> but > again it appears that simple cases are being made complex, just to allow > for someone else's complex cases. Which is faulty logic.
It's a welcome option but an important question seems to be; Why wasn't this picked up in the dev cycle?. This reminds me of udisks 8 months ago losing features for multi-seat costing me time to replace it with udev and scripts which I still prefer. Is it coincidence that Redhat wanted complex multiseat at all costs for udisks and Redhat want fast boot at all cost for cloud services? p.s. I am very glad of RedHats contributions and respect their position of giving coders freedom but I just think that if they are able to fund coders to look after a corner full-time or completely then they need to manage that corner or atleast have some ground rules to cover any case of my way or the high way. The kernel wouldn't tolerate this kind of breakage and I really hope I never see linux userland as dependent on IPC as minix is or as broken without IPC as windows is without RPC. I take the unarguably more secure well setup sudoers and useful small tools anyone can use or take code from over polkit anyday. -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________
