[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim

[Steven J. Long]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 09:50:05AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 11/10/2013 09:54, Steven J. Long wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:04:38AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >> On 29/09/2013 23:41, Dale wrote:
> >>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >>>> >From that one single action this entire mess of separate /usr arose as
> >>>> folks discovered more and more reasons to consider it good and keep it
> >>>> around
> >
> > Yes you elide over that part, but it's central: there were more and more
> > reasons to consider it good, and to use it. You said it.
> >
<snip>

> >> It has always been broken by
> >> design becuase it's a damn stupid idea that just happened to work by
> >> fluke.
> >
> > *cough* bullsh1t.
> >
> >> IT and computing is rife with this kind of error.
> >
> > Indeed: and even more rife with a history of One True Way. So much so
> > that it's a cliche. Somehow it's now seen as "hip" to be crap at your
> > craft, unable to recognise an ABI, and cool to subscribe to "N + 1"
> > True Way, as that's an "innovation" on the old form of garbage.
> >
> > And yet GIGO will still apply, traditional as it may be.
>
> I have no idea what you are trying to communicate or accomplish with this.

Oh my bad, I thought this was an informal discussion. On a formal level, I
was correcting your assumption, presented as a fact, that the only reason root
and /usr split has worked in the past is some sort of fluke.

Further your conflation of basic errors in software design with a "solution"
to anything at all: the same problems still go on wrt initramfs, only now
the effort is fractured into polarised camps.

> All I see in all your responses is that you are railing against why
> things are no longer the way they used to be.

That's just casting aspersions, so I'll treat it as beneath you.

It's certainly beneath me.
-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)