[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 12:42:48PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> >How many software programs called "linux" are around?
> When people refer to "linux", they often mean the entire OS.

Yes. And when I refer to "something", I just mean "something".

> >> IIRC you prefered not to
> >> answer to it but refered to an URL which did not contain the answers.
> >
> >I don't recall seeing this question before. So unless you provide a link to
> >that, you're liing.
> Technically, no - even if he doesn't provide a link, it may be true. And
> even if the question wasn't asked before, he may be mistaken. Accusing
> people of deliberately telling falsehoods (and note the "IIRC" - for
> this to be a lie, Eduard would have to have known absolutely that what
> he was saying was not true) makes you look like a fanatic.

That's right. I withdraw my accusation, although I still suspect that's the
case: I'm still waiting for Eduard's link.

> >I don't recall seeing such "ultimate argument" before. So unless you provide
> >a link to that, you're liing again.
> Cough.

This one is different. Eduard claimed there's an "ultimate argument", which
there isn't. Now instead of "coughing", bring me a link to such
"ultimate argument".

> >> And after removing bogus and irrelevant ones from that list, it became
> >> empty.
> >
> >Indeed.
> You may want to actually read that. He's referring to the advantages
> list.

    > - Noone managed to beat the advantages I listed before:
    >   http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00414.html

    And after removing bogus and irrelevant ones from that list, it became
    empty. Why cannot you invent something new to convince us?"

Uhm.. that's right. At first glance it sounded more like sarcasm.

Well, my answer is simple: I yet have to see a justification why these are
bogus and irrelevant.

> >> Why cannot you invent something new to convince us?
> >
> >As I said before I'm unwilling to understand your sarcasm.
> But at the time you were referring to my sarcasm, which confuses me a
> bit.

I was referring to Eduard's sarcasm. But it could well be a confusion of mine.

Robert Millan

"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."

 -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)

Reply to: