Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:43:42AM -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
I think the underlying problem is that advanced hardware access policy
technology is advancing far more rapidly than local administrators are
able to keep up with and its disrupting workflow that has been used
for years.
Yes, there is a lot of that. You also have to add the fact that some
of these newflangled thingies sometimes do not have the capability to
cover what the previous systems could do, as we can see in NM's case.
I'd just like to understand why arbitrating access to devices is
suddenly seen as a new problem when in fact the facilities have been
built into unix and its clones for decades. Or why any of those
facilities need to be broken because you want to guess that someone near
the console is somehow special or you want the most recent login session
or console switch to win at everyone else's expense.
So there are two steps there, find out what the new system can
actually do, and how it can be configured to do it. Of course, having
the main maintainer taking questions trying to answer that as personal
attacks on his work is not making the task easy.
That could easily be avoided posting links to the documentation that
explains why these choices were necessary and what you get in return. If
that exists, I don't know where to find it.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
