Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: User-defined "macro" commands

[Dustin Sallings]

On Dec 14, 2003, at 12:36, James Blackwell wrote:

> In lists.arch.users, Dustin wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 2003, at 3:50 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> > > You've posted this same silly rant about five times now, please give 
> > > it
> > > a (longer) rest.
> >
> >         Is this really the best answer one can expect from this list?
> > Honestly, I made a suggestion I believe might improve tla, gave both
> > reasons and examples for that position, and this is all you have to
> > offer?  Are you really incapable of saying anything more than ``No 
> > it's
> > not'' and insulting my ideas?
>
> Dustin, what did you expect?

        Professionalism, respect, etc...

> You've brought the subject up several times and failed to reach any 
> sort
> of consensus each time. I agree with Miles that if your suggestions 
> were
> worthwile they would have found traction long ago.

	Do either of you have any evidence that I've ever suggested removing 
the aliases ``several times'' before?  In the three months I've been 
using arch, I did briefly mention it once as part of another thread 
regarding adding a new alias.

	Regardless, someone has implemented new functionality that makes 
user-defined aliases possible.  Given the justification for the 
existence of the remaining 6 aliases (which amounts to user 
preferences) and the ability for users to specify their own 
preferences, why does everyone have to get pissy when I ask if anyone 
sees anything differently given the new circumstances?

> I happen to like what command aliases give us. They give us the ability
> to change the name of commands yet leave the original command name
> available for a period of time while the public adjusts.

	We haven't been talking about deprecation, it's been user preferences. 
 Having an alias suggests an alternate way to use a command.  
Deprecating a command suggests that the command should no longer be 
used, in favor of a new command.  An alias does not give the public an 
opportunity to adjust.

> At this point, since you've failed to reach a concensus, you have the
> following choices:

	I've failed to reach a consensus?  So far, I've just had one guy call 
my suggestion a ``silly rant'' and inaccurately state that I've brought 
it up five times in the past and I've had another guy tell me nobody 
agrees with me and I should move on and let people work on ``more 
important issues.''

        I just don't think this is healthy community behavior.

> 3. You can live with it, and let people worry about more important
>    issues.

	Issues are issues.  I don't think some should be dismissed just 
because there are more important ones.

> 4. You can continue to try and push the issue. However, if you do this,
>    I'm willing to bet that you'll end up killfiled by so many people
>    that your opinion on other, more important, issues will cease to
>    exist.

	So my options in trying to participate in this community leave me 
either flamed or ignored?  It's hard to say which is better.

> In summation, tla is not generically broken because what you want 
> hasn't
> occurred. At *best* tla is broken for you specifically.

	tla works quite well for me, that doesn't mean that it can't be 
improved.

--
SPY                      My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub  1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <address@hidden>
|    Key fingerprint =  87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6  C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________