Stupid end-user tricks: darcs for /etc and /boot

[Alexander Skwar]

Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> I didn't take it personally - what makes you think so?
> 
> You looked like you did.

No, I didn't. You try to make me look like I did. Why are you doing
that? In need of flame war, aren't you?

>> But what he wrote was just not true and sounded very much
>> like FUD. Is it wrong to call things by their names?
> 
> Saying that a program in Gentoo doesn't work is not FUD.

That's not what he said. He didn't say that a program didn't
work. He said, that etc-update may hose the system *completely*.
There's a definite difference between those statements.

If he would have written, that etc-update doesn't work, I
might have not written anything - or maybe I would have asked,
what he specifically means.

But he wrote, that etc-update may *completely* hose the
system (wrong). And he wrote, that you've got to be careful
(also not quite true). What he wrote sounded, as if it's
easy to wreck your system with etc-update if you're not
careful. That's just not true. You have to be careless to
wreck your system.

> It really 
> isn't.

You're right, but as he didn't wrote what you say, I disagree with
you.

> FUD is an attempt to spread uncertainty over a product, to make 
> people not use it.

Yep. Just what he did. What he wrote can very well be understood
that way.

> It is a marketing ploy to keep customers from 
> switching. But we can't allow just any statement that we disagree with 
> to be labeled FUD because we run the risk of closing off valid 
> criticism.

You're right. But it's not just that *I* "disagree" with what he
wrote. It's rather, that the opposite of what he wrote is true. And
that's why it was FUD, what he wrote.

If he just wanted to state facts, he should've written something
like "The user can wreck his system, if he on purpose enters -5 in
etc-update". That would be correct. But that's not what he wrote.

Not that it changes anything at all, but I'm of course open to
valid criticism. *Valid* being the keypoint here - and *valid*
being the keypoint that's missing from gonzlobos statement. A
valid statement might be, that it sometime might be hard to spot
*important* changes, as, sometimes, even just changes in commentary
show up when etc-update is run. There are certainly more points
that can be criticzed.

> One user says that this program has wrecked his /etc/ 
> directory.

No, that's not what he wrote. He wrote, that *etc-update* can
completely hose the system, if the user isn't careful. Truth
is, that the *user* might hose his system, if he's not careful.
But that has nothing at all to do with etc-update or Gentoo. It's
always a true statement.

> This is valid criticism,

No, FUD is close to never "valid criticism". That's one of the
main points of FUD.

> unless you're going to accuse him of 
> lying, which is quite an accusation.

I'm not - how did you get that idea? Is it, because you tend to do
such things? Well, live with yet another fact: I'm not like you.

> Just because the program has worked 
> well for you, it doesn't mean that it works well for everybody.

Yes, it does. Opposite to what he wrote, it's not *easy*, but, in
reality, very *hard* to make etc-update hose the system. And it
doesn't help that you defend this FUD - FUD is FUD is FUD.

Further fact: etc-update doesn't hose the system. A user might
do this. That's a big difference.

>> Yes, that was what he wrote. And it's plain wrong. You don't
>> accidentally type "-5<enter>".
> 
> The poster disagrees with you,

Is he? How do you know? The poster didn't write anything anymore.

> and what you are saying is not filling me 
> with confidence.

Too bad that it doesn't fill you with confidence. But how else should
"(-5 to auto-merge AND not use 'mv -i')" be worded? If you don't
know what "mv -i" does, then maybe you should either look it up
or not use this option at all?

Please stop trying to start a flame war and be constructive - how
should etc-update be changed, to make it more "user friendly" without
annoying users too much? It currently works that way, that all the
to-be (but not yet!) changed files are listed. It'll then let
you chose the file that you wish to inspect and you'll get a diff
displayed. After the diff, you've got the following options:

	1) Replace original with update
	2) Delete update, keeping original as is
	3) Interactively merge original with update
	4) Show differences again

If you enter "1", "mv -i" is invoked - meaning, the user has to
enter "y" (for yes) to confirm the changed.

Instead of entering the number of the file which should be inspected,
a user can also enter:

	Please select a file to edit by entering the corresponding number.
	              (don't use -3 or -5 if you're unsure what to do)
	              (-1 to exit) (-3 to auto merge all remaining files)
	                           (-5 to auto-merge AND not use 'mv -i'):

How should this be changed? It's important that it is usable
on the command line and also shouldn't rely too heavily on
external libraries/tools.

>> Sure, *could* happen - but in
>> the same way, the Ubuntu partition tools make it easy to wipe
>> your system, if you're not careful.
> 
> Yes they do. And it is not FUD to say that fdisk can totally wreck your 
> system if you are not careful. It is actually a very true statement.

No, it actually isn't a very true statement. It's actually a rather
wrong statement. Not fdisk can wreck your system, but the user can do
so. It's the fault of the user if he's doing things without having
the proper knowledge.

>> I suppose you'd agree that it would be right to call Ubuntu
>> dangerous, wouldn't you? Well - I would not. IMO, this would
>> be stupid FUD.
> 
> Okay, so we agree on the point of contention.

I don't think so.

> Saying that fdisk can 
> wreck your system and you should be careful is actually good advice,

Well, but it's not that you've got to be careful with fdisk, it's
rather that you've got to be very careless to wreck your system
with fdisk. And if you don't understand fdisk, then you shouldn't
be using it - there are enough howtos out there and also good alternative
tools like gparted. And if you don't understand them either - well,
there are people who accept payment to help you.

> it 
> is true,

No, it's not true, it's wrong.

> and it is not FUD.

As it was wrong, it was FUD.

> It's not reasonable to complain when someone 
> says a risky command should be used with caution,

But that's not what he did.

> and it is very 
> unreasonable to call that FUD.

It's not unreasonable to call FUD, what gonzlobo wrote in this thread.

> This is not what FUD is.

What he wrote was FUD.

>>> if you disagree with the poster. I wouldn't like people to call FUD when 
>>> I complain about Dapper's stability either.
>> 
>> Depends. If you've got solid facts,
> 
> I it crashed on me, that's solid enough to complain.

No, not necessarily. Maybe your hardware is somehow broken? Maybe bad
memory? In this case, it would be more worthwhile to complain about your
hardware then about Ubuntu. Ubuntu can't do anything about bad hardware.

> That is not FUD.

Yes, it might be.

>>> That sort of attitude only blinds us to real issues.
>> 
>> What attitude? To dislike FUD?
> 
> To call anything negative FUD.

Okay. Glad that I didn't do that. So, again: What attitude? To dislike
FUD? Why should I like FUD? Why should FUD not be called FUD?

> If you call FUD every time you dislike 
> what someone says about your favourite system all you'll do is ignore 
> valid criticism and dilute the meaning of the word FUD.

Fine. That's not what I did.

Here's some more FUD for you, which you'll certainly like: Ubuntu
is no good, as even the installer and Wifi don't work.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
"Maybe we should think of this as one perfect week... where we found each
other, and loved each other... and then let each other go before anyone
had to seek professional help."