Re: Packages should not Conflict on the basis of duplicate functionality
On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 08:05:32AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> the "we-know-better-than-you" attitude is what redhat and caldera (and
> microsoft, for that matter) does. it sucks. debian has always done
> better than that - our way is to encourage people to learn to do it for
> themself by not trying to hide the fact that knowledge and experience is
> required (not just optional or "would be nice" but absolutly required)
the "minimum hassle/inconvenience" attitude? I agree. Sounds harmfull.
> > When we ship a system with a bunch of stuff enabled by default,
> > we're not only putting their machine at risk but we're also creating
> > problems for everyone else who's system is attacked by someone using
> > the debian machine as a jump-off point. That's bad.
>
> that's bad. it's also bullshit. enabling daemons by default is not
> inherently a security problem.
And why can't there be an option to determine this? You avoided that
point.
Maybe "you-know-better-than-I"..
> if they don't need it then they shouldn't install the package.
And if the package has a dependency?
There are many situations dealing with the package system that can
lead to daemons installing without your knowledge. mtools for potato
includes floppyd, if someone upgrades a slink machine to potato,
should floppyd be automatically started?
not all packages start daemons automatically. Some ask. Wouldn't it
be keen if Joe Bloe knew what to expect?
--francois
Reply to: