this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
1521 points (97.3% liked)

linuxmemes

21197 readers
352 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
    • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
    • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

    • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
    poopsmith
    zephyr
    rtxn
    1521
    Some inspiring quotes from our supreme leader (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
    submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/linuxmemes
    210 comments fedilink hide all child comments
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] Theharpyeagle 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

    There's many ways to point out the issues with the patch without being a jerk. The patch wouldn't have made it in either way, and maybe there could've been more useful conversations about the concerns (re: tar) that were brought up in the previous message.

    [–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

    There’s many ways to point out the issues with the patch without being a jerk.

    Yes, if you don't mind pointing out again those exact same issues again, because the same person (or potentially someone else) did the same mistake again, as they failed to understand the gravity of the issue again. And again, again, again.

    ...or alternatively you give the person a good smacking. That's what Torvalds did, while pointing out those issues again. Carrot and stick

    maybe there could’ve been more useful conversations about the concerns (re: tar) that were brought up in the previous message.

    Likely not - that tar example was brought to highlight that Torvalds' suggestion would cause a regression; that's it. The discussion itself reached a dead end, the solution wouldn't be to keep the conversation about that, but someone submitting a patch that would neither cause said regression nor misuse the VSF functions.