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

[Alexander Skwar]

Daniel Carrera wrote:
> 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.

So what? I never stated what you put as my definition. So it's just
fair that I make up a definition for you - but actually, it isn't
all made up; your definition is a consequence of what you've written
in the thread. Maybe your definition is made a bit extreme - but
hey, that's life.

  If your only way to maintain an argument
> is to lie about my position ten you probably don't have a strong 
> argument.

Yeah, right, call me a liar - that's fine, I've got no problem
being called a liar by a liar. You should state clearly, when
you want a flame war.

> I would say that dd and fdisk are dangerous but ls is safe. 

No, ls isn't safe. "ls > /dev/hda" (granted, for the nit pickers among
us, it's not ls that's doing bad things here, but the shell - or rather,
the user).

> 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.

Sort of.

> I disagree with that 
> definition,

Fine.

> and I think it's very unusual.

Not really - but I don't wonder, as you've got strange definitions
yourself.

> Most people, I think, would 
> agree that sharp knives are dangerous.

Depends. A knive in its "pocket" doesn't pose a danger. If you were
a chain metal protective suit, than a knive also doesn't pose a danger.

So, I still disagree - sharp knives by themself don't pose a
danger, contrary to what you say. A knive isn't dangerous, if
used properly. But knowing you, you'll simply ignore that main
point, won't you?

>>> It seems valid though.
>> 
>> It doesn't. And I've shown that.
> 
> No you haven't.

Too bad that you don't see. Maybe you should simply read the thread,
instead of complaining about "name calling" or somesuch.

> All you've done is propose a different definition of the 
> word dangerous.

No, I haven't. But if you don't understand, then I can't help it.

>>> without getting labeled 
>> 
>> Why not?
> 
> I'm not sure that you'd appreciate it if I called you a moron.

I actually wouldn't care. But a "moron" is a different kind of
label than "liar". A liar is someone, who states false facts, which
be easily verified to be true or wrong; and as we are on a text
medium, that's really easy. But I'm sure you know pretty well what a
liar is, don't you? I mean, having first hand knowledge and all that.

> That's an 
> example of a label.

Yep.

>>> 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".

And *you* have the nerve to call *me* a liar?

That's ridiculous.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
You mean you didn't *know* she was off making lots of little phone companies?