|Syntactic Confectionery Delight|
Re^2: ***Warning! The above post is wrong in almost every possible way***by BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Jul 21, 2012 at 10:34 UTC||Need Help??|
The problem is not that there aren't one or two very obscure circumstances on particular OSs where some tiny percentage of what he said might just be inferred to be "somewhat correct". It is that he has no specific knowledge of those specific circumstances; and would not be able to identify them.
Like mind-readers, sooth-sayers and astrologists; if he makes what he says generic enough; and vague enough; and avoids any verifiable technical details or references; then it is possible to interpret it as being "somewhat correct", at some times. But it doesn't mean there is any real knowledge at work.
Does your knowledge really extend to "all OSs"? Mine doesn't.
For example, on *nix/POSIX the only mechanism I know of, for terminating a running process, is to send it a signal. But signals are maskable, trappable, and ignorable. Are any of them guaranteed to terminate the process? Do you know the answer? I don't. Do you think he does?
How's your knowledge of BSD, Solaris, HP-UX, VMS, TSO, NT4/5/6/7/8, Windows Server 2000/2003/2005/2008/2010/2012 ... Could you make sweeping statements about *all of them*? I couldn't.
And it is very clear that he should not. Please do not encourage him.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.