You my friend are just being ridiculously offensive and I will have none of that. If this is the way the list goes, I am no longer a part of it, and I expect someone here to condemn it or at least say something about it. I have no need to listen to such nonsense. Op 25-3-2016 om 18:09 schreef Chris Murphy:
I have no problem with opinions, even excessively verbose opinions that constitute bombarding the list with such a superfluous volume of material that no reasonable person would read it.
That is nothing but insulting me.
Many people confuse correlation with causation. But you've shown neither. Your entire argument rests on "saying ridiculous things makes them true."
These are nothing but unclaimed statements and it is nothing but insulting me.
You didn't actually qualify how Windows 10 quality or reliability is lower than Windows XP, you haven't made any argument that ties it to the ability to revert, which has always been possible in one form or another.
Hardware driver and kernel reliability has improved immensely between XP and 10, it's a significantly more stable operating system with far fewer instances of kernel panics / blue screens. I've seen no change in this regard on OS X, which is also contrary to your assertions. For your hypothesis to be true, we'd expect OS X quality to increase due to the lack of reversion. Both OS X and Windows have suffered regressions in bundled application software quality if the mood and assertions of various forums is trustworthy (they're not scientific samples so in no way can this be an impartial analysis). You are confusing so many things it is not even worthwhile to explain
You clearly confuse giving an opinion and explaining something about it, with the need to give proof or something similiar in order to convince a person that does not need to be convinced. If I explain something to you, that is a gift, not a requirement. I have no need whatsoever to quality and quantify everything I say to you. You do not need to be convinced. I offered an opinion. You do not know what they are. The only interest you seem to have is breaking down everything I say. Then leave here. them. Go back to kindergarten maybe? You seem to think I have created or asserted a direct and 100% correlation between thing A and thing B, and then anything shows it is not 100%, it means the whole thing is junk. That is like saying gravity is not real because birds can fly. But instead of explaining why they can fly, you just assert that they can and now put some burden of proof on me to show that gravity is still real. A real man would say "granted, ...., although". You grant me nothing and only come up with ridiculous reasoning, that you accuse me of yourself. I have never said lack of reversion would increase software quality. You are so riled up in your position and argument that you do not even try to understand what I am saying, BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE TRUE. Such an asshole really. For real. Well, I accept and am grateful that you are at least trying to make a logical argument, because it is the first time you've done it. That feels like being taken serious in that sense, so thank you. But obviously if you are going to be making such statements, you have to split everything out. Is that worth the trouble? "For your hypothesis to be true, we'd expect OS X quality to increase due to the lack of reversion." OS X quality is already very high and there is no reversion. Obviously, they could be correlated. For the obvious reason that a company that introduces reversion must have a reason for doing that. Not saying Apple would, Apple is not always that bright. You attack so many strawman's it is just silly. But this seems to be the case with everyone that doesn't understand something, they attack a strawman. I have done it myself probably numerous of times. "For your hypothesis to be true, we'd expect OS X quality to increase due to the lack of reversion." Only if it was the only contributing factor. OS X (Apple) already has a very high demand for quality due to its business model and the scope of its system is really a lot smaller than that of say MS Windows as well. The scope of its hardware is smaller. They purposefully limit the amount of things that can go wrong. You know this. In general you could expect ANY software system to increase in quality. Isn't that what it's supposed to do? Having no reversion may put a high pressure on OS X's developers. They may not like that. You do not recognise that I also make statements in favour of reversion. Cause you gotta stay real. I do not need to prove anything to you. If you insist on remaining in denial about a very simple relationship that is obvious and worth knowing about, you know, suit yourself. What do I care really? I'm not you. I was stating an opinion, you attacked it, because you don't like opinions being expressed that don't agree with your own, apparently. Same could be said for me, at some points. I concur, I digress. "For your hypothesis to be true, we'd expect OS X quality to increase due to the lack of reversion." No it wouldn't. We would expect there to be a high pressure on developers to create perfect or flawless or never-failing systems, AND THERE IS. At least you could assume there would be. I did read a book about Apple. NO I'M NOT GOING TO SAY EVERYTHING THE BOOK SAID just to prove my 'point'. The Apple mongtards put a 2.5" HDD in the Apple Mini because the enclosure they had chosen was like a millimeter too small for a 3.5" HDD drive. There are better reasons for choosing a 2.5" HDD in such a small computer, but that is the actual reason they used. Form factor came first and dominated everything. Had the thing been a millimeter larger, they would probably have gone with 3.5". Just saying Apple is not always rational or anything of the kind ;-). There can be many contributing factors to software development. I posited a relationship. The relationship is not the be-all and all and it is not going to explain everything including the disruption and resurrection of the universe, okay? The relationship was about the pressure there would be on developers for ensuring the system does not fail. If failure is less of an issue, the idea posited that the pressure on developers would henceforth become less. Among many other thing but that's the gist of it for now.
Granted, there may be many more reasons for Microsoft's recent change in how they develop their software. But they've also gone in the direction of Linux ;-). The release cycle has become much smaller (faster) and current day Windows versions are released with the idea of "We'll fix it later". If that doesn't sound like "If something goes bad, we'll just tell them to use System Restore" I don't know what. You don't know. That much is certain. Yes, another plain insult.
Of course I will accept that System Restore only plays a small part in the overall reasons why Microsoft does anything. It could however play a much larger part in the reasons for Linux vendors or operators doing what they do. Microsoft has customers to please. Having a System Restore is obviously a great boon for customer support. Customer support in general has this staple of general fixes and strategies they ask any person having any problem to use. The lack of quality in today's windows is due more to their tablet strategy and whatever else they have going on in their heads (the cloud, etc) than anything to do with System Restore, of course. For Windows, this feature is just a small thing. Right. For Linux it is something bigger. Windows updates fail too and it reverts them. They fail a lot I must say, I have at least 3 of those instances in the last years that my computer or device would revert an update. And if you turn your computer off while it is doing anything? You're screwed. System Restore has a much smaller impact on Windows and for Apple it would be a relief (I mean the reverting of updates). Reverting an actual update is in essence not the same as using a snapshot. A /reversible process/ is not the same as /zapping back to a previous state/.
] And logically, it is a pretty safe argument that when a system restore is in place, the requirement for software to always function as well, becomes less. No it's not. You've made no connection whatsoever. It's just an assumption that you expect everyone to accept on the face of it. You've provided no mechanism how reversion alters a totally orthogonal software quality assessment. Your style of argument is, "the sky is blue therefore clouds are white" and you've put a layer of "DUH!" on top of that. It's a stupid argument and no one should buy it.
You seem to have an agenda here. "No one should buy it". What do you care about what anyone else does? No connection? Sure you can deny anything. You know, all your life, for the rest of it, if you want or please. I have clearly stipulated a connection. If you were in it for debate or reasoning, you would assault the very words I have made, instead of making blanket statements that disqualify everything in one heap, in one go, by refusing to go into the actual content. Actually that is similar to using a snapshot: a snapshot does not need to know about semantics. It does not need to know about the content of files. A snapshot would "refute an argument" by simply throwing it away, instead of tackling it head on. You say all of the thing I didn't do supposedly but you are afraid of speaking of the things I did do.
It is a pretty simple argument you know. It's pretty simply unconvincing. And I'm not reading any more of it, I'd rather watch water boil than read anymore of this.
Pathetic man, really. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org