There seems to be a firestorm going on with regard to a change in the newly
released Fedora 12.

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/11/18/2039229/Fedora-12-Lets-Users-Install-Signed-Packages-Sans-Root-Privileges?art_pos=1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=534047

How much this has blown up from being "slashdotted" is not an issue IMHO.
And I agree that it was a horrible decision to make that change be the
default.  I do hope they revert it.  My belief is that if they wanted such a
change it is important enough they should have retained the old behavior and
made an option to implement the new only by someone having root privileges
and proving it.

But the real reason for this post is that I have noticed what might be a
trend in recent releases.  It feels like a trend to me and I find that
bothersome.  The trend I am talking about is for new releases to change
defaults and content in ways that so many reviews and tips are focussed on
how to revert the "improvements" to the prior art.

For example, there are many positive reviews for Karmic Koala (ubuntu 9.10)
along with the usual problem reports.  But it seems that many of the problem
solutions and tips being published are how to "fix" Karmic back to the way
ubuntu used to work.  Now this thing with Fedora 12.  I get concerned when
it seems like we risk our advantages of better security and stability.  I'm
all for ease of use and innovation but I wonder if some changes are going
too far and too fast.

I have also noted that many changes are made to make things easier for new
users (a good thing) but along the Microsoft model of assuming users must be
stupid ... errr .... don't need/want to know.  Is that bothering anyone
else?

-- 
Dazed_75 a.k.a. Larry

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions,
that I wish it always to be kept alive.
 - Thomas Jefferson