Introducing /run

Posted Mar 30, 2011 19:26 UTC (Wed) by mmcgrath (guest, #44906)
In reply to: Introducing /run by nvloff
Parent article: Introducing /run

> instead of some document that was last updated 6 years ago.

It's a fallacy to think that just because something is old that it is invalid or somehow faulty.

to post comments

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 30, 2011 19:40 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)

No, it doesn't automatically mean that. However in this case, it is unmaintained and requests to enhance or clarify the document has not been answered. So it is indeed faulty and doesn't represent the current reality for a number of years.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 13:55 UTC (Thu) by jcm (subscriber, #18262) [Link] (1 responses)

So then that needs fixing. Bring it up at LFCS next week or something. I'm with Mike on this one - just because it's old and hasn't been re-invented this week to be all Web 2.0 doesn't mean it's invalid. If LFS needs a new home or whatever, that's a totally separate issue.

Introducing /run

Posted Mar 31, 2011 20:26 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Don't engage in handwaving. People have been trying since 2005 to get it updated. If you want to lead an effort to update it, go ahead and do it. Noone else is apparently interested in that. Otherwise what is in the latest major distributions is the living standard.