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

User private groups - reply to Remy Card (user)

(This message is essentially a bunch of responses to issues and points
left over from before Ian Murdock's proposal.)

Remy Card's championing of RCS to solve the world's problems have been
clearly shown to be a red herring by David Engel.

> > Paul Vojta writes, regarding the private groups proposal:
> > > 3.  We'll be continually burdened with newbies asking why we adopted this
> > >     weird system.
> > 
> > This is false, I believe (anyone who notices and wonders will probably
> > be clueful enough to find the FAQ or an appropriate manpage).
>         Hmmm, do you really believe that newbies read the FAQ before posting
> to the newsgroups or to the lists?

No, but I don't believe that newbies would notice and wonder.

> > Even if it were true to a small extent, if we are to allow this kind
> > of argument to prevail we might as well give up trying to make Debian
> > look like Unix.
>         I do not understand what you mean.  Debian is intended to be a
> distribution based on a Unix-like kernel.  People who will get Debian will
> want to have a Unix-like system on their PC.  If we make Debian look like
> Unix, everything will be fine.  On the contrary, if we `give up trying to
> make Debian look like Unix', there will be lots of questions related to
> the differences between Debian and Unix.

It is clearly that you do not understand.  I was saying that arguments
of the form "the newbies will ask us why we did it this way so we
shouldn't", are often fallacies.  This can be seen because they can
also be used to cut to the very heart of what makes Unix worthwhile.

> > > For my purposes it's excellent the way it is, thank you.
> > 
> > That is a very selfish attitude.  Why screw up many people's systems
> > just because `for my purposes it's excellent [this way]' ?
>         And, why screw up many people's systems just because `I have thought
> of a personal solution to a problem and I have implemented it for anybody
> whithout considering other solutions'?


I really HATE it when people KEEP reasserting things that have
previously been refuted AGAIN and AGAIN.

 - I didn't think of a personal solution; it has been thought up and
used successfully independantly by several sites.

 - I have considered other solutions; the only one that has been
suggested has been RCS, which is inadequate because it only helps with
a very particular class of software revision control problems.

 - You have STILL not shown how my proposal screws up anybody's

>         But I don't know about any Unix-like distribution which has enforced
> it as the default.

"Enforced as the default" ?!  What on earth do you mean ?

I'm not intending to "enforce" anything.

I definitely want to see this as the default because it has great
benefits and insignificant costs (if any).

>         Well, Linux is used in networked environments where constraints exist.
> Your proposal does not work in such environments so it is useless for people
> using Linux networks cooperating with other servers.  This looks like a big
> restriction (unless you intend to distribute Debian for use on a home computer
> only).

This is false.  As I have said before, repeatedly, my proposal does
not make life any harder for people in networked environments.  If
they do not have control over their site's uid/gid allocation policies
they need only do what they would have to do anyway: copy across their
site's passwd and group information.


Reply to: