First of all, let me note that I think Linux will *always* have
benefits over commercial servers like Win NT (especially for
low-startup/low-budget types like small ISPs) , because 1) for
the same hardware, you're getting more performance (lower overhead
in the OS) and 2) it's free.
In other words, I don't think Linux (or other free unices) are in
danger of being phased out because they can't compete.
Anyways, back to the conversation at hand.
>Back to Linux. I do think Linux must get a system administration shell
>as good looking as Win95's control.exe, but yet more easier to use
>(and it should fit on a root disc ;-)
>
>The power user should still be possible to dig in /etc/* config files,
>so the control shell must use the usual Linux config files.
>
>I think making Linux easier for end users is much more important than
>adding yet another feature to the kernel (therefore this post in
>dev.kernel ;-).
Other unices have these administration shells (sar (solaris?), smit(AIX),
etc. The ESA (armadillo) book from ORA lists them).
I agree with you that there could be a need for one of these shells, but I
doubt you'll get a volunteer to do it in this case (mostly because anyone
with the experience needed knows how and would rather do it all without
the shell :-), so instead one of the value-added companies involved with
Linux will be the ones who do it (there have already been some inroads in
this area that I've seen, but nothing really comprehensive)
Then again, there is the patchwork way that Linux and the PC architechture
work (ie Linux can use any of a number of versions for any utils, ie
simpleinit v sysvinit, etc, and for the PC architechture, gah, I don't
think anyone will argue with the term 'patchwork', except to tell me I'm
being too light on it). Anyways, due to this environment it is possible
that a comprehensive administration shell would be way too much trouble
to be worth it, so the point would be moot.
Mike Driscoll
fenris@lightspeed.net