Re: A 'clean' OS?

From: Colonel Sam Flagg, U.S. Army Intelligence (
Date: 02/17/03

From: (Colonel Sam Flagg, U.S. Army Intelligence (ret))
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 16:43:09 -0500

In article <kxc4a.42416$>, says...

> >
> > lol.
> >
> > I have proved this point time and time again. I can edit a .conf file
> > in a CLI, start/stop say Apache much faster than a Windows NT Admin
> > can do the same for say IIS, with less steps.
> >
> > Just for the sake of argument, let's start from scratch on a RedHat
> > reconfiguration to a website, say you want to add the ability to view
> > indexes on a particular web directory.
> >
> > 1/2) From a command line, there's one less step, from a GUI X-Windows
> > desktop, you need to open a terminal, so there's 1/2 steps, depending
> > on how you're using your server.
> >
> > 3) vi /usr/local/apache/conf/httpd.conf
> >
> > 4) when that opens, simply type: / <enter> type the name of the
> > website at the "/" say: / <enter> "vi" will find
> > the website virtually hosted in the conf file.
> >
> > 5) in the <directory> option, add "indexes" by using the cursor to go
> > to the position to add it, hit "i", type "indexes", hit escape.
> >
> > 6) hit ":", then "wq", then <enter>
> >
> > The conf file was modified, now run:
> >
> > # /usr/local/apache/bin/apachectl restart
> >
> > You're done. That's either 5 or 6 steps.
> >
> > Windows guys? Can you narrow it down to 5 or 6?
> >
> > Even if we split this up to each <enter> constitutes a step, the above
> > would be either 6 or 7 steps. If we do that, the Windows Admin that
> > thinks he/she can do it in less steps needs to count every click,
> > which would constitute an <enter> command.
> That's great, but I'm afraid it misses the point. I don't want to spend
> half my waking hours learning vague configuration parameters in the
> first place!

"vague configuration parameters", this sounds like configuring windows
to me.

> I have installed Apache on WinXP, and (yes) got it to work. However, I
> found it very clumsy to learn and configure. GUIs are easy to criticize
> as "crutches" and slow, but that argument goes both ways. If you don't
> know or can't remember a particular configuration parm, it's almost
> assured that your work would be faster (and less error prone) with a
> GUI.

or make more mistakes in a GUI because pointing and clicking is so
easily accomplished without thinking.

*I* was an NT Admin. I ran web servers on Windows years before I ever
touched a Unix box. I know the differences and the advantages. I
progressed into an easier environment to admin.

> Besides, the two are not mutually exclusive. The best thing would be to
> have a GUI which served to edit an ASCII configuration file, which you
> could opt to alter manually.

And that's an option in Unix, whereby it's not an option in Windows,
it's the *only* way. You can GUI yourself silly in linux, if you want. I
prefer not to because a CLI is more efficient and I need nothing more
than a simple telnet or ssh client to do it. In windows, I would need
say rdesktop or Windows Terminal Services Client (with licenses, etc) to
get remotely.

Here's the deal, most unix people know how to do it in NT, but prefer to
do it in Unix. NT people don't have a desire to know how to do it in
Unix, else they wouldn't be using NT :-)

Colonel Flagg
Privacy at a click: 
Wanna ask a question in Usenet?
Everything about Usenet answered:
America WILL NOT forget 9-11-01