Re: Headless server just got suspended by updating systemd
On 26/11/14 09:14, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 02:44:19AM +1100, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>
>> Or, perhaps a general rule for default settings - "safest/do no harm"?
>> [just a wild guess]
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense having the default meaning: guarranteed to
> work on the majority of systems/setups enabling the admin to later
> change the defaults to better suit their own particular needs.
If that "breaks" things - no. How does the current system *not* enable
the admin to later reconfigure?
Perhaps... apt could post some sort of information message and/or a choice?
Oh wait.... :D
And *what do we know about the original "customisation"* that was made -
which may have 'some' bearing on the "badness" of the upgrade/update
"defaults"??
>
> I remember when (still is?) the default mutt configuration was having no
> colors defined so that at least it was still usable on displays without
> colour. Now *that's* clever thinking!
>
> Now, (I hope I'm not wrong on this.) It seems that the default GNOME
> installation required a graphics card with hardware acceleration. How
> stupid is that? It goes against the whole concept of a sensible default.
I thought a similar thing when planning a web site about the IBM P/S2
series (with the MCA bus). Should I use HTML4, CSS, and Javascript? How
much backward compatibility should I support? Then I saw the irony.
In the end I realised I wasn't bound by the same limitations that lead
to the compromises called PCI, and found a way to gracefully degrade to
the lowest denominator. Neither scenarios are useful analogies for DE
development - especially using a FOSS model (though elements of both
'might' be useful for understanding the basic problems, given the luxury
of Monday morning lunch-room football coaches).
As does your question about a DE - though I know nothing about GNOME it
doesn't stop me from speculating wildly (when did it ever?). Perhaps
(and I really am speculating) the decision was made on the basis of:-
;trying to cater for the largest groups of users?
;wanting to make use of the video card to render icons?
Admittedly that's all wild speculations made with a time investment of
minute. KDE and Fluxbox don't seem to require the latest video cards -
and I don't see why I should care about a DE I don't use (or support) -
with no disrespect intended to those that do use GNOME (or did).
But mostly:-
;I don't see the relevance between the development of large desktop
environments and apt's management of relatively simple package upgrade.
;it's not a subject 'I' would casually consider if I was making the
decisions. I've given the subject of this post only minutes of thought -
which is at least days short of the research and consideration I
"suspect" it deserves. I note that I'm no super-brain and many posters
may not labour under the same limitations as I.
>
> BTW, along the same lines, I'd expect the default *not* to suspend on
> lid-close simply because some models have "quirks" when coming out of
> suspend.
> It should be configurable by the admin whether he¹ wants it that
> way.
Ideally. I don't pretend to understand all the issues - and 'maybe' more
importantly, I'm not willing to second-guess those that do the work.
>
>
> ¹ Yeah yeah or she.
They? :)
Kind regards
Reply to: