On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 21:22 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le jeudi 20 octobre 2011 à 13:08 -0500, Dan Williams a écrit :
> If you architect a system that accounts for networking changing states,
> then it works for *everyone*. If you depend on networking always being
> there, then it only works for some subset of users that have one type of
> installation. Having one architecture and one codebase (that handles
> both cases) generally means easier maintenance, feature addition, and
> fewer bugs.
Really, the problem with hardware handling changes in Fedora those past
years is not improved handling of changing states (which benefit every
kind of system), it's the way all those changes have been progressively
tied with the desktop session, and all the efforts to shut down
everything when no one is moving the local mice, or to make every
scenario single-device stopping the old one when a new 'better' one
appears.
This is very vague and generally seems like an attempt to attack as much
as possible without providing any specifics that can be discussed.
Specifically, though, I see "and all the efforts to shut down
everything when no one is moving the local mice", which reads
like a
reference to the recent 30-minute suspend timeout, which for about the
fiftieth time *was simply a bug in a gsettings schema*, nothing more
sinister. It's already been fixed. Please stop referring to it as if
it's some sort of Grand Conspiracy. It is not.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net