[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Configuration Tool(s)
>On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Nick Mathewson wrote:
>> Hmm... I'm looking at COAS (at http://www.coas.org/), and liking what
>> I see (from the developer's point of view).
>I checked out the website. I REALLY don't like the fact that it's being
>run by Caldera. It's the Caldera Open Administration System.
There's a note somewhere on the webpage to the effect that they'll
consider changing the name later, should community demand be
>probably be tailored to Caldera's dist, not ours. There will, of course,
>be important differences between our dist and Caldera's. Linuxconf would
>be willing to go either way.
This _is_ an actual issue. One option to consieder is trying to graft
a COAS-like API onto a Linuxcof module, thereby gaining the ability to
not only use Linuxconf's existing tools, but also to write new modules
with a "cleaner" API.
They claim on their website that:
"All administration tools will run on any Linux distribution.
That way, all Linux users will benefit from the work being done
on the project."
So it would seem that they have at least a nominal commitment towards
In any case, if we decide to do something with COAS, we should first
see what kind of commitment we can get from the COAS developers about
open development, portability, and so forth. The most recent COAS
credits file I could find lists only three developers -- all of whom
have @caldera.com addresses. If we couldn't be fairly sure of having
our work incorporated in an open, timely fashion, then we might be
better of doing something else.
> Also, it seems that I grepped from what they
>have on the website that COAS is intended as a REPLACEMENT for text config
>files? That would be a Bad Thing(tm). TTYL!
This is no longer the case. They were considering this in an early
version (IIRC), then came to the same conclusion you did.