there's absolutely wrong statement regarding Solaris's zones and FreeBSD's jail in LXC doc:

[Jo-Erlend Schinstad]

On 11 November 2014 02:13, Igor Podlesny <ubuntu at poige.ru> wrote:

> On 11 November 2014 08:07, Gunnar Hjalmarsson <gunnarhj at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > On 2014-11-11 01:57, Igor Podlesny wrote:
> >> Call things by their proper names isn't a mis-behave. Plus I didn't
> >> call author(s) ignorant, but statement. And it really is.
> >
> > A statement can be be true or false but not ignorant, so implicitly you
>
>    Ok, this very statement you made is false.
>
> > accused the author of being ignorant. Hence the reactions from Doug and
> > myself.
>
>    Guys, personally I don't care much of your reaction — you can ask
> me to behave, to leave your alone and so on.
>

But why was it necessary to go on the offence rather than just explaining
the problem from your point of view?


>
>    I pointed to ignorant statement which, _BTW_, slurs FreeBSD's and
> Solaris' devs hard work, not only misleads uneducated readers. It's a
> blunder, it's to be fixed. Moans aren't heard here. Errors are seen —
> that's your job (paid one?).
>


The statement is not ignorant, if a statement can even be ignorant. If
there'd been a comma, the the statement would've arguably been wrong.
However, as it currently stands, the statement is quite correct; it is
better to compare LXC to Solaris Zones or BSD Jails, than it is to compare
LXC to VMWare or QEmu. To me, it wasn't even possible to misunderstand that
statement, to the degree that I couldn't even understand what made you
upset. You could've easily explained this in your first message and you
would've gotten a very different response.

In Norwegian, we have an example of this kind of error.
"Skyt ham ikke, vent til jeg kommer".
"Skyt ham, ikke vent til jeg kommer".

The first means "Don't kill him. Wait until I arrive". The other means
"Kill him. Don't wait until I arrive". Both are completely valid
statements, depending on whether or not the man should be killed. Grammar
is important. When you had first explained why you misunderstood the
statement, I could understand why it should be rephrased. But the idea that
we are all ignorant for not making the same mistake you did, makes little
sense to me.

A significant part of this thread has been related to your aggressive
behaviour, rather than what made you upset to begin with. If you had been a
little less aggressive and argued your case in a polite manner, then this
long conversation would've been of a completely different sort.

A general rule to follow when reporting issues, is the following approach:
1) This is what I experience
2) This is what I expect
3) This is how the problem could be solved.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20141111/9aa7a3fe/attachment.html>