> If I'm not mistaken, 4 actually very much does follow from the preceding points.
Then you should go back to logic school. Let me make it clearer for others reading this, as yourself appears to be a lost cause:
(1) Microsoft develops web browser (2) rendering could theoretically be made standard compliant with minor changes (3) people submit style sheets and javascript files that, if included in a web page (or embedded into IE) would achieve that functionality. (4) Users can reasonably expect Microsoft to do that.
Wait, what?
Furthermore, your logic breaks in other places:
(5) ... there is no demand for it (from article: "I don't think Redis running under win32 is a very important feature.").
How does "not important" imply "no demand"? Let me give you an example that will make it clear:
"Apple just said that getting Win7 apps running on the iPad is not important". You bet there's demand for that, and yet that does not make Salvatore's or this (fictional, but realistic) Apple quote wrong in any way. "important", unless otherwise qualified, is to the speaker.
(6) Users have been denied functioning code because of arbitrary decision by guy.
Wrong. They could just build it from source. Less convenient? Well, it takes just one person to package it and make it into an .msi.
Furthermore, the decision is not arbitrary -- you may disagree with the reasoning, but he gave detailed reasoning.
You sir, are either an idiot or a masterful troll -- I would pick the first, if only because it makes me feel better to think I haven't been trolled :)
When the other person consistently ignores logic and invents their own facts and reality, I occasionally adopt the Linus strategy; but I still take care to address the argument itself.
Point well taken. HN is a better place thanks to people like yourself.
Blah, I'm 100x worse than you are about calling people names, but for what it's worth: if you write a similarly worded comment to me, I'll try my best to thank you for it instead of getting bent out of shape. :)
Please stop trying to condense my arguments, as you seem to keep doing so and augmenting them with incorrect analogy. Your example with the Microsoft web browser is disingenuous, as it involves a closed, proprietary system, and your suggested patch involves a workaround on the part of users.
This is a direct patch applied to an open codebase, which in turn allows users to reasonably expect that, there being no technical or resource obstacles to implementation, a platform port could be expected.
Your critique of my 5th statement is not unfair--I should've elaborate on the connection between "not important" and "no demand". I was in error. Your analogy using the iPad simply muddies the waters.
Your critique of my 6th statment is also unfair. The decision was arbitrary (we know that technical constraints don't exist, and that it isn't "free work" being asked for unreasonably). Asking people to just build it from source is not good for users, and forcing the creation of a fork of a codebase is not good for developers. You are being unreasonable, I believe.
The reasoning given for the decision is heavily based in arbitrary judgements not backed by valid engineering concerns (a lot of that low-level OS stuff? Yeah, actually pretty standard across operating systems, though the incantations may be different).
You sir, are either an idiot or a masterful troll -- I would pick the first, if only because it makes me feel better to think I haven't been trolled :)
I wasn't attempting to troll here, and I prefer not to think of myself as an idiot--then again, I also prefer to debate with people who can structure arguments without excessive namecalling or misleading strawmen.
> your suggested patch involves a workaround on the part of users.
EXPLICITLY BECAUSE microsoft refused to patch internally, which is what you think antirez is doing wrongly!
> Your example with the Microsoft web browser is disingenuous, as it involves a closed, proprietary system, and
So? Where is the contract, written or social, that antirez signed, which predisposes him to accept patches that go against his philosophy of keeping the code base lean, simple and efficient?
> This is a direct patch applied to an open codebase, which in turn allows users to reasonably expect that, there being no technical or resource obstacles to implementation, a platform port could be expected.
THERE ARE TECHNICAL OBSTACLES, CLEARLY DETAILED BY ANTIREZ. You might disagree with them, but they are not empty words. And furthermore: WHY? WHY SHOULD IT BE EXPECTED?
> The decision was arbitrary (we know that technical constraints don't exist,
PLEASE READ ANTIREZ AGAIN (AND AGAIN (AND AGAIN)) THERE ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS WHICH YOU FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE
> The reasoning given for the decision is heavily based in arbitrary judgements not backed by valid engineering concerns (a lot of that low-level OS stuff? Yeah, actually pretty standard across operating systems, though the incantations may be different).
So please explain to everyone how easy it is to do copy-on-write from memory to disk without pausing and without fork() -- because THE GUYS AT MICROSOFT WHO SUBMITTED THE PATCH DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT. THEY THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE A SOLUTION BUT HAVEN'T POSTED ONE YET.
> You are being unreasonable, I believe.
The only unreasonable thing I am still doing is replying to you. We apparently live on different planets. ANTIREZ HAS NO COMMITMENT TO THE GOOD OF USERS OR DEVELOPERS. Furhtermore, ANTIREZ BELIEVES AT THIS POINT SUPPORTING WINDOWS WITHOUT FORKING IS AGAINST THE GOOD OF USERS, DEVELOPERS AND HIMSELF, as he has clearly stated.
> I also prefer to debate with people who can structure arguments
Funny ! I'll come back to this post when I need another laugh!
Then you should go back to logic school. Let me make it clearer for others reading this, as yourself appears to be a lost cause:
(1) Microsoft develops web browser (2) rendering could theoretically be made standard compliant with minor changes (3) people submit style sheets and javascript files that, if included in a web page (or embedded into IE) would achieve that functionality. (4) Users can reasonably expect Microsoft to do that.
Wait, what?
Furthermore, your logic breaks in other places:
(5) ... there is no demand for it (from article: "I don't think Redis running under win32 is a very important feature.").
How does "not important" imply "no demand"? Let me give you an example that will make it clear:
"Apple just said that getting Win7 apps running on the iPad is not important". You bet there's demand for that, and yet that does not make Salvatore's or this (fictional, but realistic) Apple quote wrong in any way. "important", unless otherwise qualified, is to the speaker.
(6) Users have been denied functioning code because of arbitrary decision by guy.
Wrong. They could just build it from source. Less convenient? Well, it takes just one person to package it and make it into an .msi.
Furthermore, the decision is not arbitrary -- you may disagree with the reasoning, but he gave detailed reasoning.
You sir, are either an idiot or a masterful troll -- I would pick the first, if only because it makes me feel better to think I haven't been trolled :)