Anton, feel free to criticize the patch. But you’ve done nothing but calling me
names nonstop, then complaining when people do the same to you. You’re a
hypocrite, but you clearly don’t realize that, because you keep saying that
“you’re cool” and “you don’t want to go further” while doing totally the
opposite.
Please stop behaving like a jerk to total strangers and judging them. You still
think that I have an agenda (?) and that I only want to stir the mailing list,
when you’re actually the one who is contributing to that. You’ve completed your
auto-fulfilled prophecy, but don’t put that on my shoulders.
I’m sorry if you felt like my contribution had any trolling intention, because
I hope it’s clear I wasn’t. There is an official FAQ especially targeted to
Linux users, I am a Linux user, I found some difference between the systems
which is not in the FAQ, I thought it could be useful to add a line about it.
Period. If that difference is better or worse, I don’t discuss it, only you do.
Fuck the patch (is that what you wanted?), but treat me with a little respect.
I will not reply to this topic any further.
Thanks,
Carlos
> On 30 Jun 2015, at 03:02, li...@wrant.com wrote:
>
>> Work on current is something that naturally occurs. It does not mean there
>> are enough resources to *duplicate that work* and do the same on stable.
>
> Obvious facts make obvious points.
>
> The snapshots for current and the security errata is good enough for
> me. It's easy and allows me to run current, which is closest following
> developers. If everyone personally did so, there would be less need for
> back-porting, but that's not my decision. I don't care about binary
> patches to stable, since current is easier for me.
>
> Maybe somebody outside the project and known developers tried
> to make fuss out of nothing just to agitate developers and users. Maybe
> advising the blogger to try provide an unnecessary but annoying patch
> to the migration FAQ regarding binary patches that nobody actually
> needs that badly (and if they need there is a reputable source) was
> enough to annoy me.
>
> This may have been totally imaginary publicity stunt, targeted at
> wasting time and energy. Or occasionally pushing into the OpenBSD
> developers constraints that I don't like either, precisely like you.
> Thanks for the explanation, anyway that was obvious to me.
>
> Initially, I was annoyed that someone tried to call a "con" (negative
> feature) what is actually in my appreciation one of the best and
> easiest to use achievements, actually a "pro" feature that is
> snapshots and pkg_add -u. Simply because that person refused to learn
> this method to update exists and insisted to make it confusing for
> newcomers. There is no such imaginary "con" period.
>
> This exactly upgrade path is still lacking in major Linux distributions
> and also in FreeBSD until some time, still sucks there though.
>
> With OpenBSD it just works. Tremendously well for me for many years.
> Thanks you.
>
> That same person tried to submit to the site a totally mangled wording
> of nonsense to the FAQ migration section which I think is simply
> ridiculous even after the so called re-work which was even more so
> funny.
>
> Don't call names around without reading the details, please. I respect
> deeply the tremendous work done on the Perl ports infrastructure and
> think these are amazing and work great. For me it does. It can be made
> known to the newcomers as well. But no need to confuse them with some
> pidgin nonsensical twists in the overloaded migration FAQ.
>
> For me the upgrade path works, I don't compile anything meaning I use
> a binary upgrade path. I upgrade from snapshots and then do pkg_add -u
> and like it. It works fast, and is efficient. I don't understand how
> someone tries to stick their head in the sand and insists other
> newcomers do the same by confusing them in the FAQ and giving them the
> notion of sticking with stable just to add more pressure to back-port,
> yuck.
>
> I don't like somebody reducing chances of others to understand well the
> efficient upgrade that could be most appropriate for newcomers. And I
> don't like external parties agitating developers so that's why I
> responded initially.
>
> Enough already, I'm cool and don't intend to waste my time with the
> attempts those ill advisers try to inflict any further.
>
> My point was that the provided so far by OpenBSD is enough, good,
> sufficient and there is no need for any biased blog posts and poorly
> worded FAQ deterioration. Bloggers...
>
> I don't care about what some Linux user tries to publish on the
> OpenBSD page since it is not worth annoying anyone over it any more.
>
> Enough energy wasted on this subject already, why go further?
> Everything was and is good as it is.
>
> If you want to address your dissatisfaction, please move up the thread
> to the original post. I am sorry I wasted my time with these
> outrageously insane
