Has this seriously devolved into a discussion requiring symbolic logic?
I'm dusting off my copy from Virginia Klenk.
________________________________________ From: CentOS-devel centos-devel-bounces@centos.org on behalf of Gordon Messmer gordon.messmer@gmail.com Sent: December 28, 2020 2:10 PM To: centos-devel@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] Balancing the needs around the RHEL platform
On 12/28/20 3:50 AM, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS-devel wrote:
On 28.12.2020 17:34, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
You keep ignoring 'no-cost' part there.
It was said "or". "low- *or* no-cost..." Do you see? Not "and", but "or".
Will I sound too unrealistic, if I say that "low-cost" would be much, much more probable?
That's a totally normal sentence construct for English speakers. It implies that both will exist, and each will be appropriate for different use cases. It does not imply that "no-cost" may or may not exist, only that it may or may not fit a particular use case.
_______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel