Re: GPT as default?

On Apr 23, 2007, at 12:09 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:

> Marcel, my words may have been poorly chosen, but I've been using GPT
> for several years, and I've reported these issues (and others) to you
> several times over the course of those years and witnessed your
> complete lack of interest.

Yes, your words were poorly chosen and you continue to show poor
judgement. I have exactly 1 thread in my mailbox where I discuss
GPT with you and that problem has been resolved.
I fail to see how that's several times over the course of years
and I fail to see how that represents a complete lack of interest.

What else did you send me mail about?

>   Now you suddenly seem to realize GPT's
> shortcomings, but you still don't understand that the issue all along
> was your unwillingness or inability to follow the pattern established
> by our other GEOM classes.

There's nothing sudden about my realizations, though it's apparent
that it appears to you like that. It seems to underly your whole
position in this regard. I've been working on GPT for a long time
on and off (because I also have other things to work on) and
slowly, but gradually, added the verbs, first to geom_gpt itself
and then to it's replacement g_part. With 7.0 around the corner
I do feel an increased sense of urgency, simply because I'd like
it to be done by then. All I need is a partitioning tool...

> Consider further that Ivan is a SoC student working on a new FreeBSD
> installation and configuration tool which will offer graphical and
> curses interfaces to, amongst other things, disk partitioning (in
> fact, his mentor has asked him to focus primarily on the latter).

I'm fully aware. I gave him my input, and told him it was just a
thought. It's up to him to do something with it or not.

>   He
> won't have an easy job of it if 1) there is no reliable way to
> configure GPT and 2) you trample all over his turf by insisting on
> implementing your own curses interface to g_part.

I think you're making his job difficult by 1) spreading FUD and 2)
interfering in an interesting and fruitful discussion I have with
Ivan.

If you actually bother to read the emails you refer to, then you
should realize that I'm putting my cards on the table for anyone
to see, so as to make sure that there's no duplicate effort and/or
misunderstanding. It also means it's open for discussion and that
I appreciate feedback and suggestions.

AFAICT, Ivan and I were building mutual understanding, which is
more than I can say for our little exchange.

> I also question the wisdom of spending time on a curses interface
> specific to g_part when g_part is only a small piece of the GEOM
> puzzle.

If you question the wisdom, then why do you insist on phrasing your
questions as statements? All I find myself thinking when I see one
of your "I don't see why ..." statements is that it must be really
difficult to be so blind and that I can't help you with that.

Put differently: I think you have no idea what I'm doing and so far
I haven't seen anything in your behaviour that makes me question my
perception in this matter. In fact, my opinions continue to be
acknowledged. This obviously only increases my believe that I'm
right. There may be wisdom in what you say, but you simply have
not created a situation in which it will be received as such, or
at all.

>   You seem hell-bent on increasing the cleft between g_gpt /
> g_part and our other GEOM classes.  They should converge, not diverge.

See, I simply don't understand what you're trying to communicate
here. I certainly don't see a question mark, so there's nothing
being questioned and since I have no idea what you're talking
about and given that you haven't so far left the impression that
you do, I can only assume that you're mistaken.

In an attempt to close the gap between us, let me ask you this:
What's the cleft between g_part and the other GEOM classes?
In what way do you think I'm hell-bent to increase that what
I don't know?

-- 
Marcel Moolenaar
xcllnt_at_mac.com