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

[Alexander Skwar]

Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> No, I haven't taken the Gentoo comment personally. I'm getting annoyed
>> by you defending what he wrote.
> 
> What he wrote seems fine

No, it most certainly was not. He blamed a tool for his mistakes. And
the tool doesn't make it overly easy to make mistakes, contrary to what
he was writing in his first post. But in his second post, he made quite
clear, that the tools wasn't to blame.

> and I don't think you should get upset at my 
> saying so.

Why not? I disagree - if someone keeps on defending nonsense (as you
seem to dislike the term FUD so much, I'll use a different term, which
seems to be more of your liking) and refuses to accept that fact, then
I do get upset.

>> Maybe it really wasn't "FUD" - how else
>> would you want to call it?
> 
> Okay, we're making progress, you're considering that maybe it wasn't 
> FUD. If you think it's wrong then just call it wrong.

It was more than wrong. Just see *how* he phrased what he wrote. That's
the main point, which you keep on missing through all of this thread.

> If your basis for 
> saying that its wrong is simply your unusual definition of the word 
> "dangerous" then just say that you have an unusual definition of the 
> word dangerous.

I would - if I had an unusual definition. Rather, you've got
a strange definition, by calling each and every command dangerous.
That's certainly not usual. I really disagree that "echo" is a
dangerous command and thus disagree with what you're saying.

>>> I defending the OP's comments because I am concerned that using the 
>>> FUD label too freely leads to very bad consequences
>> 
>> Okay, I agree with that, but why should invalid criticism be defended?
> 
> It seems valid though.

It doesn't. And I've shown that.

> And even if it was mistaken,

Which is made rather easy by the way, he wrote, what he wrote.

> people have the 
> right to say what they think

Certainly.

> and be corrected 

Yes.

> without getting labeled 

Why not?

>>> 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.
>> 
>> Wrong. This *is* a very reasonable definition. There are tools which
>> can be dangerous, if not used correctly or if used by people who
>> don't know what they are doing.
> 
> Ok, I think we can stop here. We agree on where we disagree :) And I can 
> see that there's nothing I can say that will alter your opinion on what 
> things are dangerous.

Yes, you could.

> I think that a definition by which no software 
> ever written can be dangerous

That's not what I wrote.

> and even sharp knives aren't dangerous is 

That's also not what I wrote. You miss the keypoints. And I'm actually getting
quite fed up to repeat them over and over again. Just read what I wrote.

> a very unreasonable definition.

Yes, it would. That's not my definition, though.

> You think that it is very reasonable.

No, I don't.

>>> I thought that his new reply was informative.
>> 
>> Yes. It was informative in reassuring that there really was no problem
>> with etc-update, but rather that he maybe didn't quite agree with "the
>> Gentoo way"
> 
> I thought it supported his position that etc-update is dangerous and 
> must be used with caution.

No, it didn't. It made clear, that etc-update isn't dangerous. It
really diluted his point.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
  "A unified, neutral Germany? Given that nation's heritage, such a
  phrase may prove to be the oxymoron of the decade." -Kevin M.
  Matarese, Fulda, West Germany; as seen in "Letters", Time
  magazine, p. 5, March 5, 1990.