| 1 |
Bart wrote: |
| 2 |
> *snip |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> In the end, computers are a tool to make things you want to do work as |
| 5 |
> simply as they can. You'll notice most people don't do what's technically |
| 6 |
> possible, but what's *simple*. Laziness, Impatience, Hubris, anyone?:) |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I agree that this should be a supported client feature - but it isn't. |
| 9 |
> Whatever the reason is, it's not going to be resolved, for now it |
| 10 |
> clashes with people's intuition, and in many cases will probably make |
| 11 |
> people work at something that could be automatic. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> *snip |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
For reference: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2369.html |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I agree. Let's screw trying to design and use standards. Every client |
| 18 |
should pick and choose how to implement their features so that we can |
| 19 |
patchwork all our solutions onto the back-end servers. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Sometimes it's best to just make things work, but you have to realize |
| 22 |
that there is also a trade-off to doing this. Somewhere and somehow all |
| 23 |
these different methods have to converge to get anything done. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It's hard work to implement all these features, but if the effort isn't |
| 26 |
made then why should the standards be written at all. We could just ask |
| 27 |
Microsoft what they intend to implement and then try to reverse engineer |
| 28 |
it. That would be the path of least resistance towards technology uptake. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Andrew |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
Archives