User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Arch Linux and (the lack of) package signing

Arch Linux and (the lack of) package signing

Posted Mar 24, 2011 21:54 UTC (Thu) by jiu (guest, #57673)
Parent article: Arch Linux and (the lack of) package signing

I think after reading both this article and Dan McGhee's response, the sensible thing for LWN would be to delete this article altogether. No point propagating baseless accusations of the arch devs.


(Log in to post comments)

Arch Linux and (the lack of) package signing

Posted Mar 24, 2011 23:52 UTC (Thu) by IgnorantGuru (guest, #73857) [Link]

This is not the Arch Forums.

Arch Linux and (the lack of) package signing

Posted Mar 25, 2011 2:40 UTC (Fri) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link]

I don't think the article is in any way offensive or wrong.
It may be biased because an author not directly related to the story may catch the wrong viewpoint, but that doesn't make it wrong - only out of context when more information is available later.

As it is, even after reading the other side of the story, I don't see anything wrong with it. No impartial person can deny that even if IgnorantGuru may have gone beyond reason, his main point was still valid, and not answered as it should.

P.S. I don't have any reason to think badly of ArchLinux (nor had in the past or will start now). I still think it's an interesting distro, even if I never used it and maybe never will. To me this just means there are times where perfectly fine people just have a bad moment.

Arch Linux and (the lack of) package signing

Posted Mar 25, 2011 23:44 UTC (Fri) by nicooo (guest, #69134) [Link]

I agree. Also, there are some books at the local library that are wrong and the sensible thing for the municipality to do is burn them.

Arch Linux and (the lack of) package signing

Posted Mar 28, 2011 16:26 UTC (Mon) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

I read both, and I disagree. The article presents one viewpoint and makes that clear. The blog with the disagreeing opionion is linked. The article facts don't seem to disagree with the Arch developer's blog, only their interpretation. (This guy comes away as very very sensitive, by the way.)

For the record: I have never used Arch Linux, don't intend do, and don't know any of the involved persons.

I assume that you are as uninvolved in Arch Linux as I am, otherwise you would have surely noted that when calling for censorship of an opinionated article.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds