I see your point. It uncovers one that is IMO, far more important. So, I wrote on that point, and now I'm at fault because I did not limit my comments to only what you said?
Not downloading excess files is a good general principle. There is a big discussion about code complexity, how it would impact intermittent crunchers, and the relative "cost" of tracking what is absolutely needed vs. downloading against future need that needs to take place before one decides if it should be fixed. I do know from four decades of writing code that something can be a good idea, and add so much code that it isn't worth it. But at the end of the day, I don't care about one extra download. It seems to me that it is a relatively small problem. ... and at the end of the day, if I'm not doing the work, and I'm not paying the bills, then all I can do is make suggestions. Having the antivirus swoop in and delete files, triggering an endless loop of downloads is a *real* problem -- or so it seems to me. Paul D. Buck wrote: > > I'm sure if you'd given my comments a little more thought, rather > > than just skimming them for some point you could criticize, you'd > > have seen that. > I did. by the way, you can only present technical comments and > arguments and not accuse me of not reading ... or, at least, that is > the standard you would impose on me ... see the fairness? ... and I'm trying to drive that point home by applying the same standard to you that you routinely apply to others. It is a two-way street. If you want people to treat you with fairness and respect, you have to treat them with fairness and respect. Part of being "fair" is everyone playing by the same rules. It's Karma. You want good Karma, you need to be nicer. _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
