f



"Even a 'genius' can't use Linux"

Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe. 

I finally broke down and bought a $10, 64MB nVidia MX440 video card to 
replace my onboard Intel graphics chip. (Yeah, I'm a big spender.) So how 
hard was that to set it up in Linux? I've done it twice (and I'm going to 
get one for the CentOS box as well). 

In VectorLinux I had to run VASM (VectorLinux Administration and System 
Menu) in root and set up X Windows. (VASM is used for just about any 
change in VectorLinux.) It asked if I wanted to load the nVidia 
proprietary drivers, I clicked yes, and watched as VectorLinux installed 
the driver and compiled the nVidia kernel. Whoa! Good thing I'm a "super 
genius" because I hear normal geniuses aren't capable of something so 
complicated.

Then I tried a Live Mint 8 boot. It came up working, but on the bottom it 
informed me that a proprietary nVidia driver was available, which would 
give better video performance. Do I want to load it? Yes, then I watched 
as Mint downloaded the proprietary nVidia driver and set up Xwindows for 
it. That was it. I can see where WinTrolls would find this process an 
"extremely difficult" one to accomplish. That clicking on icons is a real 
strain.   

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
RonB
3/13/2010 8:31:51 AM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

68 Replies
965 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 16

On Mar 13, 10:31=A0am, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe.

RonB, you are certainly no genius, and a one-trick pony with your
preoccupation with Linux, but truth be told nobody is willing to spend
the time to learn Linux that you have invested.

How many hours, days, weeks, months or years have you put into Linux
learning how to get it to run?  I bet a few man-years.

RL
0
RayLopez99
3/13/2010 9:10:37 AM
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:10:37 -0800, RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Mar 13, 10:31 am, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe.
> 
> RonB, you are certainly no genius, and a one-trick pony with your
> preoccupation with Linux, but truth be told nobody is willing to spend
> the time to learn Linux that you have invested.
> 
> How many hours, days, weeks, months or years have you put into Linux
> learning how to get it to run?  I bet a few man-years.

A LOT less time then I spent in learning DOS and Windows. And you're 
right, who would want to waste valuable newsgroup trolling time learning 
Linux? Got to get your priorities straight.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
RonB
3/13/2010 9:14:05 AM
RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> writes:

> Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe. 
>
> I finally broke down and bought a $10, 64MB nVidia MX440 video card to 
> replace my onboard Intel graphics chip. (Yeah, I'm a big spender.) So how 
> hard was that to set it up in Linux? I've done it twice (and I'm going to 
> get one for the CentOS box as well). 
>
> In VectorLinux I had to run VASM (VectorLinux Administration and System 
> Menu) in root and set up X Windows. (VASM is used for just about any 
> change in VectorLinux.) It asked if I wanted to load the nVidia 
> proprietary drivers, I clicked yes, and watched as VectorLinux installed 
> the driver and compiled the nVidia kernel. Whoa! Good thing I'm a "super 
> genius" because I hear normal geniuses aren't capable of something so 
> complicated.
>
> Then I tried a Live Mint 8 boot. It came up working, but on the bottom it 
> informed me that a proprietary nVidia driver was available, which would 
> give better video performance. Do I want to load it? Yes, then I watched 
> as Mint downloaded the proprietary nVidia driver and set up Xwindows for 
> it. That was it. I can see where WinTrolls would find this process an 
> "extremely difficult" one to accomplish. That clicking on icons is a real 
> strain.   

So your system supports an 8 year old defunct video card.

Nice.

How does X-Moto play?

But as usual you're too dense to realise you are actually making LInux
look bad. VASM? Huh? root? Huh? Compiled the kernel? Huh? Of course I
know what these steps are but many dont. Also, what about other distros
where there is a compiler version clash or it isnt even installed? Your
sample of one is meaningless. Meanwhile lets look at the more
established distros and see what the users are saying about nvidia
installation:

http://ubuntuforums.org/search.php?searchid=70893612

Maybe you, WronG, can go and help.

if the link doesn't work because of a timeout on the search option then
go to Ubuntu forums, installation and search for NVidia.

I'm sure your expertise will come in handy. Once you have helped all
those people crying into their hands because they have no GUI then be
sure to take your genius to the Debian forums where people are having
the same issues.

Denying problems is not advocacy WronG since we all KNOW there are
problems. Addressing them and fixing them and helping others to do so is
advocacy.


0
Hadron
3/13/2010 9:17:16 AM
RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:10:37 -0800, RayLopez99 wrote:
>
>> On Mar 13, 10:31 am, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe.
>> 
>> RonB, you are certainly no genius, and a one-trick pony with your
>> preoccupation with Linux, but truth be told nobody is willing to spend
>> the time to learn Linux that you have invested.
>> 
>> How many hours, days, weeks, months or years have you put into Linux
>> learning how to get it to run?  I bet a few man-years.
>
> A LOT less time then I spent in learning DOS and Windows. And you're 

What was there in Windows that took you so long to "learn"? Be specific.

> right, who would want to waste valuable newsgroup trolling time learning 
> Linux? Got to get your priorities straight.

We know you are dense, almost as dense as Rick, but there really is no
need to telegraph it with every post.
0
Hadron
3/13/2010 9:19:00 AM
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:10:37 -0800, RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Mar 13, 10:31 am, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe.
> 
> RonB, you are certainly no genius, and a one-trick pony with your
> preoccupation with Linux, but truth be told nobody is willing to spend
> the time to learn Linux that you have invested.

You wouldn't know te truth if it slapped you in the face.

> 
> How many hours, days, weeks, months or years have you put into Linux
> learning how to get it to run?  I bet a few man-years.
> 
> RL

How many hours, days, weeks, months or years has the average Windows user 
put into Windows  learning how to get it to run?  I bet a few man-years.

-- 
Rick
0
none5467 (1279)
3/13/2010 11:41:33 AM
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:19:00 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:10:37 -0800, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 13, 10:31 am, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe.
>>> 
>>> RonB, you are certainly no genius, and a one-trick pony with your
>>> preoccupation with Linux, but truth be told nobody is willing to spend
>>> the time to learn Linux that you have invested.
>>> 
>>> How many hours, days, weeks, months or years have you put into Linux
>>> learning how to get it to run?  I bet a few man-years.
>>
>> A LOT less time then I spent in learning DOS and Windows. And you're
> 
> What was there in Windows that took you so long to "learn"? Be specific.

Are you saying a person with no computing experience can sit down in fron 
os a Windows based computer and be able to use it?

> 
>> right, who would want to waste valuable newsgroup trolling time
>> learning Linux? Got to get your priorities straight.
> 
> We know you are dense, almost as dense as Rick, but there really is no
> need to telegraph it with every post.

Another example of Linux Advocacy from True Linux Advocate Quark.

-- 
Rick
0
none5467 (1279)
3/13/2010 11:43:46 AM
On 2010-03-13, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe. 
>>
>> I finally broke down and bought a $10, 64MB nVidia MX440 video card to 
>> replace my onboard Intel graphics chip. (Yeah, I'm a big spender.) So how 
>> hard was that to set it up in Linux? I've done it twice (and I'm going to 
>> get one for the CentOS box as well). 
>>
>> In VectorLinux I had to run VASM (VectorLinux Administration and System 
>> Menu) in root and set up X Windows. (VASM is used for just about any 
>> change in VectorLinux.) It asked if I wanted to load the nVidia 
>> proprietary drivers, I clicked yes, and watched as VectorLinux installed 
>> the driver and compiled the nVidia kernel. Whoa! Good thing I'm a "super 
>> genius" because I hear normal geniuses aren't capable of something so 
>> complicated.
>>
>> Then I tried a Live Mint 8 boot. It came up working, but on the bottom it 
>> informed me that a proprietary nVidia driver was available, which would 
>> give better video performance. Do I want to load it? Yes, then I watched 
>> as Mint downloaded the proprietary nVidia driver and set up Xwindows for 
>> it. That was it. I can see where WinTrolls would find this process an 
>> "extremely difficult" one to accomplish. That clicking on icons is a real 
>> strain.   
>
> So your system supports an 8 year old defunct video card.
>
> Nice.
>
> How does X-Moto play?

   ...in which case he can get himself an nv8x00 or nv9x00 or nv 2x0.

   My passive cooled 8400 was $40 when I got it. It supports vdpau B.

[nonsense]

-- 
     If it were really about "being good", then Microsoft would       ||| 
have been put out of business by Apple before the first line of      / | \
the Linux kernel was ever written.
0
jedi (14754)
3/13/2010 2:30:18 PM
RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> said on 2010-03-13:
> Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe. 
>
> I finally broke down and bought a $10, 64MB nVidia MX440 video card to 
> replace my onboard Intel graphics chip.
>
> In VectorLinux I had to run VASM (VectorLinux Administration and System 
> Menu) in root and set up X Windows.

X Window System not X Windows.


> It asked if I wanted to load the nVidia 
> proprietary drivers, I clicked yes, and watched as VectorLinux installed 
> the driver and compiled the nVidia kernel.
>
> Then I tried a Live Mint 8 boot. It came up working, but on the bottom it 
> informed me that a proprietary nVidia driver was available, which would 
> give better video performance. Do I want to load it? Yes, then I watched 
> as Mint downloaded the proprietary nVidia driver and set up Xwindows for 
> it. That was it.
>

GNU/Linux has come a long way. Hardware compatibility problems are
decreasing rapidly and distributions are making it easier for users to
install peripherals without much intervention. Windows 7 has a similar
outlook towards newly installed peripherals; it suggests to look for
new drivers and installs it without much user intervention. Operating
systems are getting better.

0
NoWay2 (985)
3/13/2010 3:40:47 PM
On Mar 13, 1:41=A0pm, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:

>
> > How many hours, days, weeks, months or years have you put into Linux
> > learning how to get it to run? =A0I bet a few man-years.
>
> > RL
>
> How many hours, days, weeks, months or years has the average Windows user
> put into Windows =A0learning how to get it to run? =A0I bet a few man-yea=
rs.
>


If so, all the more reason not to switch to Linux, once you have
invested so much time learning Windows.  Why give up this advantage
just to spend as much if not more time learning an inferior OS like
Linux.

Keywords:  horse, mid-stream, change.

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
3/13/2010 4:38:33 PM
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 05:43:46 -0600, Rick wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:19:00 +0100, Hadron wrote:

>> What was there in Windows that took you so long to "learn"? Be
>> specific.
> 
> Are you saying a person with no computing experience can sit down in
> fron os a Windows based computer and be able to use it?

I used DOS and Windows for close to 20 years. Hadron doesn't think there 
is any learning process involved? 

So, Hadron, what was there in Linux that took you so long to "learn?" Be 
specific.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/13/2010 5:22:48 PM
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:30:18 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2010-03-13, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe.
>>>
>>> I finally broke down and bought a $10, 64MB nVidia MX440 video card to
>>> replace my onboard Intel graphics chip. (Yeah, I'm a big spender.) So
>>> how hard was that to set it up in Linux? I've done it twice (and I'm
>>> going to get one for the CentOS box as well).
>>>
>>> In VectorLinux I had to run VASM (VectorLinux Administration and
>>> System Menu) in root and set up X Windows. (VASM is used for just
>>> about any change in VectorLinux.) It asked if I wanted to load the
>>> nVidia proprietary drivers, I clicked yes, and watched as VectorLinux
>>> installed the driver and compiled the nVidia kernel. Whoa! Good thing
>>> I'm a "super genius" because I hear normal geniuses aren't capable of
>>> something so complicated.
>>>
>>> Then I tried a Live Mint 8 boot. It came up working, but on the bottom
>>> it informed me that a proprietary nVidia driver was available, which
>>> would give better video performance. Do I want to load it? Yes, then I
>>> watched as Mint downloaded the proprietary nVidia driver and set up
>>> Xwindows for it. That was it. I can see where WinTrolls would find
>>> this process an "extremely difficult" one to accomplish. That clicking
>>> on icons is a real strain.
>>
>> So your system supports an 8 year old defunct video card.
>>
>> Nice.
>>
>> How does X-Moto play?
> 
>    ...in which case he can get himself an nv8x00 or nv9x00 or nv 2x0.
> 
>    My passive cooled 8400 was $40 when I got it. It supports vdpau B.
> 
> [nonsense]

It's a small form factor computer -- I don't want that much added heat in 
the case. Besides, I don't play X-Moto (whatever the hell that is). I'm 
more concerned with doing "serious" work. :)

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/13/2010 5:26:28 PM
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 05:41:33 -0600, Rick wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:10:37 -0800, RayLopez99 wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 13, 10:31 am, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe.
>> 
>> RonB, you are certainly no genius, and a one-trick pony with your
>> preoccupation with Linux, but truth be told nobody is willing to spend
>> the time to learn Linux that you have invested.
> 
> You wouldn't know te truth if it slapped you in the face.
> 
> 
>> How many hours, days, weeks, months or years have you put into Linux
>> learning how to get it to run?  I bet a few man-years.
>> 
>> RL
> 
> How many hours, days, weeks, months or years has the average Windows
> user put into Windows  learning how to get it to run?  I bet a few
> man-years.

Just the time it takes to learn the names of all the Windows anti-malware 
and anti-virus applications is significant.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/13/2010 5:30:14 PM
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:40:47 +0000, Ruel Smith wrote:

> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> said on 2010-03-13:
>> Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe.
>>
>> I finally broke down and bought a $10, 64MB nVidia MX440 video card to
>> replace my onboard Intel graphics chip.
>>
>> In VectorLinux I had to run VASM (VectorLinux Administration and System
>> Menu) in root and set up X Windows.
> 
> X Window System not X Windows.

Oh well, sue me. 
 
>> It asked if I wanted to load the nVidia proprietary drivers, I clicked
>> yes, and watched as VectorLinux installed the driver and compiled the
>> nVidia kernel.
>>
>> Then I tried a Live Mint 8 boot. It came up working, but on the bottom
>> it informed me that a proprietary nVidia driver was available, which
>> would give better video performance. Do I want to load it? Yes, then I
>> watched as Mint downloaded the proprietary nVidia driver and set up
>> Xwindows for it. That was it.
>>
>>
> GNU/Linux has come a long way. Hardware compatibility problems are
> decreasing rapidly and distributions are making it easier for users to
> install peripherals without much intervention. Windows 7 has a similar
> outlook towards newly installed peripherals; it suggests to look for new
> drivers and installs it without much user intervention. Operating
> systems are getting better.

The point being that the constant, drooling, WinTroll drooling about how 
"hard" it is to maintain and install Linux is pure FUD.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/13/2010 5:32:17 PM
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig78C641B85D2484EFDDE42C17
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2010-03-13, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe.=20
>>>
>>> I finally broke down and bought a $10, 64MB nVidia MX440 video card t=
o=20
>>> replace my onboard Intel graphics chip. (Yeah, I'm a big spender.) So=
 how=20
>>> hard was that to set it up in Linux? I've done it twice (and I'm goin=
g to=20
>>> get one for the CentOS box as well).=20
>>>
>>> In VectorLinux I had to run VASM (VectorLinux Administration and Syst=
em=20
>>> Menu) in root and set up X Windows. (VASM is used for just about any =

>>> change in VectorLinux.) It asked if I wanted to load the nVidia=20
>>> proprietary drivers, I clicked yes, and watched as VectorLinux instal=
led=20
>>> the driver and compiled the nVidia kernel. Whoa! Good thing I'm a "su=
per=20
>>> genius" because I hear normal geniuses aren't capable of something so=
=20
>>> complicated.
>>>
>>> Then I tried a Live Mint 8 boot. It came up working, but on the botto=
m it=20
>>> informed me that a proprietary nVidia driver was available, which wou=
ld=20
>>> give better video performance. Do I want to load it? Yes, then I watc=
hed=20
>>> as Mint downloaded the proprietary nVidia driver and set up Xwindows =
for=20
>>> it. That was it. I can see where WinTrolls would find this process an=
=20
>>> "extremely difficult" one to accomplish. That clicking on icons is a =
real=20
>>> strain.  =20
>> So your system supports an 8 year old defunct video card.

There is nothing defunct about a Nvidia GeForce2 MX/MX400 GPU based
graphics adapter, you fscking incompetent moron.

On GNU/Linux it still works, such in contrast to that POS called
Microsoft Windows.

I'm using such a graphics adapter on my old Dell Optiplex GX240 and it
even runs Compiz-Fusion without a glitch.

I threw x versions of Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Fedora, MacPuppy - and just name
it - at it.

Currently running openSUSE 11.2 on that box, including the proprietary
Nvidia driver.

Pray tell "Hadron" please explain why you feel the need to humiliate
yourself, by exposing your incompetence and stupidity in public over and
over and over again.

I-D-I-O-T !!!

>>
>> Nice.
>>
>> How does X-Moto play?
>=20
>    ...in which case he can get himself an nv8x00 or nv9x00 or nv 2x0.
>=20
>    My passive cooled 8400 was $40 when I got it. It supports vdpau B.
>=20
> [nonsense]
>=20

--=20
|_|0|_| Marti van Lin
|_|_|0| http://osgeex.blogspot.com
|0|0|0| Microsoft: Who will we blame today?



--------------enig78C641B85D2484EFDDE42C17
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkubzdIACgkQGMDMmvGgtYDLiACfV9kSBK9hXSxCDwXSJxaepVV8
hgEAn3isV9r5LldDx3KJqmshBVfkQ4BI
=MqCC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig78C641B85D2484EFDDE42C17--
0
ml2mst1 (1210)
3/13/2010 5:39:17 PM
On Mar 13, 8:38=A0am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 1:41=A0pm, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > How many hours, days, weeks, months or years have you put into Linux
> > > learning how to get it to run? =A0I bet a few man-years.
>
> > > RL
>
> > How many hours, days, weeks, months or years has the average Windows us=
er
> > put into Windows =A0learning how to get it to run? =A0I bet a few man-y=
ears.
>
> If so, all the more reason not to switch to Linux, once you have
> invested so much time learning Windows. =A0Why give up this advantage
> just to spend as much if not more time learning an inferior OS like
> Linux.

Stability.  Security.  Privacy.  You have a peculiar vision of
"inferior".

> Keywords: =A0horse, mid-stream, change.

Why would anyone adopt the telephone when there are messengers
everywhere?

> RL
0
unionpenny1 (266)
3/13/2010 6:36:27 PM
On Mar 13, 9:26=A0am, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:30:18 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> > On 2010-03-13, Hadron <hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >>> Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe.
>
> >>> I finally broke down and bought a $10, 64MB nVidia MX440 video card t=
o
> >>> replace my onboard Intel graphics chip. (Yeah, I'm a big spender.) So
> >>> how hard was that to set it up in Linux? I've done it twice (and I'm
> >>> going to get one for the CentOS box as well).
>
> >>> In VectorLinux I had to run VASM (VectorLinux Administration and
> >>> System Menu) in root and set up X Windows. (VASM is used for just
> >>> about any change in VectorLinux.) It asked if I wanted to load the
> >>> nVidia proprietary drivers, I clicked yes, and watched as VectorLinux
> >>> installed the driver and compiled the nVidia kernel. Whoa! Good thing
> >>> I'm a "super genius" because I hear normal geniuses aren't capable of
> >>> something so complicated.
>
> >>> Then I tried a Live Mint 8 boot. It came up working, but on the botto=
m
> >>> it informed me that a proprietary nVidia driver was available, which
> >>> would give better video performance. Do I want to load it? Yes, then =
I
> >>> watched as Mint downloaded the proprietary nVidia driver and set up
> >>> Xwindows for it. That was it. I can see where WinTrolls would find
> >>> this process an "extremely difficult" one to accomplish. That clickin=
g
> >>> on icons is a real strain.
>
> >> So your system supports an 8 year old defunct video card.
>
> >> Nice.
>
> >> How does X-Moto play?
>
> > =A0 =A0...in which case he can get himself an nv8x00 or nv9x00 or nv 2x=
0.
>
> > =A0 =A0My passive cooled 8400 was $40 when I got it. It supports vdpau =
B.
>
> > [nonsense]
>
> It's a small form factor computer -- I don't want that much added heat in
> the case. Besides, I don't play X-Moto (whatever the hell that is). I'm
> more concerned with doing "serious" work. :)

Don't be silly!  You know MS Word does not run on Linux ;)
(Hi Ray!)

> --
> RonB
> Registered Linux User #498581
> CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

0
unionpenny1 (266)
3/13/2010 6:38:26 PM
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:38:33 -0800, RayLopez99 wrote:

> If so, all the more reason not to switch to Linux, once you have
> invested so much time learning Windows.  Why give up this advantage just
> to spend as much if not more time learning an inferior OS like Linux.

Sure. "Inferior." Runs on equipment Windows is too bloated to use. Is 
faster. Is secure and is stable -- and you don't need anti-malware or anti-
virus software to go on the Internet.

Strange definition of "inferior" there.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/13/2010 7:35:14 PM
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 18:39:17 +0100, Marti van Lin wrote:

> There is nothing defunct about a Nvidia GeForce2 MX/MX400 GPU based
> graphics adapter, you fscking incompetent moron.
> 
> On GNU/Linux it still works, such in contrast to that POS called
> Microsoft Windows.
> 
> I'm using such a graphics adapter on my old Dell Optiplex GX240 and it
> even runs Compiz-Fusion without a glitch.
> 
> I threw x versions of Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Fedora, MacPuppy - and just name
> it - at it.
> 
> Currently running openSUSE 11.2 on that box, including the proprietary
> Nvidia driver.
> 
> Pray tell "Hadron" please explain why you feel the need to humiliate
> yourself, by exposing your incompetence and stupidity in public over and
> over and over again.
> 
> I-D-I-O-T !!!

In my opinion this nVidia GeForce4 (MX440, 64MB) is a really good video 
card at $10 -- and it definitely runs everything I need. I picked it 
because it uses a big heat sink instead of a fan (I hate adding another 
fan to my computer). I also put one on my son's GX240 XP machine and it 
does well there, too.

If it's too old to run in Vista or Windows 7 oh well -- it's not like I'm 
ever running that bloated crapware anyhow. Besides, if I got a lobotomy 
and decided I wanted to install Windows 7, I would have to get a new 
computer anyhow.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/13/2010 7:44:18 PM
RonB wrote:

> 
> If it's too old to run in Vista or Windows 7 oh well -- it's not like I'm 
> ever running that bloated crapware anyhow. Besides, if I got a lobotomy 
> and decided I wanted to install Windows 7, I would have to get a new 
> computer anyhow.
> 

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1073/895461709_1ff679188f.jpg


Nice case, WrongB.
0
t.thorda (13)
3/13/2010 8:51:25 PM
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:38:33 -0800, RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Mar 13, 1:41 pm, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
>> > How many hours, days, weeks, months or years have you put into Linux
>> > learning how to get it to run?  I bet a few man-years.
>>
>> > RL
>>
>> How many hours, days, weeks, months or years has the average Windows
>> user put into Windows  learning how to get it to run?  I bet a few
>> man-years.
>>
>>
> 
> If so, all the more reason not to switch to Linux, once you have
> invested so much time learning Windows.  Why give up this advantage just
> to spend as much if not more time learning an inferior OS like Linux.
> 
> Keywords:  horse, mid-stream, change.
> 
> RL

Your premise is flawed. Linux is not an inferior OS compared to Windows. 
Why continue to waste your time with Windows when you can learn to use a 
superior system?

-- 
Rick
0
none5467 (1279)
3/13/2010 9:50:21 PM
Rick stated in post PKidnc5ixpkAlQHWnZ2dnUVZ_r4AAAAA@supernews.com on
3/13/10 2:50 PM:

> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:38:33 -0800, RayLopez99 wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 13, 1:41�pm, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>> How many hours, days, weeks, months or years have you put into Linux
>>>> learning how to get it to run? �I bet a few man-years.
>>> 
>>>> RL
>>> 
>>> How many hours, days, weeks, months or years has the average Windows
>>> user put into Windows �learning how to get it to run? �I bet a few
>>> man-years.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> If so, all the more reason not to switch to Linux, once you have
>> invested so much time learning Windows.  Why give up this advantage just
>> to spend as much if not more time learning an inferior OS like Linux.
>> 
>> Keywords:  horse, mid-stream, change.
>> 
>> RL
> 
> Your premise is flawed. Linux is not an inferior OS compared to Windows.

For general use, how could you argue otherwise?

> Why continue to waste your time with Windows when you can learn to use a
> superior system?



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
3/13/2010 10:59:49 PM
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:51:25 -0800, Thomas Thordarsen wrote:

> RonB wrote:
> 
> 
>> If it's too old to run in Vista or Windows 7 oh well -- it's not like
>> I'm ever running that bloated crapware anyhow. Besides, if I got a
>> lobotomy and decided I wanted to install Windows 7, I would have to get
>> a new computer anyhow.
>> 
>> 
> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1073/895461709_1ff679188f.jpg
> 
> 
> Nice case, WrongB.

Wow, I'll bet this floored 7th grade classmates!

Leave, grow up and come back when you develop a brain.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/14/2010 2:42:00 AM
On 2010-03-13, Marti van Lin <ml2mst@gmail.com> wrote:

Some nameless troll wrote:

>>> So your system supports an 8 year old defunct video card.
>
> There is nothing defunct about a Nvidia GeForce2 MX/MX400 GPU based
> graphics adapter, you fscking incompetent moron.

GentooPenguin$ /usr/sbin/lspci | grep VGA 

01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV18 [GeForce4 MX
440 AGP 8x] (rev a2)

--------------------

I suppose if you run Windows you are forced into a Hardware Upgrade
Cycle due to software bloat. Linux users can continue to use their
expensive hardware until it actually *breaks*.

My computer may be 8 years old but it runs beautifully. I recently
pulled it all apart, cleaned out all orifices (fans etc) and renewed the
thermal paste on the heatsink/fan assembly on the CPU. I also installed
a new 1TB drive and doubled its memory to 2GB. It'll run for
years and the only reason I'd dump it was if the motherboard failed. At
the moment it not only works as a desktop and a server, it also runs
MythTV and is our DVR.

> On GNU/Linux it still works, such in contrast to that POS called
> Microsoft Windows.

Yep... software bloat which supports the sale of new hardware
unnecessarily.

BTW, This computer with its "defunct" graphics card has been running
Gentoo for just about its whole life without a reinstall. Previously it
had a Linux From Scratch install. I've no plans for dumping it.

When there are news reports about all the e-waste poisoning the
environment we know where to turn when looking for culprits.

-- 
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
0
ZekeGregory (6440)
3/14/2010 4:43:40 AM
On Mar 13, 8:36=A0pm, Vaughn Bode <unionpe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why would anyone adopt the telephone when there are messengers
> everywhere?


False analogy.  You have not shown why Linux is SUPERIOR to Windows,
aside from FUD claims about security.

A better analogy:  you have fiber optic communications including
Skype. This is Windows.  Now somebody comes along and says you should
switch to a land line, a traditional POTS telephone system (and old
fashioned telephone).  This is Linux.  While POTS is not bad, why
would I switch to something that's not superior to what I've got?  And
lose all the time and money invested in what I got now?

That's the question you have failed to answer.

RL

0
raylopez88 (1520)
3/14/2010 3:21:33 PM
On Mar 13, 9:35=A0pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sure. "Inferior." Runs on equipment Windows is too bloated to use. Is
> faster. Is secure and is stable -- and you don't need anti-malware or ant=
i-
> virus software to go on the Internet.
>

Not true.  I converted a system, an old Pentium II, that was running
fine on Windows 2000, to Linux, and now it is a doorstop.  Linux
failed on it.  Truth is, I was going to trash the system anyway, but
the point is it was running fine on Windows.

RL


0
raylopez88 (1520)
3/14/2010 3:22:56 PM
On 2010-03-13, RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 13, 1:41 pm, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> > How many hours, days, weeks, months or years have you put into Linux
>> > learning how to get it to run?  I bet a few man-years.
>>
>> > RL
>>
>> How many hours, days, weeks, months or years has the average Windows user
>> put into Windows  learning how to get it to run?  I bet a few man-years.
>>
>
>
> If so, all the more reason not to switch to Linux, once you have
> invested so much time learning Windows.  Why give up this advantage
> just to spend as much if not more time learning an inferior OS like
> Linux.
>
> Keywords:  horse, mid-stream, change.

    Yeah. But the horse is diseased.

-- 

	Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good.      |||
                                                                     / | \
0
jedi (14754)
3/14/2010 3:27:16 PM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:22:56 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Mar 13, 9:35 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Sure. "Inferior." Runs on equipment Windows is too bloated to use. Is
>> faster. Is secure and is stable -- and you don't need anti-malware or
>> anti- virus software to go on the Internet.
>>
>>
> Not true.  I converted a system, an old Pentium II, that was running
> fine on Windows 2000, to Linux, and now it is a doorstop.  Linux failed
> on it.  Truth is,

.... you failed on it.
(snip)

-- 
Rick
0
none5467 (1279)
3/14/2010 3:27:48 PM
On Mar 13, 3:31 am, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe.
>
> I finally broke down and bought a $10, 64MB nVidia MX440 video card to
> replace my onboard Intel graphics chip. (Yeah, I'm a big spender.)

definitely not a big spender. just someone who uses crap hardware with
a crap os.

..
> So how
> hard was that to set it up in Linux? I've done it twice (and I'm going to
> get one for the CentOS box as well).

you seem to think that getting it to work with linux was enough of an
accomplishment that you felt the need to make a post.


> In VectorLinux I had to run VASM (VectorLinux Administration and System
> Menu)
had to run - so it was not automatically detected.

>  in root
just lost most users.

> and set up X Windows.
did you edit a few config files in vi or something

> (VASM is used for just about any
> change in VectorLinux.) It asked if I wanted to load the nVidia
> proprietary drivers, I clicked yes, and watched as VectorLinux installed
> the driver and compiled the nVidia kernel.
lucky you that it compiled and that you had all the crap it needed to
compile with.

> Whoa! Good thing I'm a "super
> genius" because I hear normal geniuses aren't capable of something so
> complicated.
it's 2010 and who the hell still needs to compile their own video
driver in this day and age.

> Then I tried a Live Mint 8 boot. It came up working, but on the bottom it
> informed me that a proprietary nVidia driver was available, which would
> give better video performance. Do I want to load it? Yes, then I watched
> as Mint downloaded the proprietary nVidia driver and set up Xwindows for
> it. That was it. I can see where WinTrolls would find this process an
> "extremely difficult" one to accomplish. That clicking on icons is a real
> strain.
>
> --
> RonB
> Registered Linux User #498581
> CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

0
linux-sux (841)
3/14/2010 3:27:59 PM
On 2010-03-13, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:30:18 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2010-03-13, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe.
>>>>
>>>> I finally broke down and bought a $10, 64MB nVidia MX440 video card to
>>>> replace my onboard Intel graphics chip. (Yeah, I'm a big spender.) So
>>>> how hard was that to set it up in Linux? I've done it twice (and I'm
>>>> going to get one for the CentOS box as well).
>>>>
>>>> In VectorLinux I had to run VASM (VectorLinux Administration and
>>>> System Menu) in root and set up X Windows. (VASM is used for just
>>>> about any change in VectorLinux.) It asked if I wanted to load the
>>>> nVidia proprietary drivers, I clicked yes, and watched as VectorLinux
>>>> installed the driver and compiled the nVidia kernel. Whoa! Good thing
>>>> I'm a "super genius" because I hear normal geniuses aren't capable of
>>>> something so complicated.
>>>>
>>>> Then I tried a Live Mint 8 boot. It came up working, but on the bottom
>>>> it informed me that a proprietary nVidia driver was available, which
>>>> would give better video performance. Do I want to load it? Yes, then I
>>>> watched as Mint downloaded the proprietary nVidia driver and set up
>>>> Xwindows for it. That was it. I can see where WinTrolls would find
>>>> this process an "extremely difficult" one to accomplish. That clicking
>>>> on icons is a real strain.
>>>
>>> So your system supports an 8 year old defunct video card.
>>>
>>> Nice.
>>>
>>> How does X-Moto play?
>> 
>>    ...in which case he can get himself an nv8x00 or nv9x00 or nv 2x0.
>> 
>>    My passive cooled 8400 was $40 when I got it. It supports vdpau B.
>> 
>> [nonsense]
>
> It's a small form factor computer -- I don't want that much added heat in 
> the case. Besides, I don't play X-Moto (whatever the hell that is). I'm 
> more concerned with doing "serious" work. :)

    My 8400 is running at 41C right now. I think this card comes as a low
profile version in just about any interface you can name. Dunno if they are
all fanless though. The lack of the fan helps the whole low profile thing.
This is not a slot stealing  monster like some of the more "trendy" cards.

-- 

	Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good.      |||
                                                                     / | \
0
jedi (14754)
3/14/2010 3:29:45 PM
On 2010-03-14, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:51:25 -0800, Thomas Thordarsen wrote:
>
>> RonB wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> If it's too old to run in Vista or Windows 7 oh well -- it's not like
>>> I'm ever running that bloated crapware anyhow. Besides, if I got a
>>> lobotomy and decided I wanted to install Windows 7, I would have to get
>>> a new computer anyhow.
>>> 
>>> 
>> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1073/895461709_1ff679188f.jpg
>> 
>> 
>> Nice case, WrongB.
>
> Wow, I'll bet this floored 7th grade classmates!
>
> Leave, grow up and come back when you develop a brain.

    You know, there was a design student that approached this concept as
a serious project. It was an interesting looking thing actually. It 
probably failed at all of it's "ecological" goals but it was kind a cool
in a terribly freakish sort of way.

-- 

	Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good.      |||
                                                                     / | \
0
jedi (14754)
3/14/2010 3:43:16 PM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 13, 9:35=C2=A0pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> > Sure. "Inferior." Runs on equipment Windows is too bloated to use.
> > Is faster. Is secure and is stable -- and you don't need
> > anti-malware or anti- virus software to go on the Internet.
> >
>=20
> Not true.  I converted a system, an old Pentium II, that was running
> fine on Windows 2000, to Linux, and now it is a doorstop.  Linux
> failed on it.  Truth is, I was going to trash the system anyway, but
> the point is it was running fine on Windows.
>=20
Cmon Ray, Iv runned slackware on 16mb 486 AMD 133mhz machine!
97'
With X (Enlightment+Gnome)! Those were days!

GReets!

--=20
http://maxa.homedns.org/

Sometimes online sometimes not


0
bmaxa209 (243)
3/14/2010 4:34:40 PM
On 2010-03-14, RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 13, 8:36 pm, Vaughn Bode <unionpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why would anyone adopt the telephone when there are messengers
>> everywhere?
>
>
> False analogy.  You have not shown why Linux is SUPERIOR to Windows,
> aside from FUD claims about security.

   They're not FUD, they're journalism.

[deletia]

   WinDOS has been a security mess since it was MS-DOS. Despite lots
of claims to the contrary, it really hasn't changed from this. It
might finally be fixed own in the very latest WinDOS version. Time 
will tell. OTOH, this is a very old promise that's typically broken.

-- 
	OpenDoc is moot when Apple is your one stop iShop.      |||
				                               / | \   
0
jedi (14754)
3/14/2010 4:38:10 PM
On Mar 14, 6:34=A0pm, Branimir Maksimovic <bm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Cmon Ray, Iv runned slackware on 16mb 486 AMD 133mhz machine!
> 97'
> With X (Enlightment+Gnome)! Those were days!

But if you try converting from one OS to another you often fail.  The
point was:  system ran fine under Windows 2000.  I tried to make it
into a Linux box, and it failed.

Another victory for staying with Windows, as well as the saying "if it
ain't broke, don't fix it".

Windows is not broke.  So no need to change.

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
3/14/2010 6:05:36 PM
On Mar 14, 6:38=A0pm, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

>
> =A0 =A0They're not FUD, they're journalism.

I see.  I get criticised for defining "serious work" as work done
under Windows (so you can exchange it with others), so I guess you can
define "FUD" as "journalism", but I would say my definition is more
logical.

And 90% of the people agree.

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
3/14/2010 6:07:01 PM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 14, 6:34=C2=A0pm, Branimir Maksimovic <bm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Cmon Ray, Iv runned slackware on 16mb 486 AMD 133mhz machine!
> > 97'
> > With X (Enlightment+Gnome)! Those were days!
>=20
> But if you try converting from one OS to another you often fail.  The
> point was:  system ran fine under Windows 2000.  I tried to make it
> into a Linux box, and it failed.
Windows 2000 is ancient you have to use distribution of that
time!
pII is pretty much blazingly fast with any OS from 98'.
You problably have at least 32mb of ram?

>=20
> Another victory for staying with Windows, as well as the saying "if it
> ain't broke, don't fix it".
>=20
> Windows is not broke.  So no need to change.

Of course, but what if support stops and there are no
updates? You can use that PC as table for coffee than ;)

Greets


--=20
http://maxa.homedns.org/

Sometimes online sometimes not


0
bmaxa209 (243)
3/14/2010 6:28:27 PM
On 2010-03-14, RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 14, 6:38 pm, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>>
>>    They're not FUD, they're journalism.
>
> I see.  I get criticised for defining "serious work" as work done

    You don't get to define those terms.

    You don't get to define FUD either really.

    There really is a difference between fear mongering and 20 years of 
media reports about all of the various forms of malware that have plagued
WinDOS.

[deletia]

    You have delusions of grandeur. You're not Big Brother.

-- 
     This is a consumer product.                                      |||
     World domination simply isn't necessary.                        / | \
0
jedi (14754)
3/14/2010 6:34:40 PM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:05:36 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Mar 14, 6:34 pm, Branimir Maksimovic <bm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Cmon Ray, Iv runned slackware on 16mb 486 AMD 133mhz machine! 97'
>> With X (Enlightment+Gnome)! Those were days!
> 
> But if you try converting from one OS to another you often fail.  The
> point was:  system ran fine under Windows 2000.  I tried to make it into
> a Linux box, and it failed.

I tried to make it into a Linux box, and you failed.

> 
> Another victory for staying with Windows, as well as the saying "if it
> ain't broke, don't fix it".
> 
> Windows is not broke.  So no need to change.
> 
Unless you want to ditch Windows ....


-- 
Rick
0
none5467 (1279)
3/14/2010 7:22:31 PM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:07:01 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Mar 14, 6:38 pm, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> 
> 
>>    They're not FUD, they're journalism.
> 
> I see.  I get criticised for defining "serious work" as work done under
> Windows (snip)

Yeah, you do. There's more to "serious work" than that which gets done 
under Windows.


-- 
Rick
0
none5467 (1279)
3/14/2010 7:23:42 PM
Rick stated in post 2MadnXLktsHqqgDWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@supernews.com on
3/14/10 12:22 PM:

> I tried to make it into a Linux box, and you failed.

Huh?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
3/14/2010 7:26:54 PM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:27:59 -0700, Adam Carter wrote:

> On Mar 13, 3:31 am, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Or so the "genius" WinTrolls would have you believe.
>>
>> I finally broke down and bought a $10, 64MB nVidia MX440 video card to
>> replace my onboard Intel graphics chip. (Yeah, I'm a big spender.)
> 
> definitely not a big spender. just someone who uses crap hardware with a
> crap os.
 
No, no -- you're not listening. I use Linux not Microsoft Crapware. Keep 
up or give up.

>> So how
>> hard was that to set it up in Linux? I've done it twice (and I'm going
>> to get one for the CentOS box as well).
> 
> you seem to think that getting it to work with linux was enough of an
> accomplishment that you felt the need to make a post.

Only because lying WinTrolls (like you) constantly claim that it's "hard" 
to install and maintain Linux. Your ilk make the "issue" and I'm just 
proving you're wrong.  

>> In VectorLinux I had to run VASM (VectorLinux Administration and System
>> Menu)
> had to run - so it was not automatically detected.
> 
>>  in root
> just lost most users.

No, I just lost most of the moron WinTrolls. Linux users and non-WinTrolls 
have no trouble with the concept.

>> and set up X Windows.
> did you edit a few config files in vi or something

Nope -- sorry about your reading comprehension problems, but I already 
told you what I did. Go back and review -- maybe take some notes -- then 
get back to me

>> (VASM is used for just about any
>> change in VectorLinux.) It asked if I wanted to load the nVidia
>> proprietary drivers, I clicked yes, and watched as VectorLinux
>> installed the driver and compiled the nVidia kernel.
> lucky you that it compiled and that you had all the crap it needed to
> compile with.

Not luck. VectorLinux is designed this way -- as is Mint and Ubuntu and... 
well, most Linux distributions (despite all the WinTroll FUD).

>> Whoa! Good thing I'm a "super
>> genius" because I hear normal geniuses aren't capable of something so
>> complicated.
> it's 2010 and who the hell still needs to compile their own video driver
> in this day and age.

I didn't compile it -- it was done automatically by VectorLinux. Do try to 
keep up -- or maybe just shut up if you can't be bothered to engage your 
brain.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/14/2010 8:27:56 PM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:22:56 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Mar 13, 9:35 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Sure. "Inferior." Runs on equipment Windows is too bloated to use. Is
>> faster. Is secure and is stable -- and you don't need anti-malware or
>> anti- virus software to go on the Internet.
>>
>>
> Not true.  I converted a system, an old Pentium II, that was running
> fine on Windows 2000, to Linux, and now it is a doorstop.  Linux failed
> on it.  Truth is, I was going to trash the system anyway, but the point
> is it was running fine on Windows.

You've already demonstrated that you're incompetent -- so what's it to me 
that you can't manage the simple task of getting Linux working... yet 
again.

Big difference between Linux and Windows 2000 is that Linux is a modern 
OS, Win2K is no longer supported.   

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/14/2010 8:30:49 PM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:05:36 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:

> But if you try converting from one OS to another you often fail.  The
> point was:  system ran fine under Windows 2000.  I tried to make it into
> a Linux box, and it failed.

No, you failed. That's the real point. You've proved your incompetence 
many times because only an idiot WinTroll can't get a modern Linux 
distribution installed and working on just about any box.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/14/2010 8:33:14 PM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:21:33 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:

> False analogy.  You have not shown why Linux is SUPERIOR to Windows,
> aside from FUD claims about security.

Right. FUD. How many anti-malware programs are available for Windows? All 
making money because of a supposed "non-problem."

Uh, huh.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/14/2010 8:34:27 PM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:07:01 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:

> And 90% of the people agree.

My imaginary 90% "agree" that the only serious work done on computers is 
the maintaining of Nortel Option switches. And my imaginary 90% are all 
geniuses -- unlike your imaginary 90%, who spend most of their waking 
hours drooling or emptying their own drool buckets. 

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/14/2010 8:37:39 PM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:23:42 -0500, Rick wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:07:01 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 14, 6:38 pm, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>    They're not FUD, they're journalism.
>> 
>> I see.  I get criticised for defining "serious work" as work done under
>> Windows (snip)
> 
> Yeah, you do. There's more to "serious work" than that which gets done
> under Windows.

What he means is it's "serious" work to keep Windows running. He's just 
having trouble expressing himself. After all, he's super busy, what with 
keeping his billion dollar empire running while trolling 24/7 on COLA.

It's not easy being cheesy -- as they say.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/14/2010 8:45:23 PM
RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:22:56 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>
>> On Mar 13, 9:35 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Sure. "Inferior." Runs on equipment Windows is too bloated to use. Is
>>> faster. Is secure and is stable -- and you don't need anti-malware or
>>> anti- virus software to go on the Internet.
>>>
>>>
>> Not true.  I converted a system, an old Pentium II, that was running
>> fine on Windows 2000, to Linux, and now it is a doorstop.  Linux failed
>> on it.  Truth is, I was going to trash the system anyway, but the point
>> is it was running fine on Windows.
>
> You've already demonstrated that you're incompetent -- so what's it to me 
> that you can't manage the simple task of getting Linux working... yet 
> again.
>
> Big difference between Linux and Windows 2000 is that Linux is a modern 
> OS, Win2K is no longer supported.   

Linux is not an OS. Didn't Rick tell you?
0
hadronquark (21814)
3/14/2010 8:48:31 PM
On Mar 14, 9:26=A0pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Rick stated in post 2MadnXLktsHqqgDWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdn...@supernews.com on
> 3/14/10 12:22 PM:
>
> > I tried to make it into a Linux box, and you failed.
>
> Huh?
>
> --
> [INSERT .SIG HERE]

Yeah poor Dick has illusions that he's helping me.

A failure for a human being, Dick is.

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
3/14/2010 8:50:51 PM
On Mar 14, 9:23=A0pm, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:

> Yeah, you do. There's more to "serious work" than that which gets done
> under Windows.

99% of people who don't use Linux would disagree with you, dick, while
the 1% that does agree is not worth an ant's piss.

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
3/14/2010 8:51:36 PM
On Mar 14, 10:34=A0pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:21:33 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
> > False analogy. =A0You have not shown why Linux is SUPERIOR to Windows,
> > aside from FUD claims about security.
>
> Right. FUD. How many anti-malware programs are available for Windows? All
> making money because of a supposed "non-problem."
>
> Uh, huh.

Logic is not your forte, bozo.

Installation of anti-malware programs on Windows makes security a "non-
problem", got it?

Or you can surf the net naked with Linux, which with less than 1%
market share has no viruses--precisely for that reason.

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
3/14/2010 8:53:23 PM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:53:23 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Mar 14, 10:34 pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:21:33 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>> > False analogy.  You have not shown why Linux is SUPERIOR to Windows,
>> > aside from FUD claims about security.
>>
>> Right. FUD. How many anti-malware programs are available for Windows?
>> All making money because of a supposed "non-problem."
>>
>> Uh, huh.
> 
> Logic is not your forte, bozo.
> 
> Installation of anti-malware programs on Windows makes security a "non-
> problem", got it?

No, it doesn't. If it was a non-problem you could just use Windows on the 
Internet, like you can just use Linux on the Internet. But the fact you 
have to install several security applications on Windows *trying* to fix 
security leaks, proves it's a Malware Magnet OS. 

Got it, dipshit?

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/14/2010 8:57:39 PM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:45:23 +0000, RonB wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:23:42 -0500, Rick wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:07:01 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mar 14, 6:38 pm, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>    They're not FUD, they're journalism.
>>> 
>>> I see.  I get criticised for defining "serious work" as work done
>>> under Windows (snip)
>> 
>> Yeah, you do. There's more to "serious work" than that which gets done
>> under Windows.
> 
> What he means is it's "serious" work to keep Windows running. He's just
> having trouble expressing himself. After all, he's super busy, what with
> keeping his billion dollar empire running while trolling 24/7 on COLA.
> 
> It's not easy being cheesy -- as they say.

Ahhhh.. that makes sense...
-- 
Rick
0
none5467 (1279)
3/14/2010 11:57:00 PM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:51:36 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Mar 14, 9:23 pm, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Yeah, you do. There's more to "serious work" than that which gets done
>> under Windows.
> 
> 99% of people who don't use Linux would disagree with you, dick, while
> the 1% that does agree is not worth an ant's piss.
> 
> RL


My name's not dick, dork, but then you knew that...

And who appointed you to speak for the people that don't use Linux 
systems? 

And AGAIN, There's more to "serious work" than that which gets done under 
Windows.


-- 
Rick
0
none5467 (1279)
3/14/2010 11:58:34 PM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:50:51 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Mar 14, 9:26 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> Rick stated in post 2MadnXLktsHqqgDWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdn...@supernews.com on
>> 3/14/10 12:22 PM:
>>

Great.. a typing error... I'll fix it for you.

>> > I tried to make it into a Linux box, and you failed.

You  tried to make it into a Linux box, and you failed.

>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> --
>> [INSERT .SIG HERE]
> 
> Yeah poor Dick has illusions that he's helping me.
> 
> A failure for a human being, Dick is.
> 
> RL

My name's not disk, dork. But then, you knew that. Can't make points any 
other way, huh? Too bad.. you didn't make any that way either.,

-- 
Rick
0
none5467 (1279)
3/15/2010 12:00:37 AM
Rick stated in post i4qdnbV83qA45QDWnZ2dnUVZ_rQAAAAA@supernews.com on
3/14/10 5:00 PM:

> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:50:51 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 14, 9:26�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> Rick stated in post 2MadnXLktsHqqgDWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdn...@supernews.com on
>>> 3/14/10 12:22 PM:
>>> 
> 
> Great.. a typing error... I'll fix it for you.
> 
>>>> I tried to make it into a Linux box, and you failed.
> 
> You  tried to make it into a Linux box, and you failed.

Do you not see how your "typo" greatly changed the meaning of your sentence?
> 
>>> 
>>> Huh?
>>> 
>>> --
>>> [INSERT .SIG HERE]
>> 
>> Yeah poor Dick has illusions that he's helping me.
>> 
>> A failure for a human being, Dick is.
>> 
>> RL
> 
> My name's not disk, dork. But then, you knew that. Can't make points any
> other way, huh? Too bad.. you didn't make any that way either.,



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
3/15/2010 12:14:16 AM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:14:16 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post i4qdnbV83qA45QDWnZ2dnUVZ_rQAAAAA@supernews.com on
> 3/14/10 5:00 PM:
> 
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:50:51 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mar 14, 9:26 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> Rick stated in post 2MadnXLktsHqqgDWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdn...@supernews.com on
>>>> 3/14/10 12:22 PM:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> Great.. a typing error... I'll fix it for you.
>> 
>>>>> I tried to make it into a Linux box, and you failed.
>> 
>> You  tried to make it into a Linux box, and you failed.
> 
> Do you not see how your "typo" greatly changed the meaning of your
> sentence?

No shit, Sherlock. That;s why I changed it...

BTW, you sure beg for my attention a lot.

-- 
Rick
0
none5467 (1279)
3/15/2010 12:17:17 AM
Rick stated in post i4qdnbZ83qAQ4QDWnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@supernews.com on
3/14/10 5:17 PM:

> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:14:16 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post i4qdnbV83qA45QDWnZ2dnUVZ_rQAAAAA@supernews.com on
>> 3/14/10 5:00 PM:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:50:51 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 14, 9:26�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> Rick stated in post 2MadnXLktsHqqgDWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdn...@supernews.com on
>>>>> 3/14/10 12:22 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> Great.. a typing error... I'll fix it for you.
>>> 
>>>>>> I tried to make it into a Linux box, and you failed.
>>> 
>>> You  tried to make it into a Linux box, and you failed.
>> 
>> Do you not see how your "typo" greatly changed the meaning of your
>> sentence?
> 
> No shit, Sherlock. That;s why I changed it...
> 
> BTW, you sure beg for my attention a lot.

As you say in a post where you do nothing but beg.

How hypocritical!


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


0
usenet2 (47889)
3/15/2010 12:20:38 AM
On Mar 15, 2:00=A0am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:

> My name's not disk, dork. But then, you knew that. Can't make points any
> other way, huh? Too bad.. you didn't make any that way either.,
>

Disk?  Your name is not Rick either--it's a pseudonym.

RL

Ha ha ha! Sie sind ein wirklicher Schauspieler. Halten Sie mich zu
lachen, Sie sind ein Bozo!

0
raylopez88 (1520)
3/15/2010 1:36:34 AM
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:36:34 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Mar 15, 2:00 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> My name's not disk, dork. But then, you knew that. Can't make points
>> any other way, huh? Too bad.. you didn't make any that way either.,
>>
>>
> Disk?  Your name is not Rick either--it's a pseudonym.
> 
> RL

My typing stinks. Here, I will fix the typo for you:
My name's not dick, dork.

Oh, yeah, my name is Rick. 


> 
> Ha ha ha! Sie sind ein wirklicher Schauspieler. Halten Sie mich zu
> lachen, Sie sind ein Bozo!

You're looking into a mirror again.

-- 
Rick
0
none5467 (1279)
3/15/2010 1:45:16 AM
On Mar 14, 1:53=A0pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 10:34=A0pm, RonB <ronb02NOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:21:33 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:
> > > False analogy. =A0You have not shown why Linux is SUPERIOR to Windows=
,
> > > aside from FUD claims about security.
>
> > Right. FUD. How many anti-malware programs are available for Windows? A=
ll
> > making money because of a supposed "non-problem."
>
> > Uh, huh.
>
> Logic is not your forte, bozo.
>
> Installation of anti-malware programs on Windows makes security a "non-
> problem", got it?

Not plugging the computer into the internet also makes it a "non-
problem".

Tens of thousands of virusus, botnets in the millions, this is not
FUD.  The anti-malware industry cannot keep up. Got it?

> Or you can surf the net naked with Linux, which with less than 1%
> market share has no viruses--precisely for that reason.
0
unionpenny1 (266)
3/15/2010 4:08:43 AM
On Mar 15, 6:08=A0am, Vaughn Bode <unionpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tens of thousands of virusus, botnets in the millions, this is not
> FUD. =A0The anti-malware industry cannot keep up. Got it?

The anti-malware industry is not a reason to adopt Linux.  And if you
don't believe me, then believe the 99% of the computing public that
does not adopt Linux.

You remind me of those fervent communists, who were convinced of their
righteousness.  But history proved them wrong, just as it has for
Linux.

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
3/15/2010 10:29:28 AM
On Mar 15, 3:45=A0am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:

> My breath stinks.
> My name's dick, dork.
>
>

Whatever Rick.  What has this to do with Linux advocacy?  You expect
to win me over, like moRonA, with insults?

Tell me why Linux is better than Windows, and tell me AFTER you have
tried Windows, and tell me why Linux is better in comparison to
Windows.

Probably a subject of a separate thread, which I will make.

RL
0
raylopez88 (1520)
3/15/2010 10:31:33 AM
RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mar 15, 3:45 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> My breath stinks.
>> My name's dick, dork.
>>
>>
>
> Whatever Rick.  What has this to do with Linux advocacy?  You expect
> to win me over, like moRonA, with insults?
>
> Tell me why Linux is better than Windows, and tell me AFTER you have
> tried Windows, and tell me why Linux is better in comparison to
> Windows.
>
> Probably a subject of a separate thread, which I will make.
>
> RL

Rick is now confused. You see Windows is more than the kernel. e.g
Windows 7 is an OS. Rick learnt this recently and thinks he is clever.

Linux is a mere kernel. And Th(R)ick's hero RMS gets annoyed if you forget to
put Gnu in front e.g

Debian Gnu/Linux.

Indeed, RMS openly refuses to discuss Linux based OSen if you don't use
the term Gnu in every reference to such SW. Almost as girly as Roy
refusing to help an OSS project unless they paid him.

0
hadronquark (21814)
3/15/2010 10:52:48 AM
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:31:33 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Mar 15, 3:45 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> My breath stinks.
>> My name's dick, dork.

Did that make you feel better, little boy?

>>
>>
>>
> Whatever Rick.  What has this to do with Linux advocacy?  You expect to
> win me over, like moRonA, with insults?

You insult me and then don't expect the return in kind? I don't expect to 
win you over at all. I expect to counter as many of your lies as possible.

> 
> Tell me why Linux is better than Windows, and tell me AFTER you have
> tried Windows, and tell me why Linux is better in comparison to Windows.

I've tried Windows. I use Windows every day.

> 
> Probably a subject of a separate thread, which I will make.

.... another pack of lies, which you will spew.

> 
> RL

At least my OSS newsreader, running under a Linux based distro, can 
properly insert signature delimiters.

-- 
Rick
0
none5467 (1279)
3/15/2010 11:26:43 AM
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 11:52:48 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Mar 15, 3:45 am, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> My breath stinks.
>>> My name's dick, dork.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Whatever Rick.  What has this to do with Linux advocacy?  You expect to
>> win me over, like moRonA, with insults?
>>
>> Tell me why Linux is better than Windows, and tell me AFTER you have
>> tried Windows, and tell me why Linux is better in comparison to
>> Windows.
>>
>> Probably a subject of a separate thread, which I will make.
>>
>> RL
> 
> Rick is now confused.

Wrong again, as usual.

> You see Windows is more than the kernel. e.g Windows 7 is an OS.

Did you just learn this from your teacher friends?

> Rick learnt this recently and thinks he is clever.

I have know the difference for quite a while. And you are a liar.

> 
> Linux is a mere kernel.

It is more than a "mere" kernel.

> And Th(R)ick's hero RMS gets annoyed if you
> forget to put Gnu in front e.g

Why are you such a dishonest child?

> 
> Debian Gnu/Linux.
> 
> Indeed, RMS openly refuses to discuss Linux based OSen if you don't use
> the term Gnu in every reference to such SW. Almost as girly as Roy
> refusing to help an OSS project unless they paid him.

What RMS refuses to discuss has very little relevance to me.

-- 
Rick
0
none5467 (1279)
3/15/2010 11:30:12 AM
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:29:28 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Mar 15, 6:08 am, Vaughn Bode <unionpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tens of thousands of virusus, botnets in the millions, this is not FUD.
>>  The anti-malware industry cannot keep up. Got it?
> 
> The anti-malware industry is not a reason to adopt Linux.  

The rampant Windows based malware is.

> And if you
> don't believe me, then believe the 99% of the computing public that does
> not adopt Linux.

"The computing public"? You mean all the ones that don't know about 
"Linux"? All the ones that think Internet Explorer is "the Internet"? All 
the ones that only know one way to open a document?

.... or the ones that make up 30% of the netbook network? Or the ones that 
make up 10% of the smartphone network?


> 
> You remind me of those fervent communists, who were convinced of their
> righteousness.  But history proved them wrong, just as it has for Linux.

Do you really believe the crud you spew?

> 
> RL

Oh, and get a better news client.

-- 
Rick
0
none5467 (1279)
3/15/2010 11:34:46 AM
On Søndag 14. mars 2010 17.34, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 08:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
> RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not true.  I converted a system, an old Pentium II, that was running
>> fine on Windows 2000, to Linux, and now it is a doorstop.  Linux
>> failed on it.  Truth is, I was going to trash the system anyway, but
>> the point is it was running fine on Windows.
>> 
> Cmon Ray, Iv runned slackware on 16mb 486 AMD 133mhz machine!
> 97'
> With X (Enlightment+Gnome)! Those were days!

Well - at the risk of sounding like a Yorkshireman, I ran Slackware 
1.0something on a 386sx, 25 MHz, 8 MB, back in 1994 - kernel 0.99.13, as I 
recall. In those times it was usual to configure and compile your own 
kernel, which took about 25 hours on that box :-) :-)  Oh, and twm windows 
manager.
Last time I compiled a kernel, about 5 years ago, it took about 15 minutes -
 
> GReets!
> 

0
invalid24 (29)
3/15/2010 12:00:06 PM
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:31:33 -0700, RayLopez99 wrote:

> Whatever Rick.  What has this to do with Linux advocacy?  You expect to
> win me over, like moRonA, with insults?

Oh, poor RayLopez. He never insults or lies, he's always the victim. More 
trolling tactics.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0
0
ronb02noSPAM (7426)
3/15/2010 5:35:52 PM
On 2010-03-14, RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 14, 9:23 pm, Rick <n...@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, you do. There's more to "serious work" than that which gets done
>> under Windows.
>
> 99% of people who don't use Linux would disagree with you, dick, while

    Not likely. More likely is that a large proportion of that 99% realize
that serious work gets done with something other than their own pet patform.
OTOH, most of that 99% doesn't even have a "pet platform" and really doesn't
care about such custom crafted bits of terminology.

    They simply don't have the axe to grind.

    Most WinDOS users simply don't care.

> the 1% that does agree is not worth an ant's piss.
>
> RL


-- 
	iTunes is not progressive. It's a throwback.		|||
							       / | \
0
jedi (14754)
3/16/2010 2:36:07 AM
Reply: