[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

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?  


Reply to: