User talk:Alexey Vazhnov

Welcome!

Hello, Alexey Vazhnov, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Darwinek (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained dd revert

Hello. I’ve noticed your revert of my edit in Comparison of disk cloning software with no explanation. What is the reason? -- wikimpan (Talk) 10:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, sorry, I've restored the `dd` content. I use it pretty often to clone disks. I think it is good simple tool in comparison with another software. It is good to see `dd` in the table, so it is clear in which cases `dd` can be used. Also, it is opensource, which is huge advantage. And It is often shipped with GNU/Linux distributions by default, so you can use it even from installer live CD. So, what I want to say: `dd` is important tool, which has its own area of usage for cloning partitions/drives. --Alexey Vazhnov (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Talk:Comparison of disk cloning software is better place do discuss `dd` in context of the page, if you want to continue the discussion. --Alexey Vazhnov (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Forgive me the late answer, but for some reason I didn’t get the notification.

I’m aware of the status dd has in Linux community and the history of this phenomenon. The thing is: dd doesn’t do any disk magic and contains no features related to disks. As I wrote in the edit message: it is no more a disk utility than cp, cat or pv are. The “magic” happens entirely within the kernel and it does for any of those tools too. Hence I believe it doesn’t belong to a page listing disk cloning utilities.

That alone would make placing dd in the list questionable, but there is more. dd gained the backronym of “disk destroyer” for a reason. Is horrendously easy to misuse, even when used wrong may for years give appearances of working, and trivial typos separate making a working copy from destruction. Search results filled with poor or outright wrong suggestions are amplifying the issue. In my eyes this makes it an even worse candidate for inclusion in the disk cloning software list: not only it doesn’t really do anything disk-related, if used for that purpose it’s likely to cause trouble.

I didn’t open the discussion on article’s talk page, as it’s an issue of a particular revert. I’m not wishing to run a crusade over this. If we can’t find agreement, I’ll just let go. -- wikimpan (Talk) 16:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

No problem with a late answer!

Yes, `dd` is dangerous. Another cloning software is also dangerous if you use wrong parameters, the same with `dd`. As an option, it is possible to add a column to the comparison table, something like "easiness to make a catastrophic mistake" or "requires confirmation of dangerous steps (yes/no)", and `dd` will be the most dangerous there I think. Still I think `dd` is good for comparison with another software: how powerful a tiny software can be. Even if we can find another similar tool, which shows source/destination human-readable names and asks for permission to continue, still `dd` is good to compare with.

I like the way you are thinking. I'm just very sensitive to deletion information about opensource software from opensource Wikipedia. --Alexey Vazhnov (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I spent a year writing an article on Hedgewars (the game), just to see it deleted. And some would rate me 95% rms on Free Software support scale. So I resonate with your goals.

But I also believe Wikipedia should remain neutral space, where people can find information on both proprietary and Free software alike. If a good FOSS project may be added, it absolutely should. But putting any software on a list, just because it tangentially touches list’s topic?

I believe me not wishing to engage in fight over this is a testament to following this principle. Disclaimer: the reason it caught my eye is because I’m in the camp supporting departure from the mental model associating dd with disk operations. But I would not touch it, if I didn’t see the mention as factually invalid. And I see it as such.-- wikimpan (Talk) 02:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)