On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 12:39:11PM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:

>     So, yes, I do think you guys are being lazy in that regard.  If this
>     is the path you've chosen to go then you have an obligation not to
>     tear out major existing system capabilities, such as the ability to
>     generate static binaries, in the process.

If this is what you think has happened, you're living in some parallel
fantasy universe.

>     There is a lot of circular reasoning going on here... it's the same sort
>     of circular reasoning that John uses to justify some of the more esoteric
>     scheduling mechanisms in -current.  A because of B because of A, and
>     to hell with anyone who wanted to use C.

Keep the ad homenim attacks to yourself, buster!  This was uncalled-for.


Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to