Subject: Re: Understanding #:substitutable? and #55231

From: John Kehayias <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2025 20:04:27 +0000

Hi Maxime and everyone,

(As a I hope neutral bystander that knows nothing about nor has any
particular opinions about the ZFS topic but felt it necessary for
general "good Guix community" to chime in.)

I understand tone and all of that is difficult in these communications,
and we all have differing language familiarity/interpretations. And we
can all have strong opinions. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt
here, but I do want to (very politely I hope) course correct for this to
stay a good environment for all to discuss.

On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 08:46 PM, Maxime Devos wrote:

[snip]

>   * their slander(*) (see: Mason Loring Bliss) (also, to a much lesser
> extent, right now you - I don't think this quoting out
> context+misinterpretation _technically_ counts as slander, but it's
> something bad nonetheless)

This is not productive to say the least. Let's please all refrain from
such escalation. Certainly point out when you disagree or ask for
evidence in discussions, but this is taking us off track.

>   * their rudeness (see: raid5atemyhomework) (also Mason Loring Bliss,
> since slander is rude)
>   * their hypocrisy as a group (see: they claim it can be fine because
> of non-binary distribution, but they never change Guix to _make_ the ZFS
> stuff non-binary)
>   * repeating _old_ information as an argument/counter-argument, even
> though it has already been made and replied to, without providing more
> explanation or another interpretation (see: Mason Loring Bliss. Maybe
> others, but in particular I recall Mason Loring Bliss doing this).
>
> (*) In ordinary sense, without distinguishing between exact forms of
> defamation, and not evaluating whether illegal or legal.

Also, please be mindful that these are different people in the current
thread. Many of the people from the older ZFS threads don't seem to be
active on Guix, at least publicly. In any event, please be aware this is
a wide group on guix-devel with many opinions. Let's keep from
generalizations as much as possible.

>
> Sometimes, being dismissive, is a perfectly reasonable response. As long
> as it's for the right reasons, well-founded, and with evidence.
>
> Also, the 'dismissiveness to [others with different viewpoint]' is the
> other way around (see: previous points).
>

If one feels that they are saying the same things and it is not going
anywhere new, I would encourage them to simply let the discussion
continue without them for others that may be finding this useful and
productive towards a path forward. Previous objections have been noted
and are available in this thread and previous issue discussions.

I hope guix-devel will continue to be a great place to discuss all
things Guix, whether in strong agreement, disagreement, or anywhere in
between. Tough discussions are welcome, but please keep this from
derailing further.

Thanks,
John