On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 05:09:37PM +0200, Uwe Bugla wrote: > Am Montag 24 August 2009 16:11:10 schrieb Wouter Verhelst: > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 02:33:31PM +0200, Uwe Bugla wrote: > > > If I do describe accurately a problem dealing with netinst image, and, > > > as a consequence, I am asked to perform a test with a netboot image > > > (which has technologically nothing to do with the netinst one > > > > This is so utterly and completely wrong it's not even funny. > > > > 99% of what's on the installer images is the same from one flavour to > > the other. The only difference between flavours are the default > > retrievers that are put on the image, the drivers that are available, > > and what part of the base system is available. It *does* technologically > > have a *lot* to do with the netinst one. > > Non-qualified superficial nonsense of a "would-like-to"-ranter! Er. I've actually *worked* on the installer. Not as much as I'd like, but sure as hell more than you. > > It was a perfectly reasonable debugging attempt by Christian to see > > whether he could reproduce it by using the image that was easiest for > > him to try. > > Nonsense! See first point in how far! Rotfl. > > He didn't ask you to perform a test with a netboot image specifically, > > Lie! He in fact did! Not a lie; at most, a statement that wasn't clear enough so that you'd understand what I meant. > > but rather asked you to perform a test with a daily build, to see > > whether the problem still existed in the latest version. > > Crap! If noone did any kind of intervention on the images in the time > window of some days, everything that changes is the date, but not the > contents! Are you claiming that no development is happening on Debian at all? Any kind of change could have occurred in the mean time, and there's no way that Christian (or, in fact, anyone) can know all of them by heart. > Miguels posting was the best prove that ever could have happened to > me, showing that some things within the Debian installer developers do > not work in practice as expected! Rotfl. > > Since these are > > easiest to test with netboot images, it's not unreasonable for him to > > point you to the netboot image -- though you may want to use something > > else, and report on that. > > Your mental incapability easily shows that you even do not know the > difference between a netboot and a netinst image (although I have > explained it now for more than once, damn stupid!): I do not need to be 'explained' what the difference is between two flavours of software *that I've worked on* by a person who hasn't and whose name does not even remotely ring any bell to me in regards to said software, thank you very much. > I would call that the highest possible state of cretinism (using > medical terminology). Go to find a doctor please! > > > The fact that you *think* you know what you're talking about does not, > > in any way, imply that you do; and it *certainly* does not give you the > > right to be rude, to start calling people names, and to tell them that > > they are incompetent. > > Leave that point up to me and please go to find a doctor, OK! > > > If you still believe you do, then kindly fuck off. > > Non-qualified stupid rant from the first word to the last - it's your > expected task to fuck off from here - not me! No, it's yours. Listmasters: please take appropriate action regarding this user. He's been extremely abusive to multiple developers, does not want to listen to reason, has shown repeated proofs of arrogance and a superiority complex, and is in general disruptive to normal discussion on the list. Thanks, -- The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is trying to fool the system. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature