Peter da Silva wrote:
Where in that picture does the pile-on in Yossi's thread about
filesystem semantics fit in?
Redirecting hate to legitimate targets.
IMO, the semantics of the UNIX file I/O is a legitimate target. Moreover, the
very fact that one must delve into a bigger shitload of semantical questions
than your typical lawyer to understand why he's fucked by a system is a
legitimate target.
IMO, to make a target legitimate one doesn't have to:
* mention an existing better solution (for instance, I think scons is better
than make, but I don't bother to mention it when I hate make). That would lead
to praising the better solution, which seems off-topic. More importantly, it is
irrelevant, since if scons wouldn't exist, make would still suck.
* prove understanding of the mechanism leading to the hateful behavior (for
instance, I know about hard links and how unlink works and the like, but I don't
bother to mention it when I hate Unix). If the engine blows up, you don't need
to understand the chemistry behind this - the vehicle sucks. And if you know the
chemistry, why bother proving it to people who like driving this kind of vehicle
and proudly show off their scars?
On the other hand, it is perfectly legitimate for people fond of certain
software systems to protect them, just as it is legitimate for other people to
hate those systems.
