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

[Alexander Skwar]

Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Alex, please calm down.

I'm getting somewhat upset about you, if you must know... Why are
you picking on me? Why are you defending this 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*.
> 
>  From the information available, this seems like a true statement.

Well, it's not. It's the user who might be hosing the systgem.

> That 
> etc-update may indeed hose the system.

No, it may not - not easily at least, and that's what he's implying
by what he wrote.

> And it seems to me that saying 
> that you have to be careful with it is a very valid statement.

Not, it's not. You have to be overly careless with etc-update.

> I 
> honestly don't see the FUD.

Yes, I very much believe that.

I strongly disagree.

>>> 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.
> 
> I don't get that impression.

I do. And it's made even stronger by his new reply.

> By comparison, if a Linux user tells me 
> that Dapper is unstable and it hosed their system I wouldn't consider 
> that FUD.

It very much depends on how that complaint is worded.

> Instead I'd try to find out what the problem is, and if I see 
> a way it can be fixed I'd file a bug report in launchpad.

That's sort of what I'd do as well, yes.

But as you might have seen by now in his new reply, it's not the fault
of etc-update, but his very own.

Anyway - how *could* etc-update be made better? Is it just,
that plain text is "boring"? If so, a user can configure
etc-update to use a more "exciting" diff command (meld might
be a good candidate, if it's okay to rely on X). Or should the
"menu choices" (the -1, -3, -5, ...) be put into a "dialog", like
it's in dpkg? Well, I doubt that this is possible with etc-update,
but a new tool might use this. I don't see how this would help,
though; especially if you read his second reply and see what
the complaint was really about - too many changes. But this
cannot be changed - unless a "wizard" (like in dpkg in some
packages) should be incorporated. I wouldn't want that.

>> 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.
> 
> A statement like "Dapper is stable" or "etc-update is dangerous" are not 
> gospel truth.

And "etc-update is dangerous" is plain wrong and FUD.

> There is a degree of opinion, and perceptions will vary 
> based on personal experience. If Dapper hoses your system you will think 
> it's unstable even if most people in this forum think it's rock solid. 
> That wouldn't make your statement FUD.

It might - depending on how such a complaint is formulated.

> Our friend the OP is in a similar 
> situation.

> You may think that etc-update is fantastic,

Not really, to be honest. But I don't see how it could be much
improved.

> but his 
> experience with it has been very bad

Well, if you read the second reply, you'll see, that it's not so much
about etc-update, even if he says so.

> and he is not wrong to say so.

Of course not.

>>> This is valid criticism,
>> 
>> No, FUD is close to never "valid criticism". That's one of the
>> main points of FUD.
> 
> FUD and valid criticism are very different.

Hey, *that* is something we can agree on :)

> It looks to me that the OP 
> had valid criticism and not FUD.

As you might have seen in his 2nd reply, he didn't have valid criticism
reg. etc-update and thus just 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.
> 
> Alex, an ad hominem is not going to improve your position.

But yours?

> The OP said 
> that etc-update has hosed his system.

No, he didn't. He wrote that he did it himself.

> If you don't think that etc-update 
> can do that

Yep. That's it. The user does that.

> then either you are mistaken or the OP lied.

If you wish to put it that way. I'd rather say, that the OP complained
about the wrong thing ("barked at the wrong tree"?). It's not etc-update,
it's himself who got tired and then hosed his system.

> That's the 
> point I'm trying to make. So I am led to think that etc-update is indeed 
> a tool that one should be careful with.

Well - not really. It's not that you've got to be extra careful
with etc-update. No more than you've got to be careful with
eg. "echo" or "perl" or ....

> Even if the OP is actually 
> wrong, it seems that calling it FUD is really quite extreme.

Maybe it was extreme - what he wrote was somewhat extreme as well.

>> Further fact: etc-update doesn't hose the system. A user might
>> do this. That's a big difference.
> 
> I think this is splitting hairs.

No, it's not. It's the main point. Saying that etc-update might
hose the system, implies that etc-update might do that. But etc-update
doesn't do that. It only does something, when the user asks the tool
to do this.

> You could say the same statement about 
> fdisk, Windows, viruses and any software product.

Yes.

>>> The poster disagrees with you,
>> 
>> Is he? How do you know? The poster didn't write anything anymore.
> 
> The poster thinks that etc-update warrants caution,

Again (it's getting boring...): It's not etc-update that warrants
caution. And, basically, I don't see how the working of etc-update
could be changed very much. Sure, it might be "beautified" - but the
way it is now, with the rather basic layout and such, it's good to
use also over slim network lines.

> to the point where 
> he decided to switch to a different distribution.

Fine.

> 
>> Please stop trying to start a flame war and be constructive
> 
> I would be grateful if you treated me with as much respect as I've shown 
> to you.
> 
>>> 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'm not sure that this position holds up. Saying that only knowledgeable 
> users should use dangerous programs does not make the programs not 
> dangerous.

Actually, it somewhat does. If you know how to "behave" so that
there's no danger, then there *is* no danger in using a tool.

> It is true that fdisk can hose your system

No, it's not. It's a user who hoses his system. It's not some
fdisk going wild which will result in a hosed system (assuming
that there are no bugs in fdisk, which is probably wrong).

> and users should 
> be careful when using it.

Of course. As with everything.

  I know I am.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> No. It is relatively easy to wreck the system with fdisk.

Not really. First, you've got to start it. For this, you've got to
be root (or use sudo, as we're on a Ubuntu list). Then you've got
to find the right options to wreck your system.

If a user is scared off of fdisk by the "scarce" interface, then
that's IMO very good! Not everybody has to use fdisk - there are
more user friendly alternatives (eg. cfdisk, to stay console level).

> I've never 
> done it, but that's because I am very careful when usin git.

I'd rather say, that's because you know what you're doing.

> Saying that 
> only knowledgeable users should use fdisk does not change the nature of 
> fdisk.

To a degree, it does.

> I say that only adults should use sharp knives. This doesn't mean 
> that sharp knives aren't dangerous.

If you know to hold a knive only by the handle and not throw
knives at other people, then yes, knives aren't dangerous.

>> As it was wrong, it was FUD.
> 
> And there is a fundamental problem with this logic. This is something I 
> referred to earlier. The statement "as it was wrong, it was FUD" is 
> fundamentally illogical.

No, it's not.

> There are many things that are wrong and are 
> not FUD.

That's true. It's a question about how something is worded.

>>> I it crashed on me, that's solid enough to complain.
>> 
>> No, not necessarily. Maybe your hardware is somehow broken?
> 
> If my hardware is broken that doesn't make my statement FUD.

Yes, it might. If it's the fault of your hardware, it makes no sense
to complain that the distribution is unstable. It's the hardware which
makes the distribution unstable.

> It merely 
> makes it wrong.

And maybe makes it FUD, depending upon the wording.

> It's important to understand the distinction between 
> "wrong" and "FUD".

It's mainly a matter of how something is written.

>> 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.
> 
> Do you feel that this addition lends credibility to your position? To me 
> it seems like you are trying to mock me (ad hominem) which does not help 
> make your case stronger.

Even if you were true, it wouldn't make my position weaker.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
Ingrate, n.:
	A man who bites the hand that feeds him, and then complains of
	indigestion.