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

[Daniel Carrera]

Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> I never stated such definition.
> 
> So what?

Lying is wrong.

> I never stated what you put as my definition.

I wrote:
<daniel>
It seems that by your definition no command can ever be dangerous, which 
tells me that it's not a reasonable definition.
</daniel>

You replied:
<reply>
Wrong. This *is* a very reasonable definition.
</reply>

I wrote:
<daniel>
I say that only adults should use sharp knives. This doesn't mean that 
sharp knives aren't dangerous.
</daniel>

You replied:
<reply>
If you know to hold a knive only by the handle and not throw
knives at other people, then yes, knives aren't dangerous.
</reply>

If you wish to change your position, that's fine. I won't hold that 
against you. But I wasn't making up a definition for you. I only 
restated that which you had already agreed with. You don't think that 
fdisk, dd and sharp knives are dangerous and I think that they are.


> Yeah, right, call me a liar - that's fine, I've got no problem
> being called a liar by a liar.

If you are knowingly saying something that is not true (as you admitted 
in your email) then liar is precisely the correct term. As I have shown, 
I restated only what you agreed to.

>> I would say that dd and fdisk are dangerous but ls is safe. 
> 
> No, ls isn't safe. "ls > /dev/hda"

You think that dd isn't dangerous but that ls is? That's weird. As I 
said earlier, software products have varying levels of risk. There's a 
relative probability of damage. ls is very safe because it is almost 
never ran as root, and the things you do with it are safe. What you 
wrote is an extremely unlikely incantation (you forgot the sudo part 
btw). So, as I said, cp is riskier than ls, and fdisk is riskier than 
cp. The exact division between dangerous and safe commands is partly 
arbitrary. I'm confident that most people would agree that fdisk and dd 
are dangerous and ls is safe, and I expect some argument over cp.

>> 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.

Okay, this is constructive. Would you agree to disagree on these points?

>> 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.

Most people don't wear chain metal protective suits. In typical 
situations sharp knives pose a real risk. Something is dangerous if the 
risk of harm using it exceeds certain threshold. People may disagree on 
where that threshold is, but in all instances you must compute the risk 
value using typical scenarios. It doesn't help that sharp knives have a 
low chance of causing harm when you wear a chain metal protective suit 
if you are unlikely to be wearing a chain metal protective suit. Refer 
to any introductory book on statistics for more information on this topic.

> So, I still disagree - sharp knives by themself don't pose a
> danger, contrary to what you say.

I'm just quoting this to reinforce our point of disagreement.

>> 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;

Alright, so you don't mind labels. I agree with your definition of liar, 
except that I'd replace "which are easily verified" by "which he knows 
are false" (if I lie about my grandma's eye colour, the fact that it's 
hard to verify doesn't make me less of a liar).

>> 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?

But you just said it! In this very email!

-- 
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