Re: Moving virecover to ~/

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20171115T132958Z@localhost>, Izaac  <izaac%setec.org@localhost> wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 05:11:45PM -0800, John Nemeth wrote:
>> Or, Robert Elz, the rather famous elder of the 'net:
>
>Your point?
>
>Let me make one for you: Yes, this is why he should know better than to
>behave like some Linux-lusting teenager looking to leave his mark by
>screwing around with long established and functional core utilities.
>
>I'll reiterate to anyone looking to muck about in this way:
>
>  Stop.
>
>You need to think very, VERY hard about the consequences of the
>slightest variation in these components.  They are the intersection of
>disaster: vital functionality, arcane code, no real test suite, highly
>visible in failure, no appreciable benefit.  The risk profile screams
>"stay away."
>
>The original "disable virecover by default" is the most responsible,
>efficient, and effective suggestion I've heard in this regard.  It's so
>obviously the right answer, it never occurred to me to consider anything
>else.  But now, we've descended into madness "fixing" a "bug."

We find issues, we propose solutions, we discuss them, we reach consensus,
we change things or leave them alone.

Sometimes we make things better, others worse. Time tells. Nevertheless,
leaving things alone because nobody understand them and everyone fears them
does not serve anyone in the long term. And if you want a system that never
changes, you can chose a snapshot anytime....

christos