Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost> writes: > Of course, any setup can ultimately be understood. But the more > complexity there is, the harder that is to do; and the more automation > is provided by someone else, the more it encourages administration > without understanding - in extreme cases it actively obstructs > administration *with* understanding. (While I haven't seen it often, I > have seen people asking about underlying mechanisms answered with, > basically, "just use the automated tool". While there is a place for > automation, using it as a substitute for understanding is, in my > opinion, a disaster in the making.) I am sympathetic, but a directory of fragments is very thin syntactic sugar over having it all in a file. It does mean that "update this file if it hasn't changed" is likely to work on each fragment, rather than failing on something which is a textual collision but not a semantic one. If what you object to is programs coming with default configs that are active without the admin passing a test, then please say that. Making the config less fragile about things that are textual but not semantic merge conflicts isn't the core problem, and we shouldn't not do that because of concern it might be abused. That would be like banning cars because they might be used in a bank robbery.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature