Subject: [bug#55231] Understanding #:substitutable? and #55231

From: Maxime Devos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 20:46:33 +0100

> [ZFS (il)legality links]

This isn't the place for that. If you believe there are some new and 
correct arguments for/against compatibility, that's something for a 
separate thread. Some of these are old news.

>> And pointing this out to them doesn't seem to ever work.
>>
>> It has been some time ago, but I probably suspected it wouldn't work in
>> this case either.
> Not to be offensive, but I find these statements to be very dismissive of those who disagree with you about ZFS distribution as well as both their reasoning for their position and their openness to differing viewpoints or new information.

This is a mischaracterisation - both of what I said in the mail you are 
responding to, and the reality of what happened in the ZFS discussions.

It is indeed dismissive, but the dismissiveness is not 'because I 
disagree with them', it's because of:

  * 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)
  * 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.

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).

Regards,
Maxime Devos