Re: [dev] Collecting sins of Apple

From: lukáš Hozda <luk.hozda_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 15:39:09 +0200

Hello,

thank you for all your great answers. They are greatly appreciated
and help a lot.

>This thread is, as I somewhat expected, a total train wreck.
>
>Replying with regard to technical criticism regarding osx, because
>literally *none* of the claims could be substancially supported by
>even anyone else's analysis or facts. So most of what I read about
>apple technically, I'm referring to the osx criticisms listed, were
>obviously more FUD than anything else.
>
>TL;DR, while I'm sure most of this stuff holds further scrutiny, I
>just doubt it's generally a good idea to list so many problems while
>providing no technical context whatsoever.

The thread turned out how I planned. A lot of information and sources,
from which I will filter out things I already know and are included in my
work already and get rid of the FUD. Then I will take the facts that are
usable for my work and are new to me and look up more information to get
some context for them and ensure their factual correctness.

Indeed it would not be a good idea to list many problems without any
context, but that's of course not what am I going to do in my speech.

>So, OP, take note and don't leak our laziness into your final product.
>I chimed in because I totally missed any mention of OP's
>responsibility here. The problem is that I feel like copy+paste can
>really misrepresent the open source community as a whole. The few of
>us content with researching a subject poorly with little to no
>aspiration to technical detail and accuracy may cause real harm to the
>many of us who take a lot of care about these things. So it does you
>and us a favor to look at issues with care.

Yes, you are right that copy+paste can really misrepresent the whole
open source community. We all know how misrepresentation can be bad
if we look at how the media et al. mangled the meaning of the words "hacker",
"hacks" and "hacking".

Of course, I am going to research the subject a bit more in-depth, so
that I don't end up like CNN with Mr. 4Chan. Especially since I am sure
that those of the crowd that will be listening to me will not hesitate to
fact-check what I say in order to disprove my speech, therefore it is
my responsibility to make sure everything I present is correct.

>Which means, you are left with pointers into a few directions really
>worth looking into more closely,

The pointers are exactly what is useful for me and I will indeed look
into them closely.

>worth looking into more closely, and as I'm not in depth educated
>about thing I wouldn't buy myself, I'd be actually interested in your
>findings.

Yes, I plan to post the results and reception of my speech here afterwards
for everyone to see.

regards,
Lukáš


2016-10-23 15:10 GMT+02:00 Martin Kühne <mysatyre_AT_gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Markus Teich
> <markus.teich_AT_stusta.mhn.de> wrote:
>> Martin Kühne wrote:
>>> TL;DR, while I'm sure most of this stuff holds further scrutiny, I just doubt
>>> it's generally a good idea to list so many problems while providing no
>>> technical context whatsoever.
>>
>> Heyho Martin,
>>
>> I didn't want to do the whole schoolwork for Lukáš, so I just gave a
>> hint/possible fact which he should be able to check himself. It's important to
>> learn how to research arguments to build your own oppinion. Providing Lukáš with
>> ready-to-use text blocks would just increase the filter-bubble problem. I think
>> other responses had similar intentions.
>>
>> --Markus
>>
>
>
> So, OP, take note and don't leak our laziness into your final product.
> I chimed in because I totally missed any mention of OP's
> responsibility here. The problem is that I feel like copy+paste can
> really misrepresent the open source community as a whole. The few of
> us content with researching a subject poorly with little to no
> aspiration to technical detail and accuracy may cause real harm to the
> many of us who take a lot of care about these things. So it does you
> and us a favor to look at issues with care.
>
> Which means, you are left with pointers into a few directions really
> worth looking into more closely, and as I'm not in depth educated
> about thing I wouldn't buy myself, I'd be actually interested in your
> findings.
>
> cheers!
> mar77i
>
Received on Sun Oct 23 2016 - 15:39:09 CEST