Re: Linux and Windows XP on the same PC
From: Rick Pikul (rwpikul_at_sympatico.ca)
Date: 02/13/05
- Next message: James C. Reeves: "Re: driving in the rightmost lane is very dangerous"
- Previous message: Bill Unruh: "Re: ISO vs .tar"
- In reply to: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: Linux and Windows XP on the same PC"
- Next in thread: John-Paul Stewart: "Re: Linux and Windows XP on the same PC"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:27:29 -0500
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:07:07 +0100, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> Rick Pikul <rwpikul@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:38:52 +0100, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>>
>> > Rick Pikul <rwpikul@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >> You can't see the connection between an explanation of why a
>> >> constraint exists and the need to operate under that constraint?
>> >
>> > It is your claim that that is an explanation - to me it looked like a
>> > long ranbling story about something. Stories are not explanations.
>>
>> Perhaps you should go back and read it again then, all the
>> information
>
> I'm afraid I couldn't read it the first time. It lost me after one
> rambling sentence! I said I cannot follow TV soap operas either!
There was only one sentence in the whole thing that needed to be split or
simplified, and it didn't ramble. It covered two reasons for a problem,
going into just enough detail about each to warrent being split.
>> was there, (the key pieces being that he was doing some research for a
>
> Information is not explanation.
Oh, a semantic argument. What's more, a semantic argument that is wrong
and doesn't even follow.
After all, what is an explanation but a way of imparting information? I
was referring to the information given in his explanation.
>> friend, that that friend had neither the skills nor the equipment to
>> easily do a backup, and that the friend was physically too far away for
>
> Of course "the friend" has the skills and the equipment to do one.
There you go, claiming to be a psychic again.
> He can
> type "tar czvlpf /mnt/backup.tgz /" just as fast as he can type "echo
> hello there". I fail to see why backing up is somehow "difficult"!
Well, if the person only has one hard drive, and no large removeable
storage media, it is rather difficult to do a backup. At least to do a
backup that is of any protection against the dangers involved in an OS
installation.
> Anyway, I got no particular impression from at least the beginning of
> his story that he was talking about anyone other than himself, phrased
> in the hypothetical.
That's why you should have read the whole thing, the physical distance
involved was why the OP could not just go over and do it right. In fact,
the original post clearly implied that the OP would have done a backup,
installed XP as a clean install, and then re-installed Linux and loaded in
the data from the backup. Why do you think he specifically mentioned it
as something he expected to be a common, but useless, answer?
>> the OP to go over and do the backup). It also wasn't a story, except in
>> the sense that all descriptions of real life events and conditions could
>
> It was a story. I know it was a story because I cannot follow stories,
> and whatever that long paragraph was about lost me after just a single
> sentence!
Being told that someone had Linux installed on his PC, and that the
installation was some time ago lost you? Or was it that Augustus liked the
person that confused you?
At this point, if you weren't posting from a Spanish server, I would be
tempted to reccomend adult literacy classes. I am correct in thinking
that English is not your first language, right?
>> be called stories.
>
> Indeed. They are just descriptions of a sequence of events, without
> analysis.
Sometimes that is all that is needed to give the needed explanation.
e.g.:
"Why were you so late?"
"Well, first of all I hit every red light on my way to the 401. When I
finally got on the highway, some idiot in a tractor-trailer had rolled
on the Hogs Hollow bridge, of course he was in the express lanes. Traffic
was fine right up to the DVP, but it took me was three hours to get from
there to Yonge"
There, nothing more than a sequence of events. A story which fully
explained why I was two and a half hours late for work one day last year.
> As such they are senseless - one has to add sense and
> analysis to make them into comprehensible acconts. I can't "follow"
> collection of meaningless events in any sense! It'll just load my stack
> with the first few meaningless events and then I'll give up as sense
> fails to materialize.
The problem lies with you, and if you had read enough to have read the
first few events, you would have read the whole thing. There were only
three events in the whole paragraph, and two were only implied.
>> > I don't have any idea why you don't want to make a backup (as a result,
>> > of your presenting your story, or whatever it was) but whatever the
>> > reason is, it's illogical, because it means that you don't care to
>> > ameliorate the risk that windows may trash your disk.
>>
>> First of all, I'm not the OP, (which says to me that you aren't paying
>> attention).
>
> If you mean that I don't know who you are that's right! I don't follow
> stories. I don't look at (or believe, or remember) the name on a piece
> of text.
Congratulations! Your choice has resulted in you making yourself look
foolish.
You don't need to believe that my name is Rick, or remember what the
names are of everyone you are replying to, you just need to pay enough
attention to know that there is more than one person involved in the
thread with you. This should have been rather easy, given that I didn't
remove Augustus's attribution line.
>> Now, no one, not even the OP, has argued that not making a backup is a
>> good thing. What has been brought up is that, "[The guy who's computer
>> this is about] is not in a position to do advanced things - or to buy
>
> There is nothing "advanced" about backing up.
When you consider the computer knowledge of the typical home user, making
backups is an advanced topic. Setting that aside, making a workable
backup using limited equipment is somewhat advanced if it goes beyond just
copying the contents of ~/Documents
>> equipment to do backups...."
>
> Nor is any extra equipment required.
You need at the very minimum a second storage device with enough capacity
to store the backup.
>> To make an analogy, what you have said is like telling someone that they
>> should top up the oil in their car before they drive it, but they don't
>> have any oil to add.
>
> Then they are stuck, because they are about to go on a coast-to-coast
> drive, and they have DEMANDED that "nothing go wrong".
Wrong on both counts, they're going into the shop for a tune up and to
get the oil changed, and have not made such a demand.
Back on the central topic: Show me where Augustus demanded that nothing
go wrong. (Free hint: He hasn't, you made that bit up.)
>> >> Something for you to remember in future: When someone includes
>> >> that they are operating under a constraint in their question, starting
>> >> your response
>> >
>> > You are under no such constraint.
>>
>> Tell me: Do you have psychic powers?
>
> No, do you?
Then why are you acting like you do?
>> If no: Why do you think you know more about the situation than the OP?
>
> Because I can reason.
Your 'reasoning' has resulted in conclusions which contradict the facts
as described by Augustus. That means that either your reasoning is wrong,
or his facts are wrong. He has given an understandable reason for why the
facts are as he described them, a reason which you have chosen to try and
ignore.
>> Given that the only source you have for information on this particular
>> case is the OP himself.
>
> Which makes it completely unreliable, by the evidence.
Then you have no information at all and are posting nothing more than
wild guesses.
And it still does not change the fact that starting your response
by telling someone to simply violate the constraints which he has stated
he is working under, is not a productive thing to do.
>> > You can make a backup any time you
>> > wish. Any problem you have is in your head (and may I add, several of
>> > your problems appear to be there alone).
>>
>> Would you mind spending at least a bit of time reading the From: header
>> on people's posts? It might help you keep straight who you are
>> replying to.
>
> I have no interest in who you are or who I am replying to.
One would think that you at least have an interest in not looking like an
idiot. When you can't even detect that people with completely different
names, and which have completely different writing styles, are two
separate people: You end up making posts that make you look idiotic.
> But the "you" above looks a generic you to me. It is not directed at you.
The "you" may have been generic, the "your" sure wasn't.
>> The OP has already covered this, stop claiming you know more
>> about the situation than he does.
>
> Why? If he asks to travel coast to coast without checking the oil and
> demands that nothing go wrong, then I certainly do know mre about the
> situation than him.
When he tells you that he knows the oil is low, but that he _does not
have any more to add_, telling him to add more is a useless piece of
advice. This is for two reasons: First, he already knows he should add
more, it's just that he physically can't do so. Second, you are telling
him to do something that is not possible for him to do.
Now, to deal with that coast to coast bit you made up:
I considered specifying a trip to a garage for an oil change, but felt
that it would be a needless complication as the analogy was about telling
people to do things they have just told you they could not do. Now that I
know that you are a person who grabs things and goes running off into left
field, I will try to remember to
>> > Are you going to claim that you cannot open packets of soup next?
>>
>> Bad analogy, a better one might be being unable to open cans of
>> soup due to the lack of a can opener.
>
> You don't need a can-opener, you just need to make two holes. Hit it
> with a nail.
Well, that depends on the soup. I wouldn't try to open a can of
Campbells Chunky soup that way[1].
Your extension nicely hits the idea that things can become more
complicated as constraints are imposed. e.g. That if you cannot use a can
opener to open a can, the contents of the can must be taken into
consideration when looking for a method of opening the can.
>> >> do. It tends to make it look like you are either arrogant or that
>> >> you were not paying attention.
>> >
>> > No, it tends to make it "look like" I have no patience with prima
>> > donnas and their hysterias.
>>
>> Your seeming inability to even tell to whom you are responding
>> contradicts your claim.
>
> ???
You keep responding to me as if I were the OP.
>> (BTW: Lose the scare quotes, you're using them wrong.)
>
> What?
The scare quotes you stuck around "look like", you aren't contesting the
definition, nor are you using them as an incorrect colloquium. From what I
see in this post of yours, you simply do not know how to use them. Thus I
will extend my advice, and say that you should stop using scare quotes at
all.
[1] As the name implies, these soups have very large chunks of meat,
vegetables, etc. For years the advertising campaign centred on arguments
about whether you should use a fork or a spoon to eat it.
-- Phoenix
- Next message: James C. Reeves: "Re: driving in the rightmost lane is very dangerous"
- Previous message: Bill Unruh: "Re: ISO vs .tar"
- In reply to: Peter T. Breuer: "Re: Linux and Windows XP on the same PC"
- Next in thread: John-Paul Stewart: "Re: Linux and Windows XP on the same PC"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
