On Monday 07 April 2008 13:52:21 Thomas Bächler wrote: > If I assume a user has no idea what 'lo' > is, I can still give him a working system by hardcoding the 'lo' > interface to rc.sysinit. Your assumptions are worse then i thought. > Then I look at the user under the assumption that he knows what 'lo' is: > he still has a working system, ubuntu is "working" too. > his flexibility has not been reduced at > all, he is as happy as before (in fact, he won't even notice). To go > further: if he really wants to configure 'lo' differently (which he > doesn't), he still can. weird. exactly the arguments ubuntu devs use. > I am following KISS and trying to make things simpler, while you want > to keep things more complicated, because you think that's what Arch is > about. ubuntu-simple and arch-simple are different. ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, ubuntu, just not archlinux. http://phraktured.net/arch-way.html http://phraktured.net/patching-patching-patching.html thanks aaron, you rock. -- best regards Arvid Ephraim Picciani
