Re: What is the maximal length of usernames on Solaris?

From: Richard L. Hamilton (Richard.L.Hamilton_at_mindwarp.smart.net)
Date: 12/29/03 

Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:15:24 -0000

In article <1ohuuv0qh4h7g5s678taauvett16o1rrff@4ax.com>,
        Josh McKee <jtmckee@rm-bogus-ac.net> writes:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:03:41 -0000,
> Richard.L.Hamilton@mindwarp.smart.net (Richard L. Hamilton) wrote:
[...]
>>And I'm saying I find it hard to believe that an intelligent and
>>sophisticated evaluation would come down to that being the only difference
>>or the one that outweighs almost any other offsetting difference.
>
> It wasn't the only difference. Did you even read what I wrote:
>
> "While this one particular issue was not the cause of his
> failure to adopt Linux it was a combination of little things like this
> that were."
>
> It was a combination of many little, inconsequential (in your
> opinion), things that pushed the decision towards Windows.

Wants are not totally inconsequental (especially if there are enough of
them), but they're very much secondary to needs, expressed or
unexpressed. Yes, users can have needs that they don't express. Until
Windows security is up to par, they may not be getting too many wants from
MS...

[...]
>>> Agreed. If you go back and re-read my original response you'll see
>>> that I wasn't complaining about the eight character limit but the
>>> portrayal of the user as a luser because they were unaware of such a
>>> limitation. You did this yourself (actually you called them idiots) in
>>> your previous message.
>>
>>I've lost track; but if I'm being nice, I'm saying that as a matter of
>>safe policy and responsible allocation of resources, they're
>>_presumptively_ idiots.
>
> Why? Aren't you the one telling me how users don't know what they
> want? Why would you expect these people to know what limitations a
> given OS has?
>
> Regardless they don't know...so why are they idiots? It's not their
> job to know. Just as it's not your job to know the details of the law
> or accounting. Are you an idiot because you don't know the details of
> the law or accounting?

With respect to law or accounting, yes I would be if I didn't know anything
about those; certainly, giving my opinions in such matters due weight
would be a matter of being courteous, looking at them to see if there
was any substance to them; if it was zero, throw it out; if minimal, put
it at the bottom of a "to-do" pile somewhere.

Anyone who has not demonstrated their credentials on a particular topic,
whether within their specialty or not, is a presumptive idiot on that
topic until observed to be otherwise. Any other presumption leaves one
open to the possibility of making serious mistakes based on insufficient
evaluation of faulty input.

That is, do I take their word for it that they want something? Sure, that
doesn't cost me anything, people want all sorts of things, silly or
reasonable. Do I assign the same importance to their wants that they do?
Never automatically. In a perfect world, I look at the content of their
wants and make an objective evaluation. In the real world, if their want
doesn't appear to be anyone else's need, I'm likely to look at their
demonstrated credibility on the topic as well, to help shortcut a full
evaluation so as to decide whether or not to do more with less effort in
the decision than the actual action would take. 

-- 
mailto:rlhamil@smart.net  http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dec 21, 2012 The End of the World
    ... What are you basing that evaluation on? ... I assume you mean my comment about mankind being good to go because ... things look shitty? ... Murphy's Law, says basically "if you expect something will go wrong it ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Dec 21, 2012 The End of the World
    ... What are you basing that evaluation on? ... I assume you mean my comment about mankind being good to go because ... things look shitty? ... Murphy's Law, says basically "if you expect something will go wrong it ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Dec 21, 2012 The End of the World
    ... What are you basing that evaluation on? ... I assume you mean my comment about mankind being good to go because ... things look shitty? ... Murphy's Law, says basically "if you expect something will go wrong it ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Why purely functional languages?
    ... the evaluation of false seems correct. ... the "Law of Self-Identity"? ... Now thats true too, if you are working in a purely functional ...
    (comp.lang.functional)