On 4/14/2013 5:26 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
No, Linda, what we're complaining about is that you are being inconsistent and you are then trying to justify your inconsistency.
SuSE is very inconsistent in the 12.x series. And you complain about me sending an extra email or not.
I'm very consistent -- when I get tired of deleting things, *manually* that I've spent time adapting to the standards and writing scripts to automate, I leave them.
I have scripts to deal with the standards. I *usually* cater to the masses that can't deal with standards.
The fact of the mater is that the Reply-To field used to be set on lists JUST to prevent this type of discussion/debate, but IANA spoke and said everyone must adapt -- if the user is in the From line and if it goes to a list -- then the standard says, to send back 2 copies.
I know people whine about it here. That doesn't mean it's right or that they shouldn't be educated.
Dealing with all the complaints, my tolerance level drops at times and I have more trouble dealing with 'extras' like deleting extra email addresses that they person.
But I *like* lists that follow the standard. I prefer to get 2 copies to emails that are in response to something I post. Then I know about it. Otherwise, I have to go find posts where I've posted and see if there are responses -- and sometimes I don't see responses at all -- I forget I posted in some thread or I see it days later.
What I read here is "blablabla because I can't bring myself to agree with the way the list is, I will just get on my soapbox until everyone puts me in there bit bucket"
As I've pointed out and as I've got evidence here and as everyone else on the list you're replied to has evidence, you are quite capable of reply to the list alone without duplicates. You have, up until yesterday done that. In fact your early relies yesterday weren't duplicated.
Capable? As long as you put "sometimes", sure. But that's what my behavior is... sometimes I'm too tired to delete the extra address and/or get tired of typing in the list address if I just hit reply.
Ah, yes. Proving the inconsistency point.
So when I'm tired -- I'm more likely to revert to minimal effort -- follow the standard. Note --- if you reply to this, it won't go to me, it will go to the list. You won't have to delete my name, because I as the creator of this message I can set the Reply-To field and point it at the list. Why those who don't want two copies can't do the same thing rather than jumping on someone who is would prefer to follow the standard anyway, is beyond me. It's easier for them to jump on people and expect them to know that like their distro's, opensuse mail lists don't like standards either.
Yes. too tired (lazy). If you want to conform to your beloved standards, you can. This list has a set way. It is what it is. If you don't like, go to ubuntu and bother them.
This isn't about standards, Linda, its about your behaviour and your attitude.
My attitude is fine. If you look tat the history of my posts, I'm sure you'll find that over 90% have had the 2nd address deleted.
One might speculate that we've stymied you as far as your derision of systemd goes, so now you're trolling on other matters.
I didn't bring up the issue. Others did.
Actually, I asked questions multiple times for key information and was waiting for any answer -- but to expect that is likely ludicrous.
In case you forgot:
1) So if no one moved files from /{bin,sbin,lib,lib64} --> their /usr equivs, what was the issue besides libblkid was on /usr? Wouldn't it be simpler and more compatible to move libblkid to /lib64?
There was 1 lib that mount needed that was on /usr. Because of that all files on root had to be moved to /usr?
(remember, we are talking *boot-time* files that currently exist in /bin and /usr/bin that have been duplicated on initrd -- including the boot.d sysVinit scripts). What it looks like is systemd couldn't handle things from boot, so they hid the sysVinit type scripts in initrd, so they can claim they switched fully to systemd, while hiding the large amount of boot that systemd doesn't handle in initrd). There's no reason that can't be on disk that I can see... I've asked why multiple times and never gotten a straight answer that showed WHY things had to change and be moved.
Then we have your note, that you never answered: 2. -- Anton Aylward wrote:
Linda Walsh said the following on 04/11/2013 09:59 PM:
Putting all of usr on /rootfs nearly does the same thing, as the reason for a small root was to have less on it needing updating. You are so missing the point.
Yes, I am. Could you tell me the point?
To me it creates a more unstable system, more prone to failure and more difficult to restore to running condition. This means more downtime and lower reliability overall. That's my point. So why do we want that?
--- I need a ram disk to boot that contains duplicates of things I have on my system -- wny not boot from the system. Boot used to rely on files in /bin, lib[64], /sbin... Now relies on those + /usr/bin /usr/lib /usr/lib64... how is that not less reliable if /usr is corrupt or not mounted?
I could bring up the file-system restore utils from the root partition -- now? Not in the default config.
I had others, but those seems difficult enough for anyone to answer, and I'm tired of typing...
Then stop typing. Well, type one more email. The one that removes you from this list. You say you're tired. We're tired too. Of you. Crying. Go. Away. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org