On Mi, 28 mar 12, 15:12:19, Camaleón wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:50:50 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > On Ma, 27 mar 12, 14:58:52, Camaleón wrote: > >> > >> IMO, the rule of thumb for applying a new default is asking ourselves > >> if the new default will cause any problem to the users. If yes, then > >> don't touch the old default and keep it the way it was. > > > > I don't agree. > > For any specific reason or just "don't agree" for the sake of not > agreeing? I'll be glad to hear your arguments on this :-) I thought I did below ;) but the short version would be "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" > >> If we are not going to get any improvement but just for the 10% of our > >> user-base, then we are failing the 90% of the rest. > > > > The improvement long term *could* be valuable enough to justify the > > pain. The correct way is usually not the easy way. > > And what (or who) decides what is "correct"? I think there is no correct answer that would apply anywhere[1]. It just happen that I agree with (most) of the choices taken by Debian and I say this by having followed all major discussions on -devel, -project and a few other mailing lists for several years now. [1] except 42, of course :p > I've just seen another thread at this mailing list where "another" user > has been hit by this "correct" default. I don't mean that having "/tmp" > mounted as "tmpfs" is not correct but the default is clearly not suited > to many of the users as you can see. As far as I can tell /tmp as tmpfs is in testing since a few months and in unstable even longer. In my very humble opinion two threads in this period is hardly enough to call it "not suited to many of the users". > > One of the big reasons I love Debian is because it is not afraid to > > choose the hard path[1] when the long term benefits are worth it. > > (...) > > Although that's your personal opinion as you can easily understand it has > nothing to do with the issue we are currently debating. Every user can/do > love Debian for their own/different reasons but none of our personal > reasons can be used as arguments to make changes in the defaul settings, I wasn't trying to use personal reasons as arguments, I was just trying to suggest that popularity or ease of implementation (or whatever) of a decision does not necessarily imply correctness and Debian has had the courage to make unpopular decisions or choose the harder to implement solution when it thought it was necessary. I just happen to respect this in general, regardless if the decision proves to be "good" or "wrong". > unless there's a strong technical reason that proves they're the right > thing to do, which I still don't see for this specific issue. Well, isn't this your personal opinion (that there is no strong technical reason)? :) Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature