Re: You didn't?

my quote

And you defend this position by claiming that noone else seems to know how to do a proper needs assessment...and that most of your customers are idiots.

your quotes

Raises the obvious question, of course, of what functionality the customer's business processes actually call for. As I've already pointed out, rational requirements analysis just doesn't revolve around application dicksize wars. Thus my suggestion that this stuff, which you are now proving to be as fond of as Andrew was, would be better moved to comp.os.*.advocacy, where it was presumably intended to go in the first place.

I went on to say that customers have a tendency, if allowed, to
overdefine and mis-define the requirements. They've gotten used to tool
Foo; their horizons are narrowed; they've gotten used to what's wrong
with it and what it just can't do, and are no longer even aware that
they're working around those things. When asked what is required,
they'll often as not say "something just like like Foo". The
possibility of doing something different or better gets excluded from
discussion.

1st paragraph translation...you decide you need to tell me, without knowledge of what I processes I have seen fulfilled by a particular piece of software....that I am engaging in OS advocacy because I have seen a application that fulfills a particular business process...an application that has no Linux equivalent (at this time). And this is supposed to be translated exactly how? My take on it was exactly what I wrote...that you, without knowledge of the application (obviously), my knowledge of business process analysis nor the business in question...dismiss the need for an ACT! equivalent solution as simple OS advocacy....in other words...you arrogantly assume that I know nothing about this process and and simply engaging in application dicksize wars.

This is NOT saying that the various capabilities in the business process cannot be met by hobbling together functionality from several applications under another OS. I'm certain that, with a little work, it would be possible. Would >that< be a suggestion you make to a SO/HO? Sure we can do that...it'll take us a few months to program and a few thousands of dollars in expense...but we could certainly meet the needs of your process and replace that $199 piece of software.

2nd quote block...I translate as...the customer, left to its own devices, doesn't know what they need. eg...the customer is an idiot.

Now...

Do I >have< to take every line of my post and break it down to match your posts?

You may >think< that you are not saying these things...but damn near everyone here is translating your posts exactly that way.

And with that...I politely bow out of these discussions. They have already gone nowhere...and promise much more of the same in the future.

Post #78,255 by rickmoen 1/30/03 11:36:39 PM Reply	Re: You didn't? bepatient wrote: Do you >read< what you type? Guess not. I was actually going to say that it's above you to make shit up and attribute it to me for lack of anything more substantive to say, therefore the more parsimonious and charitable explanation is that you're hopelessly confused and not able to read correctly -- but then I realised that would be wildly optimistic. Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
Post #78,394 by bepatient 1/31/03 12:10:33 PM Reply	Maybe my universal translator is broken. my quote And you defend this position by claiming that noone else seems to know how to do a proper needs assessment...and that most of your customers are idiots. your quotes Raises the obvious question, of course, of what functionality the customer's business processes actually call for. As I've already pointed out, rational requirements analysis just doesn't revolve around application dicksize wars. Thus my suggestion that this stuff, which you are now proving to be as fond of as Andrew was, would be better moved to comp.os..advocacy, where it was presumably intended to go in the first place. I went on to say that customers have a tendency, if allowed, to overdefine and mis-define the requirements. They've gotten used to tool Foo; their horizons are narrowed; they've gotten used to what's wrong with it and what it just can't do, and are no longer even aware that they're working around those things. When asked what is required, they'll often as not say "something just like like Foo". The possibility of doing something different or better gets excluded from discussion. 1st paragraph translation...you decide you need to tell me, without knowledge of what I processes I have seen fulfilled by a particular piece of software....that I am engaging in OS advocacy because I have seen a application that fulfills a particular business process...an application that has no Linux equivalent (at this time). And this is supposed to be translated exactly how? My take on it was exactly what I wrote...that you, without knowledge of the application (obviously), my knowledge of business process analysis nor the business in question...dismiss the need for an ACT! equivalent solution as simple OS advocacy....in other words...you arrogantly assume that I know nothing about this process and and simply engaging in application dicksize wars. This is NOT saying that the various capabilities in the business process cannot be met by hobbling together functionality from several applications under another OS. I'm certain that, with a little work, it would be possible. Would >that< be a suggestion you make to a SO/HO? Sure we can do that...it'll take us a few months to program and a few thousands of dollars in expense...but we could certainly meet the needs of your process and replace that $199 piece of software. 2nd quote block...I translate as...the customer, left to its own devices, doesn't know what they need. eg...the customer is an idiot. Now... Do I >have< to take every line of my post and break it down to match your posts? You may >think< that you are not saying these things...but damn near everyone here is translating your posts exactly that way. And with that...I politely bow out of these discussions. They have already gone nowhere...and promise much more of the same in the future. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson}* [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #78,476 by rickmoen 1/31/03 4:29:18 PM Reply	Re: Maybe my universal translator is broken. bepatient wrote: 1st paragraph translation...you decide you need to tell me, without knowledge of what I processes I have seen fulfilled by a particular piece of software....that I am engaging in OS advocacy because I have seen a application that fulfills a particular business process...an application that has no Linux equivalent (at this time). [etc., etc.] I'm sorry to hear about your utter (but, I suspect, quite willful) supposed lack of comprehension of simple English -- in as much as that is nothing at all like what I wrote -- but that is not really my problem. Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
Post #78,550 by bepatient 1/31/03 10:16:10 PM Reply	whatever You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!