Automatix?

[Daniel Carrera]

'Forum Post wrote:
> I dont have time to go over each and every piece of FUD spread by my
> ignorant detractors that has already been beaten to death a million
> times over.

Let's try not to get too emotional here. What you wrote is bordering on 
personal attack, and that only makes one lose the argument. I have 
searched the forums and I've read the threads, so I'm not totally out of 
the loop.

> In short let me summarize
> echo -e "y\nY\n" is not harmful if the source script you are using is
> trustworthy.

I can't verify this, but I wouldn't feel comfortable running that 
script. There's too much room for things to go wrong even when the 
author has the best intentions.

> imagine while installing a debian package, if u were asked at each and
> every step whether a certain file should be placed somewhere. in that
> case, it ALSO assumes that it has your implicit permission to do the
> same.

Not quite. The Debian packages are well tested and compiled by a strong 
team of people. The package maintainer decides that certain option 
shouldn't be "yes" by default and it really merits user input. You then 
decide that this option doesn't actually merit user input and should be 
"yes" by default. To me this rings alarm bells.


> All important files are backed up with date and time at the end.

That's good to know. But why are they changed in the first place if they 
are not changed by apt-get itself? I get nervous when a third-party app 
changes my config files.

> yes that link is the piece of childish junk which the authors of Easy
> Ubuntu came up with

Please, let's avoid personal attacks. Really, it doesn't help your 
argument. Let's cool down a bit. Okay, some authors wrote a document 
that is critical of your work, that's life. Let's address the criticism. 
So far, it seems valid. Nothing wrong with valid criticism. We need it 
to grow and improve our work. For example, try to find options to not 
have an "echo 'Y'" in there. Or see if it's possible to make the 
software fail gracefully if that's an actual issue.

> some of the better known online journals and magazines which have
> featured automatix are
> pcworld and linux.com

Headlines do not prove that your work is secure. PC World is not a peer 
reviewed academic journal, and neither is Linux.com. All that it shows 
is that someone liked your work and thought it was worth writing about. 
That is fantastic, and something to be proud of. But it'd still be good 
to address concerns raised by others, or show that they don't have merit.

Best,
Daniel.
-- 
      /\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org
     /\/_/
    /\/_/   A life? Sounds great!
    \/_/    Do you know where I could download one?
    /