First, he denies that this is something people need. Then, when he is told that people need it, he says that they are just doing things the wrong way. Then, when people point out that this is neither unusual nor the wrong thing to want to do, he just repeats that this is not what was intended so too bad. He offers no advice on how to do things the right way despite being the only person who seems to think that everyone else is wrong.
So what is the homedir for? "Home directories for users". See 'man
hier'. This to me means it is not a directory for services.
This doesn't answer your question of course. There is still the 'why' of it.
Why has this become the standard?
The homedir is a volatile place. Where users reside often. And make changes
often. Any place humans change things is a place where stuff breaks easily and
on a regular basis. What if Lennard calls 'rm' with a wrong switch? Or chown?
Or chmod? The service receives pain.
Or he could decide that he no longer wants his homedir to be
readable/executable by everyone on the system, so he chmod 0700 his homedir.
Forgetting that this will render his trac instance unavailable.
Or what about sharing some responsibility? How is Lennard ever going to share
the maintenance of the ticketing system with anyone else? What impact will that
have on the ticketing system? Will it have to be migrated anyway to /srv or
/usr/local or /opt? What configs will that affect? What about the webserver
configs? What about file permissions, uids, gids?
What about backups? Are they configured for this specific service? If it is
ever migrated to another location, do they have to be reconfigured? Or will
/home/lennard just be backed up as before and no one will remember that trac is
now in /srv/trac, making a restore improbable.
What about a reboot? Will the service come back up? What if you have to
re-implement this service on another machine after this one explodes? Are you
sure you did not forget to point /etc/rc.local (or some other hack) to your new
These are only the reasons I could think of off the top of my head. And most of
these are actual examples from the field.
A standard is a standard, because it works for more people than just you. The
question you, and lennard, should be asking yourself is: How can these
standards work for me as well?
(As you can probably tell, I grew up in Ops, not Dev. I have seen the pain of
Also, cnvogel is obviously more consise than me. :-)
One reason is that pulseaudio broke audio for many Linux users (including me). Linux audio has long been problematic but had reached a point of stability when pulseaudio was adopted by some of the major distributions. I have no idea if the problem was that pulseaudio was broken, with distributors messing up, or with Linux audio drivers.
When a problem is easily solved by just an "apt-get remove X" it is easy to start hating the piece of software. No matter who was actually at fault.
Except its not dated at all. I have constant issues with PA randomly failing to do basic things like mixing, or outputting any sound at all on newest code releases. This is still a real problem for people, pretending it isnt and everything is solved and working because it works for you is an incredibly shitty attitude.
I receive all the bugs for Mageia. I don't notice bugreports for PulseAudio like what you describe. Seems very aggressive to suggest that someone has a "incredibly shitty attitude" just because someone has a different perception.
It does not seem that dated to me. Last time pulseaudio broke the sound at my computer was in two weeks ago on Debian Squeeze. Could have been a Debian fuckup, could be my hardware but whatever it was it was fixed with sudo apt-get remove pulseaudio.
I realize that is all anecdotal and I could be one of the few people in the world who still have problems with it.