On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Michael P. Soulier wrote: > On 01/01/09 Alan McKinnon said: > > The software does not have the slightest vaguest foggiest concept of what > > the RIGHT and the WRONG drivers are. That's a human being's conclusion. > > Apparently it did, hence the warning.
the ebuild warned you. Portage and ebuilds are different things. And portage has to assume that you know what you are doing. > > > It therefore cannot decide. > > It did decide. It decided to continue. because it SUCKS when a world update breaks somewhere along 25 of 223. People don't want portage to stop. > > > The devs therefore correctly decided to not even try and decide. > > > > Unix-like systems demand that the user actually has a clue, is more than > > a mere automatonic moron, can and does read information and can and does > > really make decisions. And is prepared to live with the results. > > Orthogonal to the discussion. You are blaming users for laziness in the > system that could have made it easier to notice a potential problem. the user is the only one to blame - if you restart X or your system before reading the elogs, it is your own fault if something breaks. A running service, like X, ssh, apache, isn't influenced by any update until you restart it. So a user who didn't read up before updating and then doesn't read after it too deserves what he get. > > > Some Unix people try to get all politically correct and hide this > > fundamental fact, but that is just plain wrong. It will never work any > > other way than how it is working right now. > > Justification by tradition won't help anyone here. I see nothing in this > post but inflammatory, flawed logic. no, he is right. Linux is not Windows. There are some people who want to turn linux into windows. These people should buy a mac. > > > Users that are not prepared to actually think about what they are doing > > should switch back to Windows. That system specializes in treating their > > customers like complete idiots. > > Like this statement. > > I see many posts like this but few suggestions as to how the problem could > have been avoided ahead of time. I saw one suggestion of how to roll the > driver back after the fact, which I did, after it was already broken. > > Does anyone have any rational arguments to support the system not stopping > due to the warning, or is this all I can expect? BECAUSE STOPPING IS EVIL! PORTAGE IS NON INTERACTIVE! People want to start an update then go away or sleep. I think Neil already told you that.
