New design, what is the Goal here?

Roger Merchberger zmerch at 30below.com
Wed Nov 30 07:00:23 PST 2005


Rumor has it that pak_lfs at freemail.gr may have mentioned these words:
>Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > rl at nezumi.plus.com wrote:
> > > AFAIK people have not proposed a particular type of authentication.
> > > What has been proposed is that this authentication is built into alfs,
> > > and that alfs is a client/server system.
> > >
> > > I think this adds a huge amount of pointless complexity. Imagine that
> > > three of the 90 machines you want to update are turned off. An email
> > > based system would use e-mails built-in store and foreward abilities.
> > > An http/cron solution would also let those machines catch up in their
> > > own time.
> >
> > lol. I'm sorry. These solutions you're suggesting don't add pointless
> > complexity?

Right!

It's entirely possible that an SMTP/POP/IMAP "solution" may become *more* 
complex! Remember, email is a stateless entity, and what happens when the 
email to [re]build package X arrives *before* one of it's prerequisites?

>Remember everybody that in OSS, it is always consensus that builds the
>best systems.

Offtopically, you're incorrect in that assumption, too. Look at qmail - the 
bulk of the program was written by a single person, and it was not designed 
by committee - any patches that the author felt detracted from the code 
base (which is most of 'em, and generally due to a security standpoint) 
just plain didn't get added.

http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html
http://www.qmail.org/top.html

Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger

--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger   | "Bugs of a feather flock together."
sysadmin, Iceberg Computers |           Russell Nelson
zmerch at 30below.com          |




More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list