| 1 |
On Tuesday, January 3, 2017 12:05:10 PM EST Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 16:00:52 +0700 (+07) |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> grozin@g.o wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Mon, 2 Jan 2017, Brian Evans wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > IMO, this one should be given last-rites as upstream is dead and it |
| 7 |
> > > heavily depends on wireless-tools and WEXT. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I use it on 2 notebooks. It works fine, and is (from my point of view) the |
| 10 |
> > most convenient tool to control ethernet and wifi connections on a |
| 11 |
> > notebook. Why lastrite it when it works? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> This is the Gentoo Way™. Having a working software is not a goal. |
| 14 |
> Gentoo focuses on the best bleeding edge experience and therefore |
| 15 |
> highly relies on software packages that are under active development |
| 16 |
> and require active maintenance. The packages in early stages of |
| 17 |
> development are especially interesting since they can supply users |
| 18 |
> and developers with variety of interesting bugs and unpredictable |
| 19 |
> issues. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Do we have detailed treatise documenting the points and counterpoints to "Why |
| 22 |
lastrite it when it works?" It's a question that comes up every month or two, |
| 23 |
and the reasons, for and against, are probably mature enough to get numbers, |
| 24 |
now. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Reason #3 in favor: "It works for me" may only be valid from a particular |
| 27 |
perspective. Without active maintenance, there may be subtle bugs that aren't |
| 28 |
immediately obvious. Bugs that aren't immediately obvious aren't always |
| 29 |
innocuous; sometimes they're insidious background data loss. Other times, they |
| 30 |
might be security vulnerabilities no good guy has yet noticed. |
Archives