Subject | Re: Ping Owl: More examples of "window 1" |
From | Peter Kohlmann |
Date | 09/23/2016 17:11 (09/23/2016 17:11) |
Message-ID | <ns3gm9$1s5$1@dont-email.me> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
Follows | Snit |
Followups | Snit (10m) > Peter Kohlmann |
SnitRed Herring. That "window 1" is owned by terminal was never in contention. And *you* made that mindboggling broken code, not him. It is you who does not understand what is so broken about it, even after dozens of replies
On 9/23/16, 7:16 AM, in article fhjgi0ag.4uu@perch.invalid, "Octavian W. Lagrange" <olagrang@perch.invalid>wrote:Octavian W. LagrangeSnit
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>wrote:SnitOctavian W. Lagrange
[Reposted because it completely rips your claims apart and, gee, for [some reason you skipped it. I expect you will never give a real response.]
..SnitOctavian W. Lagrange
This was just completely wrong of him! And he went on and on with this nonsense:
Owl: ----- Script 1 thinks "Window 1" is the one connected to 10.0.1.2. Script 2 thinks "Window 1" is the one connected to 192.168.1.3. See a problem yet? -----
He was just NOT getting it! The script does not own the terminal's window 1!
So you *still* don't see the problem with your broken code.
I think the bigger question is you have yet to figure out the benefit of referencing by ID instead of index. You have yet to even show you understand the window 1 of terminal is not owned by the script but by terminal.
You have never educated anyone. You are incompetent, especially on anything technicalSnitAnyway... enough. I have proved my point and it is 100% predictable you will still troll me and lie.Octavian W. Lagrange
What you have proven is that you're an idiot.
You can troll all you want, Owl... but I am the one who is here working to help educate you anyway. :)