Linux-Advocacy Digest #437, Volume #29 Tue, 3 Oct 00 22:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) (Marty)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 20:46:30 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 23:57:07 -0500, Bryant Brandon
@<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@
@>In article
@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@>
@>@On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 00:24:05 -0500, Bryant Brandon
@>@<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@>@
@>@>In article
@>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
@>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@>@>
@>@>@>@> Seems to be rather important if it can render the machine
@>@>@>@> unusable.
@>@>@>@
@>@>@>@Do you have any proof that it can do that?
@>@>@>
@>@>@> Machine #21, AUDB room #307c, UNT campus, Texas. IOW, the very
@>@>@>machine we've been discussing this entire thread.
@>@>@
@>@>@The *ONLY* thing we know about the machines in question is that you're
@>@>@getting a disk error @ login. Aside from that, *EVERYTHING* else
@>@>@mentioned in this thread is pure conjecture.
@>@>
@>@> You asked for "any" proof. Is this not "any" enough for you?
@>@
@>@No, because it isn't proof. You have no proof that the -profile- (and
@>@limiting it via quotas) is the issue here in any way, shape, or form.
@>
@> So, now you want quotas too?
@
@I want you to fix this problem by finding someone to help you, rather
@than simply giving up.
@
@>Before I run around trying to prove
@>things for you, would you mind telling me what all I need to prove
@>before I begin? You have a nasty habit of applying "bully rules" to
@>your conversations. ie, changing the rules midway when you start losing.
@
@You have a nasty habit (you've done it here in this PC discussion of
@your lab's issues) of blaming a lot of things without having a shred
@of proof. I'm merely pointing out to you that you don't have that
@proof, so you really don't have any idea what's wrong or whether
@quotas/profiles are at fault (or would help).
You don't want me to prove it. OK.
@>@>@I haven't given contradictory information. I've given information
@>@>@that could apply in a variety of different scenarios, and you got
@>@>@confused.
@>@>
@>@> Yes, you gave a variety of scenarios. However, when you presented
@>@>them, you gave _no_ indication that they were different.
@>@
@>@Your lack of technical understanding clouds the issues.
@>
@> By "technical knowledge," do you mean "familiarity with windows," or
@>do you mean "ability to read my mind"? Perhaps there is another
@>definition I did not consider. Please, elaborate.
@
@Familiarity with Windows, NT/2k in this instance.
So, it's not really a lack of technical knowledge, as you stated, but
a lack of familiarity with windows. Calling me nontechnical implies
that I am incapable of understanding, whereas I merely lack knowledge.
That was rather dishonest of you. Now, we've established that I don't
really lack technical understanding, merely a lack of information, how,
exactly, would that explain how I got confused, without assuming that
you're a poor writer?
@>@>@>@>@>@>@>@Do you have any administrative experience at all?
@>@>@>@>@>@>@>
@>@>@>@>@>@>@> Yes.
@>@>@>@>@>@>@
@>@>@>@>@>@>@At what, exactly?
@>@>@>@>@>@>
@>@>@>@>@>@> My stuff. Net BSD on my IIci talking to my Quadra. Two
@>@>@>@>@>@> machines.
@>@>@>@>@>@>
@>@>@>@>@>@>Two users: root, and me.
@>@>@>@>@>@> Therefore, I have administrative experience.
@>@>@>@>@>@
@>@>@>@>@>@Not even close. You've set up a single BSD machine, something
@>@>@>@>@>@that
@>@>@>@>@>@typically takes about 30 minutes to a few hours and requires no
@>@>@>@>@>@or
@>@>@>@>@>@a
@>@>@>@>@>@very light technical skillset; administrative experience would
@>@>@>@>@>@be
@>@>@>@>@>@doing that for a job (say, during summertime) 40 hours a week,
@>@>@>@>@>@setting
@>@>@>@>@>@up 20 or 30 users a day and doing permissions, NFS, CIFS, YP,
@>@>@>@>@>@and
@>@>@>@>@>@other 'stuff' day in and day out.
@>@>@>@>@>@
@>@>@>@>@>@By that logic, one can be an administrator because he's set up
@>@>@>@>@>@OS
@>@>@>@>@>@X
@>@>@>@>@>@beta. That's silly.
@>@>@>@>@>
@>@>@>@>@> You asked: "Do you have any administrative experience at all?"
@>@>@>@>@>
@>@>@>@>@> I
@>@>@>@>@>said, "Yes." Did I lie? Nope, you just asked a bad question.
@>@>@>@>@>How
@>@>@>@>@>am
@>@>@>@>@>I
@>@>@>@>@>supposed to know you meant, "Do you have any administrative
@>@>@>@>@>experience
@>@>@>@>@>that I would consider impressive?"
@>@>@>@>@
@>@>@>@>@Don't be silly. By that logic anyone running Windows 95 is an
@>@>@>@>@account
@>@>@>@>@operator / administrator (because hey, you can have a "multi-user"
@>@>@>@>@(heh) Win95, too!)
@>@>@>@>
@>@>@>@> Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer....
@>@>@>@
@>@>@>@You were being stupid. The question was perfectly valid.
@>@>@>
@>@>@> The question: "Do you have any administrative experience at all?"
@>@>@> The answer: "Yes."
@>@>@> You didn't qualify it, but you meant to. Hence, it's a stupid
@>@>@>question.
@>@>@
@>@>@You were being stupid, juvenile, and a smartass. "Administrative
@>@>@experience" means administering systems, not setting up a single OS on
@>@>@an old machine with "Root and me" as two users.
@>@>
@>@> I stated quite clearly that it was talking to my quadra, ie.
@>@> network.
@>@>You should be more careful when you toss around "any." If anyone's
@>@>being stupid, it's the one who asked a very open-ended question, and
@>@>then got miffed with an answer. It's like asking for a car, and then
@>@>bitching that you got a pinto instead of a porche. Besides, if you're
@>@>going to play it that way, no matter what kind of experience I detail
@>@>to
@>@>you, you can just ask for more/refine you definition retroactively.
@>@>It's a trick alt.f/lamers like to pull. I actually have perfectly good
@>@>experience above and beyond what I stated, but I know it won't "measure
@>@>up" to your ever-changing definition of real experience. So, rather
@>@>than pring that up, and defend it, I'll stick with my two
@>@>machines/users
@>@>tale, and let you sit on it.
@>@
@>@Sorry; installing a single machine isn't administrative experience, no
@>@matter how you try to spin it.
@>
@> Reread the above. Try not to be (so) stupid.
@
@Spin...spin...spin.....
To think I wasted so much rational reasoning on you when I could have
just called you a dumbass in the first place. Such a shame.
@>@>@> You make far too many assumptions. I've been bugging the support
@>@>@>staff for the entire semester. Unfamiliar with windows' methods !=
@>@>@>lack
@>@>@>of technical knowledge. The issue long ago turned from broke machine
@>@>@>to
@>@>@>bugging you about your continual contradictions. Then, even when by
@>@>@>all
@>@>@>common sense, what windows is doing is stupid, you accuse me of not
@>@>@>understanding, yet you don't explain why, you accuse my support staff
@>@>@>of
@>@>@>being incompetent, then you turn around completely and accuse me of
@>@>@>assigning blame willy-nilly?
@>@>@> I don't mean to be rude, but you sure do seem to be an asshole.
@>@>@
@>@>@...because:
@>@>@A) You can't be bothered to try to go to someone to fix the problem
@>@>@(like, say, the dean of com-sci departments, for example)?
@>@>@or because
@>@>
@>@> Dean of CSCI has NOTHING to do with this, and has about as much
@>@> clout
@>@>as I do in this matter. Do you know how a university operates? The
@>@>university is divided into several schools, each of which is divided
@>@>into departments. The division of schools is a little fuzzy, but the
@>@>division of departments is clear. People in one department have
@>@>absolutely no power in another department--even in the same school.
@>@>Also, jumping straight to a dean, when my beef is with a lab, is a very
@>@>good way to get myself blackballed.
@>@> The first logical choice for me is to find who in the English
@>@>Department is in charge of the writing labs, then talk to her. If that
@>@>doesn't work, talk to the counselor for undergraduate english. Then
@>@>the
@>@>chair of the english department. Then the dean of the Arts/Sciences
@>@>school or the dean of the School of education. Then the Chairman of
@>@>the
@>@>university.
@>@> Along the way I'd mostly be talking to secretaries/paperwork/
@>@>complaint boxes/schedules. On the rare occasion I get to talk to an
@>@>actual person, they'll likely blow me off since I'm a) one student, b)
@>@>not a greek or athlete, c) already on-file with the english department.
@>@> As if that isn't enough, I have stated countless times that I have
@>@>complained repeatedly of my problem. Can't you read?
@>@
@>@Can't you help yourself? "Pathetic" is the term that comes to mind
@>@when presented with a person that just gives up, and then vents in
@>@here all of his frustrations.
@>
@> I have not. I'm going through the proper channels. The fact that
@>you are too dumb to realize this even after multiple explanations is not
@>my problem. Tell me, are you unable to read, or do you simply refuse?
@
@You're a whiner.
And you're a moron. Cope.
@>@I'm tired of telling you what's wrong;
@>@go find someone who works in the labs and tell him to help you. If
@>@you can't, tough cookies; that's not Microsoft's fault - it's yours,
@>@for giving up rather than getting help. If you want to attack me for
@>@suggesting you see the dean, more power to you, but you aren't any
@>@closer to solving the problem. Get off your ass and fix the problem.
@>
@> Your suggesting that I see the dean is one of your dumber comments in
@>this forum.
@
@Fine; see someone else who can help you. Obviously you've been
@powerless up to this point; you really ought to figure out how to do
@-something-.
Are you familiar with the practice of "stonewalling"? Basically, an
individual or group decides not to let someone do something, and it
(stonewalling) happens. UNT (or this portion of it) has decided not to
fix the problem or listen to me. Now, UNT is an institution with
milions of dollars and thousands of employees. I'm a student living
from paycheck to paycheck. Just what the fuck should I do? I've
explained why the dean is not an option.
@>@>@B) Everything we've said here is a guess based on the slim
@>@>@information you've been able to provide?
@>@>
@>@> If my information is so slim, why do you feel justified in using it
@>@>to accuse damn near everything of being incompetent just to defend
@>@>Windows, a stupid piece of software? Doesn't make much sense to me.
@>@
@>@If their lab doesn't work, the people responsible for it have
@>@problems. But then, every step of the way YOU have been the one to
@>@attack your administrators, so I'll let you defend that.
@>
@> No, I have merely agreed with you. I do not attack the lab people in
@>person because I know they are not responsible for the problem, and are
@>about as powerless as I am. Also, attacking them would only serve to
@>slow things down.
@
@They aren't responsible for the problems, and are as powerless as you?
@Pathetic. They're not as powerless as you. They can FIX the problem.
@You can't. Hence, they're considerably more useful than you in
@solving the problem.
Dumbass, they can't fix the problem. They can look up MY password,
they can fetch documents, and print. They don't have administrative
access. Therefore, they are as powerless as I am, unless I want to
fetch a printout.
@> YOU have attacked them, reread the thread if you disagree.
@
@Please, Bryant. Those of us actually following the thread know the
@truth:
@
@On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 09:53:44 -0500, Bryant Brandon
@<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@>@>@Call your desktop support staff.
@>@>
@>@> ...a bunch of monkies.
@__________
@
@I suggested you call them on the phone. You called them a bunch of
@'monkies' (sic). You are attacking them, not me.
Oh goody! The quote game!
========
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:10:53 -0500
@No, you're more than qualified to call your desktop support staff
@'shit'.
=========
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://people.unt.edu/~bdb0015
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 01:49:33 GMT
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
> >
> >
> > > But what should anyone expect from someone whose thoughts are so poorly
> > > formed that he writes illogical, nonsense sentences about club presidents
> > > who are also members?
> >
> > Never seen a "Hair Club For Men" commercial, eh?
> >
> > > > Meanwhile, I see you're still hypocritically contributing to off-topic
> > > > threads. No surprise there.
>
> No surprise that you make no sense. Is the "Hair Club for Men"
> commercial part of the additional information needed to figure out what
> your are attempting to say? If so, you should reference it to help
> those unfortunate few who are slogging their way through your posts.
> Based on your recent posts, there must be some other commercials needed,
> as well.
"You just... don't get it, do you? You don't."
"Why must I be surrounded by frickin idiots??"
-- Dr. Evil
> > > Unlike you, I have pointed out that the thread in question does not
> > > belong in the newsgroups in which it is being posted.
> >
> > ... which itself doesn't belong in this newsgroup.
>
> You point to my 2 or 3 posts in that thread on that subject as not
> belonging but you completely ignore the hundreds of similar posts made
> in the "Bush vs. Gore on Taxes" thread over the last few weeks.
> H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
Do you even know what the word means? Let's take a moment to re-acquaint
ourselves with the word's meaning before making a bigger fool of yourself...
hypocrite \Hyp"o*crite\, n. [F., fr. L. hypocrita, Gr. ? one who plays a part
on the stage, a dissembler, feigner. See Hypocrisy.]
One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of winning
approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns to be
other and better than he is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who
simulates virtue or piety.
Was I taking a part in the "Bush vs. Gore on Taxes" thread before you stepped
in? Furthermore, was I starting additional off-topic threads like you were
about Chris? In addition, was I accusing others of being off-topic, other
than my pointing to your hypocrisy? The hypocrite is you David.
> > Were you also pointing out that a thread doesn't belong when you said:
> > "Probably Wenham will be hugely impressed by the capabilities of this OS/2
> > software and will soon post here with his new enthusiasm. Heh, heh."
>
> Seems a valid comment to me about Wenham's perceived enthusiasm for OS/2
> software. This is the COOA newsgroup, after all. OS/2 is in the title.
And where does such a comment lead? Does it give way to cogent, on-topic
material? Or does it turn an otherwise informational thread into a flame
war? Isn't that what you claim you've been fighting against? Or is it ok for
you to do, but not ok for others?
> > Or how about when you started off the "Wenham Advice" thread?
>
> Seemed and seems a valid comment (to me, anyway) to make about someone
> who has exhibited a pattern of posting about OS/2 subjects in many
> different threads in hundreds of posts.
What seems to you is irrelevant.
> > You're a mime and a liar, not to mention a hypocrite.
>
> Mime? Liar? Am not! Am not!
Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > No surprise that understanding eludes you on this point.
> >
> > The lack of understanding is entirely your own, troll.
>
> Troll? Your post is riddled with name-calling but very few thoughts or
> comments and what there is is nearly incoherent.
How ironic, given that last statement.
> I am getting tired trying to extract some meaning from your heaps of
> words.
Sorry that your reading comprehension isn't up to par. I'll try to dumb it
down for you in the future.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 02:01:46 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Sensory perception exist in the physical realm. I would think you are
Only in the same sense that data structures exist in the physical realm.
Try to answer "do data structures exist?" and the more you actually think
about the question, the more it will blow your mind.
> yet know precisely *how* sensory perceptions work, in electromagentic
You don't know what you're talking about, and you don't know what I'm
talking about. Leave it at that.
> terms, but that they do exist and can be entirely and completely
> explained, in a non-metaphorical way, in the physical realm.
>
> What you were no doubt referring to was the fact that there is a
> philosophical gap between what can be empirically understood about
> physical processes and what is subjectively considered 'experience'.
No, that is not at all what I was referring to.
I'm not referring to any kind of conceptual gap.
Roberto claimed (implicitly) that there was a trivial mapping of visual
sensory perceptions to the EM spectrum. His conception of visual perception
was the equivalent of the data structure "ByteArray" to the physical realm.
In fact, there is no such mapping and the equivalent is more like that
between HashedDictionary and the physical realm.
There *is* a way to understand, say, 'red' in electromagnetic terms but
it's not *simple*. The function between the two is *anything* but simple
and so it doesn't make any sense to claim that 'red' exists physically
instead of as being imposed on the physical realm by something outside it.
It would be exactly like claiming that perceptual tricks (where your brain
interpolates stuff that doesn't exist, for example) exist visually.
It would be like saying that the property "the first light blinks unless
the second is on, then the third light blinks twice unless it's already
on in which case the 7th light ...." is a property of an array of 100 LEDs.
It may actually behave that way, but this property is not simple, coherent
and *self-contained* enough to be thought of as a property *of* the array;
it is clearly a property *imposed* on the array. Similarly, the "property"
of light that corresponds to 'red' cannot be thought of as a single
property *of* light; it's a property *imposed* on light by the human
sensory system.
> But then, a two hundred years ago, there was a philosophical gap between
> sensory perception and why the moon didn't fall out of the sky.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 02:08:03 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> The reason explanatory power is important is because only through
> empirical predictions can the truth of a hypothesis be tested. Science
> is empirical discovery, not a narrative.
You are *so* wrong. Einstein would never have agreed with what you said
and if you look at the thoeries cherished by the scientists who hold your
view, you'll find out that nobody likes them (and also that they are
nonsense, but one thing at a time).
Btw, saying "the reason for A is B" after someone says "the reason for B
is A" doesn't always make sense. In your case, my ordering of things made
perfect sense to me while I see your ordering as nonsense. In what way is
explanatory power necessary for predictive power, exactly?
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
