"Also sprach Michael Griego:"
> On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 21:16, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> > No I haven't. I'm sure radius is fine. OTOH I'm quite sure the rfc is
> > probably a load of badly written rubbish, because they normally are.
> > So? Is there something new? Have you read a rfc lately? I certainly
> > haven't! ;)
>
> Yes, I have. As such, you'd do well to lay off trying to tell me what
> is and isn't when it comes to RFCs.
Why do you think reading one is germane? And what a strange phrase.
What on earth do you mean! It's a vaguely threatening phrase and one
that is nonsensical at the same time. What can you mean by telling you
"what is and isn't"?
I pointed out to you that the rfc *I* just read uses technical terms
without defining them first ("attribute", "value", ...), and makes
some obvious errors that are easy to correct. That makes it badly
written.
Do you have an issue with either those asserted facts or the personal
judgment derived from them? If so, say so. Go through them one by one,
reply, and do not make threats.
I really object to the threatening attitude - we are not monkeys making
"hoot hoot" noises. Please confine yourself to discussing the issues
in a logical and rational manner.
> > As to telling people? I am giving them the benefit of my judgement and
> > appraisal. I've pointed out the things that are wrong. Now you get to
> > act on it. That's cool. Go with it.
>
> You can not point out things are wrong until you understand those
> things.
Np, I can point to things that are wrong quite happily, thanks. There
is no requirement of understanding of any sort, but as it happens I
understand quite enough. The things I have pointed to are purely
linguistic faults. There is no requirement to know anything beyond
that.
> You don't, therefore you are unable to make any sort of
> intelligent argument. So stop trying.
Whether I do or don't is something you don't know and is quite
irrelevant to whether or not whatever I say is correct or not. So take
it from there and deal with it.
> > I'm not trying to learn anything! I would hope I never do. I hate
> > learning anything. I avoid learning anything at all! I do it far too
> > easily, thank you. I haveto work hard to avoid it.
>
> Which is exactly why you should run away from free software.
I'll do what i like thanks.
> Run far
> away. Free software normally requires you to actually learn something
> about what you're trying to use it for.
No it doesn't. It requires intelligence, and quite often it requires
giving the authors a good LARTing, and quite often it involves fixing
their stuff or sending in fixes or advising them on aspects they
apparently know nothing about. We can all make cntributins. I can
easily make contributions in the theoretical and linguistic area.
Perhaps you SHOULD look me up?
> Most people who use free
> software want to learn something anyway.
Very probably. I don't.
> You have just said you do
> not.
I certainly don't - what you misperceive is WHY, even though I told
you. Tut tut, pay attention lad. If you recall, and you don't, I told
you that I try hard to avoid learning anything _because_ I learn too
fast anyway.
Now, avoiding learning is also a good tactic. It means that I learn the
right things - abstract concepts that make sense of the world, not
the mess of data that you are speaking of when you talk about learning.
As einstein pointed out, knowledge is the absence of data. Data is the
absence of knowledge. One has to _forget_ data in order to form
abstractions.
> Therefore, do yourself and everyone on this list a favor and stay
> away from it.
Cease such threats and irrationalities, and simply respond to the
things that are said to you, on their own terms.
> > That's the point - I am not YOUR slave. I don't do what YOU want me to
> > do. If you want ME to use YOUR tool then YOU must persuade ME to. And
> > you do that by doing what *I* want, not the other way round.
> >
> > Got it?
>
>
> Yes, I absolutely get that you *don't* get it. I am not YOUR slave.
I would hope not!
> I
> use the software because it works well for me.
Good. THen you are out of the realm of the discussion. The discussion
is about the nature of the instructions on how to use the software, which
you evidently don't need, so pipe down, and head thattaway ->>.
> I make it better to
> suite *my* needs.
Good!
> As such, it is honestly no skin off my back whether
> or not you find the product useful.
Then your software will fail, for OTHERS. And your effort will go to
waste. I've told you how to better it - you can either fix it or keep
what is wrong with it wrong with it. Now pipe down.
> I try to be wary of others needs as
^^^^^ aware
> well so that others can make use of any modifications I make. I freely
Good. Then be aware, and take note!
> give of my time because I enjoy it, not because you tell me to.
Good!
> > It's a market. You've got competition. I could have used gnu-radius.
> > I could have used others. There has to be something about what YOU have
> > that persuades me to use yours.
> It seems to me that there already was something. You said so yourself
Of course. The software is well written. Except that it seems to be
written by people who do not know how to use lex and yacc. Which
probably explains their unawareness of lingusitic issues, and their
incapacity to provide explanations at an abstract level about the
computational language they have written.
Fix!
> that you found the configuration of FreeRADIUS to be much easier than
Absolutely! Th eonly problem with it is that the instructions are
deficient in the ways I pointed out. Now take the experience and
incorporate the comments into your tool and you will have improved it!
Wahaaay!
> that of GNU-RADIUS. However, as I commented above, I don't really care
> if you use it or not.
You should, because feedback is hard to obtain. I reckon it takes
maybe 100 downloads to get one comment. The rest of the 100 people are
either those who quietly get it to work or those who quietly give up in
perplexity, like I did with gnu-radius. Getting a pinter as to what is
wrong and how to fix it is valuable!
> What I do know is that its damn good software and
I think it's great software too!
> that I have a much greater degree of flexibility with this package than
> I would have with most others.
I agree, from what I have seen. Now fix the darn instructions! Is that
too hard for you? Can you stop making noises long enough to simply go
do it?
Thanks.
Peter
-
List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
