>On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:58:02 +0000 >Marshall Conover <marzhal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have two scenarios currently I feel make a strong argument for the > inclusion of bind: one is running tests on an install of a product > while still being able to do development on it, by using a bind to > redirect the development dll to the install's dll in the process I'm > developing in; and the other an example of when a bind would just be > convenient, such as a certain process needing python2 instead of > python3 on a system which defaults to python 3, and have scripts that > reference #/bin/python. I have a honest feeling you will end up as roadkill with this sort of approach. You are discussing individual specific use cases; accepting your argument relies on the other party being imaginative enough to independently see the value of the proposal. Generally speaking, if the person has not already seen the value of an idea, they are probably not going to have an epiphany after you throw them some examples. Instead, try discussing the correctness of the premise, and how it is steeped in fundamental value. Try: "The ability to binding filesystem elements between different paths of a filesystem is of critical importance to the operating system flexibility and usability. While many current users, brought up on Windows, may lack the vision of the features usability, with the continued refinement of public expertise in all matters IT, there will mature the opinion that binding is a right-of-entry feature, with operating systems lacking it being summarily dismissed." There. If they don't buy that, then their vision is flawed, the project mistargeted and governance found lacking. And they will fail. You don't want to waste your time and energy on a doomed project. -- Svi moji e-mailovi su kriptografski potpisani. Proverite ih. All of my e-mails are cryptographically signed. Verify them. -- You don't need an AI for a robot uprising. Humans will do just fine. --
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
