I've replied, below, but very briefly. In the interest of keeping on-list
discussions on-topic, I'd like to suggest we take this off-list.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
Eric Boutilier wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
Eric Boutilier wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
So, we should just rebrand Solaris Express OpenSolaris? I thought you
wanted it to be a community distribution? -ian
Ian -- All I can think of is you're referring to John here, right?
If not, please tell me how what you just said follows what
I've been saying? I fail to see it (not even close).
John said: "[W]hy not just call Solaris Express: (Community|Developer)
Edition 'OpenSolaris'?" You seemingly agreed (or, at least, that's how
I tend to interpret "good point"). Seems pretty clear to me. -ian
You're referring to a mere two words out of my 200-plus word
message! Read what I actually wrote and tell me what you
think is wrong in what I said. Following is the remaining
99% of it, none of which you took into account in your
comment above). The point of what I wrote, undeniably and
unambiguously is this:
You seem hell bent on making some kind of point based on your last few
messages. If the person who uses the most words wins...
Real nice.
... then I will concede now.
Yes, I read the rest of your message--
OK, but I wish you wouldn't have snipped it all out again, given that its
content/meaning is now the subject of our disagreement here.
it seemed to
reinforce the "good point" by saying that the problems we're trying to
solve are already solved because we have Solaris Express...
I trust that it was my `broken record' post you read -- because I'm
sorry, I still do not see how it could be interpreted that way.
(though I'm not sure what "pose concerns mostly about execution" means).
Fair enough, I probably could have expressed that better. Stay tuned, I'll
try and fix it.
So the fact that not everyone agrees with me means I should stop, that am being
unreasonable, what?
No, definitely not. Sorry if that was triggered by something I said.
So as I said at the top, it seems a more detailed reply is called for, but
a debate about how well or not a post conveyed its intentions is not what
anybody wants to see here I think.
--Eric
What "rhetorical tricks" am I playing this time?
-ian
--
Ian Murdock
650-331-9324
http://ianmurdock.com/
"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
