1 |
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> Mark David Dumlao wrote: |
3 |
>> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
>>> Mark David Dumlao wrote: |
5 |
>>>> On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
6 |
>>>>> Feel free to set me straight tho. As long as you don't tell me my |
7 |
>>>>> system is broken and has not been able to boot for the last 9 years |
8 |
>>>>> without one of those things. ROFL |
9 |
>>>> Nobody's telling you _your_ system, as in the collection of programs |
10 |
>>>> you use for your productivity, is broken. What we're saying is that |
11 |
>>>> _the_ system, as in the general practice as compared to the |
12 |
>>>> specification, is broken. Those are two _very_ different things. |
13 |
>>> From what I have read, they are saying what has worked for decades has |
14 |
>>> been broken the whole time. Doesn't matter that it works for millions |
15 |
>>> of users, its broken. |
16 |
>> Yes, that is exactly what they are saying. What I am pointing out, |
17 |
>> however, is that there is, informally, a _technical meaning_ for the |
18 |
>> word "broken", which is that "the specs don't match the |
19 |
>> implementation". And in the case of /usr, the specs don't match the |
20 |
>> implementation. For like, maybe all of the Linuxen. |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>>> They say it is broken so they can "fix it" with a |
23 |
>>> init thingy for EVERYONE. Sorry, that's like telling me my car has been |
24 |
>>> broken for the last ten years when I have been driving it to town and it |
25 |
>>> runs just fine. |
26 |
>> NOBODY is telling you your system or that the systems of millions of |
27 |
>> users out there aren't booting. You're assigning emotional baggage to |
28 |
>> technical language. |
29 |
>> |
30 |
>> To push your analogy, oh, your car is working just fine. Now anyone |
31 |
>> with a pair of spark plugs and a few tools may be able to start it |
32 |
>> without you, but your startup _works_. Now imagine some German |
33 |
>> engineer caring nothing about you lowly driver, and caring more about |
34 |
>> the car as a system, and he goes using fancy words like |
35 |
>> "authentication systems" and declaring that "all cars have a flaw", or |
36 |
>> more incensingly, "car security is fundamentally broken" (Cue angry |
37 |
>> hordes of owners pitchfork and torching his house). |
38 |
>> |
39 |
>> Thing is, he's right, and if he worked out some way for software to |
40 |
>> verify that machine startup was done using the keys rather than spark |
41 |
>> plugs, he'd be doing future generations a favor in a dramatic |
42 |
>> reduction of carjackings. And if somehow it became mandated for future |
43 |
>> cars to have this added in addition to airbags and whatnot, it'd annoy |
44 |
>> the hell out of car makers but overall still be a good thing. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> I think your analogy actually proves my point. Instead of just getting |
47 |
> in the car and turning the key, they want to reinvent the engine and how |
48 |
> it works. It doesn't matter that it is and has been working for decades, |
49 |
|
50 |
I think your reaction proves my point about angry mobs torching his |
51 |
home without understanding what's being proposed. Your fine reading |
52 |
comprehension once again failed to catch the notion that in my |
53 |
analogy, all he invented was a mechanism that makes sure it was a key, |
54 |
not a spark plug, that did the starting. i.e., you're asking literally |
55 |
for a turnkey system, and that's literally what he invented, except |
56 |
that the system guarantees that it's a key that was turned. |
57 |
|
58 |
You have not said a THING about your misunderstanding of the use of |
59 |
the word _broken_ and you're continuing to peddle your hate-boner even |
60 |
after it's been shown that you're confused. |
61 |
|
62 |
-- |
63 |
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [x] social |
64 |
Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no |
65 |
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none |