On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 23:43 -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 11:41 -0600, Dax Kelson wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 08:32 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Matthew Woehlke > > > > it don't appear to care about the objections; they're not responding > > > > intelligently to them, > > > > > > I don't have an intelligent response to any argument which essentially > > > comes down to "tradition." Have the traditionalists pulled put forth > > > any consensus document like an RFC to support that at some point in > > > time a group of people actually talk through the need for doing gettys > > > a certain way? > > > > > > Traditions which codify a collection of arbitrary decisions..are > > > traditions I will gladly help throw into the fire. > > > > Jef, > > > > Not you too. My arguments are NOT "essentially" tradition. One of my 9 > > distinct arguments was Fedora becomes inconsistent with itself. > > > > Another was that Fedora becomes incompatible with other Linux > > distributions. Do we really want to go down the path where we have to > > have "Fedora experts", "SUSE experts, "Ubuntu experts", etc and there is > > no such thing as a "Linux expert"? That were the path of frivolous > > incompatibilities leads. > > Plus, distros are already incompatible. Debian has a completely > different network config system than Fedora does, same with SUSE. The > distros put their config files in different places. There are two main > packaging formats. Having a vt somewhere else is _soooo_ much less > incompatible than apt vs. rpm. > deb vs rpm apt != rpm rpm != apt -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
