On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 15:14:48 -0500 Ted Unangst <ted.unan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Thomas Pfaff <tpf...@tp76.info> wrote: > > > I think this could use some explaining for those of us that are not > > intimately involved in development or have been around here for that > > long. Keeping it small and simple by saying no to adding one file > > at 7.2K? I'd really like to know the rationale on this one. > > I'm kinda amazed at the hoopla over this. Yes, a lot of hoopla; patches flying around, undeadly.org coverage, and then zap for no apparent reason. Not that it matters a great deal, but it does make one raise an eyebrow or three. > Last week a wake on lan utility was like the only possible feature > not being requested, you didn't even know you wanted it, and now a > week later it's like people can't live without it. Yeah, it's handy, > but if you survived 10 years without it, I think you can get by a > little longer. net/wol has been working for me just fine, so I'm in no need of another utility (although I do like wake better). Thanks. Thomas
