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

[Daniel Carrera]

Alexander Skwar wrote:
> I would - if I had an unusual definition. Rather, you've got
> a strange definition, by calling each and every command dangerous.

I never stated such definition. If your only way to maintain an argument 
is to lie about my position ten you probably don't have a strong 
argument. I would say that dd and fdisk are dangerous but ls is safe. 
Different programs have different degrees of risk. cp is riskier than ls 
but less risky than fdisk.

You have said that you don't consider dd, fdisk and sharp knives 
dangerous because they require user action. I disagree with that 
definition, and I think it's very unusual. Most people, I think, would 
agree that sharp knives are dangerous.

>> It seems valid though.
> 
> It doesn't. And I've shown that.

No you haven't. All you've done is propose a different definition of the 
word dangerous.

>> without getting labeled 
> 
> Why not?

I'm not sure that you'd appreciate it if I called you a moron. That's an 
example of a label.

>> I think that a definition by which no software 
>> ever written can be dangerous
> 
> That's not what I wrote.

I asked if by your definition any piece of software such as dd, fdisk, 
Windows and viruses (I used those examples) was dangerous and you said 
"yes".

>> and even sharp knives aren't dangerous is 
> 
> That's also not what I wrote.

I also asked if you thought sharp knives were dangerous by your 
definition and you said "yes". It's in the list logs. Or check your outbox.


-- 
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