It is rather hilarious. I have similar situations more than too often when some of my students will argue with me that it is not possible to do something, even after they just received indisputable proof that it just happened.
I usually try to humbly explain why they were wrong in that case(usually some misconceptions on how something works), which will usually reduce the amount of future arguments regarding the material presented. While patronizing will usually just make them try to prove themselves more often , and catch you in the nuances of a subject.
In this case it doesn't surprise me that Microsoft was (again) caught trying to redefine standards based on their own perception of those standards.
> [...] Microsoft was (again) caught trying to redefine standards based on their own perception of those standards.
Or, more simply and less nefariously. They put a management droid on stage. The person answering the questions likely wasn't aware of the nuances in ksh implementations. Hey's just the Microsoft equivalent of a used car salesman.
I usually try to humbly explain why they were wrong in that case(usually some misconceptions on how something works), which will usually reduce the amount of future arguments regarding the material presented. While patronizing will usually just make them try to prove themselves more often , and catch you in the nuances of a subject.
In this case it doesn't surprise me that Microsoft was (again) caught trying to redefine standards based on their own perception of those standards.