[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [SSSD] Design discussion: autofs integration



1 inline comment.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 8, 2011, at 16:01, Ian Kent <ikent redhat com> wrote:

On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 17:52 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
Hi,

I have created a wiki page summarizing my design proposal on integrating
SSSD with automounter:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/DesignDocs/AutofsIntegration

Feedback is much appreciated - a reply to this email would probably work
best. The target of this work is 1.8

Thanks for writing this summary, it's excellent.
There's not much I have to say about it because it is already quite
thorough.

One thing I dislike about the discussion, and while I let it pass in
bugs and mailing list discussions, I think it is wrong to put it in
public design documents. The statement "autofs abuses the nsswitch.conf
configuration file" I find a little offensive. autofs uses that
configuration file and parses only the "automount" entry using the same
semantic behavior as nss, so the word "abuse" is wrong and a little rude
IMHO.

From googling: define:abuse

a·buse/əˈbyo͞oz/

Verb:
Use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.
Indeed, what autofs is doing fits this definition to a tee. People reading technical documents generally have thick enough skin that the work abuse is not offensive. Not trying to flame, but I can't comprehend why you see the word abuse as offensive when it (to me) clearly is it. Especially not when it is used in a context fitting the definition. Much like how OpenVZ abuses procfs and IOCTLs, that's just how it is. If they used things as they were meant to be, it would not be abuse.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]