Slashdot Mirror
HelixCode Releases Admin Tools
An Anonymous Coward writes: "Helix Code has just released the first preview of its admin tools. Just now there are only three utils. They are glade front-end using perl back-end." Nifty way to attack the problem. I tend to prefer handling things like this the old fashioned way, but this kinda stuff is critical for the newbies. I mean, who wants to know what file you edit in /etc to change your DNS server, or what the syntax is to mount a remote NFS partition? (Ok, I want to know, but for those just joining us, it's probably not the happiest learning curve figuring this stuff out.)
In good "MVC" manner, things would be quite clearly separated out between "front end" versus "server." (That oversimplifies MVC; so sue me...)
With cfengine, the "back end" is a configuration management engine that does things like renaming files, mounting partitions, running network config utilities, and such. The thing that is nice about it over, say, Perl, is that it directly contains abstractions made for doing "config stuff." It's not a hive of Turing-complete bits of code that could be doing anything; if you want to shut off certain services, you might use:
editfiles: /etc/inetd.conf
{
HashCommentLinesContaining "telnet"
HashCommentLinesContaining "finger"
HashCommentLinesContaining "tftp"
}
Then, when you run the GUIed tool, it doesn't simply run some Perl code that does the system configuration for you, this time; it instead generates a cfengine script, which may assortedly be:
I've used this property of cfengine to help in configuring new systems. If I have cfengine scripts set up that properly configure the local network topology, it's rather slick to drop them on a floppy, put that in the new box, run them, and suddenly have that new box linked up nicely, complete with NFS mounts and security fixes.
It's possible that cfengine isn't the perfect answer; the point is that by providing a "language for system configuration," it is a whopping lot more suited to large scale use for this task than, say, some set of Perl scripts that someone hacked up.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
GUI tools are like any other tool: they can be good or evil, depending on how they work.
/etc/inittab so that if you change it by hand, it quietly undoes your changes and you're left scratching your head wondering what happened and why your changes disappeared on you.
If the GUI tool provides an easy way to do things, provides all the options there in a convienent package, etc., and doesn't break when the underlying config files change because you edited them by hand when the system is in single-user mode, then it is a Good Tool. Example: veritas's vmsa, which among other things lets you create a vxfs filesystem with a few clicks, in exactly the way you want it (a process that takes many more steps when done from the command line).
If the GUI tool makes itself The Only Way This Can Be Done, and prevents editing the underlying config files by hand, or breaks the system, or other Unwanted Things, then it is a Bad Tool. Example: AIX's smit, which is good for many things but takes over
From what I've seen so far, the Helix tools sound like Good Tools, and should be praised appropriately.
---
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
Only Easier The First Time: The GUI looks EXACTLY the same with the exception that the options are all laid out as checkboxes. But the options aren't explained, so no power is really gained here. How does it help to know I have a "password" option for /dev/hda1 if I don't know what that means?
/etc/fstab wouldn't have to change one whit.
It will be easier everytime. All you have to do is go to your control panel, click Filesystems (or whatever) then choose what you want mounted, and here you get the added bonus of seeing all of the options you might want, as simple check boxes. where as when you are vi/emacs/pico/jed/joe/gedit/kedit/....-ing the fstab, you are not sure what options you have, so you go check the man page, flip back to your editor, wonder where to put the options, and with what syntax..etc
It will be piss easy for helix to add in a help file, or context sensitive help popups to tell you what each option will do...remember this is version 0.1.
Less Power: The tool doesn't give you any information how the file is actually laid out and there is no integrated text-processing. So the user does not advance on any path of knowledge where they can become MORE efficient (through the use of scripts, etc).
Who cares how the file is laid out? Why would Joe User give a rats ass how 30 years ago some engineer decided the syntax on the fstab? Or any other config file?
Scripting?!?! Joe User can't even remember their login name and password, much less _any_ command to type into a script file. You don't believe me? Pick at random anyone who has never written a script before, but has used computers for more than 3 years. Spend one week teaching them how to use vi/emacs and write a simple script file. Spend 8 hours per day doing that. Go back to that user 1 month later, and ask him to write the same script file.
Not Forwards Compatible: If a new filesystem came along that had extra options, this tool would have to be re-written to accomodate. Whereas
File systems do not come out very often. When they do come out, they normally spend a long time in alpha/beta. If you are someone who is going to grab the beta of some new file system, and try it out, then you can probably figure out how to add the correct info into your conf files. A short time later Helix -- or anyone else, it Free Software after all -- will make the simple change to add the options to the GUI interface.
All Helix has done here is open up a couple text editors on the files you need to edit to make changes to your system, all in one nice window. They show you what options to have for everything. I don't see how this is a bad thing at all.
The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
A perfect real world example of why GUI front ends can be real good.
.(Except for those times when it came to reinstalling and I had to hand copy all 100 domains by hand.. *sigh*) Anyways it really is easier to setup so.. why do all you people insist EVERYONE needs to know how to hack a BIND configuration file instead of just learning how the name server works and writing some GUI front end that is like 10 times more functional and time saving??? Huh?
My work needed DNS but my bosses knew of BIND and its configuration files and had lingering doubts about its security just by reputation. (I pointed out it was now secure but the first impression must have been a big one...)
So they looked at the complex DNS configuration files and I showed them examples of how to do certain things and they were like I dont have time to learn that (everyone actually was really busy)
So we ended up using NT for our DNS, because it actually is more simple.. whether you guys believe it or not, I can write out DNS configuration in BIND and setup a name server.
Why did they go with NT, because it was easier to set up and easier to maintain.
I dont want to become a BIND master before it takes me 15 minutes to figure out something and change it, I *need* usability and ease of use, configuring DNS, or FTP why should that be something only a 60K / year UNIX admin can do effeciently?? When a GUI abstracts enough from the underlying system to allow for nearly anyone to do it??
Anyways.. just my two cents
Jeremy
If you think education is expensive, try ignornace
I had this idea several years ago. My take on it is that over time, all programs should move over to a configuration library, something quite simple and based on XML. In the meantime, open(2) could be patched into to create fake files any time you open a config file, and it would generate a 'legacy' file. Yes, slow, but feasible.
The idea would be to store everything in XML, but with the ability to embed LDAP queries, and Perl source, etc. Think about an admin trying to set up a 10,000-node desktop network for pick-a-big-company. They don't want to have to set up this huge system to configure systems remotely via CORBA (though for tuning single machines that's a great idea, given lots and lots and lots of security). They want to be able to create ghost machines that can be installed by your favorite high-school intern support monkey (for the record I was a high-school intern test monkey).
With a proper, and relatively simple, XML DTD that includes LDAP and scripting, you simply generate a default config file with switchouts, for instance at the top of the config file it does a simple LDAP check to see if there's anything odd about the machine. If so, later on down the config file things get more interesting with more queries. Else, it just uses the defaults.
Also, includes and local queries can be done, so if you have things like a standardized network setup (at OGI the router is always x.y.z.54), a proper config file can actually derive things. resolv.conf can include a simple translation that creates the DNS IP from the host's IP (at OGI the dns is always x.y.z.2).
The potential power of a system like this, not just for large installations, but for single systems (specifically, an admin system becomes near child's play) is immense. Unfortunately, every Unix utility/daemon/program/game has its own config file format.
Good luck moving sendmail to an XML config file....
GStreamer - The only way to stream!
Right, and god forbid that "clueless people" should be able to manage the free OS they install when seeking an alternative to Windows.
Nobody is saying that, please don't inspire a flame war - we have too many already.
Why is having a GUI front-end to your configuration files such a horrible thing?
A GUI configuration utility, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. The problem arises when you MUST use the GUI to configure your system. I'll use Linuxconf as an example. It does lots of non-standard things. Heck, it even starts up every time my computer does. I have to use Linuxconf in order to avoid breaking my system. What happens when the only thing I can do is get into a shell, without any graphics capabilities at all(not even text-mode, curses-based!)? Well, quite frankly, I'm screwed. Helix seems to have the right idea - their utilities are changing configuration files themselves, and only those that the service being configured reads. That way I can use a plain text editor to fix my system if I have to.
They aren't "dumbing" anything down. They're making it easier for newbies to do things that normally require navigating confusing tools or editing conf files by hand.
I firmly believe that computer users need to know more about the computer they're using. Education is never a bad thing, and the best education is hands-on education. In this case, reading manuals and editing config files.
For someone that's only looking to connect a simple box to the net so they can do their email and web-browsing, why should it be a bewildering chore to configure an IP the first time around?
You're right, it shouldn't be a chore. But sometimes configuration GUIs make it too easy to kill your computer. I know several people who have lost a lot of money(> $5000) on mis-configured computers. Users should at least know what not to do, and having that horrible, confusing "Reformat your hard-drive - don't worry, this won't do anything bad!" option is a bad thing. You wouldn't cut the brake lines in your car, would you? Sure, you're not likely to die if you kill your computer, but you could lose a lot of money, and suffer a distinct rise in blood pressure.
That said, I'd like to congratulate Helix on doing a good job on their utilities. They've got the right idea - modify configuration files that are native to the service that's using them. I'm a fan of all the work Helix has done, and I hope they continue it. Good work.
Dave
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Exactly. New users need a way to get into a system without having to memorize 15 O'reily books. I know my way around a computer and spent several weeks installing a BSD System a few years back on a 486. After I got it up and running, I went back to my Macs and PCs.
Early last year, I installed a Red Hat system...it was a world of difference from having to compile everything from scratch and hoping ya had drivers for every piece of hardware ya had (didn't have CD Drivers for my drive at that point...). I was up and running in an hour. For about 6 months I used Linux Config for just about everything. Its easy enough to use even in straight telnetable text.
If it wasn't for Linux Config, I wouldn't have been running the system and I would have given up on it and gone back to the NT network I administer. Now, I can't even use Linix config because it kills most of the changes I've made to the sendmail config files and otherwise.
Users need a way to get use to a system first and then figure out all the geeky things that we all love. The more GUI based admin tools the better (and let hope these new ones don't kill config files just because they don't understand what yer working on...)
blah
clif
What really irks me about editing text configuration files is that they can have a steep learning curve where you have to read quite a few pieces of documentation. Take the filesystem mounting tool. I have a good idea of how the configuration file is arranged but don't know every option by heart. If I want to use a feature I never used before, I have to read the man page again on what order to enter the parameters, what valid values there are, etc. And heaven forbid you make a typo, add an extra space, etc and can't reboot the system anymore. A good gui based configuration tool presents the much easier to use interface which can list all valid values and parameters and prevent you from making a gross blunder. Take an example from real life... I was setting up NFS exports on a Linux machine and ended up putting a space between a hostname and its permission in /etc/exports. This totally changed the meaning of the NFS export and made it read only instead of read/write. I spent a week troubleshooting what was wrong. Sure I learned a bit or two from this experience but I also lost a lot of time for more productive things.
Isn't Linux/Unix/GNU all about Choice. Sure you may not want to play with files to tweak your systems and it is your choice to use GUI front-ends. No one should be forced or looked down upon because of what they prefer to use. Some people will never feel confortable in CLI's and it is their preference. They should be shot down by the Unix Militants who are anti-newbie extremist. Sure maybe it would be nice if they did open up the hood and explored their system a little but not everyone is up for that. The people from Helix code and KDE are giving these people the choice (grep this comment for the world choice hehehe) and I believe that it is a smart move. No one should have to accept windows if they want another alternative. I started out on Red Hat and I am still kind of a newbie ::gasp:: but I do use vi...etc to hand config my system when I feel the need to. We should not condone people for their preferences and because what they want to use is not what you would use. Let people figure out for themselves what they want to use. No one is stuck in KDE/GNOME the shell is there and always will be.
::RANT MODE OFF::
-"The Good Humor Man can only be pushed so far"
-The good humor man can be pushed only so far
Just glancing over these tools reminded me of something that I've heard is being done for MacOS X that I bet would be a good (albeit large) project for the OSS community to undertake.
:)
Basically for OS X it sounds like all their configuration stuff is done using XML conf files. I'm betting that they're not really making all NEW UNIX conf files, but are adding a layer of XML above stuff (ie, your resolv.conf file is generated off of an XML file)
I think a project whose job would be to take many modern day UNIX configuration files (/etc/*) and translate them into XML formatted files would be quite useful. The logical progression of such a project would be to allow a "univeral" configure tool which would interpret the XML files to create an on screen configuration tool for whatever conf files are needed. This would eliminate the need for specific tools hardcoded for certain files (like the one seen on the Helix code site for configuring your nic's) and would become essential to setting up a Linux box for newbies.
Just a hunch
--
I think there is your problem. Newbies shouldn't HAVE to mess with that stuff. Someone new to Linux definitely shouldn't be running a DNS server or an FTP server! These are the kinds of people that stick their boxes up unprotected on the net and wonder why they get hacked, then blame it on Linux! Newbies (we were all a newbie at one time) generally don't bother keeping stuff upgraded until they become more advanced and that poses a very big security risk. Newbies to Linux should probably start off with something akin to a simple WebTV interface that handles all the hard details and doesn't make them worry about handling any of that administrative mumbo-jumbo. They just need to know to turn on their box and start their apps. When (and if) they want to advance and learn more they can get to a shell and start working with that.
While there's plenty of other front-ends for configuration things, it's always a plus to have them integrated into the desktop environment. Having a consistent GUI design to relate to is not just something newbies appreciate!
It's also cool to see how GNOME and KDE borrows from each other. Not code, but ideas, like the new KDE panel or the splash screen for KDE2. Of course GNOME borrows a lot from KDE as well. This is competition not to succeed commercially, but to get the happiest users -- competition the way it *should* be!
--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
I happen to use a browser based administration tool called Webmin (www.webmin.com) which is written in Perl/CGI and thus it happens to run of a great many platforms. It certainly doesn't do every possible configuration task but it does make lot of the common tasks easy. It is also very modular and you can customize it to the small portion that interests you. You can also delegate certain capabilities to other users.
Part of this really is missing fundamentals
While learning fundamentals is good, is there really anything fundamental about hand tweaking configuration files? I don't think so.
It's too easy to confuse matters of fundamental importance with matters that are merely pointlessly difficult - sort of like the old adage: if the medicine isn't bitter, it can't be good for you.
With all due respect, I think that's exactly what's being implied in the original post. But you're right, it's not worth the flames. On to the real discussion.
Thank you. =)
Using Linuxconf as an example of GUI config helpers is, quite frankly, just plain wrong. You're right, it does non-standard things, it locks you in and it's basically a very poor way of doing things. That doesn't invalidate all GUI config tools, just Linuxconf. =)
You're missing the point. Not everybody is an academic. You and I may feel the need to understand how every tool works and how it is configured. I, personally, like to tweak every single tool on my system. I'm just anal that way. But that's just me. And I'm quite convinced that I, and others like me, are becoming the minority in the computer using world.
A computer is a tool to most people. You should not, EVER, be forced to learn how the computer works in order to accomplish what it is you want to do.
Should you know what an IP address is? Yes. Should you be concerned with how your OS interprets configuration files to determine its IP address? Hell no.
Keep in mind, I'm not talking about sysadmins here - sysadmins are professionals who should understand the systems in their care - I'm talking about Joan Q. Public who just wants to use her computer for simple, everyday tasks.
Come on now, have you EVER seen an option that says "here, go ahead, format your HD, it'll be fine"? That's ridiculous. With that kind of logic, we should outlaw root access and any kind of CLI. It is far, FAR easier to really mess up your system with a CLI.
A slip of the pinky there is much less forgiving than a GUI config tool that only allows you to do a specific task and clearly spells out the dangers associated with it.
The problem you're describing is poor software design, not uninformed users. Well, maybe a mix of both. I say the onus should be on the developer to make sure the consequences of every click are clear to the user - not on the user to anticipate what the software wants you to do.
--
I hope it has the capability to, upon making changes, show you exactly what it did. What files were changed, what was added or removed, and a quick little explanation of each change.
What better way to learn the fundamentals of system configuration?
--
There's one main reason that GUI conf tools are usually eaiser for newbies, and that's Context. If I open /etc/hosts in VI, or PICO, there is no contextual information letting me know what goes where, what options are valid, etc. With a GUI I have textboxes, tooltip help, labels, etc. that let me figure out what value needs to go where. If you don't know how to edit a particular file you are going to have to flip back and forth with the man(1) page and it will probably be a long and pointless process, especially if it is something you aren't going to have to do again like resolv.conf.
A good example of a conf file that does not need a GUI editer, though, is squid.conf. It is very long and has the entire text of the configuration guide, with examples, as comments in the live conf file. All the help and context is right there, I wish more file maintainers would take a look at their lead.
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
When I was a teenager, I too would scoff at the clueless newbies running their MSDOS and Windows 3.x. Then I actually grew up and realized that the vast majority of the population DOESN'T need to know every detail of the operating system they are using. If you think they do, or think the average user SHOULD know what's going on 'under the hood' take off your geek blinders. Suggesting such is about akin to suggesting everyone who flies in a plane should know advanced aerodynamics, or anyone who drives a car should be able to rebuild the engine.
If Linux doesn't start getting a lot more support for 'clueness newbies' ala Helix Code's apps, you can forget about it ever becoming a serious mainstream desktop OS. Even with this support, its rather a big question whether it will all be too late.
Why is having a GUI front-end to your configuration files such a horrible thing? They aren't "dumbing" anything down. They're making it easier for newbies to do things that normally require navigating confusing tools or editing conf files by hand. For someone that's only looking to connect a simple box to the net so they can do their email and web-browsing, why should it be a bewildering chore to configure an IP the first time around?
Not everybody likes to get their hands dirty working with the innards of their OS. A lot of the computing public is genuinely frightened of changing anything on their computer.
I say kudos to anyone that wants to make it that much easier to install and keep a Linux/BSD/nix box running.
--
So how good are these new tools at this?