**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Tue Jan 31 03:00:02 2017 Jan 31 06:33:22 DocScrutinizer05: I don't think anything in the architecture of systemd itself is in any way related to the size of RedHat's customers Jan 31 06:33:48 you pointed out yourself that it's inspired in part by Apple's approach, and Apple mostly targets consumers Jan 31 06:34:15 you're mixing up apples and dogshit Jan 31 06:34:52 clearly showing that you didn't get 10% of what I explained Jan 31 06:35:19 but you got a 80% of misconceptions Jan 31 06:35:43 regarding the immutable image stuff, that certainly has something to do with system integrators... but that's orthogonal; and as I said before, it's not supposed to abolish the traditional model; but rather to complement it Jan 31 06:36:36 DocScrutinizer05: ad hominem attacks certainly make your arguments more convincing :-P Jan 31 06:37:38 BTW, I actually agree with their stance on the efivarfs issue. Jan 31 06:38:55 (it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, though -- or are you claiming that the poor quality of systemd is part of RedHat's plan to take over the world as well?) Jan 31 06:56:48 stating an obvious fact is no ad hominem Jan 31 06:57:56 you're making up the bullshit assumption I allegedly said, in one single sentence Jan 31 06:58:01 three* Jan 31 07:00:56 I *never* said: *) RH reac hes for world dominion *) systemd was related or inspired or somesuch to/by apple *) poor quality of systemd (which is a fact) would be related to RH's business plan (it's the interdependencies it introduces, plus the feature creep, that are though) Jan 31 07:02:31 and the next one using "world dominion" and even claiming I said that will earn a kick Jan 31 07:04:33 RH stets they already *are* the largest commercial linux/FOSS company. And whatever it is they are striving for, it's for sure not beyond the domain of software Jan 31 07:04:40 states* Jan 31 07:07:32 it's rather your own paranoia that makes your brain transform my musing about their business plan into some nonsense about world dominion Jan 31 07:08:37 prolly the paranoia I actually could be right Jan 31 07:09:52 this would also explain why you make up that unfunded claim about "it's not supposed to abolish the traditional model; but rather to complement it" Jan 31 07:26:09 and you can save your energy and not waste it reposting my lines you got wrong and think reposting them makes your point. Rather re-read them Jan 31 07:32:07 you know perfectly well that "world domination" is not to be read literally Jan 31 07:33:25 also, stuff this meta-discussion nonsense. feel free to ask neutral third parties if your way of arguing is more rational then mine, if you find someone willing to waste time on that Jan 31 07:34:30 and as for wielding the ban-hammer, I'll let you know that I don't succumb to threats of any kind Jan 31 10:22:59 DocScrotumizer05: as a completely impartial third party, I can confirm that you cannot debate rationally Jan 31 10:24:41 DocScrotumizer05: indeed, if you could, you would not need to threaten people who disagree with you Jan 31 16:38:02 says the one who's on a dozen users' /ignore and even on GolDeliCo's and Neo900's customer blacklist, due to his excellent way to argue. For reference see second sentence that _again_ states bullshit since I do not threaten people who disagree Jan 31 16:41:53 inventor of rational debates - as soon as somebody disagrees with *you* Jan 31 16:42:14 e.g. about open hardware Jan 31 16:43:16 GolDeliCo has a blacklist of customers? Jan 31 16:43:26 plainly a popular company Jan 31 16:46:15 I think you may also have made up this "dozen" Jan 31 16:47:36 your actions of threatening antrik seem to contradict your assertions that you don't threaten people who disagree with you Jan 31 16:47:49 rational debate is what you have when someone disagrees with you :-) Jan 31 16:48:44 well, it's what rational people have at least Jan 31 16:49:23 some people just rant and rave and then threaten people who don't capitulate to their ranting Jan 31 16:50:22 some people can tell the difference between a rational person and someone who rants and raves Jan 31 16:50:34 many people can't Jan 31 16:50:52 some people rant and rave but believe they are being rational Jan 31 16:50:53 not everybody can do this, see yourself as an excellent example of somebody who can't. Simple understanding of logic is mandatory for a rationale debate. Please refer to where I tgreatened somebody because he had a different notion and _not_ because he's spreading LIES (sth you are also known for) Jan 31 16:53:15 here lie := quoting somebody else incorrectly Jan 31 16:56:10 so I don't even need to search for another instance of a lie, the statement "you would not need to threaten people who disagree with you" already is one - and it's the exactly what I'm actually "threatening" Jan 31 16:57:40 yeah, I remember dozens of "debates" with you where your argued "rationally" on exactly such level Jan 31 16:57:48 *plonk* Jan 31 16:58:37 mental note to self: never clean up /ignore lists, never bays back Jan 31 16:58:54 pays* **** ENDING LOGGING AT Wed Feb 01 03:00:01 2017