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

[Daniel Carrera]

Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> 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?

I can see that you are upset. That's why I thought you had taken the 
Gentoo comment personally. I'm not picking on you any more than you are 
picking on me, we're just talking. I defending the OP's comments because 
I am concerned that using the FUD label too freely leads to very bad 
consequences (in particular, that it makes us ignore valid criticism and 
dilutes the meaning of the term FUD).


>>  From the information available, this seems like a true statement.
> 
> Well, it's not. It's the user who might be hosing the systgem.

Well, I think we can agree that this is a place where we have a 
difference of opinion. I think that fdisk and dd are dangerous commands 
and you think that they aren't because they must be ran by the user. It 
seems that by your definition no command can ever be dangerous, which 
tells me that it's not a reasonable definition.

>> 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.

If the comparison with fdisk and dd is appropriate (which, from your 
emails, seems to be the case) then I would agree in calling it a 
dangerous program that must be used with caution.

>> I honestly don't see the FUD.
> 
> Yes, I very much believe that.

Thank you for recognizing my good intentions.

>>>> 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.

I thought that his new reply was informative. I read it to say that he 
is not naive about this program and elaborates on how it can hose his 
system.

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

That's like saying that it's not dd's fault if you it hoses your system. 
That might be strictly true, but it doesn't make dd not dangerous.

> Anyway - how *could* etc-update be made better?

I think you are missing the point. Whether etc-update can be improved or 
not was never a point of discussion. It is possible for a command to be 
dangerous and not be actually badly designed. I can't say if this is 
true for etc-update, but consider another example: you must have a way 
to partition your disk. You can't get around that. And whichever command 
is used for this will have the ability to hose your system, it'll be 
dangerous. That's just a fact of life.

It might well be that the OP feels that etc-update is unnecessarily 
dangerous. If I tried to read minds I might guess that he probably does. 
But this is not strictly relevant to his assertions.

>> 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.

It seems to me like it isn't. The OP has given examples of how it has 
caused significant damage to his system, and your counter argument is 
simply that only a knowledgeable user should use it, so you haven't 
actually refuted the OP's point. This leads me to think that etc-update 
really is quite dangerous and you are redefining dangerous in a way that 
almost no conceivable software could be called dangerous.

>> 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.

Phrasing a complaint in a way you don't like doesn't make it FUD. It 
might make it a rant though. It might make it rude, and a dozen other 
things. But if the base complaint is valid and the conclusions are 
reasonable, I can't see how it could be FUD.

>>>> 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.

I've read his second reply. It seems like valid criticism to me.

>>>> 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?

I have not attacked you. Seeing as you are very upset like you said, I 
have made an effort to be respectful.

> 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.

This seems like a reasonable basis for saying that a command is 
dangerous and should be used with caution. And from the OPs point of 
view it seems like a reasonable basis for changing distribution.

>> 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 ....

My understanding is that etc-update is more comparable to fdisk and dd 
than it is to echo and perl.


>> 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.

Provided that it was (I didn't think it was), two wrongs don't make a right.

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

So, by your definition no software product can be deemed dangerous.

> Again (it's getting boring...): It's not etc-update that warrants
> caution.

If it can wreck your system if you use it wrong, it warrants caution.

> And, basically, I don't see how the working of etc-update
> could be changed very much.

dd can't be changed much but it's still able to hose the system.


But in any event... at least we've isolated the point of disagreement. 
You feel that commands like dd, fdisk and any software product cannot, 
by definition, be called dangerous, because they have to be run by the 
user. I think that a command that, when run, can cause major damage to 
the system (like fdisk and dd), is dangerous should be used with caution.

>> 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 above.

>> 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.

You are contradicting yourself. First you disagreed and then agreed with 
essentially the same statement.

>>>> 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.

No, being wrong is not FUD. If I blame Ubuntu for a hardware problem 
then I would be merely wrong, but not FUDing.

>> It's important to understand the distinction between "wrong" and "FUD".
> 
> It's mainly a matter of how something is written.

I'd be interested to see how you can say that the sky is green in a way 
that makes it FUD.

>>> 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.

An ad hominem usually makes your position weaker. It makes it look like 
you don't really have an argument so you have to resort to a personal 
attack. An attack might be a tempting avenue when you are very upset, 
but it is likely to do more harm than good, plus it is a dishonest way 
to conduct an argument.

Best,
Daniel.
-- 
http://opendocumentfellowship.org
   "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
   unreasonable man tries to adapt the world to himself.
   Therefore all progress depends on unreasonable men."
         -- George Bernard Shaw