On 26/11/14 12:46, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > On 26/11/2014 11:07 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> And *what do we know about the original "customisation"* that was >> made - which may have 'some' bearing on the "badness" of the >> upgrade/update "defaults"?? > > Oh, I get it,
Patently, and demonstrably - you do *not*. Assuming your best intentions[*1], let me try and make it simple for you:- It's considered Best Practise to *identify*[*2] the problem *before* attempting to *solve* it. e.g.:- if a plane falls from the sky and it's discovered that a critical component was broken - first determine whether component failed before implementing more rigorous manufacturing requirements. Lest it be later be discovered that a new component was not installed (maintenance problem) or sabotage. i.e. you can't fix a problem you don't understand. In this instance - while Patrick has done the "right" thing by finding and publishing a solution, he hasn't provided any information about what he originally used for suspend - and how, or if, the laptop was not previously suspending. Only that it was a long time ago and he doesn't remember (<cajvvksohyoymuwrdpa1glc7daqdefkcphj_fdv3sxj3wus-...@mail.gmail.com>). FWIW - I "suspect" that, provisionally, laptop-detect should ask before defaulting to suspend. I don't "know" that it doesn't - or whether, somehow, systemd over-rides it if it does. I do "know" from similar circumstances[*3] that using the late option in pre-seeding to remove laptop-detect prevents suspend. So before debating the upgrade process it 'might' be best to try and recreate the scenario don't you think? [*1] The triumph of optimism over experience? [*2] Which requires "research". Your fallacious "conclusions" about me demonstrate a poor grasp of what "research" means. i.e. Searching for "evidence" to confirm a belief is *not* research. It leads only to confirmation bias. Your instance being a case in point. [*3] an old Gateway laptop with a broken screen used as a firewall > you think Debian is perfect and that systemd could not > possibly be the cause of the problem No. I suggest you brush up on your reading skills and save yourself the awkward gynastics required to sustain your unrealistic "views". Suggesting that the original set-up be considered so that the systemd installation/release upgrade process causes less problems is antithetical to your flimsy excuse for a personal attack. In short, you are 'trying' too hard. > -- that's funny Please enjoy your snortle. > ; now I understand Your "perception" is misguided. > why you are so unreasonable with people having issues with systemd. Again, your "perception" is misguided. I have a great deal of patience for people with genuine problems resulting from them installing systemd. Problematic people not so much. There's a difference. > > In short, you are deluded. Your, deserved, opinion says nothing of me and speaks volumes of you. > > A. > > > It would be nice if I could have used the time replying to your obstreperous and bilious attack helping people with Debian problems. -- "Don't be smart, you dunno wot you're saying" ~Snortle La Darse 90-250-400 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54755c22.1060...@gmail.com
