3 ms·

I'm sorry, I genuinely don't recall having a disagreement with you or anybody else here. I'm fairly surprised at your tone, this comment was directed at the (p

I'm sorry, I genuinely don't recall having a disagreement with you or anybody else here. I'm fairly surprised at your tone, this comment was directed at the (predominantly) macbook community here. I haven't even mentioned one distro vs the other.. So in fact I'm now interested at what distro do you run. Its always interesting to talk about a great desktop Linux experience.. Maybe on par with osx. I don't care which Linux as long as its some Linux. The sat solver based package manager was a very serious engineering effort, to resolve circular dependencies among packages, etc. That is also an interesting thought experiment for people who might not know about it. That's a feature that I believe is made redundant by static package managers like Click packages. In fact, I will gladly argue with anybody on what I feel is the true future of Linux - desktop Android!!!

simoncion 11y ago
> I genuinely don't recall having a disagreement with you... I did not say that we had a disagreement. :) I said that you made technical assertions, I asked for details about those assertions, and you either deflect by -effectively- asking why anyone would ever ask for technical details, or dismiss my technical concerns as being motivated by fear. To jog your memory, here are two recent threads that contain conversations that we've had: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10485966 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10485966 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10485911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10485911
- sandGorgon 11y ago
  you are take a fairly innocuous statement like "Probably another reason not be scared of systemd ;)" and convert it to " assertion that I shouldn't be "scared of systemd" is extremely dismissive." your five solid reasons include "systemd's scope continues to creep", "The Systemd Cabal continues to assert..." and continuous comparison with OpenRC that I have admitted that I'm not qualified to comment. Yet, Debian's CTTE was qualified and they rejected OpenRC in favor of Systemd. I havent made a statement like "why anyone would ever ask for technical details". I said it doesnt make a difference to me, because I'm getting a much better experience on systemd anyway. My current comment had nothing to do with the superiority of systemd - it was an attempt for non-Linux users to try out Linux. Look at the other comments on this post - most people do NOT know linux can be used as a liveusb.. and espcially on macbooks. Please do not take an attempt to get people to try out a cool Linux desktop and make it into a systemd vs openrc war.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > My current comment had nothing to do with the superiority of systemd... Agreed. I never said otherwise. > Please do not take an attempt to get people to try out a cool Linux desktop and make it into a systemd vs openrc war. I did no such thing. If I had had other examples of your habit of making statements about the technical superiority of a particular thing, then either failing to back them up with concrete examples or walking back your assertions with the statement "Oh, well the technical side of that doesn't even matter to me anyway.", then I would have used them. :) It's a pity that you mis-read my request for technical details about the technical merits of Fedora's new SAT-solver based package manager dependency resolver as a commentary on the state of Linux init systems. > ...you are take a fairly innocuous statement like... Context is everything, friend. :) To the remainder of your comment: * If you're not familiar with other examples of a given class of software, then you're not qualified to make unqualified statements that a particular instance of that class of software does something better than all the rest. * Microsoft's Office Open XML format is an ISO standard. That doesn't mean that it is any good or that the process that standardized it is without flaw. :)

simoncion 11y ago

> I genuinely don't recall having a disagreement with you... I did not say that we had a disagreement. :) I said that you made technical assertions, I asked for details about those assertions, and you either deflect by -effectively- asking why anyone would ever ask for technical details, or dismiss my technical concerns as being motivated by fear. To jog your memory, here are two recent threads that contain conversations that we've had: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10485966 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10485966 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10485911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10485911

sandGorgon 11y ago
you are take a fairly innocuous statement like "Probably another reason not be scared of systemd ;)" and convert it to " assertion that I shouldn't be "scared of systemd" is extremely dismissive." your five solid reasons include "systemd's scope continues to creep", "The Systemd Cabal continues to assert..." and continuous comparison with OpenRC that I have admitted that I'm not qualified to comment. Yet, Debian's CTTE was qualified and they rejected OpenRC in favor of Systemd. I havent made a statement like "why anyone would ever ask for technical details". I said it doesnt make a difference to me, because I'm getting a much better experience on systemd anyway. My current comment had nothing to do with the superiority of systemd - it was an attempt for non-Linux users to try out Linux. Look at the other comments on this post - most people do NOT know linux can be used as a liveusb.. and espcially on macbooks. Please do not take an attempt to get people to try out a cool Linux desktop and make it into a systemd vs openrc war.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > My current comment had nothing to do with the superiority of systemd... Agreed. I never said otherwise. > Please do not take an attempt to get people to try out a cool Linux desktop and make it into a systemd vs openrc war. I did no such thing. If I had had other examples of your habit of making statements about the technical superiority of a particular thing, then either failing to back them up with concrete examples or walking back your assertions with the statement "Oh, well the technical side of that doesn't even matter to me anyway.", then I would have used them. :) It's a pity that you mis-read my request for technical details about the technical merits of Fedora's new SAT-solver based package manager dependency resolver as a commentary on the state of Linux init systems. > ...you are take a fairly innocuous statement like... Context is everything, friend. :) To the remainder of your comment: * If you're not familiar with other examples of a given class of software, then you're not qualified to make unqualified statements that a particular instance of that class of software does something better than all the rest. * Microsoft's Office Open XML format is an ISO standard. That doesn't mean that it is any good or that the process that standardized it is without flaw. :)