Do you even understand why the original article was written?
Perhaps you should contact the author, or consider the source, a news site that places a emphasis on APPLE PRODUCTS.
Perhaps you should review your own post for "thoughtless attacks".
If I may ask, what is your native language as I have an interesting theory on the effect language plays in cultural development.
I never even mentioned the topic of kernel design, so I'm not exactly sure how I could bring things into a "debate" that has nothing to do with something I never mentioned.
Writing formally, and using obscure meanings of words are two completely different things. If you reread my post, you'll note I actually complemented your writting, while at the same time suggesting areas for improvement in communicating with others. But honestly, I don't believe that your first post represents the way you "normally" write, as your reply above shares none of the flagrant and flaunting use of diction, nor do most of your other slashdot post.
After reading some of your other post, you seem to be filled with anger and continually demonstrate a lack of respect. You might want to do something about that, for some day you may come to regret it.
Whether or not the subject of the quote is positive or negative is immaterial to what you are trying to do, namely trying to twist it to your ends.
Mart, I completely agree. The poster, anaesthetica, is twisting the quote to his own ends. The point that anaesthetica is twisting positive criticism into arrogant condemnation is definitely a secondary issue.
Given your vehement dissent to someone pointing out this gaffe to you, I cannot but conclude that it was deliberate.
Aren't thesauruses cool, but unfortunately they don't always work that well. Unless of course you actually wrote that without a thesauruses in which cause I would suggest reexamine the value of using diction in such a way that the general usage is supported by the context.
Even if one of the many meanings of the word makes its usage appropriate, when you compose language in such a way most people will just ignore you. But that is most likely your intent, or you have a natural obsession with sounding smart, at least thats how your response struck me. On personal note, I must agree it is a wonderfully articulate composition.
Unfortunately, you assume the motivation behind my "vehement dissent" is a childish response to embarrassment. You could not be farther from the truth as I'm a regular reader of both Slash and Ars. I read the article on Ars before seeing it on slash and a I thought it made many valuable, justifiable points. These matters somewhat concern me as I use these tools on a daily basis and would love to see ZFS supported on every platform, Windows, Linux, Mac, BSD, etc. It would make my life easier. This stubborn, childishness that seems to embody the many, not all, in the Linux community is only hurting themselves, and those who use/enjoy/love what Linux is and could be.
In conclusion to directly respond to your point, I think you have the correct idea, with the wrong polarity. I believe anaesthetica's summary of the article is deliberate twisted to his own means. From my original post,
Through this change, we can see the posters true feelings. I believe anaesthetica is deliberately using this article to voice his own personal pro Linux / anti everything thing else philosophy. It's so perfectly obvious. Cheers.
Clearly your lack of understanding has led you to believe that a positive article, and a article with positive criticism are somehow the equatable.
They're not.
In the same way arrogant condemnation and positive criticism are not equitable.
Even in the next sentence Siracusa uses the phrase "all these areas can be adequately explained." Siracusa makes it clear he believes that failing to see things from the larger perspective is a major downfall, but he is never arrogant enough to suggest that this is only area Linux struggles in.
I'm not going to comment on the other areas, but ZFS can do amazing stuff, and the reason it can do that is because it approached the whole file storage problem with a out of the box solution that involved combining eliminates from various components that were previous separated. ZFS replaces hardware/software RAID controllers,
volume management, and the file system. By integrating these components together things that were previously impossible or extremely difficult become painless and automatic.
Andrew Morton states ZFS is a "rampant layering violation." No argument there, that's the point, that's how it does all this cool stuff. The point is, Morton it's so blinded by his ideology of layering that he would ignore the benefits of ZFS because it doesn't follow his design philosophy.
Ultimately the jokes on him, ZFS can never be integrated into the Linux kernel, the license is incompatible, so we will most likely never see all the benefits of ZFS on Linux. A shame though. There is hope for other platforms though, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, etc.
First, and most importantly, Siracusa never states or even suggest "this attitude" is "responsible for all of the current failings of Linux ".
The direct quote is "I've long seen the Linux community's inability to design, plan, and act in a holistic manner as its greatest weakness."
You can see the meaning has been completely changed in the summary from one of positive criticism to one of arrogant condemnation.
Through this change, we can see the posters true feelings, feelings that are shared by many in the Linux community. That is to respond immaturely and get all bent out of shape if somebody builds anything that doesn't follow the "Linux philosophy".
The Truth. Both Linux in general, and ZFS are amazing, and powerful tool. One of best philosophy I've encountered is "use the right tool for the job".
Nobody is forcing Linux devs to port ZFS, or even use, or even think about it. The only reason this is an issue, is because many in the Linux community realize how powerful ZFS is, and they're subconsciously pissed off that they can't have it. So they respond like a 3rd grade bully by attacking it in a self defeating attempt to minimize its importance.
Slashdot Mirror
Good, Good, I feel the anger flowing through you.
Perhaps you should contact the author, or consider the source, a news site that places a emphasis on APPLE PRODUCTS.
Perhaps you should review your own post for "thoughtless attacks".
If I may ask, what is your native language as I have an interesting theory on the effect language plays in cultural development.
I never even mentioned the topic of kernel design, so I'm not exactly sure how I could bring things into a "debate" that has nothing to do with something I never mentioned.
Writing formally, and using obscure meanings of words are two completely different things. If you reread my post, you'll note I actually complemented your writting, while at the same time suggesting areas for improvement in communicating with others. But honestly, I don't believe that your first post represents the way you "normally" write, as your reply above shares none of the flagrant and flaunting use of diction, nor do most of your other slashdot post.
After reading some of your other post, you seem to be filled with anger and continually demonstrate a lack of respect. You might want to do something about that, for some day you may come to regret it.
Mart, I completely agree. The poster, anaesthetica, is twisting the quote to his own ends. The point that anaesthetica is twisting positive criticism into arrogant condemnation is definitely a secondary issue.
Given your vehement dissent to someone pointing out this gaffe to you, I cannot but conclude that it was deliberate.Aren't thesauruses cool, but unfortunately they don't always work that well. Unless of course you actually wrote that without a thesauruses in which cause I would suggest reexamine the value of using diction in such a way that the general usage is supported by the context. Even if one of the many meanings of the word makes its usage appropriate, when you compose language in such a way most people will just ignore you. But that is most likely your intent, or you have a natural obsession with sounding smart, at least thats how your response struck me. On personal note, I must agree it is a wonderfully articulate composition.
Unfortunately, you assume the motivation behind my "vehement dissent" is a childish response to embarrassment. You could not be farther from the truth as I'm a regular reader of both Slash and Ars. I read the article on Ars before seeing it on slash and a I thought it made many valuable, justifiable points. These matters somewhat concern me as I use these tools on a daily basis and would love to see ZFS supported on every platform, Windows, Linux, Mac, BSD, etc. It would make my life easier. This stubborn, childishness that seems to embody the many, not all, in the Linux community is only hurting themselves, and those who use/enjoy/love what Linux is and could be.
In conclusion to directly respond to your point, I think you have the correct idea, with the wrong polarity. I believe anaesthetica's summary of the article is deliberate twisted to his own means. From my original post,
Through this change, we can see the posters true feelings. I believe anaesthetica is deliberately using this article to voice his own personal pro Linux / anti everything thing else philosophy. It's so perfectly obvious. Cheers.They're not.
In the same way arrogant condemnation and positive criticism are not equitable.
Even in the next sentence Siracusa uses the phrase "all these areas can be adequately explained." Siracusa makes it clear he believes that failing to see things from the larger perspective is a major downfall, but he is never arrogant enough to suggest that this is only area Linux struggles in.
I'm not going to comment on the other areas, but ZFS can do amazing stuff, and the reason it can do that is because it approached the whole file storage problem with a out of the box solution that involved combining eliminates from various components that were previous separated. ZFS replaces hardware/software RAID controllers, volume management, and the file system. By integrating these components together things that were previously impossible or extremely difficult become painless and automatic.
Andrew Morton states ZFS is a "rampant layering violation." No argument there, that's the point, that's how it does all this cool stuff. The point is, Morton it's so blinded by his ideology of layering that he would ignore the benefits of ZFS because it doesn't follow his design philosophy.
Ultimately the jokes on him, ZFS can never be integrated into the Linux kernel, the license is incompatible, so we will most likely never see all the benefits of ZFS on Linux. A shame though. There is hope for other platforms though, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, etc.
The direct quote is "I've long seen the Linux community's inability to design, plan, and act in a holistic manner as its greatest weakness."
You can see the meaning has been completely changed in the summary from one of positive criticism to one of arrogant condemnation.
Through this change, we can see the posters true feelings, feelings that are shared by many in the Linux community. That is to respond immaturely and get all bent out of shape if somebody builds anything that doesn't follow the "Linux philosophy".
The Truth. Both Linux in general, and ZFS are amazing, and powerful tool. One of best philosophy I've encountered is "use the right tool for the job".
Nobody is forcing Linux devs to port ZFS, or even use, or even think about it. The only reason this is an issue, is because many in the Linux community realize how powerful ZFS is, and they're subconsciously pissed off that they can't have it. So they respond like a 3rd grade bully by attacking it in a self defeating attempt to minimize its importance.