sexualists. Heck, 99% of the world is composed of sexualists. However, I think it's odd that I'm villified for preserving and glorifying, while the sexualists are praised for regularly violating, defiling, and engaging in carnal acts of all sorts. They are seen as big heroes because they've managed to get their genitals to come in contact with the genitals of somebody else. OOOOOOooo, I guess we're one step closer to world peace, now? No. One step closer to curing AIDS? No. SPREADING AIDS? Yes. Sexualists spread all kinds of filthy diseases, and cause thousands of unwanted pregnancies every year.
SEX IS KILLING OUR WORLD!!!!!!
And the sexualists don't even care. All they care about is where their next piece of action is coming from.
---------------------------------------------
We need a new AIBO feature
A FEATURE THAT TURNS GIRLS TO STONE!!!!!!!
Dear Slashdot:
This is what we need more than anything.
Please write to Sony and DEMAND that the next model of AIBO be fully able t
o transform cute teenage girls into cute teenage statues!!!
Let's imagine a sexy 17-year-old girl. Let's call her Sarah. Thanks to th
e new AIBO, we can have all KINDS of fun now.
It's Christmas morning.
Sarah is wearing this really sexy little pink silk dress.
She opens up a gift.... it's an AIBO!!
"Hooray!!" She's so happy. She plays with her new pet.
And then I, hiding outside, push the button on the special petrification re
mote control. Sarah looks down at the dog, smiling, and before she knows w
hat happened, the dog zaps her with the on-board petrification ray and she
hardens into a pretty little marble statue.
Then I go inside and feel her up a little bit, and take her and the dog bac
k to my place, where they will be my two best friends.
Then I pet the AIBO, and say "Good dog!!!"
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING
A.C.
-----------------------------------------------
Ha ha, he said "statue."
I bet he'd just LOVE to turn NATALIE PORTMAN into a statue, and have his way with her marble body!!!
-----------------------------------------------
Can Dark Matter turn girls to stone?
I wonder, is there possibly a way of turning girls to stone here? I'm not
really up on the latest science, but please, fill me in. I need to find a
way to transform some cute teenage girls into statues, so I'm asking if Dar
k Matter might be able to help me. Please help. I'm lonely. I need statu
es.
Tell me all about dark matter and how it might be useful for turning girls
to stone.
-----------------------------------------------
*** A VERY IMPORTANT POLL FOR SLASHDOT ***
This is to everyone in the Slashdot community. Please respond.
If you could transform any 50 cute teenage girls into statues, what 50 cute
teenage girls would you choose? What type of stone substance would you tr
ansform them into? Would they be wearing clothing? What sort of pose would
they be in? What kind of facial expressions would they have? Would you k
eep them petrified indefinately, or would it be a temporary job, or would i
t be part-time?
PLEASE USE AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE
THANKS,
A.C.
-----------------------------------------------
HELLO FRIENDS:
PLEASE SOMEONE HELP ME
PLEASE WRITE A VIRUS PROGRAM FOR ME SO THAT I CAN SEND IT TO CUTE GIRLS, AND WHEN IT IS RUN ON THEIR COMPUTES IT WILL TRANSFORM THEM INTO STATUES THROUGH THE MAGIC OF PROGRAMMING TECHNOLOGY!!!
PLEASE MAKE IT SO IT RUNS ON LINUX AND WINDOWS BECAUSE THE GIRLS WHO USE LINUX AND WINDOES ARE THE **CUTEST**!!!!!!!!!! THERE'S NO NEED FOR IT TO RUN ON BSD BECAUSE ***NO*** CUTE TEENAGE GIRL USES BSD!!! OR MACINTOSH!!!
REALLY ALL I WANT IS THE PROGRAM TO TURN THE TEENAGE GIRLS TO STONE, SO LIKE IF I'M TALKING TO A HOT GIRL ON IRC, I CAN JUST PUSH SOME BUTTONS AND SHE'LL BE TURNED TO STONE IN REAL LIFE!!!
PLEASE HELP ME DO THIS!!!!!!!
Thanks,
A.C.
-----------------------------------------------
GATHER ROUND, FRIENDS.
IN THE YEAR 2000, LET'S ROUND UP MILLIONS OF CUTE TEENAGE GIRLS, ASK THEM POLITELY TO
REMOVE THEIR CLOTHING, AND THEN ONCE THEY'VE DONE SO, HAVE THEM STAND ON
PEDESTALS AND USE EITHER MAGIC OR SCIENCE (WHICHEVER YOU PREFER) TO TRANSFORM
THEM INTO STATUES!!! I *LOVE* STATUES!! I LOVE TEENAGE GIRLS WHO HAVE BEEN
TRANSFORMED INTO STATUES!!!
WHO'S WITH ME ON THIS. LET'S GET IT ON.
WE'LL LET Y2K BE THE YEAR THAT A BUNCH OF TEENAGE GIRLS GET TURNED TO STONE. THEN
THE 21ST CENTURY WILL BEGIN, AND IT'LL BE KNOWN AS THE CENTURY OF THE PETRIFIED
TEENAGE GIRLS.
WE WILL ALL GATHER ROUND AND LOOK AT THE TEENAGE GIRLS WHILE WE.... Y'KNOW. Y'KNOW.
NUDGE NUDGE, NUDGE NUDGE, KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
***** ALMOST THE YEAR 2000, IT WILL BE THE LAST YEAR WE HAVE TO TURN GIRLS TO STONE
BEFORE THE 21ST CENTURY BEGINS LET'S NOT SQUANDER IT *****
-----------------------------------------------
Dear Slashdot:
I really really really need a way to transform cute, naked teenage girls into cute, naked teenage st-one girls. But, I'm having a bit of trouble actually making it happen. So I need help, from y'all, the best and brightest of the Unternet. I mean, Internet. Sorry.
Anyway, this "Redhat Software," with all this stuff they're buying up.... is there any way they might be able to help me turn hot young girls into hot young stat-ues that I can use for purposes of sexual gratification? If you can think of ANYTHING, please help me out here.
If anyone can provide me with an effective method of transforming teenage girls into stat-ues, in such a way that the girls remain conscious, and the condition is easily reversible, OR even provide me a good lead to such a method, I will provide him or her with a large sum of money.
Also, I am looking for cute teenage girls to volunteer to be stat-ues. This will pay moderate sums of money also. I would prefer if you were willing to be nude, however we can reach a compromise, I'm sure. Swimsuits would work for me. As long as you're st-one. TEENAGE GIRLS PLEASE RESOND TO THIS IS INTERESTED.
IF ANYONE KNOWS HOW TO TURN TEENAGE GIRLS TO STONE PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS!!!
Regards,
A.C.
p.s. This is *URRRRRGENT*
-----------------------------------------------
Someday, as soon as I can figure out how, I'm going to turn
a WHOLE BUNCH of cute teenage girls to stone. Then I'll
have a WHOLE BUNCH of cute teenage statues. They will be my
friends. They will be my companions. I will talk to them,
and hug them, and love them, and be their friends, and watch
television with them, and touch them in ways that will make
them happy. I will live with them in a little cabin in the
woods away from civilization. Just me and my petrified
girls. We will be together for all the rest of my life.
K?
-----------------------------------------------
I ENJOY FINDING TEENAGE GIRLS, PULLING DOWN THEIR PANTS, TURNING THEM (THE GIRLS, NOT
THE PANTS) TO *STONE*, AND THEN TOUCHING THE PETRIFIED BUTTOCKS!!!
I ENJOY FINDING TEENAGE GIRLS, PULLING DOWN THEIR PANTS, TURNING THEM (THE GIRLS, NOT
THE PANTS) TO *STONE*, AND THEN TOUCHING THE PETRIFIED BUTTOCKS!!!
I ENJOY FINDING TEENAGE GIRLS, PULLING DOWN THEIR PANTS, TURNING THEM (THE GIRLS, NOT
THE PANTS) TO *STONE*, AND THEN TOUCHING THE PETRIFIED BUTTOCKS!!!
I ENJOY FINDING TEENAGE GIRLS, PULLING DOWN THEIR PANTS, TURNING THEM (THE GIRLS, NOT
THE PANTS) TO *STONE*, AND THEN TOUCHING THE PETRIFIED BUTTOCKS!!!
I WOULD ENJOY FEEDBACK ON THIS, AS I'D LIKE TO IMPROVE MY TECHNIQUE. PLEASE POST YOUR
THOUGHTS ON PETRIFYING TEENAGE GIRLS. IF YOU HAVE ANY TIPS ON THE SUBJECT, PLEASE
SHARE THEM. HOW OFTEN DO YOU TURN TEENAGE GIRLS TO STONE? WHAT ARE YOUR
THOUGHTS ON IT? COMMENTS PLEASE!!!!
-----------------------------------------------
DEAR SLASHDOT:
WHAT I WOULD REALLY LOVE WOULD BE TO FIND A PLANET WHERE THERE ARE PEOPLE LIKE US,
AND THIS PLANET HAS A LOT OF CUTE TEENAGE GIRLS, AND THE PLANET IS REALLY HOT SO
THEY RUN AROUND IN SWIMSUITS, AND IT'S REALLY REALLY SEXY.
ANYWAY, ON THIS PLANET, THEY DON'T LET THEIR CUTE TEENAGE GIRLS GROW OLD AND DIE
LIKE WE DO ON OURS. THEY TREAT THEIR TEENAGE GIRLS RIGHT. THEY USE MAGIC ALIEN
TECHNOLOGY DEVICES TO TRANSFORM THE NAKED TEENAGE GIRLS INTO STATUES, THEN THEY
KEEP THE STATUES, AND WORSHIP THEM, AND LOOK AT THEM AND STUFF, AND MASTERBATE
WHILE LOOKING AT THE STATUES OF THE PETRIFIED GIRLS!!!
AND THE PETRIFIED GIRLS ARE *VERY HAPPY* AND THEY ARE HAPPIER THAN THEY WERE WHEN
THEY WERE ANIMATE, AND THEY ARE SEXY AND NAKED AND STONE AND TEENAGED FOREVER!!!
PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK FOR THIS
HERE IS MY IDEA: WE BUILD A LARGE ROCKET-SHIP AND USE IT TO TRAVEL TO THIS PLANET. WE
TAKE WITH US THE FOLLOWING CUTE TEENAGE GIRLS:
-LACEY CHABERT
-NATALIE PORTMAN
-JESSICA ALBA
-THE OLSEN TWINS HA HA JUST KIDDING
-MAE LING MAK OKAY SHE'S NOT A TEENAGER BUT WE CAN PRETEND
-ALL THE CUTE TEENAGE GIRLS WHOSE NAMES I CAN'T REMEBER
WE TAKE THEM TO THIS PLANET AND THEY GET TURNED TO STONE BY THE ALIENS ON THE
PLANET!!! AND THEN WE CAN TOUCH THEIR ASSES AND STUFF.
PLEASE HELP ME TO DO THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TELL ME HOW TO GET TO THIS PLANET!!!!!! PLEASE TELL ME
HOW TO BUILD A ROCKET-SHIP SO THAT I CAN TAKE THE GIRLS TO THE PLANET!!!!!! PLEASE TELL
ME HOW TO GET THE GIRLS ONTO THE ROCKET-SHIP!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO SPEAK THE
ALIEN LANGUAGE AND HOW TO TALK TO THEM AND STUFF!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE HELP ME WITH DETAILS
OF THIS PLAN I MIGHT NOT HAVE THOUGHT OF!!!! WE ALL HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER IF THIS IS
GOING TO WORK!!!!
-----------------------------------------------
GATHER ROUND, FRIENDS.
I KNOW THERE ARE PLENTY OF CUTE GIRLS IN AUSTRALIA. I'D LIKE TO TURN THEM ALL TO
STONE. LET'S ALSO PETRIFY SOME KANGAROOS ALSO. THAT'D BE KINDA SEXY!!!
*** LET'S GET IT ON ***
*HOORAY FOR PETRIFIED GIRLS*
WE WILL TURN EVERY CUTE TEENAGE GIRL IN AUSTRALIA TO STONE, THEN THEY WILL TRULY BE
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
IN THE YEAR 2000, LET'S ROUND UP MILLIONS OF CUTE TEENAGE GIRLS, ASK THEM POLITELY TO
REMOVE THEIR CLOTHING, AND THEN ONCE THEY'VE DONE SO, HAVE THEM STAND ON
PEDESTALS AND USE EITHER MAGIC OR SCIENCE (WHICHEVER YOU PREFER) TO TRANSFORM
THEM INTO STATUES!!! I *LOVE* STATUES!! I LOVE TEENAGE GIRLS WHO HAVE BEEN
TRANSFORMED INTO STATUES!!!
WHO'S WITH ME ON THIS. LET'S GET IT ON.
WE'LL LET Y2K BE THE YEAR THAT A BUNCH OF TEENAGE GIRLS GET TURNED TO STONE. THEN
THE 21ST CENTURY WILL BEGIN, AND IT'LL BE KNOWN AS THE CENTURY OF THE PETRIFIED
TEENAGE GIRLS.
WE WILL ALL GATHER ROUND AND LOOK AT THE TEENAGE GIRLS WHILE WE.... Y'KNOW.
Y'KNOW. NUDGE NUDGE, NUDGE NUDGE, KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
***** ALMOST THE YEAR 2000, IT WILL BE THE LAST YEAR WE HAVE TO TURN GIRLS TO STONE
BEFORE THE 21ST CENTURY BEGINS LET'S NOT SQUANDER IT *****
-----------------------------------------------
I REALLY REALLY WANT TO REMOVE NATALIE PORTMAN'S PANTS, TOUCH HER BUTTOCKS, AND
TRANSFORM HER INTO A STONE STATUE, THEN I WILL HAVE A PETRIFIED AND NAKED NATALIE
PORTMAN, WITH A BUTT THAT I CAN TOUCH ANYTIME I WANT!!!!
PLESE HELP ME TO DO THIS!!!!!
I REALLY REALLY WANT TO REMOVE NATALIE PORTMAN'S PANTS, TOUCH HER BUTTOCKS, AND
TRANSFORM HER INTO A STONE STATUE, THEN I WILL HAVE A PETRIFIED AND NAKED NATALIE
PORTMAN, WITH A BUTT THAT I CAN TOUCH ANYTIME I WANT!!!!
PLESE HELP ME TO DO THIS!!!!!
I REALLY REALLY WANT TO REMOVE NATALIE PORTMAN'S PANTS, TOUCH HER BUTTOCKS, AND
TRANSFORM HER INTO A STONE STATUE, THEN I WILL HAVE A PETRIFIED AND NAKED NATALIE
PORTMAN, WITH A BUTT THAT I CAN TOUCH ANYTIME I WANT!!!!
PLESE HELP ME TO DO THIS!!!!!
I REALLY REALLY WANT TO REMOVE NATALIE PORTMAN'S PANTS, TOUCH HER BUTTOCKS, AND
TRANSFORM HER INTO A STONE STATUE, THEN I WILL HAVE A PETRIFIED AND NAKED NATALIE
PORTMAN, WITH A BUTT THAT I CAN TOUCH ANYTIME I WANT!!!!
PLESE HELP ME TO DO THIS!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------
DEAR DEBIAN:
IF YOU COULD TRANSFORM ANY 50 HOT YOUNG WOMEN INTO STATUES, WHAT 50 HOT YOUNG
WOMEN WOULD YOU CHOOSE?
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
I am the original poster (and the person who started the "naked and petrified" trend on Segfault, though a bunch of other lame-brains picked up on it... the sexually explicit comments were NOT mine, and I'm also the author of the famous "immobilized and not fully clothed" letter to ESR, the first ever "naked and petrified" post to reach a moderation point of 5, and stay there), and I would like to clarify.
I would NEVER transform a girl into a statue unwillingly if she didn't enjoy being a statue. If she did NOT like being a statue, I would immediately restore her to her animate state, apologize thoroughly, and go look for females with more of a proclivity for being marble.
Rufies are NOTHING of the sort. They do NOT actually transform flesh into any kind of inert substance while preserving the consciousness of the transformed person. That's what's important.
In all of my fantasies, the women LOVE being statues. In fact, the transformation is usually voluntary, or at the least, temporary. Many of the women I talk to about this say they DON'T think they'd probably enjoy being statues. But until science or magic actually advances far enough to find out, we don't know WHAT it would be like to be a statue, and whether or not the women would enjoy it.
So how can you decide if it's good or bad?
And since it's something that can never happen, in our lifetimes or probably ever, what is the bag fat hairy yak-brained idea??
Petriphilia (or statuephilia) is a VERY common interest. You'd be surprised how many hundreds of us there are on the Internet, and how many THOUSANDS in the world. So before you switch into FLAME FLAME FLAME FLAME mode, maybe you should read what this article is actually saying. How would you like it if I criticized YOUR sexuality?
Okay, I'll do just that.
GOD, YOU'RE SICK! YOU ACTUALLY HAVE *SEX* WITH PEOPLE! THAT'S DISGUSTING! YOU CAN GET ALL KINDS OF DISEASED AND PREGNANCY AND STUFF DOING THAT!!! SICK SICK SICK!! YOU SEXUALISTS MAKE ME WANT TO VOMIT! I'M HEVER READING SLASHDOT AGAIN!
There. You didn't like it very much, did you.
Throw stones elsewhere, or better yet, don't throw stones at all.
I was actually rather disheartened when this got moderated up. That's not what's supposed to happen. My "Open Letter to ESR" was supposed to be moderated up, and it was. Because, not to brag, it was very clever. This was no more clever than my favorite cartoon, Pokey the Penguin. It was meant for those who, like me, keep thresholds at -1, sort by score, and always skip to the bottom of the article to find the REAL good stuff.
I apologize for the inconvenience caused by it being moderated up.
For those who want to learn more about people who love turning girls to stone:
http://www.oaktree.net/argoforg
http://members.xoom.com/meddie/Medusa
We're really quite normal, good, honest people. Please don't judge us based on the fact that one of us (me) enjoys a good Troll now and then!!!
Good day, and God bless.
Elian? Send that little fucker back before he starts wwIII.
thank you.
Disclaimer: this is not a bashing of admintools .. please bare with me :)
I've been kicking around unix systems for some years now, and I've developed a love/hate relationship with admin tools (both GUI and text-based). I tend to lean towards the hate category and edit config files by hand as much as possible.
"Why", you ask? Because if I don't figure out how to do it by hand, when things go south, you either wind up learning to do it by hand, or you often are out of luck. It seems to me that it is better to know all the nasty bits up front, rather than wait for Bad Things to happen later and have to figure things out then (often under pressure from time constraints).
Now, this is not an admintool-bashing argument; I'd love to see the end-all-be-all suite of admin tools. However, what I would *most* like to see in an admin tool is more feedback. Specifically, if I'm going to be using linuxconf (for example), when I hit the apply button, I want it to *tell* me what it's doing, and preferably log all the changes it's making. That way, I have a clue where to look if linuxconf isn't doing the Right Thing. That would go along way towards helping newcomers to linux: they'd have a central place to go for configuration *and* learn what was going on behind the scenes for those times when it really matters.
As a second example, consider the debate about the ease of installing windows vs installing linux. Windows installation is usually described as easier, right? In many ways, I'd say this is true (altho it's the delta is narrowing all the time). However, you've probably had those times when installing windows didn't go so well. And when it goes badly, what happens? You are in a world of hurt. Why is that? Because it doesn't tell you what it's trying to do behind the seens; you can't fix things because you can't even figure out what is supposed to be fixed (at least not without an enormous amount of effort or prior knowledge of windows).
So, in summary, I think anyone developing configuration tools should really consider keeping the tool's users informed about what is going on under the hood, rather than hiding the operations completely. That would help both the user, and the tool's maintainer.
you will be the first up against the wall when the capitalist/democratic revolution hits the states!
- You're an idiot if you don't already know all the magic incantations to configure a Linux system;
- Write your own config tool;
- WINDOZE SUX
It seems that there are quite a few people who think that Linux should not be used by people who don't program; or that Linux is a club for nerds who can rhyme off everything inIf, on the other hand, Linux is supposed to be an OS that can actually be useful as an OS, shouldn't it be possible to install it properly without having another PC handy for Web queries? Fun's fun, but you shouldn't have to take a "Linux for Geeks" course before you can even boot it up.
I don't think the issue is so much GUI vs. CLI configuration, but rather having some tool available "to execute the tools that have already been written", as the article said.
Or maybe I'm wrong, and I'm just not ready to join the Holy Order of Linux Initiates.
--
What about building a text-gui index to the HOWTO files (HTMLed, I suppose) and putting it in the installer as a sort of online-help system? I have nothing against linuxconf, of course, but an easily accessable HOWTO database should cover a wider array of possibilities, IMHO.
Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
Despite all this crap you've been posting about me, STILL nothing's come of it. You're wasting your time. Do you have a point, or do you just like judging and insulting others?
You want it? Start typing bwahaha Personally I find it easier to just read the related documentation and do whatever needs to be done.
Yes, I'm still a junky. Are you still a bitch?
Nah, weren't man nuff for him either. But I'm sure he'd be flattered that you're fantasizing about him like that.
No one else here gives 2 shits for java servlets.
And since anyone with half a brain keeps javascript off due to the security problems, I don't see Rob taking a first-rate site and screwing it up.
If you want to spew crap, come up with something original, not java servlets.
This has more than once provided me all I ever needed to know about the configuration file in question. That's not so difficult. Just poke around /etc/ until you find a file that looks likely, then check the manpage.
Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
This is both a blessing and a curse. I hated Windows because it insisted on holding my hand when I didn't want my hand held, so, what was the first thing I did when I installed Linux, I ran Linuxconf.
Linuxconf is a phenomenally capable tool. Sure it is rough in spots and annoying in spots and it writes hideous smb.conf files, but it does at least give someone a place to start. The curse part, however, is that I started relying on the tool instead of educating myself as to what was going on underneath the Linuxconf interface. So, I quit using Linuxconf and started doing everything by hand. Now I know what goes on on my systems (the last Linuxconf module I regularly used was the Sendmail module, I recently started using the M4s, and then ran into the arms of Postfix, but that's a different story).
Now, I sometimes use Linuxconf again to do quick and dirty network stuff, but at least I know what Linuxconf is doing!
If we are ever going to reach the "average" users, tools like Linuxconf must succeed and we shouldn't look down on the tools or those who use those tools (and I've seen some of that invective on this thread). Just be glad that as with most things Linux we have a choice!
Stand Fast,
Stand Fast,
tjg.
poseur
maybe I'm thinking about you. you seem to love me.
cfengine is a sort of generic "configuration control" languge. You define things like lines that should be in /etc/hosts , or things that should be mounted, or files that ought to be kept up to date with central repositories, rotating system logs, fixing file permissions, and other similar sorts of things.
A daily/hourly run will go through and "clean up" whatever isn't set according to the instructions.
There's a client/server variation called cfd that allows you to push configuration across a network on demand.
The big point to this is that it treats system set up more like "immunology" than anything else. From a security perspective, this is very good. You get some security rules set up, run them regularly, and fix/prevent holes.
Perhaps more useful, once you set up some common rules for a site, installing a new system becomes real easy: you just need to get as far as installing cfengine, get some config files over, whether via floppy, CD, or NFS mount, and then type # cd /etc/cfengine; cfengine and depending on the sophistication of the rules, you may never need to log on as root again.
For instance, you might set up a location where machines mount a filesystem containing package upgrades or configuration file upgrads, and automagically install them.
The regrettable thing is that cfengine doesn't have the "barneyfication" that naive users may want/need.
On the other hand, it has the major virtue over things like Linuxconf that it is a tool for building configuration systems rather than being a front end that is tightly connected to the back end.
I could see:
Thus, rather than merely doing a "cp foo /etc/foo; chmod 774 /etc/foo", the configuration process might include asking the user for input of critical bits of configuration, and constructing a cfengine script that might even be usable to "clean up" if you've done something icky and want to fix the package.
This would also make it natural to create a little script for a given package that might do security checks, perhaps automagically turning off dangerous options or the like.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Eat a fat dick, baby.
Determining modelines for X is a bitch. How do you convert a horz sync freq, vertical sync freq, refresh rate into the magic numbers in an X modeline statement? How does interlacing change the numbers?
As a member of the ACLU: Fuck off.
Mitnick was a dumdass crook who got busted
Just a comment:
I dislike when people imply linux is the os for old hardware. Linux works great on lots of new hardware as well. We should have both a text and gui configuration tools as you suggestion, however, if the text version holds up the gui version, we risk loosing a large potential user audience when serving the few with restricted hardware.
how sweet. fuck off.
quick quiz, dipshit.
who am i?
and who cares who Craig McPherson is? Does it bother you that this is the sort of thing you can be sued for? Think Andover will protect your anonymity? With a suponea, they'll give in without any resistance.
let's get a hotel, sweetcheeks.
Chris has posted this information about himself, just to draw attention.
You want to know what? It will work because you and I are contributing to it right now.
Job well done, Chris. You are such a genious.
EverCode
Dear Poopypoker,
You're too witty for me. I can't come up with a good response like the one you posted above. I am humbled.
That's my biggest beef with Linuxconf - when I resort to using it because I don't know how to do it by hand, I would *really* like to have it tell me which file it's editing, at the very least - this would make it a good learning tool, as well as a good config tool.
:)
I guess that's what you said. But I completely agree.
----
It could be nice if as many config files as possible were in some standardised markup language, such as some XML-family language. That way, a GUI tool could parse them, or you could edit them directly.
Actually, it would be nice if all the cli tools output a standard command template that could have a gui wrapper autmatically put around it. The amiga almost had this - every compliant command produced a template when called with ? as a command line option, whcih could be fed into a tool such as Gui4Cli (on aminet) to build a GUI automatically. The template wasn't quite general enough for everything, but if each command output a GUI code in XML when called with foo --gui, then very newbie-friendly distros could be built.
Choice of masters is not freedom.
I have been a Slackware linux user for about 3 1/2 years now, and I decided that I would try Redhat due to it's new *advanced easy to use GUI setup* that I have heard from many people make it really easy to set up linux quickly. Well, after trying it out, I didn't like it. My main gripe was that I was limited in the length of characters I could type in the lilo header when setting it up in the GUI ( something like 15 or so letters ). I have an ABit BE6 mobo, and I was going to install linux to boot off of my Highpoint UDMA/66 controller.... I couldn't do it because I couldn't type the hard drive parms for ide1 and ide2. If you were a newbie or had a generic system, I guess the X setup would work ok... but if you want to do an even remotely non cloned setup you're screwed. After all this, I decided to go back to Slack because even though it doesn't have full RPM support IMHO it's easier to setup and manage. Plus, I'm sorry, but you can already do the IRQ checking and et.al. .... It's called pico /proc/whatever.
I am not posting anything that is not publicly availible. What exactly could I be sued for? About the only thing that would come out of such an inquiry would be the inevitability of Mr McPherson's parents learning how sick their son really is. Bring it on you stupid fuck.
gecco, on sourceforge, looks interesting. It has a way to go, but it has a cool plugin architecture that should make it easy for various people to contribute to it, and make it a good all-around tool...
----
The viewpoints are extreme oversimplifications, but the point is made. What we're seeing is a split both over how Linux should be used, and I think, how it will be used. And it says a lot about what Linux needs. Linux's install base is diversifying so much that one solution is not going to fit everyone. On the one hand I say, "Yes, a comprehensive graphical system manager would be fantastic!" On the other, "But you're not learning system administration, which is what Linux is all about."
Linux is too complex for the newbie. It's just a fact, and it's going to have to be accepted. Steps have already been taken to change that, but in large part, these efforts have been controlled by people who aren't newbies and don't understand all of the troubles. Microsoft does this sort of testing, and the Linux community does not. When we need something like this, something that targets an audience that's "not us", we copy Microsoft, and since our systems weren't designed like Microsoft's, it's a kludge. It works, but not necessarily very well, and it's certainly not cohesive, and probably never will be, simply because it's being done by many separate people, not one overarching company. It's one of the downfalls of open-source software, a minor one for anyone who doesn't use corporate software.
Someone can very easily develop a fully comprehensive system manager. Parts have already been started. The end result is something that really bastardizes the idea of what Linux is, a server OS that is very complex and very loosely organized, but it does work for the newbie, because it hides all that. The end result is really two different versions of Linux, which is really what Microsoft has with its Windows line. The Windows schism isn't necessarily a bad thing, except that they are two different implementations. With Linux, the community has a chance to produce that seeming "schism" in one implementation. If done right, security, which config files can of course break, can be set at install time, and the system manager will never touch it. A more advanced user, of course, would take care of all that on his own, and probably never need the manager. It's the same OS. The implementation is even the same. On one hand, though, you are setting the security at install time, and in the other, the user's taking care of it.
I don't want one of these 'system managers'. My Linux doesn't need one of these 'system managers'. But Linux as a community does, if it's ever going to be viewed as having its act together. Webmind and Linuxconf don't cut it. Newbies need a manager that can act just like we do when we manage our systems. Can a community that produces so many things separately do that as one? Who knows.
I have installed just about every variety of Linux that I have heard about. Mostly out of curiousity.
From my experience, Mandrake 7.0 seems to be what every newbie is looking for. The installation is GUI based and very straightforward. It also lets you tweak the X configuration and test it before committing to it in the installation. That way any one can test their resolutions and color depths.
After that, such things mentioned earlier such as DrakConf and Lothar make matters much easier for setting up thigns such as the sound card.
On the other hand, it might make things a little too simple and cause someone to get lazy and never learn any aspects of the CLI. But, nothings perfect.
On a side note, and off topic:
Everyone seems to be pro linux, screw microsoft, but in the same sense, everyone also seems to have the "Why should we make things any easier" attitude. Either you want more linux advocates, or you don't. Pick a direction.
Graphical all-in-1 configuration tool is a great idea - but it is ahead of its time. Here's why:
First, configuration file formats changes from one version of the same software to the next. It is unlikely that the team who writes the config utilities catch up soon enough with the team who makes the programs to be configured.
Second, different programs have different configuration files. It makes it hard for a single configuration utility to recognize them all.
Third, the existing tools seem to be too tree-structured, taking away the simplicity advantage they first try to provide. (anyone besides me who hates linuxconf?)
INI files is one of the few things about Windows that I like. I'd love to know if anyone has started to unify the format of all the configuration files into, say, XML?
Another possibility is to have the author of each program write its own configuration cgi script,
Then some project can be started to make a configuration server to gobble them all up at an HTTP port (ala SWAT)
As of now, the closest thing I can get is to have a text editor that support projects. Put a bunch of config files into a project....I prefer this to linuxconf. You get the idea.
I know of Lothar, it comes with Mandrake 7.0. The web page is at http://www.linux-mandrake.com/lothar/
From the web site:
"It is a fully GUI based tool which ties together many of the tools already included in a Linux distribution to automate and simplify the process of installing new hardware. Some items will be detected, others can be selected from a drop down list. The various IO, IRQ and such X86 annoyance settings can be adjusted from within this interface."
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
On a side note, those HOWTOs helped me out back when I started out (Slackware). They were text also, but html are available at the many mirrors for the HOWTOs. Of course, if you are trying to fix your internet connection, or don't have one, this isn't very helpful. The html's are distributed from, for example, linuxdoc.org or metalab.unc.edu. They come complete with a general index and then table of contents for each HOWTO. The people that I have converted to GNU/Linux have found these very easy to understand.
--
steve
C-x i ~/.sig
That's my biggest beef with Linuxconf - when I resort to using it because I don't know how to do it by hand, I would *really* like to have it tell me which file it's editing...
linuxconf offers you the option of previewing your changes before it applies them. When you quit the program, choose "Preview what has to be done".
This is on Red Hat 6.1, linuxconf 1.16r3.2-2, but I'm pretty sure it has done this for a long time.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Disregarding for the moment my own opinion on the GUI config vs. CLI debate, I see a lot of people getting confused in this thread about the idea of easy to use compared to easy to learn.
Example: vim makes text editing easy for me. It makes programming easy. Was it easy to learn? No, not really. Is it worth it, though? I think so.
Example: Debian makes maintaining my box incredibly easy. Easy to learn? Hah! But the payoff, once again, is there.
I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point. Please keep this idea in mind as you think about how to improve the GNU/Linux system. There's nothing wrong with making things easier to learn, as long as you don't trade away ease of use.
--
Ian Peters
It is better (in the 2.2.* kernels it is almost necessary) to use /dev/ttyS3 instead of /dev/cua3.
At least part of the problem is that there are hundreds of different configuration formats.
Basically everyone who writes a tool, utility or application has re-invented the wheel and written their own special configuration file format. This is partly due to the creators of the first Unix systems not creating a little configuration API/library to save developers some coding time.
Well. There is no longer any excuse. There are now a number of configuration libraries with differing properties and licenses.
Don't create "Yet Another File Format" when you code. Use one of the existing configuration management libraries. Check out freshmeat.
These include:
Name License Primary use
---- ------- -----------
GConf LGPL Gnome
parsecfg GPL unknown
libconfig GPL unknown
libproplist LGPL GnuStep
libcfg BSD unknown
One think to note is that the license of a library might well affect it's usefulness to commercial applications. A library which can be used for free software, but not realisticaly for a commercial application is, well, only half useful.
Deleted
What's needed is a declarative, as opposed to procedural, way to specify what "installed" means for a device or a software package. The problem with procedural representations is that it's hard to do much with them except run them. Given the specification of something in this form, along with specification of previously installed things, it should be possible to perform all the following operations:
The key idea here is to get away from procedural scripts and to move toward a declarative representation that can be used for multiple purposes.
This is kind of abstract. To be more concrete, you want a description of a component that contains lots of information like:
Package XXX requires file YYY with checksum ZZZ installed in directory DDD.
This provides information that an installer or an uninstaller needs, but more important, it allows you to find conflicts between components. That's the part of configuration and installation that usually gives trouble.
"cfengine" is a step in the right direction, but they don't quite have it right. A popular package that got this right, one that let you do all four operations listed from the same description, would be a major advance.
pucker up, butter cup!
Ok, devfs won't solve all the problems, but devfs support is one major step that needs to be taken by the kernel to make whole device management easier. The device namespace in Linux is so incredible polluted it's just too much for new and experienced users to deal with. There are 5103 entries in /dev under RH 6.1. With the 2.4 kernel, this will increase even more with the new devices (I2O, Firewire, USB, etc.) It's completely ridiculous. If /dev only showed the devices that were actually on the system instead of every possible one, it would be much easier for people to tell what's what. Imagine if /dev/modem only appeared if a modem device was detected?
--
Deepak Saxena
Deepak Saxena
"Computers are useless, they can only give you answers" - Picasso
You can/should/have to standardize... even win16 had a consistent *.ini file syntax that made sense even if you had never seen the application before. Why can't Unix standardize? why not Linux?
/etc/* and their siblings. Not only the original software which gets fed said files, but other software as well. Changing things would break huge amounts of software. Ironically, some of these programs are automation tools design to make admins' jobs easier.
.INI files; others will want XML; others still will want something based on their favorite scripting syntax. Who gets to be king of the world and decide the standard?
Mainly because of that beast that causes engineers to shudder and admins to dive for cover: Backwards compatibility.
There is a huge installed base of software that reads and/or writes the countless configuration files that live in
There are other problems as well. For one, what format do you pick? Some will want Windows style
There is also the legitimate technical complaint that no one format fits all possible uses. The sendmail configuration file format is a programming language all its own; it would be tough to reduce it to a universal format that would work for all software.
In short, changing things around to use a single standard format would be akin to getting all the people of world to settle on one language: Really nice idea, but impossible to execute.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
maybe you should check out the Doom admin tool.
What matters is an API. The fact that a configuration is stored in a file of format X or Y on disk or on an LDAP server, or SQL server, or web site becomes irrelevant.
Deleted
Just read a review of mandrake 7.0 and it sounds like the drakeconfig is exactly what this guy is looking for.
Anyone out there using Mandrake 7.0 care to comment?????
BTW would have tried this myself BUT I can't a find a single ISO distro that supports my Promise Ultra66? With over ONE MILLION promise Ultra66 controllers shipped you would think that the existing driver in the 2.3 series would have been added to the 2.2 series....
So I use NT/95 with my big hard drive and wait for 2.4.....
Keep on Keeping On....
in ease of installation.. too bad Linux is not as snappy and multi-threaded as BEOS..
386/486 is so ancient at this point that it is ridiculous to hamstring the rest of the modern world with any support for it all. I clung on to my P75 for as long as I could, but I was having trouble finding spare parts for it. You can get a cheap 450 MHz machine now for $400. Sometimes you just gotta let go....
I've put mandrake 7.0 on my girls new box thrice just to try out the different configurations. "Lothar", Mandrake's config tool is the first linux config tool that rivels M$'s win98 control panel. Mandrake 7.0 found all of her hardware while it was installing, but I shuffled IRQ's on her PCI soundcard just for kicks. Smooth.
Lucky for you, Mandrake 7.0 is a drop in upgrade from Redhat 4.x and above, which goes back a couple years, ya dig?
The Corel linux 1.0 tools are damn nice, too. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend either distribution to anyone's gramma, but I tend to like Mandrake more. Ok?
-=nft1999=-
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -Gandhi
Here's another little story.
I owned a Toyota MR2 a few years back, which is a mid-engine car. That is to say, the engine is not in front of the front axle, it's in front of the back axle, behind the driver.
I drove a long highway trip, visiting relatives in a small town, just when it was due for oil. I didn't have the option of going to a Toyota dealership to get the service done. I went to a professional looking establishment a relative recommended. I drove up, and girl waived me into the garage stall. She must have been the mechanic's girlfriend, just killing time and helping him on a slow Wednesday. She made a hand gesture for me to "open the front hood."
I smiled, and shook my head no. When she came to the window, I explained, the oil's behind me. Her boyfriend assured her that I wasn't pulling her leg... the engine compartment really wasn't up in the front of the car. She couldn't get over that... a car with the engine in the back!
Sure, if you *know* the architecture of MSDOS and Windows starts with a kernel that reads AutoExec.bat, while the architecture of Unix starts with a kernel that reads /etc/inittab, you should be able to find your way around.
The last time I used Unix, there was no X login shell. Why would I look into something that was named /etc (as in, miscellaneous afterthoughts) for the core, key, central file that controlled all run levels? It's all a matter of context.
There's a difference between being stupid, and being ignorant. One can be cured.
[
i have been running linux for about as long as it
has been around, and i really happen to like the
fact that it did not used to have GUI's for
everything under the sun. UNIX has never been
ground for newbies and those weak at heart, and
i honestly dont think that linux should be any
different. i am NOT trying to be elite here
either--i spent very long hours with my nose in
books (and i still do, since i admin UNIX for a
living now) to learn what makes *nix tick.
"if you make a tool that any moron can use, only
morons will want to use it"
i for one will depart from the linux world if it
keeps progressing towards the Mac world.
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
I don't care how long you've been a "sysadmin", you're an arrogant jerk, and i wouldn't let you adminster my little sister's 486/SX 25 MHz Packard Bell. So i suppose you think all those FAQs and Usenet posts you read weren't written by real people, when you say you recieved no help what so ever from others, right?
VGA-16 colour support in 640x480 (ie: an video card and monitor that can handle this is likely to be on the target machine), so GUI config tools are quite possible from the earliest get go.
Here's an idealised setup routine:
* Setup Wizard is a version of netconfig and the lilo conf with the "click for help and examples" and related documentation all in one interface, allowing easier first time setup.
For an idealised setup like this to happen, there need to be a few more tools that don't (AFAIK) yet exist, as well as a few modifications to existing tools. X, for example, should default back to the VGA16 colour server if it suddenly finds the video card is different (ie: the 3Dlabs server is run on a non-3DLabs card). A simple program that is set to run in the default system-wide xinitrc can detect the fallback, and open up a helpful wizard for newbies. For non-newbies, it can allow skipping of the dialog so they can get to fixing the problem themselves.
Another thing would be a good program for setting up your XF86Config for the first time. xf86config is kinda complex and lengthy for a newbie. Since the kernel knows about the hardware, how hard would it be for a program to check the
Finally, a nice program I'll call "Control Panel" needs to be created. Yes, it'll be a blatant rip-off of the Windows control panel concept (which, IMO, is actually implemented semi-decently). A "Container" window is shown, listing the various configuration backends it understands. IE: for networking, it'd probably want an xml file describing how to obtain its settings, how to committ its settings, and how to format its GUI dialog. This could be implemented in GTK+ with libxml and included in the system menus of the various window managers and desktop environments that ship with the system. What would absolutely have to be shipped would be the basic complement of backends: X display settings, networking,
** Package Manager: To my taste, there are no "good" package managers. Something that could keep track of how often certain packages are used, could handle the installation of autoconf, RPM, deb, and Slackware tgz through support programs, and could finally centralise all of these disparate ideas would be what I'm thinking of. NT 5 has something like this, and it suprised me when I was playing with it. It's butt ugly, but it really does track how often something is used -- a big plus.
The problem is, of course, the fact that there are hundreds of window managers, and a few desktop evironments to boot. Under Win32, the installation and removal of programs has been simplified because of the add/remove control panel applet. True, it did little but point the appropriate uninstall program at the appropriate install created setup file, but the Linux world does not have something like it. Remember, their add/remove applet handles all kinds of setup programs from different companies (install shield, MS, Norton setup programs, etc). Second, the "control panel" is reinvented poorly by desktop environments like Gnome and KDE. Their internal config programs are great for modification of their own startup, look & feel, and window manager, but they do not address things like network config, kernel reconfiguration and compiliation, etc. The things they do allow you to look at are limited. KDE's "SMB status" tab is interesting, but you can hardly reconfigure smb.conf from there, or do something like launch Swat and connect to it in a browser.
If you've not noticed, all my ideas for "new" programs, or modifications to existing programs, involve ways for these many disparate ideas and design philosophies play nicely together. An "over" package manager that allows the user to point it at a package (or various types), and letting it handle the implementation (calling rpm, installpkg, or configure --prefix=/usr; make; make install; recording the changes and monitoring usage) would do much to make life easier for both the newbie and the guru alike (in my "over" package manager, the guru would be able to easily modify the default config "template" args, supply their own args, etc). For things like X, there would be a way to figure out problems, and help the user cope with them (rather than "vi
Just my opinion
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I honestly think that these sorts of beliefs hold back the acceptance of computing into the areas where it could be used in the most interesting ways, i.e. by people who may not understand computers.
Sure TCP/IP is complicated. So is a Pentium chip, I don't know how superpipelining works and I use the thing just fine. There are a zillion examples of this in technology - compexity made usable. Unfortunately we haven't mastered it in computing yet.
When we do, and giving up the idea that our area of specialization is just too complex for anyone to simplify is the first step, then I think we'll really be making some progress.
Hotnutz.com
--
The dog ate my
"preview what has to be done" just tells you which services it's going to restart (i.e. inetd) but it doesn't tell you which files it's editing (i.e. /etc/hosts)
----
i poured grits down my pants until my tool was floating in them. thank you.
I have a rabid hatred of XML. It's just such a hideously ugly language that I could never stand to use it. Markup languages seem more or less acceptable for text formatting, though they aren't much fun to write by hand, but they are just about my last choice for configuration (or for general data description, or programming). They're also hideously verbose, wasting keystrokes and network bandwidth alike.
I still don't see any advantage to XML. Standardizing on a completely general language is about as useful as standardizing on "an ordered list of bits." If you're going to extend it you still need code somewhere that actually understands the data. Parsing a configuration language is trivial compared to actually deciding what the content and structure should be.
Yes, I know, you can make a GUI editor that understands the format of your XML-based language, and gives the user options, but I really don't think this is more than a superficial benefit. People should get used to editing plain text; it's the basic skill of running Unix systems, and a damn good thing to standardize on. Text editors have been tuned for a long time, and they can be used very efficiently with a little practice - much more so than a configuration GUI.
A more useful thing might be to start having a standard script for each plain text configuration file, which interleaves it with a man file, putting all the relevant entries right beside where they'd be used, allows the user to edit the file in this way, then removes the man comments (for efficiency in reading the config file) when he is done. This way you could get what is IMHO the main benefit of GUIs: having configuration options laid out in front of the user to select, with all of the traditional benefits of plain text (or rather, unique syntax) config files.
Whatever utility results from this thread, its needs are pretty fundamental to BOTH hacker and avg user. Both groups need an operational machine, which relies on proper configuration of HARDWARE PLATFORM SPECIFIC things. In Intel land, there are devices that are present, each of which has configuration parameters. SGI,Sparc have their own subleties, etc... It is quite logical to organize a Device Manager to follow the structure of the hardware. Makes less sense to have a RedHat specific or a Debian specific approach IMHO. We (collectively) can only benefit from commonality that serves a purpose. If it looks like windows, so what! Does it present the information needed to verify and adjustments needed to configure these devices? Cool! We all win! In order for Linux to gain mass acceptance in our society, it needs to bring technology to the average user. Dont we all need hardware that is configured properly and be aware of this fact? If there are settings beyond what we need to establish basic functionality, then make extensions and call it the 'Extra Credit Extensions (TM)' If something is found to be misconfigured, maybe we could trap the error codes, and crank up ppp, dial up to a web site and automagically search for cures? (Ok, lets call that the next step.. :^) No one wins if Linux is difficult. The casual one loses the moment, the hacker loses the future. Replication is the sincerest for of competition! John Westerdale
Instead of:
<device>
<name>eth0</name>
<address>192.168.1.2</address>
<netmask>255.255.255.0</netmask>
<onboot>yes</onboot>
</device>
I'd rather have:
device = (
name = eth0
address = 192.168.1.2
netmask = 255.255.255.0
onboot = yes
)
XML may have some cool features, and be useful for embedding information descriptors and tags in documents, but for building config files, it's hard to read and basically sucks.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
"ah, that is your problem, you are not trying to be "elite" but you are trying to prevent other people from doing things to help others."
Umm.. that's not what he said. He expressed the opinion that like Unix, Linux is orientated more towards the computer literate and those who aren't afraid of some effort. He's not preventing anyone from doing what they want.
"why must we always have social groups that try to keep others out?"
1.It's human nature, welcome to it.
2.I guess you've never heard of clubs or organizations. trade organizations,etc. Again welcome to it.
". I realize that many folks have a bias that makes them feel that Linux would be best served by keeping it highly complex, but you restrict the usability of the OS by doing so."
Your statement is incomplete.You first will have to answer the question, usability for WHOM! before you can make statements about restrictions. Is usability restricted for the person who lives computers? Is it for the person who's never seen a computer? How about the person who occasionaly walkes on his hands? The viewpoint on 'restrictive usability' is like the viewpoint on "is the glass half-full, or half-empty?"
The aesthetics / ergonomics (loosely speaking) of software is a big interest of mine. That's not because I'm a software expert, but rather for the opposite reason: I can figure out a way to misinterpret or fail to comprehend directions from practically any source, and I'm sure you can think of examples where you laughed at the guy going through the door labeled "Enter other side" ass-first or whatever. Yes, that was me, and it still hurts. I've hurled a fair number of CDs across the room because of frsutration at installing the software they contained onto my standard-issue, plain-vanilla PCs.
;)
The arguments that easy-to-use GUI tools make true, deep learning harder by eliminating the need for it have merit. But there is a threshold beneath which learning isn't even an issue, because the software (whatever software -- let's keep this agnostic!) never gets installed at all.
Remember, whatever we already know can seem pretty obvious. But the things we don't know yet can lurk tantalizingly close and remain unknown. My father, for instance, is an electrical engineer with a moderate but lengthy exposure to computers: no way could he figure out a GNU/linux install without plenty of handholding.
I offer here a small example of some documentation I've created with the intent of making the "... for Dummies" books seem positively erudite and obfuscatory, all for the purpose of getting software installed in the first place. After that we can worry about deeper learning. (Which goes for me, too.)It's specific to my present ISP. Illuminati Online (io.com), but I imagine would be easily modifiable for many others.
Hope someone finds it useful -- I like to find an excuse to post it once in a while so I can make sure the counter on my Web site works
Regards,
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Seems to me the issue really isn't whether there is a GUI or not. A new user might be perfectly happy with a form he fills out with what he wants. The form could then generate a script that changes all the config files, etc. The problem is that the setup is spread all over the place and is not consistent. Throw in a few arcane terms and uninformative abbreviations, and the new user (or moderatley old user) must perforce resort to HowTo's and other resources to try to figure out what needs to be done.
I love the /stand/sysinstall config tool that comes with FreeBSD. With that I can run fdisk or disklabel, setup networking and ppp interfaces, install software from the ports collection and parts of xfree86. Other than having to recompile your kernel for things like sound its great.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
just like the hot grits I poured down my pants.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Am I the only one who finds his request impossible? The unified tool sounds nice, but I don't see anything more powerful than yast or linuxconf in the near future. The reason? It's really simple. Have you ever in your history with linux seen any configuration file that have similiar syntax? .vimrc's use " as comments! There are just too many different software packages written by too many different people to enforce any kind of a standard. And without a standard any package that claims to be a universal configuration file tool would need some sort of macro for each config file (like linuxconf).
And how would you write the GUI? What a mess, and I though linuxconf was ugly.
Maybe it's just me being pessimistic or maybe it's just that man or bitchx seem good enough to me (I've been a linux user for about 9 months)
"I thought that Linux is not supposed to be the next Windows clone. Why is it that lots of people are calling for these idiot-proof tools, when most of them happen to be the idiots? "
Psst..just between you and me. It's all about World Domination [in flashing neon lights]. Once we've achieved that, the Hurd should be ready for the next crop of 'elite' geeks. The process starts all over again.
I think we need both styles:
.con files should be under the same tree.
.conf extension and files with .config extension and XF86Config and hosts, most files are in the /etc directory, but the X files are in /etc/X11, clearly this could be much more clear and organized, under simple rules proposed by the Linux Standard Base, LSB.
A GUI control pannel for beginners, where everything is clearly organized and atractive, but very slow and not very flexible, with only the most important options that a newbie will need.
A well organised tree of directories, with text files that the experts can really tweak. Of course, the GUI role will be to write these text files.
The key thing here is really to organize this system of directories, and the name of the files, in a 100% UNIX style, of course, but without confusions. For example, there should be a directory for net, with subdirectories as ppp, etc... the files should have clear names as net_ppp_something.con. All
Currently, there are files with
"I see nothing wrong with making it appealing to the "idiots". We don't have to sacrifice anything but our elitism."
OK..now here's the challange. Show us an OS past, present (if you can do future you get bonus points) that 'works'[!!!] for "idiots" AND also "power users" [geeks if you feel like it] that sacrifices for neither. Watch that 'elitism' just melt away.
Use a spreadsheet
Think about this. If Linux doesn't become easier to use, we will still be using Windows @ Work b/c nobody will want to put up with it. Think of the hours some of you must dread at work dealing with Windows crashes and stuff, the nightmare which is life now. You could be living a better life if Linux and Unix for that matter were easier to use and more generally accepted. Just think about it. :)
And rememebr...
X=X+0
I think that posts like this advocating a central, unified configuration language are the way things need to go eventually. But, for the mean time, and in the case of extremely complex configs that won't mess readily with such a standard, maybe the solution is to create a number of pluggable GUI tools that will work with the existing configs. For common tasks that everyone needs to perform, there will be the option of editing the configs by hand, or using the GUI. For more complex tasks, let new users select from a few options that will handle basic things, but leave the text files in place, so that if they (or anyone else) needs to change the configs by hand, they can. Let people who know the most about a specific tool work on a GUI configurator for it, and then create central configuration util that can call on those other, device specific units. You keep the flexibility of hand configuring a device in its own origonal config language for advanced users and sysadmins, but you add the ability for newbies to get basic tasks up and running safely until they get a chance to learn more. It's a little stopgap; the real solution is still probably to go to a more standard format; while it would still leave some problems with GUI implementation, it would still allow hand-editing of configs. If a GUI is written responsably and so as to not break the hand configs, than there is no reason why slapping a different interface on a configuration should cripple anyonthe device's flexibility, or your ability to debug config problems.
I needed a network print server after the old Axis box dies. These things aren't cheap to replace, however, we had an old 386 doing nothing out back and put Linux on it and a couple more parallel ports and presto! A practically free print server. It performs beautifully.
" what's being discussed is how first time users
are supposed to learn how to use linux without asking you for help. "
So once again why are we asking for something on the Linux side that isn't reality on the Windows side? Or to put this another way. How many 'first time' windows users learned to use their os (all of it) without asking a human for help. Add 'any' help if you don't believe in RTFM.
IF the number is high I'll take back everything good I've ever said about the Mac.
IF low well..that's my point.
This is not always true.
Sometimes, the front-end ends up being the only way to configure whatever it's supposed to configure, or the front-end is the only one with the documentation.
For example, look at OS X Server. Yes, it's a real unix, but everything is handled by gui-front ends, or by some java application that you access through netscaping to some port. The problem is that you can't really do something non-trivial (like add a user) without a java-capable browser (which OSX doesn't have), or by actually sitting down at the machine (so you need at least two machines handy to do any work). When things go bad, you have to go to the machine to change something (you can't just ssh in and mess with some config file). The man pages that came with it were a joke, and you couldn't change anything about the appletalk sharing or the Macintosh Manager authenticator through the console. I had a list of about 30 users I wanted to add -- I couldn't do any sed/awk magic with /etc/passwd and be done with it, I had to type in each name/passwd individually (and mess with the mouse in between adding each name to change groups, etc.). Sure, it was easy to add a user if you'd never done it before, but if you wanted to do any maintenance/configuration, you had to sit at the computer (no X server), with another machine nearby (no java browser). Altogether, it was a big mess.
Fortunately, this happens only rarely in Linux -- I can just copy my config files over to a new machine when I set it up and I can change whatever I want about the system with an ssh session from anywhere in the world. The point is that if new tools start being developed with gui configuration in mind rather then textfile configuration, people need to make sure that instead of just saying "to change xyz, click here," also saying "to change xyz, edit /etc/foo.conf; see foo.conf(5) for details." OSX didn't provide the textfile configuration I needed (and as a result, I haven't touched our OSX server in months).
This is already starting to happen to Linux. For example, I use WindowMaker for my windowmanager, and to configure it, you can use WPrefs, which just writes some config files. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the documentation for those config files (and they didn't have any comments at the top to help me), so I was stuck using WPrefs to change things. At one point, I wanted to get rid of all icons entirely, but there was no way of doing this with the front-end. I needed to edit the files, and the only way I could work was by changing something, restarting windowmaker, and seeing if it did anything (and config files would be overwritten at points so I would lose all my work). I finally did it, but it was a slow and tedious process, whereas if I had a manpage for the config file, I could have had it done much more quickly. This was a simple task, but imagine if there were no manpage for /etc/sshd_config or /etc/smb.conf. The only way I was able to get X initially working on my machine was to edit XF86Config, and I wouldn't have been able to do that without a manpage.
My point is that gui front-ends (like xf86configurator or WPrefs) are replacing my emacs, and I don't like it. People are starting to put more thought into writing front-ends for editing a file rather than documenting the file's format.
Don't hackers enjoy well-designed tools which make their lives incredibly easier? And in a way, aren't hackers users also?
Maybe if hackers could manage their systems more efficiently, they could spend more time fucking with other people's code. Just think of all the extra virii and back doors we'd have, wouldn't the world be a much better place?
I really don't see the big deal about making front ends with guis for newbs. The frontend always has to modify a .conf (or whatever) file, so you can always just go and modify that file yourself. If you don't want an easy to use OS then you simply don't have to use the frontends!
linux=total control over your OS
it seems to me that the problem isn't that the admintools don't give enough feedback, but that the programs (and the system itself, let me finish) are doing things the wrong way.
anyone who has ever put a production machine up knows that linux's killer apps need configuration that consists of more than key=value pairs. bind, exim, gnome, apache, even the password system. they all use a different variations on a theme. a tree-like structure with branches that have properties, a heirarchical database.
perhaps what we need is a standard, powerfull way for programs and applications to store their configuration. an extensible database, perhaps something like LDAP. i'm not saying ldap is the solution, but maybe it is.
once we get all of that in place, we can begin to write more comprehensive admin tools. you could throw a command-shell like one on an emergency disk, or a GTK based one on the distro install cd. i don't need to tell you how nice it would be to have some sort of network-wide configuration system for labs and server clusters alike.
the original author makes a good point. the user has to be able to use it, but then so do we. i know from experience that if you make a tool too easy to use, only the inept will want to use it. make it look sexy AND functional, and we get a tool that everyone can use.
get this framework in place, throw in x11r6.4 and a few more months work on Gnome, and the linux community will qualify for a seat at UN Headquarters.
zgv does just what you want: show images on the screen without using X. I use it a lot on my laptop.
A centralized repository of pointers to all the configuration tools/files that exist somewhere under linux.
He is correct, merely finding out what needs to be changed can be a huge waste of time. Learning how to use Linux, no matter how innately valuable the process of discovery might be, does not mean we all have dozens of hours to spend finding out where inittab is.
Perhaps a listing of all the common hardware devices and software, with a paragraph describing the config tools or files, and their common locations. A link to the appropriate HOW-TO, or any other documentation that may already be on the system, and links to useful URL's would be a great time-saver. Maybe this could be added to linuxconf for the bits it doesn't currently handle, and as a fallback for the stuff it does.
I imagine a tool like this would be a source of encouragement for the many people who are willing to experiment with Linux, but may actually have a life outside of computers vying for their time. Certainly many people that would benefit from the stability and versatility of Linux, but who might otherwise give up after too many disappointments trying to get thing X working.
Now the issue of standardizing on the format of config files seems like another great idea, XML might be well suited to the task, but merely making a common syntax would be a step in the right direction. Windows ini files were a model of simplicity, no matter which other faults they may have. Are there any XML parsers already written that can easily be embedded into an app to add this functionality?
Thought provoking question,
Alekzandr
A package manager. Specifically, the Debian apt-get does all that you describe. It has a "status" for each package; since each one is configured as it is installed, instead of the files being tossed onto the drive, and good luck configuring, try starting in /etc...
:)
If you attempt to install a package with apt-get, it will inform you of any additional packages needed in order for this package to be installed, and also if any packages currently installed conflict, and would have to be removed. If you think this is OK and opt to continue, it will do all of this for you.
Every time you run apt-get, it checks the packages installed. If there are some that were not configured (including, of course, the newly installed ones, should they need configuration), it will prompt you to configure these.
Debian is perfect; why don't people listen to me?
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Would be a kernel configurator that notes to you what hardware modules are actively used by the system (like SCSI modules). Though you would still need to know your hardware fairly well, the kernel configurator would give you little heads up before you exclude modules you REALLY need to keep active.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
It seems that what you want is best served by going for SuSE Linux. Most of the set up is covered by YAST. You can go straight to SAX if you just want to setup the GUI stuff.
/var/run thrown in for when you start running scripts and want to shut down processes.
You also get that useful
SuSE is so far ahead of the others for both beginners and the more advanced that it is the only one I recommend. The people that hate it are the fundamentalists that are not worth listening to anyway.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
I have been a linux user for almost a year and have recompiled my kernel 9 times for fun (and reconfugured half a dozen other things) so I am assuming that I am not as newbie-idiot as those discussed here.
When I learned to use windows way back in the early 90s I taught myself everything. I had no one to ask about win or linux. I sat there and fiddled till I got it.
The how-tos have been helpful and I agree that new users should not run into nearest conversation and demand info because they did not exhaust all possible ideas (newbies may not have many ideas but they at least should try).
However we as a community should try to help those who really are having difficulty. Not those who are too dumb to use their god-given and oft neglected brain.
Anyone agree?
I've used most of the admin tools, linuxconf, smit, sam, etc. They're tolerable for letting an inexperianced sysadmin change something on one box. However, I've never seen one that scaled well to a cluster of machines. When you have 50, 100, or 1000 machines to admin, each with it's own requirements, those tools break down. You have to start scripting.
You also learn it's better to parallel-rdist a config file out, than to try to rsh the same cli admin tool on all boxes. At that point you're back to needing intimate knowledge of the config files. Once you have that knowledge, it's almost always faster to just hack the file than to use the tool.
As for graphical administration and installation tools, please remember many (perhaps most) professionally run unix boxes do not have graphical consoles. They have serial consoles wired into telnet-able terminal servers. The admin may be dialed in from home, or in an office 1000 miles away. Even if the machine is in the same room, a serial console has huge advantages. Cut and paste between the consoles of seperate systems is incredibly useful.
If you ctrl-alt-f2 out of the graphical install to the bash prompt, run fdisk, and go back in, the graphical install doesn't notice you've changed the partition table. There's no refresh button. Even if you go back a few steps and forward again, it doesn't reread the table. It's annoying.
My only complaint with Disk Druid is I have trouble getting it to create the partitions in the correct order. I like to put swap, tmp, and var near the begining of the disk. Rotational delay is smaller there, so you get slightly higher performance. Disk druid seems to like reordering my partitions.
Almost all of the arguments against GUIs that I've read here rest on the fact that GUIs and flexibility are somehow mutually exclusive. I don't think that's necessarily true. It's easy to point at Windows and say that GUIs are inflexible, but that's overlooking the underlying truth: Windows is inflexible; why should the GUI be any different?
Why not make a GUI that's a tutorial as well? Why not make a scalable GUI? Instead of assuming that the current UI metaphors are the alpha and omega, why not investigate new and alien UIs?
Why not have a configuration tool that uses plugins? That way the poor config authors wouldn't have to be responsible for keeping up to date with all the config file changes.
Why not have each plugin include a paragraph for each option explaining how to set that in the raw config files?
Giving something a GUI frontend is not the same thing as making it Windows. Let's get some ideas out here instead of the same old cantankerous crap.
-- I can't think of anything witty to put here. Sorry.
example, making it so that you can have decent good-looking fonts in X requires a brilliantly written 20+ page how-to.
:-)
You don't happen to have a url to this howto?
Caldera Open Administration System (COAS) was supposed to be a GUI and CLI tool for administration, with the possibility of adding plug-ins. Unfortunately, they decided that it got too complex and canned it.
http://www.coas.org
Please read the purpose of COAS to see what Linux administration is all about... And why these discussions begin.
There is definately a need for a GUI tool for desktop users, something to compete with Window's Control Panel. A unified point of access for configuration. This is not a debate of GUI vs. CLI, nor about newbies vs. sysadmins. There is a clear need for a single point of access for all administration/configuration related tasks. Whether this is via text files, a written GUI or a HTTP port is less relevant.
Desktop users need a point-'n-click toy, sysadmins need to be able to script things like mirroring configurations across servers and (re)creating hundreds of users. On NT you have to use Perl or install third-party stuff to do this, the GUI just doesn't work for heavy-league admin tasks.
Personally, I prefer text-file configuration for most things, and having tried LinuxConf I find it more confusing than poking around in /etc. /etc/inetd"
::sigh::
But I'm sure that for new users, something like wharf (or redhat's control panel) with an easy API to add your own dock-config-apps would help quite a bit.
It would allow a centralised config centre, but without being tied to a particular distro/desktop/windowmanager.
Even if an app author could easily add a button which just opened up a text editor with the config file for thier app, without having to go through a linuxconf/redhat/yast/kde/gnome config tool, I'm sure it would help a lot.
/etc/dock-config
...
Inetd
{
"Setup Inetd network services"
"/usr/local/icons/inetd.xpm"
"xedit
}
Gnome-Control-Centre
{
"Configure GNOME"
"/usr/local/icons/gnomecc.xpm"
"gnome-cc" # or whatever it is...
}
SUSE-Config
{
"Configure SuSE"
"/usr/local/icons/yast.xpm"
"xterm -e yast"
}
...
To add a button for your app/helper just becomes a matter of appeneding a little text to the file.
If only I was better at coding in linux.....
Billysara.
I'll be the first to admit the following:
I would much prefer someone who develops a great roadmap on where to find the various config tools - but make a mouse pad or quick reference. If it's included into the Distro the I'll find another Distro.
I tried Suse and left for just that reason. I had no control on what was going on and didn't know what I could and could _not_ do
But I couldn't find answers because I didn't know the questions.
I would love to know what every file was used in concert for, including where to go when I needed to know subsystems in detail. If I knew, I would draw a map. A map is what I call a "graphical" install. GUI installs are just a quicker way to hell (let me do what I don't know I'm doing faster).
Instead, I want a wholistic, fine grained, system encompassing map (an actual drawing) that can guide you wherever you want to go.
Just imagine if linuxconf was like it:
* It would be dismembered in a number of system commands; like, if you would change a device, you would use chdev; if you change network parameters, you would use a command called chinet; if you would delete a filesystem definition along with its partition, you would use rmfs; if you would list devices on your system (with parameters that specify things like: devices actually working of just device definitions), you would use lsdev, and so on. Mnemomic enough.
* You could get to where you want by a shortcut, not having to navigate through awkward menu options every time. Example: linuxconf user would take you to the "user accounts" section.
* You would have a less irritating text interface. Ever seen smit? Its interface is VERY simple. A title on the top, some options, each one in one line, the one that is selected is highlighted, that is, written in reverse. In the bottom, a small keys chart. And that's it. No fancy ascii art and text contours. Fast and visible. Straightforward.
* You could see the command, script, or linuxconf "subsystem command" it would execute if you selected the option. For example, if you fill the form to create a user and press F6 to see what it would do if you pressed enter, you could see something like: adduser -c 'New user' -d '/home/user' -G 'users' -s '/bin/ksh' 'foouser'. Or, if you are just about to reconfigure the serial line, you could get some chdev -l ttyS0 -a baud_rate=9600 -a parity=none -a stop_bits=1.
* EVERY option or entry would have a dedicated context-sensitive help if you pressed F1 (and not a general screen with boring explanations. Let's get to the point!)
* There's still more, like types of input (choices from certain lists, which are also activated by scripts or commands; numerical values; string arrays; pathnames), logging everything (even the menu entries selected) to a text file, but I almost lose my hopes... Something that born to be linuxconf will NEVER get to the feet of SMIT.
Really, linuxconf designers and programmers should get a grip on the better designed UNICES. Alas, they make a good work, they make it for free, yadda yadda yadda, I know that, but there IS good-designed stuff on the market for them to take their ideas from!
Patola.
Patola (Claudio Sampaio)
Unix System Administrator
Webmins license is perfectly fine since they got aquired by caldera. And its an excellent config tool. Easy to use, very powerful and secure (as far as I can tell...). It does require knowledge of the packages you are configuring, but as far as Im concerned hiding all power and configurability from a user just so he can generally use things without reading or even thinking about them is fine for maybe a desktop, but not for server configurations.
I'm not a newbie, and I'm not a Guru. I'm not a sysadmin, but I would'nt mind learning.
.configs have different syntax, but to 'standardise' is to not evolve.
One of the beauties of open source OS is that every component is accessible. It can be configured exquisitely (if you know how, which I don't). Now imagine having ten different ways to configure a batch of stuff, none of which work quite right. Well, now you're thinking like an MS engineer.
Something should only need to be said ONCE, and right now the config files are the ultimate authority. It's like when you want to complain about something; you ask to see the Manager, not the teaboy. GUIs are like the teaboy... friendly but only do simple things. They have no power.
Yes the config files are idiosyncratic. But hell, Windows is idiosincraptic. Over time perhaps, syntax could be pruned, but ooonly by the respective authors, contributors etc. Let people tend their own garden. If they want to simplify, fine, but don't exclude people just because they invent clever ways of saying things!
So that's two issues: that config tools are never the real authority, and can (and will) get out of synch, and that the
The third and _separate_ issue is The User. We often talk as if there are only two kinds of users, like the novice and the expert. But really there's a whole spectrum of semi to skilled user 'levels' in between. Our documentation doesn't reflect that. You're either a Dummy (insert hot poker in security hole here) or an expert. And with today's documentation, the leap from newbie to sysadmin is like a great chasm.
I think that's a big problem against adoption.
People at home have to be their own sysadmins, to some degree. The GUI install may get your system up, but it won't teach you anything. Nor should it. You know from your own experience, that you learn best when you _need_ to learn. Say you want to buy a printer for your system. Where do you start? If all you see before you is fog, you drive slowly. If the road is clear, you race ahead. Starting with Linux documentation is very very foggy.
This problem comes from the exclusive use of text based description (how long does it take to read _every_ man page, or even books ?).
I am appalled at the lack of _diagrams_. Sequential statements are fine for programmers but when a person arrives in any foreign city the first thing they do is purchase a MAP. This is why the mac _tends_ to work; because the map is fairly clean and accurate. This is why Windows doesn't; because what the GUI is trying to map is fucked up anyway.
With a MAP of systems, that point to maps of subsystems, which hilight general behaviours, and ultimately (for those in need when fsck suddenly starts complaining) individual executables, configs, scripts and the data formats being dealt with, willing users can educate themselves as needed. Our docs need to show the big picture, quickly and clearly, and where to find the detail when needed.
After having used Linux for several years now, I much prefer vi on the command line over linuxconf et al. You know exactly what file you're changing so you can make a backup in case your changes don't work and it's easy to do the configuration from a remote host.
What the new user lacks is a comprehensive view of what services need to be configured on their system and what files and options are generally used to cofigure those services. Linuxconf provides the view, but it hides the actions actions it takes and the files it modifies.
I propose that we make a simple HTML and/or text based document that provies a reasonably comprehensive list of all services and options that one typically wants to configure on a Linux system. The document would have a section for each service and the sections would be no more detailed than necessary to provide the new user with the knowledge to minimally configure that service, (bascially allow them to configure as much as GUI tools typically allow.) This kind of document is good for many reasons: 1) I means GUI tools don't have to be written. 2) It builds user's knowledge of their system. 3) It reduces dependency on those magic GUI configuration tools that limit the user's control of thier own system.
The HTML/text configuration files I'm talking about already exist in my company, and I'm sure in many other companies too. We have lots of HTML documentation on getting Linux running in our environment. This information could be easily adopted for more general use
Hey, maybe this is another project for me!
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. It's not that us folk who have been using Linux for years are being OS bigots and don't want to let everyone else play with "our" OS - it boils down to the fact that we know, from experience, that when a user becomes dependant on a config tool, they cannot solve the simplest (to us anyway) problems manually when the config tool doesn't provide the funcionality. The solution to this is simple - Create config tools which teach the user as they go along in configurating their system. Tell them *why* they need to create user accounts, and exactly *how* it is doing it etc. Don't just do it all for them, although you might get through the config a few seconds quicker, you'll be worse off in the long run. That way the user will be better prepared to be able to do the same thing on a system where the tool might not be available, or if the config tool is missing the functionality you are looking for, and will also give them clues as how to approach other problems. It's the same as in every other aspect of day-to-day life. There will never be a config tool which can do *everything* on every single specific system, and do it all properly. So the aim is to provide as much functionality as possible, and enough resources and clues to make sure they can intelligently think for themselves when the tool is lacking. Hopefully this will reduce the increasing number of I-wanna-be-spoon-fed idiots on IRC these days (some of whom have been using Linux for quite a while, but because they become dependant on linuxconf etc, they simply don't understand basic concepts), so that we can all work more productively. "Give a man a fish and he'll feed himself for a day. Give him the means to fish for himself and he'll curse you for the rest of his life"
name = eth0
address = 192.168.1.2
netmask = 255.255.255.0
onboot = yes
>
I believe this is valid XML.
Got HTML? Want LaTeX? Try html2latex
so, does anybody know if the distros out there that are _aggressively_ trying to increase the number of linux Users (ppl who spend ~5% of the time as su or root) are using or hiring Usability and Interface professionals, or firms to perform usability and experience testing and user research?
it seems that much of the experience of linux is the result of decisions by The Community who are, of course among the most literate users out there, but are not necessarily the best at creating good user experiences and usable products.
what has been done to date is in fact amazing, but now that linux is getting more attention and companies based on linux are public and worth millions or billions perhaps a great deal of attention can now be placed on the usability of linux by the growing usability/information design/interface design professions.
linux to date has been almost entirely an active group of Root Users, and Super Users. but now there is a growing need and demand for linux by users who spend 95% of their time as Users. (and many of these would-be-Users are reading slashdot and trying to install the current crop of distros.)
the friction between the elite and the plebes has been ever present-- from the western european monks who did not want people to learn to read, and after just reading Steven Levy's Hackers i would say this friction sounds similar to the MIT hackers of the 50s and 60s who did not want deal with the Real World and remain in an esoteric utopia, and similar to the big hardware manufactures of the 70s who _laughed_ at Wozniak's idea of a home computer for the masses... ha!
so does a 'Community Group on Linux User Experience and Usability' sound way to idealistic? how about a weblog about the human side of computer interface? how about a Open Source Usability Group which is funded by various for profit groups? (Do groups like this exist already?)
just my 2 pesos, and some ideas...
-neotint
Surely this would be ideal for the linux standard thing, /etc/dtd or from www.website.org/app/myappsdtd.dtd.
if not some agreed guidelines could be used - what about xml text conf - won't look much different to current text conf, esp apache. Any XML capable app can grab a dtd from
This would put us well ahead of windows and the xml could easily be synchned or duplicated into a database far more powerful and usable than windozes's registry.
This is kinda what I keep saying about Linux as a whole. I love it, I enjoy using it. I'm also someone who enjoys playing with computer hardware and software, etc. Many computer users don't have so much fun doing these things however.
GUI tools to configure your Linux install would be a good start. Strong configuration docs would be great as well. If Linux could overcome a user's inherent belief that it's a 'geek OS' that they won't understand or be able to learn, it could make much greater headway into both the consumer and business desktop markets.
One comment I've seen a few times in this list is that a GUI would somehow be 'dangerous' by allowing security holes to be created in your OS. I fail to understand how a GUI would create more holes than a complete and utter lack of understanding of how to properly configure your daemons and drivers.
We need to listen to our mildly less computer literate friends when they describe why they wouldn't like to use Linux. They are the strong majority and will be the ones using the OS when/if it becomes mass market popular.
"preview what has to be done" just tells you which services it's going to restart (i.e. inetd) but it doesn't tell you which files it's editing (i.e. /etc/hosts)
Um, I just double-checked, and you're right. I stand corrected. Somebody moderate my original post down with "-1, Incorrect".
(I could have sworn it told you the configuration files it was about to modify, but I must have been thinking of something else.)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I think the current situation is pretty good. Face it, there is no way we can make a real good config tool. But here's the deal: We have many half-ass tools like linuxconf to lure non-technical people into using linux and thinking unix admin is not an issue. Then something happens that they are forced to deal with config files. But usually that means dealing with one file at a time, so the user learns gradually, ease up the learning curve just enough for some people. I have to admit that i never got to use one of these tools, but i hear stories.
I'm surprised nobody ever mentions WebMin in these discussions. I use it on a few machines I am responsible for. I think of it like the Linux Control Panel. You can configure most services that Linux machines use, manage processes, users, groups, etc.. All via a standard web browser interface. I've put it on a few machines and trained NT admins to use it. Most of them think it's eaiser than NT. It's free for use, and IIRC presently can be considered "open source". Although the author does mention that some modules in the future may be payware. And the interface is MUCH nicer than LinuxConf, IMO.
Actually, they are specifying a namespaces standard for XML which will allow you to mix different DTD's without confusing what tag belongs to who.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
My solution allows a good idiot's config program while it helps experts do their thing.
Textual config files will still exist but should not be edited except in dire need or if support for it has not yet been implemented.
The real config files will be kept in a format something like XML (I don't care yet) which also should not be "hand"-edited. All editing of these files will be done with a special editor that will do two things: 1) keep the file in a standard, program-readable format so that programs can easily read them without getting confused. Config files are simple enough that we should be able to get along without using our favorite editor. 2) Support plugins that process the files for a particular program, to create it's text (or other) config file. A default plugin would just support text lines. Better supported apps might have rules forcing table layout consistency, etc., but would leave the operator with almost all of the freedom of a text file, even to make config errors.
These plugins could be smart enough to share data to ensure things which should be common are so. A small registry for the few common things like hostname, etc. The editor could even work with these things, but that would not be necessary at first.
Then people could write their fancy config tools to allow processing of the "XML" config files to do a some config easily.
This system isn't a whole lot different than what we have now with text files and linuxconf, but the semi-smart editor and separate config tools could much more easily be made smart enough to allow changes by people using both tools without conflict.
Agreed with most ... Unix/Linix is the better way to go.
... as "?knowledge and experience?" in the office with money; ask, advice on what to buy? BUY MICROSOFT!
Reality >> (sometimes) I observe
Reality >> The lower the knowledge and experience, the lower the requirement to be an expert/professional, and the greater the reliance on MS Gates products which leave the lazy professional with a target to blame (software is not available yet, the lie) for a problem resolution, then the more MS Gates products will control some parts of the market.
The lazy professional (some [not all] MS Gates products supporters) screams buy MS Gates products and think's "I have an easy target to blaim for problems" that only MS can fix. They best of Reality: (1) high paid easy job, (2) always MS to blaim for problems.
Linux/Unix needs two flavors: one, for the very bright, experienced, creative, and knowledgable user/administrator/developer, and another Linux/unix for folks who just want to use and minimully configure their software for everything.
I'm not sure I stated what I believe very well this time.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
The problem for Linux is that it is available for so many different types of hardware!
That's why (eg) Sun's adminf.. er, admintool works as well as it does. They don't have a squillion different types of video cards/audio thingys/disk drives to worry about.
DEVFS will go a long way to improving the clutter in /dev , at least if it gets supported by the major distributions AND hardware manufacturers.
Where other os's admintools shine is where they have limited hardware choice.
- JR
Ideal Solution to Unix Config Trouble(TM)(IMHO!):
If I was a real programmer I would extract it from BIND source and generalize enough to make it eligible for always busy FreeRadius folks - right now they need a new config-parsing engine, nobody wants those old ugly "users" files...
And we need much better config repository than /etc !
The idea of the registry is not so bad after all if we do some virtual file system of it
we have procfs and devfs - why not conffs?
Brain is my second favorite organ.
I really hate to bitch about moderation, but this is getting really stupid. How the hell did this get marked as funny? Is Slashdot handing out moderation points to 12 year old children now?
I like a centralized index to installed components (programs and their conf files and progs -- which should be separable, since some might be in *ROM), but I don't like the idea of blobbing all conf data together, even in an XML database. A top level index can be used by a GUI to unify it virtually for the user, assuming some consistency in lower level methods/meta-methods. It's conceivable that some apps/configured things might not be in the same box, and could do conf chores in parallel. Then forcing all the conf data into a physically centralized location would not be so good.
Finally, when things fall apart, you can find the separate pieces and purge or fix them with some hope of not causing invisible bad side effects on other things.
Constant rebooting is certainly a sign of easiest-kludge house-of-cards design (there's no way to replace a card in the middle without starting over). Hopefully by taking care we can get to reliable un/install/configure transactions and really stretch those uptimes.
I suppos[e] you have a sense of humor ;-)
Enjoy!
-------------------------------------------------
It's life Jim, but not as w
Want a low-buck firewall? How about a 386, 8MB ram, two NIC's or a NIC and a modem and a floppy drive? That's all it takes using FREESCO. Look at a review of an earlier version. You should have most of that $100 left over.
Forget to tab in syslog.conf? : comments got you down in inittab, typo in passwd locked you out? Guessing at possible values for
I fail to see how moving the data to a different location - or putting it into a tree structure - would make any difference at all.
Without dumbing it down, or removing flexibility, I believe a better way to manage the bits of configuration required by each program would be a centrally managed, accessed, API driven repository for config.
As I've pointed out, front-ending the whole thing with a database manager which keeps everything in memory exposes the whole damn thing to corruption. Obviously you haven't suffered under Windows as much as I have.
I don't pretend to know the right way to begin to code this up, but I'm tired of explaining to new admins that are looking to change X in unix, that the only way to know how to find the config file -- is to already know where to find the config file.
Ha ha. I sympathize with your newbies, but your answer is not strictly true. You only need to know what the file is called - and you can get that from the man page for the utility/program concerned. Once you do know what it's called you just do a 'find
No doubt some will complain "but that's too complicated". They may be right but it won't be solved just by putting the X config files into a central repository. If you want to master X configuration, you have to learn how it works. There are, unfortunately, not shortcuts to mastering a system with so many configurable options. Even if there was a nice GUI on it, you'd still have to learn what all the parameters mean.
Sorry Mr.Bell, but I'm fundamentally opposed to any scheme to take Unix away from the philosophy which makes it what it is: the most flexible operating system, the most robust application platform and the most feature-rich development platform in the world.
For those of you who have forgotten, or who are simply too young to know, here is that philosophy spelt out (you can find the original here):
Tenets of the UNIX Philosophy
from The Unix Philosophy by Mike Gancarz
ISBN:1-555558-123-4. Copyright 1995 Butterworth-Heinemann.
Reprinted with Permission of Digital Press
The main tenets of the Unix Philosophy are as follows:
1. Small is beautiful.Small programs are easy to understand.
Small programs are easy to maintain.
Small programs consume fewer system resources.
Small programs are easier to combine with other tools. 2. Make each program do one thing well.
"The best program...does but one task in its life and does it well."
"The program is loaded into memory, accomplishes its function, and then gets out of the way to allow the next single-minded program to begin." 3. Build a prototype as soon as possible.
Prototyping is a learning process.
Early prototyping reduces risk. 4. Choose portability over efficiency.
Next ---'s hardware will run faster.
Don't spend too much time making a program run faster.
The most efficient way is rarely portable.
Good programs never die--they are ported to new hardware platforms. 5. Store numerical data in flat ASCII files.
ASCII text is a common interchange format.
ASCII text is easily read and edited.
ASCII data files simplify the use of Unix text tools.
Increased portability overcomes the lack of speed (of flat ASCII text files...)
The lack of speed is overcome by next year's machine. 6. Use software leverage to your advantage.
Good programmers write good code; great programmers "borrow" good code.
Avoid the not-invented-here syndrome.
Allow other people to use your code to leverage their own work.
Automate everything. 7. Use shell scripts to increase leverage and portability.
Shell scripts give you awesome leverage
Shell scripts leverage your time, too.
Shell scripts are more portable than C.
Resist the desire to rewrite shell scripts in C. 8. Avoid captive user interfaces.
CUIs assume that the user is human.
CUI command parsers are often big and ugly to write.
CUIs tend to adopt a "big is beautiful" approach.
Programs having CUIs are hard to combine with other programs.
CUIs do not scale well.
CUIs do not take advantage of software leverage. 9. Make every program a filter.
Every program written since the dawn of computing is a filter.
Programs do not create data--people do.
Computers convert data from one form to another.
Use stdin for data input;
Use stdout for data output;
Use stderr for out-of-band information.
Ten Lesser Tenets
- Allow the User to tailor the environment.
- Make operating system kernels small and lightweight.
- Use lower case and keep it short.
- Save Trees.
- Silence is golden.
- Think parallel.
- The sum of the parts is greater than the whole.
- Look for the 90 percent solution.
- Worse is better. (I won't try to explain this one...)
- Think hierarchically.
Forgive me for reproducing the whole page here but I feel it's something everyone should see at least once, even the "click-through challenged".Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
So what about HSI (Hierarchical Structured Information I think was the acronym)?
It's hierarchical, can do comments (my implemetation uses # comments), is simple to read, lightweight to parse, and doesn't use redundancy.
The implementation I am working on also supports binary data in various handy notations. You can enter binary bytes into strings using ^ notation, \ notation, or % hexadecimal notation. The corresponding output functions will generate various notations with preference for the ^ then \ (other than octal) then %.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars