[PLUG] It's free as in air and speech, not free as in beer.

[Russ Johnson]

At 04:28 PM 8/21/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Russ Johnson <russj at dimstar.net> writes:
>
> > At 11:33 PM 8/20/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>                                ^^^^^^^^^
>
>Who wrote?  After it gets requoted, the original attribution is lost.
>(how convenient)

Well, if it was configurable, I'd change it. It's not, so get over it. How 
I choose to configure my software and what I run is up to me. You don't 
have to like it.

> > >Russ Johnson <russj at dimstar.net> writes:
> > >Ok, so what's the word for someone who trounces on and attempts to
> > >stiffle and repress anything regarding anything not deemed politically
> > >correct or in keeping with their corporate image or business plan?
> >
> > Um, Human Resources Director? :)
>
>"Very funny" (charmed, I'm sure), and very in character.  I guess if
>you don't want to hire someone you don't have to.  By the same token,
>I don't have to work for someone I don't want to work for.  Or pay
>tuition somewhere I don't want to be a student.

Chill out. I didn't understand why this was in there in the first place 
(still don't) and now you seem to be jumping off the deep end.

> > I realize that. But I thought it was generally recognized that
> > confusing the already flustered newbie folks with answers that won't
> > work in their environment was detrimental to the proliferation of
> > Linux in general. As a former On-line Tech. Support Engineer, I am
> > sensitive to how folks perceive the help they get on-line.
>
>So you subscribe to the "philosophy" that the user is a moron who must
>be given only the bare minimum amount of information and given that in
>simple words, and that they are easily confused due to poor reading
>skills?

No, but until someone proves they are more capable, a simple answer is 
usually the lowest common denominator. I gave the folks who knew what they 
were doing more technical answers, but it's even MORE of a turn off if the 
users come back saying, "Huh? What's that mean?"


>  That all of the users are "non technical"?  Perhaps it takes
>one to know one?  I think that this so called "philosophy" is one of
>the most detrimental barriers to entry that exists in the computer
>industry.  It is insulting.

Obviously, you don't work with folks just starting out in the technical 
fields. I do. Insulting me won't work. I know what I can do, and you trying 
to figure it out through my techniques is laughable to say the least.

Everyone starts out a newbie. Trying to explain to a newbie how to do a 
technical thing, in the most technical terms will confuse them.

>It's better to expose them to new things and to teach them to write
>their own homework assignments and how to follow through and find
>answers for themselves.  Then the task for the experts is to document
>everything sufficiently and make that documentation available.

And in a language that they can understand. Documentation that's 
indecipherable is useless documentation.

>The thing is, that in the real world, they will always encounter "non
>standard" configurations and setups (like Red Hat's).  They must learn
>to adapt, and to do so from the beginning.  The other thing is that
>just because you use Red Hat and that you buy into the marketting BS
>about how "Red Hat is synonomous with Linux" doesn't mean that
>everyone else buys that advertising claim or that everyone else uses
>your favorite brand of Linux.

Now you are attributing things to me that I have not said, do not believe, 
and are false. Yes I use Redhat. Mostly because that's the distro I'm most 
familiar with, and changing just isn't that important to me. It does what I 
want, and works well.

Did I pay for it? Nope. I downloaded the isos, and burned 'em myself.

>You cannot PROVE that Red Hat is the most popular distro or that there
>are more copies of it installed.

[much diatribe deleted]

Where did this come from? It's not even germane to the conversation. In 
fact, I said, in a previous message, "There's no advantage (IMNSHO) between 
Debian, Redhat, SuSE, Turbo, etc."

I did say that *I* prefer Redhat. That is purely MY preference, due to MY 
experience, and MY familiarity with what's out there. If I need to, I can 
use just about any distro out there. My choice of Redhat has nothing to do 
with anyones motives or anything like that.

> > >You sound like such an arrogant snob off.
> >
> > I'm sorry it came across that way.
>
>You're sorry you got caught?

Is your perception the only one that's right? Is it just possible that you 
misperceived my intent? You claim I "sound like" something, I apologize for 
sounding that way (granted, I only implied that it wasn't my intention) and 
you fire back with another barb.

> > You know, this isn't about debian vs. (distro of choice). It's about
> > answering a question correctly, so the poor guy can use his
> > computer. If he's already got RedHat on his system, and wants to keep
> > it, an answer specific to any other distro isn't going to help.
>
>But my answers are technically correct!  And the poor guy is using
>Debian rather than spending grocery money on Red Hat CD's.  Rich man
>goes to college, poor man goes to work.

Who spends money on RH cds? Only folks that don't know you can get them the 
same way you get debian cds. The only distro's that I know of that don't 
allow you to download the actual ISO they ship is SuSE and TurboLinux. 
There may be others, but those are the ones I've run into.

> > >Mighty white of you to have at least once considered my point of
> > >view.
> >
> > And I have the right to disagree with you. Right, wrong or
> > indifferent.
>
>Yes, of course.  We'll duke it out in the alley behind the bar later.

Why?


Russ Johnson
http://www.dimstar.net


This isn't my tagline! Who put it here?