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

OT: standard Was: util-linux seems to have /sbin/fsck


There are a lot of cases where having stuff "endorsed by the
IETF cabal" as a recognised standard is a win. (Thankfully
it is decreasingly so.) I could tell sad tales how devastating
to an IT infrastructure when the architects recognise only
ISO, IBM and Microsoft as standardisation bodies. For these
environments RFCs are a highly needed stable point.

RFCs are also useful when you have to settle discussions
about interoperability problems. You can base your arguments
on them.

The standard answer on endorsing bad practices based on
the fact that how many others do that is:
"4 billion flies eat shit. It must be good."

I do not think that the Followup-To: header is a bad practice,
but I do think that there is no ground to demand that everyone
should act upon it.

A levelezőm azt hiszi, hogy Andrew Suffield a következőeket írta:
> How do you define "standard"?
> If you mean "endorsed by the IETF cabal", then no - but why are you
> listening to them? You could equally put "IEEE", "ISO", or "Microsoft"
> in there and it would be about as meaningful.

GNU GPL: csak tiszta forrásból

Reply to: