On Sat, 08.06.13 11:35, Adam Williamson (awilliam(a)redhat.com) wrote:
On Sat, 2013-06-08 at 09:25 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
> Its not quite like this. What I need is the OS to be well behaved under normal
> conditions so that when problems come along they are easily spotted. Fedora
> has been a fairly well behaved OS over the years. I have had to get a few apps
> fixed in the past and the maintainers have always been accommodating. But this
> time I am finding we have a serious problem worse than in the past.
Well, you're defining something as 'bad behaviour' fairly arbitrarily -
or at least controversially: not everyone agrees with your definition.
Continuing to simply assert that the behaviour is bad is not driving the
conversation forward, you're just repeating a position that others have
already raised objections to. Those who are disputing your position are
not saying 'this behaviour is not happening', they are saying 'we
disagree with your definition of "bad behaviour"'.
If it's not 'bad behaviour', the fact that it didn't happen before is
fairly irrelevant. I could come up with any arbitrary 'test' for some
action that Fedora 19 does that Fedora 18 does not; that doesn't mean I
can then show up on the list waving my test results about and declaring
that there's a problem. First there has to be solid agreement that I'm
actually testing for something we shouldn't be doing.
Actually it's worse than that. What Steve proposes as a programming
style is something I'd consider actively bad, something that leads to
less secure, racy code.
And then, I totally don't like this alarmist sound to it, I mean,
nothing really changed in PA in the past 5 years, so I really fail to
see what this is all about... There isn't any new "trend" I could see
here...
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.