Difference between revisions of "Talk:Serial Hack"

Latest revision as of 22:41, 19 October 2007

When you figure out a better way, edit the article. Until then this is just discussion. Trout 08:06, 21 September 2007 (MST)

When you have something usefull to add for a change, edit the article. Otherwise, quit pestering the people that do --Zaerc 12:59, 21 September 2007 (MST)

I am at a loss to understand this battle. The original commit was another way to accomplish the same thing. There are a lot pages on this site that have very similar issues. What is the harm in giving people more than one option even if that option is one in the same. If nothing else it offers all of us an opportunity to learn something different. The second option (perl) is another example. Personally I feel both should be left on the page and just remove the editorial commitments as these are truly the things that belong in discussions.

• Good Wiki Practices
• Behavior that is unacceptable

--Rwilson131 09:27, 23 September 2007 (MST)

I'm sure AVJohn is very happy with you pissing all over his page just to prove a point Trout. And how nice of you to make it personal. So thanks for the lessons on properly maintaining a wiki, you're a real champ. --Zaerc 02:50, 24 September 2007 (MST)

Keep the articles clean and use the discussion-pages for...ahh, discussions! And when you reply, please indent, it's so much easier to follow a discussion that way. --Samme 02:58, 24 September 2007 (MST)

Zaerc, you keep making it more clear that you don't understand how a wiki works. First of all, I tried to be nice by just moving the discussion piece of the page to the discussion area. This was not acceptable to you, and you moved it back with a nasty comment. I tried again with the same result, and a worse comment from you. So, IMO you are the one who made it personal. Second, when you sait "... all over his page", you are completely wrong about page ownership. The page belongs to the wiki and it's not personally AVJohns, this misunderstanding of yours is exactly what caused you to be upset to see "your text" moved to the discussion page. Having the discussion moved to it's correct place is not something to take personally. BTW: you're welcome for the wiki lessons. Trout 04:50, 24 September 2007 (MST)

So I'm the one putting a personal rant aimed at you on that page? Have some respect for the people who actually contribute, because it seems more like all the pages here belong to you. --Zaerc 07:40, 24 September 2007 (MST)

Yes, this is an insult to me "please don't edit pages unless you actually have something to add". I feel that I am adding clarity when I move your comments to the discussion page. You are personally attacking me when you imply I am not adding anything. "go find something usefull to do, instead of pestering people that actually add information" Again another insult, implying that I have nothing better to do than mess with your addition for no purpose. Also discounting my contributions as though they are somehow less important than yours. I don't think that all the pages belong to me and I have stated so. I am sorry if you perceived that, it was not my intent.

I really think that the page is better served without different options of editing a file. The page is about detecting serial ports, not how to create a text file. It should be enough to say "create a file like this ..." IMO this would serve the users best. Trout 09:07, 24 September 2007 (MST)

Hey hey hey! No you have to stop, both of you, we're in this together, work with each other, not against each other, now we end this discussion and continue the work with the wiki - and from now on discussions goes on to the pages that are designated for discussions so we can stick to the facts in the articles. Do we have a agreement? --Samme 09:49, 24 September 2007 (MST)

Samme, Of course I'm in agreement, this was my point from the beginning. Trout 10:57, 24 September 2007 (MST)

You guys make me sick with all your hypocritical bullshit. And then that pathetic excuse that this is to "serve" the users, seems pretty obvious this is not done in their best interest. But I guess coming forward to say what it is really about would actually take a pair. --Zaerc 11:56, 25 September 2007 (MST)

Hi, i took the liberty to add a new page to the wiki Editing_Text where I put the tricks the two of you offered.

And I linked to the new page from the appropriate passage within the article...

I hope, this will end the fight... And I hope I will read a lot from both of you on this wiki in the future.

Best Regards, Chewi

Comment about better solutions by AVJohn

I would suggest, that we leave the comment about finding better versions in there. The reason is that the article describes a hack and AVJohn says in his article that the new script is inferior to the original script. So the request for other/better solutions is an important notice to

A) let people know it is only a hack

B) remind others that have acomplished it a different way to add their version

C) make other Developers make a "more undirty" workaround

D) remind actual LMCE-Developers (no offence to AVJohn) to provide an improvement/update that makes the hack unnessasary.

So I endorse to go back to the previous version for those reasons. Feel free to add your oppinions.

Best regards, --Chewi 07:00, 27 September 2007 (MST)

The discussion belongs here IMO. Otherwise it grows out of control into a forum. Not that there's anything wrong with the discussion, but it just doesn't belong on the main page. Think about it from the point of view of someone who just wants to know the best way right now. They don't want to wade through a lot of discussion text to get the answer.

A) they should know it's a hack by the title B) someone who's already accomplished it probably either 1) wants to edit the wiki with their knowledge 2) is just checking out how wiki recommends it. The mere fact that it's a wiki is enough encouragement IMO. C) okay, but they don't want to wade through a pile of blogs to see the best result. They only would want to see the best result (the wiki page) and compare it to what they have in mind. D) same as C) Trout 07:43, 27 September 2007 (MST)

(Never said anything on the main-page ???) Basically, you're right with all of your points. But I still think that the extra-encouragement here would be a good thing, as a wiki-page without a comments-section feels like a final statement and feels like allowing editing only by "the inner circle", which is not the case here. This needs the extra-input. This is at least how I feel about wikis. Therefore, I stay with my recommendation. Regards--Chewi 08:06, 27 September 2007 (MST)

(I never said anything about main-page either.) I said "main page" e.g. There is a main page for every article (the link is labeled 'article') and there is a discussion for every article. That's what I was referring to. I will try to use 'article' now. You can have your opinion about "the inner circle" concept, but I don't feel that way. Also I believe that others know how to use a wiki and that the expectation is user participation. Also, you havn't said anything about the mess it'll make or how to prevent a flame war on the article instead of where it belongs (the discussion) Trout 08:23, 27 September 2007 (MST)

Ok, that must have been a missunderstanding. Of course I think that discussions about the article itself belong here, just as we are having it now. And I don't want to move that part to the main page. Just for short annotations an area on the mail-article-page ;) is what I prefer. And an area for comments and annotations that does not serve as a forum or discussion-replacement, does not support flame wars. Those can happen everywhere, but I don't see why they should happen here in particular.

I'm still not convinced, but it is not up to me. Let's see, if there are additional oppinions on this. Until then, lets leave it as it is right now, without comments. Best regards --Chewi 09:48, 27 September 2007 (MST)

does this fix the "serial hack" ?

does this fix the "serial hack" ? Blocking Access To Serial Port Trout 12:21, 28 September 2007 (MST)

Trout: Please stop vandalizing this page

Somebody cleaned up the mess you made and now you have to spit in his face by continuing to vandalize the page. Your arguments of percieved problems are insignificant and irrelevant. I don't think this is apropriate behavior for a "wiki admin". Please join in on the forum discussion if you feel this is so important. [1]. --Zaerc 04:42, 30 September 2007 (MST)

What specifically are you talking about? I think you are sadly confused. Trout 10:03, 30 September 2007 (MST)

I think that becomes pretty clear in the discussion we are having on the forum. You can also check the page history if you have such a short memory. Meanwhile, please don't edit my comments either. --Zaerc 12:11, 30 September 2007 (MST)

And yet you continue to chose vandalism over debate by even removing comments here. Please stop it. --Zaerc 16:31, 30 September 2007 (MST)

You want debate? I have not vandalized anything. Yet you try to put false comments on the page to make yourself feel superior. The only thing that is clear is that you have a lot of growing up to do. There is no reason for this section on the discussion page or anywhere else, This is more of a discussion between you and me, that doesn't concern anyone else here. If you have a problem with me, I don't really care. I tried numerous times to be kind to you, to no avail. This is a wiki and the content will change whether you like it or not. When you contribute, it becomes the Wiki's text, and doesn't belong to you anymore. The same is true for me and everybody else... and yet you cannot grasp that simple concept. So I recommend that you either contribute in a wiki-community way or not at all. I have nothing against you and I wish you'd accept that your text will change and continue to contribute in spite of it. I'm done having a flame war with you, and I will remove this section of the discussion page soon. Trout 18:30, 30 September 2007 (MST)

Announcing your vandalism is not going to help either, so why don't you grow up and join the rest of the community in discussing this. That you don't care for anyone's opinion but your own needs no further pointing out. --Zaerc 04:10, 1 October 2007 (MST)

Come on guys, I think we all need to turn the intensity down a notch or two on this one. This has obviously become quite personal. Perhaps the agrieved parties should take a breather from this article for a few days? Lozzo 07:33, 1 October 2007 (MST)

I think we already had a breather, with continued vandalism as the result. Please join the rest of the community in discussing these new policies on the forum or stop "enforcing" them. This wiki belongs to the community and not to a few (new) "wiki admins" to do as they please and then make up new policy as they go to justify that. --Zaerc 08:57, 1 October 2007 (MST)

Somehow you seem to think that there is kindness in your vandalism, and now you would like me to spell it out for you. Okay here we go, this is an addition, now this is vandalism count 1, count 2 and count 3 leading up to the defacement of the page which seems also to be considered vandalism, so that's count 4 (I just wish you would stop being so "nice" to me). Then Chewi steps in to intermediate and restores the page and there you go again, vandalism count 5. Sparking another debate on the talk page afterwards in which Chewi, another contributor, somehow has to convince you again not to take things of the page for no good reason. And now you can't even stop vandalizing my comments on the talk page, or do I need to spell that out too?

Just to be clear, is this the kind of behavior that you mean by "contribute in a wiki-community way"? And why exactly can't we discuss this on the community forum? --Zaerc 16:09, 1 October 2007 (MST)

Zearc, could you please assume good faith and stop throwing around terms like vandalism? Lozzo 11:03, 3 October 2007 (MST)

And Trout, goading people like this should be beneath you. Lozzo 11:06, 3 October 2007 (MST)

Sure no problem, as soon as the unreasonable vandalism of contributions and comments ("in good faith" or otherwise) stops. And just to point out the obvious, that rant adressed at me was never "in good faith", not even by the widest stretch of imagination. And allow me to quote from the link you gave: Bad faith editing can include deliberate disruption just to prove a point, playing games with policies, and vandalism. I think we've seen all of those symptoms right here.

Furthermore I feel that we can really do without this kind of misguided righteousness regardless of the intentions. Even with assuming good faith it seems pretty obvious that this kind of behavior is not appropriate, let alone a basis to lecture other people on how to edit the wiki. --Zaerc 16:38, 3 October 2007 (MST)

Better Solutions

I merely put this page here as an aid to people who were having problems with USB->Serial devices listing incorrectly, and wanted someone better equipped in the ways of bash to come up with an autodetect script for them, or an alternative to using 'tree' as it is an additional dependency that I would like to see removed again.

Also, no offence taken Chewi, I know this is a dirty hack, I needed to get this working for a client of mine, so it had to be done on the quick :P

Anyway, does anyone have any ideas regarding this? --AVJohn