Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #365289 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-12 19:31 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-13 13:11 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 123 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-12 19:31 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-12 19:39 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-13 02:51 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-12 20:22 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 23:36 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-08-13 06:42 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 08:57 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-13 07:28 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-15 09:37 -0500
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:45 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-15 16:35 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-16 00:17 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-16 04:36 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-16 22:15 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 15:49 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-17 13:56 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 18:15 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 08:40 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 15:54 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-18 12:55 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 12:26 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-16 22:14 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-17 07:49 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 15:45 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-17 14:05 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 18:16 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-17 18:19 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 21:58 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-18 08:39 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-18 12:57 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:47 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-18 16:48 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 21:31 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-18 16:59 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-18 23:18 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-19 13:30 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-19 18:25 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-19 23:33 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-19 19:50 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-20 00:03 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-20 12:56 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-20 12:54 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 12:36 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 12:35 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 20:15 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 21:59 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-17 20:22 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 22:06 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 12:33 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 17:05 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 13:08 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 10:22 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 13:53 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-16 00:09 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 08:36 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 19:28 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 12:59 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice kubuntuking@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 14:50 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-16 22:17 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 17:55 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 03:47 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 21:02 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-08-16 13:55 +0100
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-16 00:07 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:39 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 14:00 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:22 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 17:54 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 14:34 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 15:42 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 15:50 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 17:14 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 17:44 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 17:54 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 18:04 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-16 01:18 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 18:22 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-16 22:19 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-17 15:58 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-17 09:16 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-17 12:36 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 18:28 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 18:38 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 19:08 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 19:11 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 19:24 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 19:28 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 19:35 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> - 2016-08-16 02:43 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 19:58 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 18:51 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 16:09 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 17:16 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 17:34 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 22:43 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 19:59 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-08-15 21:27 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 18:30 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 22:47 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 19:49 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 22:54 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 19:56 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 23:01 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 20:05 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 03:49 +0000
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-15 21:02 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-16 06:52 -0500
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-08-16 07:07 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 22:45 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-08-16 07:12 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 08:37 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-08-16 22:24 -0600
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-15 12:17 -0500
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 14:30 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-16 00:08 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-08-15 21:21 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-13 09:26 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-13 09:27 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 09:42 -0400
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 07:18 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 07:07 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-08-13 09:35 -0700
Re: Lithuania goes LibreOffice DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-08-13 13:11 -0400
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 03:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nou2c6$moh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #365527 |
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:59:49 -0700, Marek Novotny wrote: > And now as > people are finally starting to question all this useless upgrading the > software publishers want to move the goal post. Subscription! Exactly. I wonder how far along this path Microsoft would have already moved down if not for Linux standing in their way. As it is, I can totally ignore Microsoft's bullshit. -- "If voting actually made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it." -Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 21:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <IcudnSHp5oXzDS_KnZ2dnUU7-SmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #365592 |
On 2016-08-16, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:59:49 -0700, Marek Novotny wrote: > >> And now as >> people are finally starting to question all this useless upgrading the >> software publishers want to move the goal post. Subscription! > > Exactly. I wonder how far along this path Microsoft would have already > moved down if not for Linux standing in their way. As it is, I can > totally ignore Microsoft's bullshit. +1 -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Poaster <wp@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 13:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p3fb8d-623.ln1@debian.machineone.org> |
| In reply to | #365595 |
Marek Novotny wrote: > On 2016-08-16, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:59:49 -0700, Marek Novotny wrote: >> >>> And now as >>> people are finally starting to question all this useless upgrading the >>> software publishers want to move the goal post. Subscription! >> >> Exactly. I wonder how far along this path Microsoft would have already >> moved down if not for Linux standing in their way. As it is, I can >> totally ignore Microsoft's bullshit. > > +1 +2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 00:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nou3hs$q3v$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #365592 |
On 8/15/2016 11:47 PM, ronb wrote: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:59:49 -0700, Marek Novotny wrote: > >> And now as >> people are finally starting to question all this useless upgrading the >> software publishers want to move the goal post. Subscription! > > Exactly. I wonder how far along this path Microsoft would have already > moved down if not for Linux standing in their way. As it is, I can > totally ignore Microsoft's bullshit. Only if you don't work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 10:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c6e88278-6e31-4bd9-bae8-36d8f03062df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365512 |
On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-6, flatfish+++ wrote: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:05:02 -0000 (UTC), ronb wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:37:37 -0500, chrisv wrote: > > > >> It's really quite stunning that, in these times, more places are not > >> dumping MSO to save money. > > > > You've got too many people like "Snit" who slavishly rely on "step by > > step" instructions when using an application. It completely confuses (and > > irritates) them when the steps are not exactly the same in a new > > application. > > No. He's right but only from a geek perspective. It's easy for people who are into things like commands lines and whatnot to forget that the 'average' user needs what he's complaining about, in fact, even that is often too much. > You have front loaded retraining costs which granted would be > recovered by an increase in productivity if that was the case. > So, if LibreOffice was superior to MSOffice and the UI allowed higher > productivity and a superior computing experience for the end user > (ie:basic tasks are easier to accomplish) then companies would be > switching by the boatload. Like you pointed out with Ardour, these kinds of apps keep improving, too. Eventually a tipping point will be reached (it may already have been... maybe that's part of why PC sales keep tanking?). Like anything else, it will get to the point where an alternative doesn't have to be better or contain all the features that keep being crammed into these monoliths, it only has to be 'good enough'. > Since that is not even close to being the case, it's not worth it to > incur retraining costs just to switch to an inferior product. Business environments are a different case altogether so your point is valid (but not in all cases). One thing I think is often overlooked is that the days of having a computer 'as capable as the one at work' are pretty much over for the 'average' user. Mobile is behind some of this but, more importantly, millennials don't appear to be taking their work home with them to the same extent as their parents did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 14:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1950aloi0462c.1pwdmlp1xun5s$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #365518 |
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:39:24 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-6, flatfish+++ wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:05:02 -0000 (UTC), ronb wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:37:37 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>> >>>> It's really quite stunning that, in these times, more places are not >>>> dumping MSO to save money. >>> >>> You've got too many people like "Snit" who slavishly rely on "step by >>> step" instructions when using an application. It completely confuses (and >>> irritates) them when the steps are not exactly the same in a new >>> application. >> >> No. > > He's right but only from a geek perspective. It's easy for people who are into things like commands lines and whatnot to forget that the 'average' user needs what he's complaining about, in fact, even that is often too much. > >> You have front loaded retraining costs which granted would be >> recovered by an increase in productivity if that was the case. >> So, if LibreOffice was superior to MSOffice and the UI allowed higher >> productivity and a superior computing experience for the end user >> (ie:basic tasks are easier to accomplish) then companies would be >> switching by the boatload. > > Like you pointed out with Ardour, these kinds of apps keep > improving, too. Eventually a tipping point will be reached (it may > already have been... maybe that's part of why PC sales keep > tanking?). Like anything else, it will get to the point where an > alternative doesn't have to be better or contain all the features > that keep being crammed into these monoliths, it only has to be > 'good enough'. Marek is a starry eyed Linux zealot geek who doesn't have a clue what the outside world's needs are. He really doesn't. He lives for vim, a CLI based compiler and spends his time churning out code that does absolutely nothing, like his last example for snit. Normal, average people will find that type of behavior very strange indeed. Of course FOSS/Linux is going to continue to improve, despite idiots like the COLA advocates doing everything in their power to prevent it. They slow it down, but will never totally stop it. BTW the latest version of Harrison Mixbus (3.6) can't even manage to load Synthogy Ivory without crashing. >> Since that is not even close to being the case, it's not worth it to >> incur retraining costs just to switch to an inferior product. > > Business environments are a different case altogether so your point > is valid (but not in all cases). One thing I think is often > overlooked is that the days of having a computer 'as capable as the > one at work' are pretty much over for the 'average' user. Mobile is > behind some of this but, more importantly, millennials don't appear > to be taking their work home with them to the same extent as their > parents did. I disagree. The work day has increased in hours because of mobile and broadband hook ups to the home office. It's no longer a 40 hour work week for white collar professionals. Due to connectivity they are accessible 24x7. Personally I think that's a real big problem that needs to be solved. -- flatfish+++ Often imitated. Never duplicated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 12:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <01c1c061-f71a-40d5-9901-d32876531632@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #365522 |
On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-6, flatfish+++ wrote: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:39:24 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote: > > > On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-6, flatfish+++ wrote: > >> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:05:02 -0000 (UTC), ronb wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:37:37 -0500, chrisv wrote: > >>> > >>>> It's really quite stunning that, in these times, more places are not > >>>> dumping MSO to save money. > >>> > >>> You've got too many people like "Snit" who slavishly rely on "step by > >>> step" instructions when using an application. It completely confuses (and > >>> irritates) them when the steps are not exactly the same in a new > >>> application. > >> > >> No. > > > > He's right but only from a geek perspective. It's easy for people who are into things like commands lines and whatnot to forget that the 'average' user needs what he's complaining about, in fact, even that is often too much. > > > >> You have front loaded retraining costs which granted would be > >> recovered by an increase in productivity if that was the case. > >> So, if LibreOffice was superior to MSOffice and the UI allowed higher > >> productivity and a superior computing experience for the end user > >> (ie:basic tasks are easier to accomplish) then companies would be > >> switching by the boatload. > > > > Like you pointed out with Ardour, these kinds of apps keep > > improving, too. Eventually a tipping point will be reached (it may > > already have been... maybe that's part of why PC sales keep > > tanking?). Like anything else, it will get to the point where an > > alternative doesn't have to be better or contain all the features > > that keep being crammed into these monoliths, it only has to be > > 'good enough'. > > Marek is a starry eyed Linux zealot geek who doesn't have a clue what > the outside world's needs are. > He really doesn't. > He lives for vim, a CLI based compiler and spends his time churning > out code that does absolutely nothing, like his last example for snit. > > Normal, average people will find that type of behavior very strange > indeed. > > Of course FOSS/Linux is going to continue to improve, despite idiots > like the COLA advocates doing everything in their power to prevent it. > They slow it down, but will never totally stop it. > > BTW the latest version of Harrison Mixbus (3.6) can't even manage to > load Synthogy Ivory without crashing. To me, this underscores the difference between FOSS and proprietary stuff. In proprietary world, when you have complex software, you can usually expect issues to be addressed in a timely manner (though, even there it doesn't always happen). For things less complicated, like creating the vast majority of the documents that make the world go 'round, it's just not as much of an issue. Ardour will probably never come close to my setup with Logic but LibreOffice can easily replace MSOffice for me, mainly because my needs are that of the 'average' user of this kind of software. There's a pretty big gap here in my mind between these things. > >> Since that is not even close to being the case, it's not worth it to > >> incur retraining costs just to switch to an inferior product. > > > > Business environments are a different case altogether so your point > > is valid (but not in all cases). One thing I think is often > > overlooked is that the days of having a computer 'as capable as the > > one at work' are pretty much over for the 'average' user. Mobile is > > behind some of this but, more importantly, millennials don't appear > > to be taking their work home with them to the same extent as their > > parents did. > > I disagree. > The work day has increased in hours because of mobile and broadband > hook ups to the home office. Yes, *hours* have increased. > It's no longer a 40 hour work week for white collar professionals. > Due to connectivity they are accessible 24x7. We've been done with the 40 hour work week for a long time and connectivity is nothing new. There is a smaller (but growing) subset of millennials who get to work from home often, set their own schedules, etc. The rest, who are constrained by a traditional schedule, want to have lives (like this subgroup appears to have). I've read that the main reason these young folks seek new jobs so often is to gain some work-life balance. I think their idea of 'working from home', while still being forced to adhere to the traditional schedule, is more facade than value. I interface mostly with millennials and I freely admit I could be way off but this is the impression I get. I'm not saying they're all lazy slackers, like many articles you'll find might claim, they just appear to be far more cognizant of burn out than we were. On the flip side, they also seem to want their own businesses at a higher rate than we did, which, ironically, tends to cause burn out. I read this that they rightly figure if they're going to get burnt out better to do it for themselves. Anyway, this is what I see more and more of. YMMV. > Personally I think that's a real big problem that needs to be solved. Again, just from personal experience, millennials appear to already be taking steps to solve it where they are concerned (this doesn't the solve the national issue, though). As an aside, it can be somewhat interesting to look back at old articles on tangentially related subjects: <https://hbr.org/1996/11/the-hollow-ring-of-the-productivity-revival>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | flatfish+++ <flatfish4real@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 17:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1um2t4rr4vrys.jq1hqbad68a8$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #365523 |
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 12:22:47 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote: > On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 12:00:03 PM UTC-6, flatfish+++ wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:39:24 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote: >> >>> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-6, flatfish+++ wrote: >>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:05:02 -0000 (UTC), ronb wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:37:37 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It's really quite stunning that, in these times, more places are not >>>>>> dumping MSO to save money. >>>>> >>>>> You've got too many people like "Snit" who slavishly rely on "step by >>>>> step" instructions when using an application. It completely confuses (and >>>>> irritates) them when the steps are not exactly the same in a new >>>>> application. >>>> >>>> No. >>> >>> He's right but only from a geek perspective. It's easy for people who are into things like commands lines and whatnot to forget that the 'average' user needs what he's complaining about, in fact, even that is often too much. >>> >>>> You have front loaded retraining costs which granted would be >>>> recovered by an increase in productivity if that was the case. >>>> So, if LibreOffice was superior to MSOffice and the UI allowed higher >>>> productivity and a superior computing experience for the end user >>>> (ie:basic tasks are easier to accomplish) then companies would be >>>> switching by the boatload. >>> >>> Like you pointed out with Ardour, these kinds of apps keep >>> improving, too. Eventually a tipping point will be reached (it may >>> already have been... maybe that's part of why PC sales keep >>> tanking?). Like anything else, it will get to the point where an >>> alternative doesn't have to be better or contain all the features >>> that keep being crammed into these monoliths, it only has to be >>> 'good enough'. >> >> Marek is a starry eyed Linux zealot geek who doesn't have a clue what >> the outside world's needs are. >> He really doesn't. >> He lives for vim, a CLI based compiler and spends his time churning >> out code that does absolutely nothing, like his last example for snit. >> >> Normal, average people will find that type of behavior very strange >> indeed. >> >> Of course FOSS/Linux is going to continue to improve, despite idiots >> like the COLA advocates doing everything in their power to prevent it. >> They slow it down, but will never totally stop it. >> >> BTW the latest version of Harrison Mixbus (3.6) can't even manage to >> load Synthogy Ivory without crashing. > > To me, this underscores the difference between FOSS and proprietary > stuff. In proprietary world, when you have complex software, you > can usually expect issues to be addressed in a timely manner > (though, even there it doesn't always happen). For things less > complicated, like creating the vast majority of the documents that > make the world go 'round, it's just not as much of an issue. Ardour > will probably never come close to my setup with Logic but > LibreOffice can easily replace MSOffice for me, mainly because my > needs are that of the 'average' user of this kind of software. > There's a pretty big gap here in my mind between these things. And that's the problem. I'm sitting in a studio with 30 musicians earning scale, I don't need to be bothered with software problems. If I'm one of those musicians, and I have been, delay all you want as I'm on the clock :) Unions are great! > >>>> Since that is not even close to being the case, it's not worth it to >>>> incur retraining costs just to switch to an inferior product. >>> >>> Business environments are a different case altogether so your point >>> is valid (but not in all cases). One thing I think is often >>> overlooked is that the days of having a computer 'as capable as the >>> one at work' are pretty much over for the 'average' user. Mobile is >>> behind some of this but, more importantly, millennials don't appear >>> to be taking their work home with them to the same extent as their >>> parents did. >> >> I disagree. >> The work day has increased in hours because of mobile and broadband >> hook ups to the home office. > > Yes, *hours* have increased. +1 >> It's no longer a 40 hour work week for white collar professionals. >> Due to connectivity they are accessible 24x7. > > We've been done with the 40 hour work week for a long time and > connectivity is nothing new. There is a smaller (but growing) > subset of millennials who get to work from home often, set their > own schedules, etc. The rest, who are constrained by a traditional > schedule, want to have lives (like this subgroup appears to have). > I've read that the main reason these young folks seek new jobs so > often is to gain some work-life balance. I think their idea of > 'working from home', while still being forced to adhere to the > traditional schedule, is more facade than value. I interface mostly > with millennials and I freely admit I could be way off but this is > the impression I get. I'm not saying they're all lazy slackers, > like many articles you'll find might claim, they just appear to be > far more cognizant of burn out than we were. On the flip side, they > also seem to want their own businesses at a higher rate than we > did, which, ironically, tends to cause burn out. I read this that > they rightly figure if they're going to get burnt out better to do > it for themselves. Anyway, this is what I see more and more of. > YMMV. From what my corporate minions tell me, a lot of the slackers tend to send emails at 2 AM to try and show how they are working real hard after hours. The fact they do little between 9-5 doesn't seem to matter. lol ! >> Personally I think that's a real big problem that needs to be solved. > > Again, just from personal experience, millennials appear to already > be taking steps to solve it where they are concerned (this doesn't > the solve the national issue, though). As an aside, it can be > somewhat interesting to look back at old articles on tangentially > related subjects: > > <https://hbr.org/1996/11/the-hollow-ring-of-the-productivity-revival> I think it just sort of morphed into corporate world. I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe bring back unions and real regulations regarding per hour pay etc. I dunno. -- flatfish+++ Often imitated. Never duplicated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3D7836F.79510%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365522 |
On 8/15/16, 11:00 AM, in article
1950aloi0462c.1pwdmlp1xun5s$.dlg@40tude.net, "flatfish+++"
<flatfish4real@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>> Like you pointed out with Ardour, these kinds of apps keep
>> improving, too. Eventually a tipping point will be reached (it may
>> already have been... maybe that's part of why PC sales keep
>> tanking?). Like anything else, it will get to the point where an
>> alternative doesn't have to be better or contain all the features
>> that keep being crammed into these monoliths, it only has to be
>> 'good enough'.
>
> Marek is a starry eyed Linux zealot geek who doesn't have a clue what
> the outside world's needs are.
> He really doesn't.
> He lives for vim, a CLI based compiler and spends his time churning
> out code that does absolutely nothing, like his last example for snit.
The "test" was to see if I could figure out a basic script... becauuse, of
course, if I have a script that looks like this:
while true; do date >> ~/Desktop/ping.txt; ping -c 500
google.com >> ~/Desktop/ping.txt; done
Then I will know what his did. Hmmm... OK, maybe not -- so his test was a
poor one but I still did it fairly easily.
> Normal, average people will find that type of behavior very strange
> indeed.
>
> Of course FOSS/Linux is going to continue to improve, despite idiots
> like the COLA advocates doing everything in their power to prevent it.
> They slow it down, but will never totally stop it.
>
> BTW the latest version of Harrison Mixbus (3.6) can't even manage to
> load Synthogy Ivory without crashing.
...
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 15:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <OdWdnXhBy5ug2C_KnZ2dnUU7-bmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #365531 |
On 2016-08-15, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/15/16, 11:00 AM, in article > 1950aloi0462c.1pwdmlp1xun5s$.dlg@40tude.net, "flatfish+++" ><flatfish4real@gmail.com> wrote: > > ... >>> Like you pointed out with Ardour, these kinds of apps keep >>> improving, too. Eventually a tipping point will be reached (it may >>> already have been... maybe that's part of why PC sales keep >>> tanking?). Like anything else, it will get to the point where an >>> alternative doesn't have to be better or contain all the features >>> that keep being crammed into these monoliths, it only has to be >>> 'good enough'. >> >> Marek is a starry eyed Linux zealot geek who doesn't have a clue what >> the outside world's needs are. >> He really doesn't. >> He lives for vim, a CLI based compiler and spends his time churning >> out code that does absolutely nothing, like his last example for snit. > > The "test" was to see if I could figure out a basic script... becauuse, of > course, if I have a script that looks like this: > > while true; do date >> ~/Desktop/ping.txt; ping -c 500 > google.com >> ~/Desktop/ping.txt; done > > Then I will know what his did. Hmmm... OK, maybe not -- so his test was a > poor one but I still did it fairly easily. Would you like me to write something more difficult? As I mentioned, it was the easiest thing I could think of. All it tested was if you knew what true and false looks like. Any time to wish to explain bash in detail to show off your knowledge of it, feel free. // snip -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 15:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3D79562.7951F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365541 |
On 8/15/16, 3:42 PM, in article OdWdnXhBy5ug2C_KnZ2dnUU7-bmdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny" <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote: > On 2016-08-15, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/15/16, 11:00 AM, in article >> 1950aloi0462c.1pwdmlp1xun5s$.dlg@40tude.net, "flatfish+++" >> <flatfish4real@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> ... >>>> Like you pointed out with Ardour, these kinds of apps keep >>>> improving, too. Eventually a tipping point will be reached (it may >>>> already have been... maybe that's part of why PC sales keep >>>> tanking?). Like anything else, it will get to the point where an >>>> alternative doesn't have to be better or contain all the features >>>> that keep being crammed into these monoliths, it only has to be >>>> 'good enough'. >>> >>> Marek is a starry eyed Linux zealot geek who doesn't have a clue what >>> the outside world's needs are. >>> He really doesn't. >>> He lives for vim, a CLI based compiler and spends his time churning >>> out code that does absolutely nothing, like his last example for snit. >> >> The "test" was to see if I could figure out a basic script... becauuse, of >> course, if I have a script that looks like this: >> >> while true; do date >> ~/Desktop/ping.txt; ping -c 500 >> google.com >> ~/Desktop/ping.txt; done >> >> Then I will know what his did. Hmmm... OK, maybe not -- so his test was a >> poor one but I still did it fairly easily. > > Would you like me to write something more difficult? That would not make it any better of a test... esp. given how I have not claimed to be particularly knowledgeable in that area. What is weird is how you want to "test" people -- a means for you to try to feel better about yourself. Sorta creepy that you have focused on me. It means you look up to me though. > As I mentioned, it was the easiest thing I could think of. All it tested was > if you knew what true and false looks like. I may be one of the only ones in COLA who does. :) > Any time to wish to explain bash > in detail to show off your knowledge of it, feel free. Show off my knowledge of something I noted I do not have great knowledge with. Um, what? Now if you want to share how bash helps you with workflows and getting tasks done (and, to be clear, I would be surprised if it did not) then THAT would be a great. And a healthier way for you to feel better about yourself! -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 17:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <WqCdnfxR249Txy_KnZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #365543 |
On 2016-08-15, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/15/16, 3:42 PM, in article > OdWdnXhBy5ug2C_KnZ2dnUU7-bmdnZ2d@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny" ><marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote: > >> On 2016-08-15, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 8/15/16, 11:00 AM, in article >>> 1950aloi0462c.1pwdmlp1xun5s$.dlg@40tude.net, "flatfish+++" >>> <flatfish4real@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>> Like you pointed out with Ardour, these kinds of apps keep >>>>> improving, too. Eventually a tipping point will be reached (it may >>>>> already have been... maybe that's part of why PC sales keep >>>>> tanking?). Like anything else, it will get to the point where an >>>>> alternative doesn't have to be better or contain all the features >>>>> that keep being crammed into these monoliths, it only has to be >>>>> 'good enough'. >>>> >>>> Marek is a starry eyed Linux zealot geek who doesn't have a clue what >>>> the outside world's needs are. >>>> He really doesn't. >>>> He lives for vim, a CLI based compiler and spends his time churning >>>> out code that does absolutely nothing, like his last example for snit. >>> >>> The "test" was to see if I could figure out a basic script... becauuse, of >>> course, if I have a script that looks like this: >>> >>> while true; do date >> ~/Desktop/ping.txt; ping -c 500 >>> google.com >> ~/Desktop/ping.txt; done >>> >>> Then I will know what his did. Hmmm... OK, maybe not -- so his test was a >>> poor one but I still did it fairly easily. >> >> Would you like me to write something more difficult? > > That would not make it any better of a test... esp. given how I have not > claimed to be particularly knowledgeable in that area. What is weird is how > you want to "test" people -- a means for you to try to feel better about > yourself. Sorta creepy that you have focused on me. It means you look up to > me though. You seem to forget the context of the test. You mentioned you write scripts. I said, show me. You refused. So I offered an incredibly simple test to see if you could at least figure out what true and false are. All you had to do is know that one teeny tiny thing and the script would open up to you. Now you complain it was a poor test. So if you'd like a more difficult I can accommodate that and watch you fail all over the place. You already didn't get part of the conversation going on in the thread as it is. That simple last modification threw you enough that couldn't solve the last one at all. >> As I mentioned, it was the easiest thing I could think of. All it tested was >> if you knew what true and false looks like. > > I may be one of the only ones in COLA who does. :) > >> Any time to wish to explain bash >> in detail to show off your knowledge of it, feel free. > > Show off my knowledge of something I noted I do not have great knowledge > with. Um, what? > > Now if you want to share how bash helps you with workflows and getting tasks > done (and, to be clear, I would be surprised if it did not) then THAT would > be a great. And a healthier way for you to feel better about yourself! I already have. Many times. You can read about them in other groups. -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 17:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3D7B018.7953F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365548 |
On 8/15/16, 5:14 PM, in article
WqCdnfxR249Txy_KnZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny"
<marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
...
>>> Would you like me to write something more difficult?
>>
>> That would not make it any better of a test... esp. given how I have not
>> claimed to be particularly knowledgeable in that area. What is weird is how
>> you want to "test" people -- a means for you to try to feel better about
>> yourself. Sorta creepy that you have focused on me. It means you look up to
>> me though.
>
> You seem to forget the context of the test.
Nope. With the context you made a fool of yourself: wanting me to be your
dancing monkey and getting pissy when I did not. You though I *owed* you
proving myself or something and when I did not clap for you your response
was dishonest.
> You mentioned you write scripts.
The ones I do in bash are mostly very simple ones like this:
while true; do date >> ~/Desktop/ping.txt; ping -c 500
google.com >> ~/Desktop/ping.txt; done
I am sure there are better ways... but it works to be able to prove to myISP
when my service is horrid... which is too often.
> I said, show me. You refused.
And you thought I *owed* you and then lied that with my "challenges" I do
the same but you could not find any examples. You lied.
I disapprove of your dishonesty and your view that others have a
responsibility to prove themselves to you. Keep in mind, I am the one who
has been far more honest - if anything YOU owe me such proof, and even then
I do not demand it. That would be absurd.
> So I offered an incredibly simple test to see if you could at least figure out
> what true and false are. All you had to do is know that one teeny tiny thing
> and the script would open up to you.
And I did know... and provided proof you could see if you merely agreed to
be honest. That was too much for you. YOU refused.
What I did was turn your demand around on you and you freaked out... and my
"demand" was merely if YOU wanted what YOU were demanding you had to stop
lying about me. Completely reasonable!
> Now you complain it was a poor test.
Of course it was... it was absurd. One can know how to make basic scripts
and not know specifics of what you are doing. And one might... as I did with
the equivalency check (though, as I have said, I did not see it right when I
opened it and SHOULD have... it is not at all hard and that was my failing).
Still, the total time for me to figure it out was less than five minutes.
Likely less than two, but I did not time it or anything.
> So if you'd like a more difficult I can accommodate that and watch you fail
> all over the place.
You can "accommodate" me by doing something I in NO way suggested you do.
How does that even begin to make sense to you?
> You already didn't get part of the conversation going on in the thread as it
> is. That simple last modification threw you enough that couldn't solve the
> last one at all.
I do not even know which was the "last one" -- and stopped "playing." If you
show it I might try... but I will repeat the condition that you HAVE to stop
lying about me if you want me to dance to your tune on this. Specifically,
you have to merely admit to two truths:
* Peter asked for a GUI solution.
* When I showed him one you responded dishonestly
These truths have been proved beyond any doubt. They ARE factual. There is
NO doubt. Are you willing to be honest to get what you want?
I bet not.
>>> As I mentioned, it was the easiest thing I could think of. All it tested was
>>> if you knew what true and false looks like.
>>
>> I may be one of the only ones in COLA who does. :)
>>
>>> Any time to wish to explain bash
>>> in detail to show off your knowledge of it, feel free.
>>
>> Show off my knowledge of something I noted I do not have great knowledge
>> with. Um, what?
>>
>> Now if you want to share how bash helps you with workflows and getting tasks
>> done (and, to be clear, I would be surprised if it did not) then THAT would
>> be a great. And a healthier way for you to feel better about yourself!
>
> I already have. Many times. You can read about them in other groups.
Why not post links? Or show them here... make this group better instead of
focusing on your own insecurities and need to put others down to try to feel
better about yourself. When you are able to let go of that you CAN post
reasonably.
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 17:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <jZCdnfPFEaKw-S_KnZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #365551 |
On 2016-08-16, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 8/15/16, 5:14 PM, in article > WqCdnfxR249Txy_KnZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny" ><marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote: > > ... >>>> Would you like me to write something more difficult? >>> >>> That would not make it any better of a test... esp. given how I have not >>> claimed to be particularly knowledgeable in that area. What is weird is how >>> you want to "test" people -- a means for you to try to feel better about >>> yourself. Sorta creepy that you have focused on me. It means you look up to >>> me though. >> >> You seem to forget the context of the test. > > Nope. With the context you made a fool of yourself: wanting me to be your > dancing monkey and getting pissy when I did not. You though I *owed* you > proving myself or something and when I did not clap for you your response > was dishonest. > >> You mentioned you write scripts. > > The ones I do in bash are mostly very simple ones like this: > > while true; do date >> ~/Desktop/ping.txt; ping -c 500 > google.com >> ~/Desktop/ping.txt; done > > I am sure there are better ways... but it works to be able to prove to myISP > when my service is horrid... which is too often. > >> I said, show me. You refused. > > And you thought I *owed* you and then lied that with my "challenges" I do > the same but you could not find any examples. You lied. > > I disapprove of your dishonesty and your view that others have a > responsibility to prove themselves to you. Keep in mind, I am the one who > has been far more honest - if anything YOU owe me such proof, and even then > I do not demand it. That would be absurd. > >> So I offered an incredibly simple test to see if you could at least figure out >> what true and false are. All you had to do is know that one teeny tiny thing >> and the script would open up to you. > > And I did know... and provided proof you could see if you merely agreed to > be honest. That was too much for you. YOU refused. > > What I did was turn your demand around on you and you freaked out... and my > "demand" was merely if YOU wanted what YOU were demanding you had to stop > lying about me. Completely reasonable! > >> Now you complain it was a poor test. > > Of course it was... it was absurd. One can know how to make basic scripts > and not know specifics of what you are doing. And one might... as I did with > the equivalency check (though, as I have said, I did not see it right when I > opened it and SHOULD have... it is not at all hard and that was my failing). > Still, the total time for me to figure it out was less than five minutes. > Likely less than two, but I did not time it or anything. > >> So if you'd like a more difficult I can accommodate that and watch you fail >> all over the place. > > You can "accommodate" me by doing something I in NO way suggested you do. > How does that even begin to make sense to you? > >> You already didn't get part of the conversation going on in the thread as it >> is. That simple last modification threw you enough that couldn't solve the >> last one at all. > > I do not even know which was the "last one" -- and stopped "playing." If you > show it I might try... but I will repeat the condition that you HAVE to stop > lying about me if you want me to dance to your tune on this. Specifically, > you have to merely admit to two truths: > > * Peter asked for a GUI solution. > * When I showed him one you responded dishonestly > > These truths have been proved beyond any doubt. They ARE factual. There is > NO doubt. Are you willing to be honest to get what you want? > > I bet not. > >>>> As I mentioned, it was the easiest thing I could think of. All it tested was >>>> if you knew what true and false looks like. >>> >>> I may be one of the only ones in COLA who does. :) >>> >>>> Any time to wish to explain bash >>>> in detail to show off your knowledge of it, feel free. >>> >>> Show off my knowledge of something I noted I do not have great knowledge >>> with. Um, what? >>> >>> Now if you want to share how bash helps you with workflows and getting tasks >>> done (and, to be clear, I would be surprised if it did not) then THAT would >>> be a great. And a healthier way for you to feel better about yourself! >> >> I already have. Many times. You can read about them in other groups. > > Why not post links? Or show them here... make this group better instead of > focusing on your own insecurities and need to put others down to try to feel > better about yourself. When you are able to let go of that you CAN post > reasonably. As if you want to make this place better... Here's an idea. Stop trolling... -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 18:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3D7B4C5.79548%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #365552 |
On 8/15/16, 5:54 PM, in article jZCdnfPFEaKw-S_KnZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny" <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote: > On 2016-08-16, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 8/15/16, 5:14 PM, in article >> WqCdnfxR249Txy_KnZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny" >> <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>> Would you like me to write something more difficult? >>>> >>>> That would not make it any better of a test... esp. given how I have not >>>> claimed to be particularly knowledgeable in that area. What is weird is how >>>> you want to "test" people -- a means for you to try to feel better about >>>> yourself. Sorta creepy that you have focused on me. It means you look up to >>>> me though. >>> >>> You seem to forget the context of the test. >> >> Nope. With the context you made a fool of yourself: wanting me to be your >> dancing monkey and getting pissy when I did not. You though I *owed* you >> proving myself or something and when I did not clap for you your response >> was dishonest. >> >>> You mentioned you write scripts. >> >> The ones I do in bash are mostly very simple ones like this: >> >> while true; do date >> ~/Desktop/ping.txt; ping -c 500 >> google.com >> ~/Desktop/ping.txt; done >> >> I am sure there are better ways... but it works to be able to prove to myISP >> when my service is horrid... which is too often. >> >>> I said, show me. You refused. >> >> And you thought I *owed* you and then lied that with my "challenges" I do >> the same but you could not find any examples. You lied. >> >> I disapprove of your dishonesty and your view that others have a >> responsibility to prove themselves to you. Keep in mind, I am the one who >> has been far more honest - if anything YOU owe me such proof, and even then >> I do not demand it. That would be absurd. >> >>> So I offered an incredibly simple test to see if you could at least figure >>> out >>> what true and false are. All you had to do is know that one teeny tiny thing >>> and the script would open up to you. >> >> And I did know... and provided proof you could see if you merely agreed to >> be honest. That was too much for you. YOU refused. >> >> What I did was turn your demand around on you and you freaked out... and my >> "demand" was merely if YOU wanted what YOU were demanding you had to stop >> lying about me. Completely reasonable! >> >>> Now you complain it was a poor test. >> >> Of course it was... it was absurd. One can know how to make basic scripts >> and not know specifics of what you are doing. And one might... as I did with >> the equivalency check (though, as I have said, I did not see it right when I >> opened it and SHOULD have... it is not at all hard and that was my failing). >> Still, the total time for me to figure it out was less than five minutes. >> Likely less than two, but I did not time it or anything. >> >>> So if you'd like a more difficult I can accommodate that and watch you fail >>> all over the place. >> >> You can "accommodate" me by doing something I in NO way suggested you do. >> How does that even begin to make sense to you? >> >>> You already didn't get part of the conversation going on in the thread as it >>> is. That simple last modification threw you enough that couldn't solve the >>> last one at all. >> >> I do not even know which was the "last one" -- and stopped "playing." If you >> show it I might try... but I will repeat the condition that you HAVE to stop >> lying about me if you want me to dance to your tune on this. Specifically, >> you have to merely admit to two truths: >> >> * Peter asked for a GUI solution. >> * When I showed him one you responded dishonestly >> >> These truths have been proved beyond any doubt. They ARE factual. There is >> NO doubt. Are you willing to be honest to get what you want? >> >> I bet not. >> >>>>> As I mentioned, it was the easiest thing I could think of. All it tested >>>>> was if you knew what true and false looks like. >>>>> >>>> I may be one of the only ones in COLA who does. :) >>>> >>>>> Any time to wish to explain bash in detail to show off your knowledge of >>>>> it, feel free. >>>>> >>>> Show off my knowledge of something I noted I do not have great knowledge >>>> with. Um, what? >>>> >>>> Now if you want to share how bash helps you with workflows and getting >>>> tasks done (and, to be clear, I would be surprised if it did not) then THAT >>>> would be a great. And a healthier way for you to feel better about >>>> yourself! >>>> >>> I already have. Many times. You can read about them in other groups. >>> >> Why not post links? Or show them here... make this group better instead of >> focusing on your own insecurities and need to put others down to try to feel >> better about yourself. When you are able to let go of that you CAN post >> reasonably. > > As if you want to make this place better... Here's an idea. Stop > trolling... LOL! I challenged you to give up just two of your lies and to stop focusing on your insecurity and instead focus on technology... and that is too much for you. As I predicted. Also not hard to predict you would try to turn things around and try to make it about me, as if I was doing something wrong to ask you to try to stop trolling in very specific ways. You made a "request" tied to vague insults... and no criteria. Comes down to YOU are trolling here. Very clearly. My asking you to be honest has hit a nerve with you! -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 01:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fjskafi83.ag34p@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365551 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 8/15/16, 5:14 PM, in article
> WqCdnfxR249Txy_KnZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny"
> <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> You already didn't get part of the conversation going on in the thread as it
>> is. That simple last modification threw you enough that couldn't solve the
>> last one at all.
>
> I do not even know which was the "last one" -- and stopped "playing." If you
> show it I might try...
-----------------------------------------------
#!/bin/bash
y=$(echo "4*a(1)"|bc -l|cut -f1 -d'.')
z=$((${y}+4))
p=$(echo "2^${z}"|bc -l)
showme () {
if [ ${#} -ne ${y} ]; then
printf "could not get root\n"
exit
fi
ary=(
135 209 226 233 233 157 242 240
157 234 236 239 226 157 222 223
236 242 241 157 241 229 226 157
223 226 222 239 171 135 135
)
for x in ${ary[@]} ; do
printf "\x$(printf %x $((${x}-${p}+${#})))"
done
}
showme ${@}
-----------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-15 18:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <i7idnYCSrZAl9y_KnZ2dnUU7-dWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #365556 |
On 2016-08-16, Octavian W. Lagrange <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 8/15/16, 5:14 PM, in article
>> WqCdnfxR249Txy_KnZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny"
>> <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> You already didn't get part of the conversation going on in the thread as it
>>> is. That simple last modification threw you enough that couldn't solve the
>>> last one at all.
>>
>> I do not even know which was the "last one" -- and stopped "playing." If you
>> show it I might try...
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> #!/bin/bash
>
> y=$(echo "4*a(1)"|bc -l|cut -f1 -d'.')
> z=$((${y}+4))
> p=$(echo "2^${z}"|bc -l)
> showme () {
> if [ ${#} -ne ${y} ]; then
> printf "could not get root\n"
> exit
> fi
> ary=(
> 135 209 226 233 233 157 242 240
> 157 234 236 239 226 157 222 223
> 236 242 241 157 241 229 226 157
> 223 226 222 239 171 135 135
> )
> for x in ${ary[@]} ; do
> printf "\x$(printf %x $((${x}-${p}+${#})))"
> done
> }
>
> showme ${@}
> -----------------------------------------------
Thanks.
--
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-16 22:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <np0ol9$okc$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #365557 |
On 08/15/16 19:22, Marek Novotny wrote:
> On 2016-08-16, Octavian W. Lagrange<olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/15/16, 5:14 PM, in article
>>> WqCdnfxR249Txy_KnZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny"
>>> <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> You already didn't get part of the conversation going on in the thread as it
>>>> is. That simple last modification threw you enough that couldn't solve the
>>>> last one at all.
>>>
>>> I do not even know which was the "last one" -- and stopped "playing." If you
>>> show it I might try...
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> #!/bin/bash
>>
>> y=$(echo "4*a(1)"|bc -l|cut -f1 -d'.')
>> z=$((${y}+4))
>> p=$(echo "2^${z}"|bc -l)
>> showme () {
>> if [ ${#} -ne ${y} ]; then
>> printf "could not get root\n"
>> exit
>> fi
>> ary=(
>> 135 209 226 233 233 157 242 240
>> 157 234 236 239 226 157 222 223
>> 236 242 241 157 241 229 226 157
>> 223 226 222 239 171 135 135
>> )
>> for x in ${ary[@]} ; do
>> printf "\x$(printf %x $((${x}-${p}+${#})))"
>> done
>> }
>>
>> showme ${@}
>> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks.
>
Owl is pretty good with bash. Damned good!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 15:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hgjc820.aji@perch.invalid> |
| In reply to | #365721 |
GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
> On 08/15/16 19:22, Marek Novotny wrote:
>> On 2016-08-16, Octavian W. Lagrange<olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/15/16, 5:14 PM, in article
>>>> WqCdnfxR249Txy_KnZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny"
>>>> <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> You already didn't get part of the conversation going on in the thread as it
>>>>> is. That simple last modification threw you enough that couldn't solve the
>>>>> last one at all.
>>>>
>>>> I do not even know which was the "last one" -- and stopped "playing." If you
>>>> show it I might try...
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>> #!/bin/bash
>>>
>>> y=$(echo "4*a(1)"|bc -l|cut -f1 -d'.')
>>> z=$((${y}+4))
>>> p=$(echo "2^${z}"|bc -l)
>>> showme () {
>>> if [ ${#} -ne ${y} ]; then
>>> printf "could not get root\n"
>>> exit
>>> fi
>>> ary=(
>>> 135 209 226 233 233 157 242 240
>>> 157 234 236 239 226 157 222 223
>>> 236 242 241 157 241 229 226 157
>>> 223 226 222 239 171 135 135
>>> )
>>> for x in ${ary[@]} ; do
>>> printf "\x$(printf %x $((${x}-${p}+${#})))"
>>> done
>>> }
>>>
>>> showme ${@}
>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
> Owl is pretty good with bash. Damned good!
>
LOL. Not really. I just tweaked Marek's code a bit.
I'm barely functional with bash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rfWdnQ_c1J16ECnKnZ2dnUU7-b-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #365778 |
On 2016-08-17, Octavian W. Lagrange <olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
> GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
>> On 08/15/16 19:22, Marek Novotny wrote:
>>> On 2016-08-16, Octavian W. Lagrange<olagrang@perch.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Snit<usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/15/16, 5:14 PM, in article
>>>>> WqCdnfxR249Txy_KnZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny"
>>>>> <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> You already didn't get part of the conversation going on in the thread as it
>>>>>> is. That simple last modification threw you enough that couldn't solve the
>>>>>> last one at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not even know which was the "last one" -- and stopped "playing." If you
>>>>> show it I might try...
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>> #!/bin/bash
>>>>
>>>> y=$(echo "4*a(1)"|bc -l|cut -f1 -d'.')
>>>> z=$((${y}+4))
>>>> p=$(echo "2^${z}"|bc -l)
>>>> showme () {
>>>> if [ ${#} -ne ${y} ]; then
>>>> printf "could not get root\n"
>>>> exit
>>>> fi
>>>> ary=(
>>>> 135 209 226 233 233 157 242 240
>>>> 157 234 236 239 226 157 222 223
>>>> 236 242 241 157 241 229 226 157
>>>> 223 226 222 239 171 135 135
>>>> )
>>>> for x in ${ary[@]} ; do
>>>> printf "\x$(printf %x $((${x}-${p}+${#})))"
>>>> done
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> showme ${@}
>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>> Owl is pretty good with bash. Damned good!
>
> LOL. Not really. I just tweaked Marek's code a bit.
> I'm barely functional with bash.
I'm a n00b on BASH myself. I think I got to chapter three-ish in the Pro
Bash script book.
--
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web