Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3378 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] Polish That Disk
  • From: Gideon Hallett <diogenes@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:15:16 +0000
  • Message-id: <200204251515.16115.diogenes@xxxxxxxxxx>
On Thursday 25 April 2002 12:22, Anon. Coward wrote:

(I really should know better than to stick my oar in, but... autodisclaimer
on; all statements are my own, not that of any other person/organisation.)

> I'll be darned... a civil question
>
> I was beginning to think there were only overbearing loudmouths in this
> airspace.

Hm. I wouldn't call myself an expert on the subject, but after about 9 years
on sundry newsfroups, I have to say that *most* of the "one vs. many"
disputes I've ever seen arise from the single person disrupting the general
consensus.

(Check any number of similar occurrences in places like ASR[1] or bofh.*)

Furthermore, I would hasten to add that none of the people you named have ever
been even vaguely rude to me; indeed, when Ben was at SuSE, he was one of the
people who really did go out of his way to help people posting to SLE.

> Yes, manufacturers often provide a low-level format utility, and another
> utility to set such things as block-testing, noise level, etc..

Again, ICBW, but I think that, as far as modern ATA drives go, the 'low-level
format' utilities don't generally do a true LLF (i.e. doing stuff to the
geometry); they just give you diagnostics and allow you to zero-fill your
disk.

http://www.seagate.com/support/kb/disc/low_level_ata.html has an example.

> Again, I do not care about the bully orthodoxy, to prove anything.

Hm. How does that sound if you replace 'bully orthodoxy' with 'the democratic
wishes of the majority'?

"I do not care about the democratic wishes of the majority, to prove
anything".

As with any (democratic) social space, the accepted codes of behaviour *are*
defined by the majority. If any one individual does not like or accept such
rules, their choices are pretty clear...

> I'm sure all of us have worked in an office where the ethos was just
> terrible. Everyone is tense and worried about each other, and you just
> hate to go to work in the morning. Well people, this is almost always
> caused by a very few 'stink generators', and if you identify those few
> publically, it does help.

It *helps* to (publicly) identify people as your own personal enemies?

Do people shove anti-personnel mines under your chair or something? - in my
experience, allowing personal feuds to run rife doesn't do a thing for office
harmony. Well, nothing positive, anyway.

> You can usually recognize them, because they are
> the ones who bulldoze people with their uninformed notions and idiotic
> political ideas.

Now *that* is verging on the frankly scary. Simplistic stereotyping of
peoples' political ideas have a bearing on their worthiness in the workplace?

In the Politburo, maybe; but really - I've never worked with anyone
sufficiently die-hard and radical to let it affect their work.

(And I say that as a lefty liberal anarcho-syndicalist. I can get on with
practically anyone in the workplace, as long as they permit me my right to my
opinion; and I have the corresponding obligation to do the same for them. My
own political beliefs do *not* alter the fact that I do a job for the money;
and therefore have an obligation to do that contracted job to the best of my
abilities.)

> Ideally those types should be forced to live in their own
> nasty mess, but in practice they benefit from an improved environment just
> like everyone else, unfortunately.

If everyone had to pay in full for every mistake they made, when would any of
us be free of it?

Making mistakes is what people do a large amount of the time, since experience
and learning are impossible without it.

> For those who are listening, please look into this. You'll benefit.

I've looked, and from here, it looks like a temper tantrum. There are any
number of better and more productive things to be doing on a nice spring day
like this.

Gideon.

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups