Re: Woody upgrading problems, LILO and debconf
On 20 May 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu> writes:
>
> > If it's the same point you and Branden have been trying to hit for the
> > last year, it's bogus, not operative. It's classic _ad hominem_.
>
> No, it's not _ad hominem_.
>
> We want to know who you are. I don't respect people who see the
> inexplicable need to hide, and the more you do so, the more convinced
> I am that you are *ashamed* of your true identity.
This is bogus crap. I use a pseudonym (in fact I use several ;-) and,
_yes_ I do also provide a "real" name and address etc... So what!?
I know as much about John Gault as I know about Thomas Bushnell, at least
in the areas of interest here, and I don't see any reason to be this rude
to a regular user of our product just because he always has an opinion.
>
> And that's an interesting thing, and it colors everything you say. I
> can think of several possible reasons for your shame, and for each of
> them, it does cast doubt.
>
Since when did it become fashionable to sling such horse shit at our
supporting user base.
JG has never exhibited shame for anything he has presented here. You seem
to be a fairly bright guy Thomas, but using such a content free argument
to "bolster" your position indicates just how desperate you are feeling,
but doesn't improve my opinion of your IQ.
Personally my "birthday wish" would be that all you ego bound guys would
get a clue and stop interpreting criticism of a decision you made as being
a personal affront. Even the brightest members of this group are humans.
Even the slowest among us can make a contribution, but not if their value
is arbitrarily canceled.
As the one who started this thread, are my comments only of value because
I "own" some code here? A logical argument is the critical issue here, not
who is making it. So far as I can tell, neither Russell nor Thomas have
been presenting anything like a logical argument lately.
How about you tell me:
A. Why, on an upgrade, should LILO do anything more complex than replace
the binary files it contains? The system is running, so the boot process
is most likely the one the administrator wishes to keep.
B. Why you two feel the need to protect the previously broken positions
you have taken.
Look; I reported a problem I had. Others agreed that they had these
problems too.
OK, you have two possible replies. 1: That problem is fixed in the xxx
release; or 2: Thanks for the report, could you submit a bug report
against this issue, so I don't forget to fix it. (You can obvioulsy also
just ignor it and hope it goes away...)
A reply to a third, supporting, party saying: 'Until you identify yourself
you can just fuck off', is much more useless than anything JG has ever
said on these lists.
Get a life guys,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux" _-_-_-_-_-_-
_- _-
_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _-
_- e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-
_- _-
_-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_-
available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
Reply to: