Re: "Do you want to mount the drive, 'cancel' or 'allow'?"
> Please save your rants for when you are in the bar with your friends.
I don't see where *I* did write some rants, I just asked for
understanding of the users' problems.
And with all your suggestions there is one problem - nobody but
initiated can actually contribute documentation.
Since I broke my own promise not to get involved in any d-p -r d-d
thread on systemd*&friends, I stop here and wish you all the best.
Enjoy
Norbert
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Norbert Preining writes ("Re: "Do you want to mount the drive, 'cancel' or 'allow'?""):
> > On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > If you don't like systemd or policykit, why are you running them ?
> >
> > There is and remains the problem that the current situation and
> > working is not properly documented, nor can it be deduced from reading
> > config files under /etc, which was the case before the switch.
> >
> > Before deriding people who have problems, we as DDs should accept that
> > what we ship now as default works in many cases, but when it does
> > *NOT* work, the user is in a very bad situation - as the system is
> > undocumented and intransparent and without documentation accessible
> > in an acceptable way.
>
> There are a range of possible responses to this kind of situation:
>
> 1. One could conclude that the defaults are unsuitable for most users
> and argue that they should be changed. But, we all of us have a
> responsibility to respect the decisions we have collectively made
> as a project, in some cases with our last ditch governance
> processes. Reopening such debates is not constructive or helpful,
> even if we still disagree with them.
>
> 2. One could conclude that it is too hard or too complex for users to
> choose non-default configurations. If you think this is the case
> then there are a lot of practical things which could be done:
> - The information on the wiki could be improved
> - Alternative unofficial installer images could be provided
> - It could be make easier to make lightweight derivatives of
> Debian (this is something I myself am keen on)
> - You could work on alternative setups in existing Debian
> derivatives. (There is nothing wrong with being a DD and
> also, or even primarily, using and working on a derivative.)
> - Insert your idea here.
>
> 3. One could conclude that the default mechanisms need to be better
> documented or more transparent and configurable. I don't know
> whether the Debian maintainers of the relevant pieces would
> welcome efforts to improve these things, but a _friendly_ and
> _respectful_ approach would be the way to start. Again, of
> course, anyone can edit the wiki.
>
> None of these things involve ranting on mailing lists. Ranting on
> mailing lists about how awful modern pointyclicky integration stuff is
> is pointless.
>
> It may make you feel better, but it makes the atmosphere in the lists
> worse. It discourages the very people who might be able to help
> improve the things you are complaining about. And it does nothing to
> help any of the people who agree with you, or the users who are
> affected by the problems you percieve.
>
> Please save your rants for when you are in the bar with your friends.
>
> Ian.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: