[heyoni]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

That comment there? Never seen it quoted, always in context.

It’s being brought up because it’s very a propos. Someone, somewhere said x problem needs a better solution, and someone else replied that it can be done on one specific Linux distro with a specific kernel version or configuration.

What am I missing here?

[Dylan16807]

> Someone, somewhere said x problem needs a better solution, and someone else replied that it can be done on one specific Linux distro with a specific kernel version or configuration.

Hang on, what is 'it' in this sentence?

Because the dropbox comment was skeptical of the need for a "better solution". In this interpretation, 'it' is an explanation of how to solve the problem the old-fashioned way.

But the comment we're replying to agrees that we need the "better solution" of DNSSEC, and is suggesting a way to deploy the "better solution". In this interpretation, 'it' is the "better solution".

Those two ways of interpreting 'it' are opposites. The two comments are doing very different things.

[heyoni]

Opposites are black and white, something and nothing. In conversation, you'll find that analogies are never the exact event they're being compared to, but something parallel enough to evoke a familiar emotion or memory. This isn't math, but you're approaching it as such.

The overlap here is simple. The question "What end-user OS does this?" was answered with...well, gibberish...and tptacek's reply resonated with me and reminded me of the dropbox comment. I think that's about as well as I'll ever be able to explain it. The fact that the two agree that there's a better solution is one facet of the discussion taken out of context, that doesn't even factor into my response or this whole spiel.

What I'd really like to ask though is what your motivation is for mounting such a defense. I seriously doubt it has to do with it having "very legitimate points" or you would've brought them up by now. Also, re-reading that thread, the OP ends up agreeing with everything except that it shouldn't be marketed as a USB replacement.

I completely stand by my decision to reference that comment in jest and will bring it up again!

[Dylan16807]

> In conversation, you'll find that analogies are never the exact event they're being compared to, but something parallel enough to evoke a familiar emotion or memory. This isn't math, but you're approaching it as such.

I'm saying that the comments are barely similar at all. Yes, they both suggest how to do something on linux. That's the only similarity.

> answered with...well, gibberish...and tptacek's reply resonated with me and reminded me of the dropbox comment

But the dropbox comment isn't gibberish...

> What I'd really like to ask though is what your motivation is for mounting such a defense.

Because it annoys me when people misrepresent the comment as a fool who couldn't see the value of Dropbox, too attached to some overly-complex system not applicable to normal users. He clearly did see the value of Dropbox. He said right there that it was "very good" for Windows users. And the mocked point was only one out of three.

> I seriously doubt it has to do with it having "very legitimate points" or you would've brought them up by now.

I didn't bring them up because I thought it was obvious, and it would be a waste of time to list them. But fine, I'll do it.

The post has three points:

The point about cobbling something yourself is a bad point. But it was very strictly limited in scope.

The point about not replacing USB drives is both correct and important.

The point about "not being viral" is agreed to be correct by dhouston, because the viral parts were secret at that time.

So that's two good points out of three.