Re: A few observations about systemd
On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 12:27:43AM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 07:12:58PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > > > If you do want it started, that means you need to install it first. Then
> > > > it makes very much sense it is started automatically.
> > > Logical fallacy: "run" implies "install", but "install" doesn't always
> > > mean "run".
> > While that is true, it is not really taking the discussion further
> > without some supporting argumentation. On its own, it just seems like
> > empty sophistry. I suspect you didn't mean it like that, however.
> I can install a package to play with it, read the included docs, etc. I
> can install a package locally because I need to install it on a remote
> server and want easy access to its content before/while deploying. I want
> control over my system so I want to review the configuration before
> something is started without my permission.
These are all good reasons to prefer secure-but-easy over easy-but-secure.
We've heard them before, in fact. Unfortunately, either option will
be unsatisfactory to many people, so the compromise I suggested at
the end of my previous mail seems like the best path forward.
Would you like to help implement that?
(I'm afraid I'm quite happy with the status quo, and busy with
other things, so I'm not particularly helpful with the actual work.
My apologies for that.)
--
Freedom-based blog/wiki/web hosting: http://www.branchable.com/
Reply to: