> On 7/27/09, Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote: > >> On 7/27/09, Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote: > >> >> Sounds a little nonsensical to me. > >> >> > >> >> 1) for example, it would make no sense to 'shrink' the size of > >> >> conceptual 'whole disk' (esp. if such represents the entire *physical* > >> >> disk as per man pages) to be less than other partitions -- so > >> >> '*arbitrary* changing its [disk's] limits' is an over-generalization > >> >> in my opinion. > >> >> > >> >> 2) w.r.t. forward-compatibility, one cannot make any suppositions for > >> >> system's (kernel or userland) behavior in future versions/releases for > >> >> practically anything (e.g. the key-generating hash in vnconfig may not > >> >> be guaranteed to forever remain the same; the format of system calls > >> >> may change/evolve, disklabel format may/may-not change, sector-size > >> >> may become editable, etc.)... and I am certainly not looking this far > >> >> into the future (i.e. namely and most-likely I am considering the > >> >> behavior wrt current kernel w/o such being upgraded continuously). In > >> >> other words, I am perfectly happy to accept the failed 'mount/fsck' > >> >> attempts when/if differently-behaving kernel is being deployed. > >> > > >> > The source code defines the behaviour. > >> > > >> > Your words don't. > >> > > >> > >> Neither do yours :-) Although, some would also say that source code is > >> not always *defining*, but rather *implementing* the behavior (which > >> is standardized perhaps elsewhere)... but anyway -- potato, potato :-) > > > > Oh cut the crap. > > > > krw and I have a view how it should work, and we code it. > > Then the code is the behaviour. > > > > Perhaps we made mistakes. Perhaps they'll be changed. > > > > But you are just spouting bullshit. > > > > :-) :-) :-) relax, take a pill -- no need to get emotional. > > besides I don't think we are seeing things that much differently. I > didn't say you were making mistakes, but if you make krap-inviting > statements like "the source code *defines* the behavior" then expect > the likewise, albeit not-that-serious, replies. > > Besides, the code may well be acting like implementation and > definition in one place, so no need to take such a heated bait to my > light replies. I'll stop now :-) > > > chill -- I don't mean to get a flame-war started, peace dude :-)
I don't know who you are, but you do nothing. What do you do? I don't see your name on any the source code. The source code _does_ define the behaviour. Exactly. Perhaps the source code is wrong, but it *EXACTLY DEFINES THE BEHAVIOUR*. So you shut up, loser. Just go away.
