Re: Moderated posts?
When something is antiquated or junk, becomes a troubleshooting problem
or leaves room for mockery, or sucks, then there is no reason not to say
it. Straining to bend everything into a stream of euphemisms is
counterproductive, and nobody can know what is being talked about
because it's buried under all the dishonesty.
Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> writes:
> 2) Keep your responses technical rather than gratuitously inflammatory.
> For instance, perhaps say "systemd keeps much better control of
> daemons than sysvinit" rather than "sysvinit is antiquated junk", or
This is a very bad example. The two statements have totally different
meanings.
One is an assumption about systemd --- which I wouldn't be willing to
make because I do not know whether it's true or not. The other one is
an assumption about sysvinit --- which I *might* make because my
experience with sysvinit *might* have shown that it's antiquated junk.
If I was saying something about systemd in order to say something
about sysvinit, I would be lying.
> say "systemd engenders so many dependencies that it's going to be a
> troubleshooting problem", rather than saying "systemd leaves
> enough room for mockery".
These are also two statements with totally different meanings. Why
would I let some moderator dictate what I have to think?
--
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons
might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable.
Reply to: