On Fri, 2015-04-10 at 09:07 -0400, James B. Byrne wrote:
> On Thu, April 9, 2015 13:12, zep wrote:
>
> > frankly, this blows my mind. not long ago there was a huge kerfuffle
> > over the change to only allow (as someone defined it 'secure') certain
> > passwords, requiring numbers, special characters, some minimum length
> > and that -had to be done- because people didn't use proper passwords
> > and couldn't be trusted to just use what was appropriate/correct
> > for their environment.
> >
> > now a completely reverse the position, plain text showing user names
> > to the world (which has always been considered to be poor security
> > at best) is just 'yeah, whatever you feel like doing. go ahead.'
> User interface decisions are never driven by security. If security is
> mentioned then it is used as a fig-leaf to shut down dissent.
>
> Security when applied to these sorts of decisions is the patriotism of
> the FOSS world. The last refuge of scoundrels who have no desire to
> admit error and wish no discomfort from making any.
>
> The actual reasons for change usually come down to the aesthetic
> values of a small group of developers, or often a single individual,
> with the power to impose their vision on the rest of humanity. And
> the desire to do so. I cannot imagine why. . .
Seems RH, intoxicated by Fedora's wildest screwballs, has started to
loose its purpose and its sense of direction. The constant problems with
C7 updates is a nightmare for some dedicated Centos fans.
--
Regards,
Paul.
England, EU. Je suis Charlie.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
