Re: Woody upgrading problems, LILO and debconf
On Monday 21 May 2001 16:15, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 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!?
So nothing until JG is talking about just only technical problems with some
packages. But he has started pseudo-philosophical discussion about rules of
developing of free software (<JG>At least I don't have nearly as many
negative contributions on my slate as you... How many people have accused me
of breaking their system in the last year? </JG>). He suggested his way (of
what?) is better but he didn't provide any real examples for it. This is not
only logical but it's also stupid.
> 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.
I think you should care about your IQ only.
> 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.
So I can only repeat. JG didn't provide any logical and technical arguments
about this critical issue. I agree it's not important who is JG like it's not
important what he wrote about this issue on debian-devel.
> 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.
And at least one disagreed to that and was trying to explain you where was
your mistake.
--
Mariusz Przygodzki
dune@home.pl
http://www.dune.home.pl
Reply to: