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

[Daniel Carrera]

Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> 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.

No, he didn't say that. This is what he said:

<quote>
I know how etc-update works (I used Gentoo for a year). Upon emerging 
*some* packages it prompts the user to view changes to important files 
(fstab being one). If the user chooses the worng config file his system 
is hosed until he modifies the offending file.
</quote>

He did not say "only". His point is about important files so he talks 
about important files. As I said above, your telling us that it also 
prompts for unimportant changes is quite inconsequential to the OP's 
argument.


>> The poster's position is still correct,
> 
> No, it's not. It never was.

Saying "no it's not" doesn't make it so. To invalidate an argument you 
must show that either the premise or the logical step is incorrect. 
Saying that etc-update also shows unimportant changes does neither.

>> Telling us that etc-update prompts about unimportant changes
> 
> You're really annoying...

I'm sure you are annoyed, but that might well be because you don't 
actually have an argument. Saying that etc-update shows all changes and 
not just the important ones is not relevant because the OP never claimed 
that etc-update only showed important changes and he never used that as 
a premise for his position. So you are not effectively dealing with any 
of his premises. He simply did not use "etc-update does not show 
unimportant changes" as a premise.

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

You said "it doesn't show only important changes, it shows all changes". 
Since we agree that the poster said, at least, important changes, the 
only new information you are bringing is that it also shows the 
unimportant ones.

> All changes are shown.

That's fantastic, but this fact does not alter the OP's premise. Since 
"important files" are a subset of "all changes", his premise holds.

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

I think it shows that he knows how to recognize relevant facts in an 
argument and you don't.

>> I have not lied about your position,
> 
> Yes, you did.

I have not. I may have erred, which is different. I don't think I have 
erred. I just quoted you saying essentially the same thing I claimed 
that you said.

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

You admitted that you did in this email.

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

I asked if the generalization was correct and you said it was. I offered 
the definition, and you said it was reasonable.

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

You did, even 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