| 1 |
> but |
| 2 |
> again it appears that simple cases are being made complex, just to allow |
| 3 |
> for someone else's complex cases. Which is faulty logic. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
It's a welcome option but an important question seems to be; Why wasn't |
| 6 |
this picked up in the dev cycle?. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
This reminds me of udisks 8 months ago losing features for |
| 9 |
multi-seat costing me time to replace it with udev and scripts which I |
| 10 |
still prefer. Is it coincidence that Redhat wanted complex multiseat at |
| 11 |
all costs for udisks and Redhat want fast boot at all cost for cloud |
| 12 |
services? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
p.s. I am very glad of RedHats contributions and respect their position |
| 15 |
of giving coders freedom but I just think that if they are able to fund |
| 16 |
coders to look after a corner full-time or completely then they need |
| 17 |
to manage that corner or atleast have some ground rules to cover any |
| 18 |
case of my way or the high way. The kernel wouldn't tolerate this |
| 19 |
kind of breakage and I really hope I never see linux userland as |
| 20 |
dependent on IPC as minix is or as broken without IPC as windows is |
| 21 |
without RPC. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I take the unarguably more secure well setup sudoers and useful small |
| 24 |
tools anyone can use or take code from over polkit anyday. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
_______________________________________________________________________ |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work |
| 30 |
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a |
| 31 |
universal interface' |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
(Doug McIlroy) |
| 34 |
_______________________________________________________________________ |
Archives