Subject: RE: autoconf(9) tree in an odd hardware arrangement
To: Juan RP <email@example.com>
From: De Zeurkous <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/24/2007 11:44:13
On Sat, November 24, 2007 11:19, Juan RP wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:25:01 -0000 (UTC)
> "De Zeurkous" <email@example.com> wrote:
>> You're free to contest it and/or offer alternatives. In fact, I'd be
>> delighted to receive a justified mental kick-in-the-ass from anyone. If
>> no-one has standing objections, I consider my theory accepted and I
>> an experimental implementation by the kernel developers to follow.
>> If anyone would like to take a look at my TODO, just ask and I'll put it
>> up and post a link to it. Perhaps it'll clarify things a bit. Then
>> maybe not.
> Really dude, don't you have something to do than talking nonsense all
> the time? I've been reading your stupid comments for some monts already
> and I think none of them was useful.
If that's the only attitude you can communicate with, I don't expect you
to find anything useful beyond your own imagination.
> Why do you think somebody is interested in your TODO?
Because it is bound to be /very/ different from the ones of others around
> you are only saying
> bullshit and trolling all the time.
Saying bullshit? There is a large (but probably still too small) amount of
logic to my statements, so I _personally_ don't think it qualifies as
that. Trolling? Most definitely, and that's not something I apologize for.
If you are capable of accepting it, you will find it a most valuable tool
to grease arguments without resorting to crude primate behavior.
> Perhaps if you can confirm your talks with some code, we'd trust you...
Alright, you want to see the current (still primitive, #include
<stdexcuses.h>) shext tree? Ack, and I'll put it up tomorrow. I have
'some' sleep to catch up on.
> otherwise I can only say STFU, because your comments are not productive.
If I'd be explaining autoconf on our level to a room full of peasants, it
probably wouldn't be very productive either.
% NetBSD, zsh, twm, nvi and roff junkie
From the fool file:
I don't see why the way people have historically partitioned disks should
dictate which kernels we build and distribute by default in the future.
--Darren Reed (darrenr@NetBSD.org), NetBSD tech-kern