Subject: Re: Why is ifconfig.ae0 better than hostname.ae0?
To: Ted Lemon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Dave Burgess <email@example.com>
Date: 04/15/1997 17:48:38
> > I'm actually *not* a giant fan of it. It tends to be hard to write
> > autoconfiguration utilities to use such formats -- small files are
> > easier to edit than large ones filled with comments. (No, it isn't
> > impossible, just more difficult).
> > However, that isn't a reason not to permit people to configure their
> > machines this way if they choose, which was what was proposed.
> Hm. That's pretty much what I was thinking. For my use having one
> file makes sense, because I wind up upgrading the system pretty
> frequently without automatic tools. If we make more automatic tools,
> having seperate files will probably start making more sense.
I am ready to vote for consensus. Thumbs up everyone?
(Sorry, I just spent a whole day in a TQM working group.)
Having the flexibility there makes good sense to me. I can support this
(not that anyone really needs my vote, or anything....) I'm so happy to
have the system available, I'd be willing to use it in cyrillic
(assuming all of the core developers did too.)
Dave Burgess (The man of a thousand E-Mail addresses)
*bsd FAQ Maintainer / SysAdmin for the NetBSD system in my spare bedroom
"Just because something is stupid doesn't mean there isn't someone that
doesn't want to do it...."