Javier Martinez <[email protected]> writes:
El 18/9/25 a las 6:15, Alexis escribió:
At this point, i must conclude that you're not discussing this
in
good faith, since not only has Gentoo dev Eli also noted how
your
understanding is incorrect, but you also seem to be implying
that
i'm saying things i didn't say:
You did not give arguments at all.
i've given evidence to support my claims, which others can test
for themselves. The only 'evidence' you've provided is the
Xwayland man page, which does not say what you think it's saying;
and even if it was, again, what you think it's saying can be
tested by others. Whereas you seem to have it as an act of faith
that you're the only one who _really_ understands how Wayland
works, and anyone disagreeing with you - even the Wayland project
itself - is wrong.
Linus Torvalds is god, has him to be always correct by this
reason??. Do you know what "ad hominem fallacy" is?
Yes; my definition is basically the definition provided by the
Oxford dictionary:
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather
than the position they are maintaining.
i believe that my chain of posts demonstrate that my arguments
have primarily involved technically-based rebuttals, either
providing technical evidence or asking technical questions, at
least one of which you've not addressed: How Wayfire can start
_before_ Xwayland gets started.
It's not 'ad hominem' to say that "On the basis of my interactions
with you, I don't believe you're having this discussion in good
faith". By saying that, i'm not making any claims about the
correctness or otherwise of your claims.
Nor does 'ad hominem' mean the same as 'argument from authority',
which _seems_ to be what you actually mean here? But in referring
to what Eli has said, i wasn't doing so because i believe him to
be omniscient, but because he's a well-respected distro dev - he's
previously been an Arch dev,
cf. e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24587561 - with
extensive knowledge in various areas based on many years of
experience. He knows how many things work. And _my_ years of
experience of Eli - including my time on the Void team - have
found his analysis of things is usually correct; i actually can't
think of any instances otherwise. i've learned a lot, over the
years, in reading Eli's input on various topics. He's earned my
respect.
You seem to be claiming that it's inappropriate to defer to people
with relevant knowledge and/or expertise, as though i said "Linux
is written entirely in Rust", and Linus himself said, "Um, no",
and i said "Wow, ad hominem much?"
And I have never told you that you like or not Xorg. Can you
please
point me when I told you this???
i literally quoted you saying in an email addressed to me, "You
don't like Xorg"!
Yeah, time for me to bow out, although i'm sure you'll have
further things to say in response to what i've written above.
But i want to say something to others reading this subthread:
Please keep in mind how much volunteer time is wasted by people
"not in possession of any of the facts" making claims that have to
be corrected by volunteers in order to minimise the amount of
problems faced by people working on the basis of those claims. And
it becomes increasingly frustrating to have do this again and
again and again, particularly for devs who are already doing so
much.
Alexis.
--
"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I
exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am
nothing.'
"'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It
could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so
therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly
vanishes in a puff of logic.
"'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove
that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra
crossing."
— Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
