[indiana-discuss] Name of Distro?

[Eric Boutilier]

I've replied, below, but very briefly. In the interest of keeping on-list
discussions on-topic, I'd like to suggest we take this off-list.

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
> Eric Boutilier wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
>>> Eric Boutilier wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Ian Murdock wrote:
>>>>> So, we should just rebrand Solaris Express OpenSolaris? I thought you 
>>>>> wanted it to be a community distribution? -ian
>>>> 
>>>> Ian -- All I can think of is you're referring to John here, right?
>>>> 
>>>> If not, please tell me how what you just said follows what
>>>> I've been saying? I fail to see it (not even close).
>>> 
>>> John said: "[W]hy not just call Solaris Express: (Community|Developer)
>>> Edition 'OpenSolaris'?" You seemingly agreed (or, at least, that's how
>>> I tend to interpret "good point"). Seems pretty clear to me. -ian
>> 
>> You're referring to a mere two words out of my 200-plus word
>> message! Read what I actually wrote and tell me what you
>> think is wrong in what I said.  Following is the remaining
>> 99% of it, none of which you took into account in your
>> comment above). The point of what I wrote, undeniably and
>> unambiguously is this:
>
> You seem hell bent on making some kind of point based on your last few
> messages. If the person who uses the most words wins...

Real nice.

> ... then I will concede now. 
>
> Yes, I read the rest of your message--

OK, but I wish you wouldn't have snipped it all out again, given that its
content/meaning is now the subject of our disagreement here.

> it seemed to
> reinforce the "good point" by saying that the problems we're trying to
> solve are already solved because we have Solaris Express...

I trust that it was my `broken record' post you read -- because I'm
sorry, I still do not see how it could be interpreted that way.

> (though I'm not sure what "pose concerns mostly about execution" means).

Fair enough, I probably could have expressed that better. Stay tuned, I'll
try and fix it.


> So the fact that not everyone agrees with me means I should stop, that am being
> unreasonable, what?

No, definitely not. Sorry if that was triggered by something I said.

So as I said at the top, it seems a more detailed reply is called for, but
a debate about how well or not a post conveyed its intentions is not what
anybody wants to see here I think.

--Eric


> What "rhetorical tricks" am I playing this time?
>
> -ian
> -- 
> Ian Murdock
> 650-331-9324
> http://ianmurdock.com/
>
> "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige