No subject

missed or cut short it can just be recorded again. That is not always
true. Programs on broadcast TV in this country (New Zealand) are not
repeated for months or years, if at all.

> I think doing exactly what the user asks is a perfectly fine technical
> reason for this behavior.

It's not a technical reason at all. A technical reason would be a
limitation of the hardware. MythTV has a limitation in scheduling that
means the I can not tell it what I want (pad this program unless it
conflicts). So MythTV may be doing exactly what I asked for, but only
because I cannot tell it exactly what I want in a general way. So I
have to constantly monitor schedules and make adjustments. Do you
really believe that is optimal?

And you haven't addressed the fact the having pieces of adjoining
programs in the wrong recordings is not optimal either. Surely you
don't think that is desirable behaviour when it could be avoided with
a different implementation?

Why are you resisting this enhancement? Obviously you are comfortable
with the current behaviour and understand why it is implemented the
way it is, but do you really think that behaviour can't be improved?

> If the user does an "rm -rf /", is that what
> they want to do?  Unlikely.  Does rm allow them to do this?  Yes.  (OK,
> some distros have either modified versions of rm or, more likely,
> aliases set to prevent this type of thing.  Some of us, however, don't
> want the "Are you sure?" prompt every time we delete something.)

So your example of similar behaviour has bitten enough people that
some distributions have changed it? Doesn't that make it an argument
against your position? Even if you personally don't want the safety
net, isn't the option to have a worthwhile one?

Steve