On Thu, Sep 30, 1999 at 08:05:32AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > the "we-know-better-than-you" attitude is what redhat and caldera (and > microsoft, for that matter) does. it sucks. debian has always done > better than that - our way is to encourage people to learn to do it for > themself by not trying to hide the fact that knowledge and experience is > required (not just optional or "would be nice" but absolutly required)
the "minimum hassle/inconvenience" attitude? I agree. Sounds harmfull. > > When we ship a system with a bunch of stuff enabled by default, > > we're not only putting their machine at risk but we're also creating > > problems for everyone else who's system is attacked by someone using > > the debian machine as a jump-off point. That's bad. > > that's bad. it's also bullshit. enabling daemons by default is not > inherently a security problem. And why can't there be an option to determine this? You avoided that point. Maybe "you-know-better-than-I".. > if they don't need it then they shouldn't install the package. And if the package has a dependency? There are many situations dealing with the package system that can lead to daemons installing without your knowledge. mtools for potato includes floppyd, if someone upgrades a slink machine to potato, should floppyd be automatically started? not all packages start daemons automatically. Some ask. Wouldn't it be keen if Joe Bloe knew what to expect? --francois
