From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jan 29 15:44:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA18279 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 15:44:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from webserver.smginc.com (webserver.smginc.com [204.170.176.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA18236 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 15:44:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from AdamT@smginc.com) Received: from smginc.com ([204.170.177.4]) by webserver.smginc.com (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 ID# 0-13723) with SMTP id AAA277; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 18:46:38 -0500 Received: by smginc.com with Microsoft Mail id <34D13E38@smginc.com>; Thu, 29 Jan 98 18:43:04 PST From: Adam Turoff To: hackers , "'nate@mt.sri.com'" Subject: RE: /usr/src/release/sysinstall needs US. :-)) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 98 18:43:00 PST Message-ID: <34D13E38@smginc.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe hackers" > > And how do you intend to dynamically extend the client in this > > scenario? The server will upload java code on demand, or what > > exactly? > > Java does dynamic extension loading on the fly quite well, even better > than TCL since you can extend the loader to do it however you want. Our > product uses that feature extensively. :) Yeah, extensibility through dynamic loading is nice, but I for one don't want to make sure I have the right version of lesstif properly linked to the proper JVM just to make my life simpler. I'm running a headless box in another room, and I don't want to install X on it, and I don't think that should prevent me from doing local admin. Or is there a plan to have java.curses.* in the next JDK? :-) Yeah, Java is cool, and it'll wash the dishes in a year or two. But can we _please_ move past the "it'll be better in Java" evangelism? Let's just agree that if someone wants to write a COBOL client running under MVS to admin a FreeBSD box that they should be able to do that, and the extensibility problem on them to deal with. Here's what I've heard/suggested: local admin, X or curses based web admin available but easily disabled admind type access available and easily configured java/tcl/perl/VB/* clients should be supported locally and remotely Jordan has mentioned a couple of projects that have started and stopped. Does anyone know of any others out there? Does anyone know of a potential gotcha waiting to be found by a newbie admin? I'm assuming the basline OS will be FreeBSD 2.2.5. Are there any subtle changes in the works for the config files in 3.0-current? (Ports to *BSD/Linux are someone else's problem.) -- Adam.