-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 10:23:58AM -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Thu 01 Jun 2017 at 09:20:08 (-0500), Richard Owlett wrote: > > On 06/01/2017 08:14 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > >Hash: SHA1 > > > > > >On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 07:22:36AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote: > > >>I'm working on a problem that requires as input an association of > > >>disk partitions and their "label" (in gparted sense). > > >> > > >>I already have blkid and lsblk. They are obviously designed for > > >>different purposes. They both _can_ supply the desired information. > > >>Neither is ideal for me. > > > > > >You're always so whimsical :) > > > > *ROFL* I disagree. > > I agree very much. > > > My questions may be weird, obtuse, or convoluted. Rarely, if ever, > > whimsical ;) > > What people have said about my world view for >70 yrs best left ... > > The problem with whimsical is that it has two meanings. From the web, > for ease of cut and paste, > > 1. > playfully quaint or fanciful, especially in an appealing and amusing way. > "a whimsical sense of humor" > > No, not that. > > 2. > acting or behaving in a capricious manner. > "the whimsical arbitrariness of autocracy" > > Yes, exactly that. You read people's answers and then pronounce upon > them in accordance with your thinking, which we're not party to > because you rarely if ever reveal it.
See? I meant it even slightly differently. From wiktionary: Given to whimsy; capricious; odd; peculiar; playful; light-hearted or amusing. For me, it's something between odd, peculiar, playful and amusing. I *know* it's some kind of emergent behaviour, and not ill-intentioned at all. It makes (for me) interaction more difficult, but more enriching at the same time. And somewhat joyful. So there you go. > As an example, you wrote above: > > > >>I already have blkid and lsblk. They are obviously designed for > > >>different purposes. They both _can_ supply the desired information. > > >>Neither is ideal for me. > > with not a hint of what would be ideal. Context. I once had a boss who functioned as Richard does. He had a very complicated context in his mind, and when posing a question, he offered lots of hints, but with some regularity not those his interlocutors needed. Once I got over that I learnt that this kind of interaction can be enriching and fun. People are quite different, and that is a Good Thing :) > Right. So are we meant to spend time looking for different commands > which, importantly, must reveal must either reveal more information > or the same information in a different way, in order that perchance > it might be more ideal for you? You always have the choice to throw up your hands (as I did in this case). [...] > Oh, so my question above was wrong. We're expected to find _all_ > commands, regardless of whether they might be more ideal or not. Don't take that personally. I don't think it's meant like that (Richard: I'm taking the liberty of second-guessing you. I hope you set me straight if I'm too wrong!). Cheers - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlkwNtcACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZd5gCffM53Q9+O8LhbysTX6DwMxJ6+ qKUAn0zBt8EA/xkSBR5L8pGLsh8jze5s =mNAE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
