| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Comparative learning potentials of OSsComparative learning potentials of OSsPosted Feb 5, 2007 23:12 UTC (Mon) by grouch (guest, #27289)In reply to: Comparative learning potentials of OSs by copsewood Parent article: Comparing Linux and Minix
Wrong in name and purpose. It is "Gentoo" and the design goal is not as you state.
Next ...
Wrong name, purpose misstated. It's "Debian GNU/Linux" or "Debian", and while it may be "suited for [...] studying", that's not it's goal.
Next ...
If Microsoft Windows was truly designed for the purpose you state, they appear to have failed miserably. For example:
(Log in to post comments)
Comparative learning potentials of OSs Posted Feb 6, 2007 4:03 UTC (Tue) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] I think s/he meant ``designed for'' as a synonym, in this context, for ``is useful for learning about''. From that point of view, it makes perfect sense, and I second trutkin's comment about interest.S/he should have referred to Debian Gnu/Linux, however. :-)
Comparative learning potentials of OSs Posted Feb 6, 2007 8:22 UTC (Tue) by mingo (subscriber, #31122) [Link] Wrong name, purpose misstated. Frankly, who cares whether someone calls it Gentoo Linux or Linux Gentoo, Debian or "this Debian thingie i downloaded the other day"? You understood what he meant, didnt you? He didnt say Dumbian or Dumbuntu, right? So why did it take you two paragraphs to get to the point? Or is it your position that lingual and political indoctrination is a must-have before anyone is allowed to argue an intelligent point about Linux? Really, we've got to grow up and argue and think in a more mature way before we can even think of 'replacing' Windows with this supposedly 'free' Linux thing. (but which freedom, in your world, apparently does not extend to basic freedom of expression and apparently does not include even a basic level of tolerance.) I for example dont care whether anyone calls me a "kernel hacker", a "kernel developer", or a "kernal dev" - while i have preferences you are free to call me whatever way you desire, as long as it's in good faith, and i'll try understand you. I for one found the parent comment refreshingly unique and interesting - which is something that Linux needs. While i found your comment saddeningly boring and stereotipical - which is something that Linux is trying to break away from.
Oh get over yourself. Posted Feb 6, 2007 22:27 UTC (Tue) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Since when does posting a comment clarifying facts with references to original sources deprive someone of freedom of expression? So you found some comment "refreshingly unique and interesting." I'm happy for you but unless I missed the announcement that crowned you "Pope of Linux" that doesn't obligate anyone else to agree.
I respect your contributions as a kernel hacker/developer/dev/whatever but turning every disagreement into a tirade about about what "Linux" needs or is trying to break away from is the tactic of a two-bit bully and does not make you a credible steward of maturity.
Oh get over yourself. Posted Feb 7, 2007 16:57 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Whatever bullying you thought you saw in that was not evident to me, at least.
Bullying Posted Feb 7, 2007 17:27 UTC (Wed) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Exactly what do you make of mingo's comment then? Regardless of what you thought of copsewood's comment, statements like "we've got to grow up and argue and think in a more mature way", "i found your comment saddeningly boring and stereotipical" and "[this] is something that Linux is trying to break away from" go beyond disagreement by blaming the woes of an entire community on someone for the sin of presenting a few simple facts which are not even in dispute. Furthermore, his status as a kernel developer is not relevant unless the point is to wield it like a cudgel.
If this sort of thing isn't bullying, what is?
Bullying Posted Feb 8, 2007 12:38 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] Being criticised is not the same as being bullied. Take it from someone with experience of both.
The truth is that your comment *didn't* add value to the parent - if anything, it detracted from it. To me, it read as though you were frustrated that someone else had attracted praise and were seeking to cut them back down to size.
You didn't succeed, of course - but that kind of behaviour reveals a lot about your own self-image. So does describing the resultant criticism as "bullying".
Reading is fundamental Posted Feb 8, 2007 16:18 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] I am not the person who originally replied to copsewood at the top of this thread -- go back and check -- so your remarks are completely misdirected. I have not expressed any opinion about that orignal comment though since you brought it up I do feel that grouch's comment added value to the discussion.
Finally, I'm touched by your concern for the self image of... someone or other, but your failure to keep track of elementary details of the conversation reveals a great deal about you too.
Reading is fundamental Posted Feb 8, 2007 18:01 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] "your failure to keep track of elementary details of the conversation reveals a great deal about you too."
I was just thinking, "hey, this is a long thread and it doesn't really have any ad hominems." Thanks GreyWizard, I was getting worried!
Now that someone has called someone else a dumdum head, maybe it's time to plonk the whole thing?
No need to worry Posted Feb 8, 2007 18:25 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] The comment I replied to contained this: "but that kind of behaviour reveals a lot about your own self-image." That this personal attack is of exactly the same form as the one you objected to was not an accident. But it didn't start there. Earlier mingo contributed this: "Really, we've got to grow up and argue and think in a more mature way [...]"
I don't care whether you ignored these because they fit with your biases or whether you're just too stupid to have noticed at all. The question is, if you want to "plonk" the whole thread, why did you bother to add to it?
No need to worry Posted Feb 8, 2007 19:30 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Mingo was talking about the discussion, not the discussers. That's not an ad hominem. I missed the "lot about your self-image" insult, that was an honest mistake (it wasn't like I read the whole thing very closely). So, yes, I guess I'm too stupid. Glad you cleared that up!
I was hoping everyone could agree that this thread had run its course. But, since you're not done insulting people, I guess I'll sit back and watch you guys spiral off into slashdotland. I hope you find whatever it is you're looking for!
Spiraling off... Posted Feb 8, 2007 20:07 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] I don't understand how the phrase "we've got to grow up and argue and think in a more mature way" in that context could be anything other than a dig at the person making the "less mature" comment.
Meanwhile, do you expect anyone to believe your first comment was an attempt to broker some sort of amicable agreement? Please. You swaggered into this discussion unloading insults of your own and added fuel to the fire, so if we're spiraling off to "slashdotland" you deserve a share of the blame.
Reading is fundamental Posted Feb 8, 2007 19:02 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] "I am not the person who originally replied to copsewood at the top of this thread"
Ok; I retract the bits of my comment that don't apply to the equation of criticism and bullying.
I'll stand by the bits that do, because you *were* the person who did that. As someone who's suffered plenty of bullying in the past, I find your position offensive. (grouch's was merely annoying.)
"your failure to keep track of elementary details of the conversation reveals a great deal about you too"
Surely you must accept that by your own standards, you're now "bullying" me - and therefore a hypocrite to boot?
Spare me the sob story Posted Feb 8, 2007 20:20 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] No, I am not bullying you. I'm not a hypocrite either. I haven't been especially kind to you, but that's because refuse to show enough courtesy to read and understand what I write before responding. Take a break from sobbing about whatever kid used to steal your lunch money and consider this issue on the merits.
Regardless of whether you found grouch's comment annoying everything he said was true and no one has challenged that. Those facts contradict important parts of the argument copsewood was making. That doesn't make copsewood a bad person but pointing it out isn't censorship either. Yet mingo implies as much with "freedom, in your world, apparently does not extend to basic freedom of expression" and related comments.
He's not responding on the merits. He's throwing his weight around and suggesting that grouch is immature. He also sets himself up as an arbiter of what "Linux needs" and what "Linux is trying to break away from". This seems to me like an effort to push someone around rather than engage in honest intellectual argument.
According to my dictionary that's bullying. You are free to disagree, but until you demonstrate that you've made a reasonable effort to understand what I'm trying to say I really couldn't care less what you find offensive.
Thanks for proving me right. Posted Feb 9, 2007 0:30 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] What I'm hearing is:
* When mingo characterises grouch's pedantry as "immature" (an ungenerous thing to say, but a reasonable response to a childish mode of argument) that's bullying.
* When you tell me to "take a break from sobbing about..." (a directly offensive, belligerent thing to say) or begin your contribution with "Oh get over yourself" (again, directly offensive and belligerent) that's not particularly kind, but not bullying.
* Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that you believe that different rules of discourse apply to you than to mingo.
Since we're pulling out dictionaries, mine calls that hypocrisy.
As for "merits of the argument", you still need to specify exactly how grouch's points detract from copsewood's argument (your assertion, so support it).
Because to me, and presumably to mingo too, it looked like nothing more than a mindless pedantic reaction to hearing the wrong terminology. That'll be the "basic freedom of expression" mingo was talking about - what grouch was doing was rejecting any creative thought because it didn't accord with the names *as he recited them by rote*, an argument employed only by those whose understanding of concepts extends no deeper than repeating them parrot-fashion.
But anyway, you've proved my point; thanks. As for the issue of consideration, I'll go back to the self-esteem thing - you may want to consider why, if you think grouch is onto something, your nose is so out of joint because I confused you with him, something I've already admitted and retracted. I'd have thought you'd have been *flattered* to have been confused with someone who, by your own account, had something of substance to say - I can't believe even you think your contributions to this thread have been in any way helpful. (I'm under no illusion that my comments have been any more useful; I must confess to a weakness - if I see someone being a horse's arse, I have trouble keeping my mouth shut about it. But I'm done now.)
You can lead a horse to water... Posted Feb 9, 2007 16:08 UTC (Fri) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Can you truly not comprehend that it's possible to be belligerent or offensive without also bullying? For example, I have never accused you of bullying me despite the now rather long trail of insults you have directed at me (and people you thought were me). That should have been a hint. Your charge of hypocrisy rests entirely on yet another misunderstanding from your end. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to own up to that. While you did "retract" one lazy and painfully obvious error you were careful to be uncivil about it so you've earned no sympathy.
Back to the merits, it's clear that you need to read grouch's comment one more time. He does, as you say, point out that copsewood got the names of the Gentoo and Debian distributions wrong. Doing so is not childish, even if people like mingo and you don't happen to care about the facts. But he also points out that copsewood is mistaken about the purpose of those distributions. Read it and see! That is a substantive misunderstanding and clearing it up is helpful. Nothing grouch writes amounts to an attack or even a comment on copsewood's character -- unlike mingo's comments about maturity and your speculation about self image.
Let's talk about the rules of discourse for a moment, since you brougt it up. There seems to be no universally accepted standard, but I'll tell you how I see things. Making abstract comments, as copsewood did, is quite reasonable. As long as it's an honest effort there's no shame if the results are not insightful. Commenting favorably on another comment is reasonable too but offering factual corrections or even alternative points of view is well within bounds. What isn't fair game is responding to people who are playing by the rules with emotional rants and unprovoked attacks on character. Those who do that, as mingo and you have, must abandon any reasonable expectation of civility from responses. Don't dish it out if you can't take it in.
Time will tell if you keep your promise to crawl back into whatever hole you came from. I won't miss you if you do, but I want you to know that after rereading my comments on this thread I stand by everything I've said. Putting it in terms of horse's arses, I've lead this one as close to the water of reason as I can. Whether to take a drink is entirely up to you.
Bullying Posted Feb 8, 2007 16:31 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Exactly. mingo was flaming needless pedantry. Flames != bullying unless they resort to nasty ad hominems INMSHO. mingo didn't even call grouch a poopy-head. :)
Comparative learning potentials of OSs Posted Feb 7, 2007 16:55 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Who cares? Well, his username *is* given as `grouch'. His being grouchy is entirely to be expected :)
|
|
||||||||||||