The premise is solid: unify config so it’s standardized and machine parse-able for better integrations like an easier-to-build UI/UX. It could even have ramifications for cloud-init and older IaC tech like Puppet.
The problem is Linux itself. Or rather, the subsystems that are cobbled together to make Linux a viable OS. You’re not going to get all the different projects to pivot to a common config scheme, so this YAML standard would need a backend to convert to/from whatever each little deamon and driver requires. This creates a few secondary problems like community backlash (see systemd), and having multiple places where config data must be actively synchronized.
I think the current crop of GUI config systems are aleady well down the most pragmatic path: each config panel touches one or more standard config files, wherever they are, and however they are structured. It’s not pretty under the hood, and it’s complicated, but it works. These tools just need a lot more polish on the frontend.
They could still use whatever config format they wanted - this would just be for providing their config schema. It also doesn’t need to be YAML, that’s just the easiest one for me to type on my phone. In fact, I think most schema validation programs rely on JSON as it is.
I also don’t think programs should be required to provide it. Many core programs and kernel modules would likely take years if they ever were able to add it just to avoid the risk of mistakes causing any major issues, especially if they haven’t needed an update in years. There are also many config files that use their own nonstandardized schema. A possibility is that they could be allowed to provide a CLI tool which could update the config or they could just ignore it entirely.
But creating a common schema for… well, the config schema would make it easier for systems to provide a frontend interface for updating your configs.
I agree and disagree.
The premise is solid: unify config so it’s standardized and machine parse-able for better integrations like an easier-to-build UI/UX. It could even have ramifications for cloud-init and older IaC tech like Puppet.
The problem is Linux itself. Or rather, the subsystems that are cobbled together to make Linux a viable OS. You’re not going to get all the different projects to pivot to a common config scheme, so this YAML standard would need a backend to convert to/from whatever each little deamon and driver requires. This creates a few secondary problems like community backlash (see systemd), and having multiple places where config data must be actively synchronized.
I think the current crop of GUI config systems are aleady well down the most pragmatic path: each config panel touches one or more standard config files, wherever they are, and however they are structured. It’s not pretty under the hood, and it’s complicated, but it works. These tools just need a lot more polish on the frontend.
They could still use whatever config format they wanted - this would just be for providing their config schema. It also doesn’t need to be YAML, that’s just the easiest one for me to type on my phone. In fact, I think most schema validation programs rely on JSON as it is.
I also don’t think programs should be required to provide it. Many core programs and kernel modules would likely take years if they ever were able to add it just to avoid the risk of mistakes causing any major issues, especially if they haven’t needed an update in years. There are also many config files that use their own nonstandardized schema. A possibility is that they could be allowed to provide a CLI tool which could update the config or they could just ignore it entirely.
But creating a common schema for… well, the config schema would make it easier for systems to provide a frontend interface for updating your configs.