Dax Kelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dan is being a) lazy or b) headstrong, obstinate, mulish, sulky,
> dogmatic and illogical.
I don't think you are going to convince anyone with this kind of
argumentation.
While I have to say that I don't fully understand all the issues with
Redhat and qmail and Donnie and Dan, I surely hope that this fight
will be won by the best technical arguments. I, too, have more than
once heard the statement "qmail is great if you can deal with its
author", but I think it would be more correct to say "if you can deal
with the level of excellence targeted by its author". Dan reminds me
of a fellow over there on comp.lang.lisp who picks every fight he can
about incompetence of any kind. Sometimes this is annoying, but most
often it is fun. But, people who are so keen on competence and
excellence likely behave that way out of experience and it is them who
we owe a lot of real progress. Not merely being content with "it
works for me, screw the rest", but longing after the proverbial "right
thing".
So, it is not easy to argue, and almost hopeless to convince someone
on "excellence patrol" of ones own little, confronting view of the
things without raising to equal levels of competence.
I have a great deal of respect for people who do things differently
for the right reasons. "This is how it should be, screw the rest".
It might not be the most convenient route to follow but it sure leads
to new horizons. [whoa what marketing speak.]
> Sounds like Dan is *promoting* "Frivolous Incompatibilities" with
> the rest of the Unix universe.
And maybe for good reasons.
Ok, I have to say that I favour run-time configurable uids myself,
too. And that I didn't want to pick on you personally, Dax, it's just
that I tend to condensate my thoughts around minor dust particles.
Especially after returning from a little Christmas party.
merry christmas to y'all,
Marius
--
GNOME: Penguin in bondage.
