Sour grapes Nobody needs this feature anyway 2118

snips

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 18:48:21 -0800, Larry Qualig

There you go!!!

* Nobody needs that feature anyway. * It's a stupid feature. * Thing probably doesn't even work. * It's sounds like crap so I'm glad it's not supported.

That's you talking. You know, denigrating someone for asking just exactly how many Linux users do, in fact, need this sort of thing?

If your intent was *anything* other than another "Linux advocates just say you don't need it, if Linux doesn't support it" bash, you did a *lousy* job of presentation.

See? There it is.

Lots of folks do. Hell, I have. What of it? If you *are* going to say something bad about it, though, how about showing that what you're saying is, in fact, in any way, shape or form a *Linux* problem.

If one presents in the manner of a Wintroll, then yes, that's what you get.

Which part? Paying more to get less? Fine; Windows is more expensive and does less. Linux is less expensive and does more. How this is remotely suggesting anything is 100% good, bad or indifferent isn't quite clear.

Then they've never used Linux, and probably never used a computer. At least not without Mommy holding their hand.

Umm, I think it's pretty much a given that said card isn't supported by Linux, and last I checked, nobody had said otherwise. Nor called you to task for pointing it out. Not sure where this little fantasy of yours is coming from, but it's not from the posting history.

What you got taken to task for was, among other things, this little bit of your bullpoo:

There you go!!!

* Nobody needs that feature anyway. * It's a stupid feature. * Thing probably doesn't even work. * It's sounds like crap so I'm glad it's not supported.

If you play that sort of game - which is stock in trade for the Wintrolls - expect to be treated like a Wintroll.

Acting like a Wintroll is, indeed, grounds for being considered one.

You mean like asking exactly who needs full-bore DSP capabilities in their sound card? I don't. Others presumably don't. Some might - who, exactly, would they be, and what, exactly, would they be doing with it... and are these tasks they're trying to do in Linux in the first place?

That last bit is an important one, BTW. I'm quite certain that the latest model Rolls Royce jet engine is extremely powerful, extremely capable, quite possibly more fuel efficient than previous models. Doesn't mean I'm going to drop one into my Toyota.

If the DSP card, despite its supposed power, fails to offer anyone a benefit in a task they're trying to perform using Linux in the first place, the lack of Linux support for it is a *complete* non-issue. It only becomes an issue if there are tasks which users are attempting to accomplish in Linux, which the card would make better, and there's no support for the card. Actually, it would only really be an issue if there were *also* no other cards, offering comparable features for a comparable price range, which worked in Linux; if there are, then a user needing those features can go use one of them, and the entire issue really becomes nothing more than Creative losing potential sales.

Yet, when *asked* how many Linux users actually need audio DSP, instead of offering an example or two of the potential benefits and pointing out the sort of tasks which would be improved by such tools, you spewed the poo quoted above.

Somehow, in your mind, your spewing of poo and getting called on it makes the Linux advocates dishonest?

Who dismissed it as unimportant? You were *asked*, specifically, who needed it. Who it would benefit. Those doing multimedia production? studios?

Hmm, nope, you didn't bother answering, you simply spewed poo. And you wonder why you get treated like a troll.

There's no practical use for such a card? Fine; then there's no reason to *care* if Linux - or Windows, or OSX, or the Amiga - supports it or not, today or ever.

'Course, if there *were* a practical use for it, you'd have simply said so, instead of spewing that poo you spewed.

Frankly, yes - if the task requires a supercomputer, but not sound output. If the task requires sound output, but doesn't require a supercomputer, obviously the situation would be reversed. However, we're not talking "a sound card", we're talking a specific device, which is not simply "a sound card", but apparently an entire DSP audio processing engine.

"A sound card" is $15 at your local computer dealer. This, at a guess,. very likely isn't. If you want "a sound card", I can order you a thousand, which will work quite happily in Linux.

If you want *this thing*, which is, from all appearances, a little beyond simply "a sound card", you might start by figuring out exactly what it does for you that "a sound card" doesn't. Then determine whether or not anyone's actually trying to do that particular task in Linux. Then see if there are equivalents which are supported in Linux. *Then* you might have some point.

Instead, of course, you simply blast poo, as quoted above, then whine when you're written off as a Wintroll.

Unable to quote when the line is right there, one line up? I didn't say "a sound card". I said "**his** sound card" emphasis added, specifically, the one to which he you is referring.

*This* is the best argument you've got against Linux? That Creative failed to provide a Linux driver, and this is such a heinous thing you absolutely laid into someone for *asking* who would actually need this card?

Wintroll indeed. Of the worst possible sort.

Indeed, it was. Then again, since it was your mis-quote, despite having the original a mere line or so above it, you can hardly blame me for that.

Obviously you do. If you didn't, why would you lay into someone for *daring* to ask you who would use this card? Right - because he happens to be a Linux user, meaning he actually uses that OS you loathe so much you can't even pretend to be rational about discussing it.

Or was that *not* you who responded to his question with that vitriolic load of crap I quoted above?

You're just not too bright, are you? Nobody here has denied that the card is unsupported in Linux; therefore there is *nobody* who matches that description.

Of course, if it's so "insignificant" - your word - then why did you feel it necessary to spew such a boatload of crap at someone for asking who, exactly, would use this card?

Obviously, to you, this is not "insignificant", but, for some reason, a major, significant, watershed event. Why this is so isn't clear. After all, if all that's involved is "a sound card", there are plenty, and if the lack of this particular card's driver is "insignificant", then there's no reason to spew such crap at him for asking.

Obviously, for some reason, it *is* significant to you. You've not quite explained why this is, except for the obvious, that you are, in fact, a Wintroll, seeking any excuse to blast Linux. Even when it is obviously not a Linux issue at all, but, rather, a "problem" - if it's actually that to anyone, another point you've not established - caused by Creative, one which, in essence, amounts to little more than Creative losing some sales.

How this is a Linux issue and why it's so "insignificant" it causes you to blow up completely simply isn't clear here.

The real issue being your spewing of poo at someone who dared ask you a question? Your failure to grasp that this is a Creative problem, not a Linux problem?

So stop. Things can only improve if you cease spewing the crap you do.

You mean like when I blasted Terry Porter, who was long one of the most vocal Linux advocates, for spewing complete and unadulterated crap, until he - unlike you - stopped, thought about it a while, and realized that he *had* been spewing complete and unadulterated crap, and apologized for it?

It does happen. It may not happen every single time, but then so what? Frankly, we're kept busy enough countering the crap from you and your fellow Wintrolls to worry that our fellow advocates aren't 100% perfect little angels.

Correct; there isn't. If by "here" you mean "in the conversations initiated by and sustained by the Wintrolls like Larry." In other posts, other threads, there often is.

'Course, when someone brings up a question, like, say, "How many Linux users actually need audio DSP", where there *could* have been a potentially interesting and fruitful discussion of what benefits it has, in what areas, to what users, what happened instead? Right: Wintroll Larry spewed a mess of poo, thus effectively guaranteeing there would be no topical discussion - no honest discussion about Linux in regards to the particular subject.

Who was it that did that, again? Oh, right. Wintroll Larry. Same guy who's now unpleasant womaning about the lack of honest discussion of Linux.

*YOU* ensured there wouldn't be any, by *YOUR* action of spewing poo in the face of a direct and fairly simple question. *YOU* derailed any possible attempt of an honest discussion of the topic, so you can take your candy-butted whining about there not being any such discussion and ram it straight up *YOUR* nether orifice.

Nothing's perfect. If you'd bothered to learn to read, you'd have seen that I have made that very point, many, many times. Several times in just the last couple of days, in fact.

Don't let facts get in the way of your asinine ranting, however. Oh, but *do* try to remember it was *YOU* bringing about the very thing you're whining about up there.

Easily.

If the issue presented is not, in fact, a Linux issue, then yes, it could be. If it *is* a Linux issue, on the other hand, why would it be?

Larry, you seem to fail to grasp something. I buttume it's because, as you've demonstrated so adequately in this thread, such as by unpleasant womaning about "no honest discussion about Linux" when it was *YOU, YOURSELF* who effectively guaranteed it wouldn't happen on the topic, that you are stupid beyond all description.

The point you fail to grasp is that there is, in fact, a difference between "a Linux problem", and a problem which simply happens to manifest in Linux.

The failure of Creative to provide a Linux driver for some new sound card is *not* a Linux problem; it is simply a problem which happens to manifest in Linux. A kernel vulnerability allowing a non-privileged user to "gain root", by contrast, *is* a Linux problem.

a *Vendor* problem, caused by the vendor, created by the vendor and the net result of which is that the vendor will lose some sales to Linux users - if any - who might have otherwise purchased the device.

Your problem, like that of so many Wintrolls, is the complete and total inability to grasp that difference.

Let's see if I can explain it in terms your obviously limited intellect can grasp.

My car takes, IIRC, model 85R14 tires. I can go into any tire store, anywhere, buy any brand of tires, as long as they are of that model, and use them on my car.

If I happen to go into a store, buy a set of tires which are model 85R14, try to put them on my car and they don't fit, because they're not actually 85R14, but, in fact, 75R22 or some such, they're simply mislabelled as 85R14, exactly whose fault is this?

It is the fault of either the store, who incorrectly labelled them, or of the tire manufacture, who incorrectly labelled them. It is in *no way* the fault of the car manufacturer. They built the damned thing to happily take any appropriately-sized tire. If the tire doesn't fit, it's because it's the wrong damned tire, and if it's labelled as being the right tire, then the label is wrong.

You persist in blaming the car maker for the tire maker's faults, and expect us to somehow see this as a problem with the car.

Linux will happily use *any goddamn sound card you want*, as long as there's a driver for it. If the vendor doesn't provide a Linux driver for it, don't blame Linux, because it's sitting there, ready to have the "right sized tire" installed, and offering up all the specs, sizes and so forth necessary to do the job. If the sound card maker can't make something to fit, how the *hell* is that a Linux problem?

Right, it's not. Yet you and your ilk persist in presenting this sort of crap as if it is somehow a failing in Linux. And then you lay into someone for *daring* to ask who, exactly, would use this thing.

If you act like a Wintroll, Larry, you'll be treated like one, and you're acting like the very worst of them at the moment, whining about situations *YOU* brought about, unpleasant womaning at others for *daring* to ask questions, trying to fob things off as a fault of Linux which simply aren't, then complaining when you're not taken seriously.

You can't act like a complete butt and expect to be taken seriously, it's as simple as that. So either stop acting like an butt, or stop whining about getting treated like a troll.

Do you think you could not repeat, but instead, simply get things right for a change?

In some ways, sure. buttuming anyone actually takes you and your wintrolls seriously. Fortunately, I think most people - yourself apparently excluded - are bright enough not to.

God, it would be *so* nice if you could get *anything* right. Clue in, dippoo. NOBODY MINDS THE QUESTIONS ABOUT LINUX.

Got it? Sinking in yet? Has it permeated that concrete you use for a skull?

What *DOES* pee people off is when some dunderhead comes along and starts whining about some supposed failure of Linux which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH LINUX.

Supporting a particular new sound card is a good example. It's a goddamn VENDOR problem. NOT LINUX. Linux is sitting there, happy to support anything, as long as there's a driver provided. Linux publishes *everything* the vendor needs to write such a driver. About the only thing Linux could do more than this is design and build the freakin' device itself.

How the HELL is this a Linux problem? Right, it's not. It's a VENDOR problem. Try to get *that* to sink through your pointy little excuse for a head.

Yet for some reason, you present this as a *LINUX* problem. Then you go out of your way to destroy any possibility of, as you put it, "honest discussion of Linux", then you unpleasant woman about YOUR OWN DAMN DOING.

Gods, Larry, just how abysmally stupid are you? Is it beginning to sink in why people call you a Wintroll?

If by "these advocates" you mean you and your fellow Wintrolls, you're correct. After all, it was YOU who went out of your way to ensure no such discussion would take place in this thread. YOU, Larry. YOU. The blame here lies solely and directly with YOU. You did it, now you're whining about it.

Wrong again. Gods, you can't get a *single* thing right, can you? You are, quite obviously, referring to *my* comments on the subject. Where, exactly, did I say the report was non-credible?

Right. Nowhere. What *did* I say? I said two things of relevance:

1) We have nothing to establish the figures as valid, other than your reporting them here.

2) Even if we grant they are correct, with correct methodology, all we have are two numbers, devoid of context, from which we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions.

How the *hell* you get to "attack the report as being non-credible" from this is beyond me. I *explicitly* said they may very well have done the entire process correctly, start to finish, top to bottom. You see that bit? *Explicitly* agreeing that the entire thing may be perfectly, completely and totally valid in method and methodology. Absolutely, 100%, top-dead-center correct. I said that. You completely failed to grasp this concept, however, that when someone says something may very well be done correctly, it means, golly gee, wait for it, that it MIGHT ACTUALLY BE DONE CORRECTLY.

God, what a difficult concept. No wonder Larry can't quite grasp it; I forget to spell it out in his Cheerios.

The second part you are apparently completely unable to grasp is that even buttuming they did, in fact, do it all correctly, the numbers, as presented, don't mean anything - because they're devoid of context.

That, however, is a concept which I gather, given your demonstrated level of comprehension, you'll never be able to grasp.

One thing does bother me, though, Larry. Two days ago, apart from a bit of occasional silliness, you seemed to be more or less a sane and vaguely reasonable person.

So what the hell happened to you in the last couple of days that turned you into a complete gibbering idiot?

-- MS, because work should be measured by effort, rather than result.