> [ZFS (il)legality links]
This isn't the place for that. If you believe there are some new and
correct arguments for/against compatibility, that's something for a
separate thread. Some of these are old news.
And pointing this out to them doesn't seem to ever work.
It has been some time ago, but I probably suspected it wouldn't work in
this case either.
Not to be offensive, but I find these statements to be very dismissive of those
who disagree with you about ZFS distribution as well as both their reasoning
for their position and their openness to differing viewpoints or new
information.
This is a mischaracterisation - both of what I said in the mail you are
responding to, and the reality of what happened in the ZFS discussions.
It is indeed dismissive, but the dismissiveness is not 'because I
disagree with them', it's because of:
* their slander(*) (see: Mason Loring Bliss) (also, to a much lesser
extent, right now you - I don't think this quoting out
context+misinterpretation _technically_ counts as slander, but it's
something bad nonetheless)
* their rudeness (see: raid5atemyhomework) (also Mason Loring Bliss,
since slander is rude)
* their hypocrisy as a group (see: they claim it can be fine because
of non-binary distribution, but they never change Guix to _make_ the ZFS
stuff non-binary)
* repeating _old_ information as an argument/counter-argument, even
though it has already been made and replied to, without providing more
explanation or another interpretation (see: Mason Loring Bliss. Maybe
others, but in particular I recall Mason Loring Bliss doing this).
(*) In ordinary sense, without distinguishing between exact forms of
defamation, and not evaluating whether illegal or legal.
Sometimes, being dismissive, is a perfectly reasonable response. As long
as it's for the right reasons, well-founded, and with evidence.
Also, the 'dismissiveness to [others with different viewpoint]' is the
other way around (see: previous points).
Regards,
Maxime Devos
