[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] adding http user/group to filesystems

[bardo]

I'm sorry, the first mail was incomplete.

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Arvid Ephraim Picciani
<aep at ibcsolutions.de> wrote:
> On Monday 23 June 2008 19:47:23 Aaron Griffin wrote:
>> I think you're confused
>> because "sane defaults" usually coincides with "defaults from
>> upstream". Not all upstream maintainers are sane.
>
> Right thats the phylosphical problem i have. I believe the apache project
> knows alot more about apache then some random bash hackers who call
> themself "distro developers" .

Sorry for replying on this point, I really shouldn't, but I couldn't resist.
If you think Aaron is a 'random bash hacker', just take a look at
code.phraktured.net and find out how this is not true.

> Now you call them insane

Come on, he was obviously referring to their default configurations,
not to the developers themselves. Insane devs exist, just search the
archives for 'ion3' or 'sancho' (ok, not this one - I'll write about
it in a few days ;).

> These are dark days where
> the upstream has to report bugs to the downstream. sigh.

I've seen this myself, and it's really sad. Anyway I don't feel Arch
has outstanding "downstream bugs". I could be very wrong.

> Good point, i was very happy with the old arch so i might overact on every
> little change. It began with a sudden change in irc, when suddenly people got
> kicked out for beeing "leet" and unfriendly to the newbies. When i joined
> arch people got kicked out for demanding hand holding. Made me pretty happy
> since i opose any kind of hand holding. Now join the channel and look for the
> questions.... the level of rtfm dropped to zero.

The best hacker is not necessarily antisocial, you know. I usually
both look for documents by myself and ask real human beings: you
should know that the biggest problem nof FOSS projects is the lack of
documentation. I shouldn't have to be a search engine guru to use some
piece of software.

> Please note that even after you aded that patch, the default arch setup is
> still not a correct production setup.
>
> 1) there are gazillions of bugs in the config

So you're saying developers are insane to ship such a config for one
of the most used softwares around? </troll> :-)

> 2) a  production setup i supposed to be evaluated by an experienced admin
> specificaly for the environment. "Just installing a webserver" is the reason
> why we have so many infected machines around.

Good point. So no users should ever start using linux or - god forbid!
- installing a server because, you know, there's so much to learn
*before* you actually do that, and a public ip could make their
machine a 'production setup'.


Corrado