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

[Arvid Ephraim Picciani]

On Monday 23 June 2008 23:16:22 bardo wrote:

> > 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.

eww sorry.  this was a pretty bad assembled statement indeed. No i wasnt 
refering to any specific person. fear my social skills... meh

> > 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 ;).

heh, yeah. but thats an upstream problem. whoever  wants to use that software 
has to live with it :P
apache though, i strongly believe, has been made by pretty good software 
engineers. I know some of them and maybe there are a little insane 
personalities but surely they know how to maintain their software.

> > 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.

err... apache? qt? linux?
no well not outstanding if you compare to other distros like debian who really 
really screw up (QtGui is even ABI incompatible on debian to other systems) 
or RHEL who add patches  to support pre stonage API. *shudder*

> 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.

I'd like not to comment on that becouse it is not relevant. You know exacly 
that i didnt say "screw all those n00bs".

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

No, i'm saying that the priorities are broken. Fixing existsing bugs should 
have a higher prio then introducing new ones. I admit  that adding new 
features is more fun, yeah...

> > 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'.

huh? sorry i wasnt able to follow your points. i'll take that was "trolling" 
ok?


-- 
mit freundlichen Grüßen / best regards
Arvid Ephraim Picciani