Cliff Sarginson wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:00:40 +0100, MaD dUCK wrote:
| YaST - i won't even touch YaST2 here - is nice for the beginner and | the person who wants to use a functional system without worrying too | much. but YaST is a nightmare for the established linux expert (i am | blushing just a litte - but please don't consider me arrogant). it's | the windows syndrome - make administration easier at the cost of | complicating things and hiding important details.
I am an experienced Unix admin on various platforms and SuSE's YaST is one of the best configuration tools I have seen around. And this is because it keeps track of huge amounts of dependendies (with dependencies being the price to pay for using a distribution i.s.o compiling the stuff yourself) Don't want to trade it for RedHat's junk even if they threw money with it. Do whatever you want to do but I think you're insane.
I think yast1 is an excellent tool. I think this discussion has been starting because I believe Suse will junk or at least mothball yast1 - since the commercial boys will be wanting Yast2 for the expo's... and Suse is not going to pay to maintain two complext installation products. But I am certain they will choose the one that barely works but looks nicer (yast2) instead of the one that does work pretty well but looks like a toad's back after a road-accident. Yast2 with suitably doctored demo's setup will probably look like it works properly..
I believe the two separate YaST1 and YaST2 programs are just a temporary measure. I think the direction that SuSE is heading in is to modularise the various administration/package management tools within YaST to make it easier to update individual tools. Using this idea, they also make the frontend modular, with both a text and a (far more functional) graphical front end. Don't quote me on any of that though, Chris -- __ _ -o)/ / (_)__ __ ____ __ Chris Reeves /\\ /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / ICQ# 22219005 _\_v __/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\