:: Re: [DNG] leveldb support proposal
Inizio della pagina
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Autore: Rainer Weikusat
Data:  
To: dng
Oggetto: Re: [DNG] leveldb support proposal
Jaromil <jaromil@???> writes:

> On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, poitr pogo wrote:
>
>> On 2/25/16, Rainer Weikusat <rainerweikusat@???> wrote:
>> (...)
>>
>> > Considering that shared objects and dynamic linking were
>> > originally a MULTICS feature (dating back to about 1965) and
>> > introduced to UNIX(*) with SunOS 4.0 in 1988, the best course of
>> > action to deal with people who are so afraid of changes that they
>> > keep rejecting "useful new features" for 51/ 28 years in a row is
>> > "roundly ignore them". Especially if they claim to be
>> > 'modernizers' because the ancient technology they're so wedded to
>> > is so seriously ancient that large groups of people meanwhile
>> > forgot about that ... ___
>>
>> Is this some kind of pro systemd propaganda ? :D
>
> I am not the only one to perceive Rainer's contributions as rather
> questionable for the conversations here. However, be it propaganda or
> not, what is really annoying is that it goes quite far off-topic, by
> abstracting a specific issue into a general political consideration of
> how history goes.


In case you want it specific: 'libdb must not be updated because nameless
"Bitcoin developers" are afraid that this may introduce "issues" for
them is a red herring'. The same applies to any other software on the
system which could possibly interact with "bitcoin software", eg,
prominently, the kernel.

I consider the sentiment behind this request based on irrational fear
about the unknown, for the stated reasons, as this "opinion" has never
been gone unvoiced for long ever since dynamic linking was introduced.

> I think we should be concerned by specific issues rather than such
> generic and political debates.


Sometimes, 'specific questions' ("Should bitcoin developers get 'special
protection' against measures users of bitcoin software might employ, eg,
as specifically mentioned, library security updates"?) have answers
depending on general considerations ("no more than the other 500 less
prominent developers who considered that de rigueur for their own,
mental well-being before").