Still confused, I would guess you need to define what you mean by
"manage" better. Sounds like you were/are simply confused by the
standard layout that Red Hat uses. The console tools they have supplied
since the beginning are quite easy to use and do not require X. I don't
use the X installer for speed reasons, the text installer still comes
with Red Hat 8.0 is nice and fast. You can use TCL to hang them all
together if you want too. The tools even work nicely over a serial
console.
I can construct an ifcfg-eth0 file. I can do it the hard way (BY MEMORY)
or the easy way using netconfig which is a console tool that will
correctly configure networking. I don't install X and it is quite easy
not to install X right from the installer.
Oh well, different strokes for different folks. Just so it's clear to
others, you do not need X to install or admin or manage a Red Hat
server, though you can use X if you so desire.
Cheers,
Davidm
On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 14:05, Eric Lee Green wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 January 2003 01:09 pm, David Mandala wrote:
> > I am a bit confused, I routinely install Red Hat without X or "X"
> > capabilities and it is quite easily maintained and managed. In fact I
> > only have X installed on my personal work stations, not at all on my
> > servers or on the embedded devices I work with (with the exception of
> > the embedded devices that are supposed to have a GUI).
> >
> > Can you explain further, how did you arrive at the conclusion that they
> > require X in order to manage them?
>
> Let's just put it this way. I spent the first few months of my employment at
> my current job as part of a team writing a system management web console for
> Red Hat Linux that would allow us to manage all aspects of a Red Hat system
> without "X". I won't tell you how much money we spent on that piece of
> software, but it was not cheap. (Sorry, it's proprietary, integrated as part
> of our storage clustering solution). I became quite adept at managing a Red
> Hat system without "X" while cleaning up what alpha copies of our software
> did to various system files (!), and compared to distros designed for hand
> management (or *BSD), Red Hat is a pain in the #$%@!. The various files are
> scattered willy-nilly rather than being where, e.g., the Samba Makefile
> normally puts them, and many files were not designed to be edited by humans
> at all (*YOU* reconstruct an ifcfg-eth0 file that got accidentally zeroed out
> -- WITHOUT going to another Red Hat machine and simply copying that one
> over).
>
> Anything is doable with Linux. Some things, however, are more aggravation than
> they're worth. Managing a Red Hat system without "X", in my opinion, is one
> of those. We did it, and do it, because a third party commercial driver we
> need is only supported under Red Hat. But a) it's a pain in the $W#%@ to get
> the distro pared down to the point where the "X" libraries and associate
> bloat aren't needed on your hard drive, and b) the system is a pain in the
> #$@%@ to manage once you get it pared to that point. We did it. We do it. It
> works. But it wasn't just a case of toss the disk into the drive and install.
> (Toss *WHICH* disk into the drive?! Red Hat is a multi-disk set now!). And
> oh, another beef: the Red Hat installer is the most slug-slow thing I've ever
> encountered. I don't know what happened between 6.2 and 7.3, but the
> installer went from being a speedy li'l bugger to being slower than the
> Windows installer. AGH!
>
> I've been using Red Hat Linux since version 3.0.3, BTW, so I do know a LITTLE
> bit about Red Hat Linux...
--
David IS Mandala
gpg fingerprint 8932 E7EF CCF5 1B8C 1B5C A92E C678 795E 45B2 D952
Phoenix, AZ (480) 460-7546 HP, (602) 741-1363 CP
http://www.them.com/~davidm/
(text/plain)