Re: This FOSS Thang :-)

On 3/20/2024 6:45 PM, chrisv wrote:

-hh wrote:
 

Let's not forget how DFS has frequently ribbed chrisv about how chrisv
had refused to show spending the time to optimize a build on NewEgg
because it would take too many hours...

 Dishonest characterization of the issue, which was the effort required
to explain or document the process in detail, especially with an
obtuse asshole like DumFSck as the audience.

Don't take it too hard.  Your ignorant idiocy about "there cannot be too many choices in a free market" folds immediately when you're asked to make an informed pick from them.

think it was part of the "more choices are always better"

 Dishonest characterization of my position, which is that there can
never be too much choice in a free market.
 

which backfired on chrisv

 Good God.  He thinks he won that debate!

He did.  I did.

Only an idiot would have concluded that anything "backfired" on me.  I
was correct in the points made.  Correct in the economic theory.
Correct in the observed reality.

Now it's a theory?
"Theory" says Linux users update the code to make their apps and desktops look and behave the way they want.
"Observed reality" PROVES they don't.
"Theory" says there can't be too many choices in a free market (according to you).
"Observed reality" PROVES there can be.
Everyone except you knows there's some equilibrium amount of a product or service beyond which the cost (time, material, money) of providing it exceeds the marginal revenue (real or psychic).
The wacky Linux distro market differs from most markets in that no money changes hands.  But the same forces of supply and demand hold: at some point, Linux distro makers see nobody using their efforts, they stop updating them, then even fewer people use them, and the maker eventually removes the choice from the market.  It's been happening for decades.

due to it being a clear example of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do.

 It was not an example of any such thing. It was an example of
-highhorse idiotically supporting a ridiculous argument.  It was an
example of -highhorse being too stupid to realize that he's wrong, and
that he's *always* been wrong, on the choice issue.
 Will he *ever* learn?
 DumFSck has made the point that choosing all of the components in a PC
build would be cumbersome and unpleasant, a "big hassle", if every
detail and decision needed to be explained and justified to an obtuse
asshole like himself.

Not just to me, but also to a lying obtuse asshole like yourself.  You are gonna make a proper evaluation of all the choices, aren't you?

Well, so the fsck what?  No one is doing that! 

Of course you're not doing that.  It's way too much work, and proves you're immediately defeated by the 'too many choices' you claim can't and don't exist.
The same 'too many choices' exists in the silly Linux x86_64 desktop distro market, in which 160+ contenders are sitting around, waiting for you to compare them all.

Only brain-dead
morons, like -highhorse and DumFSck, would argue that because such a
requirement would turn the process into a "big hassle" it means that
there's "too much choice".

That's exactly what it means.  The HUGE hassle is ONLY because of too many choices.

Does it need to be explained again?  Outside of such a ridiculous
scenario, the process can be fun and rewarding!  Done either alone or
with like-minded people, it can be a _lot_ of fun!

Only because a goony lamebrain like you would dispense with a detailed comparison of all the choices, and instead make your decision on the basis of a tiny few features, coupled with a few 3rd party reviews. Then you'd lazily and dishonestly bleat "See how easy it was!"
You're a clown.

With his "clear example of do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" idiocy,
-highhorse, once again displays his propensity to make assertions that
fly in the face of observed reality.  I do what I say.  I research and
specify each component of my PC's.

But you don't research ALL the choices for each component.  And within each choice of component, you also don't research and compare all the features (choice^2).
Why not?

Does -highhorse expect us to believe that I say that the myriad
details and decisions need to explained to an obtuse asshole who can
nit-pick every point, every dollar spent? 

Nit-pick?  But you just said there can't be "too many choices"?

Or, at least, documented in
detail to justify each decision as cost/performance optimal, right
down to latency of the DRAM?  Obviously, I say no such thing.
 The fact that something _can be_ a hassle does not mean that it should
never be done, any more than the fact that something _can be_ fun and
rewarding means that it should always be done.  It takes a genuine
idiot to point only to a worst-case (indeed, completely unrealistic)
scenario and claim that it proves that there is "too much" to deal
with.

It takes a lazy, inconsistent goob to evaluate a small subset of the available choices in a market, then claim there aren't too many.

This should have been understood the last time I explained it to these
morons, but their skulls are just too thick.

You lose, as you almost always do.