Re: emc (TOME)

At 03:51 PM 10/12/99 -0700, you wrote:

>Your choice, of course, but aside from the terse sarcasm (which EVERY
>vendor in the US anyway has to learn to live with, and rightly so), I
>have to side with the suspicions raised by the people in the fore on
>this "Linux...why bother" thread yous guys started. In EACH case, the
>proponents seem to be someone who's announced themselves as having
>products to sell or plans thereof.

That's a bit of a rash generalization and quite an exaggeration. For one
thing I didn't say anything like that, just a question on why. And as for
products to sell, I sure see others in here with those, who support linux
and emc. Our friend Darrell is one, no? So if commercialism is the
objection, you need to paint with a much broader brush.

I hadthat invite in inmbx over two months ago, and by any standard my
joining a few days ago that wasn't jumping right in on financial
opportunity. You do have to admit the setting up linux/emc seems to be
difficult and tedious and a question about the motives for pursuing that is
a natural one.

I managed to straightforwardly install all my hardware and software, made
all connections, booted and ran. I was making chips within ten minutes of
my first power-up. That was my main objective and it was simple to achieve.
If anyone has ever done that with emc and linux I'd like to hear about it.
And certainly if that's not likely nobody can be blamed for seeking or
mentioning alternatives.

>time someone tells me they "participate in a number of forums and always
>offer best advice", I wonder if that fellow doesn't have a rather
>enlarged view of himself.

Yes well when someone questions what a fellow does elsewhere, who has no
idea what that really is, I always wonder if that fellow isn't merely
hypercritical. And when I join a list and get flames from several folks on
posting my very first question, I do wonder about their purposes: whether
all that is to share info as you claim is the object, or to deal in
discomfort.

>by saying you're "in here by direct invitation". If someone suggested
>you join in, how does that make YOU some kind of higher lifeform?

No but it does give reason for you to not wonder about my ulterior motives.
I'll add to that that no matter whether you accept that or not, your
sarcasm is based on false assumption and is flames itself.

>sentence and the one following it, lauding your own advice, say
>mountains about your assumed self-importance and self-worth.

Let's talk about your own self-importance, which seems to be so high-level
that you're free to offer your own interpretations despite realities? When
you actually SEE me lauding my own advice instead of merely giving it,
you'll be on safe ground and not standing on vapors.

>When I read the "Linux/EMC is toooo hard" thread when it started, I kept
>hearing this subliminal message something to the tune of "why are you
>guys struggling with Linux & EMC, why not let the 'experts' do that for
>you".

Since I didn't say anything like that and don't recall anyone else doing it
either, that idea would have to be something you invented out of vaccuum.

>Linux and EMC, all that's keeping any one of us from being in near
>complete control of bug fixing and basically our OpSys and CAM
>programming destiny, not to mention a free/great/deep education in the
>process, is our own native interest and intelligence.

Not to knock linux of which I know nothing, but that's true of any
programming environment with open source. But I think you're heading off
into the grandiose, no?

>potential of things like Linux and EMC. Have you no vision?

My visions led me in entirely different direction. Have you no alternative
vision?

>And if you complain there's currently too much LinuxEMC traffic,

... I didn't, you know, just asked what made the agony worthwhile.

>ignore
>it and start some thread on what YOU think is so much more important.

Yeah, not to stir the pot but when I asked a question about linux someone
told me to start my own I-LPT ML. And I let it pass. Why don't you do the
same? <=read that again, please.