I never thought I'd say this, but
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Jul 01, 2011 12:39 AM EDT |
...does Hess's drivel really need to be on LXer? Think of the poor electrons. |
| tuxchick Jul 01, 2011 1:01 AM EDT |
I know, I need to look at the author's name before clicking. |
| nikkels Jul 01, 2011 1:05 AM EDT |
I think it's time for a vote :-) |
| Scott_Ruecker Jul 01, 2011 1:20 AM EDT |
Posting his articles is fun..if just for the comments his articles bring. I can't help it. Its like a secret addiction..;-) As I have said before, I post FUD for the reason that our readers should know what is being put out there..the good and the bad. People read him, why I do not know but they do. And as long as someone is giving him a forum then there are those that will 'buy' what he is 'selling'.. the distinction is in knowing the difference, which our very knowledgeable readers are able to discern. Scott |
| tuxchick Jul 01, 2011 1:30 AM EDT |
You're right, Scott, I'll just have another beer and read me some Enderle. |
| tracyanne Jul 01, 2011 1:57 AM EDT |
I recognised it as yet more click bait from Ken Hess, and dclined to read it. You'll notice that he has to post the stories himself to get them on here. |
| cr Jul 01, 2011 2:10 AM EDT |
So, is he our John Katz? Or our Gilderoy Lockhart? |
| Scott_Ruecker Jul 01, 2011 2:17 AM EDT |
@ Carla..drink one for me. @ Tracy..you're right, I figure if he personally submits them then he is asking for it. @ cr..basically, yes. |
| tracyanne Jul 01, 2011 2:25 AM EDT |
Scott "you're" |
| nikkels Jul 01, 2011 2:39 AM EDT |
I took some ENO. It's much better now |
| dinotrac Jul 01, 2011 3:43 AM EDT |
As a right-wing hate-monger who views the late, great Atilla-the-Hun as a liberal sissy boy, I don't generally join mush-headed left-leaning groups like GreenPeace or the US Army, but la chick de le Tux has touched my poor shriveled former lawyer's heart (OK -- technically speaking, that's a great black void where the heart should be, but allow me some poetic license here -- or else). As of today, I am now a member of PETE: People for the Ethical Treatment of Electrons. They do so much for us. Shouldn't we return the love? |
| cr Jul 01, 2011 4:42 AM EDT |
@dino: What's a Nazgul like you doing in a place like this? At this junction, the electrons are already complemented by all that's holey. |
| nikkels Jul 01, 2011 6:02 AM EDT |
Alert ! Alert ! He's back with another one. |
| mortenalver Jul 01, 2011 6:19 AM EDT |
The other one is a good old completely useless one, too! |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 01, 2011 8:26 AM EDT |
Very [serious] If the suggestion is made to vote on barring Ken Hess writings that appear in publications, I vote NO against barring him. Not because it would be a great loss, but censorship along with expunging non-commercial spam is short sighted. In the future some curious readers might run a search, think of the damage done is none of our comments were there. Electrons are cheap and the discerning among us will soon learn if it sounds really interesting that is associated with a string ["khess" | ["k" | "ken"] "hess"] the probability is heavily weighted towards worthless. But some here have found value in a small fraction of his output. And if you are prone to be fooled, use your wasted time for good use. Critique his output. [/serious] YBT P.S. Don't waste your time with the search strings as shown, they probably won't work correctly. However, the first is right there as the poster. You have been warned. |
| dinotrac Jul 01, 2011 8:49 AM EDT |
>holey Hey! We have no patience with radical transistorite dopes around here. |
| jdixon Jul 01, 2011 8:51 AM EDT |
While I almost never read Ken's articles; I have to agree with Scott that they serve a purpose. It's easy enough to skip over them. |
| dinotrac Jul 01, 2011 8:53 AM EDT |
@txt -- Now you've gone too far. Quoting: Electrons are cheap Enough with stereotypes. And really, what if it's true? It doesn't matter: Negative means negative. Period. |
| ComputerBob Jul 01, 2011 9:47 AM EDT |
Maybe a compromise: LXer posts the "teasers" to khess stories, but doesn't post any hyperlinks to the actual stories. ;) |
| jdixon Jul 01, 2011 9:48 AM EDT |
> Negative means negative. Period. You're obviously positive about the matter. :) |
| jimbauwens Jul 01, 2011 11:02 AM EDT |
Sorry, can't resist posting this:
Khen wrote: Or does it sound like I’ve allowed myself to be influenced by a small faction of Ken Hess “haters” who’d rather argue than listen? |
| dinotrac Jul 01, 2011 11:06 AM EDT |
@jb - What's funny about that is that there are not Ken Hess haters. You have to care to hate. |
| tuxchick Jul 01, 2011 11:49 AM EDT |
Quoting:Electrons are cheap Electrons are cheap, but not easy. I like ComputerBob's idea. Totally low-class. Perfect! |
| hunky Jul 01, 2011 1:11 PM EDT |
In Russia, electrons ban you! ok, sorry. I want a like button - would like tuxchick's third post here. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 01, 2011 2:46 PM EDT |
He's writing for ZDnet now. That's got to mean something. |
| khess Jul 01, 2011 3:51 PM EDT |
Do you guys actually read what I write or just react to it? Tell me what's wrong with that piece for those of you with enough technical knowledge to debate its merit. I have a lot of technical experience and have been messing with Linux since 1995 and virtualization since 1999, started the local LUG in 1996 (still going strong) and am well employed with a good day job where my expertise is respected and sought after. Just because you don't agree with what I say, does not mean that I'm wrong. I know what a crazy concept that must be but seriously, you should entertain it. I'm also a good writer. I was the second most popular on Daniweb behind Davey Winder who had a multi-year jump on me. So, I'm not really sure what the beef is but I'm assuming that you have good reason or maybe not. In either case, I find it puzzling. |
| jdixon Jul 01, 2011 4:00 PM EDT |
> Do you guys actually read what I write or just react to it? Actually Ken, I make it a point NOT to read your articles. But then I my only comment on them is usually Ken Hess = do not read. |
| khess Jul 01, 2011 4:01 PM EDT |
Your loss. |
| jdixon Jul 01, 2011 4:04 PM EDT |
> Your loss. You think so? I don't. |
| khess Jul 01, 2011 4:07 PM EDT |
So, you think it's OK to criticize something that you don't read?
How can you even comment if you don't know what the article says?
I'm just shocked at that mentality. |
| tracyanne Jul 01, 2011 6:03 PM EDT |
Ken I've read enough of your articles, in the past, to know what to expect. Now, about one time in five I'll subject myself to your drivel, just in case you've changed. So far I've been very unlucky. |
| dinotrac Jul 01, 2011 6:37 PM EDT |
khess -- You don't write too badly for somebody who's so inexperienced in the tech field. Like you, I am a relative newcomer to Virtual Machines, not getting started with them until 1986. I did do work on cloud computing before that, for what it's worth. |
| tracyanne Jul 01, 2011 6:42 PM EDT |
khess wrote:I'm also a good writer. That's debatable, what you appear to be good at is creating inflamatory headlines that cause people to click on the link and go to your blog. In other words you are good at "Click Baiting". The worth of your articles is negligable, the quality of the writing average, the tone dismissive and arrogant when it comes to dismissing those who disagree with you, or who you deem as unworthy, by whatever criteria you use. Your grasp of the technology appears to be on par with most of the qualified (technically) and experienced posters on this forum. |
| dinotrac Jul 01, 2011 6:49 PM EDT |
@ta - More words than required. There's generally an easy rule for identifying a good writer, and it starts with they don't have to tell you. |
| jdixon Jul 01, 2011 7:15 PM EDT |
> So, you think it's OK to criticize something that you don't read? No. But given your writing, I'm not surprised you have trouble understanding plain English. As I clear stated, I don't criticize your articles. I simply advise people not to read them. |
| Koriel Jul 01, 2011 8:07 PM EDT |
D@mn i didn't start virtual until 1996 and i thought I had a head start back then, my mama always said i was a slow learner. |
| dinotrac Jul 01, 2011 9:05 PM EDT |
@Koriel -- It's all right. We're watching over you. Very carefully, I might add. Don't blow it. |
| khess Jul 02, 2011 12:40 AM EDT |
@dinotrac - no, you're right. I don't have mainframe experience. but, to say inexperienced is incorrect. @jdixon - seriously, there must be some merit to what I write or you wouldn't spend so much time opposing it. You should use your limited powers for good and not spend your time criticizing those who are doing something rather than nothing. @tracyanne - I think somebody needs a hug. |
| tracyanne Jul 02, 2011 2:01 AM EDT |
khess wrote:@tracyanne - I think somebody needs a hug. Just had one, thanks for the thought. khess wrote:@jdixon - seriously, there must be some merit to what I write or you wouldn't spend so much time opposing it. If he was opposing what you write, there would be some merit in what you just said, but he's not opposing what you write he slagging your lack of ability to write it well. |
| khess Jul 02, 2011 2:48 AM EDT |
What does all this negativity gain you? I'm not sure I see the point. |
| tracyanne Jul 02, 2011 3:16 AM EDT |
Ken if there was anything positive that could be said about your writing I would say it, after all, I have, in the past, posted one or two articles, written by yourself. I recall that I stated at the time that they were very good articles... and no I didn't necessarily agree with everything you wrote in them. Your writing appears to have taken a turn for the worse since you started blogging with zdnet. Perhaps my point is that your learn from the experience and improve. |
| dinotrac Jul 02, 2011 4:10 AM EDT |
@khess - Experience? Perhaps. Sense of irony? Not. |
| ComputerBob Jul 02, 2011 8:05 AM EDT |
Ken, i think that if you had no professional outlet to publish your writings, and instead posted them only on computer forums, many of them would be considered trolling, and would get you banned. Are your writings "popular?" Yes, if you define "popularity" to mean "they get a lot of clicks." But if people are clicking on your articles to strongly disagree with your sensationalistic, trolling style of writing, your dismissive, know-it-all attitude toward others and your often-laughable conclusions, then that's not the type of "popularity" that a writer with integrity strives to achieve. |
| jdixon Jul 02, 2011 9:39 AM EDT |
> seriously, there must be some merit to what I write or you wouldn't spend so much time opposing it. Again with the comprehension problem. I don't oppose what you write, Ken. I simply don't read it. And based on the articles of yours which I have read over the years, I recommend to others that they not read it either. > I'm not sure I see the point. Obviously. |
| hkwint Jul 02, 2011 10:36 AM EDT |
Hi Mr. Hess, Yes, I read the entire article. And I also read the last one, pro-cloud, with its really lame flawed logic. I replied to that one on content because it was really lame, but no response from you AFAIK. Or maybe my comment was lost (sometimes stupid Akonadi crashes Xorg just out of the blue) or I withdrew it, I don't remember exactly. Anyway. In the other article, you claimed "the cloud is nice, because many Fortune 500 companies use it, so should we and we can't circumvent it.", Now you say "did you know you can also run multiple daemons on a machine?" But instead of writing it in one sentence, you write a whole article which you should have said in one sentence. Yes, we knew you can run multiple processes on a system, we all do. Because a virtual system is supposed to act like a "normal" system, we also all knew you can do it on a virtual system too. You know what: I was born in '84, have very little experience with Linux nor virtualization, I only started using a PC in 1999, Linux in 2003 or so - and virtualization in 2007. I don't work in IT, nor do I want too, I don't claim to be experienced - as I'm not, and I'm not Daniweb second most popular writer. In fact only few people read my articles on LXer. And even I think the article about cloud computing is really lame (if all Fortune 500 companies pee against the wind, do you?) as it entirely omits the problem about 'data security' (or the lack thereoff). This "VM Addiction"-article is a one-liner from Captain Obvious ("You can virtualize workloads that don’t need virtualization.", no, holy crap, really?), but instead you spend a whole article on it. Then, I can really understand how really experienced people like Tuxchick, Dinotrac or TracyAnne think about what you write. Only for Windows users might it be a novelty of being able to run multiple services on a system without the whole thing coming down from the roof. For anyone with over 6 months of Linux experience, it's "normal", the way life should be. Probably you know better than me, CTSS already did it in 1961, so yeah, after half a century you're a bit late. Maybe all Daniweb readers are Windows-users, so they like reading you can run more than one service on a box, I don't know about them readers, you tell us. It tells something about Daniweb readership, not about you. So if you're so experienced and popular, I cannot help but wonder how lame the Daniweb readers are reading that kind of obviousness. And I pity if you're so experienced, you still write these lame articles which are flawed from a logical perspective, or don't have real content beyond the one-liner you should have written instead of all those paragraphs. If you're really that experienced and popular, I guess you should be capable of writing much better stuff. So try! I know it's hard work writing _real_ articles. Other LXer readers may know: Sometimes I spend over three days writing an article which doesn't become popular, is read by only few people, is too long for the attention span of most people, sometimes a bit heavy on the content, some people don't even understand it and such. But at least there's content in it, and I'm proud of it. It feels much better than repeating one sentence over and over in just a tiny different fashion, and throwing flawed logic at it. Here's some advice: After you wrote an article, let it rest for a day, maybe let someone else read it, and try to leave away all those repetitions. Then, this article would have gone back to one sentence, and you should have discovered the one sentence of content was not worth the entire article. To my fellow LXer'ers: Yes, I know, I'm way too serious about this, but at least I can try, right? BTW: Did you know ports were designed so data-packets don't conflict? And did you know kernels were designed to being able to run multiple daemons consecutively? Now, I'm left wondering what your next article will be. Maybe you're going to reveal a big secret, the best kept IT secret, namely being you can run a service without a VM? And you can store data even _outside_ the cloud as well? And you can type Control, Alt and Delete at the same time without needing three separate virtual keyboards? Yeah, I'm eager to find out. And if it's not my holiday, I'll certainly read it too, as I like wasting my time. Like typing this comment. But nobody can say I didn't try, that's the important thing. Can you say you tried to write a decent article with some content in it, which makes you proud? If so, I feel pity for you. If not, shame on you, then you don't earn the title of 'writer'. Because in such case you're just a 'blogger'. Telling things like "Did you know when on the toilet, you can use toilet paper?" - probably because you're just bored and don't know how to write something interesting. Please Scott, keep them KHess articles coming, I like my keyboard-gymnastics of replying to them! Moreover, this is the first time today I'm LMAO'ing, so keep it up! |
| gus3 Jul 02, 2011 11:35 AM EDT |
Thank you, Hans. My little Android keyboard would never let me type such a verbose, yet erudite response. |
| dinotrac Jul 02, 2011 12:45 PM EDT |
@hans -- Content? What's up with that? And, while we're on the subject, why bother to know something in depth when you can simply SAY you know something in depth? The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know. -- Socrates Some will never learn anything because they understand everything too soon. -- Thomas Blount Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying? -- Emerson |
| tuxchick Jul 02, 2011 12:57 PM EDT |
Very nice, Hans. Ken, your wide-eyed "who me" act is wearing thin. |
| Fettoosh Jul 02, 2011 1:34 PM EDT |
I guess khess should have known better than to respond to the posts. |
| gus3 Jul 02, 2011 3:23 PM EDT |
@Fettoosh, that's never stopped him before. |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 02, 2011 4:35 PM EDT |
[serious] I am so glad I restrained myself. Whereas Hans provided a reasoned, calm response mine was headed for nasty territory with my giving khess a too appropriate alias, with scurrilous connotations. With others when I cannot think of an appropriate appellation, I opt for the ridiculous. I do so that if there is any derision it is reflected in my direction. My intent mostly is humor (though I mostly fail, that's another damn thing Hans is better at than I) not verbal abuse of the supposedly addressed individual(s). There is one area I truly envy Ken Hess. I only pretend to be a shill, whereas I suspect he may even be remunerated for his efforts. The world is so unfair ... serious ended some where near here. As always, YBT |
| jhansonxi Jul 02, 2011 4:36 PM EDT |
As a former M$ admin I like some of Ken's articles but they tend to be higher-level admin stuff which is rather fuzzy for debating over. His points are valid but it depends on the environment, loads, and systems one is working with. I usually don't defend them as I don't want to discourage the entertaining comments here. What I would like to see is a voting system for articles. One where readers can vote for individual tags like "administration", "legal", "OpenOffice.org", or "FUD". Visitors can then sort/filter dynamically when browsing articles. Article posters get to vote for initial tags (just like any other visitor). What would be helpful is implement a vote check where other readers can click on the tag for an article and see who voted for each. If it looks like there are a bunch of shill accounts that repeatedly vote for certain tags en masse then a visitor can tell the server to ignore votes from those accounts when calculating tags during article list page generation. This would prevent some of the abuse that shows up with voting systems on other sites. A counter-algorithm could be offered that valued the votes from specific accounts more than others. This would allow narrow-minded individuals to share their tunnel visions better; essentially make LXer more "cult-friendly". |
| Fettoosh Jul 02, 2011 4:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:What I would like to see is a voting system for articles.... I still prefer voting by posting. One click vote is meaningless while "vote by post" would tell us why the vote went whichever way. Hence, a chance to respond with more posts. |
| jhansonxi Jul 02, 2011 5:24 PM EDT |
@Fettoosh: What I am proposing doesn't prevent someone from commenting in addition to voting. "vote by post" also doesn't prevent someone from submitting a null comment. The difference is that a "vote by post" ends up cluttering the comments with posts from visitors that just wanted to vote without a comment. |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 02, 2011 6:16 PM EDT |
The Other hans, Let me get this straight, i.e. Quoting: [I just want ...] posts from visitors that just wanted to vote without a comment. to make it easier for trolls? Well sorry I am with Footsie on this one, his is the more reasoned approach. Moreover, it may shock you that nearly every individual working on the site is an unpaid, volunteer. Furthermore, it is better they concentrate on the article / story queue and writing content than administrating a potentially complex voting system of dubious worth. [some seriousness bled in, sorry] YBT |
| tracyanne Jul 02, 2011 8:08 PM EDT |
@Txt, you made me laugh. |
| Fettoosh Jul 02, 2011 9:36 PM EDT |
Quoting:What I am proposing doesn't prevent someone from commenting ... I didn't mean to insinuate it is not useful, what I meant to say is, I would prefer to know the reasoning behind a vote. What you are suggesting would, in a glance, give the readers either a thumbs up or down. This could be beneficial to some. |
| patrokov Jul 02, 2011 11:15 PM EDT |
Ken, you're not a good writer. Let's (really let me) analyze a little of the poor writing in opening of your article. (Sample text pasted below for your convenience.) 1. Two many perspectives. I, You, It, We...all in the space of four sentences. 2. Who is this "we" you're talking about? You don't know me, and I'm certainly not addicted, and it's certainly NOT hurting my business. 3. Your first rhetorical question is fair, and I was waiting for the answer. The first answer is self serving and cheap and employs a psychological fallacy. The third answer is plausible. The fourth answer is self-referentially incoherent, and by now I've lost interest in finding out the answer. 4. The whole tone is overwrought. "I’m also a big proponent of being smart about computing. You can take virtualization too far. You can virtualize workloads that don’t need virtualization. We’re addicted to virtualization. It’s just too easy to perform a physical to virtual (P2V) conversion, to create a new VM from a template or to spin up a new VM from a standard request. It’s just too easy, and now, we’re addicted and it’s hurting our business." "Does it sound like I’m backing away from an earlier post stating that you should virtualize any and all workloads? Or does it sound like I’ve allowed myself to be influenced by a small faction of Ken Hess “haters” who’d rather argue than listen?" "It could be that I’ve caved in and relented. It could be that I’ve simply revised history." |
| jdixon Jul 02, 2011 11:31 PM EDT |
> Ken, you're not a good writer... Actually, that's not quite true. Ken has demonstrated, on occasion, that he's capable of writing quite well. It just that he normally doesn't bother to do so. |
| hkwint Jul 03, 2011 8:43 AM EDT |
MBT: Well, I thought my comment above was pretty rude and arrogant, but I thought it was OK given the arrogance of Mr. Hess himself. The attitude: "I'm a senior professional certificated long time respected high-popularity ranking skilled ex-Fortune-500-company Linux user / writer, so if my articles don't make too much sense (like patrokov explains above), I can always pretend like I know a lot - even if my articles don't show (like dino says). Blegh, that attitude makes me sick. And then asking for comments on the content. But if people have reasonable comments, like I think TracyAnne and Tuxchick have answered in the past about the cloud being not safe for your personal data, and I think I even mentioned a cloud is less water proof than a sieve, we don't receive a reply on content, and now Mr. Hess is talking about 'haters'. There comes a point in time I become upset, and my reaction above probably shows. jd: Second that, IIRC I have read at least 10 decent articles from Mr. Hess. jhansonxi: I've proposed changes to the commenting system before, like making it threaded so you can see who is replying to who and threads wouldn't derail so quick. Like now you are discussing the way LXer works while at the same time other people discuss the writings of Mr. Hess. I was met with some opposing opinions though, other people liked the one-dimensional commenting system. Like Txt suggests: Almost all of LXer is voluntary work, so implementing a complex system might be a bit too much to ask. I like your ideas though, and I know our 'topic' system is seriously outdated. MBT: Should stress, I think you're better in humor than I am. Especially when you're contemplating underpants, I have spent three days under my desk ROFL'ing. Think you (and Paul, Dino, TC and some others) were one of the reasons for me becoming a regular at LXer! Yeah, it's all your fault, if you weren't so funny I wouldn't have become a regular in these forums, and I wouldn't be replying to senseless articles of capable-but-lazy writers! Shame on you! Now go stand in the corner, and no cookie. |
| dinotrac Jul 03, 2011 9:07 AM EDT |
@hans - I'm sorry. Really. Well, kind of. Maybe. Hmmm. Now that I think about -- Nah. Re voting and complicted setups: We already have a perfectly good voting systems. Some votes are long and some votes are short. Some (mine) are intelligent, clever, and insightful. Others might be. We are free to tally and weigh votes on their merits. We don't need no stinkin' system. Badges might be nice, though. |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 03, 2011 11:25 AM EDT |
dino,Quoting:Badges might be nice, though. If we are given badges, I nominate you for the first to be pinned and I as the pinner*. However, prepare for some pain, but believe me it's for a good cause and as a reward you so justly deserve. YBT * Afterward you might think my aim was off, but be assured I will be right on target. Shall we film it for a funding appeal? |
| dinotrac Jul 03, 2011 11:27 AM EDT |
@txt - Mmmmm. Pain. Do I get to wear leather? |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 03, 2011 11:48 AM EDT |
dino, I gasp with surprise ... Quoting:Do I get to wear leather? Only if you want to, however, it must be bare or paper thin in the target area. Were you to wear it you would have fit in perfectly in a large parade that was held in NYC recently. Your writings say no, but your haberdashery says maybe. I will drop it there, YBT |
| dinotrac Jul 03, 2011 1:40 PM EDT |
@txt -- You must be referring to the Flay Pride parade, which I support heartily. We don't get much coverage because there's always some other parade taking place at the same time. I can't really blame the out-of-town reporters. They just tell the cabbies to take them to the pride parade and invariably end up at the wrong one. |
| TxtEdMacs Jul 03, 2011 2:28 PM EDT |
Oh dino I was so mistaken. Nonetheless, you could take the wrong cab and do fine at either. What do you call it By something or other or is it Bye, Bye? With that I take my leave, YBT |
| tuxchick Jul 03, 2011 2:44 PM EDT |
Flay pride...the pain...owwww..... |
| dinotrac Jul 03, 2011 3:37 PM EDT |
@tc -- Sorry, chickie, couldn't help myself. It was there for the taking. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!