Re: [RFC] Unify KVM kernel-space and user-space code into a single project

Avi Kivity
2010-03-22T14:46:41Z

On 03/22/2010 04:32 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 03/22/2010 02:44 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> This is why i consider that line of argument rather dishonest ...
>>>
>> I am not going to reply to any more email from you on this thread.
>>
> Because i pointed out that i consider a line of argument intellectually
> dishonest?
>
> I did not say _you_ as a person are dishonest - doing that would be an ad
> honimen attack against your person. (In fact i dont think you are, to the
> contrary)
>
> An argument can certainly be labeled dishonest in a fair discussion and it is
> not a personal attack against you to express my opinion about that.
>
>

Sigh, why am I drawn into this.

A person who uses dishonest arguments is a dishonest person. When you
say I use a dishonest argument you are implying I am dishonest. Why do
you argue with me at all if you think I am trying to cheat?

If you disagree with me, tell me I am wrong, not dishonest (or that my
arguments are dishonest). And this is just one example in this thread.
Seriously, tools/kvm would cause a loss of developers, not a gain,
simply because of the style of argument of some people on this list.
Maybe qemu/kernels is a better idea.

Again, if you want to talk to me, use the same language you'd like to
hear yourself. Or maybe years of lkml made you so thick skinned you no
longer understand how to interact with people.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function