1 inline comment.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 8, 2011, at 16:01, Ian Kent <ik...@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 17:52 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I have created a wiki page summarizing my design proposal on integrating
>> SSSD with automounter:
>> https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/DesignDocs/AutofsIntegration
>> Feedback is much appreciated - a reply to this email would probably work
>> best. The target of this work is 1.8
> Thanks for writing this summary, it's excellent.
> There's not much I have to say about it because it is already quite
> thorough.
> One thing I dislike about the discussion, and while I let it pass in
> bugs and mailing list discussions, I think it is wrong to put it in
> public design documents. The statement "autofs abuses the nsswitch.conf
> configuration file" I find a little offensive. autofs uses that
> configuration file and parses only the "automount" entry using the same
> semantic behavior as nss, so the word "abuse" is wrong and a little rude

From googling: define:abuse

Use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.
Indeed, what autofs is doing fits this definition to a tee. People reading 
technical documents generally have thick enough skin that the work abuse is not 
offensive. Not trying to flame, but I can't comprehend why you see the word 
abuse as offensive when it (to me) clearly is it. Especially not when it is 
used in a context fitting the definition. Much like how OpenVZ abuses procfs 
and IOCTLs, that's just how it is. If they used things as they were meant to 
be, it would not be abuse.
Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to