On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:07:26PM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 04:27:01PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote
> > On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:15:57 -0400, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote:
> > 
> > > I really don't want to damage any "signature" on the extended partition
> > > that is needed to access the "sub-partitions" it contains.  As I said
> > > my newly installed gentoo resides on those sub-partitions.
> > 
> > Why is a new installation using a 1980s partition scheme?
>   Is that you, Lennart?  But seriously, if it works, why junk it?

New software could be:

* more efficient
* technically better (i.e. GPT is technically better than MBR)
* have new features that you don't think you need but come in handy
* etc.

If your system works, why do you update it? Unless you actively need the
update, you're just wasting cycles.

> Before I retired, I had to put up with Windows at work.  Every new
> version totally re-arranged the user interface system admin stuff to the
> point that enough of "everything you know is wrong" that you have to
> re-train your employees.  Great if you're a commercial "Windows Trainer"
> that charges big buck, but lousy if you're a business that has to pay
> for retraining.
>   Here's my question to you... why should we junk software that works,
> i.e. it does what we need?  I want a real reason.  The fact that it's
> old is not a justification.  Neither is "teh shiney".

See above. Also, "teh shiney" is a valid reason. This is how software
(and everything in general) moves forward. Couple examples:

* linux: The very definition of "teh shiney." Started by a university
  student for fun. snowballed into the beautiful thingy we all use every
* ruby: Started because Matz could not find a language that was perfect
  for him. Now it powers loads of websites.

I will agree that software being old is not a valid reason for getting
rid of it. My ctags is 6 years old - doesn't bother me. It just works,
but I would update if I could simply because it would most likely be


Reply via email to