2 ms·
the position you are advocating leads precisely to TFA which has it precisely wrong, that's why I went to the trouble to write a comment that makes people think
by fsckboy 2y ago
the position you are advocating leads precisely to TFA which has it precisely wrong, that's why I went to the trouble to write a comment that makes people think. I don't need to hear a detailed counter argument for the status quo ante, just write "we'll just thoughtlessly do it the same shitty way you're arguing against"
- JoshTriplett 2y agoNo, as mentioned I am not suggesting using "link" to mean "symlink". I am suggesting being aware that not everyone (speaker or listener) will have the word "link" mapped unambiguously to "hardlink", and that if you hear "hardlink" it's likely the speaker means "hardlink", while if you hear "link" you can't be quite as sure. In other words: I am advocating against deleting error-correcting bits from language, because language is a noisy channel and error-correcting bits help reduce errors.
- fsckboy 2y agothank you for describe the shitty status quo way again, you've finally convinced me my ideas are pointless