On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 08:03:16 -0700
Snit <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Michael B. Trausch" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
> 20081101105128.46ff7bda@zest on 11/1/08 7:51 AM:
>
> > On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 07:18:19 -0700
> > Snit <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> The error in your claim is that you are assuming that the user
> >> should be responsible for making a unified experience... even
> >> though *no* distro has been able to do so nor has *anyone* in COLA
> >> been able to create a list of apps that would offer this
> >> *choice*... a choice that would be unambiguously better for most
> >> users (if not all).
> >
> > If there is a flaw in my claim, point it out.
>
> See above.
>
You did not point out a flaw in my claim, you pointed out a flaw in
your character and exposed your apathy. Failure to recognize this
denotes your inability to hold a logical argument. Software---not just
in the GNU/Linux world, but also in the Windows world---uses natural
language to communicate with users. This means they are expected to
*read* what is on the screen.
> > Everyone has the freedom
> > of choice.
>
> Judging choices by *quantity*, as you are doing, is - in my view -
> less valuable than judging choices by *quality*, as I am doing
> (though I discussed only one quality... clearly there are more things
> that are needed for quality!)
>
I am not judging choices at all. I only stated that everyone has the
freedom of choice. I didn't not say anything about quality or
quantity. Read the words that are present, and read them carefully
before you bother to open the floodgates and start composing a reply.
To do anything less ensures you'll earn your way into my killfile.
> > If you can't read the package description in Synaptic, that's really
> > not my problem
>
> Straw man. Noted.
>
You claim a logical fallacy, yet the statement I made went directly to
the point that what you claimed wasn't done already _is_ done. Package
descriptions are there for a reason. They tell you what the software
is, what the software does, and generally what environment the software
is for.
To break it down into little chunks for you, my statement above that
"everyone has the freedom of choice" depends upon the person sitting at
the keyboard being competent enough to be literate, to spend the few
seconds to read, and to be smart enough to ask for help when (s)he
needs it. Many computer users posses none of these qualities, which is
unfortunate; but these computer users are honestly none of my concern.
To draw an analogy, it would be like someone buying a complex power
tool and assuming that they can derive knowledge of how to use it
simply by looking at it, without any familiarity of the class of power
tool, then claiming that it was defective when they cut, maim, or
mutilate themselves with it when a simple read of the instruction
manual would have prevented such a scenario to begin with. The
situation is analogous in that the person in the hypothetical scenario
depicted here exhibits the same qualities as a person who expects to
not be able to read information about what they're doing on the
computer and yet somehow expecting it to magically do what they meant.
> > ; the system is certainly designed for the literate to use. If you
> > choose not to take the time to read the package description in
> > Synaptic, that is also not my problem, they are provided so that
> > you can make that choice---why would someone here duplicate that
> > work, hrm? If you're going to install software, all you have to do
> > is know how to point, click, and read. If you need to ask a
> > question about what you're reading, then do so. If you use Ubuntu,
> > you can use Launchpad Answers, or a relevant support newsgroup or
> > mailing list.
>
> Irrelevant to my point. Do you even understand what you are arguing
> against?
>
Do explain how it is irrelevant to your point. Nobody is going to hand
you food in the manner which a baby bird receives it, if that is what
you are expecting. The information you argue is unavailable is easily
obtainable directly from your computer. If you use a sane package
management system, it doesn't even require a network round-trip to get
that information out of it.
The premise of my argument is that the user is absolutely,
without question, responsible for what software they install (note
that I do mean to make the implication that users are responsible for
malware and computer viruses on platforms that support such things). The
premise of your argument is that "the user [shouldn't] be responsible
for making a unified experience", in response to my argument that mixing
and matching software which uses various toolkits is not a pleasant
experience. The only sane and reasonable answer to this is that if the
user is too apathetic or stupid to make desirable choices, they
shouldn't be there in the first place.
Another analogy: Assuming a heterosexual person who is active in
practicing said heterosexuality, copulation feels good, but it doesn't
take 13 offspring to figure out that the consequences of the action
might be undesirable. If you're doing something and having undesirable
consequences, then either you are doing it wrong, or you are expecting
the impossible---take your pick. In this case, you're just being too
lazy to do it right, assuming that your argument is, in fact, using
yourself as the center of the argument. In the words of Rita Mae
Brown, "Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but
expecting different results."
--- Mike
--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
http://www.trausch.us/
|
|
