On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 12:51 -0700, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > so therefore - I am not allowed to ask the question?
>
> But what question are you asking and why? You are mentioning
> that someone should try SmartPM, which will do _nothing_ to
> solve the problem we are discussing.
>
> > I didn't realize that your vastly superior knowledge
>
> Give me a break. I am a _major_advocate_ of SmartPM. But
> this isn't about the end-user tool. It's about the
> repository and/or service. SmartPM has nothing to do with
> that. SmartPM uses YUM.
>
> And as someone else pointed out, it could actually make
> things worse with what we're discussing. But SmartPM
> accesses a YUM repository, and the YUM repository is where
> this capability could _only_ be addressed.
>
> > of all things also permitted you to dictate topicality.
>
> Dude, I do _not_ dictate what topics are discussed.
>
> But one thing I really can't stand is when many people are
> trying to figure out a solution, and different people keep
> interjecting things because they don't understand the root
> problem. And why don't they? They don't take the time to
> understand.
>
> I merely pointed out that SmartPM, APT or any other tool is
> not the issue here. I have repeatedly stated that the
> "client tool" has _nothing_ to do with _anything_ we are
> talking about. In fact, 99% of the confusion is because
> people are only used to using the "client tool" and not
> actually how the repository works.
>
> The "yum client" program has *0* to do with this discussion,
> its how the "yum repository" is organized over simplistic
> HTTP. Switching to SmartPM does not solve it at all, because
> it's still using a YUM repository.
>
> > So sorry. Do you ever pause before you click send and ask
> > yourself is sending this necessary?
>
> Do you ever stop to read what people are discussing before
> just saying "use product X" to "fix problem Y" which you
> clearly didn't even stop to read?
>
> > I said I wasn't entering the thread.
>
> You were entering into the thread by suggesting someone "use
> product X" to "fix problem Y" where X is wholly inapplicable.
>
> It's like saying fix your Apache issue by using Microsoft
> Windows with Internet Explorer as your client instead of
> Linux with Firefox as your client. The client is _not_ the
> problem, it's the server, and changing clients does
> _nothing_. ;->
>
> At this point, you're reminding me of Dilbert's point-hair
> boss. You're suggest something that is wholly inapplicable
> to the discussion. I merely pointed that out, and if you
> want to take offense to it, then I can't help you.
----
you assume way too much.
I never offered smartpm as any solution to any problem referenced in
this discussion. I merely asked if he had used smartpm. The assumption
that I asked that in order to solve his issues was yours and yours
alone. You need to keep in mind that it is actually ok for topics of
conversation to move tangentially and that shouldn't require the
blessing of Bryan.
I never really attempted to dissect the discussion that you and Les were
having because having had discussions with both of you already, I am
well aware that neither of you would ever concede an inch - even if you
pondered each other's points of view long enough to try and make them
work for you, neither of you would allow it just out of principle
(that's my opinion). I believe this because I have had these types of
discussions with Les and you before. I had to be a moron to enter the
discussion - even peripherally as I did (and got compared to Dilbert's
boss as a reward).
You would be well served to invite others to participate in discussions
rather than bite them off as you do if for no other reason than to give
the impression of geniality. If you added geniality and humility to your
arguments, they would be more persuasive. This is another way of saying
that persuasion is an art - not a test of wills nor a referendum of
one's knowledge.
Craig
