Linux is not about choice [was Re: Fedora too cutting edge?]

[Les Mikesell]

David Zeuthen wrote:

>>> There's the bad idea that everything under /etc/ is configurable, but in
>>> reality these rules are "program data" and ideally should go into /share
>>> if that existed (which would avoid people thinking they're meant to
>>> touch that stuff, hopefully).
>> I'm having trouble parsing that statement.  Are you saying that people 
>> shouldn't be able to edit their own /etc/xxx files as documented by the 
>> upstream programs or that the distribution should move the parts that it 
>> modifies with its internal tools elsewhere?
> 
> Lots of files under /etc are not marked as %config or %config(noreplace)
> and they are not really configuration files. It's a problem because
> novice users just assume they can and should edit such files and then
> they get confused when said file is overwritten on a package upgrade.
> 
> Does that make more sense?

It doesn't disambiguate the situation unless you are saying that local 
administrators should not touch any files.  How does a (novice or not) 
user know which files belong to him but are delivered as working 
defaults and which will be clobbered by subsequent updates?  I thought 
most of the point of splattering stuff under /etc/sysconfig was to have 
a place to put distribution-tool managed bits without too much impact on 
standard, documented config files as they would work in other distributions.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com