3 ms·

The point you conceded is literally the only point I've trying to make since the original post. Go back each level and you will see the same point being made o

The point you conceded is literally the only point I've trying to make since the original post. Go back each level and you will see the same point being made over and over again. You owe me like 20 HN karma now. Next time, rather than rushing to downvote, accuse of trolling and insult, read more carefully.

laumars 10y ago
You need to reread this thread because I am literally the only person who entertained your poorly written arguments and spoke to you like you weren't a troll. Instead of insulting me and demanding compensation you really should be thanking me for being the only person who gave your opinion the time of day. I wasn't the one who downvoted your comments. In fact quite the opposite as I actually upvoted your OP (I felt a little sorry for you) but now I wish I hadn't bothered. And for what it's worth, your original argument was not that Bash.exe shouldn't include the WSL. You've just subtly inched your way to that conclusion after all the other complaints you made were directly debunked. I even threw you a lifeline a few comments earlier (as referenced in my previous post) and you argued that wasn't your point, yet now -somehow- it is? Jeez....
- partycoder 10y ago
  laumars, 13 hours ago: >So while the trolling remarks of the OP are clearly unconstructive, i can at least emphasise with why he feels the need to speak out against MS. He just did so in a pretty lousy way. Just stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. I have been consistently referring to GNU bash, Linux and Linux software interchangeably. Creating confusion around those terms because is not in the best interest of the community of users of GNU/Linux. Even if Microsoft, Windows and WSL never existed, GNU bash would continue to be what it is, which is: A Unix shell. Not a technical requirement to run Linux software.
  - partycoder 10y ago
    typo: I have been consistently against referring to GNU bash, Linux and Linux software interchangeably. Also against referring to GNU bash and bash.exe interchangeably. Or people trying to redefine what GNU bash is because of how it is distributed under Windows.

laumars 10y ago

You need to reread this thread because I am literally the only person who entertained your poorly written arguments and spoke to you like you weren't a troll. Instead of insulting me and demanding compensation you really should be thanking me for being the only person who gave your opinion the time of day. I wasn't the one who downvoted your comments. In fact quite the opposite as I actually upvoted your OP (I felt a little sorry for you) but now I wish I hadn't bothered. And for what it's worth, your original argument was not that Bash.exe shouldn't include the WSL. You've just subtly inched your way to that conclusion after all the other complaints you made were directly debunked. I even threw you a lifeline a few comments earlier (as referenced in my previous post) and you argued that wasn't your point, yet now -somehow- it is? Jeez....

partycoder 10y ago
laumars, 13 hours ago: >So while the trolling remarks of the OP are clearly unconstructive, i can at least emphasise with why he feels the need to speak out against MS. He just did so in a pretty lousy way. Just stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. I have been consistently referring to GNU bash, Linux and Linux software interchangeably. Creating confusion around those terms because is not in the best interest of the community of users of GNU/Linux. Even if Microsoft, Windows and WSL never existed, GNU bash would continue to be what it is, which is: A Unix shell. Not a technical requirement to run Linux software.
- partycoder 10y ago
  typo: I have been consistently against referring to GNU bash, Linux and Linux software interchangeably. Also against referring to GNU bash and bash.exe interchangeably. Or people trying to redefine what GNU bash is because of how it is distributed under Windows.