/etc/hosts and localhost

Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational bill at nospam.dot
Tue Jan 20 16:25:46 PST 2004

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Greg Schafer wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 09:13:26AM -0500, Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational wrote:
> > I have neither the time, expertise or interest in *proving* all the
> > issues that may arise. I try to contribute *if* I can effectively do so.
> That's fine, but there are better ways go about it then taking backhanded
> swipes at the editors, which is how your comments have been coming across
> recently.

See my other about "backhanded swipes". I have a different perception.

> > Excellent point. I had never considered that fact the potentially good
> > threads should be allowed to die without firm decisions or maybe some
> > positive effect on the efforts of the project.
> Sometimes there is no clear resolution. Take for example the recent thread
> about the clock init script. There was massive differences of opinion and
> from what I can see, there is no clear way forward coz it's more complicated
> than it looks.

Yes, and I try to be cognizant of those sort of things. But I'm sure
that I'll misread-read or forget something in the future. I expect that,
being human and all. And that is one reason I try to usually use words
that (I think) are not condemning of individual effort. I've not
generally seen adverse reactions to the way I put things, but there are
always exceptions, either by my choice of words or other reasons.

> > I thought of the posts as "gentle reminders". I guess I was misguided
> > and it is considered whining? You make it obvious that what little I
> > have to contribute is unwelcome. No problem on this end.
> See above. When I say be more constructive, instead of trolling the editors,

I *don't* troll the editors. If that's they way you perceive it, it's
you problem, not mine.

> you could try to bring the discussion to a close, or if deemed appropriate,
> file it in bz. Gerard used to be reasonably good at not letting stuff fall
> thru' the cracks by periodically going thru' the lists and filing bz's as a
> reminder. They'd often get closed as useless but at least they were looked
> at.

I filed a couple of bugs, but then became aware that different rules
were used as to what was appropriate, depending on (sub-)project. At
that time I felt I would be less aggravating if I waited until something
was published that clarified usage, which I had anticipated would not be
long in coming.

> Then there are the threads that fizzle out naturally. Like I said,
> get used to it. The editors are doing their best. If you cannot see that
> then maybe you're way off beam.

I'm certainly off the beam, based on this and other things I've seen. I
accept that and have no wish to mold LFS to my *personal* view of

And I've no wish to prolong this thread either. But if I feel that my
intentions have been misunderstood, I offer the explanations.

'Nuff said.

Bill Maltby,
LFS Organizational
Use fixed above line to mail me direct

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list