[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: call for testers: udev predictable network interface names

[Steven J. Long]

Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> >  but
> > again it appears that simple cases are being made complex, just to allow
> > for someone else's complex cases. Which is faulty logic.
>
> It's a welcome option but an important question seems to be; Why wasn't
> this picked up in the dev cycle?.
>
That would require consequences when borkage was put out, beyond just releasing
new binaries. Something like having to go and personally reboot and reconfigure
all the hosts that didn't work because of the lack of thinking.
 
> The kernel wouldn't tolerate this kind of breakage

Exactly. Or imagine glibc requiring coders to do even a half of what end-users
and admins have had to go through to get their machines working after Lennart's
pressed enter.

> and I really hope I never see linux userland as
> dependent on IPC as minix is or as broken without IPC as windows is
> without RPC.
>
> I take the unarguably more secure well setup sudoers and useful small
> tools anyone can use or take code from over polkit anyday.

Yeah, and PAM is a lovely invention. Dominique, who does a lot of the work
on pro-audio overlay, saved me from nubkit thankfully[1]- it even makes things
faster for some reason, which wasn't at all why I went ahead with it. Nothing
like the speedup from losing semantic-craptop, of course.
 
> 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
> together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
> universal interface'
>
> (Doug McIlroy)

 "Do the simplest thing that could possibly work."

 "First make it work. Then make it work right. Then make it faster."

My all time favourite:

 "When in doubt, use brute force." <Thompson>

Regards,
steveL.

[1] *kit free system [lxde kde gnome-2.32]
    http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7171240.html
-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)