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, [email protected] 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 linuxisms. >
