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. for instance, configuring my PCMCIA eth0 device is not something to be done in any other location than /etc/pcmcia/network.opts. but hey, i am an established redhat/debian Linux user and new to suse, so i shall not rave and drool about things that i don't really have experience with right here. i do have a question: what if i decided to abandon YaST, to uninstall it (YaST2 is already gone anyway), to move all YaST config stuff to something like /var/adm/backup or ~root/backup, to create my own scripts, and to use suse as a linux system and not as a suse system with YaST? sure, i'd loose installation support, but i don't really want that anyway. are there other consequences? what about certifications? as i understand, suse uses LPI certs - so knowledge of YaST should not be required. am i right? is anyone of you running suse without YaST? experiences? thanks, martin [greetings from the heart of the sun]# echo madduck@!#:1:s@\@@@.net -- nobody expects the spanish inquisition.
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, MaD dUCK wrote:
i do have a question: what if i decided to abandon YaST, to uninstall it (YaST2 is already gone anyway), to move all YaST config stuff to something like /var/adm/backup or ~root/backup, to create my own scripts, and to use suse as a linux system and not as a suse system with YaST? sure, i'd loose installation support, but i don't really want that anyway. are there other consequences?
I haven't tried this, but I think you just have to set ENABLE_SUSECONFIG="no" in /etc/rc.config. Then you should be in complete control. However I would not recommend it, since YaST/SuSEconfig is quite smart. It has a couple of bugs, one related to yp.conf, but overall it's quite good. ---J.T.U.
also sprach Jon Trygve Utne (on Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:40:43PM +0100):
ENABLE_SUSECONFIG="no"
in /etc/rc.config. Then you should be in complete control. However I would not recommend it, since YaST/SuSEconfig is quite smart. It has a couple of bugs, one related to yp.conf, but overall it's quite good.
sure, that might work. but i am also not quite so much in favor of the whole /etc/rc.config deal. sure, i see the advantages, but (a) i know linux, and (b) i want to know what's going on. /etc/rc.config obfuscates aspects of the system and in that case i might really just run windoze. (okay, that's a little exaggerated). but in terms of it being smart - i would have to disagree after only having used it for two days. look at my pcmcia/netconfig example. give me another day or two and i'll find sundry others if you are interested. sure, it's quite good but only to the ones that aren't anal as i am about the computer. my mom would love it because she could then surf and email and word process all that she wanted asap. i dislike it because i know how to do all of the above asap anyway and i hate wizards and gui's! martin [greetings from the heart of the sun]# echo madduck@!#:1:s@\@@@.net -- may the bluebird of happiness twiddle your bits.
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, MaD dUCK wrote:
sure, that might work. but i am also not quite so much in favor of the whole /etc/rc.config deal. sure, i see the advantages, but (a) i know linux, and (b) i want to know what's going on. /etc/rc.config obfuscates aspects of the system and in that case i might really just run windoze. (okay, that's a little exaggerated).
Yes, that'd better be exaggerated! :-)
sure, it's quite good but only to the ones that aren't anal as i am about the computer. my mom would love it because she could then surf and email and word process all that she wanted asap. i dislike it because i know how to do all of the above asap anyway and i hate wizards and gui's!
The alternative isn't necessarily wizards and/or guis. The beauty of YaST/SuSEConfig is that you have _one_ place where you can tweak most aspects of SuSE. This is what most such tools try to accomplish. Now, if you don't like YaST, you still have most settings in one place, /etc/rc.config, or now also rc.config.d. For the most part you have _one_ file to edit instead of five. (See? I'm exaggerating just like you are :-) ) Look, I've been where you are, but I haven't got the time anymore to deal with details like that. I have a _lot_ of systems to maintain, and as time goes by, less and less of my time is spent on pure UNIX system administration. My time is spent at the application level, or planning or designing for new projects in the bank I work for. So my feeling is that if you use Linux/UNIX to do some actual _work_ SuSE's design/layout is great. If you are more interested in the "pure" OS functionality in itself or something, then perhaps another distro is better for you. (BTW, if this sounds like I'm negative to your motives or interests, I truly am not. I'm just trying to tell you that the conclusion on whether something is "good" or "bad" depends a great deal on what the _purpose_ of the system is. To draw parallels between SuSE and M$ because of their admin tools couldn't be less fair.) ---J.T.U.
also sprach Jon Trygve Utne (on Mon, 08 Jan 2001 05:18:34PM +0100):
Look, I've been where you are, but I haven't got the time anymore to deal with details like that. I have a _lot_ of systems to maintain, and as time goes by, less and less of my time is spent on pure UNIX system administration. My time is spent at the application level, or planning or designing for new projects in the bank I work for. So my feeling is that if you use Linux/UNIX to do some actual _work_ SuSE's design/layout is great. If you are more interested in the "pure" OS functionality in itself or something, then perhaps another distro is better for you.
sure. i am still in the learning phase, being a student and all that. so right now i would like to get my fundaments down at the os and deep down levels of intricacies and operation. i know that once i actually get some real _work_, i won't be doing that anymore. so now is the time to learn linux inside out. later is the time for YaST. i am just to revolutionary right now :)
(BTW, if this sounds like I'm negative to your motives or interests, I truly am not. I'm just trying to tell you that the conclusion on whether something is "good" or "bad" depends a great deal on what the _purpose_ of the system is. To draw parallels between SuSE and M$ because of their admin tools couldn't be less fair.)
yup, no worries. no offense taken. what i meant with comparing suse to m$ is merely that YaST doesn't (and cannot) allow every aspect of administration. not even /etc/rc.config allows control of every single detail. both of these provide a unified way of central administration at the expense of obfuscation. that's where the parallels are between this approach and m$ - because in m$, you just never get a real clue on routing tables unless you use the route.exe tool rather than the GUI. everything's automatic in windoze and there are too many aspects in windoze networking that you would never think about, be able to configure, or actually configure because the GUI hides them. i am sorry for having offended suse by comparing them to the biggest joke of the computer industry in terms of concepts, but the comparison stands in exactly the point i just illustrated. martin [greetings from the heart of the sun]# echo madduck@!#:1:s@\@@@.net -- don't hate yourself in the morning -- sleep till noon.
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. -- Koos Pol ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S.C. Pol T: +31 20 3116122 Systems Administrator F: +31 20 3116200 Compuware Europe B.V. E: koos_pol@nl.compuware.com Amsterdam PGP public key available
also sprach Koos Pol (on Mon, 08 Jan 2001 04:05:31PM +0100):
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.
are we talking package management or administration here? because package management (even though i prefer tarballs) is very nicely done. but administration i find is not. and packages don't prevent you from compiling. for the rpm binary, two of the most frequently used flags in my case are "-i --nodeps". but in terms of administration, it might be one of the best tools around, but it still doesn't beat or even approximate configuring with text files. martin [greetings from the heart of the sun]# echo madduck@!#:1:s@\@@@.net -- "this week dragged past me so slowly; the days fell on their knees..." -- david bowie
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:50:34 +0100, MaD dUCK wrote: | also sprach Koos Pol (on Mon, 08 Jan 2001 04:05:31PM +0100): | > 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. | | are we talking package management or administration here? Both package management and adminstration. | because | package management (even though i prefer tarballs) is very nicely | done. but administration i find is not. and packages don't prevent you | from compiling. for the rpm binary, two of the most frequently used | flags in my case are "-i --nodeps". but in terms of administration, it | might be one of the best tools around, but it still doesn't beat or | even approximate configuring with text files. You are right about that. At least partly. Maybe it is also a matter of taste, I'm not sure. For instance, the /etc/permissions.* files for dealing with security I find it really neat. OTOH, networking configs can use a brush up. Multiple PPP definitions is not done easily. Let's conclude SuSE has moved a lot of logic from config files to scripts. And maybe *that* is the pain point here. -- Koos Pol ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S.C. Pol T: +31 20 3116122 Systems Administrator F: +31 20 3116200 Compuware Europe B.V. E: koos_pol@nl.compuware.com Amsterdam PGP public key available
participants (3)
-
Jon Trygve Utne -
Koos Pol -
MaD dUCK