On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Aaron Huslage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just want to make a quick point. One main reason that many web-based admin > interfaces don't work is because the problem is extremely difficult.
I agree with you. Nothing beats the cli, text based config files and log wranging. We won't even try to go where webmin/e-box/vhcs have gone. However, what they do have of valuable is the libraries and backends. Some of the scenarios I want to cater for are: - I want to install optional feature X ( - a high level package/service manager that shows only certain metapackages and starts/stops services) - Can't see the internet/wan or can't see a specific XO - network status overview and diagnostics - Stuck with a problem, need to send some logs to the OLPC team (via network or USB key) - New HD is plugged in, and the OS might choose one of a few things to do with it (more storage, mirror the data for backup purposes, etc) considering these tasks are to be performed by a user with a reasonable skill in using the XO UI. So designing the UI will be a lot of fun, but from the overall project POV, perhaps 10% of it. 50% will be making them _really_ belts-and-suspenders failsafe. Once we are out in the field, everything that can go wrong will go wrong somewhere, for someone. We might get a power brownout/blackout while we edit a config file, the drive we are writing to will be yanked out or crash, and everytime we have to recover gracefully. That is why the backend is 80 to 90% of the job, and the first step is to research the backends out there. cheers, m -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff _______________________________________________ Server-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel
