| |||||||||||||
FAILFAILPosted Jun 3, 2009 18:36 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165)In reply to: Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions by nye Parent article: Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions Let the record show that nye was the first participant in this discussion to rely on ad hominem remarks. FAIL.
(Log in to post comments)
FAIL Posted Jun 3, 2009 22:20 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I didn't think it was necessarily ad hominem. I mean, the amount of time
and energy you've spent doing stuff with C++ would have driven any man mad.
But now you've implied that in fact you are not mad, and we must take you
(FWIW I agree with you, less vehemently: attempting to copy from a
not FAIL Posted Jun 4, 2009 0:30 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
I agree that your proposed approach would completely resolve the problem with Okular itself. (I can even agree vehemently, if you like, but I'm not accustomed to vehemence.) It would not solve the problem that Debian has, as official maintainers, individuals who have expressed and demonstrated fundamental hostility to the ideals and goals of the project.
FAIL Posted Jun 4, 2009 1:26 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link]
"(FWIW I agree with you, less vehemently: attempting to copy from a
copy-prohibited document should warn about the prohibition *and let you turn it off*, for good or for that one document. The current situation isn't good enough. Prior art: browser cookie management options.)"
Yes, that would be a very sensible approach.
FAIL Posted Jun 4, 2009 10:30 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
And after I spent all that time coming up with a politely factual remark, rather than making the original emotional response I felt like.
Tch.
|
|||||||||||||