From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Dec 10 13:11:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA19100 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:11:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from acroal.com (firewall0.acroal.com [209.24.61.154]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA19074 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:11:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jamil@acroal.com) Received: from localhost (jamil@localhost) by acroal.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA21709 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:11:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jamil@acroal.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 13:11:00 -0800 (PST) From: "J. Weatherbee - Senior Systems Architect" To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why so many steps to build new kernel? In-Reply-To: <199712101002.LAA14559@rvc1.informatik.ba-stuttgart.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I was just thinking about this. I've been playing around with cgic lately and I think it would be hilarious to have the kernel configuration on the local web server (password protected of course). I saw an article the other day about windows 98 (not that I really care what MS is doing), but apparently they are going web browser-centric, certainly that is pushing it, but I was thinking how easy it might be set up something like this. I only considered it because I have decided to rewrite the interface for a particular software package I worked on last summer to have a significant portion of its interface web-able. This is less because I really want to a more because *I HATE* designing X interfaces and this way I can have someone else do it. Plus windows can be a client to the server process (if it was up to me people would just telnet into the server port and use it that way). On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Wolfgang Helbig wrote: > > We know, and have for a long time, about Linux's curses and X based > > kernel configurators. Who's going to do the work of implementing > > something similar? *That's* been the big mystery up until now. :) > > Hmm, I'm glad we are *not* imitating Linux in this respect. > I feel much more comfortable with the FreeBSD way, i. e. editing > the kernel configuration. It makes you think you know what you're > doing, you can easily change it and you know what you have to save > if you want to build a different kernel. > > I feel no need at all for a new kernel configuration UI, which > would make things more complicated and less transparent for > the user. > > Wolfgang >