From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Oct  4 10:23:19 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA25413
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 10:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from roguetrader.com (brandon@cold.org [206.81.134.103])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA25406
          for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 10:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (brandon@localhost)
	by roguetrader.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA17565;
	Sat, 4 Oct 1997 11:22:56 -0600 (MDT)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 11:22:55 -0600 (MDT)
From: Brandon Gillespie <brandon@roguetrader.com>
To: Andrzej Bialecki <abial@korin.warman.org.pl>
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: new command: doconfig
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.95.971004173140.21723B-100000@korin.warman.org.pl>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971004112139.17556A-100000@roguetrader.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 4 Oct 1997, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, Brandon Gillespie wrote:
> 
> > I would like to add this as a new command to FreeBSD.  I mentioned it a
> > few months back when I originally wrote it, and received positive
> > responses about it.  This command derives from a similar command in
> > Digital Unix.  'doconfig' is basically a simplifier for kernel compiling,
> > by wrapping 'vi /sys/i386/conf/MINE; config; cd ../../compile/MINE; make
> > depend; make; make install; reboot' or whatnot into a simpler, nicer
> > interface.. For instance, I just recompiled my kernel with (the GLACIER
> > config file already existed): 
> 
> I use sometimes SCO, and there is (almost only :-) one thing that I liked:
> curses-driven program to tune running system parameters (such as mbufs,
> recv/send buffers etc.. - the whole stuff in FreeBSD's sysctl). I think it
> would be extremely helpful for novice administrators to have it -even it's
> presence alone would encourage people to tune their systems.
> 
> So, I think you could do something more general in purpose: something like
> sysadmin's tool for tuning system's parameters. What do you think?

Modularity :)

I think a kernel configuration subsystem is fine on its own, as a single
module.  Later somebody can easilly wrap it in a more general kerneltuner
program (which tunes and configures), but there is no reason to over-do
one thing in complexity... (IMHO)

-Brandon