On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 16:10:18 +0300, Francisco Barbee via arch-general wrote: > > IMO it's unhealthy to be in a hurry, apart from > this seemingly not everybody needs those security > features. > > [...] > > > Arch isn't ill, there seems to be no foreseeable > risk that Arch could become ill. If somebody > should really experience some illness, then please > don't be vague, post a pointer to the illness. > > [...] > > > I only claim that I don't experience illness and > that my impression is, that Arch is distinctly > healthy. In my experience more healthy, than any > other distro I experience/experienced. > > [...] > > > Imagine everybody who wants something, Arch > doesn't provide, would argue with being "a little > concerned about arch's overall health", to get it > into Arch. Hello, this is unrelated, but it appears that your MUA or MTA screws up the formatting of your mails, making it difficult to follow this conversation, as I have to figure out for each line whether it's part of a quote or not. Also, it's hard to read, like in this example: On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 13:14:08 +0300, Francisco Barbee via arch-general wrote: > > On 20 April 2017 at 03:23:04, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > I would be concerned, if too many security > features not everybody needs, > > would become default. Why not dropping security > features completely and > > instead making real-time optimised features the > default? This is a > > rhetorical question, but actually I would prefer > the latter. Would you mind finding out why that is so, and try to fix that? Thank you in advance! Best, Tinu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
