| |||||||||||||
SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failureSELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failurePosted Jun 24, 2010 7:41 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure by vladimir Parent article: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure
stated once, it's a datapoint that has value, stated 100 times it's nagging that does more harm than good.
in no way is it a definitive statement in any case. Every distro applies some patches that are inappropriate in and for the long term at some point, so just because they shipped it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
As an example of this, look at AppArmor. It's being shipped with Ubuntu, but the developers aren't leaning on that constantly, they are improving the code in response to complaints and getting closer to being merged. The fact that it is being shipped with ubuntu is one line in their multi-hundred line patch summary (in other words, it's not being ignored, but they aren't posting daily or even weekly asking for it to be applied because Ubuntu ships it).
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||