[ubuntu-uk] Mint 9 and Windows 2000 Server

[Liam Proven]

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Alan Pope <alan at popey.com> wrote:
> On 25 October 2010 11:11, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What? That's not true! What's with the FUD?
>>
>
> Steady on there Liam.
>
> I suspect that Matt Darcy wasn't actually implying that Mint is not
> based on Ubuntu, but merely that Mint _isn't_ Ubuntu.
>
> We actually disallow Mint support questions in the main #ubuntu irc
> channel, and direct Mint users to the Mint support systems instead.
>
>> Mint 9, which the question was about, is Ubuntu 10.04 with a facelift.
>>
>
> It's not quite just a facelift. I've noticed some differences which
> have meant that using Ubuntu based documentation fails on some support
> situations. I can't for the life of me recall what that was right now,
> but I know it was enough that I spent a significant amount of time
> trying to diagnose something before the user eventually revealed
> they're not using Ubuntu but Mint. As a result the technical solution
> differed and all was okay, but a significant amount of time was
> wasted.
>
> I appreciate that's not the situation here, Ronnie has clearly stated
> he's using Mint. Just voicing my experience.
>
>> Clearly, you don't really know what you're talking about and you
>> didn't bother checking your facts before you posted. This is very
>> unhelpful regarding one of Ubuntu's most popular and helpful remixes.
>> In fact, I'd say it's verging on defamatory. Why?
>>
>
> Matt has _significant_ experience of helping new Ubuntu (and Mint)
> users, I suspect he was just flummoxed that the rules of engagement in
> #ubuntu differ than those on this list.
>
> That said, I'd appreciate dialling down the personal attacks.
>
> Al.

We're not on an IRC channel here. I don't know what the "rules of
engagement" are for those - I don't use them - but for my money,  in
*any* medium, answering a question by confidently stating incorrect
information is not only unhelpful, it is seriously unprofessional, and
highlighting this is doing them, and the original asker of the
question, a service.

I am not saying I'm entirely innocent of this myself - we all make
mistakes. However, when one is caught in such a mistake, the thing to
do is not to respond with sarcasm, to challenge the person pointing
out one's error or accuse them of being hostile or confrontational, it
is *to apologise*.

Furthermore, I know that this is all archived and casual readers can
also note that I have attached not only my real name but my home and
mobile phone numbers as well. That should indicate how much I worry
about the "threat" of being "archived". By the way, that primary email
listed in my sig has been live for exactly 19 years today. It was my
second email address; I had one six years earlier than that. So, you
know, not a n00b and don't really appreciate lectures about
netiquette, thanks.

I am perfectly happy to go on permanent public record as someone who
highlights such solecisms as this.

-- 
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508