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

[Alexander Skwar]

Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Alexander Skwar wrote:
>>> Nit-picking never helps your argument.
>> 
>> Yes, it does. It shows where weak points are and that his basis
>> for the criticism was not valid.
> 
> Nit picking does not show weak points.

Sensation: Disagreement.

> You are debating a point which is 
> no consequence to the OP's argument. He says that etc-update prompts the 
> user about important changes. You say that it also prompts the user 
> about unimportant changes. So what?

"So what"? He said, that only "important" changes are shown. That's
simply not true - or to use your words: It's a lie. Actually, I now
think that it's no "nit picking" to clarify wrong statements.

> The poster's position is still 
> correct,

No, it's not. It never was.

> and the validity of your comment does not weaken his argument. 

As his argument was based on wrong assumptions, I've got to disagree
once more.

> To show that an argument is incorrect you must show that either the 
> premise is incorrect or a logical step is flawed.

Done.

>> No, it doesn't. It shows, where the real issue is.
> 
> Telling us that etc-update prompts about unimportant changes

You're really annoying...

I actually did not say, that "unimportant" changes are shown as
well. Just read what I've wrote.

> does not 
> show where the real issue is, since the topic at hand is what happens 
> with important changes.

All changes are shown. And that might be an issue - but that has
nothing to do with etc-update. If you use dispatch, you've got
the same issues. That shows, that the issues he complains about
don't have anything to do with etc-update.

>>> and makes it look like you have no real arguments.
>> 
>> The argument is, that his argument has no basis.
> 
> Telling us that etc-update prompts about unimportant changes does not 
> remove the basis of his argument. It is quite irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant. It shows, that he doesn't have the facts
correct.

> 
>> Yep, you think that each and every program is dangerous.
> 
> I have not lied about your position,

Yes, you did.

> I would be grateful if you did not 
> lie about mine.

I don't. What I sated as your position is just a consequence of what
you've written; maybe an extreme consequence, but none the less, a
consequence. Since you think you've got the right to "forget" important
parts of my position, I think it's just fair that I've got the same
right. No?

> I only restated your position after I asked you and you 
> said "yes". I said that it seemed that by your definition any software 
> product and even sharp knives aren't dangerous because they require user 
> action and you replied "yes".

That's not how I wrote it. At best, it's an extreme generalization of what
I've written.

> On the other hand, I never said that every 
> software product was dangerous;

So, what? I never said that knives aren't dangerous.

> you never asked if that was

True.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
What would Brian Boitano do?