I don’t want to be patronized and much less by a software vendor(blog.bembel.net)
blog.bembel.net
I don’t want to be patronized and much less by a software vendor
https://blog.bembel.net/2020/04/i-dont-want-to-be-patronized-and-much-less-by-a-software-vendor/
56 comments
It's funny how his tone is condescending and superior through the post as he googles (sorry, uses "search engine of choice") for obvious hacks to remove this file, then at the end there's an update that he just didn't bother to find a checkbox in settings which disables the functionality :)
I mean, he found the checkbox in KDE's settings, which should have been respected, and several other technical ways to disable it from starting by itself, all of which should have been respected. It's still a shitty way to operate.
I didn't think his tone was being condescending and superior but I may have missed it. But then again, I care more about the topic than the tone one uses.
I've had to use Microsoft teams for university lectures and I've faced the same issue. I hadn't bothered to solve it thinking I'll get rid of it as soon as the situation gets back to normal, but there are legitimate issues here that you easily dismiss with your comment.
- Microsoft teams shouldn't _by default_ autostart on my computer.
- Microsoft teams should respect the platform's settings (KDE autostart settings).
These issues are not negated by having a button in settings that stops this irritating behavior.
I've had to use Microsoft teams for university lectures and I've faced the same issue. I hadn't bothered to solve it thinking I'll get rid of it as soon as the situation gets back to normal, but there are legitimate issues here that you easily dismiss with your comment.
- Microsoft teams shouldn't _by default_ autostart on my computer.
- Microsoft teams should respect the platform's settings (KDE autostart settings).
These issues are not negated by having a button in settings that stops this irritating behavior.
I think its a matter of responsibility. KDE is responsible for startup of background applications and not the applications themselves, no? Skype didn't respect this and puts it an update away from being switched back on.
lmao I was just about to say something similar. This dude was blinded by rage to the point where he just didn't....check the settings?
Kudos to him for owning the mistake and keeping the post up. I'd do a shame delete immediately.
Kudos to him for owning the mistake and keeping the post up. I'd do a shame delete immediately.
So the guy tried every Linux hack he could think of to prevent Skype from starting to no success. Until another user pointed out that there is an autostart checkbox in the options tab. Marvelous.
If a software doesn't use standard features tondo standard stuff, and in the end forces users to go through wild goose chases, then obviously there is a problem with the software.
Putting settings in a settings menu is non-standard? It takes two seconds to click the menu and check.
> Putting settings in a settings menu is non-standard?
It's completely irrelevant if a setting is made available through a menu or a text file or a registry entry,and it's disingenuous to miss the point like that. The point is that picking which application is launched at startup is a basic feature offered by any operating system, and thus it is a feature with clearly defined and common and standard and discoverable and trustable interfaces.
If you intentionally avoid all that and stop users from using standard functionalities to handle standard usecases and instead force-feed them custom hacks and tricks like this, you are creating a series of problems where there was none to begin with.
It's completely irrelevant if a setting is made available through a menu or a text file or a registry entry,and it's disingenuous to miss the point like that. The point is that picking which application is launched at startup is a basic feature offered by any operating system, and thus it is a feature with clearly defined and common and standard and discoverable and trustable interfaces.
If you intentionally avoid all that and stop users from using standard functionalities to handle standard usecases and instead force-feed them custom hacks and tricks like this, you are creating a series of problems where there was none to begin with.
The thing that is non-standard is the fact that it's a setting at all. It's not up to the application to decide when it should start, it's up to the system. And it should most definitely not override the settings of the system.
This is the sort of thing that's typical since time immemorial of software running on an OS that isn't its "preferred" choice.
I have found the new Skype UI to be unbearably bad. I can't navigate it to save my own life. It's quite possible he just overlooked it.
This is the same feeling I got when I discovered that I can't remove[1][2] dropbox's "send with transfer" option from the context-menu in Windows 10. I had no choice but to remove it from my computer.
[1] https://www.dropboxforum.com/t5/Dropbox-installs-integration...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/dropbox/comments/drlt50/how_to_remo...
[1] https://www.dropboxforum.com/t5/Dropbox-installs-integration...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/dropbox/comments/drlt50/how_to_remo...
When it started, skype was p2p, and it wasn't anymore after microsoft acquired it.
There are alternatives to skype, obviously. I don't understand why most of those alternatives have a hard time becoming more popular. I'm not even sure those alternatives are p2p.
Because it doesn't require a lot of bandwidth to run a p2p chat/video system, so it seems like it's pretty cheap.
There are alternatives to skype, obviously. I don't understand why most of those alternatives have a hard time becoming more popular. I'm not even sure those alternatives are p2p.
Because it doesn't require a lot of bandwidth to run a p2p chat/video system, so it seems like it's pretty cheap.
It's relatively cheap in terms of raw hosting cost, but quite expensive in terms of maintenance / development effort, because p2p tends to be signficantly more complex than server-based.
This expense is upfront (unlike hosting cost which tends to only ramp up along with your platform's success), so it makes it a difficult space to enter.
Jitsi for example is making a good effort, but the quality/performance/stability still leaves something to be desired largely because it leans heavily on browsers to implement some parts of the complexities, and browser implementations are inconsistent / have bugs that the Jitsi devs aren't able to easily fix across the board.
This expense is upfront (unlike hosting cost which tends to only ramp up along with your platform's success), so it makes it a difficult space to enter.
Jitsi for example is making a good effort, but the quality/performance/stability still leaves something to be desired largely because it leans heavily on browsers to implement some parts of the complexities, and browser implementations are inconsistent / have bugs that the Jitsi devs aren't able to easily fix across the board.
"Tried to be p2p".
Most of the time, our routers/APs defeated that. Skype would 'fall back' to using a server, which I believe it did 90% of the time.
Most of the time, our routers/APs defeated that. Skype would 'fall back' to using a server, which I believe it did 90% of the time.
I'm not convinced. It would use every trick in the book to punch holes; stun, upnp, sip, it's own protocol on top of udp, it would even send data over port 80 or 443. And if that failed Skype would use a third Skype client to open a port, or even route the calls through the third party.
I always thought this was the major reason why Skype was so successful. It would penetrate almost any workplace firewall and "just worked" for most people. Shady, yes, but it worked.
I always thought this was the major reason why Skype was so successful. It would penetrate almost any workplace firewall and "just worked" for most people. Shady, yes, but it worked.
And all those tricks either worked for you (your endpoint), or they didn't. No middle ground.
I worked 8 years in this environment (collaboration tools) and it was our holy grail to get p2p connections. We tried all those tricks and more. It worked a fraction of the time (at that time, 8 years ago).
I worked 8 years in this environment (collaboration tools) and it was our holy grail to get p2p connections. We tried all those tricks and more. It worked a fraction of the time (at that time, 8 years ago).
I guess most holes got patched. I worked with the same things around 2007.
It was P2P sometimes, like if you were running in a university or research institution.
When skype got installed in there, it took over the university network and quickly became master node for the whole geographic area.
For historic reasons, these organizations used to have many computers on public IP (they got large IP block when internet was created very long ago) and had amazing network connectivity.
When skype got installed in there, it took over the university network and quickly became master node for the whole geographic area.
For historic reasons, these organizations used to have many computers on public IP (they got large IP block when internet was created very long ago) and had amazing network connectivity.
Are you sure? I don't know the specifics on how Skype used to work, but I'd assume that they were just using intermediary server to establish connection via NAT hole punching, and then proceed to communicate peer to peer.
That's what doesn't work (NAT hole) depending on the endpoint router/firewall. More often than we think.
It all depends on the filter used in the NAT logic in the router. They can depend on any of IP/PORT/Protocol/MAC of the source, and indeed that hadn't been commercially standardize for a long time.
The trouble comes in 'handing off' the discovered address from the TURN server to the peer. The endpoint may or may not accept it, coming from a 'different guy' (the other endpoint now, instead of the TURN server).
It all depends on the filter used in the NAT logic in the router. They can depend on any of IP/PORT/Protocol/MAC of the source, and indeed that hadn't been commercially standardize for a long time.
The trouble comes in 'handing off' the discovered address from the TURN server to the peer. The endpoint may or may not accept it, coming from a 'different guy' (the other endpoint now, instead of the TURN server).
I remember the old (pre-MS) skype being quite good at punching holes in firewall by using a number of tricks.
Maybe it would not beat a determined sysadmin, but in many cases it was more than enough
Maybe it would not beat a determined sysadmin, but in many cases it was more than enough
Where did you get this "90% of the time" statistic? "I believe"?
Worked in the industry - wrote collaboration tools including media nodes, media endpoints, proxies and servers. Tried all the tricks in the book. Started out by running snoop tools on Skype to see what they tried, went from there.
Lots of endpoints in the world flatly didn't allow p2p. Some whole nations disallowed entire protocols (Ireland, UDP). Some routers dropped every other UDP packet (ATT). Some reordered UDP (swapped packets in pairs). It was a total mess.
Anyway we ended up with something ok, and a high-performance media node to handle most of the traffic which wasn't p2p.
Lots of endpoints in the world flatly didn't allow p2p. Some whole nations disallowed entire protocols (Ireland, UDP). Some routers dropped every other UDP packet (ATT). Some reordered UDP (swapped packets in pairs). It was a total mess.
Anyway we ended up with something ok, and a high-performance media node to handle most of the traffic which wasn't p2p.
> I don't understand why most of those alternatives have a hard time becoming more popular.
I think things are improving over time, but for a very long time "Skype Call" and "Video Call" meant the same thing in people's heads. Your product name appearing the dictionary as a synonym for the thing it does is a pretty powerful tool in customer acquisition and retention.
I think things are improving over time, but for a very long time "Skype Call" and "Video Call" meant the same thing in people's heads. Your product name appearing the dictionary as a synonym for the thing it does is a pretty powerful tool in customer acquisition and retention.
Keybase uses a very similar approach for keeping its autostart enabled. It is necessary to explicitly turn it off in the application's settings, otherwise it would always try to overwrite the autostart file.
Now that I think about it Keybase autostarting has never bothered me at all, but I recently installed the alpha release of teams for Linux and I have just been waiting for the time to tinker and find a way to disable it autostarting. Says a lot about my trust for each.
This is a part of normal human behavior. People often do corrupt things, as they seem beneficial to them. I wouldn't get angry/emotional about it. People often don't care that much about you, unless it benefits them.
Acceptance is important. We all have a human mind with an ego vulnerable to corruption. We think we are the solution to the problem, but we often aren't.
Nobody really likes Skype and Facebook anymore, but I guess short-term it boosted their numbers. Most applications send annoying notifications. The application owners will rationalize and say anything to look good and imply they are trying to improve society. It's just a rigged game, stop engaging emotionally.
Acceptance is important. We all have a human mind with an ego vulnerable to corruption. We think we are the solution to the problem, but we often aren't.
Nobody really likes Skype and Facebook anymore, but I guess short-term it boosted their numbers. Most applications send annoying notifications. The application owners will rationalize and say anything to look good and imply they are trying to improve society. It's just a rigged game, stop engaging emotionally.
Two days ago I went through a wild goose chase stopping Skype from autostarting on windows 10; the app didn't have any "autostart" checkboxes inside of it (though it does on my partners laptop).
After bouncing around Task Manager -> Startup, Startup Apps, various startup folders, and some more silly duplicate places, I ended up downloading Microsofts Sysinternals tools and using one of those to stop everything I didn't like the look of.
I think I've put an end to it, but I'm starting to think it might re-appear if I launch it once...
After bouncing around Task Manager -> Startup, Startup Apps, various startup folders, and some more silly duplicate places, I ended up downloading Microsofts Sysinternals tools and using one of those to stop everything I didn't like the look of.
I think I've put an end to it, but I'm starting to think it might re-appear if I launch it once...
Next time you could check msconfig on the Services tab, or else services.msc.
I was remembering Pulse VPN... I had to install it on my own computer when my work laptop died. Now I have to tolerate it everytime I log on, although I use other user account for job related things.
Pulse VPN continues to be actively exploited in the wild.
https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/aa20-010a
https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/aa20-010a
Openconnect can also be used as pulse client
> I feel being patronized by a large SW vendor who forces me to automatically run his software on my system after each login.
I know this isn’t really related, but we should really get rid of the nasty habit of genderizing people and companies.
In this sentence it would be more appropriate to use “their software,” not “his software.”
A large software vendor most certainly isn’t a “he.”
Edit: every time I point this out on a threads I get downvoted. That’s fine, I don’t really care about that. But it disappoints me to see that because it reflects how so many people are that much against a really simple way to be inclusive. So, I want to emphasize that this is just a polite suggestion, not an inquisition.
I know this isn’t really related, but we should really get rid of the nasty habit of genderizing people and companies.
In this sentence it would be more appropriate to use “their software,” not “his software.”
A large software vendor most certainly isn’t a “he.”
Edit: every time I point this out on a threads I get downvoted. That’s fine, I don’t really care about that. But it disappoints me to see that because it reflects how so many people are that much against a really simple way to be inclusive. So, I want to emphasize that this is just a polite suggestion, not an inquisition.
I don't disagree with being inclusive, I disagree with the idea that grammatical details of how we speak have anything to do with inclusiveness.
It's like if I start complaining that you use "their" to refer to a software vendor because that implies there's more than one person involved and so you're not being inclusive of solo founders. Or that "their" antromorphizes a vendor and therefore isn't inclusive of sea cucumbers.
In reality, this has zero consequence to anyone, other than guys who enjoy feeling offended on behalf of others.
EDIT: I'm finding a lot of pearls in your comment history. Like this one where you complain of people telling you what to do https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23006925 Now you know how we feel, I guess.
It's like if I start complaining that you use "their" to refer to a software vendor because that implies there's more than one person involved and so you're not being inclusive of solo founders. Or that "their" antromorphizes a vendor and therefore isn't inclusive of sea cucumbers.
In reality, this has zero consequence to anyone, other than guys who enjoy feeling offended on behalf of others.
EDIT: I'm finding a lot of pearls in your comment history. Like this one where you complain of people telling you what to do https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23006925 Now you know how we feel, I guess.
Fair enough, but FYI: In some languages, _all_ nouns are genderized and there isn't a gender-neutral form. e.g. in Arabic, "table" is grammatically female, while in Hebrew, it's grammatically male.
[deleted]
You say it's just a polite suggestion, but you describe alternatives to your suggestion as a "nasty" habit - is it really polite?
It's a slippery slope to eir/em/..etc and other "new" pronouns; The latest thinking is you have to ask someone what their pronouns are, and they can insist on pretty much any fad pronoun they want, or else you'll be accused of anything between "being rude" to "hate-crime" (lot of motte-bailey around this). It's probably no wonder people want to keep things simple and stick to convention.
In other words, this simple way might get a lot more traction, if it wasn't a gateway / stepping-stone to a worse way.
It's a slippery slope to eir/em/..etc and other "new" pronouns; The latest thinking is you have to ask someone what their pronouns are, and they can insist on pretty much any fad pronoun they want, or else you'll be accused of anything between "being rude" to "hate-crime" (lot of motte-bailey around this). It's probably no wonder people want to keep things simple and stick to convention.
In other words, this simple way might get a lot more traction, if it wasn't a gateway / stepping-stone to a worse way.
I feel like the author probably isn't a native English writer, so maybe give them a break.
It’s not an inquisition, just something to be aware of.
I’m downvoted every time I point out this very simple thing we can do to be more inclusive.
I don’t see any indication that the author isn’t a native English speaker and I wouldn’t want to make any assumptions in that regard either.
I’m downvoted every time I point out this very simple thing we can do to be more inclusive.
I don’t see any indication that the author isn’t a native English speaker and I wouldn’t want to make any assumptions in that regard either.
When I see a genderised statement like this I always wonder if I had missed something earlier in the writing and the author was referring to a specific male person rather than a company. I also find it equally jarring when authors unexpectedly use “her” for a gender neutral object like a company in some misguided attempt to write with inclusivity.
Yes but pedants are jarred by 'their' and 'them' which are technically plural. I know, in speech we abuse them freely, but in writing it can be jarring to some.
Your info is out of date. Singular “they” is now standards compliant.
‘The singular “they” is a generic third-person singular pronoun in English. Use of the singular “they” is endorsed as part of APA Style because it is inclusive of all people and helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender. Although usage of the singular “they” was once discouraged in academic writing, many advocacy groups and publishers have accepted and endorsed it, including Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.
‘Singular “they” is covered in Section 4.18 of the APA Publication Manual, Seventh Edition’
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/si...
‘The singular “they” is a generic third-person singular pronoun in English. Use of the singular “they” is endorsed as part of APA Style because it is inclusive of all people and helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender. Although usage of the singular “they” was once discouraged in academic writing, many advocacy groups and publishers have accepted and endorsed it, including Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.
‘Singular “they” is covered in Section 4.18 of the APA Publication Manual, Seventh Edition’
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/si...
Yeah, I'm out-of-date because I'm older than that 'decision'. Which is why its jarring, and will remain so despite appeal to authority.
Unless you're more than 700 years old, you're not older than common usage of singular "they" (which entered common usage in the 14th century). It's honestly not that new of a concept.
I'm honestly always a little surprised when this topic comes up with the number of people who find this grammatically jarring. To be fair, I am fairly young, but I do remember learning about singular "they" while I was in primary school in the early 2000s. Is the issue that this isn't taught in US schools, hence all the confusion?
I'm honestly always a little surprised when this topic comes up with the number of people who find this grammatically jarring. To be fair, I am fairly young, but I do remember learning about singular "they" while I was in primary school in the early 2000s. Is the issue that this isn't taught in US schools, hence all the confusion?
Yeah I was in primary school in the 1970s
That's akin to saying that python2.7 is just as valid a language as python3. And it is. But it is also correct to say that python2.7 is out-of-date as it is no longer being updated, as it was sunset on January 1, 2020, and all are advised to port to python3, as no further updates will be done to the 2.7 codebase.
In much the same way, it's not wrong to use plural "they," but it is no more correct than singular "they." Language is descriptivist. Its rules are determined by usage and clarity as well as historical usage patterns, all of which are subject to change. As of of release of the APA Publication Manual Seventh Edition in October 2019, the APA acknowledged such language usage pattern changes and by doing so, the major standards body which codifies style for major publications has adopted singular "they." Resisting such change is fine, but seems a strange hill to die on.
https://www.python.org/doc/sunset-python-2/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APA_style#Seventh_edition_of_t...
In much the same way, it's not wrong to use plural "they," but it is no more correct than singular "they." Language is descriptivist. Its rules are determined by usage and clarity as well as historical usage patterns, all of which are subject to change. As of of release of the APA Publication Manual Seventh Edition in October 2019, the APA acknowledged such language usage pattern changes and by doing so, the major standards body which codifies style for major publications has adopted singular "they." Resisting such change is fine, but seems a strange hill to die on.
https://www.python.org/doc/sunset-python-2/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APA_style#Seventh_edition_of_t...
[deleted]
I don't think anyone's disagreeing with the idea of being inclusive.
But if the author very clearly isn't used to writing in English in the first place (you cannot possibly have missed that) then you can start gently with the fact that we don't use genders for all nouns, as they may not even be aware of that, before you go in with the big guns of calling people's efforts at writing in a foreign language 'nasty'.
If I asked you to write a blog post in Sumerian and you made a faux pas and I jumped all over it you'd be a bit put out wouldn't you?
But if the author very clearly isn't used to writing in English in the first place (you cannot possibly have missed that) then you can start gently with the fact that we don't use genders for all nouns, as they may not even be aware of that, before you go in with the big guns of calling people's efforts at writing in a foreign language 'nasty'.
If I asked you to write a blog post in Sumerian and you made a faux pas and I jumped all over it you'd be a bit put out wouldn't you?
I thought the piece was written well enough that I couldn’t tell they were not a native speaker. I checked the about me page and the author said nothing about location. That’s about as far as I got.
Here's another hint for you https://blog.bembel.net/2019/07/ebbelwoi-statement/
I do think this topic is something it doesn't hurt to be mindful of. However, it's pretty clear to me that the author's first language is not English. One of my mother tongues has gendered pronouns, and I find one of the simplest tells that a speaker's native tongue isn't English is the inappropriate usage of gendered pronouns. In fact I don't recall a single time I've heard a native English speaker use gendered pronouns in this manner (not to mention a company is a collection of people -- so there isn't even a singular "they" discussion to be had here).
So my main issue with this discussion topic is not that we shouldn't use more inclusive pronouns generally, it's these discussions seem to always ignore that folks whose mother tongue has gendered pronouns automatically think about objects differently when talking about them. For instance, a table being masculine (at least in my mother tongue) is not a conscious judgement of tables on the speaker's part -- it's a kind of classification that your brain does on autopilot. It should just be seen as the garden variety grammatical slip-up that it is, and treat it as such (ignore it and move on).
So my main issue with this discussion topic is not that we shouldn't use more inclusive pronouns generally, it's these discussions seem to always ignore that folks whose mother tongue has gendered pronouns automatically think about objects differently when talking about them. For instance, a table being masculine (at least in my mother tongue) is not a conscious judgement of tables on the speaker's part -- it's a kind of classification that your brain does on autopilot. It should just be seen as the garden variety grammatical slip-up that it is, and treat it as such (ignore it and move on).
As I mentioned in another comment, singular “they” is now standards compliant.
‘The singular “they” is a generic third-person singular pronoun in English. Use of the singular “they” is endorsed as part of APA Style because it is inclusive of all people and helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender. Although usage of the singular “they” was once discouraged in academic writing, many advocacy groups and publishers have accepted and endorsed it, including Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.
‘Singular “they” is covered in Section 4.18 of the APA Publication Manual, Seventh Edition’
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/si....
‘The singular “they” is a generic third-person singular pronoun in English. Use of the singular “they” is endorsed as part of APA Style because it is inclusive of all people and helps writers avoid making assumptions about gender. Although usage of the singular “they” was once discouraged in academic writing, many advocacy groups and publishers have accepted and endorsed it, including Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.
‘Singular “they” is covered in Section 4.18 of the APA Publication Manual, Seventh Edition’
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/si....
Good point and one I overlooked until you pointed that out. Let's leave genders at the door. A bad vendor is a monster without a gender.
If you keep getting downvoted, why don't you get a clue?