Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 19:24:47 -0800 From: Jack Rusher <jar@integratus.com> To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> Cc: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au>, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com>, jonathan@graehl.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: configuration files, XML? Message-ID: <3AC007FF.1D9F60A3@integratus.com> References: <200103261804.f2QI4rR06049@cwsys.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group wrote: > > solutions to reduce my workload. There are enough issues of platform > incompatibility between the various UNIX platforms out there without > going out of our way to create new incompatibilities. This is the primary reason for the offense. :-) "I don't want to learn another way of doing things, I want this OS to behave like my other POSIX OSes, etc." These are all good reasons not to want to do this sort of thing. On the other hand, these are exactly the reasons that Rob Pike is mostly right when he says that OS work is stagnant (ok, he says it's dead). If you're going to innovate, you're going to break compatibility. That's the nature of the beast. Unfortunately, it means that only a non-UNIX like Plan9 or (dare I say it?) Linux will be able to make fundamental change without pissing people off. I guess in the Linux case, it's just that they don't mind pissing people off. ;-) The caveat to the above is that people are accepting of good ideas that don't change the Old Way(tm). I would cite kqueue() as a nice idea that doesn't port to anyone else's playground. It doesn't scare anybody because it doesn't displace any of the old ways of doing things. Unfortunately, some things can't be done that way. > In regards to FreeBSD-only config files like login.conf or > login.access, I don't care what format they are in as long as it's > intelligent. Which makes them a great place to start. I was also thinking of writing up a little PAM module that does authentication against an XML version of the passwd/shadow files. We are lucky enough to have loadable module support for that subsystem, so it's a nice place to implement a demo. > Rather than stand in the way of progress, having the new config file > format adopted by most of the major vendors would go a long way to > mitigate many fears people have about a new super-config file format. We would obviously want everybody to join us in using the new configuration format/tools. I do think somebody needs to belly up to the bar and order the first drink, though. > Another way we can mitigate these concerns is to support two formats > until the other popular UNIX systems (Solaris, AIX, Tru64-UNIX, HP/UX, This strikes me as hard for the subsystems that don't have an API in place that governs how they access files. What are some of your ideas of how you would do this? > Don't read into this that I am offended that the config file format may I don't take it that way at all. This is really good feedback from someone who is thinking carefully about the problem. Thanks, -- Jack Rusher, Senior Engineer | mailto:jar@integratus.com Integratus, Inc. | http://www.integratus.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3AC007FF.1D9F60A3>