DragonFly BSD
DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-08
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: new sysinstall

From: David Leimbach <leimy2k@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 13:20:50 -0500

On Aug 31, 2003, at 12:56 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:

Matthew Dillon wrote:
What I am currently proposing:

* Place Apache, PHP4, lynx, and some sort of browser (if we can get it to
fit) on the live CD.

* Use Apache and PHP4 as the backend to the installer, lynx as the
character terminal frontend, or a browser as the graphical frontend.
The installation code would be written primarily in PHP4.

* The PHP4 code could make use of a simple database and the existing
RCNG scripts to hold onto persistent data and execute its various

Problems with using high level languages like Ruby, Python, etc...

* They have big library dependancy sets, which makes them somewhat fragile
in regards to us being able to generate a release environment (everything
is a moving target).

Is that truer for Python than PHP4? Most of Python's library dependencies are for its own libraries - the core language hardly needs anything. And PHP builds in a pile of weird shit, too.

* They have a big CD footprint.

    * There are issues with having multiple versions installed... a
      'system' version installed by the CD which is often older then
      the current release version that you might need in production.

Why is this not so for PHP?

I have heard of people using PHP as a scripting language for system administrative
type stuff... but never seen it in practice as it just "feels wrong" to me :).

I'd rather see Python... its been done for years by RedHat [anaconda].

What about TCL?



http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]