I haven&#x27;t spent my entire time on HN reading over every single comment you&#x27;ve made or link you&#x27;ve posted, so I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s particularly fair or productive to act as if it is my fault that I don&#x27;t have knowledge from something you wrote on some undetermined other comment. I wouldn&#x27;t expect you to know something I said in some other random place. If you are going to operate under the assumption that anyone you engage in discourse with is going to be familiar with the entire body of your comment history and blog posting work, I feel you&#x27;re often going to be disappointed.<p>I&#x27;m trying to engage in some fairly civil discourse here, and I am coming into it with an open mind - I am not an academic. Nor am I a systems programmer. My frame of discussion is purely based on what I know, which is mainstream, or relatively mainstream, systems. I work with these systems on a (very) large scale. I know what frame of reference that gives me, and how that applies to me.<p>I&#x27;ve looked over the other links in these comments. As best I can tell, they deal with academic scenarios, or things that are no longer in widespread use. Cantrill&#x27;s article is dealing with the here and now of today&#x27;s production demands. As best I can tell, your argument is that there has been work outside of today&#x27;s widespread deployments that may be superior than what is currently in it.<p>It&#x27;s apparent I misunderstood your original comment to a large extent, and I apologize for that - but the argument I made was in good faith, and while I&#x27;m not expecting you to give me a history lesson, I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s unfair to ask that if you are going to engage in online discourse, you be prepared to elaborate on your point if someone is trying to rationally discuss it with you.