Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote: >> IFF we are going to put stuff in to work around problems for one set >> of edge cases (and IMO it's debatable whether we should), then why not >> also cater for what is possibly a larger group of edge cases ? Your >> argument seems to be "this is the only set of edge cases I'm prepared >> to consider - ignore the others". > > I nowhere suggested ignoring edge cases. I merely said the existence of > edge cases (severe firewalling, badly implemented hotel wifi captive > portals) needing special handling should not deter Devuan from offering > a highly useful feaure during installation. > > I feel like I said 'Hey, it'd be a nice idea to offer a local recursive > nameserver option in the installer's default screens because many > systems would benefit greatly from this', and a couple of folks tried to > immediately say 'We can't do that because severe firewalling or a broken > captive portal might prevent it from functioning.' > > This perplexes me because it's non-sequitur,
Well yes, you're correct that saying can't do X because what about Y in this case is just that. In the context of the thread, I thought you were suggesting a local resolver for slightly different reasons. So, OK add it as an option in an advanced level install (as you say, some people might want it) - but that's not what I thought was being discussed. Ie, the thread has now diverged into another branch :-) So, if it's just a case of - in an advanced level install, offering to load and use a local resolver might suit some people. OK, no problem with that. So once again, it looks like were in violent agreement once we work out what each other are talking about :-) In the context I thought we were talking about, loading a local resolver will probably help a small number of people, other options will probably help more people. But given that just about every scenario that's been discussed is effectively working around something that needs fixing*, how much effort should really go into it ? Note: not because I think it shouldn't be done, but there are finite developer resources and that effort might be better deployed elsewhere. * And in the context of (eg) a hotel where nothing works without signing in - then "fix" is "just" a matter of signing in. "The "just" there is somewhat oversimplifying the issue of how a user signs into the WiFi while running an installer that doesn't have all the desktop stuff to run a browser and allow the user to sign in. > I mostly work with servers. Ergo, mostly fixed IP. With one work hat on, ditto. > A good DHCP-based network will of course point clients via the DHCP > option for same to a good local recursive nameserver -- preferably yours > rather than Google's. ;-> I'd go so far as to say "any working DHCP" will do that - it doesn't need to be a "good" network, just a functional one ! > Those are refindable from section 'Guide for the Perplexed' under the > the Table of Contents on > http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Network_Other/dns-servers.html Yes, very useful - and I like the style of your lan village :-) _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
