Re: systemd bug closed - next steps?
On 25/09/14 03:43, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 24 Sep 2014 at 12:33:35 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
>
>> Look at it this way: If GNU wanted to stick stuff into their compiler
>> to reduce the utility of Linux, they would have done so years ago. They
>> never have. Redhat just did, bigtime.
>
> This is the Red Hat Conspiracy Theory. Does the promotion of blatent FUD
> ever stop? Why is it necessary to have to have a bogeyman?
>
>
No.
(sigh) Because it's a conspiracy silly. (That *you* don't see it as
obvious is proof). But wait - there's more! Intel, IBM, Google, NSA,
binary, ATF, woody words, etc.
Condition check:-
Conspiracy obvious only to those who can see the hidden undeniable
underlying interconnectiveness of everything? It's all connected,
RedHat, Google, NSA, obligatory Nazi reference, egotistical individuals
who fail the humility and manners test (don't pay homage).
Check.
End of Times prophecies? The sky is falling, wait for the third boot to
drop, then it'll be too late and you'll be sorry.
Check.
Evangelists? We're doing this for your own good (tough love). Join us at
the front lines for glory (we'll be along later).
Check.
Conservatism for the sake of Conservatism? The old way works for me - if
it didn't work for you it's because you are wrong/part of the
conspiracy. Therefore change is bad.
Check.
Appeal to authority? It's not the UNIX way.
Check.
Rent-a-mob support? Carpark full of veterans from [insert previous
loyalty] in campervans come to save you from the same thing happening here.
Check.
Martyrs (persecution complex)? No no, it's "us" who are under-attack.
*We* take offence with argument - the reverse does not apply.
Check.
Gish Gallop deployed as debate? No new argument just a rambling list of
rephrased, illogical, and sophistic statements - which you *must* answer
now or are proven true[*1].
Check.
Confirmation bias? Forget about all the proven falsehoods they only
strengthen our case - look at my corner case then go prove a negative.
Technical committee decision invalid because "not technical"/rigged/"I
wasn't heard".
Check.
Hypocrisy? Consider all our (Gish Gallop) complaints - but we refuse to
read or consider all previous argument (developer lists tl;dr). Play our
game (on your field) or we're taking your ball home with us (yes - we're
still here, but we're going soon and we represent thousands of our
silent congregation)
All 10 boxes checked? Proceed with the revolution (against change).
Kind regards
P.S. I do hope you weren't being sarcastic....
Reply to: