On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 16:10:18 +0300, Francisco Barbee via arch-general wrote:
IMO it's unhealthy to be in a hurry, apart from
this seemingly not everybody needs those security features.
Arch isn't ill, there seems to be no foreseeable
risk that Arch could become ill. If somebody should really experience some illness, then please don't be vague, post a pointer to the illness.
I only claim that I don't experience illness and
that my impression is, that Arch is distinctly healthy. In my experience more healthy, than any other distro I experience/experienced.
Imagine everybody who wants something, Arch
doesn't provide, would argue with being "a little concerned about arch's overall health", to get it into Arch.
Hello, this is unrelated, but it appears that your MUA or MTA screws up the formatting of your mails, making it difficult to follow this conversation, as I have to figure out for each line whether it's part of a quote or not.
Also, it's hard to read, like in this example:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 13:14:08 +0300, Francisco Barbee via arch-general wrote:
On 20 April 2017 at 03:23:04, Ralf Mardorf wrote: I would be concerned, if too many security
features not everybody needs,
would become default. Why not dropping security
features completely and
instead making real-time optimised features the
default? This is a
rhetorical question, but actually I would prefer
Would you mind finding out why that is so, and try to fix that? Thank you in advance!