As easy as pie: problem -> Solution
Attila
Google Earth 5.1.3506.3999 (beta). I clicked on my usual Google-Earth item
on my menu and .... nothing! So I ran it on the command line. (Linux-haters
cross yourselves ;) ) and got this:
$ /opt/google-earth/googleearth
./googleearth-bin: ./libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not found
(required by ./libgoogleearth_lib.so)
So I googled (actually I use ask.com but it's hard to make a verb from that
-- "I asked" would be confusing and "I ask.commed" sounds silly)
google earth GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not found and found this:
"Remove or rename libstdc++.so.6 and libgcc_s.so.1 in the installation
directory"
I tried running google earth from the command line again and got this:
$ ./googleearth
./googleearth-bin: ./libgcc_s.so.1: version `GCC_4.2.0' not found (required
by /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6)
I renamed libgcc_s.so.1 and ran it again and got ...ta da! google earth.
Moral: Linux is *not* perfect. There are problems, and there are solutions.
That's as hard as it gets. Does anyone seriously believe this is beyond the
average user??? And I'm even a grandfather! ;)
Attila, The Freetard from Hell
Terry Porter
> I hadn't updated Google-earth since may so I downloaded and installed
> Google Earth 5.1.3506.3999 (beta). I clicked on my usual Google-Earth
> item on my menu and .... nothing! So I ran it on the command line.
> (Linux-haters cross yourselves ;) ) and got this:
> $ /opt/google-earth/googleearth
> ./googleearth-bin: ./libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not found
> (required by ./libgoogleearth_lib.so) So I googled (actually I use
> ask.com but it's hard to make a verb from that -- "I asked" would be
> confusing and "I ask.commed" sounds silly) google earth GLIBCXX_3.4.9'
> not found and found this: "Remove or rename libstdc++.so.6 and
> libgcc_s.so.1 in the installation directory"
> I tried running google earth from the command line again and got this: $
> ./googleearth
> ./googleearth-bin: ./libgcc_s.so.1: version `GCC_4.2.0' not found
> (required by /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6)
>
> I renamed libgcc_s.so.1 and ran it again and got ...ta da! google earth.
>
> Moral: Linux is *not* perfect.
As Google Earth is a proprietary application, it's hardly the fault of
Linux for not having the library GE needs?
If GE were Free Software, your package manager would install it for you
when requested on most Linux distros.
> There are problems, and there are
> solutions. That's as hard as it gets. Does anyone seriously believe this
> is beyond the average user???
It's certainly beyond the average troll here.
> And I'm even a grandfather! ;)
Aren't we all ? :)
> Attila, The
> Freetard from Hell
--
C.O.L.A Charter:-
"For discussion of the benefits of GNU/Linux compared to other
operating systems."
Gregory Shearman
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:03:07 +0200, Attila wrote:
>
>> I hadn't updated Google-earth since may so I downloaded and installed
>> Google Earth 5.1.3506.3999 (beta). I clicked on my usual Google-Earth
>> item on my menu and .... nothing! So I ran it on the command line.
>> (Linux-haters cross yourselves ;) ) and got this:
>> $ /opt/google-earth/googleearth
>> ./googleearth-bin: ./libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not found
>> (required by ./libgoogleearth_lib.so) So I googled (actually I use
>> ask.com but it's hard to make a verb from that -- "I asked" would be
>> confusing and "I ask.commed" sounds silly) google earth GLIBCXX_3.4.9'
>> not found and found this: "Remove or rename libstdc++.so.6 and
>> libgcc_s.so.1 in the installation directory"
>> I tried running google earth from the command line again and got this: $
>> ./googleearth
>> ./googleearth-bin: ./libgcc_s.so.1: version `GCC_4.2.0' not found
>> (required by /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6)
>>
>> I renamed libgcc_s.so.1 and ran it again and got ...ta da! google earth.
>>
>> Moral: Linux is *not* perfect.
>
> As Google Earth is a proprietary application, it's hardly the fault of
> Linux for not having the library GE needs?
>
> If GE were Free Software, your package manager would install it for you
> when requested on most Linux distros.
Gentoo installs it. There's no bullshit renaming of libraries either.
>> There are problems, and there are
>> solutions. That's as hard as it gets. Does anyone seriously believe this
>> is beyond the average user???
>
> It's certainly beyond the average troll here.
>
>> And I'm even a grandfather! ;)
>
> Aren't we all ? :)
Nope.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Clogwog
news:h94r4j$uhb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
You might ask Richard Rasker's elderly, computer illiterate, couple to
install Google Earth 5.1.3506.3999 (beta) and see if that is beyond their
skills?
<aside>
Windows: double click > lean back > running, done!
> And I'm even a grandfather! ;)
Good for you that you can solve these install issues, there are many, your
not an "average user".
Average users dump Linux on the first day they try it!
Attila
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:03:07 +0200, Attila wrote:
>
>> I hadn't updated Google-earth since may so I downloaded and installed
>> Google Earth 5.1.3506.3999 (beta). I clicked on my usual Google-Earth
>> item on my menu and .... nothing! So I ran it on the command line.
>> (Linux-haters cross yourselves ;) ) and got this:
>> $ /opt/google-earth/googleearth
>> ./googleearth-bin: ./libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not found
>> (required by ./libgoogleearth_lib.so) So I googled (actually I use
>> ask.com but it's hard to make a verb from that -- "I asked" would be
>> confusing and "I ask.commed" sounds silly) google earth GLIBCXX_3.4.9'
>> not found and found this: "Remove or rename libstdc++.so.6 and
>> libgcc_s.so.1 in the installation directory"
>> I tried running google earth from the command line again and got this: $
>> ./googleearth
>> ./googleearth-bin: ./libgcc_s.so.1: version `GCC_4.2.0' not found
>> (required by /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6)
>>
>> I renamed libgcc_s.so.1 and ran it again and got ...ta da! google earth.
>>
>> Moral: Linux is *not* perfect.
>
> As Google Earth is a proprietary application, it's hardly the fault of
> Linux for not having the library GE needs?
You misunderstood me. It wasn't that my version of Linux (Debian Squeeze)
didn't have the libraries. It did have them. It was Google's versions of
those libraries that were out of synch with my system.
>
> If GE were Free Software, your package manager would install it for you
> when requested on most Linux distros.
I'm fully aware of what the package manager will do. For the bulk of my
software I use wajig but I compile some programs myself and grab other
programs from their respective websites. I am not criticising or
complaining. I use Debian testing and when you do you sign an agreement
about not complaining if things don't work out of the box. ;)
>
>> There are problems, and there are
>> solutions. That's as hard as it gets. Does anyone seriously believe this
>> is beyond the average user???
>
> It's certainly beyond the average troll here.
>
>> And I'm even a grandfather! ;)
>
> Aren't we all ? :)
>
Thankfully no. We'd lose all bragging rights.
Attila
<snip>
>>>
>>> I renamed libgcc_s.so.1 and ran it again and got ...ta da! google earth.
>>>
>>> Moral: Linux is *not* perfect.
>>
>> If GE were Free Software, your package manager would install it for you
>> when requested on most Linux distros.
>
> Gentoo installs it. There's no bullshit renaming of libraries either.
I'm sure it does. This is the first time I had to mess with the libraries
that Google included with its installation but it is a beta version. I can
only go by a friend of mine who runs Gentoo but in general his versions
(that may be *him* and nothing to do with Gentoo), run behind mine. The
issue with Google Earth weren't that my libraries were too old but more
recent than those included with Google Earth. I repeat the solution was to
get rid of the *Google* libraries. I didn't touch anything on my own
/usr/lib system.
>>> There are problems, and there are
>>> solutions. That's as hard as it gets. Does anyone seriously believe this
>>> is beyond the average user???
>>
>> It's certainly beyond the average troll here.
>>
>>> And I'm even a grandfather! ;)
>>
>> Aren't we all ? :)
>
> Nope.
>
That's good news! ;)
Richard Rasker
The procedure for Mandriva 2008.1:
1. Fire up package manager
2. Enter root password
3. Select "googleearth"
4. Click "Apply"
5. Confirm installation
6. Wait a few minutes ... done.
> <aside>
> Windows: double click > lean back > running, done!
It's a little more complicated than that:
1. Find installer (Google for "Google earth") -> go to earth.google.com
2. Click "Download Google Earth"
3. Click "Agree and Download"
4. Click "Save File"
5. Double click googleupdatesetup.exe
6. (security warning pops up) Click Execute
7. Wait a few minutes ... done.
Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl
Terry Porter
<snip>
>> If GE were Free Software, your package manager would install it for you
>> when requested on most Linux distros.
> I'm fully aware of what the package manager will do. For the bulk of my
> software I use wajig but I compile some programs myself and grab other
> programs from their respective websites. I am not criticising or
> complaining. I use Debian testing and when you do you sign an agreement
> about not complaining if things don't work out of the box. ;)
I signed one! .... you're saying you didn't ???
<snip>
Attila
<snip>
> You might ask Richard Rasker's elderly, computer illiterate, couple to
> install Google Earth 5.1.3506.3999 (beta) and see if that is beyond their
> skills?
I included the version number for the record and convenience of those who
wish to compare their experience with mine. You go through the entire
installation procedure without being told what version is being installed.
Once I had this version up and running I found out by clicking on the Help
menu and then selecting about. The installation script is called
"GoogleEarthLinux.bin". I grabbed the file from the Google Earth site. That
was my choice. No one forced me to do it.
> <aside>
> Windows: double click > lean back > running, done!
I guess the Windows users would click on the Help menu item "Check for
Updates Online". So would the Linux users who weren't interesting in getting
(what turned out to be) a beta version. They would simply get the little
window informing them that "No updates available at this time". I guess
Google (wisely, in my view) doesn't let you update to a beta version in this
way. So much for an alleged advantage of Windows but you're right: "Windows:
double click > lean back" > and enjoy your viruses, root kits and other
amusements and no beta version. ;)
>> And I'm even a grandfather! ;)
>
> Good for you that you can solve these install issues, there are many, your
> not an "average user".
> Average users dump Linux on the first day they try it!
You are insulting the human race. Average no! Thick, dim, not too bright,
challenged, yes indeed. ;)
Attila
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:01:38 +0200, Attila wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>> If GE were Free Software, your package manager would install it for you
>>> when requested on most Linux distros.
>> I'm fully aware of what the package manager will do. For the bulk of my
>> software I use wajig but I compile some programs myself and grab other
>> programs from their respective websites. I am not criticising or
>> complaining. I use Debian testing and when you do you sign an agreement
>> about not complaining if things don't work out of the box. ;)
>
> I signed one! .... you're saying you didn't ???
>
> <snip>
>
Of course I did. If you read the Debian-Testing EULA it says that recounting
true-life experiences with happy and quick ending is permitted. ;)
Attila
Let me say this again. I was installing a beta version. Otherwise you just
click on the Update item in the help menu, just like for FFx, OOo, TBird,
etc. No big deal. Firefox, in fact, just does it. Every now and then I get a
little pop-up from FFx saying that an update has been installed and click if
I want to restart FFx. I can choose to do so or wait for a more convenient
time. The next time I start up FFx the later version is running. It don't
get much easier than that. ;)
>> <aside>
>> Windows: double click > lean back > running, done!
>
> It's a little more complicated than that:
> 1. Find installer (Google for "Google earth") -> go to earth.google.com
> 2. Click "Download Google Earth"
> 3. Click "Agree and Download"
> 4. Click "Save File"
> 5. Double click googleupdatesetup.exe
> 6. (security warning pops up) Click Execute
> 7. Wait a few minutes ... done.
>
>
> Richard Rasker
Attila, The Freetard from HELL
Clogwog
news:4ab61b87$0$726$7ade...@textreader.nntp.internl.net...
Never heard of Google updater, now do you?
"a Windows service called Google Updater"
Sorry, no Linux version for this 1% desktop (lusers) OS!
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/12/google-updater-service.html
As I said, you don't know shit about windows!
Go now and cook up another story about one of your 150 linux installs!
High Plains Thumper
> Clogwog wrote:
>>
>>> I renamed libgcc_s.so.1 and ran it again and got ...ta da!
>>> google earth.
>>>
>>> Moral: Linux is *not* perfect. There are problems, and
>>> there are solutions. That's as hard as it gets. Does
>>> anyone seriously believe this is beyond the average
>>> user???
>>
>> You might ask Richard Rasker's elderly, computer illiterate,
>> couple to install Google Earth 5.1.3506.3999 (beta) and see
>> if that is beyond their skills?
>
> The procedure for Mandriva 2008.1:
> 1. Fire up package manager
> 2. Enter root password
> 3. Select "googleearth"
> 4. Click "Apply"
> 5. Confirm installation
> 6. Wait a few minutes ... done.
Same with Ubuntu's Synaptic Package Manager.
>> <aside> Windows: double click > lean back > running, done!
>
> It's a little more complicated than that:
> 1. Find installer (Google for "Google earth") -> go to
> earth.google.com
> 2. Click "Download Google Earth"
> 3. Click "Agree and Download"
> 4. Click "Save File"
> 5. Double click googleupdatesetup.exe
> 6. (security warning pops up) Click Execute
> 7. Wait a few minutes ... done.
Not everyone feels comfortable installing Windows applications.
The nice thing with Linux package managers is that it is one
place to go to. One can add package sources easily. When it
comes to patches and upgrades, it also manages those nicely. It
also doesn't clutter up resources with individual updaters
running in the background like Windows, because Windows lacks
package management.
--
HPT
bbgruff
> And I'm even a grandfather! ;)
I am absolutely delighted to hear that, and even hope that now or in the
future you will be able to add "several times over" :-)
By contrast, there are some "contributers" to this group from whom I would
be rather less delighted to hear similar!
Moshe Goldfarb
> As Google Earth is a proprietary application, it's hardly the fault of
> Linux for not having the library GE needs?
Here come the excuses.
Linux advocacy is all about making excuses and the Linux
community has about 500+ different ones.
They call them "distributions".
Attila
> Attila wrote:
>
>> And I'm even a grandfather! ;)
>
> I am absolutely delighted to hear that, and even hope that now or in the
> future you will be able to add "several times over" :-)
Thanks, BB, so do I, but as you know it's not up to me. ;)
Attila, The Freetard from Hell
Attila
Sorry? What excuses? It works. It's beta and it's mine. So why do I need
excuses? ;)
Hadron
And he doesn't have a problem running the proprietary solutions he needs
under Wine/VM I note.
Ezekiel
"Attila" <jdka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h94r4j$uhb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
For starters congrats (or condolences) on the grandfather bit - your
choice.
I am 100% certain that this is beyond the ability of the "average" users.
#1) The "average" user would never think to run this from the command line.
#2) Assuming that #1 magically happened the "average" user would have no
idea what libstdc++.so.6 is, no idea what GLIBCXX_3.4.9 is and no idea what
libgoogleearth_lib.so is. They don't know if these are files, websites,
codecs, computer hardware, whatever:
./googleearth-bin: ./libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not found
(required by ./libgoogleearth_lib.so)
#3) They would have no chance at all of renaming libgcc_s.so because they
would have no idea what that is or where to find it.
No... it's not going to happen to the "average" user. But like being a
grandfather... congrats because you're an "advanced" user!!!!!
William Poaster
trolls, Attila was heard to say:
You don't. Obviously the idiot troll doesn't know what 'beta' means. Or if
he does, he's just making himself look stupid, as usual.
Attila
<snip>
> For starters congrats (or condolences) on the grandfather bit - your
> choice.
the grandfather bit for a couple of years now so it's not that recent.
> I am 100% certain that this is beyond the ability of the "average" users.
>
no trouble with that.
Isn't this like saying, in a different context, "the average driver wouldn't
know what to to with the clutch pedal." I don't know what percent of drivers
around the world drive cars with automatic transmission. In Europe it's
quite rare but does exist. Maybe in other places it's more common. Now let's
say an average driver having always driven an automatic decides to buy a car
with standard transmission (a wise choice in my view). There will be some
preparation involved. If this driver starts the engine shifts into first and
doesn't step on the accelerator the car will stall, right? The reaction is
not, "this is crapware, it's broken, it doesn't work". Presumably the new
driver who possesses a modicum of common sense will have taken the trouble
(and not much trouble at that) to learn the ins and outs of driving a car
with standard transmission. No one would think there was anything
extraordinary about doing that. Just plain common sense. When I moved from
using an IBM 360-65 to using a DEC 10, there was a learning process
involved. No big deal. I learned what I needed to know. It was neither
particularly difficult nor time consuming. If your average user is a dolt,
then many of life's experiences will prove ... uh ... challenging. I don't
think this is a fair representation of the "average user". It's more about
expectations than about ability.
> 2) Assuming that #1 magically happened the "average" user would
> idea what libstdc++.so.6 is, no idea what GLIBCXX_3.4.9 is and no idea
> what libgoogleearth_lib.so is. They don't know if these are files,
> websites, codecs, computer hardware, whatever:
>
> ./googleearth-bin: ./libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not
> found (required by ./libgoogleearth_lib.so)
>
need to know in order to solve my problem. You don't need to know what it
means in order to google it; copy and pasting does the job. I guessed it
might have been an environment variable or compilation flag (wild guesses
and possibly totally wrong) and I know what libc is.
> #3) They would have no chance at all of renaming libgcc_s.so because they
> would have no idea what that is or where to find it.
>
system and (b) rename it.
>
> No... it's not going to happen to the "average" user. But like being a
> grandfather... congrats because you're an "advanced" user!!!!!
only Debian. ;)
Ezekiel
You are either delusional or fooling yourself if you think that the
"average" computer user would be able to do the steps that you did in order
to make Google Earth run on your machine.
It just ain't going to happen - ever. If you wrote down these *exact* steps
that you just listed, gave them to an "average" user they would still have
less than a 5% chance of getting it right. What I mean by this is that your
instructions are far to vague for the "average" user to follow.
At a previous job I've observed some "user usability" sessions where we
brought in "average" users (friends of employees who use computers but
don't work in the IT industry). We had these people do simple things like
open documents, search for files, etc. Things that most people in COLA
would consider to be absolutely trivial. The "average" computer user is
much less computer savvy than you give them credit for.
Since you have grandkids you're probably married. Break (aka - "undo") the
changes you made to get Google Earth running and put your wife in front of
the computer. Tell her that Google Earth doesn't work and have her fix it
the way you did. Good luck with that.
7
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
Of course. Thats why the vast majority of the population know
how to use a mobile phone unlike you.
There are so many designtards out there that just don't get design.
Almost everyone I know uses a mobile phone and yet designtards
forget that and remove useful buttons and commands from products
and manuals because they place the average user below the ability to use
mobile phones. A common symptom of this designtard failure
is seen when products are released - everyone asks for more features!
If they had put in those features in the first place,
may be more customers would buy it and post fewer criticism!!
> #1) The "average" user would never think to run this from the command
> #line. 2) Assuming that #1 magically happened the "average" user would
> #have no
Snit
9:06 AM:
>> You are insulting the human race. Average no! Thick, dim, not too bright,
>> challenged, yes indeed. ;)
>
> You are either delusional or fooling yourself if you think that the
> "average" computer user would be able to do the steps that you did in order
> to make Google Earth run on your machine.
>
> It just ain't going to happen - ever. If you wrote down these *exact* steps
> that you just listed, gave them to an "average" user they would still have
> less than a 5% chance of getting it right. What I mean by this is that your
> instructions are far to vague for the "average" user to follow.
>
> At a previous job I've observed some "user usability" sessions where we
> brought in "average" users (friends of employees who use computers but
> don't work in the IT industry). We had these people do simple things like
> open documents, search for files, etc. Things that most people in COLA
> would consider to be absolutely trivial. The "average" computer user is
> much less computer savvy than you give them credit for.
Many techies just do not get this. Many people who are good in their own
niche do not understand why others are not.
> Since you have grandkids you're probably married. Break (aka - "undo") the
> changes you made to get Google Earth running and put your wife in front of
> the computer. Tell her that Google Earth doesn't work and have her fix it
> the way you did. Good luck with that.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
But you do eh?
How is that giant solar bird coming along? You know. The one made out of
the nanobots that you "designed"?
Attila
> You are either delusional or fooling yourself if you think that the
> "average" computer user would be able to do the steps that you did in
> order to make Google Earth run on your machine.
See my other posting (if you're interested) where I attempt to answer this
claim. I used the example of someone learning to drive a standard
transmission having only driven automatic before. You may buy this analogy
or you may not. It makes sense to me. I admit having opinions that are
rarely shared by the majority which could be a sign of fooling myself or
being delusional but what the hell. ;) I'm still alive, happy and healthy
after all these years so it seems a reasonable strategy.
> It just ain't going to happen - ever. If you wrote down these *exact*
> steps that you just listed, gave them to an "average" user they would
> still have less than a 5% chance of getting it right. What I mean by this
> is that your instructions are far to vague for the "average" user to
> follow.
In fairness, Ez, that is not how I write down instructions for use by a
novice. I may be delusional at times but I'm not that think. You will agree,
I hope, that COLA is not made of novices.
>
> At a previous job I've observed some "user usability" sessions where we
> brought in "average" users (friends of employees who use computers but
> don't work in the IT industry). We had these people do simple things like
> open documents, search for files, etc. Things that most people in COLA
> would consider to be absolutely trivial. The "average" computer user is
> much less computer savvy than you give them credit for.
I posted an experience I had about friends of mine who own a computer shop
with a dozen or so machines for internet use by the public. Two of the
machines have been running Linux for almost a year and they haven't
encountered any problems with letting the public loose on them. People come
in, do what they need to do, pay, and leave. That seems a fair-enough test
to me. Am I wrong?
>
> Since you have grandkids you're probably married.
Been there, done that. I have a GF now but really it's the same.
> Break (aka - "undo") the
> changes you made to get Google Earth running and put your wife in front of
> the computer. Tell her that Google Earth doesn't work and have her fix it
> the way you did. Good luck with that.
Ez, I really appreciate the courteous and reasonable way you have expressed
your opinion. I hope I have matched the tone you have set. Therefore out of
sincere regard for your personal safety, I will not show this message to my
GF, who, as I type these words is sitting nearby working on something with
her Acer 5315 running a Debian Squeeze/Sid blend which is closer to Sid than
to Sqeeze and far more adventurous than my system. She would probably rip
your ... well I don't want to get gory here but you really really really
picked the wrong example. She is smart as a whip and cutting as one too when
provoked. She knows how to find the information she needs. She understand
the web is a useful tool when used properly and she uses it properly. She is
no expert, nor am I, but she either knows how to fix stuff when it breaks or
if not, she knows how to find out how it's done. She is absolutely no "lady"
but she is all woman. ;) I am a very lucky man. :)
Bob Hauck
> You are either delusional or fooling yourself if you think that the
> "average" computer user would be able to do the steps that you did in
> order to make Google Earth run on your machine.
To hear the Windows Advocates tell it, these average users are dumber
than a box of hammers. They are apparently unable to ask a friend or
use Google when things don't work. And typing a command is just way
beyond them.
I wonder what they do when Windows misbehaves? I guess they must just
go on down to Wal-Mart and buy a new computer.
Hard to imagine, but it must be true if Zeke says so.
--
-| Bob Hauck (Brother Nail Gun of The Short Path)
-| http://www.haucks.org/
7
You are too stupid and too drugged up to write anything meaningful.
Take a wash.
Give up being a Micoshaft Corporation employee; you are with Linux friends
now.
Delete windump OS, give up asstroturfing for Micoshaft Corporation,
install Linux and share the power of free Linux in your computer
that millions already enjoy.
Following are excerpts from the official FAQ, entire text is found at:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
********************************************************
[comp.os.linux.advocacy] FAQ and Primer for COLA, Edition III
Copyright: (c) 2002 The FAQ and Primer for COLA Team -- All Rights Reserved
Frequently Asked Questions and Primer for comp.os.linux.advocacy
Edition III
April 19, 2002
+-------------------------------------------------+
| Beware of those who would call you a friend for |
| many will eat your bread while working against |
| you. They will take credit for your good works |
| and blame you for their own misdeeds. |
| - TheGreat Unknown |
+-------------------------------------------------+
(OFFICIAL FAQ CONTINUED)
7 Anti-Linux Propagandists and Trolls
The comp.os.linux.advocacy newsgroup is a newsgroup that is under siege by
one or more factions of anti-Linux propagandists. In the past those
factions have appeared to be confident and smug; however, as of late it
appears that they are becoming ever more desperate. The reason for their
desperation appears to be as a result of growth of the mind share of Linux
and the continuing failures of their chosen cause. Besides the true
anti-Linux propagandists there are also the occasional classic newsgroup
troll.
It can be difficult to determine what type of person a particular
disruptive personality is; an anti-Linux Propagandist or just a troll.
That is because they both use some of the same tactic. What it not
difficult to determine is what their purpose is when they post to COLA.
They are doing it to disrupt the newsgroup and sidetrack its purpose of
existence. Regardless of their reason for the disruption, they are trying
to prevent: the free exchange of knowledge and support based on experience
of using Linux that would otherwise be happening in COLA, if it were not
for their interference.
The free and open discussions between the experienced users and the new
users and the would be users of Linux that is our goal. That is the goal
of all those who would be Linux advocates as well as all others who come
to COLA to discuss Linux. All of us, Linux users new and old, those
curious about Linux, and others, have come to COLA as students and as
teachers. All that is except for the anti-Linux propagandists and the
trolls, they have come to COLA to destroy it and prevent its being an
asset to the Linux community.
As has been stated else where in this document, all are welcome in COLA,
except those who come to COLA to destroy Linux, COLA, or the Linux
Community.
7.1 Disinformation
If COLA were a physical location like a building where those who would
advocate the growth of the Linux operating systems and the Linux community
gather, the anti-Linux propagandists would be raiding that building. They
would be vandalizing the building, painting graffiti on the walls,
defecating and urinating on the floors and furniture, breaking down the
doors, setting fire to the building and physically assaulting the resident
Linux advocates and the visitors who happen to be in the building at the
time of the raid.
COLA is not a physical location, so they have had to adapt their methods
so that they can do an on-line version of what was described in the prior
paragraph. A key method used by anti-Linux propagandist to attack Linux,
its users, sysadmins, developers, advocates and those who have come to
COLA to lean about Linux. is a form of propaganda known as disinformation.
One of their favorite version of disinformation is known as FUD.
7.3 A Common FUD of the Anti-Linux Propagandists
An example of dishonesty of the anti-Linux propagandists is their common
claim that the Linux proponents in COLA oppose the use of any other
operating system. They also would have you believe that the Linux
proponents in COLA oppose everyone who does not use Linux all the time.
Those are some of the lies that they use to try to discredit Linux users
who post in COLA.
The truth is that a user of one or more operating systems other than Linux
are not opposed in COLA for that reason alone. Many of the Linux Advocates
in COLA have experience on many other operating systems besides Linux.
Many do use multiple operating systems on a regular basis. It is due to
this experience that any disinformation regarding the capabilities of
Linux, or that of other operating systems are easily detected by the Linux
advocates.
It is not difficult to tell the difference between an anti-Linux
Propagandist and a true advocates of another operating system. Occasional
mention of other operating systems is fine. However, it is the frequent or
continuous promotion of other operating systems that turns a welcome
poster into an unwelcome troll or anti-Linux propagandist.
7.6 Trespasser Disinformation Tactics
This is a list of the disinformation tactics that the that the anti-Linux
propagandists who post in COLA have been using. All of these tactics have
been used in COLA by the anti-Linux propagandists against the Linux
advocates and the rest of the COLA readership to further the cause of the
anti-Linux propagandists. This list has been worded as though you are one
of them, so that you can better see through their eyes how they think.
[1.] Act offended or claim that opposing viewpoints are incredible and/or
unbelievable. When you are unable to valid argument to refute a Linux
advocate, use empty statements such as:
* "OH PULEEEZE!"
* "Only a Linonut would say that"
* "And they wonder why no one takes Linux seriously!"
* "How dare you say that!"
* "That's the way to offend thousands!"
[2.] Distract your opponent from the issues at hand by accusing your
opponents of being "petty", "pathetic", "childish" or any of a number
of other such terms.
[3.] Put your opponent off guard by insulting him. The liberal use of
profanity and vulgarisms can be very effective, particularly when used
against you more dignified opponents. Your experience as a school
yard bully can be handy here
[4.] Be patronizing, condescending and present an air of superiority. It
may hide your inferiority to the casual reader. Use phrases like
"kid" or "son", to elevate your relative apparent authority by
attempting to diminish that of the Linux advocate you are addressing.
[5.] Discredit your opponent or his position through the use of
inappropriate laugher and other non-verbal grunts.
[6.] When your tactics are turned on you, call your opponents trolls. Do
not accept the fact that by calling someone using your tactics a troll
that makes you the real troll.
[7.] Keep posting non-stop. Flood the group with your idiocy and nonsense.
Some readers may equate your volume with proof of quality. You will
tie good Linux advocates in knots trying to refute you and they won't
have time for real advocacy.
[8.] Brag about destroying newsgroups and threaten to do the same to
comp.os.linux.advocacy.
[9.] Drive as many good Linux Advocates out of the group as possible.
10. Refuse to admit your errors
Never ever admit your errors no matter how blatant they are. If you
find no way out and have to admit that you are wrong, phrase it so
that you can accuse your opponent of being wrong.
11. Never apologize for your misbehavior
Never ever apologize no matter how out of line you have been behaving.
If you should ever find it to your advantage to apologize, phrase it
as a slap in the face of the person who you have already wronged.
12. Blame your stupidity and lies on your opponent
Blame your own stupidity on the Linux advocate you are dealing with.
Such as when you have made an unsupportable claim that suggest a list
of details and your are asked to present your non-existent list reply
with, "I don't have to list them for you; you aren't bright enough to
know what you're missing by using X instead of a real Y, I'm not going
to explain it to you." Then hope that nobody reading the thread
realizes that your statement translates as, "I lack the knowledge or
facts needed to counter your position or your position is too complete
and accurate to be refuted. So, I will say things to sound superior
to avoid admitting you are right."
13. Embarrass your opponent
Locate or create apparently embarrassing information or detail and
utilize it out of all proportion-trying to create a scandal around it,
to hijack a thread or drive everyone to distraction.
14. Blackmail your opponent
Locate or create apparently embarrassing information or detail and
threaten your opponent with exposure to force him to do as you want
him to. This tactic can be combined with the "Embarrass your opponent"
tactic if you can no longer get your way though Blackmail.
15. Avoid answering direct questions
Avoid answering a direct questions that you fear by claiming to not
have seen the question then refuse to address it for other reasons.
Keep it up along with other tactics until your opponent is distracted
from the question.
16. Turn a question asked of you back on your opponent
Better yet, turn the questions back on the Linux Advocate with a
question like: "What do you think is the `right' answer, lamer?" You
have now taken the heat off of your ignorance and you have cast doubt
on the credibility of your opponent.
17. Don't substantiate your claims
Refuse to present evidence to support your invalid claims. Repeat your
invalid claims and have your anti-Linux propagandist comrades do the
same. Do the same for any invalid claims that you have notice your
anti-Linux propagandists comrades make.
18. Don't discuss evidence counter to your position
Avoid examining or discussing evidence counter to your position. This
is especially effective when combined with 3.2.8, Dancing Fool,
wherein you change your position with every post.
19. Present multiple personalities
Change your position with every few article you post to
comp.os.linux.advocacy. Appear to be supporting all sides of the
issues. You can make a statements or opinion in one posting then
follow it up with a another post with a contrary opinion. You can even
get into an argument with yourself. This could cause readers to
dismiss the subject of the thread.
20. Narrow the scope of threads so that you can handle it. Narrow the
scope of the issues that are being addressed in a thread to details
you feel that you can refute, ridicule, or dismiss leaving the main
issues unaddressed.
21. Widen the scope of threads to swamp out the original issue.
Widen the scope of the issues discussed in a thread to the point that
the original issues are buried away and hopefully soon forgotten.
22. Use invalid statistics
Introduce statistics to try to hurt Linux, Linux Advocates, and/or the
Linux community at large. Do not about them be valid or real. It would
be nice if you can find those statistics on-line, but if you can't
find any, invent them out of whole cloth. If they are discredited,
don't let that bother you, keep citing them. If you see a fellow
anti-Linux propagandist using statistics, cite them as well, no matter
their lack of validity.
23. Lie
Lie, lie, lie, lie. If you do it often enough you may create the
appearance of truth.
24. Ignore dictionaries when they don't support you
Rage against the use of dictionaries or other such documents, their
use can only hurt you and expose your ignorance.
25. Attack new posters who favor Linux
Some of these Linux Advocates may be new to Linux and COLA. Show no
mercy. Pounce upon their innocence with every single one of these
tactics. If you are lucky you might turn them to your side, at the
very least you may be able to drive them out of COLA and neutralize
them as a threat.
26. Attack typos and ignore the content of the message.
Point out your opponent's grammatical flaws and spelling errors. By
doing this you can concentrate on form while ignoring substance. This
is a very handy method to discredit your opponent and by extension his
position, without once again exposing your ignorance of the issues
begin discussed in the thread.
27. Use Spelling and Grammatical Errors to Distract
Make statements like, "Why do you nea d to dbug the cernal? Is lienux
not working agen!" When this tactic works, you have disarmed the
supporters of Linux who have chosen to ignore you because of your
idiot act, others may react to your style and fail to refute your
disinformation. Meanwhile, you have posted your disinformation in
support your cause.
28. Start trolling threads
Start threads with subjects like "Linsux Sux", "Linux fonts are bad",
etc. Manufacture false evidence to back up your claims when possible,
but don't worry that that is not important. All that is important is
that you consume the efforts and resources of Linux Advocate as they
try to refute your trolling threads and that you scare the new and
casual readership of COLA.
29. Unreasonably proclaim your reasonableness
If your method to deliver anti-Linux propaganda is not among the more
article style, you can try to claim to be reasonable. Of course if you
really were reasonable, you would not be an anti-Linux propagandists
in he first place; however, compared to your more radical comrades you
may seem to be more reasonable. You can not be certain that the
readership of COLA will accept your actions as being reasonable
without your prompting them to think of you that way. So you need
frequently mention how reasonable you are.
30. Expose yourself on COLA.
Post articles in COLA containing ASCII art depicting your body
including your genitals, either in the message body or in the sig.
Discuss your bodily functions and your bodily wastes, the more
disgusting the better. It will tend to drive away more of the casual
and new readers. The Linux Advocates who are frequent posters may
become disgusted enough to avoid threads that you involve yourself in.
31. If it makes Microsoft or Windows look bad call it a rumor
Claim that anything that tends to make Microsoft or Windows look bad
is an unfounded rumor and that you opponent is being unfair. If the
information is obscure enough claim that it is an urban legend, hoping
that no one knows that many legends are based on fact.
32. Promote Windows at every opportunity
Microsoft Windows needs a lot of help to be successful in the mind
share of its targeted user base. Point out to everybody on COLA how
wonderful it is. Ignore the meaning of the name of the newsgroup and
its charter.
33. Claim false Alignment
Remind Everyone that you are a long-time Linux user and advocate. Of
course it is not true, so you will be accused of being what you really
are. When that happens and you are accused of working against Linux.
Deny! Deny! Deny!
34. Use of false identities
Create throw away identities to enter the newsgroup to spread discord
and after a few days or weeks, stop using that identity. If you are
losing an argument create a new identity to support the position of
your main identity. If things are getting slow, create a few
identities counter to your primary identity. Start a n-on-1 argument
with your primary identity being outnumbered. Then have each of your
new identities be convinced by your primary identity to the error of
their ways.
35. When thing get too hot go away
When all else fails and things get too hot, disappear from the group.
This is not as drastic as it sounds. You might stay away for a few
months and then return hoping that the other wintrolls have softened
up the field a bit. If you don't want to stay away at all. Create a
new primary identity and drop the use of the other one.
36. Enter COLA as a sleeper.
If you are a new anti-Linux propagandist, or at least your current
false identity is new, then make your entrance as a dedicated Linux
user. After a little while, claim to have seen the light and "convert
back to Windows". Then you can promote Windows all you want for a
while, before your true nature is commonly known. Sometimes this works
for several hours before you are shouted down and have to move on to a
new identity or continue on as "normal" anti-Linux propagandist.
37. Enter COLA as a false disgruntled Linux user.
Create a throw away false identity to enter the newsgroup in order
claim to be short or long term Linux users who "have had enough of
Linux and are returning to Windows." Stir things up for a day or two
and disappear forever.
38. Never leave a Linux positive thread unchallenged.
If there is a thread developing that is positive for Linux, hijack
that thread at all cost. Even if it means sacrificing your current
identity. One method to do this is to ramble on about other topics,
with or without the use embedded insults. Even if you fail to hijack
the thread, you may be able to derail it enough to cancel the
positive-for Linux-impact that it could have had.
39. Lie about what you know
Claim credit for experience, knowledge, or education that you do not
have. It will impress readers who are not knowledgeable on the topic
of the moment. Be careful to not engage someone who is truly
knowledgeable on the subject in conversation or your actual ignorance
will be exposed.
40. Avoid providing any help.
Because you claim to be such an expert so often, you may from time to
time be asked for assistance. Don't provide it, you would only
destroy the image you have lied so long to create. Treat an honest
request based on a real situation as an argument: Restate the request
for assistance in a real situation as a hypothetical situation that
you can argue against.
41. Use of Undefined Terminology
Use terms such as "indoctrinated" as a substitute for "educated" or
"experienced" when referring to a Linux Advocate. Use "pedantic" in
place of "correct", "precise", or "accurate" when referring to a Linux
Advocate. Create and use personal definitions such as "commercial
quality" for impressive sounding terms to mislead the unwary. But
never share your definitions for your inappropriate terminology. This
is commonly known as Troll-speak.
42. Use fake email addresses.
Use a fake email address, not just a de-spammed address like real
advocates use, but a completely fake and made-up one. If you feel the
need for the appearance of normality use a real appearing email
address-maybe not one of yours, but you can try to explain your act of
identity theft as an accident.
43. Citing vapor postings
Cite the statements that you had "intended" to include but never
actual written into your past posting. Gamble on the possibility that
nobody will remember what you posted and that nobody will do the
research to determine what you have posted. If you loose that bet, use
another disinformation tactic to deflect the results of your using
this tactic.
44. Use being an idiot as an excuse
When you are criticized for using disinformation tactics, claim
ignorance of the disinformation tactics and use your apparent idiocy
as an excuse for your actions. Do the same for your comrades, when a
Linux Advocate corners one of your fellow anti-Linux propagandists
tell that advocate something like "What are you doing? It's only John
Doe for goodness sake!"
45. Criticize Linux Advocates but ignore anti-Linux propagandist
transgressions
Always criticize the behavior of Linux Advocates, but, ignore the same
and even worse transgressions are being committed by your fellow
Trespassers.
46. Accept the claims of other anti-Linux propagandists as face value
Always treat other anti-Linux propagandist's statements as being true.
Accept their interpretations without question, don't bother verifying
their statements. If they claim something against a Linux advocate
always side with the anti-Linux propagandists.
47. Don't do your own homework
Make your opponent do your research for you. Depending on who much
credibility you still have will determine how successful you will be
at this tactic.
48. Don't let your ignorance stop you from posting
No matter how little you understand of the issues being discussed in a
thread, post anyway. If you don't know what you are talking about just
pretend that you do.
49. Restate the issues to support your preconceptions
If the issues being discussed in a thread are not exploitable by you
for your purpose, restate the issues to support your ability to attack
Linux Advocate opponent.
50. Claim god like attributes
Claim god like attributes, such as being all knowing. If you don't
want to make that claim, behave as though you are, any way.
51. Claim only you understand what the issues are.
Claim and other wise present the attitude to imply that only you know
what the issues really are. Attempt to project the attitude that would
tend to discredit your opponent at the same time.
52. Invoke the mythical average user
Always use the mythical average users as your yardstick for usability.
No matter what is being discussed about Linux, restate the abilities
of the average users to fall short of that needed.
53. Use extortion to build an army
Use extortion against a group to generate an army of flunkies to do
your bidding and do you fighting for you. Such as when things are not
going the way you want in COLA, crosspost a threat in another
newsgroup a thread of your intention of making thing miserable for
them if they don't take up your battle for you. This is a dangerous
tactic for you the anti-Linux propagandists. If they don't react the
way you wanted them to, you will either have to forget it or you could
carry our your threat. If you forget it, you will loose even more
credibility. If you carry out your threat you will still loose
credibility and you could open yourself up for reprisal from those
your are hurting by carrying out your threat. Even if you do form your
army, you will be held responsible for the results of their actions on
your behalf. A recent case (as of this writing) of this tactic being
used by a anti-Linux propagandists can be revived by reading the
thread that resulted with the crossposting of Message-ID:
ozub8.40974$Wf1.7...@ruti.visi.com to comp.os.linux.advocacy and
comp.os.linux.misc.
54. The devil made me do it
When you are caught in a situation for which you can not explain you
actions without a confession of your dishonesty and your alignment,
blame it on someone else. Create a boogyman to take the blame. A
variation of this tactic was used in the thread cited above, in which
the failed extortionist blames all the Linux Advocates in COLA for
forcing him into attempting extortion.
--
HPT
Hadron
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:06:50 -0400, Ezekiel <ze...@nosuchdomain.com> wrote:
>
>> You are either delusional or fooling yourself if you think that the
>> "average" computer user would be able to do the steps that you did in
>> order to make Google Earth run on your machine.
>
> To hear the Windows Advocates tell it, these average users are dumber
> than a box of hammers. They are apparently unable to ask a friend or
> use Google when things don't work. And typing a command is just way
> beyond them.
>
> I wonder what they do when Windows misbehaves? I guess they must just
> go on down to Wal-Mart and buy a new computer.
>
> Hard to imagine, but it must be true if Zeke says so.
Your post says more about your cluelessness about the real world and how
people use appliances than anything Zeke can say. Its attitudes from the
likes of you and Shearman that has held Linux back for so long. People
do not WANT to go to a shell and type long convoluted commands. What is
so difficult for you to understand? Me? Love it. You? Love it. Others?
No.
William Poaster
trolls, Bob Hauck was heard to say:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:06:50 -0400, Ezekiel <ze...@nosuchdomain.com> wrote:
>
>> You are either delusional or fooling yourself if you think that the
>> "average" computer user would be able to do the steps that you did in
>> order to make Google Earth run on your machine.
>
> To hear the Windows Advocates tell it, these average users are dumber than
> a box of hammers. They are apparently unable to ask a friend or use
> Google when things don't work. And typing a command is just way beyond
> them.
Probably "Zeke" is dumber than a box of hammers, & is talking from
personal experience as an average windows computer user.
> I wonder what they do when Windows misbehaves? I guess they must just go
> on down to Wal-Mart and buy a new computer.
>
> Hard to imagine, but it must be true if Zeke says so.
As I said, he's probably talking from his personal experience as an
average windows computer user.
Hadron
Zeke has proven time and time again that he knows more in his little
pinkie than you do in that entire thick skulled appliance you call a
head. It's rare that someone not even "joking" comes across dumber than
hpt or Rick, but you manage it.
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> Bob Hauck <postm...@avalanche.org> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:06:50 -0400, Ezekiel <ze...@nosuchdomain.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You are either delusional or fooling yourself if you think that the
>>> "average" computer user would be able to do the steps that you did in
>>> order to make Google Earth run on your machine.
>>
>> To hear the Windows Advocates tell it, these average users are dumber
>> than a box of hammers. They are apparently unable to ask a friend or
>> use Google when things don't work. And typing a command is just way
>> beyond them.
>>
>> I wonder what they do when Windows misbehaves? I guess they must just
>> go on down to Wal-Mart and buy a new computer.
>>
>> Hard to imagine, but it must be true if Zeke says so.
>
> Your post says more about your cluelessness about the real world and how
> people use appliances than anything Zeke can say. Its attitudes from the
> likes of you and Shearman that has held Linux back for so long. People
Don't like the attitude he's describing?
Are you TOO STUPID to realize he's talking about you rather than himself?
> do not WANT to go to a shell and type long convoluted commands. What is
> so difficult for you to understand? Me? Love it. You? Love it. Others?
> No.
--
Apple: Because only pirates are power users. |||
/ | \
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:03:07 +0200, Attila wrote:
>
>> I hadn't updated Google-earth since may so I downloaded and installed
>> Google Earth 5.1.3506.3999 (beta). I clicked on my usual Google-Earth
>> item on my menu and .... nothing! So I ran it on the command line.
>> (Linux-haters cross yourselves ;) ) and got this:
>> $ /opt/google-earth/googleearth
>> ./googleearth-bin: ./libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.9' not found
>> (required by ./libgoogleearth_lib.so) So I googled (actually I use
>> ask.com but it's hard to make a verb from that -- "I asked" would be
>> confusing and "I ask.commed" sounds silly) google earth GLIBCXX_3.4.9'
>> not found and found this: "Remove or rename libstdc++.so.6 and
>> libgcc_s.so.1 in the installation directory"
>> I tried running google earth from the command line again and got this: $
>> ./googleearth
>> ./googleearth-bin: ./libgcc_s.so.1: version `GCC_4.2.0' not found
>> (required by /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6)
>>
>> I renamed libgcc_s.so.1 and ran it again and got ...ta da! google earth.
>>
>> Moral: Linux is *not* perfect.
>
> Linux for not having the library GE needs?
>
> when requested on most Linux distros.
Someone in another forum suggested this Windows particular media center
app. So I decided to try it out in my sandbox. First the the app itself had
an unsatisfied dependency. It wanted WMP11. They didn't package it or trigger
it's installation. They merely tell you to go get it. When I try to go get
it, I find that there is some service pack I need to install WMP. Then I
mess with that and and up needing to bother with WGA nonsense. (talk about
a Zawinski moment) This too is all manual and involves downloading some app
to create a key to be put into a webpage because the "automated" version
didn't work for some reason.
I end up with less trouble building stuff from source on Ubuntu/Debian.
At least there the dangling unmet dependencies can usually be dealt
with by the package manger.
[deletia]
Gregory Shearman
> On 2009-09-20, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Your post says more about your cluelessness about the real world and how
>> people use appliances than anything Zeke can say. Its attitudes from the
>> likes of you and Shearman that has held Linux back for so long. People
>
> Don't like the attitude he's describing?
>
> Are you TOO STUPID to realize he's talking about you rather than himself?
Why has this fuckwit troll brought *my* name into the argument? I don't
even correspond with it and don't read its posts.
>> do not WANT to go to a shell and type long convoluted commands. What is
>> so difficult for you to understand? Me? Love it. You? Love it. Others?
>> No.
That's why there's choice. Newbies use Ubuntu or other newbie oriented
distros... others choose distros for the more advanced.
Install googleearth?
GentooPenguin# emerge googleearth
What's so fucking hard about that? Is the "convoluted command" just too
long? Or is it "easier" to search out a website, download a binary and
then point and drool until the fucking thing installs?
Gee... I'm really "holding linux back", eh? If only I had that kind of
influence.....
What a tosser the quark troll is...
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
>> On 2009-09-20, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Your post says more about your cluelessness about the real world and how
>>> people use appliances than anything Zeke can say. Its attitudes from the
>>> likes of you and Shearman that has held Linux back for so long. People
>
> Why has this fuckwit troll brought *my* name into the argument? I don't
-------------
> even correspond with it and don't read its posts.
Answer underlined.
> Install googleearth?
>
> GentooPenguin# emerge googleearth
>
> What's so fucking hard about that? Is the "convoluted command" just too
> long? Or is it "easier" to search out a website, download a binary and
> then point and drool until the fucking thing installs?
On Linux it is much easier.
--
You will be surrounded by luxury.
chrisv
> Gregory Shearman belched:
>
>>> Quack snotted:
>>>>
>>>> (snip snot)
>>
>> Why has this fuckwit troll brought *my* name into the argument? I don't
> -------------
>> even correspond with it and don't read its posts.
>
>Answer underlined.
Yep. "Hadron" is a fsckwit troll, that's why.
Ezekiel
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> You are either delusional or fooling yourself if you think that the
>> "average" computer user would be able to do the steps that you did in
>> order to make Google Earth run on your machine.
> See my other posting (if you're interested) where I attempt to answer this
> claim. I used the example of someone learning to drive a standard
> transmission having only driven automatic before. You may buy this analogy
> or you may not. It makes sense to me. I admit having opinions that are
> rarely shared by the majority which could be a sign of fooling myself or
> being delusional but what the hell. ;) I'm still alive, happy and healthy
> after all these years so it seems a reasonable strategy.
>> It just ain't going to happen - ever. If you wrote down these *exact*
>> steps that you just listed, gave them to an "average" user they would
>> still have less than a 5% chance of getting it right. What I mean by this
>> is that your instructions are far to vague for the "average" user to
>> follow.
>
> In fairness, Ez, that is not how I write down instructions for use by a
> novice. I may be delusional at times but I'm not that think. You will
> agree,
> I hope, that COLA is not made of novices.
I agree that COLA isn't novices or even "average" users but it's very, very
unlikely that an average user would be able to do what you explained.
>>
>> Since you have grandkids you're probably married.
> Been there, done that. I have a GF now but really it's the same.
>> Break (aka - "undo") the
>> changes you made to get Google Earth running and put your wife in front
>> of
>> the computer. Tell her that Google Earth doesn't work and have her fix it
>> the way you did. Good luck with that.
> Ez, I really appreciate the courteous and reasonable way you have
> expressed
> your opinion. I hope I have matched the tone you have set. Therefore out
> of
> sincere regard for your personal safety, I will not show this message to
> my
> GF, who, as I type these words is sitting nearby working on something with
> her Acer 5315 running a Debian Squeeze/Sid blend which is closer to Sid
> than
> to Sqeeze and far more adventurous than my system.
So your GF doesn't qualify as an "average" user either. So pick someone who
is an "average" user like your ex-wife, one of your kids, etc. Someone who
doesn't spend most of their day working with computer systems. Have them
"fix" your missing dependency. For most people that I know (wife, kids,
neighbors, etc) the odds of them being to do what you wrote is exactly zero
percent.
> She would probably rip
> your ... well I don't want to get gory here but you really really really
> picked the wrong example. She is smart as a whip and cutting as one too
> when
> provoked. She knows how to find the information she needs. She understand
> the web is a useful tool when used properly and she uses it properly. She
> is
> no expert, nor am I, but she either knows how to fix stuff when it breaks
> or
> if not, she knows how to find out how it's done. She is absolutely no
> "lady"
> but she is all woman. ;) I am a very lucky man. :)
I'm happy for you and your good fortunes. But most of the "average" computer
people that I know use Google in order to find the "Amazon.com" website.
There's no way they're going to fix a missing file dependency by hand.
Attila
What can I tell you, Ez. We just hang out in different circles, different
countries, different cultures, etc. and so, not surprisingly, we have
different experiences. I routinely give instructions on a Linux forum that
involves newbies and I have the pleasure of receiving quite a number of
formal "Thank you's" (clicking on a thumbs up icon) and a larger number of
informal ones. I conclude that my advice is not all that opaque. Of course
maybe they're just being polite. ;)
Arend van der Berigheid
news:slrnhbeb8f.ch...@netscape.net...
Yes your holding linux back, cos average users want no commands to install
apps, not to mention young people!
Attila
<snip>
> Yes your holding linux back, cos average users want no commands to install
> apps, not to mention young people!
You mean like holding standard transmission back because the "average" [car]
users want no clutch to change gears, not to mention young people"?
Automatic transmissions "just work".
Automatic transmissions don't stall
Automatic transmissions don't use the command line ;)
TomB
Hmm, a silly car analogy. I'm not sure what to think of this...
--
Q: What is the difference between a duck?
A: One leg is both the same.
Moshe Goldfarb
> On 2009-09-21, the following emerged from the brain of Attila:
>> Arend van der Berigheid wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>> Yes your holding linux back, cos average users want no commands to install
>>> apps, not to mention young people!
>> You mean like holding standard transmission back because the "average" [car]
>> users want no clutch to change gears, not to mention young people"?
>> Automatic transmissions "just work".
>> Automatic transmissions don't stall
>> Automatic transmissions don't use the command line ;)
>> Attila, The Freetard from Hell
>
> Hmm, a silly car analogy. I'm not sure what to think of this...
That's what happens when a poster tries to deliberately disguise
his posts so others don't figure out who he is.
Clogwog
news:200909212...@usenet.drumscum.be...
> On 2009-09-21, the following emerged from the brain of Attila:
>> Arend van der Berigheid wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>> Yes your holding linux back, cos average users want no commands to
>>> install
>>> apps, not to mention young people!
>> You mean like holding standard transmission back because the "average"
>> [car]
>> users want no clutch to change gears, not to mention young people"?
>> Automatic transmissions "just work".
>> Automatic transmissions don't stall
>> Automatic transmissions don't use the command line ;)
>> Attila, The Freetard from Hell
>
> Hmm, a silly car analogy. I'm not sure what to think of this...
>
His car has double clutch and he wants it back on all cars! ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_clutch
Ezekiel
"Clogwog" <BWAHA...@BWAHAHAHAAA.LOL> wrote in message
news:200909212054...@smtp.cobalt.loc...
I drove a Caterpillar D3 bulldozer one weekend and it also had a double
clutch. There's one clutch for the left track and another clutch for the
right track.
Moshe Goldfarb
Sounds dangerous :)
Ezekiel
"Moshe Goldfarb" <mosheg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h98qto$vir$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
It was actually a blast. There's two pedals on the floor that operate the
clutches for the left-right track and that's how you actually steer the
bulldozer. After a few hours of this my legs were killing me because the
clutch pedals are at least 4x as stiff as on a car. The D3 that I drove had
a 6-way blade (with float) and the left hand controls the throttle and the
right-hand controls the blade. All of the steering is done with your legs
and it's a real workout.
But it was waaaay too much fun. There was a small tree stump (about 6"
diameter) that I thought the dozer would just rip right out of the ground.
No way. I would hit that thing with the D3 at a pretty good speed and the
ground all around the dozer would rise up as it tugged on the roots but the
little stump would stop the dozer right there in it's tracks. (literally)
Attila
> On 2009-09-21, the following emerged from the brain of Attila:
>> Arend van der Berigheid wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>> Yes your holding linux back, cos average users want no commands to
>>> install apps, not to mention young people!
>> You mean like holding standard transmission back because the "average"
>> [car] users want no clutch to change gears, not to mention young people"?
>> Automatic transmissions "just work".
>> Automatic transmissions don't stall
>> Automatic transmissions don't use the command line ;)
>> Attila, The Freetard from Hell
>
> Hmm, a silly car analogy. I'm not sure what to think of this...
>
Please explain?? It seems obvious to me, but one man's obvious is not
necessarily another's, eh. ;)
Attila
Not for your average user. ;) Admit it, Ez, you're an advanced driver.
Congrats ;) I'll stick to skiing (x-country) myself.
TomB
As I recently stated during a silly discussion with our resident Mac
adept, I detest analogies, in particular car analogies. I do like
overly silly analogies though. Your analogy falls in both categories,
leaving me all Dazed And Confudes (infringing Led Zeppelin here).
That's really all there's to it.
--
Don't look now, but the man in the moon is laughing at you.
Gregory Shearman
> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeG...@netscape.net> schreef in bericht
> news:slrnhbeb8f.ch...@netscape.net...
>>
>>
>> GentooPenguin# emerge googleearth
>>
>> What's so fucking hard about that? Is the "convoluted command" just too
>> long? Or is it "easier" to search out a website, download a binary and
>> then point and drool until the fucking thing installs?
>>
>> Gee... I'm really "holding linux back", eh? If only I had that kind of
>> influence.....
>
> Yes your holding linux back, cos average users want no commands to install
> apps, not to mention young people!
>
Ok, I won't mention them.
I'm not holding any operating system back. I enjoy it and write of my
enjoyment. I'm not holding anything, I'm just writing of my enjoyment.
You of course are full of spite and derision.
Why are you here?
Gregory Shearman
> On 2009-09-21, the following emerged from the brain of Attila:
>> Arend van der Berigheid wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>> Yes your holding linux back, cos average users want no commands to install
>>> apps, not to mention young people!
>> You mean like holding standard transmission back because the "average" [car]
>> users want no clutch to change gears, not to mention young people"?
>> Automatic transmissions "just work".
>> Automatic transmissions don't stall
>> Automatic transmissions don't use the command line ;)
>> Attila, The Freetard from Hell
>
> Hmm, a silly car analogy. I'm not sure what to think of this...
Ignore it. It's a disgusting car analogy.
Attila
Disgusting? I'm missing something here. Standard transmission=Linux=more
control, better economy, easier and cheaper to fix, more robust BUT you
gotta learn a bit more.
Automatic Transmission=Another OS=easier to use (at first) but...
Wrong? Perhaps. Misguided? Maybe. Disgusting? WTF
Learning to drive (up to and including using a clutch, etc.) is an accepted
part of using a car. Virtually everyone uses standard transmission (at least
in Europe) and willingly accepts the "extra learning" associated with
manually changing gears.
Pithy, one sentence responses do not really enlighten me nor correct my
errors of analysis, if errors they are.
Attila
See my response to Greg below (if you're interested, that is). My only point
is that "average" people (whatever that means) are quite happy to take the
time to learn an extra skill (changing gears, installing Linux, etc.) if
they are motivated to do so. I didn't mean to offend anyone and I'm sorry if
you don't like analogies. If it was silly, it was not my intention but I
remain mystified.
chrisv
Ignore pretty-much anything troll-feeder "Attila" has to say.
JEDIDIAH
...actually: the whole "manual transmission" thing is one of the
better car analogies out there for precisely the same reasons
that Atilla outlined. It's an expert UI that yields some technical
and economic benefits. Many people have problems using it or
learning it while at the same time many non-geeks and geeks alike
have been able and willing to deal with it over the years.
--
Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons. |||
I want the pretty buttons to push themelves. / | \
Attila
<snip>
> ...actually: the whole "manual transmission" thing is one of the
> better car analogies out there for precisely the same reasons
> that Atilla outlined. It's an expert UI that yields some technical
> and economic benefits. Many people have problems using it or
> learning it while at the same time many non-geeks and geeks alike
> have been able and willing to deal with it over the years.
>
>
Thanks Jed! :)
I thought I was losing my mind (I did once but then a neighbour returned
it). At least one person understands what I was talking about.
Ezekiel
> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> On 2009-09-21, TomB <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2009-09-21, the following emerged from the brain of Attila:
>>>> Arend van der Berigheid wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>> Yes your holding linux back, cos average users want no commands to
>>>>> install apps, not to mention young people!
>>>> You mean like holding standard transmission back because the "average"
>>>> [car] users want no clutch to change gears, not to mention young
>>>> people"? Automatic transmissions "just work".
>>>> Automatic transmissions don't stall
>>>> Automatic transmissions don't use the command line ;)
>>>> Attila, The Freetard from Hell
>>>
>>> Hmm, a silly car analogy. I'm not sure what to think of this...
>>
>> Ignore it. It's a disgusting car analogy.
>>
> Disgusting? I'm missing something here. Standard transmission=Linux=more
> control, better economy, easier and cheaper to fix, more robust BUT you
> gotta learn a bit more.
Unless you're a race car driver most people don't want or need more control.
They want to be able to drive while holding a cell-phone in one hand and a
cup of coffee in the other.
> Automatic Transmission=Another OS=easier to use (at first) but...
There's not nearly as much of an advantage to manual transmissions as there
was several years go. With technology the line between auto and manual has
become "blurred" and many "automatic" transmissions can now shift in just a
few milliseconds. A SMGII transmission can shift in 60 milliSeconds and the
DSG gearbox on a VW can shift in less than 10 milliseconds. Try doing that
with a manual transmission.
When it comes to either fuel economy or performance, a "smart" transmission
mated to the engine control unit knows exactly when to shift to either give
you the best fuel economy or the fastest accelleration.
(Many modern "automatics" are essentially "hybrid" transmissions anyway.)
> Learning to drive (up to and including using a clutch, etc.) is an
> accepted
> part of using a car. Virtually everyone uses standard transmission (at
> least
> in Europe)
My first several cars were all standards and the car that I first learned to
drive on was also a standard. But the number of cars sold with standard
transimissions (at least in the US) has declined very sharply in the past
several years. Part of it is that automatics used to be typically 2 or 3
speed dumb transmissions and now some have 8-speeds and they are a *lot*
smarter than they used to be.
Ezekiel
"Ezekiel" <not-...@the-zeke.com> wrote in message
news:h9av7t$adc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Hit "Send" too fast. Meant to include this as well:
<quote>
What's Killing the Stick Shift?
April 28, 2009 10:30 AM
by Haley A. Lovett
Twenty years ago, half of male car buyers wanted a stick shift; these days,
manual transmission cars make up only about 7 percent of new car sales, but
why?
</quote>
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/technology/2009/april/What-s-Killing-the-Stick-Shift-.html
Attila
<snip>
>
> <quote>
> What's Killing the Stick Shift?
> April 28, 2009 10:30 AM
> by Haley A. Lovett
>
> Twenty years ago, half of male car buyers wanted a stick shift; these
> days, manual transmission cars make up only about 7 percent of new car
> sales, but why?
> </quote>
>
> http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/technology/2009/april/What-s-Killing-
the-Stick-Shift-.html
Ok, that may explain the misunderstanding. I have lived in Europe (several
different countries) for 22 years and I have never, never ridden in a car
with automatic transmission. While I haven't owned a car myself since 1987 I
have been driven around by enough people to have a pretty good sample. You
can also just walk down the street and look through the windows of the
parked cars. It appears there is a big divide on this issue.
Your point about automatic transmissions improving in recent years may well
be true but irrelevant unless you claim that human nature has changed in the
last 25 years. The fact is that people *were* willing to put in the extra
effort and did so in great numbers. You spent a few extra hours learning how
to drive the thing and you were go to go for the rest of your life. Many
people (me for one) actually preferred driving a stick shift to an automatic
when given the choice.
Ezekiel
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> <quote>
>> What's Killing the Stick Shift?
>> April 28, 2009 10:30 AM
>> by Haley A. Lovett
>>
>> Twenty years ago, half of male car buyers wanted a stick shift; these
>> days, manual transmission cars make up only about 7 percent of new car
>> sales, but why?
>> </quote>
>>
>> http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/technology/2009/april/What-s-Killing-
> the-Stick-Shift-.html
> Ok, that may explain the misunderstanding. I have lived in Europe (several
> different countries) for 22 years and I have never, never ridden in a car
> with automatic transmission. While I haven't owned a car myself since 1987
> I
> have been driven around by enough people to have a pretty good sample. You
> can also just walk down the street and look through the windows of the
> parked cars. It appears there is a big divide on this issue.
The divide seems huge. Just about the only type of car where you'll find a
manual transmission in the US is a "sports car" and today even a large
number of those have automatics.
> Your point about automatic transmissions improving in recent years may
> well
> be true but irrelevant unless you claim that human nature has changed in
> the
> last 25 years. The fact is that people *were* willing to put in the extra
> effort and did so in great numbers.
People *were* willing to put in the extra effort but they no longer do so. I
suspect that a large factor in this is that manual transmissions used to
give you a benefit in return for the (one-time) inconvenience of learning to
drive a stick and the (full-time) need to clutch+shift as you drove. Now
under the right conditions (twisty back road) a true manual is a lot of fun
but it's a different story when you're sitting in traffic.
But in todays world with the technology that's readily available there isn't
nearly as much of a "benefit" to having a manual transmission as there used
to be and people generally prefer the convenience of having an automatic.
> You spent a few extra hours learning how
> to drive the thing and you were go to go for the rest of your life.
Same here - I first learned to drive with a manual transmission and I'll
always know how to drive one.
> Many
> people (me for one) actually preferred driving a stick shift to an
> automatic
> when given the choice.
I've had both and we currently have an auto in all our vehicles. A manual is
fun under the right conditions but if I'm crawling along in traffic then I
don't miss the manual one bit. And in many cases when I just need to get
somewhere then I'm secure enough in my man-hood to let the car do the
shifting for me. The once in a while if I feel like playing a little I throw
the automatic into "manual mode" and do the shifting myself. There's no
clutch but the shifting is still controlled by me.
TomB
> Ok, that may explain the misunderstanding. I have lived in Europe (several
> different countries) for 22 years and I have never, never ridden in a car
> with automatic transmission. While I haven't owned a car myself since 1987 I
> have been driven around by enough people to have a pretty good sample. You
> can also just walk down the street and look through the windows of the
> parked cars. It appears there is a big divide on this issue.
I can confirm this. Over here in Europe the vast majority of cars have
manual transmission. I myself never drove an automatic.
--
The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.
~ Karl Marx
JEDIDIAH
>
>
>
> "Attila" <jdka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h9abg5$g8b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-09-21, TomB <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2009-09-21, the following emerged from the brain of Attila:
>>>>> Arend van der Berigheid wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>> Yes your holding linux back, cos average users want no commands to
>>>>>> install apps, not to mention young people!
>>>>> You mean like holding standard transmission back because the "average"
>>>>> [car] users want no clutch to change gears, not to mention young
>>>>> people"? Automatic transmissions "just work".
>>>>> Automatic transmissions don't stall
>>>>> Automatic transmissions don't use the command line ;)
>>>>> Attila, The Freetard from Hell
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, a silly car analogy. I'm not sure what to think of this...
>>>
>>> Ignore it. It's a disgusting car analogy.
>>>
>
>> Disgusting? I'm missing something here. Standard transmission=Linux=more
>> control, better economy, easier and cheaper to fix, more robust BUT you
>> gotta learn a bit more.
>
> Unless you're a race car driver most people don't want or need more control.
> They want to be able to drive while holding a cell-phone in one hand and a
> cup of coffee in the other.
...people like that is why a little extra "oomp" is a very valuable thing.
>
>
>> Automatic Transmission=Another OS=easier to use (at first) but...
>
> There's not nearly as much of an advantage to manual transmissions as there
> was several years go. With technology the line between auto and manual has
> become "blurred" and many "automatic" transmissions can now shift in just a
> few milliseconds. A SMGII transmission can shift in 60 milliSeconds and the
...it's not the "shift time", it's the timing of the shift.
[deletia]
This is the Lemming mentality in action. See some other way of doing
something or approaching the problem and you ATTACK it rather than
just tolerating it and letting other people do their own thing.
--
Apple: Because only pirates are power users. |||
/ | \
Ezekiel
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnhbi1m...@nomad.mishnet...
And the computer is able to perform the "timing of the shift" much better
than some goof-ball sitting behind the steering wheel. Depending on the
current mode, the computer is able to either optimize the shift-point so
that the shift is done at the optimal time to give you either the best
accelleration or the best fuel economy. Something that the driver is not
going to know.
> [deletia]
>
> This is the Lemming mentality in action. See some other way of doing
> something or approaching the problem and you ATTACK it rather than
> just tolerating it and letting other people do their own thing.
The only mentality in action here is the ignorant sheeple like you. Last I
checked neither Atilla or I were attacking anyone. That's before you decided
to barge in and start making accusations.
chrisv
> trolling fskwit wrote:
>>
>> There's not nearly as much of an advantage to manual transmissions as there
>> was several years go. With technology the line between auto and manual has
>> become "blurred" and many "automatic" transmissions can now shift in just a
>> few milliseconds. A SMGII transmission can shift in 60 milliSeconds and the
>
>...it's not the "shift time", it's the timing of the shift.
>
>[deletia]
>
>This is the Lemming mentality in action. See some other way of doing
>something or approaching the problem and you ATTACK it rather than
>just tolerating it and letting other people do their own thing.
"Ezekiel" is a stupid POS.
--
"Linux advocates like to exagerate the quality of Linux, and the
crappiness of Windows." - Erik Funkenbusch
Ezekiel
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:na6ib51a322d1qcl9...@4ax.com...
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> trolling fskwit wrote:
>>>
>>> There's not nearly as much of an advantage to manual transmissions as
>>> there
>>> was several years go. With technology the line between auto and manual
>>> has
>>> become "blurred" and many "automatic" transmissions can now shift in
>>> just a
>>> few milliseconds. A SMGII transmission can shift in 60 milliSeconds and
>>> the
>>
>>...it's not the "shift time", it's the timing of the shift.
>>
>>[deletia]
>>
>>This is the Lemming mentality in action. See some other way of doing
>>something or approaching the problem and you ATTACK it rather than
>>just tolerating it and letting other people do their own thing.
>
> "Ezekiel" is a stupid POS.
I'm smarter than a chump like you will ever be.
JEDIDIAH
Yes... because we all know that computers are infallable and never make mistakes.
> current mode, the computer is able to either optimize the shift-point so
> that the shift is done at the optimal time to give you either the best
> accelleration or the best fuel economy. Something that the driver is not
> going to know.
It depends on the driver. Not all drivers choose to be willfully ignorant.
>
>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> This is the Lemming mentality in action. See some other way of doing
>> something or approaching the problem and you ATTACK it rather than
>> just tolerating it and letting other people do their own thing.
>
> The only mentality in action here is the ignorant sheeple like you. Last I
Don't be such a moron.
I don't even use the product in question. I am merely tolerant.
Of course with your Lemming mentality this is something you can't undertand.
Ezekiel
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
It wasn't claimed that a computer will *never* make a mistake. But the
number of mistakes that a computer would make (if any) is going to be far
less than the number of mistakes that a driver would make.
>> current mode, the computer is able to either optimize the shift-point so
>> that the shift is done at the optimal time to give you either the best
>> accelleration or the best fuel economy. Something that the driver is not
>> going to know.
>
> It depends on the driver. Not all drivers choose to be willfully ignorant.
Then do tell me the optimal RPM for your vehicle that the transmission
should shift at if you want the best accelleration and the RPM to shift at
for the best mileage. If you don't know this (which I'm certain you don't)
then you are willfully ignorant.
>>> [deletia]
>>>
>>> This is the Lemming mentality in action. See some other way of doing
>>> something or approaching the problem and you ATTACK it rather than
>>> just tolerating it and letting other people do their own thing.
>>
>> The only mentality in action here is the ignorant sheeple like you. Last
>> I
>
> Don't be such a moron.
>
> I don't even use the product in question. I am merely tolerant.
So you don't actually drive a car but you feel qualified to comment on
driving anyway. Apparently you never tire of talking about things which you
know absolutely nothing about.
chrisv
>trolling fsckwit Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>> ...it's not the "shift time", it's the timing of the shift.
>>
>> And the computer is able to perform the "timing of the shift" much better
>> than some goof-ball sitting behind the steering wheel. Depending on the
>
>Yes... because we all know that computers are infallable and never make mistakes.
>
>> current mode, the computer is able to either optimize the shift-point so
>> that the shift is done at the optimal time to give you either the best
>> accelleration or the best fuel economy. Something that the driver is not
>> going to know.
>
>It depends on the driver. Not all drivers choose to be willfully ignorant.
I guess the trolling fsckwit thinks that these magical transmissions
have eyes and a brain, and can anticipate the road ahead and the
driver's preferred response.
What a *stupid* fscking asshole, "Ezekiel" is!
>>> This is the Lemming mentality in action. See some other way of doing
>>> something or approaching the problem and you ATTACK it rather than
>>> just tolerating it and letting other people do their own thing.
>>
>> The only mentality in action here is the ignorant sheeple like you. Last I
>
> Don't be such a moron.
>
> I don't even use the product in question. I am merely tolerant.
>
> Of course with your Lemming mentality this is something you can't undertand.
He's just a snotty asshole, like his mentor "Hadron".
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On 2009-09-22, Ezekiel <not-...@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>>
>> Unless you're a race car driver most people don't want or need more control.
>> They want to be able to drive while holding a cell-phone in one hand and a
>> cup of coffee in the other.
>
> ...people like that is why a little extra "oomp" is a very valuable thing.
>
>> There's not nearly as much of an advantage to manual transmissions as there
>> was several years go. With technology the line between auto and manual has
>> become "blurred" and many "automatic" transmissions can now shift in just a
>> few milliseconds. A SMGII transmission can shift in 60 milliSeconds and the
>
> ...it's not the "shift time", it's the timing of the shift.
>
> [deletia]
>
> This is the Lemming mentality in action. See some other way of doing
> something or approaching the problem and you ATTACK it rather than
> just tolerating it and letting other people do their own thing.
I love my stick shift. I find automatic transmission mushy and confining.
I love my Linux. I find Windows mushy and confining.
--
You love your home and want it to be beautiful.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On 2009-09-22, Ezekiel <not-...@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>>
>> And the computer is able to perform the "timing of the shift" much better
>> than some goof-ball sitting behind the steering wheel. Depending on the
>
> Yes... because we all know that computers are infallable and never make
> mistakes.
>
>> current mode, the computer is able to either optimize the shift-point so
>> that the shift is done at the optimal time to give you either the best
>> accelleration or the best fuel economy. Something that the driver is not
>> going to know.
Who cares about the minimal fuel economy? I want to pick the gearing that
will accelerate me best out of danger.
No algorithm that cannot see other cars is /ever/ going to be able to do
that.
Zeke is spouting nonsense.
--
Q: What does friendship among Soviet nationalities mean?
A: It means that the Armenians take the Russians by the hand; the
Russians take the Ukrainians by the hand; the Ukranians take
the Uzbeks by the hand; and they all go and beat up the Jews.
Ezekiel
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
news:h9bfcb$g6r$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, JEDIDIAH belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2009-09-22, Ezekiel <not-...@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And the computer is able to perform the "timing of the shift" much
>>> better
>>> than some goof-ball sitting behind the steering wheel. Depending on the
>>
>> Yes... because we all know that computers are infallable and never make
>> mistakes.
>>
>>> current mode, the computer is able to either optimize the shift-point so
>>> that the shift is done at the optimal time to give you either the best
>>> accelleration or the best fuel economy. Something that the driver is not
>>> going to know.
I realize that you're not nearly as bright as you think that you are but do
try to pay attention to what's going on.
> Who cares about the minimal fuel economy?
How about maximum fuel economy? And who cares... how about people who do a
lot of driving or have a long commute.
> I want to pick the gearing that
> will accelerate me best out of danger.
And that's something that a smart transmission is going to be able to do
better than you. For any given speed with any given vehicle load when you
stomp on the accelerator the computer will be able to better figure out if
it should downshift to 3rd gear or 4th gear to give you the best
acceleration and it will know at what RPM it should shift to the next gear.
Something that it can do much better than you can.
And unless you can depress the clutch and shift your standard transmission
in 60 milliseconds or less (like a smart automatic can) you just lost even
more precious time right there.
> No algorithm that cannot see other cars is /ever/ going
> to be able to do that.
That's nice but "seeing other cars" has nothing to do with this. The
algorithms simply respond to the driver stomping on the accelerator pedal.
Whether there's other cards coming or if you're simply out on an empty road
doesn't change what the computer needs to do in order to give you the best
acceleration.
Do try to think for a once instead of sucking up to other idiots.
> Zeke is spouting nonsense.
Really. Then do refute what I just posted. I doubt that a coward like you
has the ability on even your best day.
Ezekiel
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
news:h9bfcb$g6r$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2009-09-22, Ezekiel <not-...@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And the computer is able to perform the "timing of the shift" much
>>> better
>>> than some goof-ball sitting behind the steering wheel. Depending on the
>>
>> Yes... because we all know that computers are infallable and never make
>> mistakes.
>>
>>> current mode, the computer is able to either optimize the shift-point so
>>> that the shift is done at the optimal time to give you either the best
>>> accelleration or the best fuel economy. Something that the driver is not
>>> going to know.
>
> Who cares about the minimal fuel economy? I want to pick the gearing that
> will accelerate me best out of danger.
>
> No algorithm that cannot see other cars is /ever/ going to be able to do
> that.
>
> Zeke is spouting nonsense.
Oh... and just in case there was any doubt that you're a complete idiot.
Here's an article in an automotive design magazine describing how new
automatic transmissions are both more fuel efficient and *faster* than
manual transmissions.
<quote>
Automotive Design Production
Comparing like for like under test conditions, a DSG version of the VW Golf
R32 shows a 3 to 10% improvement over a manual version in 0-100 km/h
acceleration times.
Figures published for the 7-speed Mercedes-Benz transmission have recorded a
6-11% better fuel consumption than the earlier 5-speed transmission in the
European driving cycle. They are also capable of cutting the acceleration
time from 0-100 km/h by 4%.
</quote>
Hadron
It's shocking how stupid Ahlstrom is willing to be in order to suck up
to an idiot like Jeb.
WTF does he mean by "who cares about fuel economy"?!?!?!?
Peter Köhlmann
That is not "faster". It is "accelerating faster"
Which is not the same thing.
It is hardly possible to achieve more efficiency than a manual gearbox,
thus losing the least power and having the highest possible speed.
Although in standard configurations it will not matter, as the electronics
will not allow any speed above 250km/h, even if the engine has enough
power to go faster
--
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, For thou art crunchy, and good
with ketchup!
Ezekiel
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
And for the record - there's no criteria that computers have to be
infallible and never make mistakes. That's your strawman... have fun with
him.
Computers simply need to be able to do the job faster and more accurately
than a human can. Gee, what a concept. The computer that's actually
controlling the automobile might know more about it than the human.
Ezekiel
"Peter K�hlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:h9bhgi$c6v$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
Which is why my quote said - "shows a 3 to 10% improvement over a manual
version in 0-10 km/h *acceleration* times." And since he was talking about
"pick the gearing that will accelerate me best out of danger." it was
obvious that it's acceleration and not "top speed" that's being discussed.
> It is hardly possible to achieve more efficiency than a manual gearbox,
> thus losing the least power and having the highest possible speed.
Yes... for top speed.
Hadron
I can see a rope-a-dope on the cards .... go on tell him it's a Linux
control system :-; Oh and that arsehole "chrisv" can come along and tell
us how negative feedback is not used to stabilise it ....
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
>
>>> Who cares about the minimal fuel economy? I want to pick the gearing
>>> that will accelerate me best out of danger.
>>>
>>> No algorithm that cannot see other cars is /ever/ going to be able to
>>> do that.
>>>
>>> Zeke is spouting nonsense.
>>
>> Oh... and just in case there was any doubt that you're a complete idiot.
>> Here's an article in an automotive design magazine describing how new
>> automatic transmissions are both more fuel efficient and *faster* than
>> manual transmissions.
Idiot. I already said I don't care about what you post below.
I want full control of my car.
>> <quote>
>> Automotive Design Production
>>
>> Comparing like for like under test conditions, a DSG version of the VW
>> Golf R32 shows a 3 to 10% improvement over a manual version in 0-100
>> km/h acceleration times.
>>
>> Figures published for the 7-speed Mercedes-Benz transmission have
>> recorded a 6-11% better fuel consumption than the earlier 5-speed
>> transmission in the European driving cycle. They are also capable of
>> cutting the acceleration time from 0-100 km/h by 4%.
>> </quote>
>
> That is not "faster". It is "accelerating faster"
> Which is not the same thing.
And the difference maxes out at about 10%.
> It is hardly possible to achieve more efficiency than a manual gearbox,
> thus losing the least power and having the highest possible speed.
>
> Although in standard configurations it will not matter, as the electronics
> will not allow any speed above 250km/h, even if the engine has enough
> power to go faster
Zeke and "Hadron", interchangeable:
--
You are dishonest, but never to the point of hurting a friend.
Ezekiel
>>> <quote>
>>> Automotive Design Production
>>>
>>> Comparing like for like under test conditions, a DSG version of the VW
>>> Golf R32 shows a 3 to 10% improvement over a manual version in 0-100
>>> km/h acceleration times.
>>>
>>> Figures published for the 7-speed Mercedes-Benz transmission have
>>> recorded a 6-11% better fuel consumption than the earlier 5-speed
>>> transmission in the European driving cycle. They are also capable of
>>> cutting the acceleration time from 0-100 km/h by 4%.
>>> </quote>
>>
>> That is not "faster". It is "accelerating faster"
>> Which is not the same thing.
>
> And the difference maxes out at about 10%.
I realize that you are a complete moron but an improvement in acceleration
of 10% is very significant. Given that we're not talking about a different
car or a different engine but by merely allowing a smarter automatic
transmission do the shifting. If this alone can make a car accelerate from
0-100km/hr somewhere around 10% faster then it's a VERY significant
improvement you idiot.
Bob Hauck
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
> news:h9bfcb$g6r$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
><quote>
> Automotive Design Production
>
> Comparing like for like under test conditions, a DSG version of the VW Golf
> R32 shows a 3 to 10% improvement over a manual version in 0-100 km/h
> acceleration times.
>
> Figures published for the 7-speed Mercedes-Benz transmission have recorded a
> 6-11% better fuel consumption than the earlier 5-speed transmission in the
> European driving cycle. They are also capable of cutting the acceleration
> time from 0-100 km/h by 4%.
></quote>
How long have these been available? How much do they cost (both to buy
and to fix) relative to a manual?
These high-end electronic automatics are fairly recent in mass-market
vehicles, are not available in every vehicle model, and they still cost
more than a manual. Most people don't buy a new car every two years.
I recently sold a 1999 VW Passat. When I bought it I got the fancy
Tiptronic transmission. It had electronic controls and was pretty good,
but in full auto mode it still had flaws under certain driving
conditions. And it took a lot longer than a half-second to shift even
in manual mode.
So your argument did not hold even ten years ago, yet American drivers
switched mostly to automatics much longer ago than that. They were
willing to give up some gas mileage and performance for convenience.
Which is what everyone has been saying.
Finally, I find it interesting that the two examples you cite are both
European makes. Perhaps they developed these transmissions in order to
convince more European drivers to switch? So maybe you have the
stick-lovers of Europe to thank for this development after all.
--
-| Bob Hauck (Brother Nail Gun of The Short Path)
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Ezekiel
"Bob Hauck" <postm...@avalanche.org> wrote in message
news:slrnhbk9u3.u...@bigbird.haucks.org...
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:48:34 -0400, Ezekiel <not-...@the-zeke.com>
> wrote:
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
>> news:h9bfcb$g6r$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>><quote>
>> Automotive Design Production
>>
>> Comparing like for like under test conditions, a DSG version of the VW
>> Golf
>> R32 shows a 3 to 10% improvement over a manual version in 0-100 km/h
>> acceleration times.
>>
>> Figures published for the 7-speed Mercedes-Benz transmission have
>> recorded a
>> 6-11% better fuel consumption than the earlier 5-speed transmission in
>> the
>> European driving cycle. They are also capable of cutting the acceleration
>> time from 0-100 km/h by 4%.
>></quote>
>
> How long have these been available? How much do they cost (both to buy
> and to fix) relative to a manual?
Some have been available for a while and others are relatively new. The
price also varies but the issue is more about performance and what can be
done instead of the current cost.
> These high-end electronic automatics are fairly recent in mass-market
> vehicles, are not available in every vehicle model, and they still cost
> more than a manual. Most people don't buy a new car every two years.
"Fairly recent" but they are available and have been available for a while.
I wouldn't expect them to be available in "every vehicle model" and it
wouldn't make sense to make them available in all models of all cars.
Manual/standard transmissions aren't avaible in every vehicle model either.
> I recently sold a 1999 VW Passat. When I bought it I got the fancy
> Tiptronic transmission. It had electronic controls and was pretty good,
> but in full auto mode it still had flaws under certain driving
> conditions. And it took a lot longer than a half-second to shift even
> in manual mode.
Also keep in mind that this is a 10 year old system. Things have gotten
better since then and your 1/2 second shift time is now down to very low
milliseconds on some transmissions.
> So your argument did not hold even ten years ago,
I never claimed that the "better performance" part of my argument was
applicable to 10 years ago. With perhaps very few exceptions the performance
was probably worse a decade ago.
Ten years ago "adequate performance" was available as well as convenience.
The better-performance part is fairly recent (<10 years) but it is certainly
available today. If someone is looking for maxium performance then things
like "paddle shifters" (introduced in Formula-1 racing BTW) and smart
gearboxes are going to beat some guy clutching and shifting and some RPM
that he guessed at.
> yet American drivers
> switched mostly to automatics much longer ago than that. They were
> willing to give up some gas mileage and performance for convenience.
> Which is what everyone has been saying.
I think that's an accurate statement. For better convenience many/most were
willing to give up some gas mileage and some performance. If the
mileage/performance loss was too high then they probably wouldn't have
switched but this "gap" between the auto and manual has gradually been
closing and it finally reached the tipping point several years ago.
> Finally, I find it interesting that the two examples you cite are both
> European makes. Perhaps they developed these transmissions in order to
> convince more European drivers to switch?
Could be. Or it could be that many of the automotive innovations tend to
originate from there. Perhaps it's related to the higher popularity of road
racing (F1, Lemans, Grand Prix, etc) in Europe and lots of these innovations
have their origins in racing.
> So maybe you have the stick-lovers of
> Europe to thank for this development after all.
Someone deserves the credit! It's pretty cool to see this sort of stuff
because it makes cars better as a whole. Eventually technology like this
will trickle down to a larger segment of the car market just like anti-lock
brakes and stability-control did.
Peter Köhlmann
That was more a problem of the tiptronic transmission.
Usually the automatic gears shifted rather well for at least 15 years
> So your argument did not hold even ten years ago, yet American drivers
> switched mostly to automatics much longer ago than that. They were
> willing to give up some gas mileage and performance for convenience.
> Which is what everyone has been saying.
Well, that is probably true. But it is related to the rather long
distances americans travel in their cars. It is much more convenient to
tip a button and let the car stay at a certain speed than doing it all
yourself with the foot all the time. And those tend to work better with
automatic gears
I have used it myself often when driving long distances in the US
> Finally, I find it interesting that the two examples you cite are both
> European makes. Perhaps they developed these transmissions in order to
> convince more European drivers to switch? So maybe you have the
> stick-lovers of Europe to thank for this development after all.
>
It has probably other reasons. Mercedes Benz and BMW hvae made these 7-
gear and 8-gear automatic transmissions because of the insane torque their
high end machines provide, which can't be handled well with a manual
transmission. Most drivers would destroy a manual transmission and/or
clutch rather fast
--
Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.
Terry Porter
<snip>
> I recently sold a 1999 VW Passat. When I bought it I got the fancy
> Tiptronic transmission. It had electronic controls and was pretty good,
> but in full auto mode it still had flaws under certain driving
> conditions. And it took a lot longer than a half-second to shift even
> in manual mode.
<snip>
They're a beautiful car and I nearly bought one myself.
But being an electronics technician I'm a bit nervous about too much
electronics in my vehicles, so I decided to go for a older manual 5 speed
Audi Quattro with the 2.6L efi V6.
I just love driving it.
--
C.O.L.A Charter:-
"For discussion of the benefits of GNU/Linux compared to other
operating systems."
Attila
<snip>
>
> I love my stick shift. I find automatic transmission mushy and confining.
>
> I love my Linux. I find Windows mushy and confining.
>
My analogy was stick:automatic=Linux:Windows
My method was to show that people will make take more time in learning if
the task is deemed to require it even in the face of easier options.
My error was to assume that situation in the States is even a little bit
like that of Europe. I was wrong. Check this out:
"Do you know what to do with a stick and a clutch? Only 15% of new car
buyers in the US say they'll consider buying a car with manual transmission,
and by 2012, only 6% of cars will be offered with a stick. Is it because
it's a difficult skill to learn? Or is it really because it's too hard to
shift when you have a cell phone in one hand and a Starbucks coffee in the
other? Or is a manual transmission simply an outdated system with new
fangled technology like CVT, DSG, SMG, and super-fast, 100 msec shifting
automatic transmissions available?"
http://www.metafilter.com/52324/The-decline-of-manual-transmission-cars
The comments that follow are quite interesting as well.
So the Europe-USA divide is immense. No wonder I was mystified by the
response. As I said, 22 years living in Europe and never in a car with
automatic. My GF who was born in the UK has been in exactly one in her
entire life and she's nearly 60 (she'll kill me for that ;) ).
Possibly one can conclude that attitudes are rather different. Now the
analogy may be good or bad. For example do these difference wrt transmission
preference transfer over to OS preference? This is an empirical question. We
can find out the answer. If yes, then the two items *may* be related
(empahsis on "may"). That would predict that Linux use will be higher in
Europe than in the States. This assumes a reasonable statistical measure for
computer use allowing for population differences, access to the internet
etc. I'm confident that such a measure can be found and may well have
already been done.
Food for thought. ;)
Moshe Goldfarb
The cold weather effected the tranny as did the type of driver
as the tranny does learn the driving habits.
Switch drivers often and it tends to get confused until it
re-learns.
Firmware updates fixed a lot of the problems, but some still
remain.
> It has probably other reasons. Mercedes Benz and BMW hvae made these 7-
> gear and 8-gear automatic transmissions because of the insane torque their
> high end machines provide, which can't be handled well with a manual
> transmission. Most drivers would destroy a manual transmission and/or
> clutch rather fast
Mostly because the average driver can't drive a manual too well.
Moshe Goldfarb
> On Wed, 23 S> They're a beautiful car and I nearly bought one myself.
>
> But being an electronics technician I'm a bit nervous about too much
> electronics in my vehicles, so I decided to go for a older manual 5 speed
> Audi Quattro with the 2.6L efi V6.
>
> I just love driving it.
So you buy a car with a mechanically complex 4WD/AWD system
instead.......
What an idiot...
And BTW I wouldn't let you anywhere near the electronics systems
in a modern automobile.
You'd screw it up Terry Porter.
Ezekiel
"Moshe Goldfarb" <mosheg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h9dej3$58k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I don't know if other cars have this or not but in our cars the individual
keys are "coded" so that the car knows the difference between my car keys
and my wife's keys. Depending on the key being used things like the radio
presets, seat position, climate-control, mirrors, etc all get set to my
preferences or hers. I would assume that the "driving habits" are also
individualized. In computer geek talk each driver gets their own /home or
"Documents and Settings" folder.
> Firmware updates fixed a lot of the problems, but some still
> remain.
As long as each key can be identified, it's a relatively simple software
feature to add to store individual "preferences" and habits.
>> It has probably other reasons. Mercedes Benz and BMW hvae made these 7-
>> gear and 8-gear automatic transmissions because of the insane torque
>> their
>> high end machines provide, which can't be handled well with a manual
>> transmission. Most drivers would destroy a manual transmission and/or
>> clutch rather fast
>
> Mostly because the average driver can't drive a manual too well.
Most of the drivers around here can't drive too well - period.
Moshe Goldfarb
> I don't know if other cars have this or not but in our cars the individual
> keys are "coded" so that the car knows the difference between my car keys
> and my wife's keys. Depending on the key being used things like the radio
> presets, seat position, climate-control, mirrors, etc all get set to my
> preferences or hers. I would assume that the "driving habits" are also
> individualized. In computer geek talk each driver gets their own /home or
> "Documents and Settings" folder.
A lot of cars do this.
What happens with the transmissions is that they monitor engine
RPM, throttle position angle etc which translates into how
passively or aggressive you are driving.
The transmission monitors and learns these things, but also
adjusts on the fly so for example if you normally drive
passively and then one afternoon decide to play auto cross, the
car will respond with quicker, firmer shifting and probably
higher shift points as well.
Some cars have a switch that will do a similar function.
Bob Hauck
<peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Bob Hauck wrote:
>> I recently sold a 1999 VW Passat. When I bought it I got the fancy
>> Tiptronic transmission. It had electronic controls and was pretty
>> good, but in full auto mode it still had flaws under certain driving
>> conditions. And it took a lot longer than a half-second to shift
>> even in manual mode.
>
> That was more a problem of the tiptronic transmission. Usually the
> automatic gears shifted rather well for at least 15 years
It was actually quite good compared to other automatics of the time,
very smooth and smart about things like shifting down when slowing to a
stop (vs waiting until you were stopped) . But I was coming from over
20 years of driving a manual. It didn't always do what _I_ wanted it to
do.
One example is a corner near my home where the turn is right at the
bottom of a steep hill. With a manual I can see that and shift down
smoothly before I get to the corner. When I went into that same corner
with the automatic it would shift abruptly in the middle of the turn
because I had to put more foot into to start climbing the hill.
It was a case where the auto just didn't have enough information to make
a good decision.
Now, if the newer autos can shift really fast and smooth, maybe that
doesn't matter anymore (certainly a CVT should handle that corner well).
Still, I went back to a manual for my next car. Just missed driving
one.
>> So your argument did not hold even ten years ago, yet American drivers
>> switched mostly to automatics much longer ago than that. They were
>> willing to give up some gas mileage and performance for convenience.
>> Which is what everyone has been saying.
>
> Well, that is probably true. But it is related to the rather long
> distances americans travel in their cars. It is much more convenient to
> tip a button and let the car stay at a certain speed than doing it all
> yourself with the foot all the time.
I have a manual transmission with "cruise control" in my current car.
It works fine, but I only use it on the highway where shifting is not
required.
I think the preference for automatics in the US has more to do with
commuting long distances in traffic and doing other things (e.g. talking
on the phone) while you drive. I think proportionally more Europeans
take public transit to work rather than drive compared with the US.
Homer
> Ezekiel wrote:
>> But most of the "average" computer people that I know use Google in
>> order to find the "Amazon.com" website.
You'll find those averages changing, once they release you from the
institution.
> What can I tell you, Ez.
I'd suggest "Plonk" as an appropriate response.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "What's the point of supporting a large, faceless corporation that
| doesn't give you the good service you should get? We have MS for
| that..." ~ DFS, http://tinyurl.com/doofy-admits-truth-about-ms
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.26.8-57.fc8
02:13:34 up 118 days, 6:11, 5 users, load average: 0.02, 0.15, 0.21