Re: [cobalt-users] meta-verify -f messed up GUI

["Julius" <lists@xxxxxxxx>]

Jeff L. wrote:

> What you see in the gui depends on what's there; if the gui isn't
> working it's a good bet that something in the ".cobalt" web path
> is broken (sorry, I said .admserv" last time because I wasn't
> looking; now I am).

I only need to know how to add users, change the
maximum users per site, things like that.
Right now I can't add users, not by use of the
web-based GUI and not by use of commandline,
because somewhere a maximum users per site is set
to some weird low amount I have never put in there myself.
The webadmin should at least tell me where it has saved
settings, so that I can access them.

> But you're NOT updating the .html that calls the gui.

I've checked all directories with html for the GUI,
the filedates show me that these files have not changed
the last couple of months.

> But that's what you want to fix, right?  In your first post you
> wrote and asked how to add users with the useradd command line
> tool; I explained why I didn't think that was a good idea.
> Now you're ignoring the possibility of adding new users;
> I guess you don't need them anymore.

Huh? You're not making any sense at all. Read what I write.

> You said the man pages are complex, I didn't.

They are way too complex for the tasks one needs to perform;
Again, WHY do I need to know a user-ID, a group-ID etc. etc.
only to add a standard default user? I don't.
It's a man page writer freaking out on his/her own product,
not thinking about the possible confusion it might invoke
on the reader who doesn't give a rats ass and who doesn't
have time to read badly written manuals without ONE example
commandline in it. These man pages are truly a pain,
written by anti-socials, not with much care IMO.

> If they're too
> complex for you, how can you be sure the command line is either
> faster or more reliable?

If they're not written the way they should be,
they will be too compex for anyone.

> Sorry, I can't help you if I don't know what you want to do.

You're only out for some discussion about things
that will not help anybody. I'm not, sorry.

> But you said you didn't want to use the Cobalt gui, that you
> wanted to maintain the box manually.

I'm not the siteadmin, I'm the server-admin.
Siteadmins are those I have to explain why they can no longer
add users while they should be able to add a zillion
if it was up to me. I'm not the ONLY one who needs to see
their websites in the GUI back again.

> That's linux documentation.  First it was complex.  Now it's
> stupid and insane.  And yet you're convinced you want to manage
> your box as a linux box.  Or at least that's what your first email
> said.

It's much more reliable than a stupid workaround GUI-shell
calling scripts and having their own databases etc.
Many router-configs have proven that.

> You don't.  But if you're not going to do it the Cobalt way then
> you certainly have to understand the unix tools; they're explained
> in the man pages.

NO, again, THEY ARE NOT EXPLAINED there. It is a collection
of non-explanatory commands put in a textfile by a developer,
not by someone caring for the reader to understand what
to do with them. They lack examples, for one.

>> One does not have to read anything at all
>> if the commands would have had any logic to them.
>
> But they don't <smile>.  So read the manuals, study them, learn
> them, or leave everything to the Cobalt gui,

Why do you want it to be so black and white all the time?
Sun Cobalt should have thought of creating a nice commandline
backup-shell, which could perfectly function in place of
all the web-admin pages. One does NOT have to study things
to use a commandline, if one can write, one can handle
commands on a commandline. If you create a graphic shell
for it, like Midnight Commander and the likes, you can
leave the webpages alone and end up having a very fast
and very secure way to admin your server.
The way it is setup now for RaQs is way too vulnerable
for mistakes and sensitive to erratic settings.
It's much too easy to config the hell out of it,
and end up with a non-functional server than when
you would do it by use of a commandline.
--