Could you stop the AC bashing, please
matthias at winterdrache.de
Tue Feb 25 05:27:07 PST 2003
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:03:34 -0500 (EST) Bill's LFS Login
<lfsbill at wlmcs.com> wrote:
> Question: are you suggesting that investigation of, and possible use of,
> optimizations should be avoided in LFS?
Why do you ask a question that I answer plain and clear in the same
message you're replying to? The answer is NO!
> healthy discussion could have taken place (and did anyway, IIRC) about
> whether or not pure-lfs should be pursued.
The whether or not was never an issue. Why does everyone try to put it
like I was somehow against pure LFS?
It seems like I'm in some kind of weird nightmare where everyone wants to
twist my words around. Everyone's talking about the word "pure". In my
original message there are just 2 words in 1 sentence that hint at the
fact that I don't like it. In my other message it's just 2 sentences. I
would have dropped the issue and wouldn't even have mentioned the hate,
discrimination stuff had not Gerard explicitly asked about the nature of
Dammit, people. I don't have any strong feelings about the word "pure".
I don't like. I said so. No one agrees. Okay. No problem. Forget it.
All that I really ever cared for was the AC bashing issue. That's why I
put it into my Subject line. That's why my initial message in this thread
talks 99% about this issue. That's why you should all stop trying to fight
a flamewar with me and instead should focus on this issue. All that I ask,
is that people around here stop dissing Alan Cox, because it throws a bad
light on LFS. Do me this favor and I'm happy.
This sentence no verb.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev