Quote:
|
IMHO
IMHO you're just wasting time here. It' much more produtive to discuss facts and not opinions.
Having said that, I wish I could say something about it but I haven't had any issues recently. BTW, I hope everyone a great new year. Skuzye |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've already pointed out the five lines of insults, personal attacks and name-calling in your first post here. None of us, at the time, had done anything to deserve them. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think you didn't blow them off because they were defending Slackware's reputation like the reputation of a damsel, and you approved of that. It wasn't fun anymore when someone (me) decided to go against the opinion of the majority. I think you hate me because I ruined the good fun the boys were having crucifying the reviewer. And what do you mean, I am "not proposing what to change"???!!! Gee, isn't that's obvious? Introduce the useful things that some people perceive as missing and make the things that do not work finally work. But I think it's just as obvious that if Patrick had the resources and/or interest to do those things, he would have already, so I don't feel like discussing those issues much more than that. I don't think that Slackware is going to incorporate those changes soon (although I think it will eventually, everyone/everything has to catch up with the times albeit slowly). I never intended to "change the world". I was just explaining why I agreed with the review. Note that I didn't join the thread until the review was mentioned. My participation here is all about the review. Quote:
In essence, every review is actually saying "It's good except for the following flaws: this, this and that." The constructive attitude towards that kind of commentary is to try to recognize the flaws and maybe do what it takes to overcome them. |
Quote:
His original post wasn't a rant. He outlined what he doesn't like and needs, in his opinion, to be changed. |
Post deleted. It wasn't constructive and would have taken the thread further in the wrong direction :).
|
Quote:
Quote:
You and I both understand that a computer is a complicated machine. Most users do not. They have and always will have an appliance attitude toward computers. As I mentioned in my previous post, I almost always boot into run level 3. I find comfort in seeing the stdout messages. Most users don't. They tend to freak out with that. My use of the phrase "just works" was not intended to imply that all of these things are flawless in other operating systems. I've been around computers too long to think that. The name of my web site is "humanreadable," and in my home page I explicitly state that I still believe computers are more user-hostile than user-friendly. My use of the phrase "just works" is that most of the time these connections should work and should be seamless. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There is no such thing as a perfect operating system. Every person on this planet shares a different definition of happiness. Anybody who browses my web site learns that after 30 years of being around computers I still consider computers more user-hostile than user-friendly. Slackware is not perfect for me either, but gets in my way less than other systems, which allows me to fine-tune and customize the system closer to my definition of happiness. There remain gaps in that pursuit of course, which my active participation in this forum will confirm. Because of my background I tend to empathize with the perspective of most users, who want to treat a computer as an appliance. There are many ways to improve operating systems, including Slackware. I don't back off from constructive criticism --- against others or against myself. Yet I seldom provide a critique without also offering a possible solution or offering to help find a solution. The past three Slackware releases I have participated in testing Current. Not to the depth of the primary Slackware team, but in my own way. I submitted bug reports and I submitted suggestions. Some were accepted, some were not. Of those that were not, I have no idea what Pat and the team will do. They might have already placed some of them in the proverbial bit-bucket, they might have placed some of them aside for now. I respect their intelligence and decision-making responsibilities and I figure submitting a suggestion is sufficient. No need to hammer them or whine. Those of us who have been around computers long enough know that computers are complex machines. Anybody who has studied any kind of complex system knows that Murphy rules. If something can go wrong, something will go wrong. The challenge with complex systems is that humans are creatures of limited knowledge. Nobody has the ability to foresee all the consequences of any related decision. A simple tweak on the code in one place sometimes creates havoc elsewhere. This is the nature of any complex system. That is one reason why constructive criticism is an essential component of creating a good computer operating system. Quote:
Quote:
By the way, nowhere in my previous posts in this thread have I declared a hatred, distaste, or contempt for Slackware. I only have noted some areas in which I think Slackware could improve. I use Slackware daily as my primary operating system. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My fellow tech writers always call me a geek. I always tell them, "No, I simply have mastered the tools of my profession." The point being is that even in the field of tech writing --- people who write about technical topics, most of the people are not computer people. They are not stupid people, they simply have different goals and priorities. The RTFM attitude does not work with most people. As a long-time tech writer, I have learned that the best way to introduce documentation is concurrently with an actual hands-on demonstration. A proverbial arm around the shoulder helps a lot too. But to scream RTFM is a quick way to make enemies and as a long-time contractor, a quick way to find a contract terminated. Deal with people as people, not automatons. Besides, the Slackbook is only a guide, a starting point. An out-of-date one at that. ;) |
Quote:
And, yes, they are forcing KDE 4 upon the public regardless of the fact it is not ready. As a result of my experience with Kubuntu 8.10 and KDE 4.xx, I'm planning on installing Slamd64 when version 12.2 becomes available (and assuming it is still multilib). While we are on the subject of KDE, would someone be kind enough to explain, in "end user" terms, just what is so "great" about KDE 4 and why is it being force upon us? And please don't say we are not being forced. If you are using, e.g., "koo-boon-too" or OpenSUSE, and want to be able to use the latest versions of your favorite programs tweaked for your favorite flavor of Linux, you have to make the switch to the latest version of your distribution which means you will be using KDE 4.xx. That is turn is another reason to be using Slackware. :) |
Woodsman, you've identified two types of users.
Type A Quote:
Quote:
BTW, Woodsman, I'd be very surprised if you would recommend Slackware to people that you know are in type B. Especially if they pay you for the recommendation. Lucmove: "constructive criticism" involves thinking about why things are the way they are. You proposed that Slackware include a package manager with automatic dependency resolution. In reality, several exist for Slackware. However, they don't get recommended much. One is no longer even maintained. Have you thought about why? |
There are 300+ distros out there, something to suit almost everybody. Slackware suits me the way it is. It fills a particular niche that no other distro does. I don't want it to become Debianised, Ubuntuified, or Fedorated. Whether other people like it or loathe it is of no concern to me. Everybody's entitled to their own opinion (even if it is the wrong one :D ).
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1) No emotions. 2) List of things you want changed (notice - not "don't like") 3) For each item in the list: 3.1) Explanation why it should be changed. 3.2) Few possible ways to change situation. For example: few alternative packages that can be used 3.3) List of possible outcomes from change. 3.4) (optional, but recommended) Slackbuild or package ready to inclusion into distribution. Use this and you will have chance to change something. Unacceptible criticism: 1) Emotions 2) List of things you don't like. 3) For each thing in the list: 3.1) Phrase "I don't like it, change it somehow". 3.2) Twenty exclamation marks. Use this and people will ignore you as timewaster. Easy enough to understand? Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
To me it looks like you are overestimating complexity of learning "how to build package". And I wasn't talking about "abstract user", I was talking about you. |
Woodsman, are you saying that you would rather "learn to live without" the software you want to use, than spend an hour learning to build them?
And please, no more about how "most people" are. As ErV pointed out, we're not talking to them. We're talking to you and expecting you to speak for yourself. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 PM. |