| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:51 on Tuesday 07 June 2011, Mark Knecht did |
| 2 |
opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> |
| 5 |
> wrote: <SNIP> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> >> #370295 |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Zac responded (comment #21) to my post in that bug with quite a |
| 10 |
> > well-reasoned rationale. It makes interesting reading. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> It was a good response. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> One question left hanging for me goes like this: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I understand nano is a choice. Removing an editor like nano is 99.99% |
| 17 |
> safe. There's no way removing nano is going to cause a system to not |
| 18 |
> boot or be unable to do updates, so I remove it understanding (now) |
| 19 |
> about virtuals. On the other hand how does someone who's not educated |
| 20 |
> in booting or the internals of portage know that removing less |
| 21 |
> wouldn't cause a problem that stops a machine from booting or makes it |
| 22 |
> impossible to do updates? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
There is always an expectation of the minimum understanding needed to be able |
| 25 |
to use a technical product at all. The use of less and what to do if you don't |
| 26 |
have it falls fair and square into the "you really should already know that to |
| 27 |
use Gentoo" category. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
This isn't elitist, it's a technical fact. You have to set the bar somewhere |
| 30 |
and there's nothing wrong with that. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives