« Why The Hell Not? | Main | Something useful, albeit not as funny »

Happy Morning Coffee Fun, stupid email edition

But every once in a while...I get email. Even better, I get whiny, bitchy email from one of the biggest sockpuppet masters in the Mac web, Daniel Eran Dilger. Now, for those of you who don't know what a sockpuppet is, here's the definition from Wikipedia. Like many definitions, it covers a wide range of similar meanings, so here's the pertinent bit:

In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company."

In Daniel's case, he posts an article for AppleInsider as "Prince McLean", then on his own site, RoughlyDrafted Magazine, he uses that article as a reference, something he does quite regularly:

AppleInsider’s article “Developers question why Apple keeps its iPhone 2.0 SDK under NDA” presented several reasons why developers are frustrated with Apple’s tight control over the iPhone platform. Another facet behind Apple wanting to maintain a centralized position of control over iPhone development, where developers are bound by NDA to interface only with Apple but not each other, is to head off tangent hacks that might complicate Apple’s ability to lead its platform in the direction it wants.

Note that at no time does Dilger point out that he in fact is "Prince McLean". Now, some of you are asking, "How can you prove that they're the same guy?".

A legitimate question, and prior to this morning's crawl through my Postini queue, I'd have not been able to prove something that was widely suspected. But then I see an email subject line of "shot in the fucking skull apparently" from "Daniel Eran <danieleran@mac.com>. It's a reference to a takedown of a Prince McClean article on IPv6 I had wrote. The first line in the email?

I'm the miserable asshole who wrote the article you tore to shreds to day because you were able to find a number of things to quibble about in it.

First Daniel, thanks for proving the Prince McLean Daniel Eran Dilger sockpuppet hypothesis. Many of us appreciate it, but I doubt you will. Second, um...fucking wah? You had factual errors in your article, and you were basing it on old information. Sorry, but if you can't be bothered to be correct, then don't cry when people point that out.

I attempted to briefly describe the reason for needing IPv6 addressing. I was not trying to teach a lesson in the finer points of how the IANA works. So I don't understand why you devoted four paragraphs to attacking something that is not relevant to the point of article, nor really something that matters to anyone trying to understand why IPv6 might be useful to them. Do you think adding all the detail about CIDR would have benefitted readers? I don't.

Ah, the old, "It's not that important" bit. Well, bullshit. When you're talking about technical issues, and IPv6 certainly qualifies, well, you need to be correct and up to date. It matters. Note that I didn't just bitch about you ignoring CIDR, I also provided a simplified explanation of what CIDR is, and why it's used. Does being up to date in technical explanations and providing simple, accurate explanations matter to readers? Yes. Yes it does. I know a lot of people are ignorant of such things, but I don't assume they're too stupid to learn. So, instead of the condescending "Oh silly non-technical person, you don't need to fill your head with information" line you seem to take, I figure, "What the fuck, let's try to teach them something, and treat them like they can learn." It may not always work, but at least it's trying to do the right thing, and it's more accurate.

And regarding NAT, the subject I was considering was why IPv6 is relevant to consumers. I was trying to give a high level overview of what NAT does to mitigate the problems with IPv4 addressing, and why it's not a always great solution, and why Apple is using IPv6 to get around it, and what's involved. I was not trying to give an enterprise lesson on load balancing and other issues that are not relevant to 98% of Apple's users.

So you're trying to create a comparison using incorrect information with the, in that context, bizarre goal of helping people make an informed decision? You can't have it both ways. You can't be trying to show why IPv6 is good while using bad information about IPv4. The information you gave about NAT was wrong. IP Address and port are not the only way to route traffic through a NAT, and 1:1 is not the only option for traffic routing. To say or imply that, which you did, is wrong. Cowboy up already, when you are wrong, people are going to point it out. And again, no, 98% of Apple's users are not somehow smart enough to learn about IPv6, which is orders of magnitude more complex than IPv4, yet unconcerned or too stupid with the modern state of NAT, especially given that you use IPv4 NAT as a primary reason for pushing IPv6. Again, you can't have everything and nothing for the same price.

My comments about Windows were addressed to users who think that a firewall is required to not have an immediate breakdown, such as those voiced by Gartner, wondering if the iPhone had a firewall. You can dismiss them as "MacMac," but they are relevant enough for the audience. Load balancing isn't. You and maybe three dozen other people on earth are managing load balancing on Macs. Most people who read AI have had some contact with port forwarding.

Spare me the bullshit. Your comments about Windows were stupid, and as of the current state of Windows, rather incorrect. You are also totally full of crap about Macs not needing firewalls, but then, you've never shied away from sucking RDF cock every chance you get.

The same goes for my comments on IPv6 IPSec; background encryption means the OS is securing your networking rather than a layer in the browser, which can only present dummy errors to users. SSL can tell the user they've been redirected, but then its up to the user to know what that means. Most don't. My point was that encryption baked into IP was a new advantage over manually configuring things or knowing what's involved to manage application level encryption.

I am not enough of a security expert to comment in detail on IPv6 security, so I didn't. The way you wrote about it did seem rather off to me, and comments from people who are far smarter than I about it confirm that you were using magical thinking about IPv6 encryption capabilities. If they want to provide more details about it, I welcome it, and any corrections they might make.

Also, I linked to a source talking about the sorry state of support for IPv6 in various commercial routers, but was clearly commenting on the consumer market, where support for IPv6 or even functional NAT-PMP is rare.

The only link in that article was to an NPD report about Apple's marketshare in Wi-Fi N routers. Note, that link is actually to another sockpuppet article of yours about that report. Nowhere in your other article does it talk about IPv6 support quality or lackthereof, nor do you link to NPD at all. The only link in that article is to Macworld piece on how Time Capsule sales are strong, and not hurting AirPort sales. As well, you said, and I quote:

Many commercial routers are just now adding support for IPv6, and many consumer routers don't support it at all.

The first half of that statement is wrong, and the second is unsupported by any facts or links on your part. If you're going to make a claim like that, expect to be asked to support it.

In your rant about my article, you seemed to have missed addressing a point. Nobody else has pointed out how BTMM works, including you. If you have special knowledge about these things, why not devote your time and efforts to providing some free resources to the rest of the unwashed masses of us rather than beating up people who are trying to do so? Despite your heavy level of contempt for my article, I do have some experience in working with equipment outside of Linksys. I directed IT operations for a third of SFGH, and built out a million dollar network for startup, where I learned enough IOS to configure routers, firewalls, and load balancing. I'm not an expert, and I hit a broad number of subjects that regularly expose me to ridicule from people who know more about me in various areas. But as I posted on in the AI forums:

"Rather than try to "AH-HA!!!" every minutia of fact that can be challenged in the article, it would be more useful for commenters with some special insight to point out errors with some explanation, or offer an alternative perspective on matters that would be useful to other readers.

Wait, no one has explained Back To My Mac?

There's not one article talking about Back To My Mac?
Really
There's no books on it, not even eBooks?
No articles pointing out potential problems with overreliance on the .Mac/Mobileme password?
Not even a kbase article with a rather long list of routers that Back To My Mac supports?
Not even a lousy tip on using SSH with it?
Or an article talking about the other services Back To My Mac uses?

You're it? The only one?

Tell me, in your world, do you have The Google? Because we do over here, and it's damned handy.

As well, given the experience you claim to have, it is doubly unforgivable to try and justify inaccuracy with the lame, weak claim of "It's just for the n00bs". That's shameful. N00bs are the people who need accuracy most. They need to know that when a supposed "expert" says something, that it's both accurate and current. No one benefits with old, outdated, incorrect statements.

Recent comments from some individuals in the forums have drifted toward over-the-top nit-picking that appears to be trying to completely discredit articles that are being provided as a free service to help inform readers on technologies. It is possible to offer a correction or expansion of an idea in a collaborative way that informs, rather than as an overstated, negative attack that itself often suggests ideas that are completely wrong or simply overboard.

Funny how pointing out factual errors in your articles is nitpicking, but when you go on the attack against factual errors in other people's statements, you're "doing the right thing" because accuracy matters. Cast out the beam in thine own eye before thou pointest out the mote in mine.

Discussion is a good thing, and doing so with some civility is even better. "

Yeah, and nothing says "civil" like "shot in the fucking skull, apparently". Civility: Ur doin it rong.

If you think I'm doing the world a huge disservice to complain about Windows here and there, imagine what I think of your character assassination piece about me, which was completely irrelevant and contributed nothing to anyone apart from venting your contempt of someone who has less specialized knowledge than you.

Oh, and on the whole whining about how mean I was to you? What are you, 12? Life's tough, wear a helmet. Especially don't be a whiny bitch when you're the biggest sockpuppet on the Mac web. Whiny and deceitful...not a good combination.

See kids, this is why you don't send whiny bitchy emails to people like me. Because then I become an even bigger dick than you thought I was.

Technorati Tags:
Stop being stupid, TEH STOOPUD, WTF?, Daniel Eran Dilger: Sockpuppet, Douchebag

Categories: Mac Matters

Posted by John C. Welch at 09:47 | Permalink

Comments

Warning for Notes users: The commenting system uses HTML.
I know this will be scary for some of you, especially Notes fans. However, open standards, rah-rah.
If you want to use less-than or greater-than signs, or other similar characters that HTML reserves,
you'll simply have to learn to do it the HTML way. Luckily, HTML is kind of popular, no matter what
your re-educators have told you, and you can easily find help on the intertubes.

You would think that I get an assload of angry emails about this site. I mean, I've managed to piss enough people off with it, so that you'd think my inbox is like the surface of Io, only instead of sulfur, it's coved by angry, boiling hate. That would be a reasonable assumption, but incorrect. I rarely get email about the site. Probably because most of the hate and anger are in the comments.\n\nBut every once in a while...I get email. Even better, I get whiny, bitchy email from one of the biggest sockpuppet masters in the Mac web, Daniel Eran Dilger. Now, for those of you who don't know what a sockpuppet is, here's the definition from Wikipedia. Like many definitions, it covers a wide range of similar meanings, so here's the pertinent bit:

In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that \"sock-puppeting\" is defined as \"the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company.\"

In Daniel's case, he posts an article for AppleInsider as \"Prince McLean\", then on his own site, RoughlyDrafted Magazine, he uses that article as a reference, something he does quite regularly:

AppleInsider’s article “Developers question why Apple keeps its iPhone 2.0 SDK under NDA” presented several reasons why developers are frustrated with Apple’s tight control over the iPhone platform. Another facet behind Apple wanting to maintain a centralized position of control over iPhone development, where developers are bound by NDA to interface only with Apple but not each other, is to head off tangent hacks that might complicate Apple’s ability to lead its platform in the direction it wants.

Note that at no time does Dilger point out that he in fact is \"Prince McLean\". Now, some of you are asking, \"How can you prove that they're the same guy?\". \n\nA legitimate question, and prior to this morning's crawl through my Postini queue, I'd have not been able to prove something that was widely suspected. But then I see an email subject line of \"shot in the fucking skull apparently\" from \"Daniel Eran <danieleran@mac.com>. It's a reference to a takedown of a Prince McClean article on IPv6 I had wrote. The first line in the email?

I'm the miserable asshole who wrote the article you tore to shreds to day because you were able to find a number of things to quibble about in it.

I attempted to briefly describe the reason for needing IPv6 addressing. I was not trying to teach a lesson in the finer points of how the IANA works. So I don't understand why you devoted four paragraphs to attacking something that is not relevant to the point of article, nor really something that matters to anyone trying to understand why IPv6 might be useful to them. Do you think adding all the detail about CIDR would have benefitted readers? I don't.

Ah, the old, \"It's not that important\" bit. Well, bullshit. When you're talking about technical issues, and IPv6 certainly qualifies, well, you need to be correct and up to date. It matters. Note that I didn't just bitch about you ignoring CIDR, I also provided a simplified explanation of what CIDR is, and why it's used. Does being up to date in technical explanations and providing simple, accurate explanations matter to readers? Yes. Yes it does. I know a lot of people are ignorant of such things, but I don't assume they're too stupid to learn. So, instead of the condescending \"Oh silly non-technical person, you don't need to fill your head with information\" line you seem to take, I figure, \"What the fuck, let's try to teach them something, and treat them like they can learn.\" It may not always work, but at least it's trying to do the right thing, and it's more accurate.

And regarding NAT, the subject I was considering was why IPv6 is relevant to consumers. I was trying to give a high level overview of what NAT does to mitigate the problems with IPv4 addressing, and why it's not a always great solution, and why Apple is using IPv6 to get around it, and what's involved. I was not trying to give an enterprise lesson on load balancing and other issues that are not relevant to 98% of Apple's users.

My comments about Windows were addressed to users who think that a firewall is required to not have an immediate breakdown, such as those voiced by Gartner, wondering if the iPhone had a firewall. You can dismiss them as \"MacMac,\" but they are relevant enough for the audience. Load balancing isn't. You and maybe three dozen other people on earth are managing load balancing on Macs. Most people who read AI have had some contact with port forwarding.

The same goes for my comments on IPv6 IPSec; background encryption means the OS is securing your networking rather than a layer in the browser, which can only present dummy errors to users. SSL can tell the user they've been redirected, but then its up to the user to know what that means. Most don't. My point was that encryption baked into IP was a new advantage over manually configuring things or knowing what's involved to manage application level encryption.

Also, I linked to a source talking about the sorry state of support for IPv6 in various commercial routers, but was clearly commenting on the consumer market, where support for IPv6 or even functional NAT-PMP is rare.

Many commercial routers are just now adding support for IPv6, and many consumer routers don't support it at all.

The first half of that statement is wrong, and the second is unsupported by any facts or links on your part. If you're going to make a claim like that, expect to be asked to support it.

In your rant about my article, you seemed to have missed addressing a point. Nobody else has pointed out how BTMM works, including you. If you have special knowledge about these things, why not devote your time and efforts to providing some free resources to the rest of the unwashed masses of us rather than beating up people who are trying to do so? Despite your heavy level of contempt for my article, I do have some experience in working with equipment outside of Linksys. I directed IT operations for a third of SFGH, and built out a million dollar network for startup, where I learned enough IOS to configure routers, firewalls, and load balancing. I'm not an expert, and I hit a broad number of subjects that regularly expose me to ridicule from people who know more about me in various areas. But as I posted on in the AI forums:\n\n\n\"Rather than try to \"AH-HA!!!\" every minutia of fact that can be challenged in the article, it would be more useful for commenters with some special insight to point out errors with some explanation, or offer an alternative perspective on matters that would be useful to other readers.

Wait, no one has explained Back To My Mac?\n\nThere's not one article talking about Back To My Mac?\nReally\nThere's no books on it, not even eBooks?\nNo articles pointing out potential problems with overreliance on the .Mac/Mobileme password?\nNot even a kbase article with a rather long list of routers that Back To My Mac supports?\nNot even a lousy tip on using SSH with it?\nOr an article talking about the other services Back To My Mac uses?\n\nYou're it? The only one?\n\nTell me, in your world, do you have The Google? Because we do over here, and it's damned handy.\n\nAs well, given the experience you claim to have, it is doubly unforgivable to try and justify inaccuracy with the lame, weak claim of \"It's just for the n00bs\". That's shameful. N00bs are the people who need accuracy most. They need to know that when a supposed \"expert\" says something, that it's both accurate and current. No one benefits with old, outdated, incorrect statements.

Recent comments from some individuals in the forums have drifted toward over-the-top nit-picking that appears to be trying to completely discredit articles that are being provided as a free service to help inform readers on technologies. It is possible to offer a correction or expansion of an idea in a collaborative way that informs, rather than as an overstated, negative attack that itself often suggests ideas that are completely wrong or simply overboard.

Funny how pointing out factual errors in your articles is nitpicking, but when you go on the attack against factual errors in other people's statements, you're \"doing the right thing\" because accuracy matters. Cast out the beam in thine own eye before thou pointest out the mote in mine.

Discussion is a good thing, and doing so with some civility is even better. \"

Yeah, and nothing says \"civil\" like \"shot in the fucking skull, apparently\". Civility: Ur doin it rong.

If you think I'm doing the world a huge disservice to complain about Windows here and there, imagine what I think of your character assassination piece about me, which was completely irrelevant and contributed nothing to anyone apart from venting your contempt of someone who has less specialized knowledge than you.

Nice strawman, but my piece was more about your bad statements regarding NAT and subnetting. Alas, I'm not 12, nor am i easily distracted. As well, your anti-windows ranting is poorly written, puerile, and honestly, not worth reading. Oh look, there's why I don't read your shit, regardless of what name you publish under. If you want to not get piked for bad facts, here's a novel thought: DON'T USE BAD FACTS. Also, don't be a whiny bitch, because it makes you look immature and stupid. \n\nOh, and on the whole whining about how mean I was to you? What are you, 12? Life's tough, wear a helmet. Especially don't be a whiny bitch when you're the biggest sockpuppet on the Mac web. Whiny and deceitful...not a good combination.\n\nSee kids, this is why you don't send whiny bitchy emails to people like me. Because then I become an even bigger dick than you thought I was.\n\n\n

Technorati Tags:\nStop being stupid, TEH STOOPUD, WTF?, Daniel Eran Dilger: Sockpuppet, Douchebag\n