Netbeans failure mode

[Arne Vajhøj]

This response appears to be hostile and childish. Furthermore it appears
to have nothing whatsoever to do with Java, or with what I'd said.

Try read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(usenet)

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

But they do not. Look up "synonymous" in the dictionary, Lew. It means
they mean the same thing!

Yes.

"6.1 is the latest version" means that 6.5 does not exist.

"Your 6.1 version is up to date" means that NB 6.1 module is at
version 1.1.1 and all other modules are at their latest version.

That is two completely different things.

Arne

 

[Jerry Gerrone]

Surely, only Paul Derbyshire could be so [multiple insults deleted]

Out of curiosity, I did a Google search of cljp for every mention of
Paul to see if there were any other places where you people were
badmouthing him, besides threads where I'd posted.

Imagine my surprise when I found two apparently-ongoing threads where
people are badmouthing Paul without even mentioning me by either my
real name or the name Twisted?

This is exceptionally bad behavior, "curly". There was nothing uncivil
in the post by "secret decoder ring" that you followed up to and there
was nothing at all about Paul. Or about me, for that matter.

I now need to decide on my policy for what to do when people randomly
insult Paul out of context.

Since they tend to really be intending to insult me, and getting my
identity confused with someone else's, and since Paul is not
apparently present to defend himself, I suppose I need to do
something.

So:

* I am not Paul.
* None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
* I don't know whether the insults about Paul are true, but I
very much doubt that he'd appreciate you insulting him behind
his back.

 

[Jerry Gerrone]

I'm not at all sure that "secret decoder ring" is Paul Derbyshire. His
prose style doesn't seem the same, and all the technical evidence points
to someone else, whereas Paul is [insult deleted]

As explained previously, I find it necessary to assume that all
insults aimed at "Paul" here are actually intended for me, and respond
in both of our defense. To set the record straight:

* I am not Paul.
* None of the nasty things that you have said or implied are
true of me.
* I don't know whether the insults are true of Paul, but I
very much doubt that he'd appreciate you insulting him behind
his back.

"Secret decoder ring", if you are, indeed, not Paul Derbyshire, you must
understand that there is a [insult deleted] by that name who posts here
under a dozen different aliases

That, quite clearly, IS intended to refer to me.

You are incorrect.

* My name is not Paul.
* None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.

I'm afraid that he has this entire group rather on edge -- not that
we're seriously bothered about him, but when someone keeps jumping
into technical conversations yelling, "I don't exist, and you can't
prove that I do!" or says that he is personally insulted because
someone quoted Christopher Marlowe, it gets [insult deleted]

No-one has done those things that I have seen. If anyone has, it did
not occur in this thread, so bringing it up here is clearly not only
irrelevancy but flame-baiting and trolling.

So we get nervous around strangers.

Welcome to Usenet. Strangers surround you. Get used to it, or log off.

 

[Jerry Gerrone]

I'm not at all sure that "secret decoder ring" is Paul Derbyshire. His
prose style doesn't seem the same, and all the technical evidence points
to someone else, whereas Paul is [insult deleted]

They do share a propensity to [insults deleted]

As explained previously, I find it necessary to assume that all
insults aimed at "Paul" here are actually intended for me, and respond
in both of our defense. To set the record straight:

* I am not Paul.
* None of the nasty things that you have said or implied are
true of me.
* I don't know whether the insults are true of Paul, but I
very much doubt that he'd appreciate you insulting him behind
his back.

 

[Jerry Gerrone]

I'm not at all sure that "secret decoder ring" is Paul Derbyshire. His
prose style doesn't seem the same, and all the technical evidence points
to someone else, whereas Paul is [insult deleted]

Paul is sometimes trying harder [various implied insults deleted]

As explained previously, I find it necessary to assume that all
insults aimed at "Paul" here are actually intended for me, and respond
in both of our defense. To set the record straight:

* I am not Paul.
* None of the nasty things that either of you have said or
implied are true of me.
* I don't know whether the insults are true of Paul, but I
very much doubt that he'd appreciate either of you
insulting him behind his back.

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Those statements are synonymous.

And 6.1 version is not up to date, is it?

Most likely it is.

But you can easily check it - your NB 6.1 module should be
version 1.1.1 to be uptodate.

Elsewhere I have highlighted an explicitly contradictory pair of
statements, one uttered by the "check for updates" menu item of NB 6.1
when activated and one on the NB Web site.

It seems clear that both statements cannot simultaneously be true, and
that the one on the Web site is true.

It follows that the updater has a bug that causes it to make incorrect
statements to the user from time to time.

No. You have just misunderstood what the updater does.

No, I do not. I simply need to report the problem, not investigate it
laboriously like I was going to be fixing it myself. That's not my
responsibility. It is the development team's responsibility.

There is nothing to to fix in the code.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Apparently not. I have now confirmed that the Web site has an NB 6.5
available.

It is.

This does not make sense.

It is the fact.

And easily verifiable by anyone with NB 6.1 and the skills to use the
menus.

I don't necessarily agree. Moreover, this is irrelevant -- it should not
claim to be up to date when it is not.

It is very relevant, because it implies what uptodate means.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

I am getting rather tired of your arrogance, Lew. You do not decide
whether what I say "counts" or not. WE ARE ALL EQUALS HERE. GET THAT
THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL, PLEASE, BEFORE YOU DRIVE BOTH OF US BATTY!

You are free to claim that 2+2 is 5. But that does not make
it true.

Your assumptions about NB version numbers are wrong.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

Actually, I can, and I do, since that IS the standard.

There are no standard for version numbers.

Some use n, some use n.n, some use n.n.n, some use n.n.n.n,
some use yyyy, some use n.n-n and so on.

You don't get to decide what I do or do not assume, or what is or is not
standard, shocking though this may be for you to hear.

But we will obviously point out when your wrong assumptions lead you
to wrong conclusions.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

http://www.netbeans.org/community/releases/65/relnotes.html says otherwise.

No - it does not.

Such a definition would be extremely counterintuitive anyway,

Only to people that does not bother to learn about things
before complaining.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

No, nothing misled me. Something apparently has a bug. "Misled" implies
a deliberate intent to deceive.

Well if you don't think the you were mislead, then we will just conclude
that the terms NB use are perfect and you are too stupid to understand
them.

Arne

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

But as I explained to Lew, I have failed at nothing. Invoking "check for
updates" (by menu item or just by using the software long enough, as it
periodically checks in the background) should suffice as due diligence.
It's hardly MY fault if "check for updates" makes glaring omissions from
time to time -- this occurrence was my first indication that it might do
so.

You have failed to understand what update does.

Arne

 

[Arved Sandstrom]

Old enough and educated enough to realize the futility of reasoning
with you. [rest deleted]

Your personal insults and general rudeness are uncalled-for. We had been
having a perfectly civil debate about NetBeans versioning. Then when I
managed to produce incontrovertible proof in support of my side of our
argument, you began to make snide remarks. When I called you on that,
you responded with this ... trash-talking nonsense.

"Incontrovertible proof"? You've been operating all along with the idea
that NetBeans x.y versioning adheres to a so-called standard numeric
versioning system which doesn't even exist - every project has its own
versioning system. The numbering of NetBeans versions clearly
demonstrates that that project doesn't use x.y versioning in the way that
you assume is standard.

And yet you prop up all of your arguments on the basis of this so-called
standard.

I'm a bit dubious about people who claim to have "incontrovertible" proof
of anything, and especially when it's so clearly wrong.

I think we're through here.

I have little interest in continuing to debate anything with a sore
loser such as yourself.

Sore _loser_? I beg to differ. Exactly how did I lose?

Their system makes at-best-misleading statements to the user through the
software's own user-interface. That much I have proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. The error lies clearly at their doorstep, not mine. So
this is just another fairly transparent attempt to make things personal
when you find yourself on the losing end of an argument, and facts come
to light that support the other side.

Shame on you.

Well, you have managed to blame NetBeans for their versioning system,
pretty much because it's at odds with your idea of what the "standard"
is. You have managed to prove nothing but that their system confused
_you_.

As for personal, if you think anything I've said in this thread has been
trash-talking or particularly personal, you sure haven't ever been
through a serious code review. And clearly you haven't been on Usenet
much. You are taking criticisms of your ideas as criticism of yourself.

Yes, I did get a bit snippy. Hard not to - your refusal to accept reality
is exasperating.

AHS

 

[secret decoder ring]

It is.

So NB is not correct, then.

It is the fact.

I am not talking about your "modules". Indeed, I couldn't care less
about the implementation details and their attendant terminology. I am
pointing out that a message in the user interface, "Your IDE is up to
date!", is clearly erroneous.

Clearly, that is, unless you twist its meaning by using an
unconventional definition of "your", "IDE", "is", or "up to date".

But then, it *has* been clearly demonstrated in the thread that you do
need help understanding how spelling and grammar work in the English
language. Most recently by your mangled phrase "It is the fact." above.
So perhaps you are using an unconventional definition of one or more of
those words and phrases.

But the majority of the user base will not be, so that makes you wrong,
not right.

And easily verifiable by anyone with NB 6.1 and the skills to use the
menus.

This looks like a gratuitous potshot to me.

I have tried to be civil with you, but you have been nothing but rude to
me, and often *quite* rude. Even to the point of essentially calling me
a liar when I said, in another thread, that my name was Kevin.

This is especially ridiculous given that you have no possible way of
disproving what I say my name is, so it's ludicrous for you to dispute
it. Any normal person would simply take my word for it.

In fact, any normal person wouldn't have even brought it up; it was
irrelevant.

So it has been clearly demonstrated in the thread that you do need help
understanding how to be normal in the human species.

It is very relevant, because it implies what uptodate means.

Up to date means up to date. It means there's no more recent version. It
means the user is using the most cutting edge released version of his
tools, that there is nothing newer. It means this to 99.99999% of the
English-speaking population of the world.

Apparently it means something else to you. But that is, or at least
should be, no skin off my nose.

 

[secret decoder ring]

Paul is sometimes trying harder to disguise himself.

I wouldn't know.

But the "I am always correct" attitude even when pointed to
evidence showing otherwise is very characteristic.

Is it? Then I guess you are Paul. After all, I have proven that NB's
statement is erroneous, beyond a reasonable doubt, and still you argue
with me.

Perhaps Joshua is also Paul, since he said a Java class could have two
methods with the same name and parameter types and different return
types, I said it couldn't and quoted from the JLS to prove my point, and
he continued to argue with me.

Perhaps everyone is Paul, and Paul is everywhere. Ph33r!

Or perhaps you're a paranoid schizophrenic.

Only your psychiatrist can be sure.

 

[secret decoder ring]

Try read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(usenet)

Try read:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=tE1bTT8-Dx4C

 

[secret decoder ring]

You are free to claim that 2+2 is 5. But that does not make
it true.

How fortunate then that I have never made that claim.

Your assumptions about NB version numbers are wrong.

Your assumptions about polite behavior in public are wrong.

I have no assumptions about NB version numbers. The exact "size" of the
jump from 6.1 to 6.5 is immaterial to my point. It suffices that it's a
positive number for the statement "Your IDE is up to date!" to be proven
false.

 

[secret decoder ring]

You seem to be assuming that he is actually interested in learning
and understanding what and why.

I have nothing to learn or understand here. The meanings of phrases like
"your IDE is up to date", "check for updates", and "no updates found"
are evident and unambiguous to anyone who has completed the fifth grade,
as I believe I mentioned previously a time or two.

See:

http://groups.google.com/group/carleton.general/browse_frm/thread/107c44a6274df3a6

This appears to be 100% off-topic and irrelevant to a discussion of
NetBeans, or indeed to the topic of Java programming in general.

I know you have a hard-on for this guy Paul, but really, you should
learn to post different topics in their appropriate places.
Comp.lang.java.programmer is not a singles newsgroup. Move along.

 

[secret decoder ring]

And that is a lie.

I get that - got it way back up the thread.

If you really do believe that, then you should stop replying.

But I also get the futility
of anyone other than the NB folks trying to explain or justify the
versioning of the software to this bonehead.

No, you're the bonehead.

The versioning is 100% irrelevant to the matter at issue, which is that
it claimed my IDE was up to date when quite clearly that was not the
case. The mere existence of a more recent version, regardless of the
exact system of numbering they choose to use, sufficed to disprove the
claim that my IDE was up to date.

If anyone on this group feels compelled to respond to this troll

Another insulting mischaracterization!

It seems that this group spares no love for people who point out errors
in the software they regularly use, or question any aspects of the
design or behavior of same.

How illogical, insipid, and stupid. Not to mention disappointing.