Re: [lopsa-tech] Disingenuous side-swipes

[Jesse Thompson]

On 09/27/2010 07:51 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:

From: tech-boun...@lopsa.org [mailto:tech-boun...@lopsa.org] On Behalf
Of Brandon S Allbery KF8NH

Where this is coming from is the way you made your comments; both came
across as confrontational, i.e. as attacks.  If that's not what you
intended, you may want to reconsider how you make your points.


I don't think so.  I did not insult any person or use bad language.  I
commented on relative merits of two systems, and I don't take it back.  I
think you're being overly personally sensitive.


Sticking up for Edward.  He was wrong about Wave's Gmail requirement. 
But getting a fact wrong does not invalidate his argument (which I agree 
with) and it does not mean that he had malicious intent.  Rather, the 
backlash(es) seemed harsh.


Jesse



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tech mailing list
Tech@lopsa.org
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
 http://lopsa.org/

Re: [lopsa-tech] Disingenuous side-swipes

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: tech-boun...@lopsa.org [mailto:tech-boun...@lopsa.org] On Behalf
> Of Brandon S Allbery KF8NH
> 
> Where this is coming from is the way you made your comments; both came
> across as confrontational, i.e. as attacks.  If that's not what you
> intended, you may want to reconsider how you make your points.

I don't think so.  I did not insult any person or use bad language.  I
commented on relative merits of two systems, and I don't take it back.  I
think you're being overly personally sensitive.

___
Tech mailing list
Tech@lopsa.org
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
 http://lopsa.org/

Re: [lopsa-tech] Disingenuous side-swipes

[Brandon S Allbery KF8NH]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 9/26/10 22:58 , Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> From: Brad Knowles [mailto:b...@shub-internet.org]
>> I didn't claim that FaceTime was there yet.  But if you want to
>> criticize a product or a service, you should actually take the time to
>> learn one iota or two about it, before you start bashing it.
> 
> Geez, between this and the wave comment, I don't know where this is coming
> from.  I'm not bashing anything.  Wave and facetime are both cool in their

Where this is coming from is the way you made your comments; both came
across as confrontational, i.e. as attacks.  If that's not what you
intended, you may want to reconsider how you make your points.

- -- 
brandon s. allbery [linux,solaris,freebsd,perl]  allb...@kf8nh.com
system administrator  [openafs,heimdal,too many hats]  allb...@ece.cmu.edu
electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university  KF8NH
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkygCxUACgkQIn7hlCsL25XJxQCglhyWnZbXykTm1iCpshwvGFmE
x28An1f7Dbt0dltoJadMXhGEUrfDoa4a
=xFtA
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Tech mailing list
Tech@lopsa.org
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
 http://lopsa.org/

Re: [lopsa-tech] Disingenuous side-swipes

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: Brad Knowles [mailto:b...@shub-internet.org]
> 
> I didn't claim that FaceTime was there yet.  But if you want to
> criticize a product or a service, you should actually take the time to
> learn one iota or two about it, before you start bashing it.

Geez, between this and the wave comment, I don't know where this is coming
from.  I'm not bashing anything.  Wave and facetime are both cool in their
own way...  er ... were both cool in their own way.  But wave was hyped as
an email killer, which was ridiculous, and facetime is not currently open or
standard, hence not useful except for apple.  And yes I read at least the
wikipedia page.  So please ... cool down.

___
Tech mailing list
Tech@lopsa.org
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
 http://lopsa.org/

Re: [lopsa-tech] Disingenuous side-swipes

[Brad Knowles]

On Sep 26, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:

> I'm not focusing on the pros/cons of wave.  I'm focusing on calling
> something a "new standard" which is not a standard because it's exclusive.
> If there's a product which is apple-only or google-only or MS-only, you
> can't call it a new standard, unless you want to qualify that, by calling it
> an "industry standard" or something like that, which imples it's not a
> standard so much as a near universal adoption by consumers.

Try actually taking a look at what is written at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaceTime

Yes, FaceTime is right now an Apple-only product.  Heck, it doesn't even 
interface with any other Apple products (like iChat).  However, that doesn't 
change the fact that it is composed primarily of existing standards, and that 
Apple is actively involved in taking the rest and making that a standard as 
well.  As in International standard.  As in Internet standard.

As in real-deal actual standards-based standard.


I didn't claim that FaceTime was there yet.  But if you want to criticize a 
product or a service, you should actually take the time to learn one iota or 
two about it, before you start bashing it.

--
Brad Knowles 
LinkedIn Profile: 


___
Tech mailing list
Tech@lopsa.org
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
 http://lopsa.org/

Re: [lopsa-tech] Disingenuous side-swipes

[Giovanni Tirloni]

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:

> > From: tech-boun...@lopsa.org [mailto:tech-boun...@lopsa.org] On Behalf
> > Of Phil Pennock
> >
> > On 2010-09-25 at 08:53 -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > > If it's apple-only, you can only call it "the new standard" like
> > google wave
> > > was the new standard to replace email.  It bombed because they
> > weren't
> > > friendly with non-google email accounts.  In order to use wave, you
> > could
> > > only sign in using your gmail account, and you could only communicate
> > with
> > > other gmail users.  Wanna talk to someone who isn't on gmail?  Too
> > bad.
> >
> > This is not only a mis-characterisation in part, it's also untrue.
> > [disclaimer: while employed by $G, I've never been involved with Wave
> >  other than as a user; this post, like all of my LOPSA posts, is
> > written
> >  in a strictly personal capacity]
>
> Most response snipped.  I'm replying to the message as a whole.
>
> I'm not slamming wave.  I'm saying:
>
> I'm not focusing on the pros/cons of wave.  I'm focusing on calling
> something a "new standard" which is not a standard because it's exclusive.
> If there's a product which is apple-only or google-only or MS-only, you
> can't call it a new standard, unless you want to qualify that, by calling
> it
> an "industry standard" or something like that, which imples it's not a
> standard so much as a near universal adoption by consumers.
>

While I totally agree with you, that is a lost battle. Companies are always
trying to bend reality and create hype about their products and "standards".
In the IT world we must see at least a new "standard" every week.


“The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.” –
Dr. Tanenbaum


-- 
Giovanni Tirloni
gtirl...@sysdroid.com
___
Tech mailing list
Tech@lopsa.org
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
 http://lopsa.org/

Re: [lopsa-tech] Disingenuous side-swipes

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: tech-boun...@lopsa.org [mailto:tech-boun...@lopsa.org] On Behalf
> Of Phil Pennock
> 
> On 2010-09-25 at 08:53 -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > If it's apple-only, you can only call it "the new standard" like
> google wave
> > was the new standard to replace email.  It bombed because they
> weren't
> > friendly with non-google email accounts.  In order to use wave, you
> could
> > only sign in using your gmail account, and you could only communicate
> with
> > other gmail users.  Wanna talk to someone who isn't on gmail?  Too
> bad.
> 
> This is not only a mis-characterisation in part, it's also untrue.
> [disclaimer: while employed by $G, I've never been involved with Wave
>  other than as a user; this post, like all of my LOPSA posts, is
> written
>  in a strictly personal capacity]

Most response snipped.  I'm replying to the message as a whole.

I'm not slamming wave.  I'm saying:

I'm not focusing on the pros/cons of wave.  I'm focusing on calling
something a "new standard" which is not a standard because it's exclusive.
If there's a product which is apple-only or google-only or MS-only, you
can't call it a new standard, unless you want to qualify that, by calling it
an "industry standard" or something like that, which imples it's not a
standard so much as a near universal adoption by consumers.

___
Tech mailing list
Tech@lopsa.org
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
 http://lopsa.org/