Rumor has it that [EMAIL PROTECTED] may have mentioned these words:
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > AFAIK people have not proposed a particular type of authentication.
> > What has been proposed is that this authentication is built into alfs,
> > and that alfs is a client/server system.
> >
> > I think this adds a huge amount of pointless complexity. Imagine that
> > three of the 90 machines you want to update are turned off. An email
> > based system would use e-mails built-in store and foreward abilities.
> > An http/cron solution would also let those machines catch up in their
> > own time.
>
> lol. I'm sorry. These solutions you're suggesting don't add pointless
> complexity?
Right!
It's entirely possible that an SMTP/POP/IMAP "solution" may become *more*
complex! Remember, email is a stateless entity, and what happens when the
email to [re]build package X arrives *before* one of it's prerequisites?
Remember everybody that in OSS, it is always consensus that builds the
best systems.
Offtopically, you're incorrect in that assumption, too. Look at qmail - the
bulk of the program was written by a single person, and it was not designed
by committee - any patches that the author felt detracted from the code
base (which is most of 'em, and generally due to a security standpoint)
just plain didn't get added.
http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html
http://www.qmail.org/top.html
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | "Bugs of a feather flock together."
sysadmin, Iceberg Computers | Russell Nelson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
