Re: itp: static bins / resolving static debian issues
On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 03:37:36PM -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
> I want Debian to be usable as a reliable production server. This is
> what is required.
>
> In response to a statement like the one above, with which you
> obviously disagree,
don't put words in my mouth. disingenous shit like that just pisses me
off and makes you (and your arguments) look bad.
I *HAVE* been using debian for reliable production servers for several
years. i have built dozens of debian boxes which qualify as "reliable
production servers". I KNOW as indisputable fact based on first-hand
personal experience that debian makes for a highly reliable server. One
of the reasons I use debian is that it is a reliable and complete system
"out of the box" which requires minimal stuffing around to get up and
running.
you claim that you'd like to use it but don't trust it - in other
words, all your talk is based on opinion and dubious theory rather than
real-world experience.
> you really have a few options: (1) show that it is not required on a
> reliable production server; or (2) ask for an addition to the Debian
> policy documentat stating that Debian should not, by default, be
> usable as a reliable production server; or (3) propose a different
> solution and show that it solves the problem equally well.
wrong. i don't have any options. YOU are the one who is trying to
change things, the onus is on YOU to prove that your wishes are a)
necessary, b) unavoidable, c) do significantly more good than harm.
you have something to prove, go prove it.
> But I think that we have demonstrated that it is required on a
> reliable production server;
i'll take practice over theory any day. in practice, debian is a highly
reliable production server.
numerous real world examples of debian being used as reliable production
servers prove that what you want is NOT required.
> and I think very few on the Debian list would back such a change to
> Debian policy.
that's because very few on debian lists are stupid enough to fall for
such asinine straw-man arguments.
> Also, you haven't really added anything useful to the dialogue in the
> message I've quoted before, but your angry and inflammatory language
> is likely to degrade the quality of the list.
my anger is because you people repeatedly and seemingly deliberately
miss the point: what you want is an optional extra of dubious and
unproven merit - STOP TRYING TO FORCE IT ON EVERYONE ELSE.
as an optional extra, what you want is no problem. as something forced
on everyone else, what you want is a huge problem. UNDERSTAND???
if you want static binaries etc then it is up to you to implement that
want in a way which does not affect anyone else who doesn't want them or
doesn't give a damn.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: