> On Jun 6, 2016, at 1:59 AM, Fabrice Bacchella <fabrice.bacche...@orange.fr> > wrote:
> I'm surprised, because in my mind, the default value are the least usefull > version of each options. Why don't set them to good, useful values and let > the user changed them to the opposite if there is some problems ? I’m not a developer, but it looks to me like the defaults are chosen to be the safe out of the box. Defaults are tricky, because everyone’s needs are different. (Otherwise if everyone wants the same setting, why make it an option?) So not everyone gets what they want out of the box, and when choosing them, there needs to be some principle guiding the choice, otherwise it is hard for users to develop a “feel” for the software and the lack of consistency causes everyone problems. The guiding principle you want seems to be ease of use. That’s valid, but with software like this, I think it is likely that a lot of folks would prefer safety out of the box. Imagine if you had requirements to install and lock Ovirt down to some meet specific criteria. If it shipped with a wide-open security policy and you were not yet fluent in using it, you’re going to have trouble locking it down and probably continue to wonder if you found every relevant knob. The reverse - opening it up - is generally much easier (especially when you’re new to complex software) and at least sometimes less dangerous if you get it wrong (if it isn’t as open as you’d like), so at least in my view, defaulting to locked-down makes more sense. My $.02, -j _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
