Arvid Ephraim Picciani schrieb:
I quote: "'Simple' is defined from a technical standpoint, not a usability standpoint. It is better to be technically elegant with a higher learning curve, than to be easy to use, and technically crap." What you don't get is that if you have to make a decision between two equally technically elegant decisions, and one of them improves usability, you go for usability.You twisted it. Mind the "not" in front of "a usability standpoint". It says: technical correctness > usability not:usability > higher learning curve
It only says not to sacrifice technical correctness for the sake of usability, nothing else.
But you know that argument failed, which is why you argue it beeing invalid:I will say it one last time: Adding the _necesity_ to configure something that doesn't need to be configured is crap, from a technical and a usability point of view and thus defeats the Arch Way.
You implicitly add the statement "Usability is bad, we don't want our stuff to be usable, so don't even try" to the Arch way.
thanks again for admiting that you disrespect the arch way. Now black on white and not revokeable.
No, what we have now - black on white - is that you have no idea what the Arch way is about and simply twist it the way you want it.
My original thought was "Let's remove one line from fstab and add one line to rc.sysinit, this will make the system more robust". It's a technically simple, non-complex change (which, as said, I dropped after further consideration). The thread you guys produced as a result is ridiculous.
This is the my last post in this thread, I simply can't see this crap continue. I should never have even responded to RedShift's first posting, I'm sorry for that. In fact, I should never have responded or never respond to any posting by you and RedShift or you anytime in the past or the future.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
