| 1 |
On 26/03/2014 01:34, »Q« wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:25:26 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 25/03/2014 22:08, »Q« wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 06:37:20 -0400 |
| 7 |
>>> Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> On 3/20/2014 5:48 PM, »Q« <boxcars@×××.net> wrote: |
| 10 |
>>>>> Why should Gentoo have a default? |
| 11 |
>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>> Defaults are always a good idea - as long as they are reasonable |
| 13 |
>>>> and rational. |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> In that case, Gentoo is missing a lot of "good" things, from a |
| 16 |
>>> default system logger to a default desktop environment. |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>>> AFAICS, the benefit of defaults, provided they're reasonable, is |
| 19 |
>>> that they remove the burden of making choices from the user. But I |
| 20 |
>>> keep reading that Gentoo is all about user choice. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> You are conflating two things, it's actually quite disingenuous. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> Gentoo provides choice so you can do what you want. That doesn't |
| 25 |
>> preclude providing a default that suits people who see no need to make |
| 26 |
>> *that* choice for *them*, particularly when the thing being chosen is |
| 27 |
>> necessary or almost so. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Of course it doesn't preclude that; I'm sorry if implied that it did. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
>>>>> ISTM the only good reason is that not having a default would make |
| 32 |
>>>>> the documentation a lot more complicated. |
| 33 |
>>>> |
| 34 |
>>>> Documentation, *and* the install process itself. |
| 35 |
>>> |
| 36 |
>>> I'm not seeing that at all. |
| 37 |
>> |
| 38 |
>> You have to have *something* to be pid 1. the stage 3 might as well |
| 39 |
>> provide one of those somethings that suits the common case |
| 40 |
>> |
| 41 |
>> You can make it /bin/bash if you want, but that would be a very niche |
| 42 |
>> usage. The large majority of new installs will want a conventional |
| 43 |
>> init system whether SysVinit-based or systemd based. Traditionally |
| 44 |
>> SysVinit was the only real contender and baselayout/openerc were |
| 45 |
>> originally written for Gentoo. So those are still the defaults. |
| 46 |
>> |
| 47 |
>> Without a default, the user must set one up manually for things to |
| 48 |
>> work at all on first reboot. The install docs try hard to get the user |
| 49 |
>> through the necessary steps to get a bootable system, a lot of effort |
| 50 |
>> went into making the steps to accomplish that fewer, no more |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> Requiring the fewest possible number of choices to get to a bootable |
| 53 |
> system is a much better argument for a default than "defaults are |
| 54 |
> always good". |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Yes, defaults make the most sense when you have virtuals, or when you |
| 58 |
must have 1 thing out of a range of things. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
-- |
| 64 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 65 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives