On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 04:11:35AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2007-03-22 16:34:44 +0000, Dave wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:09:26PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2007-03-21 15:35:18 +0000, Dave wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 01:49:45PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > > But a *compile-time* option would be a bad idea, as the one who > > > > > installs the software is not always the one who uses it. > > > > > > > > The one who installs the software should be the system > > > > administrator, who's (an agent of) the owner of the system. It's his > > > > domain to make these types of decisions about his system. > > > > > > A system administrator doesn't always know what he is doing exactly > > > > That's the fault (and responsibility) of the sysadmin himself. > > Now, if software writers make bad decisions, that's the fault and > responsibility of the sysadmin himself? Great! Making a compile-time option isn't a bad decision if the default yields correct behavior. ...but at any rate, a sysadmin is responsible for the software he installs, and if he installs badly written software (i.e., software with bad decisions) without fixing it (i.e., reversing the bad decisions), he's not really doing his job too well. . . > > > (with thousands of programs to install, this is not surprising). > > > > If there weren't so much overlap in functionality between those > > "thousands of" programs, many of them (especially the big ones with > > big, dirty, nonorthogonal ones that take most of the sysadmin's time > > ... in contrast, cat(1) takes very little to configure) would be > > unnecessary and/or greatly simplified. > > Unfortunately, system administrators can't do anything about that. As programmers, we can make their job easier, by not adding to the pile of UNIX-incompatible software out there. (This is the Mutt-Dev list, after all, not some sort of Mutt-Admins list.) That said, sysadmins can refuse to install programs that don't fit into the system properly. Then, the ball is in the physical user's court, and he can decide how he wants to tackle the problem. The sysadmin can install other programs that can be used to solve the same problem. He can post notices explaining why program XYZ isn't installed systemwide, and what alternative options are available. > > > And what if users have different wishes? > > > > I've already explained several times that the user doesn't own the system. > > You don't know what you're talking about. If I'm a user on a corporate server, I don't own the system. I don't suppose you disagree with me there. . . > > The physical user is governed by the owner of the system. > > Which is not the system administrator. The owner of the system hires the system administrator to carry out his wishes. I strongly doubt you'd hire a sysadmin who didn't represent your interests to administer your system. In other words, the sysadmin is (an agent of) the owner. > > > And what about binary distributions? > > > > By GPL, they must include source. > > What does this change? You've trimmed out some essential context. The GPL ensures that a user can fix and/or reconfigure software, if necessary. > The advantage of binary distribution is to > avoid recompilation. Right, but that doesn't prevent you from getting the source and recompiling anyway, if you'd like to reverse a stupid decision made by the distributor. - Dave
