Hi Maxime and everyone, (As a I hope neutral bystander that knows nothing about nor has any particular opinions about the ZFS topic but felt it necessary for general "good Guix community" to chime in.)
I understand tone and all of that is difficult in these communications, and we all have differing language familiarity/interpretations. And we can all have strong opinions. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt here, but I do want to (very politely I hope) course correct for this to stay a good environment for all to discuss. On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 08:46 PM, Maxime Devos wrote: [snip] > * 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) This is not productive to say the least. Let's please all refrain from such escalation. Certainly point out when you disagree or ask for evidence in discussions, but this is taking us off track. > * 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. Also, please be mindful that these are different people in the current thread. Many of the people from the older ZFS threads don't seem to be active on Guix, at least publicly. In any event, please be aware this is a wide group on guix-devel with many opinions. Let's keep from generalizations as much as possible. > > 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). > If one feels that they are saying the same things and it is not going anywhere new, I would encourage them to simply let the discussion continue without them for others that may be finding this useful and productive towards a path forward. Previous objections have been noted and are available in this thread and previous issue discussions. I hope guix-devel will continue to be a great place to discuss all things Guix, whether in strong agreement, disagreement, or anywhere in between. Tough discussions are welcome, but please keep this from derailing further. Thanks, John
