No dia 2 de Janeiro de 2011 20:55, Philip Brown <[email protected]> escreveu: > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski > <[email protected]> wrote: >> No dia 2 de Janeiro de 2011 01:52, Philip Brown <[email protected]> escreveu: >>>>Are you serious? Is that a supported use case? >>> >>> well, there's "supported" , and then there's "users do odd things >>> sometimes" :-) >>> >>> there are also some side benefits, such as, a 'du' on the mysql dir >>> will give accurate results for an admin who wants a quick check on >>> that sort of thing. there's probably other small benefits like that I >>> haven't thought about long enough to come up with. >> >> That's the problem: once you're committed to one solution over >> another, you have a tendency to keep on finding as many "reasons" for >> it as you like. I'm sure that if you thought for a minute, you would >> come up with an equal number of arguments for the opposite solution. >> > > well, how about _you_ think for a minute and see if you can actually > match your claims of "sure"ness then? > Your timer starts now. go! > > 60... > 59... > 58... > > :) > > Come on now, what you wrote is completely out of order. > Either come up with reasons, or let it go. you cant have a valid > argument with your statements above. > And putting the word "reasons" in quotes, is playing semantic games, > instead of discussing the issue rationally.
I think it's silly. I can come up with a number of reasons for files in /opt/csw/lib, no problem, but that's not the point. The point is that you, Phil Brown, do not discuss issues rationally, and this discussion is one of many examples. You can always come up with logically true statements pointing in any direction. The number of variables in play is immense, and you can keep on adding new ones as you go along. You can always come up with a user doing something plausible, in which your solution would seem better. Ultimately, the actual reasons with which you come up with do not matter that much - what matters is that you send an e-mail that includes something having the appearance of an argument. Whoever gets tired first, loses. Coming up with new bogus arguments is easy. Coming up with new good arguments is hard, because you have to think them through, and throw away all the bad ones yourself. Therefore, the person who looks for good arguments, get's tired quicker, and the person making bad arguments wins. This kind of e-mail exchange is not a rational discussion. It's an endurance contest. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
