Ubuntu has a character

[esmerine]

So, having relationship with Ubuntu for quite some time I feel like it really has a character. Sometimes it does certain things, sometimes not.
I had a problem with SD card mounting, with boot, and today it seems like Ubuntu is in a good mood as it worked without my intrusion. Like, it healed itself!
:KS

[juancarlospaco]

sssh, Ubuntu heal itself, but this is a top secret feature...

[esmerine]

Aw. :-#

[adelphos]

Mounting drives seems to be very finicky, yes. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't... I've never seen a clear correlation to anything.

[esmerine]

It has some quantum properties. Maybe the probability of certain function to work can be found. :)

[cpplinux]

Which direction was your SD card pointing to? Remember to take the same position. You know, that has something to do with Earth's magnetic field. :biggrin:

[schauerlich]

Your OS not doing what it should sometimes gives it "character"?

[esmerine]

Your OS not doing what it should sometimes gives it "character"?

Are you having in mind that I should curse the developers and be frustrated? Nothing's perfect.

[Eisenwinter]

Your OS not doing what it should sometimes gives it "character"?
Computers never actually do what they "should", they do what they're told to do.

[adelphos]

Computers never actually do what they "should", they do what they're told to do.

And sometimes what they're being told to do is not what the user thinks they should be doing.

[Eisenwinter]

And sometimes what they're being told to do is not what the user thinks they should be doing.
That still falls under the statement of "they do as they are told, not as they 'should'".

[schauerlich]

That still falls under the statement of "they do as they are told, not as they 'should'".

I'm sure the programmer's design goal for the $functionality was not "work sometimes, but other times, inexplicably fail". Therefore, the program is not doing what it should - should meaning the intended functionality of the software.

[DemonCat1992]

I'm sorry, but I yell at my computer to work, I even try and use scare tactics by making mean faces and even slamming my hand down on the desk, not even waving my finger works. So you say a computer does what it's told to do is like saying five year olds are the MOST well behaved of all the age groups, they keep clean, they brush their teeth every time they eat and they don't get into mischief, you are truly a funny character.:lol:#-o

[lisati]

It has some quantum properties. Maybe the probability of certain function to work can be found. :)

Quantum Trek? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVp5N6tZsHs) What would Captain Archer say?

[adelphos]

I'm sure the programmer's design goal for the $functionality was not "work sometimes, but other times, inexplicably fail". Therefore, the program is not doing what it should - should meaning the intended functionality of the software.

Yep. It applies to things much simpler than computers. If a map has the wrong directions printed on it, then it is going to be getting me lost, which is not what it should be doing. Of course, the mistake is the map-maker's (or the developer) but there is still a "derived intentionality," to use a big word.

[Eisenwinter]

Sure.

I can be a new user and think "rm -rf" should install a new kernel on my system.

I type that command, thinking it should install a new kernel, but instead, I delete my entire system.

[adelphos]

Sure.

I can be a new user and think "rm -rf" should install a new kernel on my system.

I type that command, thinking it should install a new kernel, but instead, I delete my entire system.

Yeah. I don't there's a disagreement. You can't impose moral expectations on a computer, or expect it to act in an intentional way. But, programs are made with an intention (of the programmer), and when the program has a bug... then it does something it wasn't intended to do, and should not do. Just saying that the word "should" has a pretty broad meaning.

[schauerlich]

Sure.

I can be a new user and think "rm -rf" should install a new kernel on my system.

I type that command, thinking it should install a new kernel, but instead, I delete my entire system.

Installing a new kernel is not the intended functionality of rm. Your point is irrelevant.

[Eisenwinter]

Installing a new kernel is not the intended functionality of rm. Your point is irrelevant.
Then I believe we were thinking about different things regarding "should", in this case.

[schauerlich]

Then I believe we were thinking about different things regarding "should", in this case.

I gave my definition here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8620909&postcount=12).