Stupid end-user tricks: darcs for /etc and /boot

Markus Schönhaber ubuntu-users at
Wed Jun 21 09:13:11 UTC 2006

Alexander Skwar wrote:
> Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > Alexander Skwar wrote:
> >>> it prompts the user to view changes to important files
> >>
> >> Well, again not quite true. Not just to "important" files, but to
> >> *all* files stored in one of the "CONFIG_PROTECT" (the 1st list)
> >> directories.
> >
> > Seems like you are nit-picking since this point is unrelated to the OP's
> > position.
> I'd like to add one more thing to this - maybe I was indeed
> nitpicking. But I did that, just to show, that his complaint
> in reality wasn't valid or was based on a misconception about
> how etc-update works. And I was doing that, to clarify what he
> wrote, as he wrote wrong things which were rather "FUD like",
> ie. could be understood in a very wrong way.

I'd subscribe everything you said in this discussion, but maybe it is 
debatable wether or not the term "FUD" is appropriate. In my - subjective - 
point of view "FUD" is connected with purpose. And I don't think that the OP 
did spread the misinformation purposefully but that he rather doesn't know 
better and blamed the tool he used for his own failures.
Which, of course, doesn't change the fact that this spreading of 
misinformation may have the same effect as FUD on people who read it and 
don't have the knowledge to see that the OP's statement is wrong.

> > He's saying that etc-update is dangerous.
> Which is wrong.

Of course it's wrong. If etc-update (or dispatch-conf, which I prefer) hoses 
one's system, it simply did as it was told.

BTW: etc-update comes into play when installing or updating software. This is 
a system administrator's task. And if a system administrator doesn't know 
what he's doing, he *will* eventually hose the system - regardless which type 
of system and if there is a tool called "etc-update" or not.


More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list