On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 09:32:33AM +0300, Mihai Popescu wrote: > > As I see it everybody has agreed upon that and some are now just making > > suggestions on how to solve the OP's problem, that do not involve adding -p > > to > > OpenBSD's sysctl. So I thik that was uncalled for. > > Not everybody! Man, you talk like a black suit manager here.
Maybe I am ;-) But I saw nobody in the thread that still advocated that sysctl -p should be added to OpenBSD. So that was what i saw was agreed upon by everybody (in the thread). Therefore it was not necessary to once again point out that sysctl -p will never be added to OpenBSD. Because it will not. Never. Already said that. > > > I just do not get that. > > Yes, you obviously don't. It has been explained that the CONCEPT of -p > is WRONG in OpenBSD area and maybe other areas, too. IF you can grasp > that, then think why the hell would someone try to implement this and > find a solution for the OP? Now that is a different, and valid argument. To tell someone that implementing a substitute for sysctl -p is a bad idea because that would send the wrong message (no message) to the Ansible folks. But that was not the response the implementer got. > > I think one of the reasons that OpenBSD avoided to become useless > swiss army knife of OSes is exactly that resitance to implement crap > "just because ...". Bla bla bla. Heard it before. Agrees completely. Have said it myself many times. Nothing new. And that was not the subject. Sorry, maybe it was the subject, but very indirectly. As I see it is the message that helping someone solve a problem in a way that encourages other OS:es bad decision is a bad strategy that did not get through the usual @misc communication style of go f*ck your self you know nothing. There are better ways to send that message then what used in this thread. For example by writing it up front. -- / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
