Re: Debian Policy based on the wrong technical assumptions
>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 23:50:47 +0200 (MET DST), Thomas Koenig <email@example.com> said:
Thomas> A. Chatila wrote:
>> IMO there should be a room in that policy for people concerned
>> about security, and who don't want to run any webserver on their
Thomas> I agree.
Thomas> Also, what happens when you go single user? What if no
Thomas> network is running since you've just hosed your networking
Thomas> Requiring a web server for reading documentation is overkill.
`Require' is a fairly strong word. It isn't required, but allowing
the changes a web server would allow would make life easier and
smaller on a lot of people. You can still
gunzip <some random file>.html
<web browser of choice> <that same file>.html
Nothing stops you from doing this it just means you have to search a
little more (which isn't all that different from the current
So spicing up the docs to deal _best_ with a web server in residence
doesn't seem to me to be all that much of a problem for the people who
will have a problem, and a big win for people who don't. (well maybe
not a _big_ win but a nice one at least :)
@James LewisMoss <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Blessed Be!
@ http://www.dimensional.com/~dres | Linux is cool!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .