changes are still needed

[Pekka Savola]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> 1 and 5 seem to be about the same thing really.  2 and 3 are pretty close,
> since telnet/ftp/etc traditionally use ports < 1024 and are server apps.
> But generally I could accept all the above except for number 4.
>
> Number 4 is the one open to endless debate.  And many people like gui server
> apps (see the whole redhat-config-* line of gui programs, the industry
> wide move to web based configuration, etc).  Some will say that some of
> the apps you listed are not important, depreciated, or otherwise not of
> value to them.  Others will insist something is of great use for server
> admin, even though no one else sees their point.  Open to lots of debate here.

.. which is why we shouldn't go for this kind of separation, IMHO. 
It's a bit complex, and if the "server guys" are interested in higher 
QA, I'm sure they will participate more actively in QA'ing the server 
packages :)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings