> On 3/15/15, Michael W. Lucas <mwlu...@michaelwlucas.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 01:06:37PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > >> Look, if people keep being unspecific on how DUIDs interfere with > >> their usage patterns, then the non-DUID configuration mode is going > >> to go away. > >> > >> WHY must be use the non-DUID option in the installer??!?!?! > > > > As someone who recently had several OpenBSD boxes in production, in a > > variety of roles: > > > > I can't imagine why DUIDs wouldn't work. > > > > We defaulted to DUIDs the moment they became available. They worked > > fine. Even for the Linux guys. > > > > If someone has a particular dislike of DUIDs, they can easily change > > them back. Anyone who has a whole bunch of OpenBSD boxes probably has > > uses a post-install script, and a couple lines of > > sed/awk/perl/whatever will make them happy. > > The ridiculousness of this point is beyond ... beyond ... well, > it is silly. > > The installation script right now, as everyone is used to, asks > a simple question. With a "yes" (the default) or a "no" answer > everyone's preference and need are met. > > You are arguing to make more work -- which certainly means > more time, more effort and less convenience, with potential > introduction of errors -- for a single group of people, just so > the other group isn't bothered to press the enter key to accept > the default "yes" answer during installation? > > Is this the problem you are trying to solve? One less press > of the enter key for you? > > Are you serious?!
Hmm. I find this interesting. Once in a while a user goes off their rocker and thinks they are in control of the decisions the developers put into the source tree... Get back onto your meds. DUID support was written so that we could solve a problem, without a question. This is a mop-up operation. The question being posed is not "shall we leave the non-DUID question", but "what DUID support gaps still remain, so that we can finish those".
