2 ms·

I first used Windows around 1992 - Versions 3.0 and 3.1 - and I've used and supported (or at least, helped people with) every version since. I've also been usin

by phaemon 12y ago

I first used Windows around 1992 - Versions 3.0 and 3.1 - and I've used and supported (or at least, helped people with) every version since. I've also been using Linux since 1994. > The quality of Windows self-support is vastly superior to that of Linux. No, it really isn't. I've had a much better response to requests for information on FOSS than I've had on proprietary software. > Yes, the answers to all questions about Emacs ... So you'd have exactly the same problems running Emacs on Windows. You may not have seen thousand page manuals for proprietary Windows software, but I certainly have. Worse, it's usually that terrible documentation that tells you "You can do X to perform Y" but without any indication how to do X. > That's the same for Wine. If you have 114 frequently asked questions, it suggests that maybe the product could be improved. They're providing an implementation of Windows. If you think there aren't more than 114 questions about Windows, you've not been paying attention! > you can buy a used computer running Windows for $150 plus shipping allday anyday everyday. At which point you've switched from having an up-to-date, solid, repeatable installation to having a buggy, out-of-date version running on failing hardware. > RedHat's yearly per user charge is almost the retail cost of Windows. Support with a MS Partner is far more than the retail cost of Windows. > He and the company he founded did more to put a computer on every desk and in every home than anyone else So Microsoft PR keeps claiming, but I remember people using computers in the home well before the Windows/PC monoculture took over. It was a massive step backwards when it did. I also haven't forgotten Microsoft's attempts to destroy FOSS (see the Halloween Documents for more) nor have I forgotten that Microsoft attempted their FUD tactics on the Internet itself, in an attempt to push their Microsoft Network. Thankfully they failed in that, otherwise we'd all be using Microsoft approved Pages today instead of the WWW and I'd have people telling me how we should be thankful that Microsoft put global communication in every home!

brudgers 12y ago
Back in the UseNet of the late 1990's, I always thought of this technique as "the pick-apart", and I found it a great technique for winning a battle of rhetoric. Fragmenting the discussion into 'sound bites' reduces coherence and allows for a series of disconnected snarky rebuttals. Snarky rebuttals being much cheaper to produce than a reasoned and thoughtful reply. Of course the objective is to devolve a conversation - for the pick-apart is a form of trolling for flame wars. It's power stems from the frustration it instills in one's opponents via low quality arguments based on deliberate misinterpretation across many fronts and the fact that the number of fronts multiplies with a thoughtful response - i.e. when trolling the pick-apart is applied recursively. [1] One can identify troll sign in the pick-apart because there is no priority to the counterpoints. The perfect pick-apart disputes each sentence rather than the overall ideas. Even at the micro-level, there's nothing but contradiction - just unsupported assertions of whatever happens to be opposite the most convenient reading of each sentence in isolation. Now in fairness, the pick-apart is often a high quality post on most of the internet, because it at least entails some effort at writing [I forgot to mention one of the ways it wins arguments is simply by leveraging one's ability to out-type their opponent] and produces a maximum of snark. Snark being the primary coin of internet chat as entertainment. Anyway, here on HN pick-aparts are pretty much noise due to the generally higher standard of quality found in the comments and the general distaste for trolling. Consider this editorial feedback, with the honest intent of improving your writing technique. Good luck. [1] The classic insurgent strategy in a Blotto Game is to open up additional fronts against any opponent with superior resources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blotto_games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blotto_games
- phaemon 12y ago
  Oh please. Spare me your patronising claptrap. Had I not addresses your specific points, you'd have happily accused me of ignoring them! Here's a suggestion for you: stop assuming that your lofty air of wisdom is all that's required for people to accept your pronouncements without question. I'm sure it impresses the kids, but I've been around a little longer. All you've done is claim that Windows without support is cheaper than Linux with support. It's an extremely foolish argument and your attempt to switch this to a meta-discussion on debating styles doesn't change that.
  - brudgers 12y ago
    For me, HN is an excuse to write and for me writing is thinking and the sorts of things I like to think about does not include accusing people of ignoring my posts, in part because many of them are worth ignoring [that's the way unedited writing tends to work] and in part because I have found I prefer conversation to flame wars -- and anyway, when I want a flame war, I have most of the rest of the internet upon which to stalk one and the one's I tend to stalk are much more important than vanilla ice cream versus strawberry, Mac versus Linux, AstroTurf versus natural grass, or the appropriateness of designated hitters and instant replay decisions. Read the post to which I am responding. Was it thoughtful and reasoned and articulate? What did it accomplish? Did it raise anyone's standing in the HN community? Did it make HN better? Was it well written? What view did it advance? Ok, I'll answer the last one. It advanced a view that I hold a particular view. Which is more convincing as to what views I hold, my original posts or brief assertions about those posts? And which is more interesting? If despite the list of persons doing so being rather long, should finding disagreement with me constitutes an accomplishment, congratulations. Though as I've said, for me writing is thinking. Thus, I am also on the list.
    - phaemon 12y ago
      Well, I guess that's easier than admitting you were wrong.

by phaemon 12y ago

brudgers 12y ago

Back in the UseNet of the late 1990's, I always thought of this technique as "the pick-apart", and I found it a great technique for winning a battle of rhetoric. Fragmenting the discussion into 'sound bites' reduces coherence and allows for a series of disconnected snarky rebuttals. Snarky rebuttals being much cheaper to produce than a reasoned and thoughtful reply. Of course the objective is to devolve a conversation - for the pick-apart is a form of trolling for flame wars. It's power stems from the frustration it instills in one's opponents via low quality arguments based on deliberate misinterpretation across many fronts and the fact that the number of fronts multiplies with a thoughtful response - i.e. when trolling the pick-apart is applied recursively. [1] One can identify troll sign in the pick-apart because there is no priority to the counterpoints. The perfect pick-apart disputes each sentence rather than the overall ideas. Even at the micro-level, there's nothing but contradiction - just unsupported assertions of whatever happens to be opposite the most convenient reading of each sentence in isolation. Now in fairness, the pick-apart is often a high quality post on most of the internet, because it at least entails some effort at writing [I forgot to mention one of the ways it wins arguments is simply by leveraging one's ability to out-type their opponent] and produces a maximum of snark. Snark being the primary coin of internet chat as entertainment. Anyway, here on HN pick-aparts are pretty much noise due to the generally higher standard of quality found in the comments and the general distaste for trolling. Consider this editorial feedback, with the honest intent of improving your writing technique. Good luck. [1] The classic insurgent strategy in a Blotto Game is to open up additional fronts against any opponent with superior resources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blotto_games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blotto_games

phaemon 12y ago
Oh please. Spare me your patronising claptrap. Had I not addresses your specific points, you'd have happily accused me of ignoring them! Here's a suggestion for you: stop assuming that your lofty air of wisdom is all that's required for people to accept your pronouncements without question. I'm sure it impresses the kids, but I've been around a little longer. All you've done is claim that Windows without support is cheaper than Linux with support. It's an extremely foolish argument and your attempt to switch this to a meta-discussion on debating styles doesn't change that.
- brudgers 12y ago
  For me, HN is an excuse to write and for me writing is thinking and the sorts of things I like to think about does not include accusing people of ignoring my posts, in part because many of them are worth ignoring [that's the way unedited writing tends to work] and in part because I have found I prefer conversation to flame wars -- and anyway, when I want a flame war, I have most of the rest of the internet upon which to stalk one and the one's I tend to stalk are much more important than vanilla ice cream versus strawberry, Mac versus Linux, AstroTurf versus natural grass, or the appropriateness of designated hitters and instant replay decisions. Read the post to which I am responding. Was it thoughtful and reasoned and articulate? What did it accomplish? Did it raise anyone's standing in the HN community? Did it make HN better? Was it well written? What view did it advance? Ok, I'll answer the last one. It advanced a view that I hold a particular view. Which is more convincing as to what views I hold, my original posts or brief assertions about those posts? And which is more interesting? If despite the list of persons doing so being rather long, should finding disagreement with me constitutes an accomplishment, congratulations. Though as I've said, for me writing is thinking. Thus, I am also on the list.
  - phaemon 12y ago
    Well, I guess that's easier than admitting you were wrong.