People are staring to really scrape the bottom of barrel of things to be upset about.
Is anyone actually upset by this change? If so, I agree, but I don't really see anyone saying they are, kind of sounds like a straw man.
Rename GTFO to GOAWAY
31–40 of 91 posts
Re: Rename GTFO to GOAWAY
#32Re: Rename GTFO to GOAWAY
#33Dennis Ritchie: “So fsck was originally called something else” Question: “What was it called?” Dennis Ritchie: "Well, the second letter was different"
Given the standard scenario in which fsck is used, the alternative name seems pretty appropriate.
Re: Rename GTFO to GOAWAY
#34Good move. GTFO is less than ideal not because of the F, but because of the association with the "Tits or GTFO" meme. https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=tits+or+GTFO http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tits-or-gtfo
If there was ever an example of frantically searching for a reason to take offense to something, this would be it. There are probably half a dozen legitimate reasons not to use GTFO in a spec, and this is almost certainly not one of them.
Re: Rename GTFO to GOAWAY
#35I personally am a fan of professional tools breaking away from the need to be serious all the time. It is just that I experience joy when I find little things like GTFO in the world which not only make sense in their context but have a bit of humor. So I guess I just disagree with the idea that standards should not contain anything crass. Also I have a question concerning the 4th point as I am admittedly unfamiliar w…
I believe that the surprise would come from it not meaning "get the f* out." Which makes perfect sense to me - GTFO has a meaning, and re-backronyming it can only harm understanding of the standard. Also consider non-native English speakers, which is really important when developing international standards.
The fact that someone suggested a corresponding "HTTP TITS" should set off at least minor warning bells that "HTTP GTFO" is not a good thing to put in the standard. I certainly don't want to see HTTP LOL (Long Overdue Listen), HTTP WAT (Wireless Ask Transmit), etc.
Humor is great, but good standards are better.
Re: Rename GTFO to GOAWAY
#36I personally am a fan of professional tools breaking away from the need to be serious all the time. It is just that I experience joy when I find little things like GTFO in the world which not only make sense in their context but have a bit of humor. So I guess I just disagree with the idea that standards should not contain anything crass. Also I have a question concerning the 4th point as I am admittedly unfamiliar w…
My guess is people would see the message, know it's an acronym, but refuse to believe that the UrbanDictionary results they got from googling were the actual explanation?
My favorite example of professional tool fun has to be the "Cowardly refusing to create an empty directory" result in tar (http://erictarn.com/post/393019949/tar-cowardly-refusing-to-...). That adverb adds a lot of character and justification to the message.
Re: Rename GTFO to GOAWAY
#37> GTFO is crass and doesn't belong in internet standards. Oh, STFU. Seriously, though, I see the point. I'm kinda torn on issues likes this. On one hand, language in a standard, particularly as it relates to implemented messages, should meet some minimum level of decorum and avoid colloquialisms. On the other hand, stuffy language battles are pointless and distract from the primary goal of releasing a usable standard…
Understanding by the greatest possible number of people should be the goal here, in my opinion. GOAWAY makes plenty sense when compared to GTFO, assuming that not everyone who learns of it intentionally is well-versed in that of which GTFO is a relatively smaller part. Grandma wouldn't necessarily get GTFO (right away, anyway) but she would likely pick up GOAWAY in a snap. Of course, the above assumes a section of pe…
[deleted]
Re: Rename GTFO to GOAWAY
#38I personally am a fan of professional tools breaking away from the need to be serious all the time. It is just that I experience joy when I find little things like GTFO in the world which not only make sense in their context but have a bit of humor. So I guess I just disagree with the idea that standards should not contain anything crass. Also I have a question concerning the 4th point as I am admittedly unfamiliar w…
It's surprising in that it doesn't stand for what most people use it to stand for, and its definition can't be inferred from a lay-understanding of the term. (Whereas "GOAWAY" has a bit more of that "I bet I know what this is before I even look it up" feeling.)
Re: Rename GTFO to GOAWAY
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody seems upset. This is about professionalism.
I wouldn't say that it has anything to do with the competence or skill expected of a professional. It's more a matter of decorum. Edit: I recognize that there are those who would like to load more connotations onto the term, but I think that even the above definition is just a bunch of marketing fluff promulgated by those who stand to benefit from people believing that they'll get a better result from paying someone…
Is something actually offensive or profane if nobody actually cares?
Excluding people who "care on the behalf of people who might care" ("we shouldn't do this, not because it offends me, but because it may offend others"), is anybody actually bothered by the word "fuck"?
Well I mean, also excluding isolated religious communities in Lancaster county that still use minced oaths....
Re: Rename GTFO to GOAWAY
#40Yes, it's far more professional to paint the bike shed blue, chartreuse is difficult to understand and conveys the message that those who bike to work are drunks which is certainly not what we should be trying to convey.