Clearly I am insane



  • @pauly said:

    Shit man, just turn off hidden files.
     

    They're not hidden files, have you been following the conversation at all?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I have no idea whatsoever how what you just typed related to what you quoted from me.

     You first say that the problem is with the software, and the second quote insinuates the problem is with Windows. As it's the same problem we're talking about, these things are mutually exclusive. Maybe I misunderstood you? Maybe you just mentioned about the user saying Windows was the problem because you just wanted to throw in something completely unrelated in an attempt to throw the conversation in a different direction. If that was the intention, then congratulations.@blakeyrat said:

    Textbook example of selective quoting. Congratulations. Now read that sentence and the following one.

     I did, and still stand by what I said.@blakeyrat said:

    And... we're down to the level of complaining about typos. Thanks for once again raising the level of discourse.

    Hey, I'm just taking a leaf out of your book. In-fact, one of the first times you ranted at me was to pick up on a typo because I'd missed a space out between a word. Why so surprised now?

     

     

     



  • @ASheridan said:

    the second quote insinuates the problem is with Windows.
     

    It does not.



  • @dhromed said:

    @ASheridan said:
    the second quote insinuates the problem is with Windows.
    It does not.

    Do we have one of those handy forum "laws" that states that its impossible to debate with someone who can't read? I think we need one.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @dhromed said:
    @ASheridan said:
    the second quote insinuates the problem is with Windows.
    It does not.

    Do we have one of those handy forum "laws" that states that its impossible to debate with someone who can't read? I think we need one.

     

    All of this is detracting from my original point anyway, which you had a failure to read and recognise, so way to go there.



  • @ASheridan said:

    All of this is detracting from my original point anyway, which you had a failure to read and recognise, so way to go there.

    You've demonstrated you can't read. Why would I assume you could write?

    Your point could be anything, completely unassociated with the words appearing on the screen.



  • @ASheridan said:

    Maybe I misunderstood you?

    Yes.

     



  •  Man I'm thirsty. Who wants a beer!



  • @ASheridan said:

    You first say that the problem is with the software, and the second quote insinuates the problem is with Windows. As it's the same problem we're talking about, these things are mutually exclusive. Maybe I misunderstood you? Maybe you just mentioned about the user saying Windows was the problem because you just wanted to throw in something completely unrelated in an attempt to throw the conversation in a different direction. If that was the intention, then congratulations.

    I probably ought to go stab myself for actually siding with Blakey on this, but I have to side with him.

    You swung hard and got close, but you whiffed it.  You said "the second quote insinuates the problem is with Windows."  What he's saying is that the user won't know that his/her/its favorite piece of software was written incorrectly in the first place, not using the built-in facilities of Windows for getting version-specific information.  The user then upgrades from XP, where the software works just fine, to Vista, where the same software package bombs.  He's saying the user is going to blame the Vista upgrade for breaking the application, even though the application wasn't written correctly in the first place.  That is, indeed, a software fail on the part of the application writer, and it is consistent with Blakey's original statement that the software was written shittily in the first place.

    Damn.  I'm going to need to find me a trauma center.  Shit.



  • @dhromed said:

    Man I'm thirsty. Who wants a beer!

    If there's alcohol, I'll have a Candian Club and lemonade please.



  • @dhromed said:

     Man I'm thirsty. Who wants a beer!

    You. Next riddle!



  • @Spectre said:

    @dhromed said:

     Man I'm thirsty. Who wants a beer!

    You. Next riddle!

     

    CORRECT

     



  • @dhromed said:

    @Spectre said:
    @dhromed said:

    Man I'm thirsty. Who wants a beer!


    You. Next riddle!

    CORRECT

    I used to believe in the goodness of mankind, but now I know she's not a woman because she has an Adam's apple.



  • @mott555 said:

    A minimal install of CentOS only includes vi (which I assume is similar to vim somehow)

    You assume correct - vim (improved vi[1]) is what you get when typing in "vi" in a Linux distro. It's only beardy old Unixes that still use vi.

    @mott555 said:

    and because of that I'm forced to use it until I can get the network configuration done and download nano. Our Linux servers at work run on CentOS 6 and I always start from a minimal install.

    Thought of installing them via kickstart and adding nano into the minimal install image?



  • @Cassidy said:

    @mott555 said:
    and because of that I'm forced to use it until I can get the network configuration done and download nano. Our Linux servers at work run on CentOS 6 and I always start from a minimal install.
    Thought of installing them via kickstart and adding nano into the minimal install image?

    Somehow I expect that will take much longer than the three minutes it takes to edit the network script and assign IP and network information and then type "yum install nano". If I don't already know how to do something in Linux, then it always takes 50 - 100 times longer than expected to figure out how to get it working and then document it so I have a reliable guide next time I need to do it.



  • @mott555 said:

    Somehow I expect that will take much longer than the three minutes it takes to edit the network script and assign IP and network information and then type "yum install nano".

    It will. However, if you build servers on a fairly frequent basis, using Kickstart to do unattended installs can automate the installation and finish up that last bit for you.[1]

    @mott555 said:

    If I don't already know how to do something in Linux, then it always takes 50 - 100 times longer than expected to figure out how to get it working and then document it so I have a reliable guide next time I need to do it.

    Some would call that a sensible investment of time - but again, it depends upon how often you're called on to do it. YMMV and all that.

    [1] I believe modern installs actually use kickstart anyway, just that they fall back to the vendor-supplied config if no custom one is provided.



  • @mott555 said:

    "yum install nano"

    People still use RH-derived distros? :(



  •  CentOS and Scientific Linux seem to be preferable over RHEL in many organisations with Linux servers these days. Debian doesn't seem to get a look-in.



  • @Cassidy said:

     CentOS and Scientific Linux seem to be preferable over RHEL in many organisations with Linux servers these days. Debian doesn't seem to get a look-in.

    Ubuntu tends to be what I see the most of. If anyone uses CentOS it's only reluctantly and they complain the entire time.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Cassidy said:

     CentOS and Scientific Linux seem to be preferable over RHEL in many organisations with Linux servers these days. Debian doesn't seem to get a look-in.

    Ubuntu tends to be what I see the most of. If anyone uses CentOS it's only reluctantly and they complain the entire time.

    RHEL is pretty popular in the enterprise area. Fedora seems pretty popular elsewhere, too. That's what the Raspberry Pi guys selected as their default. I try to stick with Debian or its derivatives, personally, though.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Fedora seems pretty popular elsewhere, too.

    Huh, I didn't know people used Fedora for server systems, I thought it was just used as a desktop.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Cassidy said:

     CentOS and Scientific Linux seem to be preferable over RHEL in many organisations with Linux servers these days. Debian doesn't seem to get a look-in.

    Ubuntu tends to be what I see the most of. If anyone uses CentOS it's only reluctantly and they complain the entire time.

    In the UK, Ubuntu & Mint is what I see mostly on desktops and netbooks.

    However, the majority of people I teach are supporting Fedora/CentOS/RHEL/SLinux systems. Complain they may, but not to me.

    Then again, it's probably because they haven't used any better/different. And I'm not in earshot when they complain.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Fedora seems pretty popular elsewhere, too.

    Huh, I didn't know people used Fedora for server systems, I thought it was just used as a desktop.

    Eh...I think you're right. I lost the thread a bit as the original quotes fell off. The RHEL point stands, though. Actually, it might have been your Ubuntu comment. Are there really very many people using Ubuntu for servers?



  • @boomzilla said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @boomzilla said:
    Fedora seems pretty popular elsewhere, too.

    Huh, I didn't know people used Fedora for server systems, I thought it was just used as a desktop.

    Eh...I think you're right. I lost the thread a bit as the original quotes fell off. The RHEL point stands, though. Actually, it might have been your Ubuntu comment. Are there really very many people using Ubuntu for servers?

    Yes, it's become all-the-rage in the last 4 years. For new servers, that's 99% of what I see. Also, it was sorta the default EC2 distro for a long time. Basically, it's Debian with commercial support..


Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.