Sam,
I sometimes envy your simplistic outlook on things. And the way you can
then twist what is said into another totally inapplicable thread.
I know for a fact that the majority of today's PC users couldn't have
gotten Arachne 1.50 s.r.c. up and running. Even now, with most of us
having struggled with Arachne on an almost full time basis for two years
or more, many were running around in circles trying to figure out how I
could even discover my IP/Gateway/etc so I could manually do static IP
setup.
It would have been a failure if I hadn't had a lot of outside help.
That outside held doesn't come packaged with Arachne -- that's why it's
called *outside* help. So these silly little mistakes and petty
annoyances you like to talk so grandly about aren't silly, nor petty, if
they keep a person from successfully using Arachne.
Loving or hating software has not a rat's ass to do with mental problems
nor perceived animation of inannimate objects. And when one routinely,
after multiple attempts, fails at something that some kid somewhere is
claiming is easy once you get past the little annoyances, one doesn't
exactly feel good nor that it's been a wonderfully fulfilling day.
If I hadn't had a stubborn streak a mile wide, and a lot of experience
in knowing better than to take down one operating system before the
"replacement" has been shown to work, I would have given up on finding
Arachne to be anything other than a patchwork piece of mediocre
undependable software not worth the effort.
Since Michael apparently wants Arachne to be an example of what he can
do, I think he really wants to do the best he can ... even when it's
"boring" or repetitious or workarounds can be found until something
better comes along.
I am *not* talking from TOTAL IGNORANCE when I speak of fixing something
that could be better than it is.
l.d.
====
On Sat, 01 Apr 2000 14:08:43 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:11:12 -0500, L.D. Best wrote:
> <snip>
>> And Sam ... What you consider a "silly little mistake" on our part
>> could be the difference between success/failure love/hate feeling good
>> and feeling bad for other people.
> Except for persons suffering from very serious mental problems, one's
> having problems with working with and managing inanimate things should
> not at all be related to the way one feels toward sentient beings.
> Blaming the perceived perversity of inanimate objects will not solve any
> problems, nor is it at all logical to conclude that because inanimate
> objects are perceived as perverse, then therefore it follows that people
> should likewise be perceived, and that they are no damn good, etc.
> Sam Heywood
> -- This mail was written by user of Arachne, the Ultimate Internet Client
-- Arachne V1.61, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
