I've done no registry editing. The change appeared between Sonar sessions that were about a minute or two apart. If the registry spontaneous corrupted itself, the results were rather unrealistically contextually relevant, no? If the corruption was done while saving settings on Sonar exit (or start), that WOULD be on Sonar.whyterabbyt wrote:What's in the Sonar Utilities menus is set by registry entries, AFAIR. If your computer corrupted its Registry somehow, or you did something which altered those Registry settings, then it would not be Sonar that is responsible for the menu item being missing.Jace-BeOS wrote:I'd give you a goddamned screen shot to PROVE that it's missing in my 64-bit Sonar and present in my 32-bit Sonar (or visa versa), but my data drive died and the PC is half disassembled. No, that's not license to blame this reported weird Sonar behavior on me or my computer.planetearth wrote:Also, Cakewalk has not remove the Plug-in Manager from the "Utilities" menu in Sonar.
I made no changes there. I installed nothing nor uninstalled anything between the moment the entry was there and when it was gone.
True enough. I've been in tech long enough to see that the default expectation is to blame the user, and that's an incorrect attitude to take knowing how piss poor computers are.Your failure to exclude any possible reason for these things except 'Sonar did something bad' doesnt make your statements right.
I was only blaming him for defaulting to "blame the user".Aka 'The Jace-BeOS 'blame the technical guy' interpretation
Of course they do. It's simply unacceptable, knowing how inconsistent and error-prone computers and computer software is, to DEFAULT to blaming the user. It's so common that people don't even think anything of it. It's standard operating procedure among those who think themselves in a superior position to presume everyone else is just causing their own problems. After years of watching clients battle tech bullshit, and seeing that it's the design of the thing that's in the wrong, I'm sick of it. Tech arrogance seems to most commonly reject tech failure as even a consideration until the user's culpability is beaten into the ground.And noone ever does it wrong, obviously.
Easily? No. This is decades of collected anger coming out all at once. Actually, my apologies for that. It's probably not helping that I'm fighting autocorrect, on a sluggish phone to make these comments.For someone who's so easily pissed off by people using phrases to mean things totally at odds with the actual definition, you might want to check the definition of passive-aggressive. Ho hum.
As for the implication of my hypocrisy or inconsistency... Passive-aggressive is defined as "indirect resistance to the demands of others and an avoidance of direct confrontation". You see this in my behavior here but NOT in planetearth's comments?? I'm being direct and confrontational, not passive-aggressive. (I'm not saying I SHOULD be confrontational)
It sure IS, but the problem I take with it is how that is characterized as a fault of the owner, rather than the entire industry of BS called the computer industry.Of course, noone's system is ever responsible, obviously.
Okay, I see your point there. I'm a hair trigger for the user blame at this point, because I've been beset by the voodoo far more than by the user-generated problems. This is why I don't build systems anymore. I don't want the implied blame even when it's not my damned fault. The voodoo isn't rare. I see it all the time. An entire forum of computer techs blaming the user until he proves it's not his fault, and then suddenly everyone just says "oh" and stops troubleshooting, or they then admit "well, that's a weird one. I don't know what to say. Maybe component failure", which would be nice if true, because that means you replace a failed component, but no one can identify that component. The end result is then just to call it a "rare bug trigger" or something. But it's not rare. Not even remotely rare. If big reports weighed anything, we are talking metric tons of unintended, undesirable programming / firmware behaviors. It's just that each one is different and therefore rare in individual cases of demonstration. But you put thousands of human beings together into a group, and you have thousands of unidentified code interactions, bugs, etc that never get fixed, plus the incompatibilities between claimed compatible hardware components. Then on top of all that are the techs with their various and sometimes competing "optimizations" and configuration preferences, many without any actual proof of validity (off the top of my head is the way Mac people tell users to verify permissions when weird things are inquired about; there's almost never a logical reason for this advise). This is what ends up being called "voodoo".And of course 'good techs' immediately point the finger at the rare wierd voodoo, instead of erroneously suggesting that the more common interactions, ie user intercession and system configuration specifics are responsible as all those 'bad techs' suggest.
Ha haHence, I always start trying to solve computer problems by lighting some candles, and rolling out some healong chakra stones, so calm the voodoo,
obviously I'm using colorful language and not talking about actual voodoo. It's not my term. It was suggested by a tech writer that recignizes the same thing I do: computers ARE NOT precise mathematical mechanics that do logical things and which can always be explained with logic. At the machine code level, sure, but not at the user level, and not even at the programmer's level any more, because of the amount of complexity involved in managing a product with, say, 10 million lines of code that are managed by twenty+ different people, with different code styles (regardless of code style requirements), different levels of familiarity and sense of ownership, and no one human being can actually map all the interactions currently possible in products like, say, Microsoft Windows. If I could find the article, I'd share it. As unpopular a minority this is, there are competent people other than myself who recognize that the level of failure common to this technology should be considered a sign that the technology has serious foundational problems which ought be addressed, rather than continuing to be ignored....all fine and good, unless you're just refusing to accept that the user is telling the truth: they did nothing that was incorrect.instead of trying to get the user to explain exactly what they did, exactly what they're seeing, and the exact set of circumstances which cause the unexpected behaviour,
Sarcasm noted. I've had these users, I know they exist. They're frustrating as hell, but they're not every user. They're not even the majority. I'm rebelling against the use of such frustrating people as the model upon which all tech-user interaction is based. The number of brilliantly intelligent, patient, kind, and polite users I've witnessed coming into a tech inquiry with "I'm probably a complete idiot" or "I'm stupid" or other such ridiculous self-deprecating nonsense is really telling of the culture that exists around computers. Computers are opaque and hostile devices that DON'T do what we want, when we want it (to the extent that people habitually expect problems by DEFAULT, manifesting in misreading dialog box text as errors when there's no actual error message there) and yet the users are almost always to blame.something which those users are always more than willing to provide carefully, honestly, and in meticulous, consistent detail. Because computer users dont ever do dumb stuff. Unless they're 'tech people' of course.
Am I over the top and over excited about this? Hell yes. No argument there. It looks like bigotry and discrimination to me, and I've witnessed and experienced as much of that as I can stand to without getting spitting mad at times I probably need not get spitting mad at. In this context, Sonar, I've personally been victim to countless terminal and merely irritating problems that have been variously rejected as real, acknowledged and then acknowledgement forgotten, and variously blamed for what amounts to Cakewalk's product design failure. Repeatedly. So yeah, I'm ranting HERE because the injury is still tender. My experience leaves me giving more than a little benefit of the doubt to the USER and more than a lot of suspicion on Sonar!
You think this is bad... you should've seen me when I was on an SSRI.
Actually, no, you shouldn't have.
