2016-02-04 17:55 GMT+01:00 Simon Hobson <linux@???>:

> Rainer Weikusat <rainerweikusat@???> wrote:
>
> > "Whoever disagrees with me MUST either have a hidden, maliscious agenda
> > or be out of his mind" is a pretty standard way to (attempt to) handle
> > a situation where someone ran out of arguments but doesn't feel like
> > admitting that.
>
> Not at all. I have a perfectly sound argument. You are stubbornly trolling
> that users deserve to have their hardware bricked.
> I know you won't accept that, but all your arguments come down to "no
> protection, the user is responsible, if he makes a mistake then tough". I,
> and others, are of the opinion that there are quite reasonable measures
> that could be made the default which a) wouldn't break anything in a way
> that wasn't easy to deal with*, and b) would provide "reasonable"
> protection against the problem.
>
> Since you are so certain that documentation is sufficient, can you show me
> in the man page for "rm" where it mentions the possibility of bricking the
> hardware ?
>
>
>
> * As in, yes we understand it breaks X, there's a genuine reason for doing
> it, but here are ways to fix that. As opposed to certain camps where "we
> don't care what get broken and it's nothing to do with us to solve it"
> seems to be the mantra.
>


Boys,


Maybe we can agree to disagree?

I'd like to see Devuan do better. Better than Debian, fi. Windows doesn't
seem to have this problem, as far as I could figure out. A format c:/
doesn't erase UEFI...

While this is mostly a fault by the manufacturer of the hardware, there
seem to be a lot of those machines around. It's not Devuan's task to fix
those, but if we can at least warn the user, or prevent the mishap, why
shouldn't we?

Just my 2 cents.

Wim