> There are some tools that are good at a
> lot of things. Webmin is one of them.
> Webmin has some flaws which detract from
> its usefulness to some extent. First,
> it is only web-based, which although
> that is probably the best interface to
> pick if you're going to focus on a
> single one, picking only one can also be
> Second, webmin requires a module be
> written for each new software, and that
> this module be added by the user. Our
> system will (ideally) handle this
> automatically as version-appropriate
> files will be included with each
> software package.
> Third, webmin doesn't make it terribly
> easy to allow people to write new
> modules. There are some things built
> in, but not nearly enough. There's
> little reason why someone should have to
> write more than a basic text file to
> explain how a piece of software (or part
> of the system) is configured. We want
> our system to be easy and
> straightforward to use for everyone
> involved, without keeping people too far
> from the details. For example, we may
> want to display someplace in most of our
> interfaces a note explaining what actual
> config file the user is editing should
> they want to edit it by hand.
> Our system is specific to the task of
> configuration, but it will be general
> enough so that it won't need to be
> re-written to add support for new
> things. The process will be very
> simple, and may even be mostly
I agree with what you say, mostly, but what I don't think there is anything within the webmin architecture that precludes you from implementing the stuff you miss.
As I understand it, the webmin engine does most of what you need, and it would make a lot of sense for your considerable talents to be joined with the webmin krewe, rather then starting (yet another) configuration project.
Another thing I missed is how this system can be used to manage large, distributed networks, and what facilities there are to make this work.