On Monday 07 April 2008 13:52:21 Thomas Bächler wrote:
If I assume a user has no idea what 'lo' is, I can still give him a working system by hardcoding the 'lo' interface to rc.sysinit.
Your assumptions are worse then i thought.
Then I look at the user under the assumption that he knows what 'lo' is: he still has a working system,
ubuntu is "working" too.
his flexibility has not been reduced at all, he is as happy as before (in fact, he won't even notice). To go further: if he really wants to configure 'lo' differently (which he doesn't), he still can.
weird. exactly the arguments ubuntu devs use.
I am following KISS and trying to make things simpler, while you want to keep things more complicated, because you think that's what Arch is about.
ubuntu-simple and arch-simple are different. ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, just not archlinux. http://phraktured.net/arch-way.html http://phraktured.net/patching-patching-patching.html thanks aaron, you rock. -- best regards Arvid Ephraim Picciani