bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr

[Bob Proulx]

Linda Walsh wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > > You're 40 years too late on this one.
> > > This kind of condescending attitudes do not improve matters.
> >
> > Please no ad-hominem attacks.  Thanks.
> 
> What is an ad-hominem attack?  Isn't that an attack against the person?
>
> Clearly, the poster was talking about an attitude that came across
> as condescending.

Yes.  And I am sure that it wasn't meant kindly.  It certainly wasn't
a neutral tone.  It was a negative statement about the sender which
contained emotional overtones.  Even though it didn't contain "you" it
was still clearly targeting the message human person sender with a
negative emotional statement.

If I were going to challenge the statement I would say something more
along the lines of "Just because a bug is long standing isn't it still
a bug and as such shouldn't it still be fixed?  We have fixed long
standing bugs before.  Why is this one different?"  This never moves
toward any attacks against the person.  It stays purely on the topic
points.  (Meanwhile note that I am simply playing advocate here and
think that status=none is the best answer.)

> I've been told on this list, that using "you" was considered
> attacking, even though in my writing I'd specifically stayed away
> from any name-calling or ad-hominem attacks, the simple use of "you"
> was considered enough to make my message "attacking".

The use of "you" or lack of it doesn't always mean one thing or
another.  Language is subtle and it means what we want it to mean.
Any hard rule always has ways to be subverted.

But use of "you" is definitely a warning sign because it is
designating a person as the recipient of the exchange.  If the sender
is saying good things then the recipient won't mind and perhaps will
be flattered.  But if not then the recipient is going to feel the heat
as a flame.

Please keep discussion on the mailing lists neutral and professional
in tone.  It is that simple.

> Also some have said POSIX was "descriptive" and such is stated in
> their initial mission statement.  ... To use MS-lingo, this was the
> "Embrace" phase.   POSIX has moved beyond that phase and now is in
> the "Extend" phase, where it has become prescriptive -- not
> describing existing practice, but dictating new and incompatible
> behaviors.

FWIW I agree.  I have said so myself on several occasions.

> Besides the shift from descriptive to prescriptive, POSIX has also
> shifted from being a program-portability standard -- a description
> of features programs could rely on being there in order to aid
> portability, it has also expanded into prescribing User Interface
> behaviors that NOT ONLY, exceed it's purpose in providing a base for
> program portability, but actually harm program portability.
> Prioritizing user-interface design on the command line over program
> portability goes against the core-purpose of the standard, yet this
> is what has happened, approximately after the 2001 POSIX updates.

Yep.

> The POSIX standard, 'now', no longer follows it's initial mission
> statement, and is is now a corporate tool for controlling the open
> source community.

No.  The Austin Group oversees the standard.  Anyone can contribute.
The only issue is available time and effort and the ability to work
with a group.  But I don't think it is under corporate control.  I
think the community of new generation contributors has more control.

> Whether or not POSIX is being moved into the extinguish phase is
> arguable while it is in process, but it must be noted, that
> Microsoft, which supported POSIX in its earliest forms in the late
> 90's with it's POSIX subsystem, now feels they have no more need to
> support or provide POSIX compatibility, since starting with Windows
> 8, their POSIX subsystem is dead.

I don't use Microsoft systems when I can avoid it.  So this particular
issue doesn't affect me very much.  Although I care anyway since so
many other people use Microsoft systems.  Because I do travel and bank
and watch movies and do all of the things that people do with their
life and a very large amount of that is affected by Microsoft
software.  But it is their company.  What would be the proposal to
improve the situation at Microsoft?  *Can* anything be done?  I don't
think so.  They are going to do what they are going to do.  They are
one of the proverbial 800lb gorillas.

> Buying into POSIX changes that reduce functionality and break
> previous program compatibility would seem to be a good way to
> accelerate the last phase, but ironically, reverting incompatible
> behaviors is now seen as creating new incompatibilities -- even when
> it would be impossible for new programs to have been written to rely
> on those incompatibilities as they are features that have been
> removed -- i.e. it would be impossible for a useful program to rely
> on something that is guaranteed not to work.

Since we are talking about 'dd' then POSIX hasn't *changed* anything
that I know of on that topic.  It is the same as it has been.  And so
has 'dd'.  So I don't know what you are talking about.  POSIX is
stabilizing dd at this point.  HP-UX dd, AIX dd, GNU dd.  (If you are
talking about head and tail and the -n option changes then I agree.
But we were talking about dd here.  Let's not talk about head or tail
here in this dd bug log.  We have drifted off and around enough as it
is already.  If you want to talk about head and tail -n then let's
talk about it in the address@hidden discussion list.  But that is
also so much water under the bridge.  I would rather not drag through
it again.)

> So -- I'm just clarifying: POSIX isn't want it used to be.

It never was.  :-)

  The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to
  be. --Paul Valery 

Bob