When something is antiquated or junk, becomes a troubleshooting problem or leaves room for mockery, or sucks, then there is no reason not to say it. Straining to bend everything into a stream of euphemisms is counterproductive, and nobody can know what is being talked about because it's buried under all the dishonesty.
Steve Litt <[email protected]> writes: > 2) Keep your responses technical rather than gratuitously inflammatory. > For instance, perhaps say "systemd keeps much better control of > daemons than sysvinit" rather than "sysvinit is antiquated junk", or This is a very bad example. The two statements have totally different meanings. One is an assumption about systemd --- which I wouldn't be willing to make because I do not know whether it's true or not. The other one is an assumption about sysvinit --- which I *might* make because my experience with sysvinit *might* have shown that it's antiquated junk. If I was saying something about systemd in order to say something about sysvinit, I would be lying. > say "systemd engenders so many dependencies that it's going to be a > troubleshooting problem", rather than saying "systemd leaves > enough room for mockery". These are also two statements with totally different meanings. Why would I let some moderator dictate what I have to think? -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
