On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 11:41 -0600, Dax Kelson wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 08:32 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Matthew Woehlke
> > it don't appear to care about the objections; they're not responding
> > intelligently to them,
>
> I don't have an intelligent response to any argument which essentially
> comes down to "tradition." Have the traditionalists pulled put forth
> any consensus document like an RFC to support that at some point in
> time a group of people actually talk through the need for doing gettys
> a certain way?
>
> Traditions which codify a collection of arbitrary decisions..are
> traditions I will gladly help throw into the fire.
Jef,
Not you too. My arguments are NOT "essentially" tradition. One of my 9
distinct arguments was Fedora becomes inconsistent with itself.
Another was that Fedora becomes incompatible with other Linux
distributions. Do we really want to go down the path where we have to
have "Fedora experts", "SUSE experts, "Ubuntu experts", etc and
there is
no such thing as a "Linux expert"? That were the path of frivolous
incompatibilities leads.
Plus, distros are already incompatible. Debian has a completely
different network config system than Fedora does, same with SUSE. The
distros put their config files in different places. There are two main
packaging formats. Having a vt somewhere else is _soooo_ much less
incompatible than apt vs. rpm.
Dan