Re: Proposed enhancement to scp
From: Steve Turner (bbqboyee_at_H2OlooWoodworks.com)
Date: 02/27/04
- Next message: David Caine: "Re: Bizarre problem with failed Putty connections"
- Previous message: Neale Napier: "Re: Remote login with NAT fails"
- In reply to: Bill Unruh: "Re: Proposed enhancement to scp"
- Next in thread: Darren Tucker: "Re: Proposed enhancement to scp"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:46:07 GMT
Bill Unruh wrote:
> Steve Turner <bbqboyee@H2OlooWoodworks.com> writes:
>
> ]> Be aware that the model for scp is rcp, and if it's not something rcp
> ]> does then there's a good chance it will not be accepted. (Also, -p is
> ]> already used.)
>
> ]I'm sorry to hear you say that. Where would GNU software be today if
> ]they had decided that making improvements on the original code was a bad
> ]idea?
>
> Less bulky?
So I presume that's your mission in life, to hijack conversations and
turn them into sounding boards for preaching your "bloatware" gospel?
So far, that's the only "value" you've added to this conversation. I
made a proposal to add 30 lines of code to a 1000 line program, and
before you know it I'm an evil proponent of the dreaded bloatware. You
sure have me pegged. And you can prove it too, because if you look at
the header of my post, you'll see that I'm using Netscape 7.1 under
Windows. What could be worse?
The truth is, I've been in this business long enough to where I don't
give a damn. If software is useable, I use it. If the software has
good performance and does its job well, then what, I'm going to throw it
away because it's "bloated"? You go ahead and keep walking the path of
the righteous, but I'll thank you not to preach to me. None of the code
that *I* write and maintain has any bloat at all, and that's all I care
about.
I find it rather interesting that some of you are cursing GNU for being
evil and synonymous with bloatware. If GNU is so evil, then how about
this: we go back in time, erase GNU from existence, and see what the
world of 2004 would look like then? Your alternatives to Windows would
be... what? BTW, that's a rhetorical question.
-- To reply, change the chemical designation to its common name.
- Next message: David Caine: "Re: Bizarre problem with failed Putty connections"
- Previous message: Neale Napier: "Re: Remote login with NAT fails"
- In reply to: Bill Unruh: "Re: Proposed enhancement to scp"
- Next in thread: Darren Tucker: "Re: Proposed enhancement to scp"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|