4 ms·

You're either still misreading and believing that you're arguing against a position that is at odds with yours, or you know it's not at odds but have weird idea

You're either still misreading and believing that you're arguing against a position that is at odds with yours, or you know it's not at odds but have weird ideas about how argument works. My position is: either articulate an argument for why it's bad for /usr/bin/yes to be implemented the way GNU yes is implemented or drop the argument entirely. Your comments manage to be in disagreement with those on the other side of this, and yet still adopt an argumentative/defensive tone with respect to what I've written. I consider this to be an even bigger waste of time than the people (like OP) who are upset about GNU yes's implementation.

XorNot 5y ago
And I quote: > as bad as the GNU advocates' retort ("GNU yes is 10GiB/s fast"). If you don't want to defend your position, don't take it.
- pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
  I can defend my position—which is and always has been from the beginning of this (annoying) argument that anyone who says that GNU yes's implementation is bad—or that "10GiB/s" is pointless feature for something like /usr/bin/yes—needs to be able to defend the decision to scrutinize "something like /usr/bin/yes" in the first place. For whatever dumb reason, you think it's a good idea to argue about this, even while apparently believing yourself that the way GNU yes is implemented is a good thing. This makes no sense. (Are you under the impression that "X is at least as bad as Y" is the same thing as saying "Y is bad"—and that that means I need to defend the position that Y is bad? It doesn't. Maybe learn to read English better, especially before leaping so confidently into trying to argue with someone over what you're reading. Another bonus tip: not only is it important to read in complete sentences, but it's important to write in complete sentences, too, and to make sure that the sentences follow logically one after the other.)

XorNot 5y ago

And I quote: > as bad as the GNU advocates' retort ("GNU yes is 10GiB/s fast"). If you don't want to defend your position, don't take it.

pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
I can defend my position—which is and always has been from the beginning of this (annoying) argument that anyone who says that GNU yes's implementation is bad—or that "10GiB/s" is pointless feature for something like /usr/bin/yes—needs to be able to defend the decision to scrutinize "something like /usr/bin/yes" in the first place. For whatever dumb reason, you think it's a good idea to argue about this, even while apparently believing yourself that the way GNU yes is implemented is a good thing. This makes no sense. (Are you under the impression that "X is at least as bad as Y" is the same thing as saying "Y is bad"—and that that means I need to defend the position that Y is bad? It doesn't. Maybe learn to read English better, especially before leaping so confidently into trying to argue with someone over what you're reading. Another bonus tip: not only is it important to read in complete sentences, but it's important to write in complete sentences, too, and to make sure that the sentences follow logically one after the other.)