On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 13:13 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Because you cannot just say "This is some decision, I know whatever I > do will have good and bad tradeoffs, therefore, I will just not decide > and expose all the possible choices to the user". Thats just not > tenable. That is exactly what should happen. If you know that any decision will be wrong in some circumstances you try to leave it flexible to the extent possible by other limits such as developer time. The system requires a root password. Ok, the pure UNIX way would be to simply prompt for one. Because a typo here (especially since passwords don't echo) tradition calls for requiring it be entered twice as a basic sanity check. And that is all. This is also what the RedHat/Fedora installers actually did for many successful releases. If additional developer resources are available it is perfectly acceptable to add more sanity checking and inform / warn about unsafe passwords. Fedora has also used this policy, and again with success and no complaints. The second the developer takes the step of requiring their preferred password policy is when they have left The UNIX Way and adopted the attitude (endemic in every other computing culture) that the developers are superior to the users / admins. While perfectly normal everywhere else, that is a totally alien mindset for UNIX folk and is why the instantly negative reaction is occurring, a reaction that is probably more harsh than the actual case at hand would justify. I realize Fedora is no longer UNIX, doesn't even want to be a UNIX, but many users do still follow The UNIX Way and we haven't all been driven out yet.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
