Freddie Cash wrote:
To each their own, of course. Personally, I am so sick of the way
system like Debian use dozens of config files for each app, all in
their own conf.d/ sub-directories. Some apps, like PureFTPd actually
use separate config files for each and every option it supports.
Trying to configure these apps is a royal pain of opening and editing
a dozen files. Maybe this makes it easier for automated configuration
tools and GUIs, but it makes it a *ROYAL* pain in the arse for mere
mortals using text editors to manage.
But management of config data is a user interface, surely, and not
directly related to the underlying storage mechanism.
What is the logical difference between using a directory structure vs.
an LDAP server containing essentially the same information (plus all of
the overhead)? "dozens of config files" just equates to dozens of ldap
entries (or dozens of entries in a single config file). Given the same
or equivalent "friendly" UI, do you really care how the back end is
managed? By moving the data to a directory you are making it less
accessible to standard tools, so you're just removing the option to
directly edit those config files and only gain on being able to use ldap
editing tools instead of text editing tools. You could write a similarly
"friendly" app that managed your conrfiguration files, and you won't
need any LDAP expertise to use it.
Network access and management of configuration data are the real
advantages here, not the UI. Integration of LDAP would provide close to
(and arguably less than) zero benefit to a stand alone system, really,
and would effectively equate to a Windows registry with all of the pros
and cons that come with that.
Regards
-d
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
