Re: Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 09:59:43PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Neil Williams wrote: > > There needs to be a simple tool with few dependencies and there needs > > to be a complex solution with all the power that some users need. One > > tool does not suit all here. It's not ju

Re: Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Neil Williams wrote: > There needs to be a simple tool with few dependencies and there needs > to be a complex solution with all the power that some users need. One > tool does not suit all here. It's not just about daemon vs GUI frontend > or whether to use DBus or Python - it

Re: Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 12:00:01AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 10:52:33AM +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote: > > On 08:18 Mon 04 Apr , Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > RH> Hi, > > > RH> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote: > > >> Stupid scheme (intended for stupid

Re: Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 00:00:01 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: > > There was a way "User can do anything", the way was replaced by the way > > "User can do something in list". Obviously that this action has been > > done for stupid users. > > Yes, a user can do anything with ifconfig if his time has no

Re: Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 10:52:33AM +0400, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote: > On 08:18 Mon 04 Apr , Raphael Hertzog wrote: > RH> Hi, > RH> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote: > >> Stupid scheme (intended for stupid users) should be based on ifupdown > >> but shouldn't replace it. > RH> Ple

Re: Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

On 08:18 Mon 04 Apr , Raphael Hertzog wrote: RH> Hi, RH> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote: >> Stupid scheme (intended for stupid users) should be based on ifupdown >> but shouldn't replace it. RH> Please refrain from calling people "stupid users" just because they use a RH> softw

Re: Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

>>> If you mean the ifupdown-based configuration, then I cannot agree that >>> it is "really disastrous" (I would agree that the network-manager >>> approach is really disastrous, however) as at least in my cases (which >>> are not so trivial) ifupdown works okay (and if not then at least I >>> wou

Re: Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 10:28:42PM +0100, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > I have read all e-mails in this thread, and what constructive criticism > you may have given is buried under uncompromising prejudice. For > example: > > > If you mean the ifupdown-based configuration, then I cannot agree that > > i

Flaming as a way to reach technical quality? No! (was: network-manager as default? No! (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy))

On ma, 2011-04-04 at 00:18 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: > If you read my mails without a prejudice you will notice it. I have read all e-mails in this thread, and what constructive criticism you may have given is buried under uncompromising prejudice. For example: > If you mean the ifupdown-