Representative line: /proc/net/tcp



  • I decided I should write something that reads /proc/net/tcp. No idea what I'm going to do with the data, but whatever. Here's the code that reads a single line from the file, not including the error checking, variable declarations, or processing:

    _, err := fmt.Fscanf(f, "%4d: %08X:%04X %08X:%04X %02X %08X:%08X %02X:%08X %08X %5d %8d %d %s %s %s %s %s %s %s\n", &slot, &local_addr, &local_port, &remote_addr, &remote_port, &state, &tx_queue, &rx_queue, &tr, &tm_when, &retrnstmt, &uid, &timeout, &inode, &unknown1, &unknown2, &unknown3, &unknown4, &unknown5, &unknown6, &unknown7)


  • Ok so you are doing a WTF task, and to accomplish it you're now writing some WTF code, and then you're posting it here

    Thanks?



  • @Ben L. said:

    I decided I should write something that reads /proc/net/tcp. No idea what I'm going to do with the data, but whatever. Here's the code that reads a single line from the file, not including the error checking, variable declarations, or processing:

    _, err := fmt.Fscanf(f, "%4d: %08X:%04X %08X:%04X %02X %08X:%08X %02X:%08X %08X %5d %8d %d %s %s %s %s %s %s %s\n", &slot, &local_addr, &local_port, &remote_addr, &remote_port, &state, &tx_queue, &rx_queue, &tr, &tm_when, &retrnstmt, &uid, &timeout, &inode, &unknown1, &unknown2, &unknown3, &unknown4, &unknown5, &unknown6, &unknown7)

    Hey you misspelled the slut parameter




  • @Ben L. said:

    I decided I should write something that reads /proc/net/tcp.
     

    A WTF indeed.

     



  • @Ben L. said:


    _, err := fmt.Fscanf(f, "%4d: %08X:%04X %08X:%04X %02X %08X:%08X %02X:%08X %08X %5d %8d %d %s %s %s %s %s %s %s\n", &slot, &local_addr, &local_port, &remote_addr, &remote_port, &state, &tx_queue, &rx_queue, &tr, &tm_when, &retrnstmt, &uid, &timeout, &inode, &unknown1, &unknown2, &unknown3, &unknown4, &unknown5, &unknown6, &unknown7)

    So it uses space-separated columns to pass some 21 parameters of each connection. The parameters are probably useful for something. So they could have done this. It serializes the parameters with one statement on kernel side and you deserialize it with another one statement on application side. Or they could devise some complex format like XML. Yes, you would know what the parameters were if you looked at it as human. But it would take couple hundred lines to write and even more lines to parse. Now would that be good use of CPU power and programmer effort? So what is the WTF?



  • Forgive me as it's been a while, but weren't these files, and by extension their formats created long before anyone ever conjured up anything like xml? On my system, the file has a header row that offers crude column names (possibly manually added by SAs, don't know)..

    Crontab doesn't even have that unless you add it yourself.

    IMHO, it looks like you did it in the only reasonably efficient way you could, and that's not a WTF.

     


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Ben L. said:

    No idea what I'm doing
    FTFY



  • @snoofle said:

    Forgive me as it's been a while, but weren't these files, and by extension their formats created long before anyone ever conjured up anything like xml?

    And God knows nothing in the *nix world would ever change or be modernized ever for any reason ever.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @snoofle said:
    Forgive me as it's been a while, but weren't these files, and by extension their formats created long before anyone ever conjured up anything like xml?

    And God knows nothing in the *nix world would ever change or be modernized ever for any reason ever.

    Agreed.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @snoofle said:
    Forgive me as it's been a while, but weren't these files, and by extension their formats created long before anyone ever conjured up anything like xml?

    And God knows nothing in the *nix world would ever change or be modernized ever for any reason ever.


    Every time they "modernize" something, they take something simple that works and create something complicated that doesn't.

    • PulseAudio
    • SystemD
    • NetworkManager
    • Wayland

    For fun, you kids name your favorite *NIX-destroying projects. Let's see how long this list gets.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    @snoofle said:
    Forgive me as it's been a while, but weren't these files, and by extension their formats created long before anyone ever conjured up anything like xml?

    And God knows nothing in the *nix world would ever change or be modernized ever for any reason ever.

    What about ALSA, x.org, and the ext3 filesystem?

    How long have you been using *nix anyway? In the Bad Old Days, you had to set up X yourself, as well as sound, and only Debian had a decent package dependency system.


  • BINNED

    @Gazzonyx said:

    • PulseAudio

    You had me there but just for fun:

    • Plimouth

    Lets replace good old bootsplash which could even, with some scripting and training, show proper progress bars, good enough looking graphics and instant display of any errors or important info to something that can display fancy graphics but won't show for more than split second at the end of the boot if you use proprietary drivers.

    Yes, it's minor, but it pisses me off.


  • BINNED

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    and only Debian had a decent package dependency system.

    That changed?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Yum wasn't bad, and Ubuntu did the sensible thing by copying from Debian.



  • @Onyx said:

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    and only Debian had a decent package dependency system.

    That changed?

    RPM distros use yum which does dependency management.


    Just thought of another item for the list.

    • Grub-2
    I dare you to try to add a new boot entry to Grub-2. I even dare you to try to change the default OS that boots. In Grub-1 you just change the /etc/grub.conf's "default=" line.


  • @Gazzonyx said:

    @Onyx said:
    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    and only Debian had a decent package dependency system.

    That changed?

    RPM distros use yum which does dependency management.


    Just thought of another item for the list.

    • Grub-2
    I dare you to try to add a new boot entry to Grub-2. I even dare you to try to change the default OS that boots. In Grub-1 you just change the /etc/grub.conf's "default=" line.

    I DO IT ALL THE TIME... in the setup wizard when I install OpenSuSE.

    But seriously, yes it is a good example.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    And Slackware always had a reliable if annoying dependency system: compile everything from source; if it doesn't compile, you're missing a dependency.



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    And Slackware always had a reliable if annoying dependency system: compile everything from source; if it doesn't compile, you're missing a dependency.
    I prefer Gentoo's dependency system where if it doesn't compile you have no clue what the fuck is wrong until you read eight thousand manpages.



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    And Slackware always had a reliable if annoying dependency system: compile everything from source; if it doesn't compile, you're missing a dependency.

    This is very similar to IBM WebSphere product installers. Therefore, it must be Best Practices.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Ben L. said:

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    And Slackware always had a reliable if annoying dependency system: compile everything from source; if it doesn't compile, you're missing a dependency.
    I prefer Gentoo's dependency system where if it doesn't compile you have no clue what the fuck is wrong until you read eight thousand manpages.
    Slackware also has that feature.



  • @Gazzonyx said:

    Just thought of another item for the list.

    • Grub-2
    I dare you to try to add a new boot entry to Grub-2. I even dare you to try to change the default OS that boots. In Grub-1 you just change the /etc/grub.conf's "default=" line.
    To be fair, GRUB 2 configuration files [i]can[/i] be quite simple (10-15 lines is enough to boot a system). However for some reason most major distributions prefer to have automatically-generated (by shell scripts, of course) 300-line files with 5 boot entries per OS.


  • @Ben L. said:

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    And Slackware always had a reliable if annoying dependency system: compile everything from source; if it doesn't compile, you're missing a dependency.
    I prefer Gentoo's dependency system where if it doesn't compile you have no clue what the fuck is wrong until you read eight thousand manpages.

    unless you're trying to build man... in which case more than ever you need a WoMan.



  • @spamcourt said:

    To be fair, GRUB 2 configuration files can be quite simple (10-15 lines is enough to boot a system).
    Please tell me you're being sarcastic. 10-15 lines is more than sufficient to boot 3-7 systems in a sane boot manager, not one...



  • @ender said:

    @spamcourt said:
    To be fair, GRUB 2 configuration files can be quite simple (10-15 lines is enough to boot a system).
    Please tell me you're being sarcastic. 10-15 lines is more than sufficient to boot 3-7 systems in a sane boot manager, not one...

    I meant a "system" with a few operating systems (poor wording I know). Still 10 lines is short compared to Linux Mint's 228 lines just to boot 2 different OSs.


  • BINNED

    @Gazzonyx said:

    RPM distros use yum which does dependency management.

    Quite aware of that, I just always found it stupidly confusing next to aptitude / apt-get. Also, I'm quite sure I got it to break something just by installing a package it didn't like, and that was quite recently (CentOS 6).

    @Gazzonyx said:

    Just thought of another item for the list.

    • Grub-2
    I dare you to try to add a new boot entry to Grub-2. I even dare you to try to change the default OS that boots. In Grub-1 you just change the /etc/grub.conf's "default=" line.

    Default boot entry and timeout are manageable. I never actually had problems with adding systems since I just let grub-update pick them up automatically and so far it worked perfectly. And you can still fine-tune the entries in grub menu itself (I forgot if it can save changes, been ages since I had to worry about it).

    But yes, I miss the days of old GRUB. And wasn't it /boot/grub/menu.list for basic stuff, at least on Debian systems? Or my memory is completely shot?



  • @Gazzonyx said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @snoofle said:
    Forgive me as it's been a while, but weren't these files, and by extension their formats created long before anyone ever conjured up anything like xml?

    And God knows nothing in the *nix world would ever change or be modernized ever for any reason ever.


    Every time they "modernize" something, they take something simple that works and create something complicated that doesn't.

    • PulseAudio
    • SystemD
    • NetworkManager
    • Wayland

    For fun, you kids name your favorite *NIX-destroying projects. Let's see how long this list gets.

     

     

    Window 95/Windows 98/Windows 2000/Windows XP/Windows Vista/Windows 7

    Raised everone's expectations for point and drool interfaces, pig-lipstick gui adornments and other needless complication, burying decades of hard learned lessons in data processing.

     Just consider how Ubuntu has become a Windows wannabe

     

     



  • @jes said:

    Raised everone's expectations for point and drool interfaces, pig-lipstick gui adornments
     

    Ahh, to live in the good old days where nobody except the highly trained could use a computer!



  • @dhromed said:

    @jes said:
    Raised everone's expectations for point and drool interfaces, pig-lipstick gui adornments

    Ahh, to live in the good old days where nobody except the highly trained could use a computer!

    And it would have worked, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @dhromed said:

    @jes said:

    Raised everone's expectations for point and drool interfaces, pig-lipstick gui adornments
     

    Ahh, to live in the good old days where nobody except the highly trained could use a computer!

    The problem with making computers accessible to everyone is a phenomenon I call guification. When users can sit down in front of a computer with minimal training and get useful things done, they assume they know everything they need to know because they are productive, and never bother to learn more about the software they're using.



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    The problem with making computers accessible to everyone is a phenomenon I call guification. When users can sit down in front of a computer with minimal training and get useful things done, they assume they know everything they need to know because they are productive, and never bother to learn more about the software they're using.

    Those bastards!

    ... wait. What exactly is the problem here?



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    The problem with making computers accessible to everyone is a phenomenon I call guification.
    I'd just call it what it really is .. a bell curve. The real problem is that most people assume that they are a representative sample of an entire population, hence whatever their proclamation is it must be the one true proclamation. (and you can apply that to everything from computers to politics to religion (which give vi vs emacs brings you back full circle) )


  • BINNED

    @blakeyrat said:

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    The problem with making computers accessible to everyone is a phenomenon I call guification. When users can sit down in front of a computer with minimal training and get useful things done, they assume they know everything they need to know because they are productive, and never bother to learn more about the software they're using.

    Those bastards!

    ... wait. What exactly is the problem here?

    Nothing, if you assume people use their brains.

    However, I know several people who have no problems connecting a mobile phone/camera to a computer and uploading images from it to Facebook. They also know how to burn a CD using not only using the regular "drag&drop files on CD icon" method most people use but are quite capable of using Nero or something similar.

    And they constantly call me to come over and burn the pictures they have on their phone/camera onto a CD.

    True, people learned patterns back in CLI days as well, but at least there was at least an inkling of understanding required: cd "opens a directory". However, "clicking on the yellow thing gives me pictures".

    I'm not against computers being simple but I believe people should learn at least the basics about the tools they use. And making them use CLI for 2 or 3 days might just be the cure. Sadly, that's never gonna happen.



  • @Onyx said:

    However, I know several people who have no problems connecting a mobile phone/camera to a computer and uploading images from it to Facebook.

    Those basta-- wait, what? ... what exactly is the problem here?

    @Onyx said:

    They also know how to burn a CD using not only using the regular "drag&drop files on CD icon" method most people use but are quite capable of using Nero or something similar.

    And they constantly call me to come over and burn the pictures they have on their phone/camera onto a CD.

    Ok? Is there some point you're slooowly building towards?

    @Onyx said:

    True, people learned patterns back in CLI days as well, but at least there was at least an inkling of understanding required: cd "opens a directory". However, "clicking on the yellow thing gives me pictures".

    Both UIs require memorization. CLIs require rote memorization, which most people are lousy at. GUIs require spatial memorization, which most people are excellent at. Of course most GUIs since Mac Classic fuck it up by moving things around without the user directly manipulating them, but the concept is still good even if it's not-as-good-as-it-was-in-MacOS-7-good.

    @Onyx said:

    I'm not against computers being simple but I believe people should learn at least the basics about the tools they use. And making them use CLI for 2 or 3 days might just be the cure. Sadly, that's never gonna happen.

    What makes you believe the CLI is more representative of what a "computer-tool" is than a GUI?

    This is the assumption I get from you types of people that I've never understood. There have been great computer systems with literally no CLI at all (again: Mac Classic had NO CLI. Not "a hidden CLI", or "a deprecated CLI", it had NO CLI.) Since obviously Apple sold a lot of the machines over the course of 20 years, it must have worked right? But you're sitting here telling me it's impossible that this RECORDED HISTORY happened.

    Add to that the tasks most people do are completely unsuited to a CLI. For example, der, how about uploading some cellphone pictures to Facebook? I dare you to use a CLI to do that task. I double-dog dare you. How about the guy who wants to edit his guitar tracks and add some drums? How do you do that in a CLI? I dare you to show me. How about the kid who's trying to learn modeling so he can get into video games? Again, where does the CLI fit in? How about the dude who wants to vblog his douchey haircut on YouTube? How do you accomplish any part of that task using a CLI?

    So my response isn't, "oh yes a clever idea, they should learn CLIs because CLIs are the real tools in every computer," my response is, "don't you know anything about the history of computers? Or current computers? Or what people do with computers? Are you an idiot?"

    Look, CLIs are definitely good for a few things. And you might consider those precious few things to be "using a computer". But I can guarantee that other than a few people at Slashdot, nobody else does.

    Me? Last night I used my computer to play some Skyrim (all GUI), I did some linear editing of some video I recorded (all GUI), I bought some games on my Sony Vita until their store broke (all GUI). About the only thing I did that could have been done on the CLI was copy a file from my C: to 😨 drive. And it was only one file, and both windows were already open, so it was ten times quicker to just drag the thing with the mouse. What do you use your computer for that CLIs are so critically important?



  • @Onyx said:

    However, I know several people who have no problems connecting a mobile phone/camera to a computer and uploading images from it to Facebook. They also know how to burn a CD using not only using the regular "drag&drop files on CD icon" method most people use but are quite capable of using Nero or something similar.

    And they constantly call me to come over and burn the pictures they have on their phone/camera onto a CD.

     

    This is not a problem of GUIs.

    @Onyx said:

    True, people learned patterns back in CLI days as well

    Oh, you know that.

    @Onyx said:

    but at least there was at least an inkling of understanding required

    Not at all.

    @Onyx said:

    And making them use CLI for 2 or 3 days might just be the cure.

    No.

     


  • BINNED

    Imagine I quoted blakeyrat here, no need for another wall of text.

    I never said GUIs are evil. Hell, I used Beryl ages ago when it was a PITA to setup just to get some of it's useful features when most people thought that it was cool but ultimately useless.

    And you're right, people are bad at memorizing commands. That is exactly my point. You can't remember everything, you have to at least understand what you're doing, at least marginally, in order to accomplish something. With GUIs you're not forced to do that, you click until something happens (oversimplification of course).

    For example, Vista changed how explorer looks. Menus are hidden and can only be accessed using shortcuts. A person who used that menu to create new folders is now stuck because he/she never actually knew WHAT they were doing, they just knew where to click.

    My whole argument is that CLI will force you to understand at least a bit of what you're doing as soon as you try to do anything beyond the simplest operation. You disagree, fine, but I never saw anyone who ever used CLI for more than 5 minutes (and actually did something with it) getting stuck in a GUI (unless it's completely broken by design, but that's beside the point). I have however seen people staring blankly into the screen because they bought a new computer with Windows 7 on it and they only ever used XP. They are so dependent on visuals they get completely lost once you change the theme.



  • @Onyx said:

    And you're right, people are bad at memorizing commands. That is exactly my point. You can't remember everything, you have to at least understand what you're doing, at least marginally, in order to accomplish something. With GUIs you're not forced to do that, you click until something happens (oversimplification of course).

    That doesn't even make sense.

    @Onyx said:

    My whole argument is that CLI will force you to understand at least a bit of what you're doing as soon as you try to do anything beyond the simplest operation. You disagree, fine, but I never saw anyone who ever used CLI for more than 5 minutes (and actually did something with it) getting stuck in a GUI (unless it's completely broken by design, but that's beside the point).

    You never saw anybody using DOS, back when they had to?

    The problem is the people you're watching are all assholes like you who self-selected CLIs because they got some insane idea in their head that CLIs are "better". You've never watched people who were using a CLI because they had no other option because I can guarantee you that those people do not "understand what they were doing" in the CLI. At best they could run one application, and maybe copy a file once every month or so if they had to. Kids could figure out config files but only because they needed to to play video games (which almost invariably had GUIs.)

    Were you just completely asleep from the years 1984-1996? You are simply 100% completely wrong.

    @Onyx said:

    I have however seen people staring blankly into the screen because they bought a new computer with Windows 7 on it and they only ever used XP. They are so dependent on visuals they get completely lost once you change the theme.

    And that has what to do with the quality of the GUI, exactly? You keep making these non-arguments that you must think support your point, but that don't actually support your point. Even ignoring the fact that it's entirely anecdotal.

    Hey! Here's an idea: why don't you go through my list of things I posted about 3 posts back, and tell us all how to do those things using a CLI:
    1) taking a photo from a cellphone and posting it on Facebook
    2) taking a guitar track and adding drums to it
    3) recording your making a video blog and uploading it to YouTube
    4) linearly-edit raw video, for example, to cut-out the guy in number 3's gaffes

    If the CLI is so great as you say, and so relevant in the year 2012, then you should have NO PROBLEM AT ALL demonstrating those tasks. Go for it.



  • @Onyx said:

    My whole argument is that CLI will force you to understand at least a bit of what you're doing as soon as you try to do anything beyond the simplest operation. You disagree, fine, but I never saw anyone who ever used CLI for more than 5 minutes getting stuck in a GUI
     

    People who like using computers will use CLI and GUIs just fine.

    People who don't like using computers, will give no thought to either, and fall back on patterns without understanding.

    GUIs have the unique property of allowing people who don't like using computer to do fun or productive things.

    The magical property of "forced understanding" that you're observing is that of correlation, not causation. CLIs do not force understanding because you cannot force understanding.

     

    We've had computers in the house for a long time. I had a natural categorical way of thinking and as a kid felt right at home in DOS (there was no Windows back then). My sister, who also used the computer, gave all her folders the name of people she knew. It made no sense in general, because the system made no sense to her. She barely used it. I was on it all the time. Mind you, she was a kid as well, but the primary difference is that I liked the computer, and she did not. Regardless of the cause of that difference in perceiving that lovable hunk of electronics, I inevitably grew up knowing computers, and my sister did not.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    If the CLI is so great as you say, and so relevant in the year 2012, then you should have NO PROBLEM AT ALL demonstrating those tasks. Go for it.

    I think you're missing his point. In fact, your point about CLIs being harder to use supports his point, which is that people work very hard to avoid thinking about what they're doing, and how they can combine those disparate tasks. By being more difficult, and forcing some higher effort and requiring more actual thought in order to get things done, CLI users are more likely to be able to combine different tasks, like taking pictures off of a device and burning a CD, simply because they're often forced to work harder, or possibly also because combining different programs / commands on a CLI is pretty much the only way you can get much of anything done.

    I agree with you that the CLI is not the answer for this (or even the vast majority) of tasks. And so, I think does Onyx. It's merely one thing that has, in the past, forced some users to break out of their silo mentality when it comes to doing things on the computer. Similarly, I believe that if you run marathons, you're probably pretty good at going up a couple flights of stairs. But that doesn't mean that I think everyone should run marathons, no matter what you claim in a follow up reply to this post.



  • @boomzilla said:

    By being more difficult, and forcing some higher effort and requiring more actual thought in order to get things done, CLI users are more likely to be able to combine different tasks simply because they're often forced to work harder,
     

    The falseness is caliming that a CLI has a positive effect on a user's understanding.

    This is untrue. A CLI has no effect on a user's understanding of the system, that is, no more than a GUI.

    The reality is that everybody who doesn't like the CLI's learning curve is put off by it, doesn't use it, and the only ones who are left are people who are already interested in inputting tasks into the machine.

     


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    @PedanticCurmudgeon said:
    The problem with making computers accessible to everyone is a phenomenon I call guification. When users can sit down in front of a computer with minimal training and get useful things done, they assume they know everything they need to know because they are productive, and never bother to learn more about the software they're using.

    Those bastards!

    ... wait. What exactly is the problem here?

    What happens when the aforementioned person of intentionally minimal clue ends up writing software for a living?


  • @dhromed said:

    A CLI has no effect on a user's understanding of the system, that is, no more than a GUI.

    In the abstract, I agree with you, especially if the CLI is used simply as a shell from which to launch other applications with their own UIs not tied to the CLI. But in the sort of environment where CLIs are useful (meaning something like bash as opposed to CMD.exe), the nature of how they need to be used requires the user to think harder about putting lower level building blocks together.

    This is orthogonal to whether the user would be more productive in some other environment or how much he likes or dislikes the CLI and its way of operating. I can't believe I had to write that.



  • @Onyx said:

    people should learn at least the basics about the tools they use. And making them use CLI for 2 or 3 days might just be the cure. Sadly, that's never gonna happen.
    No, you don't even understand the problem.  My first experience with a GUI on a computer was Windows 3.0.  At that point I had already spent about 8 years using computers that only had a CLI .  But all those years of using a CLI instantly became meaningless when faced with a GUI.   Sure, I knew all the command line switches for xcopy and I could whip up all sorts of complicated batch files in a matter of minutes.  So what.  None of that has any meaning when copying a file in Windows.

    Give me a computer with a different operating system and I'll be lost for a while.  Eventually I'll figure things out, but it won't be because of all those years of CLI experience that I have.  I'll figure things out because I want to figure it out.  I want to understand how it works.  And that is the real problem.@Onyx said:

    And they constantly call me to come over and burn the pictures they have on their phone/camera onto a CD.
    Those people all suffer from the same problem -- a total lack of intellectual curiosity.  They don't know, and they don't want to know.  They have absolutely no interest in learning anything.  I won't pretend to know the reason for this, but it's sort of sad.



  • @boomzilla said:

    But in the sort of environment where CLIs are useful, the nature of how they need to be used requires the user to think harder about putting lower level building blocks together.
     

    Yes, CLI requires that. I agree with that. But requirement by itself doesn't force people to rise up and fulfil the requirements. Requirements do not cause proficiency. Requirements prevent people from entering.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    Those people all suffer from the same problem -- a total lack of intellectual curiosity.  They don't know, and they don't want to know.  They have absolutely no interest in learning anything.
     

    It's probably not total, but selective. Just because they're not interested in computers, which just so happens to be your thing, doesn't mean they're dumbasses across the board.



  • I was going to write some replies but while I was on the bus Dhromed pretty much hit it out of the park so I won't.



  • @PedanticCurmudgeon said:

    What happens when the aforementioned person of intentionally minimal clue ends up writing software for a living?

    If they're self-aware, maybe they take a few courses on usability, maybe they do some research and maybe they do some user testing, and maybe we end up with software much better than average.

    If they're not self-aware, if they're people like Onyx, then we get shit boiled in turds.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Dhromed pretty much hit it out of the park
     

    You're the second one to crawl up my ass today! I mean thanks! The masochist in me is kind of hoping for a rationalist beatdown from ol' boomy and then I'll be too embarrassed to reply, crying to myself why can't he just make me some veal why why oh god tasty veal nom nom why why.

    And it's "dhromed". I like it better visually.



  • @dhromed said:

    Yes, CLI requires that. I agree with that. But requirement by itself doesn't force people to rise up and fulfil the requirements. Requirements do not cause proficiency. Requirements prevent people from entering.

    Yes, I fully agree with that.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @dhromed said:
    Yes, CLI requires that. I agree with that. But requirement by itself doesn't force people to rise up and fulfil the requirements. Requirements do not cause proficiency. Requirements prevent people from entering.

    Yes, I fully agree with that.

     

    WHY WHY WH—— oh.

    oh ok.

    Hey, let's have a few beers.



  • @dhromed said:

    The masochist in me is kind of hoping for a rationalist beatdown from ol' boomy and then I'll be too embarrassed to reply, crying to myself why can't he just make me some veal why why oh god tasty veal nom nom why why.

    Boomy's thing is more he doesn't read your post at all, then he basically repeats points you already made but in a tone that suggests he's correcting you.

    @dhromed said:

    And it's "dhromed". I like it better visually.

    Names are proper nouns. Proper nouns get capitalized. Unless I hate you, then I'll keep it lowercase as a sign of disrespect. So tough shit.


Log in to reply
 

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