Post #78,028
1/30/03 6:34:56 AM
|
Damn, now ACT! is an OS???
Dude...I >was< talking about what the company's business processes called for. We're both talking about rational requirements analysis.
In no way was I suggesting that the alternative had to look or feel just like ACT!...but it has to have the capability to match the functionality.
And some women will tell you...size does matter...especially if they can take it all :-) I've seen ACT! used to potential...I was not talking about unused capability. I was talking about ways that I've seen it used >in real life<.
Your stubborn insistance that Linux can do everything Windows can do is what belongs in comp.os.advocacy. Noone here would disagree on Linux superiority in many areas...but theres a few here who (apparently contrary to your worldly opinion) >dare< to suggest that Linux is >not< capable of fully replacing Windows in all areas. This seems to piss you off.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #78,029
1/30/03 7:28:15 AM
|
Re: Damn, now ACT! is an OS???
Dude...I >was< talking about what the company's business processes called for.
Um, no. You still weren't. You were talking about replicating what a particular piece of software does. If you can't tell the difference between that and a business process, I can't help you. Consult a cognitive therapist.
Your stubborn insistance that Linux can do everything Windows can do...
I of course made no such claim. Argue with imaginary debate points much?
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
|
Post #78,031
1/30/03 8:07:31 AM
|
Figured as much.
So, without knowing the need fulfilled by a piece of entrenched software (how do you think it >got< that way)...you've decided that noone else but yourself knows anything about needs analysis and software solutions to match against said needs.
All the while linking to something you wrote that says, in essence ...of course you can't compete with Windows >directly<...there's too many applications.
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.
And you are doing this to debate against Andrew (who has successful customers that he does >not< think are idiots) and anyone else (who has seen applications fullfil process needs...and in fact greatly improve said processes).
Ok. Great tactic. Since you seem to have no grasp of reality...most everyone will just simply quit debating the point with you. I suppose you could call that victory.
Point taken on the Linux comment...reading back you've made no such direct claim...only derided anyone for saying the opposite. I guess there is technically a difference.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #78,110
1/30/03 3:31:06 PM
|
Re: Figured as much.
bepatient wrote:
So, without knowing the need fulfilled by a piece of entrenched software (how do you think it >got< that way)...you've decided that noone else but yourself knows anything about needs analysis and software solutions to match against said needs.
This of course I did not say, either.
All the while linking to something you wrote that says, in essence ...of course you can't compete with Windows >directly<...there's too many applications.
Nor that.
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.
Nor that.
Point taken on the Linux comment...reading back you've made no such direct claim...only derided anyone for saying the opposite.
Nor that.
You done?
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
|
Post #78,164
1/30/03 6:42:41 PM
|
You didn't?
Do you >read< what you type?
Guess not.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #78,166
1/30/03 6:48:18 PM
|
With apologies...
for the time-sucking link hole I am about to present. Read the whole thread, and apply lessons learned. ;-)
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org/~karsten/IWE-archive/archive/00088425.html|Read me in MY words]...
Link courtesy Karsten; apparently he still owes me a beer.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #78,170
1/30/03 6:58:20 PM
|
Ahh, the good ole days
Well Rick is no magic man, so he will have to do. Flame on squeek:-)
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted"
Murray Rothbard
|
Post #78,204
1/30/03 8:41:06 PM
|
Oh dear...
...oh my...
wow...
o0o
you had to bring that up.
Thanks for the refresher.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #78,319
1/31/03 5:31:11 AM
|
I have a bad feeling about that...
... so much so I'm not going to follow it! :-)
Besides, I've stopped paying close attention to (ahem) "this" kind of thread. Too much "I said, you said" and attempts to get the last word in... or something.
Wade.
Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
| |
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please
| -- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. |
|
Post #78,255
1/30/03 11:36:39 PM
|
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
1/31/03 12:10:33 PM
|
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
1/31/03 4:29:18 PM
|
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
1/31/03 10:16:10 PM
|
whatever
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
