[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] initscripts changes
thomas at archlinux.org
Mon Apr 7 13:10:23 EDT 2008
>>>> 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 insulted by that comment and expect an apology.
> Insulted or not, it is 100% right what Arvid wrote.
So he is right, why? Because he brought up so many quotes as proof of
his statement? From where I stand, he just said anything without even
knowing any opinions of anyone.
This is not Ubuntu and it will never become Ubuntu, and it is not
becoming Ubuntu right now. We're completely different in sooo many
aspects, and the fact that he simply says "my opinion == generic Ubuntu
dev's opinion" without even a single quote as proof is insulting and stupid.
>> What you don't get is that if you have to make a decision between two
>> equally technically elegant decisions, and one of them improves
>> usability, you go for usability.
>> What you and some other people here seem to think is that usability
>> automatically implies technical non-elegance.
> There's nothing elegant about hardcoding stuff.
Of course there is, if it fits the technical requirements of the
> Simple as in a technical
> standpoint, says that it should be mounted in fstab. Why? Because fstab
> is the place were filesystems that should be mounted on boot go. The
> damn thing is *made* for it.
I already dropped the devpts idea, for different reasons than you may
think, but I dropped it.
> Take again for example lo, if I want to reconfigure it, everytime the
> initscripts get upgraded, I have to apply a patch I had to write myself
> to change lo to whatever I want. How exactly does this fit the "simple"
> scenario? Plus it adds unnecessary code to the initscripts, while we've
> already got a perfectly working network initialization scheme. And lo
> fits right in.
'lo' does not fit in. 'lo' is an exception in every aspect, thus it is
being singled out. I could explain to you exactly why it is different,
but you wouldn't listen anyway.
This won't be changed and you can bitch about it as long as you want to.
> It's the thought behind all of this that is being questioned here. Arvid
> is right.
> And it doesn't matter if the user Does or Does Not Want, it's about that
> he Can.
Okay, you're the user, it's not about what you want or don't want, it's
about what you can: You can shut the fuck up, leave this mailing list
and get yourself another distribution. I'm not saying that you have to,
but you can. This goes for everybody who cannot discuss in a civilised
way. I started a civilised discussion here and see what you made of it:
a rant. Ranting about principles, ranting about us violating the Arch
way, ranting about whatever, without even quoting those principles,
quoting the passage of the Arch way you think is violated here, no,
I'm sick of being insulted and I'm sick of Arch or my work on Arch being
compared to Ubuntu, because they're nothing alike.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the arch-general