[CentOS] Re: S/N on this list is plummeting...

Sat Jun 4 07:16:54 UTC 2005
Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org>

On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 09:07 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> One constant is that you've always been involved though :) You're 
> obviously not creating the thread on your own. It's just a fact that it 
> wasn't like this before. Maybe someone said something, but nobody went 
> into a fierce fight over it.

I'm sure I "stirred things up."  I'll admit that.

Given some of the other posts I've now seen, it seems I was the "first
jerk" that finally started putting his foot down and said "we don't need
the anti-Red Hat junk."  So others actually felt like they could let
their opinions be known, and they came out of the wood work.
Unfortunately, now it seems that some of what others have said is being
attributed to me, just like someone who starts a "riot."  ;->

With all that said, I am sorry.  Again, one _could_ make the case that
"I started the riot."  So I think at this point -- especially the "Vote
for CentOS," I think it's gone too far.  And as much as I hope people
could not go to the "deep ends" on each side, nothing I'm going to say
is even going to be taken positive.  So I think I just need to not even
bother.

[ BTW, as a side note, I'm also sorry I engaged Les on the "GPL debate,"
which was 0% technical, and another distraction that I shouldn't have
entertained. ]

> And again, I appreciate the technical insights you have contributed to 
> some of the threads. I don't want you to get only one signal or have you 
> leave the list over this, but if we could leave the never-ending threads 
> about the same subject out, the list would become a joy again.

Agreed.  Although I beg people not to make things about Red Hat.

> And I'm not only asking you, I'd prefer if everyone could try to not put 
> more oil onto the fire, even when you don't agree. We know each others 
> opinions now, we don't have to iterate over it again and again.

Agreed.  I'll try to lead by example and just not respond.  So far, I've
been the opposite type of example.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                     b.j.smith at ieee.org 
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
It is mathematically impossible for someone who makes more than you
to be anything but richer than you.  Any tax rate that penalizes them
will also penalize you similarly (to those below you, and then below
them).  Linear algebra, let alone differential calculus or even ele-
mentary concepts of limits, is mutually exclusive with US journalism.
So forget even attempting to explain how tax cuts work.  ;->