OSDev.org

Posted: **Wed Feb 10, 2021 10:25 am**

Korona wrote:
nullplan wrote:
rizxt wrote:Overall, we can conclude that bzt needs to work on his argument game...
I should do the same. I'm a bit prone to emotional conclusions and flimsy rationalizations for them. And bzt is well justified in ripping them apart.
In contrast to bzt, I've never seen you use abusive language, nullplan. It's one thing whether bzt is right or wrong. Maybe he is right in one particular thread, maybe he isn't. That doesn't justify his harassment towards members of the forum. If I behaved at work like bzt does in this forum, I'd be fired within a month. I cannot understand why he is given free reign here, even though he did not improve his behavior after being banned once already.

+1 as well. It makes literally no sense to me how the mods let this happen.

Posted: **Thu Feb 11, 2021 2:09 am**

nexos wrote:+1 as well. It makes literally no sense to me.

Please explain. You talked about device detection in context of an API wrapper. I called that a non-sense, and you think that was unpolite. What should I say then when you say "makes literally no sense to me"? Should I call you abusive, offensive and the other things you call me? I'd rather not.

Another example:

vvaltchev wrote:
bzt wrote:
vvaltchev wrote:Guys, there's nothing more to add. Bzt is hopeless.
Being a gentlemen, I'd avoid to insult him.
To anyone who still think he is right: please, go find a job, learn, and come back in 5 years.

Goodbye!
Typical troll. When someone points out the facts, attacks by calling "hopeless". Goodbye!
That's a plain straight insult. Totally not acceptable.

How is this abusive? I did not call vvaltchev "hopeless", I did not use any f* or s* words, I did not make suggestions for people believing "he is right". So what "abusive language" have I used here? Explain!
I did call him a troll, because I asked him many many times but he refused to give a straight answer, which is per definition, makes him a troll. This is not "abusive language", not offending, just stating the facts.

What is unacceptable, that people put lot of effort and working hours into a project, then come someone without any resumé and tries to say to him what and how he should do in his project, and that someone starts to blame the project owner when he politely says "no". Actually this is what's quite unacceptable by all moral standards.

Cheers,
bzt

Posted: **Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:47 am**

As a grown up, you perfectly know that you are not only able to attack and insult people by using "****" or "****". Rather, you do not refrain from more sophisticated, more subtle and more insidious ad-hominem attacks and flames. It's not that we doubt your capability (you are certainly smart; in the latest thread, I even agree with your topical position) but your communication style of constant borderline flaming is unacceptable for a civilized public forum.

Posted: **Thu Feb 11, 2021 7:55 am**

Korona wrote:but your communication style of constant borderline flaming is unacceptable for a civilized public forum.

I agree with that. I'm sure you, bzt, are totally unaware that your words have this aggressive effect. But it is indeed aggressive.

Greetings
Peter

Posted: **Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:41 am**

PeterX wrote:
Korona wrote:but your communication style of constant borderline flaming is unacceptable for a civilized public forum.
I agree with that. I'm sure you, bzt, are totally unaware that your words have this aggressive effect. But it is indeed aggressive.

You're right, I'm completely unaware because I don't intend them to be aggressive, just technically correct. Offending is never my intention. I'm sorry that some might perceive them as such, I assure you that's not my intention. I'm not a native speaker, I might have use phrases in ignorance that might be offensive? I don't know. My deepest sorry if I hurt anybody's feelings.

I also would like to ask you (in plural) to please correct me right on the spot if one my post might look like aggressive so that I can learn which phrases to avoid in the future. I would appreciate that very much!

Cheers,
bzt

Posted: **Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:52 pm**

bzt wrote:I don't intend them to be aggressive, just technically correct. Offending is never my intention.

I want to believe you and give you the benefit of the doubt... But in this very thread in your last 2 messages:

bzt wrote:I called that a non-sense,

Non-technical, aggressive and not a fact. This is your opinion. Instead of labeling his words as "non-sense", why don't you try to explain why it wouldn't work or why it doesn't fit what you are thinking / your design? If someone says something that doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't mean that it is non-sense. It means that more communication / clarifications are required. You are also not required to argue, you can simply reply that something is out of scope or not where you want to go.

bzt wrote:I did call him a troll,

Non-technical, aggressive and not a fact. It is your opinion that he is trolling you. I don't believe he was. You are just adding oil on the fire. You've had these fights with a number of people here, including myself. You've called most of them trolls. Do you really believe that people interested in OS development come here on osdev.org to troll you? That they have nothing else they'd rather spend their energy and time on?

bzt wrote:someone without any resumé

Non-technical, aggressive and not a fact. You know close to nothing about the people you are talking with. You have no idea for example of what my background is and how much experience I have. You also probably don't know that each time you write M$ you are insulting people here that chose to remain silent about it.

bzt wrote:What is unacceptable, that people put lot of effort and working hours into a project, (...) and tries to say to him what and how he should do in his project

What is unacceptable is that you take any question or comment as a personal attack. People do these things in an attempt to exchange with you. They aren't trying to tell you what to do, they are making suggestions. But you are always on the defensive and striking back. If you don't want feedback, don't ask for it. If you do want it, learn to listen (read) and start asking for clarifications or explaining what you think instead of flaming back.

bzt wrote:I also would like to ask you (in plural) to please correct me right on the spot if one my post might look like aggressive so that I can learn which phrases to avoid in the future. I would appreciate that very much!

I gave it a shot as I want to believe that this is true... But I have limited amount of energy I am willing to spend on this conversation.

Posted: **Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:47 pm**

kzinti wrote:
bzt wrote:I don't intend them to be aggressive, just technically correct. Offending is never my intention.
I want to believe you and give you the benefice of the doubt... But in this very thread in your last 2 messages:

bzt wrote:I called that a non-sense,
Non-technical, aggressiveand not a fact. This is your opinion. Instead of labeling his words as "non-sense", why don't you try to explain why it wouldn't work or why it doesn't fit what you are thinking / your design? If someone says something that doesn't make sense to you, it doesn't mean that it is non-sense. It means that more communication / clarifications are required. You are also not required to argue, you can't simply reply that something is out of scope or not where you want to go.

bzt wrote:I did call him a troll,
Non-technical, aggressive and not a fact. It is your opinion that he is trolling you. I don't believe he was. You are just adding oil on the fire. You've had these fights with a number of people here, including myself. You've called most of them trolls. Do you really believe that people interested in OS development come here on osdev.org to troll you? That they have nothing else they'd rather spend their energy and time on?

bzt wrote:someone without any resumé
Non-technical, aggressive and not a fact. You know close to nothing about the people you are talking with. You have no idea for example of what my background is and how much experience I have. You also probably don't know that each time you write M$ you are insulting people here that chose to remain silent about it.

bzt wrote:What is unacceptable, that people put lot of effort and working hours into a project, (...) and tries to say to him what and how he should do in his project
What is unacceptable is that you take any question or comment as a personal attack. People do these things in an attempt to exchange with you. They aren't trying to tell you what to do, they are making suggestions. But you are always on the defensive and striking back. If you don't want feedback, don't ask for it. If you do want it, learn to listen (read) and start asking for clarifications or explaining what you think instead of flaming back.

bzt wrote:I also would like to ask you (in plural) to please correct me right on the spot if one my post might look like aggressive so that I can learn which phrases to avoid in the future. I would appreciate that very much!
I gave it a shot as I want to believe that this is true... But I have limited amount of energy I am willing to spend on this conversation.

+20

I agree with @PeterX, as well.

Posted: **Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:46 pm**

Dear @kzinti,

I don't wanted to answer, but there are many things that needs clearification in your post. You call a lot of things "non-facts" while they are actually facts. You also blame me for not doing things which I actually did. I do not wish to argue with you, I'm just pointing out things.

kzinti wrote:
bzt wrote:I called that a non-sense,
Non-technical, aggressive and not a fact.

I beg to differ. It was technical (device detection in an API wrapper?), and it is a technical fact. I've asked for a different phrasing instead of "non-sense", still waiting for that. How do you say politely that something does not make sense from technical point of view?

kzinti wrote:This is your opinion. Instead of labeling his words as "non-sense", why don't you try to explain why it wouldn't work or why it doesn't fit what you are thinking / your design?

Not an opinion (neither mine nor any others'), expecting kernel capabilities from an API wrapper is technically absurd. And about the explanation, I (and @PeterX also) indeed did try to explain why it doesn't fit the design, not once, but several times.

kzinti wrote:You are also not required to argue, you can simply reply that something is out of scope or not where you want to go.

You mean like this?

Code: Select all

You could, but that's not what POSIX-UEFI is about. It does not want to redesign the interface, it just ships a small and sane POSIX build environment configurator for the host OS and provides simple and easy to use POSIX-like wrappers for the application. That's all.

or when I wrote

Code: Select all

Most of the UEFI features do not have a wrapper in GNU-EFI either. But I've already pointed this out to you. It is unreasonable to expect something from this library that neither GNU-EFI, nor the official EDK2 library can't provide.

See? I did everything you expected from me, yet it clearly wasn't enough to say "not where I want yo go". So how come that you think I'm the aggressive?

kzinti wrote:
bzt wrote:I did call him a troll,
Non-technical, aggressive and not a fact.

I beg to differ. We don't always see eye-to-eye with @nullplan, but even he raised his voice, it was so obvious.

kzinti wrote:
bzt wrote:someone without any resumé
Non-technical, aggressive and not a fact.

Now what's aggressive in THAT? Where can we see the former works of that member? See? That's what "no resumé" means. Not aggressive, simply stating that they haven't shared their former projects with us, which is a fact.

Cheers,
bzt

Posted: **Fri Feb 12, 2021 1:43 am**

bzt wrote:I've asked for a different phrasing instead of "non-sense"

I'd recommend just leaving out the nonsense bit and stating how you think it works/should work and what sources you used (if applicable) to come to that conclusion.

I don't think that's quite how it works.

Actually, [explain how it works]

If you really need to include it, then perhaps say something like

That doesn't make much sense to me.

The main issue I would have with someone stating something I said is nonsense when I don't think it is is that you're phrasing it as if it were a fact that everyone else can see. This can be slightly offensive or demoralising to people, and in many cases can be caused by simple misunderstandings or differences in opinion on something that could work either way. It would be good if others could give their opinions on their issue with someone stating something is nonsense, since not everyone will have the same interpretation.
Also, in regards to the "technical" part of what Kzinti wrote, I believe they mean that "nonsense" (and the other phrases mentioned) is not a technical description of what is wrong with what whoever you are replying to said.
One more piece of advice from me: You don't always have to have the last word

. It might feel like you are losing a competition if you don't, but sometimes its just not worth responding, and sometimes its alright to just drop a conversation to avoid it turning into an argument.

Posted: **Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:43 am**

bzt wrote:How do you say politely that something does not make sense from technical point of view?

"That does not make sense from a technical point of view."

Posted: **Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:41 am**

I totally agree with the comments by @kzinti and @korona.
I'd add that maybe the problem is also related with a total lack of empathy and a negative bias towards new people. The number of posts a member has here, has no correlation with the level of experience: it's just an indicator of the time somebody spent on this forum, nothing more. While I believe that, unfortunately, it introduces a significant bias in some people. And I'm not talking just about bzt or this forum, specifically; I'm talking in general. It gives the person with tons of posts (and "stars") an unfair sense of authority, compared to the junior/newbie/newcomer with 10 posts. That distorts reality significantly. You know what comes to my mind? The Stanford prison experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_ ... experiment. (Don't get me wrong, that's an extreme example, just try to understand my point.)

Fortunately, most people DO NOT behave like that. Thanks God! Just, it affects some people to a different degree. It might seem nothing, but think about that. Compare how the same person talks with people with a different amount of "stars". The same phenomenon happens in companies. Your colleague gets promoted and suddenly starts to get cocky. At least, a promotion has some sort of correlation with experience and performance, but the phpBB member stars, do not. We all have to resist the temptation to be biased by such things.

Anyway, back to the infamous topic, from my side, I'm sorry for this unfair comment:

vvaltchev wrote:To anyone who still think he is right: please, go find a job, learn, and come back in 5 years.

It was an impulsive reaction to:

bzt wrote:you have problems understanding basic concepts such as software libraries and C header files in general. No offense, you asked, I answered.

It's not so easy, in my position, to react nicely to a statement like that.

Vlad

Posted: **Fri Feb 12, 2021 10:07 am**

bzt wrote:Not an opinion (neither mine nor any others'), expecting kernel capabilities from an API wrapper is technically absurd.

AFAIK, UEFI provides some sort of device detection facility. Go read the spec. Specifically, chapters 14 - 17.

bzt wrote:I also would like to ask you (in plural) to please correct me right on the spot if one my post might look like aggressive so that I can learn which phrases to avoid in the future. I would appreciate that very much!

bzt wrote:I don't wanted to answer, but there are many things that needs clearification in your post. You call a lot of things "non-facts" while they are actually facts. You also blame me for not doing things which I actually did. I do not wish to argue with you, I'm just pointing out things.

That is what @kiznti did. What was your response? Look above.

bzt wrote:I beg to differ. We don't always see eye-to-eye with @nullplan, but even he raised his voice, it was so obvious.

Looking at the thread, its clear that @vvaltchev wasn't the one "heating up"

vvaltchev wrote:I'd add that maybe the problem is also related with a total lack of empathy and a negative bias towards new people. The number of posts a member has here, has no correlation with the level of experience: it's just an indicator of the time somebody spent on this forum, nothing more. While I believe that, unfortunately, it introduces a significant bias in some people. And I'm not talking just about bzt or this forum, specifically; I'm talking in general. It gives the person with tons of posts (and "stars") an unfair sense of authority, compared to the junior/newbie/newcomer with 10 posts. That distorts reality significantly.

Agreed. I only have like a year of OSDev experience, but, I still try not to let 4 stars make myself look like I know everything, as I know very little compared to some people on here.

bzt wrote:What is unacceptable, that people put lot of effort and working hours into a project, (...) and tries to say to him what and how he should do in his project

Nobody was telling you what to do. You do as you like, I was just suggesting what I would like from a UEFI library. If that isn't your direction, that's fine.

Also, I'm not sure how I got sucked in this. I simply named a few interfaces that @vvaltchev was probably talking. You asked for interfaces, I gave them to you. The result: Wasn't good. I know never to do that again...
Where are the mods at in all of this?

Posted: **Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:14 am**

Korona wrote:"That does not make sense from a technical point of view."

Thanks, I though it's obvious, but I'll add "from a technical point of view" for now on.

nexos wrote:
bzt wrote:Not an opinion (neither mine nor any others'), expecting kernel capabilities from an API wrapper is technically absurd.
AFAIK, UEFI provides some sort of device detection facility. Go read the spec. Specifically, chapters 14 - 17.

AFAIK, the firmware does, not the API wrapper library.

nexos wrote:That is what @kiznti did. What was your response? Look above.

@kzinti made false statements, about what I've said among other things. I did told @vvaltchev that this isn't the way I want my project to go, yet both you and he insisted. I wrote and I quote again: "You could, but that's not what POSIX-UEFI is about."

nexos wrote:Looking at the thread, its clear that @vvaltchev wasn't the one "heating up"

No, you're just as guilty. Look, I quote it just in case:

nullplan wrote:
nexos wrote:Me and @vvaltchev are just trying to give feedback and suggest improvements. If you don't like them, that's okay! Just please don't begin flaming simply because we have different opinions about this!
But you did not! Jesus Christ! You did not suggest improvements, not concrete ones anyway, and anytime you were asked to manifest your suggestions in a more tangible way you shrunk away from the challenge and told bzt to calm down. As did vvaltchev. And then you tried to paint him as the toxic one.

And despite of what you want to think, I was perfectly calm all along, there was no need to say to me "calm down", so it must have been you who was heated up and projected the emotions. No offense, but you seem to think that that discussion was heated up, and it wasn't me, so...

Cheers,
bzt

OSDev.org

About unessecary arguing...

Re: About unessecary arguing...

Re: About unessecary arguing...

Re: About unessecary arguing...

Re: About unessecary arguing...

Re: About unessecary arguing...

Re: About unessecary arguing...

Re: About unessecary arguing...

Re: About unessecary arguing...

Re: About unessecary arguing...

Re: About unessecary arguing...

Re: About unessecary arguing...

Re: About unessecary arguing...

Re: About unessecary arguing...