Demolishing Snit's "UI consistency" troll
Chris Ahlstrom
domains.
However, consider multilingualism as a metaphor for user interfaces.
Learning a new language is difficult (unless it occurs in early childhood).
Yet, we find a fairly significant multitude of multilanguages speakers.
As an example, consider the poor mestizo or Nahuatl speaker in your
neighborhood, who speaks English (or your local language) well enough to be
understood.
Snit would have us believe that this fellow would be unable to master
minor UI differences.
Snit would have us believe that all people are obstinately stupid.
Obviously, some are, when unmotivated. And that seems to be the key.
Motivate your users. Windows has, to a large degree, never succeeded in
motivating them.
--
Q: What do you call the scratches that you get when a female
sheep bites you?
A: Ewe nicks.
7
> Obviously, the greatest consistency is in keeping things the "same" over
> all domains.
Unfortunately one consistency doesn't fit all.
He still fantasizes about stair wells which is what gets me.
That is disgusting.
HTH.
Snit
1/30/10 9:50 AM:
> Obviously, the greatest consistency is in keeping things the "same" over all
> domains.
>
> However, consider multilingualism as a metaphor for user interfaces.
>
> Learning a new language is difficult (unless it occurs in early childhood).
> Yet, we find a fairly significant multitude of multilanguages speakers.
>
> As an example, consider the poor mestizo or Nahuatl speaker in your
> neighborhood, who speaks English (or your local language) well enough to be
> understood.
>
> Snit would have us believe that this fellow would be unable to master
> minor UI differences.
Where have I *ever* said that? Please try to quote it. You will fail. I
have *never* said what you attribute to me.
> Snit would have us believe that all people are obstinately stupid.
Nope. I think people are smart - smart enough to learn patterns and be able
to apply things from one context to the next. That is one of the reasons
consistency in a UI is important.
> Obviously, some are, when unmotivated. And that seems to be the key.
>
> Motivate your users. Windows has, to a large degree, never succeeded in
> motivating them.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
10:02 AM:
You do not believe a staircase should have a consistent rise and run?
My basic view is that the science of UI design should be understood and
respected by those who design UIs... and that the OSS community has been
doing so more and more, and that this trend will continue.
You and others argue against me - claiming the evidence, the studies - the
*science* is wrong... but you offer no counter. The arguments against me
fall into three types:
1) Saying if you do not see a curve then the Earth cannot be round
2) Name calling / absurd accusations / personal attacks
3) Straw men / making up claims about my views
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1/30/10 9:50 AM:
> Obviously, the greatest consistency is in keeping things the "same" over all
> domains.
>
> However, consider multilingualism as a metaphor for user interfaces.
>
> Learning a new language is difficult (unless it occurs in early childhood).
> Yet, we find a fairly significant multitude of multilanguages speakers.
>
> As an example, consider the poor mestizo or Nahuatl speaker in your
> neighborhood, who speaks English (or your local language) well enough to be
> understood.
>
> Snit would have us believe that this fellow would be unable to master
> minor UI differences.
>
> Snit would have us believe that all people are obstinately stupid.
>
> Obviously, some are, when unmotivated. And that seems to be the key.
>
> Motivate your users. Windows has, to a large degree, never succeeded in
> motivating them.
It is not the job of the OS (or those who make it) to motivate its users to
learn it... it is the job of the OS to make learning and using it worthwhile
enough and easy enough to be worth learning.
Nobody owes Linux/OSS developers their time and energy to learn an
inconsistent and poorly designed system... the OSS developers need to *earn*
users by making their products usable and desirable.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ceed
<ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
> Obviously, the greatest consistency is in keeping things the "same" over
> all
> domains.
>
> However, consider multilingualism as a metaphor for user interfaces.
>
> Learning a new language is difficult (unless it occurs in early
> childhood).
> Yet, we find a fairly significant multitude of multilanguages speakers.
>
> As an example, consider the poor mestizo or Nahuatl speaker in your
> neighborhood, who speaks English (or your local language) well enough to
> be
> understood.
>
> Snit would have us believe that this fellow would be unable to master
> minor UI differences.
That's not what snit says at all. What he says that a UI which is
consistent is more likely to succeed which makes these considerations
important.
>
> Snit would have us believe that all people are obstinately stupid.
I can't find him saying that anywhere. However, a lot of people are simply
not interested in computers and OS's. They want to have to learn and
remember as little as possible about computers focusing on what they need
to computer to do. They are not stupid but simply choose to spend their
intellectual capabilities elsewhere.
>
> Obviously, some are, when unmotivated. And that seems to be the key.
>
> Motivate your users. Windows has, to a large degree, never succeeded in
> motivating them.
>
Because they do not want to be motivated by a software company or advocacy
group for that matter. They are using computers as tools, something more
efficient than pen and paper, with more convenience and capacity than a
physical archive, and more computation power than an abacus.
--
//ceed
Snit
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:50:57 -0600, Chris Ahlstrom
> <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>
>> Obviously, the greatest consistency is in keeping things the "same" over all
>> domains.
>>
>> However, consider multilingualism as a metaphor for user interfaces.
>>
>> Learning a new language is difficult (unless it occurs in early childhood).
>> Yet, we find a fairly significant multitude of multilanguages speakers.
>>
>> As an example, consider the poor mestizo or Nahuatl speaker in your
>> neighborhood, who speaks English (or your local language) well enough to be
>> understood.
>>
>> Snit would have us believe that this fellow would be unable to master minor
>> UI differences.
>
> That's not what snit says at all. What he says that a UI which is
> consistent is more likely to succeed which makes these considerations
> important.
I do not mind when people argue against my views... makes things interesting
- if they do so honestly. Despite his sidesteps into absurdity, TomB
recently questioned some of my comments and it turned out he was correct: I
worded one thing poorly and another I was only trivially correct with.
Good. I learned from that.
But when folks such as Chris just make things up, attribute their own ideas
to me, and then declare me wrong... well, it is just absurd.
>> Snit would have us believe that all people are obstinately stupid.
>
> I can't find him saying that anywhere. However, a lot of people are simply
> not interested in computers and OS's. They want to have to learn and
> remember as little as possible about computers focusing on what they need
> to computer to do. They are not stupid but simply choose to spend their
> intellectual capabilities elsewhere.
And those people benefit from UI consistency... perhaps not as much as those
of us who use computers more, but they surely benefit. It is not just
novices / non-techies who benefit from developers following UI science.
>> Obviously, some are, when unmotivated. And that seems to be the key.
>>
>> Motivate your users. Windows has, to a large degree, never succeeded in
>> motivating them.
>>
> Because they do not want to be motivated by a software company or advocacy
> group for that matter. They are using computers as tools, something more
> efficient than pen and paper, with more convenience and capacity than a
> physical archive, and more computation power than an abacus.
Exactly. Nobody owes developers their "motivation".
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
> Obviously, the greatest consistency is in keeping things the "same" over all
> domains.
Bullshit since most people dont use multiple domains. Nonsense noted.
>
> However, consider multilingualism as a metaphor for user interfaces.
Its not.
>
> Learning a new language is difficult (unless it occurs in early childhood).
> Yet, we find a fairly significant multitude of multilanguages speakers.
>
> As an example, consider the poor mestizo or Nahuatl speaker in your
> neighborhood, who speaks English (or your local language) well enough to be
> understood.
>
> Snit would have us believe that this fellow would be unable to master
> minor UI differences.
Huh? Where has he claimed that. You're a dishonest bullshitter. What he
says, and all SW engineers would agree, is that consistency leads to
better usability. No one EVER said people cant not work around the
limitations of a poor, sloppy UI. You're liar. Plain and simple. A liar.
>
> Snit would have us believe that all people are obstinately stupid.
Where has he claimed that? Why are you such a liar?
>
> Obviously, some are, when unmotivated. And that seems to be the key.
>
> Motivate your users. Windows has, to a large degree, never succeeded in
> motivating them.
What a load of drivel. I dont believe for one minute you can really be a
SW Engineer.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:50:57 -0600, Chris Ahlstrom
> <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>
>> Obviously, the greatest consistency is in keeping things the "same"
>> over all
>> domains.
>>
>> However, consider multilingualism as a metaphor for user interfaces.
>>
>> Learning a new language is difficult (unless it occurs in early
>> childhood).
>> Yet, we find a fairly significant multitude of multilanguages speakers.
>>
>> As an example, consider the poor mestizo or Nahuatl speaker in your
>> neighborhood, who speaks English (or your local language) well enough
>> to be
>> understood.
>>
>> Snit would have us believe that this fellow would be unable to master
>> minor UI differences.
>
> That's not what snit says at all. What he says that a UI which is
> consistent is more likely to succeed which makes these considerations
> important.
And he keeps ignoring that KDE *is* consistent. And Gnome is consistent,
too. Both are easily *more* consistent than windows is
He keeps on claiming his bullshit that people need to mix programs from
both DEs, which is total balderdash. Most people don't need to. And even
*if* that were true, there exist libraries for both which let the programs
use the standard dialogs from the running DE, let the apps use the
standard (and user selected) fonts of the DE and which change the
appearance of the app.
>
>> Snit would have us believe that all people are obstinately stupid.
>
> I can't find him saying that anywhere.
Oh, he implies it. He keeps on telling how people are "more productive"
when all menues have the same entries (so naturally there exist no
differences between a database and photoshop, they all need the same menu
structure.)
Otherwise people might get confused (people of the "Michael Glasser
student" type, that is. Dumber than retarded dirt)
> However, a lot of people are
> simply not interested in computers and OS's. They want to have to learn
> and remember as little as possible about computers focusing on what they
> need to computer to do. They are not stupid but simply choose to spend
> their intellectual capabilities elsewhere.
>>
>> Obviously, some are, when unmotivated. And that seems to be the key.
>>
>> Motivate your users. Windows has, to a large degree, never succeeded
>> in motivating them.
>>
> Because they do not want to be motivated by a software company or
> advocacy
> group for that matter. They are using computers as tools, something
> more efficient than pen and paper, with more convenience and capacity
> than a physical archive, and more computation power than an abacus.
>
A typical Snot Glasser "argument". Made up out of full cloth, no
substance, and absolutely meaningless for the subject at hand
--
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species
ceed
<peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> ceed wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:50:57 -0600, Chris Ahlstrom
>> <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously, the greatest consistency is in keeping things the "same"
>>> over all
>>> domains.
>>>
>>> However, consider multilingualism as a metaphor for user interfaces.
>>>
>>> Learning a new language is difficult (unless it occurs in early
>>> childhood).
>>> Yet, we find a fairly significant multitude of multilanguages speakers.
>>>
>>> As an example, consider the poor mestizo or Nahuatl speaker in your
>>> neighborhood, who speaks English (or your local language) well enough
>>> to be
>>> understood.
>>>
>>> Snit would have us believe that this fellow would be unable to master
>>> minor UI differences.
>>
>> That's not what snit says at all. What he says that a UI which is
>> consistent is more likely to succeed which makes these considerations
>> important.
>
> And he keeps ignoring that KDE *is* consistent. And Gnome is consistent,
> too. Both are easily *more* consistent than windows is
I haven't seen him say that Microsoft is perfect in this regard. Maybe he
doesn't know since his main OS doesn't seem to be Windows? Pesonally I do
not think any Linux dekstop environment is consistent all the way yet.
It's getting there, but there are still things needed to be done. I can't
tell you if it's better or worse than Windows since I do not use that OS
myself. Others are probably better suited to make that comparison.
>
> He keeps on claiming his bullshit that people need to mix programs from
> both DEs, which is total balderdash. Most people don't need to. And even
> *if* that were true, there exist libraries for both which let the
> programs
> use the standard dialogs from the running DE, let the apps use the
> standard (and user selected) fonts of the DE and which change the
> appearance of the app.
Well, I use Opera a lot. It's qt based. There are now both qt3 and 4
builds available. Still have I have problem that dropdown menus on my Mint
8 Gnome based desktop are dark grey with black text while all the
gtk/Gnome applications have white text on the drop-downs. I have not been
able to figure out how to change that for Opera and other qt4 based
applications like Skype 2.1. I have tried with the stand alone qt
configuration programs, but no go so far. I am willing to spend far more
time on figuring out these things than most people. And I have friends how
also using Mint/Opera complain to me about the drop-down since they are
not readable. This is one exampe, I could dig up several, but this one
should illustrate my point.
>
>>
>>> Snit would have us believe that all people are obstinately stupid.
>>
>> I can't find him saying that anywhere.
>
> Oh, he implies it. He keeps on telling how people are "more productive"
> when all menues have the same entries (so naturally there exist no
> differences between a database and photoshop, they all need the same menu
> structure.)
> Otherwise people might get confused (people of the "Michael Glasser
> student" type, that is. Dumber than retarded dirt)
Oh please, I have heard how stupid he is and his real name tons of time.
It's getting old.
>
>> However, a lot of people are
>> simply not interested in computers and OS's. They want to have to learn
>> and remember as little as possible about computers focusing on what they
>> need to computer to do. They are not stupid but simply choose to spend
>> their intellectual capabilities elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Obviously, some are, when unmotivated. And that seems to be the key.
>>>
>>> Motivate your users. Windows has, to a large degree, never succeeded
>>> in motivating them.
>>>
>> Because they do not want to be motivated by a software company or
>> advocacy
>> group for that matter. They are using computers as tools, something
>> more efficient than pen and paper, with more convenience and capacity
>> than a physical archive, and more computation power than an abacus.
>>
>
> A typical Snot Glasser "argument". Made up out of full cloth, no
> substance, and absolutely meaningless for the subject at hand
That's your opinion and I respect that. I disagree though. Is that a
problem?
--
//ceed
Peter Köhlmann
>>>
>>>> Snit would have us believe that all people are obstinately stupid.
>>>
>>> I can't find him saying that anywhere.
>>
>> Oh, he implies it. He keeps on telling how people are "more productive"
>> when all menues have the same entries (so naturally there exist no
>> differences between a database and photoshop, they all need the same
>> menu structure.)
>> Otherwise people might get confused (people of the "Michael Glasser
>> student" type, that is. Dumber than retarded dirt)
>
> Oh please, I have heard how stupid he is and his real name tons of time.
> It's getting old.
It is not old enough.
Snot Glasser is invading this group with his inane drivel, so he has to
bear what people think about that dishonest retard.
And just for the record: You *are* a Glasser sock
And no, I will not stop using his real name. He has absolutely no right to
insist on his idiotic "Snit" moniker.
And yes, he *is* stupid. Otherwise he would stop his cretinous trolling
spree. And instead do something for his family (like working, for example)
and stop leeching
--
It is very difficult to prophesy, especially when it pertains to the
future.
Rick
OS X.
> I do not think any Linux dekstop environment is consistent all the way
> yet.
NO OS is "consistent all the way".
> It's getting there, but there are still things needed to be done. I
> can't tell you if it's better or worse than Windows since I do not use
> that OS myself. Others are probably better suited to make that
> comparison.
>>
>> He keeps on claiming his bullshit that people need to mix programs from
>> both DEs, which is total balderdash. Most people don't need to. And
>> even *if* that were true, there exist libraries for both which let the
>> programs
>> use the standard dialogs from the running DE, let the apps use the
>> standard (and user selected) fonts of the DE and which change the
>> appearance of the app.
>
> Well, I use Opera a lot. It's qt based. There are now both qt3 and 4
> builds available. Still have I have problem that dropdown menus on my
> Mint 8 Gnome based desktop are dark grey with black text while all the
> gtk/Gnome applications have white text on the drop-downs. I have not
> been able to figure out how to change that for Opera and other qt4 based
> applications like Skype 2.1. I have tried with the stand alone qt
> configuration programs, but no go so far. I am willing to spend far more
> time on figuring out these things than most people. And I have friends
> how also using Mint/Opera complain to me about the drop-down since they
> are not readable. This is one exampe, I could dig up several, but this
> one should illustrate my point.
I have not tried Mint, so I cannot comment on what you are seeing.
(snip)
--
Rick
7
sock Snit wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil
Department of Marketing:
>>> Obviously, the greatest consistency is in keeping things the "same" over
>>> all domains.
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately one consistency doesn't fit all.
>>
>> He still fantasizes about stair wells which is what gets me.
>> That is disgusting.
>>
>> HTH.
>>
>>
> You do not believe a staircase should have a consistent rise and run?
Fantasizing about stair wells is just disgusting.
You greedy pig!
Stop it!
Snit
10:59 AM:
> ceed wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:50:57 -0600, Chris Ahlstrom
>> <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously, the greatest consistency is in keeping things the "same" over all
>>> domains.
>>>
>>> However, consider multilingualism as a metaphor for user interfaces.
>>>
>>> Learning a new language is difficult (unless it occurs in early childhood).
>>> Yet, we find a fairly significant multitude of multilanguages speakers.
>>>
>>> As an example, consider the poor mestizo or Nahuatl speaker in your
>>> neighborhood, who speaks English (or your local language) well enough to be
>>> understood.
>>>
>>> Snit would have us believe that this fellow would be unable to master minor
>>> UI differences.
>>>
>> That's not what snit says at all. What he says that a UI which is consistent
>> is more likely to succeed which makes these considerations important.
>>
> And he keeps ignoring that KDE *is* consistent. And Gnome is consistent, too.
> Both are easily *more* consistent than windows is
Please show where I have "ignored" this claim? Message ID... quote...
*anything*.
But you will not. You simply are lying.
> He keeps on claiming his bullshit that people need to mix programs from
> both DEs, which is total balderdash. Most people don't need to. And even
> *if* that were true, there exist libraries for both which let the programs
> use the standard dialogs from the running DE, let the apps use the
> standard (and user selected) fonts of the DE and which change the
> appearance of the app.
Show where I have made such a claim.
>>> Snit would have us believe that all people are obstinately stupid.
>>
>> I can't find him saying that anywhere.
>
> Oh, he implies it. He keeps on telling how people are "more productive"
> when all menues have the same entries (so naturally there exist no
> differences between a database and photoshop, they all need the same menu
> structure.)
See how you go out of your way to lie about my views. Or maybe you really
are that ignorant.
> Otherwise people might get confused (people of the "Michael Glasser
> student" type, that is. Dumber than retarded dirt)
Minimizing confusion is not a major reason I bring up... though it would
have helped you not get confused with your claim:
Peter K�hlmann:
The apps with "Quit" do *not* exit, they continue to run
in the background
According to you, such confusion happens because people are "dumber than
retarded dirt". No wonder you act like you do... seeing yourself as being
so low.
>> However, a lot of people are
>> simply not interested in computers and OS's. They want to have to learn
>> and remember as little as possible about computers focusing on what they
>> need to computer to do. They are not stupid but simply choose to spend
>> their intellectual capabilities elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Obviously, some are, when unmotivated. And that seems to be the key.
>>>
>>> Motivate your users. Windows has, to a large degree, never succeeded
>>> in motivating them.
>>>
>> Because they do not want to be motivated by a software company or
>> advocacy
>> group for that matter. They are using computers as tools, something
>> more efficient than pen and paper, with more convenience and capacity
>> than a physical archive, and more computation power than an abacus.
>>
>
> A typical Snot Glasser "argument". Made up out of full cloth, no
> substance, and absolutely meaningless for the subject at hand
The question is simply do you or do you not stick with the basics of the
science of UI design in your views.
I do. You do not.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
11:00 AM:
Good to see how many people are busting him on his BS lies about me.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:59:11 -0600, Peter K�hlmann
Not only have I never claimed the Windows environment was consistent, I have
repeatedly posted this links:
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/interface/dialogs/>
I have acknowledged, correctly, that Windows has improved since then... but
that is hardly a sign of someone trying to make Windows look perfect!
>> He keeps on claiming his bullshit that people need to mix programs from both
>> DEs, which is total balderdash. Most people don't need to. And even *if* that
>> were true, there exist libraries for both which let the programs use the
>> standard dialogs from the running DE, let the apps use the standard (and user
>> selected) fonts of the DE and which change the appearance of the app.
>
> Well, I use Opera a lot. It's qt based. There are now both qt3 and 4
> builds available. Still have I have problem that dropdown menus on my Mint
> 8 Gnome based desktop are dark grey with black text while all the
> gtk/Gnome applications have white text on the drop-downs. I have not been
> able to figure out how to change that for Opera and other qt4 based
> applications like Skype 2.1. I have tried with the stand alone qt
> configuration programs, but no go so far. I am willing to spend far more
> time on figuring out these things than most people. And I have friends how
> also using Mint/Opera complain to me about the drop-down since they are
> not readable. This is one exampe, I could dig up several, but this one
> should illustrate my point.
Peter both admits that it is best to not mix environments *and* claims there
is no problem with the inherent inconsistency when you do. He cannot stay
consistent from one post to the next on this.
Nor can he point to a distro that does not mix environments. He simply is
making things up.
>>>> Snit would have us believe that all people are obstinately stupid.
>>>
>>> I can't find him saying that anywhere.
>>
>> Oh, he implies it. He keeps on telling how people are "more productive"
>> when all menues have the same entries (so naturally there exist no
>> differences between a database and photoshop, they all need the same menu
>> structure.)
>> Otherwise people might get confused (people of the "Michael Glasser
>> student" type, that is. Dumber than retarded dirt)
>
> Oh please, I have heard how stupid he is and his real name tons of time.
> It's getting old.
Even more basic to Peter's lie: I have noted that common features should
have common hot keys, terms, etc.... things such as New and Quit and
Cut/Copy/Paste/Undo... maybe Preferences and About...
Peter twists that to say there should be no differences between a database
and Photoshop. Completely dishonest of him.
Worse for him, though, is his confusion over Quit and Exit... you have seen
it quoted before:
Peter K�hlmann:
The apps with "Quit" do *not* exit, they continue to run
in the background
According to Peter, such confusion happens because people are "dumber than
retarded dirt". Peter is talking about himself there...
>>> However, a lot of people are
>>> simply not interested in computers and OS's. They want to have to learn
>>> and remember as little as possible about computers focusing on what they
>>> need to computer to do. They are not stupid but simply choose to spend
>>> their intellectual capabilities elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, some are, when unmotivated. And that seems to be the key.
>
>>>>
>>>> Motivate your users. Windows has, to a large degree, never succeeded
>>>> in motivating them.
>>>>
>>> Because they do not want to be motivated by a software company or
>>> advocacy
>>> group for that matter. They are using computers as tools, something
>>> more efficient than pen and paper, with more convenience and capacity
>>> than a physical archive, and more computation power than an abacus.
>>>
>>
>> A typical Snot Glasser "argument". Made up out of full cloth, no
>> substance, and absolutely meaningless for the subject at hand
>
> That's your opinion and I respect that. I disagree though. Is that a
> problem?
Sure: you do not bow to the "advocates". You must be me. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1:01 PM:
> ceed wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>> Snit would have us believe that all people are obstinately stupid.
>>>>
>>>> I can't find him saying that anywhere.
>>>
>>> Oh, he implies it. He keeps on telling how people are "more productive"
>>> when all menues have the same entries (so naturally there exist no
>>> differences between a database and photoshop, they all need the same
>>> menu structure.)
>>> Otherwise people might get confused (people of the "Michael Glasser
>>> student" type, that is. Dumber than retarded dirt)
>>
>> Oh please, I have heard how stupid he is and his real name tons of time.
>> It's getting old.
>
> It is not old enough.
> Snot Glasser is invading this group with his inane drivel, so he has to
> bear what people think about that dishonest retard.
>
> And just for the record: You *are* a Glasser sock
If he was, why would you have to tell him that? Would he not know?
In the end, Peter, when you make such inane claims as you try to convince
someone how clever you are... well, just say you show how non-clever you
really are.
> And no, I will not stop using his real name. He has absolutely no right to
> insist on his idiotic "Snit" moniker.
Insist? I have asked you not to tie your lies to my name. You have
refused. That is about as far as it gets.
> And yes, he *is* stupid. Otherwise he would stop his cretinous trolling
> spree. And instead do something for his family (like working, for example)
> and stop leeching
You sure get angry when you know you have no point to make.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1/30/10 1:13 PM:
...
>>> And he keeps ignoring that KDE *is* consistent. And Gnome is
>>> consistent, too. Both are easily *more* consistent than windows is
>>
>> I haven't seen him say that Microsoft is perfect in this regard. Maybe
>> he doesn't know since his main OS doesn't seem to be Windows? Pesonally
>
> OS X.
That is my preferred OS... but I never claim it is perfectly consistent nor
perfect. Heck, I am very open with where I see it having weaknesses and
where other OSs offer a better environment. It is called being
knowledgeable and honest. :)
>> I do not think any Linux dekstop environment is consistent all the way
>> yet.
>
> NO OS is "consistent all the way".
Right - which is not to say that some are not far further along than others.
You repeatedly excuse clear examples of problems with desktop Linux distros
by noting that no OS is perfect... as if that meant Ubuntu (or whatever) was
not worse or that it did not matter or that people should not work to make
it better.
It is simply a game you play... and I have not found anyone foolish enough
to fall for it and think your claims have any real value. Have you?
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1:34 PM:
My apologies. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris Ahlstrom
> ceed wrote:
>
>>> However, consider multilingualism as a metaphor for user interfaces.
>>
>> That's not what snit says at all. What he says that a UI which is
>> consistent is more likely to succeed which makes these considerations
>> important.
Of course he says that.
I say most people are far more flexible than that, and readily adapt.
> And he keeps ignoring that KDE *is* consistent. And Gnome is consistent,
> too. Both are easily *more* consistent than windows is
That, too.
>> However, a lot of people are
>> simply not interested in computers and OS's. They want to have to learn
>> and remember as little as possible about computers focusing on what they
>> need to computer to do. They are not stupid but simply choose to spend
>> their intellectual capabilities elsewhere.
Bullshit. There is no "spending" of "intellectual capabilities". They
are essentially infinite.
"Time" is a different story.
>>> Obviously, some are, when unmotivated. And that seems to be the key.
>>>
>>> Motivate your users. Windows has, to a large degree, never succeeded
>>> in motivating them.
>>>
>> Because they do not want to be motivated by a software company or
>> advocacy
Some people will figure out quite a lot just to be able to watch HD TV.
They are motivated.
>> group for that matter. They are using computers as tools, something
>> more efficient than pen and paper, with more convenience and capacity
>> than a physical archive, and more computation power than an abacus.
So what? They still need the motivation to use them.
Otherwise, they will continually be going to others for help.
As many Windows, Mac, and the more noobly of the Linux users do.
> A typical Snot Glasser "argument". Made up out of full cloth, no
> substance, and absolutely meaningless for the subject at hand
Learning multiple languages is perhaps the most difficult thing anyone can
do. And yet many do it.
Compared to that, UI differences are no difficulty.
But you need to be motivated.
How many here have helped some person, over and over, perform a computer
function, and grumbled why they never seemed to learn it/
Motivation is the key.
And UI just scratches the surface of what someone needs to know to do any
particular job on a computer.
--
When you are about to die, a wombat is better than no company at all.
-- Roger Zelazny, "Doorways in the Sand"
Snit
1/30/10 12:06 PM:
> Peter K??hlmann pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> ceed wrote:
>>
>>>> However, consider multilingualism as a metaphor for user interfaces.
>>>
>>> That's not what snit says at all. What he says that a UI which is
>>> consistent is more likely to succeed which makes these considerations
>>> important.
>
> Of course he says that.
>
> I say most people are far more flexible than that, and readily adapt.
So quote where I have said it.
But you will not.
I can pull up places where I have talked about context switching to
different environments... seems that is the closest I can think of to your
concept.
>> And he keeps ignoring that KDE *is* consistent. And Gnome is consistent,
>> too. Both are easily *more* consistent than windows is
>
> That, too.
One: show where I have "ignored it".
Two: show where it has ever been supported.
Three: show how it is relevant.
But you will not.
>>> However, a lot of people are
>>> simply not interested in computers and OS's. They want to have to learn
>>> and remember as little as possible about computers focusing on what they
>>> need to computer to do. They are not stupid but simply choose to spend
>>> their intellectual capabilities elsewhere.
>
> Bullshit. There is no "spending" of "intellectual capabilities". They
> are essentially infinite.
People have different skills and interests. That is pretty much his point.
> "Time" is a different story.
>
>>>> Obviously, some are, when unmotivated. And that seems to be the key.
>>>>
>>>> Motivate your users. Windows has, to a large degree, never succeeded
>>>> in motivating them.
>>>>
>>> Because they do not want to be motivated by a software company or
>>> advocacy
>
> Some people will figure out quite a lot just to be able to watch HD TV.
>
> They are motivated.
HD TV motivates some. Desktop Linux motivates some. It would motivate more
if it was done better.
>>> group for that matter. They are using computers as tools, something
>>> more efficient than pen and paper, with more convenience and capacity
>>> than a physical archive, and more computation power than an abacus.
>
> So what? They still need the motivation to use them.
>
> Otherwise, they will continually be going to others for help.
>
> As many Windows, Mac, and the more noobly of the Linux users do.
So?
>> A typical Snot Glasser "argument". Made up out of full cloth, no
>> substance, and absolutely meaningless for the subject at hand
>
> Learning multiple languages is perhaps the most difficult thing anyone can
> do. And yet many do it.
No doubt many do it. Sure.
> Compared to that, UI differences are no difficulty.
I suggest for techie people to learn both Window and Mac and a flavor of
Linux. OK.
> But you need to be motivated.
Right... and for most people why bother to learn Linux. Or OS X?
> How many here have helped some person, over and over, perform a computer
> function, and grumbled why they never seemed to learn it/
>
> Motivation is the key.
>
> And UI just scratches the surface of what someone needs to know to do any
> particular job on a computer.
For the general user, the User Experience *is* the computer.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rick
> Rick stated in post 3ZqdnV9URLZiD_nW...@supernews.com on
> 1/30/10 1:13 PM:
>
> ...
>>>> And he keeps ignoring that KDE *is* consistent. And Gnome is
>>>> consistent, too. Both are easily *more* consistent than windows is
>>>
>>> I haven't seen him say that Microsoft is perfect in this regard. Maybe
>>> he doesn't know since his main OS doesn't seem to be Windows?
>>> Pesonally
>>
>> OS X.
>
> That is my preferred OS...
I answered his stament of "since his main OS doesn't seem to be Windows?"
I answered: OX X. I didn't say or imply anything about consistency, or
it's lack.
> but I never claim it is perfectly consistent
> nor perfect. Heck, I am very open with where I see it having weaknesses
> and where other OSs offer a better environment. It is called being
> knowledgeable and honest. :)
>
>>> I do not think any Linux dekstop environment is consistent all the way
>>> yet.
>>
>> NO OS is "consistent all the way".
>
> Right -
Thanks for agreeing with me.
> which is not to say that some are not far further along than
> others. You repeatedly excuse clear examples of problems with desktop
> Linux distros by noting that no OS is perfect...
You repeatedly excuse clear examples of problems with desktop of OS X by
noting that no OS is perfect...
> as if that meant Ubuntu
> (or whatever) was not worse or that it did not matter or that people
> should not work to make it better.
I have repeatedly said nothing is perfect and almost anything can be
improved.
>
> It is simply a game you play... and I have not found anyone foolish
> enough to fall for it and think your claims have any real value. Have
> you?
>
> ...
.. as opposed to you claims that have no real value...
--
Rick
Snit
1/30/10 3:09 PM:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:37:17 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Rick stated in post 3ZqdnV9URLZiD_nW...@supernews.com on
>> 1/30/10 1:13 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> And he keeps ignoring that KDE *is* consistent. And Gnome is
>>>>> consistent, too. Both are easily *more* consistent than windows is
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen him say that Microsoft is perfect in this regard. Maybe
>>>> he doesn't know since his main OS doesn't seem to be Windows?
>>>> Pesonally
>>>
>>> OS X.
>>
>> That is my preferred OS...
>
> I answered his stament of "since his main OS doesn't seem to be Windows?"
> I answered: OX X. I didn't say or imply anything about consistency, or
> it's lack.
OK, as long as we are clear on that. Fair enough.
>> but I never claim it is perfectly consistent
>> nor perfect. Heck, I am very open with where I see it having weaknesses
>> and where other OSs offer a better environment. It is called being
>> knowledgeable and honest. :)
>>
>>>> I do not think any Linux dekstop environment is consistent all the way
>>>> yet.
>>>
>>> NO OS is "consistent all the way".
>>
>> Right -
>
> Thanks for agreeing with me.
Does anyone disagree with this? Maybe some of the "Linux is perfect for
everyone" crowd...
>> which is not to say that some are not far further along than
>> others. You repeatedly excuse clear examples of problems with desktop
>> Linux distros by noting that no OS is perfect...
>
> You repeatedly excuse clear examples of problems with desktop of OS X by
> noting that no OS is perfect...
Message ID? Quote? None!
>> as if that meant Ubuntu
>> (or whatever) was not worse or that it did not matter or that people
>> should not work to make it better.
>
> I have repeatedly said nothing is perfect and almost anything can be
> improved.
Lovely. But you excuse any given distro by noting others are not perfect...
you have a very black and white world view: perfect or not. Since all are
"not" you assume they are equally troubled. It is an absurd game you
play... and you play it often to avoid actually talking about Linux. You
hate talking about Linux, or at least act that way.
>> It is simply a game you play... and I have not found anyone foolish
>> enough to fall for it and think your claims have any real value. Have
>> you?
>>
>> ...
>
> .. as opposed to you claims that have no real value...
Such as?
LOL! All you are doing is spewing grade school insults and "you too" when
your games are pointed out. It is silly.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
TomB
<snip analogy>
I'm going to be honest with you: this analogy is just as flawed as any
of Snit's. Don't use analogies to prove your point. It's bound to
fail. Use facts. Use reasoning. Adjust where necessary.
What's most important is to look at stuff the way it is. Applying the
concept of consistency within a system or environment to a distro or
the vague concept of 'desktop Linux' is flawed. That is not where it
is happening, and it will never be.
Be fine grained and precise in your assessments. Make sure you know
what you are talking about. Is it KDE you're commenting on? Is it
Gnome? Is it an application that fits into neither?
As I mentioned in my last post in the long and winding Mint vs. Ubuntu
thread, the BSD folks are about the only ones getting it. FreeBSD
stops at the borders of the code the FreeBSD committers and
contributors write. Everything else - the stuff in the ports
collection that is - is not FreeBSD. It's not part of the *system*.
And that's the only correct way to look at it.
Of course in the Linux realm we don't even have that, as even the
kernel and the core userland tools are developed by different teams,
but roughly speaking the Linux kernel combined with the core GNU
userland tools (so GNU/Linux) can be consisdered the equivalent of
FreeBSD. All the rest is extraneous.
--
Every now and then you simply have to knock over the anthill,
and redesign.
~ Tuomo Valkonen
ceed
wrote:
>> And UI just scratches the surface of what someone needs to know to do
>> any
>> particular job on a computer.
> For the general user, the User Experience *is* the computer.
That's what it comes down to.
--
//ceed
Snit
PM:
> On 2010-01-30, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
> <snip analogy>
>
> I'm going to be honest with you: this analogy is just as flawed as any
> of Snit's. Don't use analogies to prove your point. It's bound to
> fail. Use facts. Use reasoning. Adjust where necessary.
Keep in mind I not only use analogies but *also* use studies, expert
opinion, historic trends, standards bodies, OSS documentation, etc. to
support my views. In short: I use science, I use analogies, I use expert
opinion... I use examples... I use all sorts of evidence.
The "counters" seem to always fall into one of three categories:
1) Saying if you do not see a curve then the Earth cannot be round
2) Name calling / absurd accusations / personal attacks
3) Straw men / making up claims about my views
Perhaps I should add
4) trying to discount the whole view based on a nit picky point
> What's most important is to look at stuff the way it is. Applying the
> concept of consistency within a system or environment to a distro or
> the vague concept of 'desktop Linux' is flawed. That is not where it
> is happening, and it will never be.
What is vague about "desktop Linux"? Some distros used on the desktop are
not focused just there... I guess that might lead to a bit of "vagueness".
> Be fine grained and precise in your assessments. Make sure you know
> what you are talking about. Is it KDE you're commenting on? Is it
> Gnome? Is it an application that fits into neither?
In general when talking about consistency the topic *I* talk about is at the
system level: Ubuntu, PCLOS, Mint... etc. Rick and others often try to
change the topic to KDE and Gnome. I believe you have as well. Hmmm, maybe
this is a 5th response... or perhaps it fits into #3. Whatever.
> As I mentioned in my last post in the long and winding Mint vs. Ubuntu
> thread, the BSD folks are about the only ones getting it. FreeBSD
> stops at the borders of the code the FreeBSD committers and
> contributors write. Everything else - the stuff in the ports
> collection that is - is not FreeBSD. It's not part of the *system*.
> And that's the only correct way to look at it.
People *do* use systems based on FreeBSD... this is not even a debatable
point. You just like playing semantic games. What term do you prefer if
not "system"? I acknowledge there are many "systems" and there might be a
more specific and better term. If you have one then suggest it... but to
just nay-say the use of the term is just a gambit to change the topic.
Nothing else.
> Of course in the Linux realm we don't even have that, as even the
> kernel and the core userland tools are developed by different teams,
> but roughly speaking the Linux kernel combined with the core GNU
> userland tools (so GNU/Linux) can be consisdered the equivalent of
> FreeBSD. All the rest is extraneous.
There is a lot of "extraneous" stuff on the systems most people use. OK.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Peter Köhlmann
And you wonder why you are (rightly) perceived as a Snot Glasser sock
Because thats exactly what you are.
Michael Glasser writes idiotic bullshit like "the User Experience *is* the
computer", and you think that has any meaning other than that he is truly
a retard?
--
Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?
Snit
And, in general, when I am talking about the UI, I mean the whole of the
user experience. A great looking UI can be made useless if it does not work
or is too slow. Some of that goes outside of what might be technically
called UI.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4:44 PM:
> ceed wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:03:28 -0600, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> And UI just scratches the surface of what someone needs to know to do
>>>> any
>>>> particular job on a computer.
>>> For the general user, the User Experience *is* the computer.
>>
>> That's what it comes down to.
>>
>
> And you wonder why you are (rightly) perceived as a Snot Glasser sock
>
> Because thats exactly what you are.
>
> Michael Glasser writes idiotic bullshit like "the User Experience *is* the
> computer", and you think that has any meaning other than that he is truly
> a retard?
<http://www.ambysoft.com/essays/userInterfaceDesign.html>
-----
A fundamental reality of application development is that the
user interface is the system to the users.
-----
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/10409/33070/01553616.pdf?arnumber=1553616>
-----
We might even say: 'The user interface is the system'.
-----
<http://www.modernanalyst.com/tabid/115/articleType/CategoryView/categoryId/
15/User-Interface-Usability.aspx>
-----
A fundamental reality of application development is that
the user interface is the system to the users.
-----
<http://books.google.com/books?id=QveDqVtLFIcC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=%22user
+interface%22+OR+%22user+experience%22++%22is+the+computer%22+OR+%22is+the+s
ystem%22&source=bl&ots=4qsuwRRuid&sig=Q-lYcF0GwCi--RSDQI4x0btK67w&hl=en&ei=a
sdkS9a0JZPCsQOJy-CdAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=19&ved=0CGEQ6AEwE
g>
-----
to a system user, the user interface is the system
-----
<http://www.jucs.org/jucs_8_6/usage_centered_interface_design>
-----
It plays a central role because seen from the users point of view,
the user interface is the system.
-----
<http://www.informaworld.com/index/EQU4Y0R9AJJ0BTAK.pdf>
-----
From the point of view of the end-user, the user interface is
the system.
-----
<http://www.blogged.com/topics/user-interface/>
-----
This is critical to your system�s success because the user
interface is the system to your stakeholders.
-----
<http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/CSEE.2001.913854>
-----
The Human-Computer Interface is the System:
-----
Now Peter, just because this is the accepted view of so many does not mean
it is the only view. If you had another view you could state and support at
least then we could have an interesting discussion. But you just nay-say
and name call. Boring. It shows you have no point to make.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rick
I am not searching for the IDs at them moment, however, when you are
reminded that Apple includes X by default is OS X, allowing the running
of X related apps (gtk, KDE and a host of others) and all of the
inconsistencies that brings, you dismiss it.
>
>>> as if that meant Ubuntu
>>> (or whatever) was not worse or that it did not matter or that people
>>> should not work to make it better.
>>
>> I have repeatedly said nothing is perfect and almost anything can be
>> improved.
>
> Lovely. But you excuse any given distro by noting others are not
> perfect... you have a very black and white world view: perfect or not.
> Since all are "not" you assume they are equally troubled.
You assume that is what I assume. You are, again, still wrong in your
assumptions about my assumptions.
> It is an
> absurd game you play... and you play it often to avoid actually talking
> about Linux. You hate talking about Linux, or at least act that way.
I don't hate talking about Linux. I don't act like I hate talking about
Linux. Those are 2 more Snit Lies.
>
>>> It is simply a game you play... and I have not found anyone foolish
>>> enough to fall for it and think your claims have any real value. Have
>>> you?
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>> .. as opposed to you claims that have no real value...
>
> Such as?
.. all those claims you think seem to have value. You aren't specific. I
don't have o be specific.
>
> LOL! All you are doing is spewing grade school insults and "you too"
> when your games are pointed out. It is silly.
Uh huh.. it is OK for you to say my claims have no value, but when I say
the same to you, I am making grade school insults.
--
Rick
Rick
(snip)
>
> In general when talking about consistency the topic *I* talk about is at
> the system level: Ubuntu, PCLOS, Mint... etc. Rick and others often try
> to change the topic to KDE and Gnome. I believe you have as well.
> Hmmm, maybe this is a 5th response... or perhaps it fits into #3.
> Whatever.
You don't seem to understand the relationships between the different
graphic environments available in distributions.
You don't seem to understand that if a pure KDE or Gnome graphic
environment is used, regardless of distribution, a generally consistent
system will result.
(snip)
>
> People *do* use systems based on FreeBSD... this is not even a debatable
> point. You just like playing semantic games.
.. and you trot out your "semantic games" routine. People seem to do that
when they don't understand the vocabulary being used.
--
Rick
Snit
1/30/10 8:49 PM:
...
>>>>> NO OS is "consistent all the way".
>>>>>
>>>> Right - which is not to say that some are not far further along than
>>>> others. You repeatedly excuse clear examples of problems with desktop Linux
>>>> distros by noting that no OS is perfect...
>>>
>>> You repeatedly excuse clear examples of problems with desktop of OS X
>>> by noting that no OS is perfect...
>>
>> Message ID? Quote? None!
>
> I am not searching for the IDs at them moment, however, when you are
> reminded that Apple includes X by default is OS X, allowing the running
> of X related apps (gtk, KDE and a host of others) and all of the
> inconsistencies that brings, you dismiss it.
Gee, fringe cases for OS X are not to be seen in the same light as the norm
for, say, PCLOS. Man, this is just *outrageous*.
Wait. No. That is just you referencing your BS about referencing fringe
cases of other OSs to "defend" the norm of desktop Linux. See: even when
you try to reference me doing "wrong" you prove me right about you.
But, hey, at least you tried... I guess that counts for something. Better
than your norm at least.
>
>>
>>>> as if that meant Ubuntu
>>>> (or whatever) was not worse or that it did not matter or that people
>>>> should not work to make it better.
>>>
>>> I have repeatedly said nothing is perfect and almost anything can be
>>> improved.
>>
>> Lovely. But you excuse any given distro by noting others are not
>> perfect... you have a very black and white world view: perfect or not.
>> Since all are "not" you assume they are equally troubled.
>
> You assume that is what I assume. You are, again, still wrong in your
> assumptions about my assumptions.
You repeatedly use your "No OS is perfect" mantra as you show this black and
white thinking of yours. You can back pedal all you want now.
>> It is an
>> absurd game you play... and you play it often to avoid actually talking
>> about Linux. You hate talking about Linux, or at least act that way.
>
> I don't hate talking about Linux. I don't act like I hate talking about
> Linux. Those are 2 more Snit Lies.
Yet you run from discussion of Linux by spewing mindless mantras. Who do
you think you are fooling?
>
>>
>>>> It is simply a game you play... and I have not found anyone foolish
>>>> enough to fall for it and think your claims have any real value. Have
>>>> you?
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> .. as opposed to you claims that have no real value...
>>
>> Such as?
>
> .. all those claims you think seem to have value. You aren't specific. I
> don't have o be specific.
Your dodge is noted. You are just doing as I said - spewing grade school
insults. You have *nothing* of value to add. You rarely do... you just run
from talking about Linux.
>>
>> LOL! All you are doing is spewing grade school insults and "you too"
>> when your games are pointed out. It is silly.
>
> Uh huh.. it is OK for you to say my claims have no value, but when I say
> the same to you, I am making grade school insults.
I note a fact about you. You just say "you, too". Yeah, you are spewing
grade school insults because, again, the conversation went over your ability
to deal with it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1/30/10 8:54 PM:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:45:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> (snip)
>>
>> In general when talking about consistency the topic *I* talk about is at
>> the system level: Ubuntu, PCLOS, Mint... etc. Rick and others often try
>> to change the topic to KDE and Gnome. I believe you have as well.
>> Hmmm, maybe this is a 5th response... or perhaps it fits into #3.
>> Whatever.
>
> You don't seem to understand the relationships between the different
> graphic environments available in distributions.
In your opinion... but one you cannot support. Ever. You are just making up
stories about me in order to avoid talking about *Linux*. See... you avoid
talking about Linux. You called me a liar for noting this... but you do it
over and over and over.
> You don't seem to understand that if a pure KDE or Gnome graphic
> environment is used, regardless of distribution, a generally consistent
> system will result.
See how you just repeat your same drivel as though it has not been addressed
*repeatedly*. You just have nothing to say of any value.
> (snip)
>>
>> People *do* use systems based on FreeBSD... this is not even a debatable
>> point. You just like playing semantic games.
>
> .. and you trot out your "semantic games" routine. People seem to do that
> when they don't understand the vocabulary being used.
In your unsupportable opinion. See: you just make personal attacks as you
avoid talking out Linux and OSS software in general.
Why do you hate talking about Linux so much?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rick
> Rick stated in post 3ZqdnVlURLZVYPnW...@supernews.com on
> 1/30/10 8:49 PM:
>
> ...
>>>>>> NO OS is "consistent all the way".
>>>>>>
>>>>> Right - which is not to say that some are not far further along than
>>>>> others. You repeatedly excuse clear examples of problems with
>>>>> desktop Linux distros by noting that no OS is perfect...
>>>>
>>>> You repeatedly excuse clear examples of problems with desktop of OS X
>>>> by noting that no OS is perfect...
>>>
>>> Message ID? Quote? None!
>>
>> I am not searching for the IDs at them moment, however, when you are
>> reminded that Apple includes X by default is OS X, allowing the running
>> of X related apps (gtk, KDE and a host of others) and all of the
>> inconsistencies that brings, you dismiss it.
>
> Gee, fringe cases for OS X are not to be seen in the same light as the
> norm for, say, PCLOS. Man, this is just *outrageous*.
>
> Wait. No. That is just you referencing your BS about referencing
> fringe cases of other OSs to "defend" the norm of desktop Linux. See:
> even when you try to reference me doing "wrong" you prove me right about
> you.
>
> But, hey, at least you tried... I guess that counts for something.
> Better than your norm at least.
As I said, you dismissed the fact that Apple includes X by default. Apple
did not always do so. It seems that using X based apps must not be so
much of a fringe case.
>
>
>>
>>>>> as if that meant Ubuntu
>>>>> (or whatever) was not worse or that it did not matter or that people
>>>>> should not work to make it better.
>>>>
>>>> I have repeatedly said nothing is perfect and almost anything can be
>>>> improved.
>>>
>>> Lovely. But you excuse any given distro by noting others are not
>>> perfect... you have a very black and white world view: perfect or not.
>>> Since all are "not" you assume they are equally troubled.
>>
>> You assume that is what I assume. You are, again, still wrong in your
>> assumptions about my assumptions.
>
> You repeatedly use your "No OS is perfect" mantra as you show this black
> and white thinking of yours. You can back pedal all you want now.
And you again show that when you repeat something, it is OK, but when
others do is a "mantra".
>
>>> It is an
>>> absurd game you play... and you play it often to avoid actually
>>> talking about Linux. You hate talking about Linux, or at least act
>>> that way.
>>
>> I don't hate talking about Linux. I don't act like I hate talking about
>> Linux. Those are 2 more Snit Lies.
>
> Yet you run from discussion of Linux by spewing mindless mantras. Who
> do you think you are fooling?
... and you spew a third lie. So, when you protest that you do not lie,
do not be surprised if someone doesn't quote you in this thread spewing
lies.
>>
>>
>>>>> It is simply a game you play... and I have not found anyone foolish
>>>>> enough to fall for it and think your claims have any real value.
>>>>> Have you?
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> .. as opposed to you claims that have no real value...
>>>
>>> Such as?
>>
>> .. all those claims you think seem to have value. You aren't specific.
>> I don't have o be specific.
>
> Your dodge is noted. You are just doing as I said - spewing grade
> school insults. You have *nothing* of value to add. You rarely do...
> you just run from talking about Linux.
...it is OK for you to say my claims have no value, but when I say the
same to you, I am making grade school insults.
>
>
>>> LOL! All you are doing is spewing grade school insults and "you too"
>>> when your games are pointed out. It is silly.
>>
>> Uh huh.. it is OK for you to say my claims have no value, but when I
>> say the same to you, I am making grade school insults.
>
> I note a fact about you. You just say "you, too". Yeah, you are
> spewing grade school insults because, again, the conversation went over
> your ability to deal with it.
... it is OK for you to say my claims have no value, but when I say the
same to you, I am making grade school insults.
--
Rick
Rick
> Rick stated in post 3ZqdnVhURLaTYvnW...@supernews.com on
> 1/30/10 8:54 PM:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:45:59 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>>
>>> In general when talking about consistency the topic *I* talk about is
>>> at the system level: Ubuntu, PCLOS, Mint... etc. Rick and others
>>> often try to change the topic to KDE and Gnome. I believe you have as
>>> well. Hmmm, maybe this is a 5th response... or perhaps it fits into
>>> #3. Whatever.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand the relationships between the different
>> graphic environments available in distributions.
>
> In your opinion... but one you cannot support. Ever. You are just
> making up stories about me in order to avoid talking about *Linux*.
> See... you avoid talking about Linux. You called me a liar for noting
> this... but you do it over and over and over.
I don't avoid talking about Linux. That is just another Snit Lie.
Noting that you don't seem to understand the relationships between the
different graphic environments available in distributions refers to Linux
based distributions, which is talking about both you AND Linux.
>
>> You don't seem to understand that if a pure KDE or Gnome graphic
>> environment is used, regardless of distribution, a generally consistent
>> system will result.
>
> See how you just repeat your same drivel as though it has not been
> addressed *repeatedly*. You just have nothing to say of any value.
See how you don't seem to understand that if a pure KDE or Gnome graphic
environment is used, regardless of distribution, a generally consistent
system will result? You just have nothing to say of any value.
>
>> (snip)
>>>
>>> People *do* use systems based on FreeBSD... this is not even a
>>> debatable point. You just like playing semantic games.
>>
>> .. and you trot out your "semantic games" routine. People seem to do
>> that when they don't understand the vocabulary being used.
>
> In your unsupportable opinion. See: you just make personal attacks as
> you avoid talking out Linux and OSS software in general.
>
> Why do you hate talking about Linux so much?
Why do you lie so much?
--
Rick
Snit
1/31/10 3:23 AM:
...
>> In your opinion... but one you cannot support. Ever. You are just
>> making up stories about me in order to avoid talking about *Linux*.
>> See... you avoid talking about Linux. You called me a liar for noting
>> this... but you do it over and over and over.
>
> I don't avoid talking about Linux. That is just another Snit Lie.
>
> Noting that you don't seem to understand the relationships between the
> different graphic environments available in distributions refers to Linux
> based distributions, which is talking about both you AND Linux.
You are simply making up stories about me. To avoid talking about Linux...
specifically, to avoid even hinting that you accept Ubuntu, PCLOS, and other
desktop distros are all inconsistent (internally)... and more than Windows
or OS X... and, of course, that this is a weakness of Linux.
You simply will *never* acknowledge that *nor* offer a shred of counter
evidence. The whole topic of Linux, as least in terms of usability, scares
you off time and time again. You simply prefer to dodge, name call, make up
stories about me, etc. Then you claim I am "lying" to note this fact.
How many times do we need to dance this dance?
Chris Ahlstrom
> On 2010-01-30, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
> <snip analogy>
>
> I'm going to be honest with you: this analogy is just as flawed as any
> of Snit's. Don't use analogies to prove your point. It's bound to
> fail. Use facts. Use reasoning. Adjust where necessary.
It's not an analogy.
I'm saying that humans master very complex tasks, far more complex
that UIs, and that overcoming the differences in UI is trivial.
My statement is not a proof, by the way. It is more like an anthropologic
observation.
> What's most important is to look at stuff the way it is. Applying the
> concept of consistency within a system or environment to a distro or
> the vague concept of 'desktop Linux' is flawed. That is not where it
> is happening, and it will never be.
>
> Be fine grained and precise in your assessments. Make sure you know
> what you are talking about. Is it KDE you're commenting on? Is it
> Gnome? Is it an application that fits into neither?
Who cares?
A motivated user will master any tool they feel they need to in order to
perform a tast.
> As I mentioned in my last post in the long and winding Mint vs. Ubuntu
> thread, the BSD folks are about the only ones getting it. FreeBSD
> stops at the borders of the code the FreeBSD committers and
> contributors write. Everything else - the stuff in the ports
> collection that is - is not FreeBSD. It's not part of the *system*.
> And that's the only correct way to look at it.
>
> Of course in the Linux realm we don't even have that, as even the
> kernel and the core userland tools are developed by different teams,
> but roughly speaking the Linux kernel combined with the core GNU
> userland tools (so GNU/Linux) can be consisdered the equivalent of
> FreeBSD. All the rest is extraneous.
Well, in general, Snit/ceed/Hadron are using the whole idea of "UI
consistency" just for trolling, so you know the thread is just going to go
nowhere.
A lot is covered under the rubric of "Linux". It is a term that differs
depending on the topic.
--
Your society will be sought by people of taste and refinement.
Chris Ahlstrom
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:08:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Why do you hate talking about Linux so much?
>
> Why do you lie so much?
Why do you feed that effete candy-ass so much?
--
Future looks spotty. You will spill soup in late evening.
Snit
1/31/10 3:19 AM:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:05:50 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Rick stated in post 3ZqdnVlURLZVYPnW...@supernews.com on
>> 1/30/10 8:49 PM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>>>> NO OS is "consistent all the way".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right - which is not to say that some are not far further along than
>>>>>> others. You repeatedly excuse clear examples of problems with
>>>>>> desktop Linux distros by noting that no OS is perfect...
>>>>>
>>>>> You repeatedly excuse clear examples of problems with desktop of OS X
>>>>> by noting that no OS is perfect...
>>>>
>>>> Message ID? Quote? None!
>>>
>>> I am not searching for the IDs at them moment, however, when you are
>>> reminded that Apple includes X by default is OS X, allowing the running
>>> of X related apps (gtk, KDE and a host of others) and all of the
>>> inconsistencies that brings, you dismiss it.
>>
>> Gee, fringe cases for OS X are not to be seen in the same light as the
>> norm for, say, PCLOS. Man, this is just *outrageous*.
>>
>> Wait. No. That is just you referencing your BS about referencing
>> fringe cases of other OSs to "defend" the norm of desktop Linux. See:
>> even when you try to reference me doing "wrong" you prove me right about
>> you.
>>
>> But, hey, at least you tried... I guess that counts for something.
>> Better than your norm at least.
>
> As I said, you dismissed the fact that Apple includes X by default.
I never denied nor dismissed that OS X has X by default... that is just you
lying. Again. I did note how it is not relevant to the general case... it
is a fringe case. Gee, you hate reality.
> Apple did not always do so. It seems that using X based apps must not be so
> much of a fringe case.
Most OS X users *never* use it. And look at OpenOffice... in order to avoid
being a fringe case it moved away from X on OS X.
The fact is you cannot find a single desktop Linux distro that offers even
relative consistency, so to excuse this away and make it seem like users of
others OSs are generally "treated" to such a poor experience, you point to
fringe cases of OS X. Then when your game is pointed out you whine that I
am "dismissing" the fringe cases, as if I have some obligation to blindly
accept your desperate attempts to run from talking about Linux and its
weaknesses. In the end, of course, you are just running from talking about
Linux. Something you do often... then whine about how I "lie" for noting
it.
Poor Rick, you are just a clich� at this point... a shadow of a
conversation. You repeat the same games, quote the same mantras, dodge the
same points about Linux, spew the same insults and accusations... and show
no thought.
Snit
1/31/10 7:02 AM:
> Rick pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:08:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you hate talking about Linux so much?
>>
>> Why do you lie so much?
>
> Why do you feed that effete candy-ass so much?
He amuses me.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1/31/10 6:58 AM:
> TomB pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> On 2010-01-30, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
>> <snip analogy>
>>
>> I'm going to be honest with you: this analogy is just as flawed as any
>> of Snit's. Don't use analogies to prove your point. It's bound to
>> fail. Use facts. Use reasoning. Adjust where necessary.
>
> It's not an analogy.
>
> I'm saying that humans master very complex tasks, far more complex
> that UIs, and that overcoming the differences in UI is trivial.
>
> My statement is not a proof, by the way. It is more like an anthropologic
> observation.
You are trying to build an analogy between learning languages and learning
UIs.
>> What's most important is to look at stuff the way it is. Applying the
>> concept of consistency within a system or environment to a distro or
>> the vague concept of 'desktop Linux' is flawed. That is not where it
>> is happening, and it will never be.
>>
>> Be fine grained and precise in your assessments. Make sure you know
>> what you are talking about. Is it KDE you're commenting on? Is it
>> Gnome? Is it an application that fits into neither?
>
> Who cares?
>
> A motivated user will master any tool they feel they need to in order to
> perform a tast.
What argument are you arguing against? And whom?
>> As I mentioned in my last post in the long and winding Mint vs. Ubuntu
>> thread, the BSD folks are about the only ones getting it. FreeBSD
>> stops at the borders of the code the FreeBSD committers and
>> contributors write. Everything else - the stuff in the ports
>> collection that is - is not FreeBSD. It's not part of the *system*.
>> And that's the only correct way to look at it.
>>
>> Of course in the Linux realm we don't even have that, as even the
>> kernel and the core userland tools are developed by different teams,
>> but roughly speaking the Linux kernel combined with the core GNU
>> userland tools (so GNU/Linux) can be consisdered the equivalent of
>> FreeBSD. All the rest is extraneous.
>
> Well, in general, Snit/ceed/Hadron are using the whole idea of "UI
> consistency" just for trolling, so you know the thread is just going to go
> nowhere.
How dare people actually talk about evidence and science in terms of Linux
usability... TROLLING! That is all it is.
Insane. Utterly insane. Really.
> A lot is covered under the rubric of "Linux". It is a term that differs
> depending on the topic.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ceed
<ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>> Be fine grained and precise in your assessments. Make sure you know
>> what you are talking about. Is it KDE you're commenting on? Is it
>> Gnome? Is it an application that fits into neither?
> Who cares?
> A motivated user will master any tool they feel they need to in order to
> perform a tast.
True, but when there are options which is the case with OS's, most users
will prefer the one that is easiest to master since getting the job done
is most often the main focus.
--
//ceed
Snit
Exactly... it is as if Chris thinks the world owes desktop Linux effort and
work and lowered productivity... instead of using tools that are easier to
learn and offer better productivity. At least in the areas of UI... not
trying to generalize to all aspects of the OSs.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ceed
wrote:
>> True, but when there are options which is the case with OS's, most users
>> will prefer the one that is easiest to master since getting the job done
>> is most often the main focus.
>>
> Exactly... it is as if Chris thinks the world owes desktop Linux effort
> and
> work and lowered productivity... instead of using tools that are easier
> to
> learn and offer better productivity. At least in the areas of UI... not
> trying to generalize to all aspects of the OSs.
I don't get why this is controversial at all. Remember the old VCR's? No
one could figure out how to program them or even set the clock, so no one
did! You purchased a device with a lot of features you could not be
bothered to use. You would rather miss a show than have to learn how to
program the damn thing. That's how most of us are also when it comes to
computers.
--
//ceed
Snit
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:51:06 -0600, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> True, but when there are options which is the case with OS's, most users
>>> will prefer the one that is easiest to master since getting the job done
>>> is most often the main focus.
>>>
>
>> Exactly... it is as if Chris thinks the world owes desktop Linux effort and
>> work and lowered productivity... instead of using tools that are easier to
>> learn and offer better productivity. At least in the areas of UI... not
>> trying to generalize to all aspects of the OSs.
>>
> I don't get why this is controversial at all. Remember the old VCR's? No one
> could figure out how to program them or even set the clock, so no one did!
I used to help some programmer friends get their clocks set. :)
> You purchased a device with a lot of features you could not be bothered to
> use. You would rather miss a show than have to learn how to program the damn
> thing. That's how most of us are also when it comes to computers.
Yup.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
High Plains Thumper
> ceed wrote:
>> Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Otherwise people might get confused (people of the "Michael
>>> Glasser student" type, that is. Dumber than retarded dirt)
>>
>> Oh please, I have heard how stupid he is and his real name tons of
>> time. It's getting old.
>
> It is not old enough. Snot Glasser is invading this group with his
> inane drivel, so he has to bear what people think about that
> dishonest retard.
>
> And just for the record: You *are* a Glasser sock And no, I will not
> stop using his real name. He has absolutely no right to insist on his
> idiotic "Snit" moniker.
>
> And yes, he *is* stupid. Otherwise he would stop his cretinous
> trolling spree. And instead do something for his family (like
> working, for example) and stop leeching
As stupid as Snit nicking a deceased person in Snit's state of Arizona,
27 YO Joel Crump for a nym:
[quote]
Officials say 27-year-old Joel Crump was found inside a 1985 Jeep
Cherokee and had sustained a gunshot wound.
[/quote]
--
HPT
Rick
You describe the inclusions of an graphics system that is completely
different than the Aqua based system a fringe case. If X is so fringe,
why did Apple make it so easy for people to run X based apps? How
"fringe" could it be?
And, even if it is "fringe", so what? The system still installs, by
default, multiple UIs, and software that allows the installation of
multiple UIs.
>
>> Apple did not always do so. It seems that using X based apps must not
>> be so much of a fringe case.
>
> Most OS X users *never* use it.
S O W H A T? The multiple UIs are there. Installed. By Apple.
> And look at OpenOffice... in order to
> avoid being a fringe case it moved away from X on OS X.
>
> The fact is you cannot find a single desktop Linux distro that offers
> even relative consistency,
... any distro that uses a pure Gnome or KDE environment is relatively
consistent.
> so to excuse this away and make it seem like
> users of others OSs are generally "treated" to such a poor experience,
> you point to fringe cases of OS X.
X on OS X is not a fringe case. It is installed by default by Apple,
which means almost every Mac user has access to it. And you continued
stating that X's inclusion is a fringe case does not make it so.
> Then when your game is pointed out
> you whine that I am "dismissing" the fringe cases, as if I have some
> obligation to blindly accept your desperate attempts to run from talking
> about Linux and its weaknesses. In the end, of course, you are just
> running from talking about Linux. Something you do often... then whine
> about how I "lie" for noting it.
>
> Poor Rick, you are just a cliché at this point... a shadow of a
> conversation. You repeat the same games, quote the same mantras, dodge
> the same points about Linux, spew the same insults and accusations...
> and show no thought.
> ...
.. and you last paragraph shows your completely bigoted dishonesty ,
which you whine about when pointed out to you.
--
Rick
Rick
> Rick pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:08:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you hate talking about Linux so much?
>>
>> Why do you lie so much?
>
> Why do you feed that effete candy-ass so much?
I do so much less than I used to. Why do you feed him so much?
--
Rick
Rick
> Rick stated in post CumdneQJyfWMx_jW...@supernews.com on
> 1/31/10 3:23 AM:
>
> ...
>>> In your opinion... but one you cannot support. Ever. You are just
>>> making up stories about me in order to avoid talking about *Linux*.
>>> See... you avoid talking about Linux. You called me a liar for noting
>>> this... but you do it over and over and over.
>>
>> I don't avoid talking about Linux. That is just another Snit Lie.
>>
>> Noting that you don't seem to understand the relationships between the
>> different graphic environments available in distributions refers to
>> Linux based distributions, which is talking about both you AND Linux.
>
> You are simply making up stories about me.(snip)
Snit Lie detected.. no use going on.
--
Rick
Snit
1/31/10 9:53 AM:
...
>>> As I said, you dismissed the fact that Apple includes X by default.
>>
>> I never denied nor dismissed that OS X has X by default... that is just
>> you lying. Again. I did note how it is not relevant to the general
>> case... it is a fringe case. Gee, you hate reality.
>
> You describe the inclusions of an graphics system that is completely
> different than the Aqua based system a fringe case. If X is so fringe,
> why did Apple make it so easy for people to run X based apps? How
> "fringe" could it be?
>
> And, even if it is "fringe", so what? The system still installs, by
> default, multiple UIs, and software that allows the installation of
> multiple UIs.
Has anyone said otherwise? What argument do you think you are refuting? Or
are you just talking about OS X to avoid talking about Linux?
>>> Apple did not always do so. It seems that using X based apps must not
>>> be so much of a fringe case.
>>
>> Most OS X users *never* use it.
>
> S O W H A T? The multiple UIs are there. Installed. By Apple.
Are you feigning ignorance or do you really not see why comparing the norm
of one OS to the fringe of another is, well, just absurd.
>> And look at OpenOffice... in order to
>> avoid being a fringe case it moved away from X on OS X.
>>
>> The fact is you cannot find a single desktop Linux distro that offers
>> even relative consistency,
>
> ... any distro that uses a pure Gnome or KDE environment is relatively
> consistent.
Well, sure, relative to even less consistent distros. Yeah, pretty low
standard you set there, but you are right!
>> so to excuse this away and make it seem like
>> users of others OSs are generally "treated" to such a poor experience,
>> you point to fringe cases of OS X.
>
> X on OS X is not a fringe case. It is installed by default by Apple,
> which means almost every Mac user has access to it. And you continued
> stating that X's inclusion is a fringe case does not make it so.
Ah, so while most OS X users never use X and have no idea what it is, and do
not even see it... to you that makes it the norm usage and not a fringe
case.
Are you feigning ignorance or are you really that lost? Just curious.
>> Then when your game is pointed out
>> you whine that I am "dismissing" the fringe cases, as if I have some
>> obligation to blindly accept your desperate attempts to run from talking
>> about Linux and its weaknesses. In the end, of course, you are just
>> running from talking about Linux. Something you do often... then whine
>> about how I "lie" for noting it.
>>
>> Poor Rick, you are just a clich� at this point... a shadow of a
>> conversation. You repeat the same games, quote the same mantras, dodge
>> the same points about Linux, spew the same insults and accusations...
>> and show no thought.
>> ...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1/31/10 9:54 AM:
>> You are simply making up stories about me. To avoid talking about Linux...
>> specifically, to avoid even hinting that you accept Ubuntu, PCLOS, and other
>> desktop distros are all inconsistent (internally)... and more than Windows or
>> OS X... and, of course, that this is a weakness of Linux.
>>
>> You simply will *never* acknowledge that *nor* offer a shred of counter
>> evidence. The whole topic of Linux, as least in terms of usability, scares
>> you off time and time again. You simply prefer to dodge, name call, make up
>> stories about me, etc. Then you claim I am "lying" to note this fact.
>>
>> How many times do we need to dance this dance?
>
> Snit Lie detected.. no use going on.
Other than to get the last word and spew an accusation you cannot support,
why did you even post? Heck, you snipped most of the content of the post
you replied to... too afraid to face it, clearly. As I noted: you have no
counter evidence for my comments. You just name call and avoid talking
about Linux.
Then whine when you actions are noted. Poor Rick... but you do amuse me. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1/31/10 9:54 AM:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:02:14 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
It is a good question: why do you respond to me at all given that you very,
very rarely actually say anything of value? You claim, for example, that
parts of OS X that have *no* affect on most OS X users, and that most users
never see or even know about, is something other than a fringe case.
You avoid talking about Linux. You simply name call and spew accusations
you cannot support.
Why do you bother? Why not try to rise above that and talk about Linux?
What are you so afraid of? And who do you think you are fooling?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Moshe Goldfarb
> As stupid as Snit nicking a deceased person in Snit's state of Arizona,
> 27 YO Joel Crump for a nym:
>
> [quote]
> Officials say 27-year-old Joel Crump was found inside a 1985 Jeep
> Cherokee and had sustained a gunshot wound.
> [/quote]
>
> http://www.abc15.com/content/news/centralsouthernarizona/story/Body-found-with-gunshot-wound-in-crashed-vehicle/cZsEuBgYTk6W5o7ILBPmYA.cspx
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/yzf3fcy
You sure seem to know an awful lot about this Joel Crump person.
Seeing as he died in Yuma Arizona, and just coincidentally, you
HPT = George Hostler also "just happen" to live in the next state,
one has to wonder what the connection *really is*.
--
1/31/2010 12:20:46 PM
Snit
1/31/10 10:24 AM:
LOL! Makes as much sense as what HPT says... he is just barking mad.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rick
> Rick stated in post M_mdnZ1g_tMRKPjW...@supernews.com on
> 1/31/10 9:53 AM:
>
> ...
>>>> As I said, you dismissed the fact that Apple includes X by default.
>>>
>>> I never denied nor dismissed that OS X has X by default... that is
>>> just you lying. Again. I did note how it is not relevant to the
>>> general case... it is a fringe case. Gee, you hate reality.
>>
>> You describe the inclusions of an graphics system that is completely
>> different than the Aqua based system a fringe case. If X is so fringe,
>> why did Apple make it so easy for people to run X based apps? How
>> "fringe" could it be?
>>
>> And, even if it is "fringe", so what? The system still installs, by
>> default, multiple UIs, and software that allows the installation of
>> multiple UIs.
>
> Has anyone said otherwise? What argument do you think you are refuting?
> Or are you just talking about OS X to avoid talking about Linux?
News Flash: Snit admits the Mac has multiple UIs installed as a default.
>
>>>> Apple did not always do so. It seems that using X based apps must not
>>>> be so much of a fringe case.
>>>
>>> Most OS X users *never* use it.
>>
>> S O W H A T? The multiple UIs are there. Installed. By Apple.
>
> Are you feigning ignorance or do you really not see why comparing the
> norm of one OS to the fringe of another is, well, just absurd.
If it is so fringe, was does X install by default?
>
>>> And look at OpenOffice... in order to avoid being a fringe case it
>>> moved away from X on OS X.
>>>
>>> The fact is you cannot find a single desktop Linux distro that offers
>>> even relative consistency,
>>
>> ... any distro that uses a pure Gnome or KDE environment is relatively
>> consistent.
>
> Well, sure, relative to even less consistent distros. Yeah, pretty low
> standard you set there, but you are right!
A pure Gnome or KDE install is at least as consistent as Windows.
>
>>> so to excuse this away and make it seem like users of others OSs are
>>> generally "treated" to such a poor experience, you point to fringe
>>> cases of OS X.
>>
>> X on OS X is not a fringe case. It is installed by default by Apple,
>> which means almost every Mac user has access to it. And you continued
>> stating that X's inclusion is a fringe case does not make it so.
>
> Ah, so while most OS X users never use X and have no idea what it is,
> and do not even see it... to you that makes it the norm usage and not a
> fringe case.
If it is such a fringe case, why does Apple include it?
>
> Are you feigning ignorance or are you really that lost? Just curious.
Do you still beat your wife? Just curious.
>
>>> Then when your game is pointed out
>>> you whine that I am "dismissing" the fringe cases, as if I have some
>>> obligation to blindly accept your desperate attempts to run from
>>> talking about Linux and its weaknesses. In the end, of course, you
>>> are just running from talking about Linux. Something you do often...
>>> then whine about how I "lie" for noting it.
>>>
>>> Poor Rick, you are just a cliché at this point... a shadow of a
>>> conversation. You repeat the same games, quote the same mantras,
>>> dodge the same points about Linux, spew the same insults and
>>> accusations... and show no thought.
>>> ...
I will restore what you snipped, and point out that you did so without
noting you snipped it:
.. and your last paragraph shows your completely bigoted dishonesty ,
Rick
> support, (snip)
Snit Lie detected. No use going on.
--
Rick
Snit
1/31/10 10:43 AM:
...
>>> And, even if it is "fringe", so what? The system still installs, by
>>> default, multiple UIs, and software that allows the installation of
>>> multiple UIs.
>>
>> Has anyone said otherwise? What argument do you think you are refuting?
>> Or are you just talking about OS X to avoid talking about Linux?
>
> News Flash: Snit admits the Mac has multiple UIs installed as a default.
When has this *ever* been in question? Hmmm, I think in Leopard it may have
been an optional install... but whatever. You really are just looking - and
failing - to make some clever point. Oh my! OS X has X11... news at 11!
You see, Rick, you pretend to be refuting some point but you cannot find the
point you are refuting. Note how I asked and you dodged the question - you
have no idea what it is you are arguing against. None.
>>>>> Apple did not always do so. It seems that using X based apps must not
>>>>> be so much of a fringe case.
>>>>
>>>> Most OS X users *never* use it.
>>>
>>> S O W H A T? The multiple UIs are there. Installed. By Apple.
>>
>> Are you feigning ignorance or do you really not see why comparing the
>> norm of one OS to the fringe of another is, well, just absurd.
>
> If it is so fringe, was does X install by default?
Why would Apple *not* provide tools for important fringe cases? Heck, they
have all sorts of tools for the handicapped, too... certainly not the
norm... and almost nobody needs all the accessibility tools. Do you think
Apple should not include those?
In the end you are just trying to excuse the inconsistency which is the norm
of desktop Linux by pointing to fringe cases of OS X. You just refuse to
talk about Linux.
...
>> Well, sure, relative to even less consistent distros. Yeah, pretty low
>> standard you set there, but you are right!
>
> A pure Gnome or KDE install is at least as consistent as Windows.
You repeat this a lot without pointing to a distro to satisfy your claims.
Of course not.. to do so you would have to actually take a testable stand,
and you know you are wrong so you do not.
See: not even you show any sign of faith in your comments. Prove me wrong
and name a distro. Again. And I will again prove you wrong.
>>>> so to excuse this away and make it seem like users of others OSs are
>>>> generally "treated" to such a poor experience, you point to fringe
>>>> cases of OS X.
>>>
>>> X on OS X is not a fringe case. It is installed by default by Apple,
>>> which means almost every Mac user has access to it. And you continued
>>> stating that X's inclusion is a fringe case does not make it so.
>>
>> Ah, so while most OS X users never use X and have no idea what it is,
>> and do not even see it... to you that makes it the norm usage and not a
>> fringe case.
>>
>> Are you feigning ignorance or are you really that lost? Just curious.
No response from you. Interesting (I snipped your non-response attempt to
change the topic)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1/31/10 10:44 AM:
>> why did you even post? Heck, you snipped most of the content of the post you
>> replied to... too afraid to face it, clearly. As I noted: you have no
>> counter evidence for my comments. You just name call and avoid talking about
>> Linux.
>>
>> Then whine when you actions are noted. Poor Rick... but you do amuse me. :)
>
> Snit Lie detected. No use going on.
What lie? Support your accusation.
As if.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rick
> Rick stated in post M_mdnZhg_tOwXPjW...@supernews.com on
> 1/31/10 10:43 AM:
>
> ...
>>>> And, even if it is "fringe", so what? The system still installs, by
>>>> default, multiple UIs, and software that allows the installation of
>>>> multiple UIs.
>>>
>>> Has anyone said otherwise? What argument do you think you are
>>> refuting? Or are you just talking about OS X to avoid talking about
>>> Linux?
>>
>> News Flash: Snit admits the Mac has multiple UIs installed as a
>> default.
>
> When has this *ever* been in question? Hmmm, I think in Leopard it may
> have been an optional install... but whatever. You really are just
> looking - and failing - to make some clever point. Oh my! OS X has
> X11... news at 11!
News Flash: Snit admits the Mac has multiple UIs installed as a default.
>
> You see, Rick, you pretend to be refuting some point but you cannot find
> the point you are refuting. Note how I asked and you dodged the
> question - you have no idea what it is you are arguing against. None.
Snit Lie detected... however will continue... for now.
>
>>>>>> Apple did not always do so. It seems that using X based apps must
>>>>>> not be so much of a fringe case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most OS X users *never* use it.
>>>>
>>>> S O W H A T? The multiple UIs are there. Installed. By Apple.
>>>
>>> Are you feigning ignorance or do you really not see why comparing the
>>> norm of one OS to the fringe of another is, well, just absurd.
>>
>> If it is so fringe, was does X install by default?
>
> Why would Apple *not* provide tools for important fringe cases? Heck,
News Flash: Snit admits it was important for Apple to install X.
> they have all sorts of tools for the handicapped, too... certainly not
> the norm... and almost nobody needs all the accessibility tools. Do you
> think Apple should not include those?
>
> In the end you are just trying to excuse the inconsistency which is the
> norm of desktop Linux by pointing to fringe cases of OS X. You just
> refuse to talk about Linux.
Snit Lie detected.. will continue, for now.
>
> ...
>>> Well, sure, relative to even less consistent distros. Yeah, pretty
>>> low standard you set there, but you are right!
>>
>> A pure Gnome or KDE install is at least as consistent as Windows.
>
> You repeat this a lot without pointing to a distro to satisfy your
> claims.
I have repeatedly told you: Ubuntu and KUbuntu.
> Of course not.. to do so you would have to actually take a
> testable stand, and you know you are wrong so you do not.
I have repeatedly told you: Ubuntu and KUbuntu.
>
> See: not even you show any sign of faith in your comments. Prove me
> wrong and name a distro. Again. And I will again prove you wrong.
I have repeatedly told you: Ubuntu and KUbuntu.
.. and you won't prove me wrong. You haven't proved me wrong, even after
I told you Ubuntu and Kubuntu, and you repsonded to that.
Ubuntu and Kubuntu are both relatively consistent distros. Can you
install non native apps (Gnome apps in KDE or the reverse)? Yes, but then
the user is changing the environment and must bear responsibility for any
changes in look and or feel.
>
>>>>> so to excuse this away and make it seem like users of others OSs are
>>>>> generally "treated" to such a poor experience, you point to fringe
>>>>> cases of OS X.
>>>>
>>>> X on OS X is not a fringe case. It is installed by default by Apple,
>>>> which means almost every Mac user has access to it. And you continued
>>>> stating that X's inclusion is a fringe case does not make it so.
>>>
>>> Ah, so while most OS X users never use X and have no idea what it is,
>>> and do not even see it... to you that makes it the norm usage and not
>>> a fringe case.
>>>
>>> Are you feigning ignorance or are you really that lost? Just curious.
>
> No response from you. Interesting (I snipped your non-response attempt
> to change the topic)
I made a response. You snipped it. Apparently becasue you either do not
understand it, which I believe is the case, or you do and don't want
others to see it.
My response was: Do you still beat your wife? Just curious.
Now, because I know how it is so important to you ego, you may have the
last word.
--
Rick
DFS
> Rick pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:08:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you hate talking about Linux so much?
>>
>> Why do you lie so much?
>
> Why do you feed that effete candy-ass so much?
Look who's talking:
"In the early days, [my wife] would give me a $10 or a $20 for my
"allowance", and, at the end of the week, she'd see I had only a fiver left,
she'd quiz me about what I spent the rest on."
I bet you said "love, honor and obey" during the ceremony....
ceed
<h...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> And yes, he *is* stupid. Otherwise he would stop his cretinous
>> trolling spree. And instead do something for his family (like
>> working, for example) and stop leeching
> As stupid as Snit nicking a deceased person in Snit's state of Arizona,
> 27 YO Joel Crump for a nym:
> [quote]
> Officials say 27-year-old Joel Crump was found inside a 1985 Jeep
> Cherokee and had sustained a gunshot wound.
> [/quote]
> http://www.abc15.com/content/news/centralsouthernarizona/story/Body-found-with-gunshot-wound-in-crashed-vehicle/cZsEuBgYTk6W5o7ILBPmYA.cspx
> or http://tinyurl.com/yzf3fcy
Let's remove "Plains Thumper". You must simply be high!
--
//ceed
Chris Ahlstrom
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:02:14 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Rick pulled this Usenet boner:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:08:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do you hate talking about Linux so much?
>>>
>>> Why do you lie so much?
>>
>> Why do you feed that effete candy-ass so much?
>
> I do so much less than I used to. Why do you feed him so much?
I do so much less than I used to. :-D
--
Condensed from Codev2, by Lawrence Lessig <http://codev2.cc/>
.law.cyber
His name was IBEX, and no one knew who he was. I probably could
have figured it out--I had the data to track him down--but after he did
what he did, I did not want to know who he was. He was probably a student in
the very first class about cyberspace that I taught, and I would have failed
him, because I was furious about what he had done. The class was "The Law of
Cyberspace" . . .
The character of IBEX was bad; this much was clear from the start.
Before IBEX appeared, life in the space flourished. At first people were
timid, but polite. Brave souls would post an idea or a joke, and
conversation would continue around the idea or joke for a bit. After a
couple of weeks the conversation would become quite intense. Patterns of
exchange began. People had questions; others had answers. People stumbled as
they spoke, but they were beginning, slowly, to speak.
About a month and a half into the course, the group reached an apex of
sorts. It became the best it would be. I remember the moment well. Early on
a spring afternoon I noticed that someone had posted the first line of a
poem. By the end of the day, without any coordination, the class had
finished the poem. There had been rhythm to the exchanges; now there was
rhyme. Things hummed in the newsgroup, and people were genuinely surprised
about this space.
It was then that IBEX appeared. I think it was just after we had
discussed anonymity in class, so maybe his later claims to have been serving
a pedagogical role were true. But he appeared after one of our
classes--appeared, it seemed, just to issue an attack on another member of
the class. Not an attack on his ideas, but on him. So vicious and so
extensive was this attack that when I read it, I didn't know quite how to
understand it. Could it have been real? Almost immediately, conversation in
the group died. It just stopped. No one said anything, as if everyone were
afraid that the monster that had entered our space would turn his fury on
one of them next. Until, that is, the victim responded, with an answer that
evinced the wounds of the attack. IBEX's words had cut. The victim was angry
and hurt, and he attacked back.
But his salvo only inspired another round of viciousness, even more
vile than the first. With this, other members of the class could not resist
joining in. IBEX was attacked by a string of characters in the class as
cowardly for hiding behind a pseudonym and as sick for what he had said.
None of this had any effect. IBEX came back, again and again, with an
ugliness that was as extreme as it was unrelenting. The space had been
changed. Conversation fell off, people drifted away. Some no doubt left
because they were disgusted with what had happened; others did not want to
be IBEX's next target. There was a brief period of life in the space as
people rallied to attack IBEX. But as he came back again and again, each
time more vicious than the last, most simply left. (One time IBEX came back
to protest that he had been wronged; in the week before, he claimed, he had
not posted anything, but someone wearing the white sheet of IBEX had posted
in IBEX's name, so that he, the real IBEX, had been defamed. The class had
little sympathy.)
Snit
1/31/10 11:17 AM:
...
>>> News Flash: Snit admits the Mac has multiple UIs installed as a
>>> default.
>>
>> When has this *ever* been in question? Hmmm, I think in Leopard it may
>> have been an optional install... but whatever. You really are just
>> looking - and failing - to make some clever point. Oh my! OS X has
>> X11... news at 11!
>
> News Flash: Snit admits the Mac has multiple UIs installed as a default.
You are so proud of yourself to have me "admit" to something that has never
been in question. Face it: you cannot find a single time when this has been
debated. You are just blowing smoke and avoiding talking about Linux.
>> You see, Rick, you pretend to be refuting some point but you cannot find
>> the point you are refuting. Note how I asked and you dodged the
>> question - you have no idea what it is you are arguing against. None.
>
> Snit Lie detected... however will continue... for now.
You dodged the question: When has it ever been in question that OS X has
X11? The answer: never. You simply are not making a point... you are
avoiding talking about Linux.
...
>>> A pure Gnome or KDE install is at least as consistent as Windows.
>>
>> You repeat this a lot without pointing to a distro to satisfy your
>> claims.
>>
>> Of course not.. to do so you would have to actually take a
>> testable stand, and you know you are wrong so you do not.
>>
>> See: not even you show any sign of faith in your comments. Prove me
>> wrong and name a distro. Again. And I will again prove you wrong.
>
> I have repeatedly told you: Ubuntu and KUbuntu.
Well, I have shown you are wrong about Ubuntu. Do you need to see you are
wrong about Kubuntu also? Maybe we should set some specific metrics first
so you can not back pedal and claim to have made a valid point. Shall we
look at dialogs and see if consistent terms are used for Quit/Exit... and
consistent icons and hot keys? How about check for consistency in how
cut/paste works... both with middle mouse key and menus?
>
> .. and you won't prove me wrong. You haven't proved me wrong, even after
> I told you Ubuntu and Kubuntu, and you repsonded to that.
Well, Ubuntu has been sorta beaten to death - you have been proved wrong
time and time again in terms of menus, dialogs, cut and paste, etc.
> Ubuntu and Kubuntu are both relatively consistent distros. Can you
> install non native apps (Gnome apps in KDE or the reverse)? Yes, but then
> the user is changing the environment and must bear responsibility for any
> changes in look and or feel.
Oh, as far as installing "non-native" apps I think we should stick at least
mostly with what comes pre-installed... though, of course, the standard
repository should be considered as well.
Of course, you do not believe your BS... which is why you will slink off to
the shadows again soon.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1/31/10 11:46 AM:
> Rick pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 09:02:14 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Rick pulled this Usenet boner:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:08:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why do you hate talking about Linux so much?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you lie so much?
>>>
>>> Why do you feed that effete candy-ass so much?
>>
>> I do so much less than I used to. Why do you feed him so much?
>
> I do so much less than I used to. :-D
LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Clogwog
news:C78B0CEA.61C48%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
<aside>
Or is it Asheville, North Carolina Area?
Clogwog
news:op.u7et2gr6325jvr@christian-laptop...
lol !
That might explain why he's wants to measure someone's cock!
Moshe Goldfarb
Mayberry NC.
And Griffith's girlfriend.
--
1/31/2010 3:53:42 PM
Moshe Goldfarb
Incredible.
I wonder if he uses OpenOffice's spreadsheet program to keep track
of all these cocks he measures.
--
1/31/2010 3:54:20 PM
High Plains Thumper
> ceed wrote:
>>
>>>> And UI just scratches the surface of what someone needs to know
>>>> to do any particular job on a computer.
>>>
>>> For the general user, the User Experience *is* the computer.
>>
>> That's what it comes down to.
>
> And you wonder why you are (rightly) perceived as a Snot Glasser sock
> Because thats exactly what you are.
>
> Michael Glasser writes idiotic bullshit like "the User Experience
> *is* the computer", and you think that has any meaning other than
> that he is truly a retard?
Oh, so he is still harping on those same issues? Yup, that's Snit for yah.
Name: snit
Traits:
* MAC troll
* Cross posts to maximize newsgroup disruption
* Despised by many on COLA and CSMA (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
* Proves the saying 'those that can do, those that can't teach
* Idiot
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/01/snit-troll.html
--
HPT
Snit
3:31 PM:
> Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>> ceed wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And UI just scratches the surface of what someone needs to know
>>>>> to do any particular job on a computer.
>>>>
>>>> For the general user, the User Experience *is* the computer.
>>>
>>> That's what it comes down to.
>>
>> And you wonder why you are (rightly) perceived as a Snot Glasser sock
>> Because thats exactly what you are.
>>
>> Michael Glasser writes idiotic bullshit like "the User Experience
>> *is* the computer", and you think that has any meaning other than
>> that he is truly a retard?
>
> Oh, so he is still harping on those same issues? Yup, that's Snit for yah.
Hey, I like seeing you and Peter make fools of yourself in response. That's
you and Peter!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
High Plains Thumper
And ...
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Joel <joelcr...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:59:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Glasser Pathological Liar Compilation
[quote]
> Following are 132 poster accounts on the Snit Circus of Pathological
> Lies:
And that's supposed to convince someone that they are the good guys?
Please. I'll take one decent poster like Snit over a thousand idiot
trolls, any day.
[/quote]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ce419ba75106d6a6
Snit busted. Again.
--
HPT
Snit
on 1/31/10 9:05 PM:
Busted doing what? Did you even quote me doing *anything*?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
>Snit would have us believe that this fellow would be unable to master
>minor UI differences.
>
>Snit would have us believe that all people are obstinately stupid.
The whole thing is just ridiculous, obviously.
Hell, put a track ball, pointing stick, or touch pad in front of a
mouse user. All radically different interfaces. Does the mouse user
freeze-up, or quickly adapt to the new interface, easily switching
between them if necessary?
chrisv
>Rick pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:08:09 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you hate talking about Linux so much?
>>
>> Why do you lie so much?
>
>Why do you feed that effete candy-ass so much?
Exactly. Sheesh. WTF is the point?
Clogwog
His imagination ran wild again.
He "proved" that I'm K-man, Flatfish, Rick, some Australian Clog wog guy
a.s.o.
Stupid tits like him and "none of your business" can't even figure out my
real identity.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAH!!
Snit
7:07 AM:
And your point... that you have just discounted decades of science? No...
then what?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
> Shit wrote:
>>
>> You do not believe a staircase should have a consistent rise and run?
>
>Fantasizing about stair wells is just disgusting.
>You greedy pig!
>Stop it!
*Again* this inappropraite comparion of GUI's to mechanical systems.
Sheesh!
Everyone should just KF the fscking retard troll.
Snit
7:43 AM:
You reject evidence in the form of:
* analogies
* peer reviewed studies
(George, Rhee, Chimera, Brown, Kellogg, Rubenstein, etc.)
* standards bodies
(ISO 9241, HFS 600, ISO 13407, etc.)
* comments from prominent people in the OSS movement
(Shuttleworth, Zemlin, etc.)
* documentation from OSS projects
(KDE, Gnome, Firefox, OpenOffice, etc.)
* comments from experts in UI issues
(Nielsen, Oppedisano, Ledgard, Johnson, Ward, Yovits, etc.)
* common sense (yes, it is pretty much common sense that lots
of arbitrary inconsistency in a tool is not good)
Your "refutation" is of the kind where flat-earthers say that since they do
not see a curve the Earth must be flat.
Do you have *anything* else? I really want to know.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]