Upcoming transition of FC3

[Eric Rostetter]

Quoting Michal Jaegermann <michal at harddata.com>:

> On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 11:26:41AM -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> >
> > That said, I'd still vote for shipping it disabled...
> 
> With what I have seen "in the field" I would rather have that
> enabled.

I undertsand a lot of people feel that way.  But "Best Practices"
dictate the opposite.

The question for a long time is should we run this project on Industry
Standard Best Practices so that it is suitable for business use or just
run it so that it is the easiest for the average home user (or unskilled
business computer admin) to use?  Since most of the people at the "higher
levels" of the project are business or university people, their views tend
to trend towards best practices.  Since most of the people who use FL
are average home users and such, their desires are just the opposite.

> People who care about such things can disable that easily
> enough.

If they do their due dillegence and notice that we've changed things
on them with a package upgrade without their permission.  Which hopefully
they will, but we can't guarantee that they will.

>  The problem is with those who expect that things will
> happen automagically.

Yes, or more specifically the problem is with those who expect things
to be done for them automatically, versus those who require a controlled
environment.

> You can make the corresponding package to spit on stdout prominent
> warnings from a %post script; that does not matter in which state
> things will be eventually shipped.

This may be.  I'll leave that up to others to decide if this is practical
(e.g. do people using up2date see such messages, etc).
 
>    Michal

-- 
Eric Rostetter