f



"Real OS" vs. "Toy OS"

Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:


> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.


Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux weirdos, it
must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):

* can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when Munich
Germany installs just 14,000

* that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but when
you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?" or silence or
sometimes a click and then silence.

* that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend Linux a
veneer of badly needed usability and respectability

* that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an odd
subculture

* that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone

* that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps

* that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
machine

No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.


0
nospam21 (19047)
7/14/2004 2:45:28 PM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

80 Replies
757 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 17

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> 
> 
>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
> 
> 
> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux weirdos, it
> must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
> 
> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when
> Munich Germany installs just 14,000
> 
Wrong information doofus, not sold but BUNDLED (as in forced).

> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but when
> you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?" or silence
> or sometimes a click and then silence.
> 

Wrong again, Dell just told M$hit to fuck off entirely.

> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
> Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
> 

Which "features" would those be? Actually, it is the other way around if
you bothered to check.

> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an odd
> subculture
> 

Alternative does not mean subculture at all, it means rather a CHOICE.

> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
> 

By M$hit cronies only.

> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
> 

Now that is funny.

> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
> machine
> 

You are seriously deluded. They do not "run" slower at all, they are
merely not TSRs (like the VAST majority of the alternative).

> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.

Plenty of humor here, we get plenty of laughs from the feeble attempts
from the likes of yourself who obviously know absolutely nothing at all
about what you speak of.

0
nunya
7/14/2004 8:18:33 AM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:12:29 -0400, DFS wrote:

> nunya wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>>
>>>
>>>Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux weirdos,
>>>it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>>
>>>* can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when
>>>Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>>
>>>
>> Wrong information doofus, not sold but BUNDLED (as in forced).
> 
> Nobody is forced to do anything, moron.  Those PC vendors aren't forced to
> offer WindowsXP, and you're not forced to buy those machines.
>
Really? Then WHY is it that numerous vendors (and customers as well) have
been strongarmed into paying for something bundled again?
> 
> 
>>>* that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but
>>>when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?" or
>>>silence or sometimes a click and then silence.
>>>
>>>
>> Wrong again, Dell just told M$hit to fuck off entirely.
> 
> Please tell me you're not serious, and that you're not really running
> around  believing this.
>
Do some research, heed your own advice for once.
http://www.newsforge.com/articles/04/07/07/1848210.shtml?tid=149
> 
> 
>>>* that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
>>>Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>>>
>>>
>> Which "features" would those be? Actually, it is the other way around
>> if you bothered to check.
> 
> Too many to list, actually: taskbar, taskbar sizing, Start button (or K
> or whatever) with Win95 style menu with distro name along left, show
> desktop, the way menu choices are selected/deselected, "Control
> Centers", cascading menus with pointers indicating more choices (ala
> Win95), little icons next to the menu choices, three form controls
> (min,restore,close), menu choices themselves (file, edit, view, options,
> window, help), file managers that list objects/higher levels on left,
> and details/lower levels on right, screen savers/screen
> saver-passwords/screen saver-power management, desktop shortcuts with a
> little arrow on them, right-click on the desktop to create new
> files/manage display, etc.
> 
> It goes on and on and on.
> 
Pop quiz, which one of those was an M$hit "feature" or innovation that was
not taken (read stolen) from open source software?
Answer: NONE
> 
> 
>>>* that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an odd
>>>subculture
>>>
>>>
>> Alternative does not mean subculture at all, it means rather a CHOICE.
> 
> Don't ever forget FREE!
>
You seem to be hung up on the concept of "free" again. There is nothing
that I can remember ever being totally free. "Free" software has a price,
whether it be monetary to a developer or the price of an internet
connection to download source files.
>
> 
>>>* that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>>
>>>
>> By M$hit cronies only.
> 
> By the general uninformed public.
> 
Which equates to M$hit cronies who know no better.
Obviously, the M$ marketing machine has done a fine job there.
> 
> 
>>>* that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>>>
>>>
>> Now that is funny.
> 
> It is, isn't it?  The best apps are created for Windows, then Linux
> copies their features, shamelessly and blatantly.
> 
That would be "best apps" as in what? Viruses, trojans, backdoors,
spyware, adware ........ the list goes on and on.
If we talk gaming however, then you are correct. The M$hit platform is a
good one for gaming, and very little else.
> 
> 
>>>* that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
>>>machine
>>>
>>>
>> You are seriously deluded. They do not "run" slower at all, they are
>> merely not TSRs (like the VAST majority of the alternative).
> 
> You'll just have to do some research.
> http://www.linuxgazette.com/book/view/5447
> 
> I'm not just making this up.  Try loading Excel under Windows, vs. Calc
> under Linux, on the same machine.
> 
TSR, ever heard of it? Obviously not ....... take your own research advice
and DO SOME.
> 
> 
> 
>>>No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
>> 
>> 
>> Plenty of humor here, we get plenty of laughs from the feeble attempts
>> from the likes of yourself who obviously know absolutely nothing at all
>> about what you speak of.
> 
> You're just deluded about Linux is all.  Nothing negative registers in
> your mind; it's like you have a firewall around your tiny brain to keep
> out the truth.
I have spent the last 10 years fixing M$hit running machines for a Fortune
500 company, because I am unaware and do not know anything about them.
Negative does register very well, everything you post is negative and
uninformed (not to mention being uneducated as to subject matter)
0
nunya
7/14/2004 11:21:53 AM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:11:21 -0400, DFS wrote:

> nunya wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:12:29 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> nunya wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>>>>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>>>>
>>>>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when
>>>>> Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Wrong information doofus, not sold but BUNDLED (as in forced).
>>>
>>> Nobody is forced to do anything, moron.  Those PC vendors aren't forced
>>> to offer WindowsXP, and you're not forced to buy those machines.
>>>
>> Really? Then WHY is it that numerous vendors (and customers as well)
>> have been strongarmed into paying for something bundled again?
> 
> Who?  When?  Where?
> 
Do some research
> 
> 
> 
>>>>> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but
>>>>> when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?"
>>>>> or silence or sometimes a click and then silence.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Wrong again, Dell just told M$hit to fuck off entirely.
>>>
>>> Please tell me you're not serious, and that you're not really running
>>> around  believing this.
>>>
>> Do some research, heed your own advice for once.
>> http://www.newsforge.com/articles/04/07/07/1848210.shtml?tid=149
> 
> You are a Linux moron.  Read the article again.
> 
I do not need to read it again, I CHOSE (foreign concept to you) to send
you there to determine if YOU actually can not only read english but
comprehend it. No, I did not at all miss the humor tag (nor the fictional
call line) the first time I read it.
> 
> 
>>>>> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
>>>>> Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Which "features" would those be? Actually, it is the other way around
>>>> if you bothered to check.
>>>
>>> Too many to list, actually: taskbar, taskbar sizing, Start button (or
>>> K or whatever) with Win95 style menu with distro name along left, show
>>> desktop, the way menu choices are selected/deselected, "Control
>>> Centers", cascading menus with pointers indicating more choices (ala
>>> Win95), little icons next to the menu choices, three form controls
>>> (min,restore,close), menu choices themselves (file, edit, view,
>>> options, window, help), file managers that list objects/higher levels
>>> on left,
>>> and details/lower levels on right, screen savers/screen
>>> saver-passwords/screen saver-power management, desktop shortcuts with
>>> a little arrow on them, right-click on the desktop to create new
>>> files/manage display, etc.
>>>
>>> It goes on and on and on.
>>>
>> Pop quiz, which one of those was an M$hit "feature" or innovation that
>> was not taken (read stolen) from open source software? Answer: NONE
> 
> Answer: ALL.
> 
Do some research. M$ has innovated NOTHING, EVER, in it's ENTIRE history.
> 
> 
>>>>> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an
>>>>> odd subculture
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Alternative does not mean subculture at all, it means rather a
>>>> CHOICE.
>>>
>>> Don't ever forget FREE!
>>>
>> You seem to be hung up on the concept of "free" again. There is nothing
>> that I can remember ever being totally free. "Free" software has a
>> price, whether it be monetary to a developer or the price of an
>> internet connection to download source files.
> 
> I'm not impressed.
> 
I am not attempting to impress anyone at all, I am a secure ADULT and not
a child.
> 
> 
>>>>> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> By M$hit cronies only.
>>>
>>> By the general uninformed public.
>>>
>> Which equates to M$hit cronies who know no better. Obviously, the M$
>> marketing machine has done a fine job there.
> 
> Linux needs some kind of consortium of vendors who can promote it
> better.
> 
Definitely NOT. You do not seem to comprehend the FACT that marketing and
media is what has caused the mess of M$hit being percieved as the "only"
OS "worth" using. Being trained by marketers and media is not "by choice"
at all in any way, shape, or form. It is simply BEING TRAINED. By your
logic, I should turn over my IT department to the marketing department,
that makes null sense even coming from yourself.
>
>
>>>>> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Now that is funny.
>>>
>>> It is, isn't it?  The best apps are created for Windows, then Linux
>>> copies their features, shamelessly and blatantly.
>>>
>> That would be "best apps" as in what?
> 
> As in virtually every app in every category of software.
>
Do some research. the term "best" applies only to gaming ........ not to
software in general, and surely is not the "be all, end all" of
"every category of software" in the least.
>
>
>> Viruses, trojans, backdoors,
>> spyware, adware ........ the list goes on and on.
> 
> Those aren't apps, boy.  Those are the creations of Linux crackers.
> 
They ARE apps child. You do not comprehend the slightest basic knowledge
of programming I see. You are obviously not more than a "point-clicky,
don't care what happens" user. And obviously are absolutely unaware that
the VAST majority of cracking software happens to be MADE FOR, RUNS ONLY
ON, and is BUILT ON WINDOWS.
The vast majority of Linux users and/or crackers have not the slightest
interest in anything M$hit AT ALL. Believing otherwise shows only more
training by marketers and media, not thinking for oneself.
> 
>> If we talk gaming however, then you are correct. The M$hit platform is
>> a good one for gaming, and very little else.
> 
> And for development, and office productivity, and multimedia, and
> graphics.
> 
Do some research, wrong on EVERY count given.
> 
> 
>>>>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the
>>>>> same machine
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You are seriously deluded. They do not "run" slower at all, they are
>>>> merely not TSRs (like the VAST majority of the alternative).
>>>
>>> You'll just have to do some research.
>>> http://www.linuxgazette.com/book/view/5447
>>>
>>> I'm not just making this up.  Try loading Excel under Windows, vs.
>>> Calc under Linux, on the same machine.
>>>
>> TSR, ever heard of it? Obviously not ....... take your own research
>> advice and DO SOME.
> 
> Damn.  Bring back Kelsey and Wolfgang - bring me someone with some
> smarts.
> 
You need not run away at all, merely DO SOME RESEARCH (other than reading
advertisements).
> 
> 
>>>>> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Plenty of humor here, we get plenty of laughs from the feeble
>>>> attempts from the likes of yourself who obviously know absolutely
>>>> nothing at all about what you speak of.
>>>
>>> You're just deluded about Linux is all.  Nothing negative registers in
>>> your mind; it's like you have a firewall around your tiny brain to
>>> keep out the truth.
> 
>> I have spent the last 10 years fixing M$hit running machines for a
>> Fortune 500 company, because I am unaware and do not know anything
>> about them. Negative does register very well, everything you post is
>> negative and uninformed (not to mention being uneducated as to subject
>> matter)
> 
> But you can't refute any of it, at all.
I need not refute anything at all, you have not made any valid assertions
at all. You have merely spewed marketing and media uneducated bullshit in
EVERY thread you have thus far been involved in.
Grow up and learn to THINK for yourself, you do not have to be a cloned
marketer anymore .......... there is CHOICE in this world.
0
nunya
7/14/2004 1:07:08 PM
On 2004-07-14, DFS <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>
>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>
>
> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux weirdos, it
> must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>
> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when Munich
> Germany installs just 14,000

    McDonalds sells a lot of crap too, as does Walmart. This doesn't
demonstrate anything in the way of relative quality.

>
> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but when
> you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?" or silence or
> sometimes a click and then silence.
>
> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend Linux a
> veneer of badly needed usability and respectability

	...as opposed to Microsoft trying to look like a MacOS clone?

[deletia]

	If you definition of "serious" is centered around the likes of
	Word Perfect and Lotus123 then Microsoft is the same sort of
	wannabe that you accuse Linux of being.

	This all of course ignores those aspects of an Operating System
	(versus the shell, or userland applications) that qualify it to
	be something other than a toy.

	This is the Microsoft mentality at work and demonstrates why it
	took so long for them to build a (somewhat) proper Macintosh 
	knockoff or put a real kernel underneath their consumer offering.

-- 
It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate. 

        They brought us the email virus.
                                                     
	In my Atari days, such a notion would have             |||
	been considered a complete absurdity.                 / | \



                                                     
0
jedi (14754)
7/14/2004 3:01:47 PM
DFS wrote:


> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
> 

by whom?

> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
> 

such as?

> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
> machine
> 

example?


0
jsw2f (18)
7/14/2004 3:15:13 PM
DFS wrote:

> Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> 
> 
>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
> 
> 
> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux weirdos, it
> must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
> 
> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when
> Munich Germany installs just 14,000

Hey, Budweiser sells a lot more beer than Sam Adams.

> 
> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but when
> you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?" or silence
> or sometimes a click and then silence.

Everyone knows that you are safe in a car during a lightening storm because
of the rubber tires. Just because everyone "knows" something, doesn't mean
it is true.

> 
> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend Linux
> a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability

Yet, Windows has to copy features from Linux to make it secure.

> 
> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an odd
> subculture

Alternative is good.

> 
> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone

I haven't heard that one. Again, just because people say it, doesn't mean
its right.

> 
> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps

Hmm, "clones" of Windows apps? My Linux apps don't crash.

> 
> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
> machine

That largely depends on the benchmark. Windows gains performance where it
lacks security. When the security is equal, Linux performs better. And
don't argue this is not important, because you can cry abut viruses and
instability in Windows without addressing the flaws that allow them.
> 
> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.

0
mlw (2191)
7/14/2004 3:46:22 PM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 +0000, DFS wrote:

> Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> 
> 
>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
> 
> 
> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux weirdos, it
> must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):

Wouldn't use the term 'toy', but it is a FACT that every version of MS-Win
up to Win98 was based on DOS. BTW MS stole DOS in the first place.

> 
> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when Munich
> Germany installs just 14,000

Aint' marketing great.

> 
> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but when
> you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?" or silence or
> sometimes a click and then silence.

See previous comment

> 
> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend Linux a
> veneer of badly needed usability and respectability

Copy what?????

> 
> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an odd
> subculture

It's always nice to have alternatives.

> 
> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone

So what's wrong with free beer?

> 
> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps

Only because inertia gives MS the advantage of more development resources.
Most Linux 'clones' are better than the MS equivalents.

> 
> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
> machine

Quite simply not true.

> 
> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.

I'm not hostile - you no likey, you no gotta usey. I've been told I have a
decent sense of humor; but anyway, better to be pissed off than pissed on.


0
ray65 (5421)
7/14/2004 4:34:34 PM
nunya wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
> 
> 
>>Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>
>>
>>Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux weirdos, it
>>must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>
>>* can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when
>>Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>
> 
> Wrong information doofus, not sold but BUNDLED (as in forced).

Nobody is forced to do anything, moron.  Those PC vendors aren't forced 
to offer WindowsXP, and you're not forced to buy those machines.



>>* that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but when
>>you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?" or silence
>>or sometimes a click and then silence.
>>
> 
> Wrong again, Dell just told M$hit to fuck off entirely.

Please tell me you're not serious, and that you're not really running 
around  believing this.



>>* that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
>>Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>>
> 
> Which "features" would those be? Actually, it is the other way around if
> you bothered to check.

Too many to list, actually: taskbar, taskbar sizing, Start button (or K 
or whatever) with Win95 style menu with distro name along left, show 
desktop, the way menu choices are selected/deselected, "Control 
Centers", cascading menus with pointers indicating more choices (ala 
Win95), little icons next to the menu choices, three form controls 
(min,restore,close), menu  choices themselves (file, edit, view, 
options, window, help), file managers that list objects/higher levels on 
left, and details/lower levels on right, screen savers/screen 
saver-passwords/screen saver-power management, desktop shortcuts with a 
little arrow on them, right-click on the desktop to create new 
files/manage display, etc.

It goes on and on and on.



>>* that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an odd
>>subculture
>>
> 
> Alternative does not mean subculture at all, it means rather a CHOICE.

Don't ever forget FREE!



>>* that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>
> 
> By M$hit cronies only.

By the general uninformed public.



>>* that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>>
> 
> Now that is funny.

It is, isn't it?  The best apps are created for Windows, then Linux 
copies their features, shamelessly and blatantly.



>>* that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
>>machine
>>
> 
> You are seriously deluded. They do not "run" slower at all, they are
> merely not TSRs (like the VAST majority of the alternative).

You'll just have to do some research. 
http://www.linuxgazette.com/book/view/5447

I'm not just making this up.  Try loading Excel under Windows, vs. Calc 
under Linux, on the same machine.




>>No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
> 
> 
> Plenty of humor here, we get plenty of laughs from the feeble attempts
> from the likes of yourself who obviously know absolutely nothing at all
> about what you speak of.

You're just deluded about Linux is all.  Nothing negative registers in 
your mind; it's like you have a firewall around your tiny brain to keep 
out the truth.



0
nospam21 (19047)
7/14/2004 5:12:29 PM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:18:33 +0000, nunya wrote this message:

<snip>
> Plenty of humor here, we get plenty of laughs from the feeble attempts
> from the likes of yourself who obviously know absolutely nothing at all
> about what you speak of.

DooFu$ knows zilch, & it shows. Now it seems he's just ranting & likely to
kook out. He's a self-deluded idiot & I, like others, finnaly binned the
jerk.  

-- 
-the leading virus distribution
program to date, Microsoft Windows, 
has seen many viruses spread.....
LinuxFORMAT magazine - June 2004.
0
willpoast (5106)
7/14/2004 5:45:39 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

DFS wrote:

>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>
> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux weirdos,
> it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>
> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when
> Munich Germany installs just 14,000

Actually, only a fraction of a percentage of those copies were sold
separately.  The fact that all the rest came bundled should tell you
what a monopoly can do to the market.

> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but
> when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?" or
> silence or sometimes a click and then silence.

I wouldn't know ... I haven't bought a pre-built machine over five
years.

> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
> Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>
> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>
> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps

I rearrange this so it becomes obvious that you're using the same
argument three times.  Let me list the programs I use the most often:

Konsole
Bash
Screen
Vim
GCC and GNU Make
Pine
Slrn
Irssi

For each one I'd like you to describe what Windows apps and
functionality have been "cloned".

> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an odd
> subculture

The word "alternative" doesn't have a negative association, though you
try to imply it.  Alternative just means it's not the most common
system.  Nobody is denying that.  However, being an alternative OS does
also give some protection in that it isn't a mono-culture.

> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
> machine

Blatant lie.

> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.

You'll probably find that we're only hostile towards people that act
like jerks.  Such as you.  Would a hostile person spend hours on IRC,
patiently helping newbies get started with Gentoo?

Is for humorless, I don't see it.  I often laugh at your stupidity and
ignorance :-)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA9Xfrd1ZThqotgfgRAuJqAJ9fxlFWmu3GutB8DDJMkyugFYX+VQCfXtF4
fuVXg38EI6OYjb4fBpcCJQU=
=eYUn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
PeKaJe

Know what I hate most?  Rhetorical questions.
		-- Henry N. Camp
0
usenet21 (2482)
7/14/2004 6:14:07 PM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:12:29 -0400, DFS wrote:

>> Which "features" would those be? Actually, it is the other way around if
>> you bothered to check.
> 
> Too many to list, actually: taskbar, taskbar sizing, Start button (or K 
> or whatever) with Win95 style menu with distro name along left, show 

Perhaps you are confusing Linux and KDE. That is not uncommon.

> desktop, the way menu choices are selected/deselected, "Control 
> Centers", cascading menus with pointers indicating more choices (ala 
> Win95), little icons next to the menu choices, three form controls 
> (min,restore,close), menu  choices themselves (file, edit, view, 
> options, window, help), file managers that list objects/higher levels on 
> left, and details/lower levels on right, screen savers/screen 
> saver-passwords/screen saver-power management, desktop shortcuts with a 
> little arrow on them, right-click on the desktop to create new 
> files/manage display, etc.

Those things may be relevant to someone who thinks Bill Gates invented
them all.

-- 
David Koski
david.nospham@KosmosIsland.com
!.nospham


0
7/14/2004 6:21:01 PM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux weirdos, it
> must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):

<snip>

Almost all of your arguments are about marketing and lack relevance to the
issue: "Real OS" vs. "Toy OS"

Read the subject line.

-- 
David Koski
david.nospham@KosmosIsland.com
!.nospham


0
7/14/2004 6:22:42 PM
nunya wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:12:29 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> nunya wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>>>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>>>
>>>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months
>>>> when Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Wrong information doofus, not sold but BUNDLED (as in forced).
>>
>> Nobody is forced to do anything, moron.  Those PC vendors aren't
>> forced to offer WindowsXP, and you're not forced to buy those
>> machines.
>>
> Really? Then WHY is it that numerous vendors (and customers as well)
> have been strongarmed into paying for something bundled again?

Who?  When?  Where?




>>>> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded -
>>>> but when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin
>>>> what?" or silence or sometimes a click and then silence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Wrong again, Dell just told M$hit to fuck off entirely.
>>
>> Please tell me you're not serious, and that you're not really running
>> around  believing this.
>>
> Do some research, heed your own advice for once.
> http://www.newsforge.com/articles/04/07/07/1848210.shtml?tid=149

You are a Linux moron.  Read the article again.



>>>> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
>>>> Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Which "features" would those be? Actually, it is the other way
>>> around if you bothered to check.
>>
>> Too many to list, actually: taskbar, taskbar sizing, Start button
>> (or K or whatever) with Win95 style menu with distro name along
>> left, show desktop, the way menu choices are selected/deselected,
>> "Control
>> Centers", cascading menus with pointers indicating more choices (ala
>> Win95), little icons next to the menu choices, three form controls
>> (min,restore,close), menu choices themselves (file, edit, view,
>> options, window, help), file managers that list objects/higher
>> levels on left,
>> and details/lower levels on right, screen savers/screen
>> saver-passwords/screen saver-power management, desktop shortcuts
>> with a little arrow on them, right-click on the desktop to create new
>> files/manage display, etc.
>>
>> It goes on and on and on.
>>
> Pop quiz, which one of those was an M$hit "feature" or innovation
> that was not taken (read stolen) from open source software?
> Answer: NONE

Answer: ALL.



>>>> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an
>>>> odd subculture
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Alternative does not mean subculture at all, it means rather a
>>> CHOICE.
>>
>> Don't ever forget FREE!
>>
> You seem to be hung up on the concept of "free" again. There is
> nothing that I can remember ever being totally free. "Free" software
> has a price, whether it be monetary to a developer or the price of an
> internet connection to download source files.

I'm not impressed.



>>>> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>>>
>>>>
>>> By M$hit cronies only.
>>
>> By the general uninformed public.
>>
> Which equates to M$hit cronies who know no better.
> Obviously, the M$ marketing machine has done a fine job there.

Linux needs some kind of consortium of vendors who can promote it better.



>>>> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Now that is funny.
>>
>> It is, isn't it?  The best apps are created for Windows, then Linux
>> copies their features, shamelessly and blatantly.
>>
> That would be "best apps" as in what?

As in virtually every app in every category of software.


> Viruses, trojans, backdoors,
> spyware, adware ........ the list goes on and on.

Those aren't apps, boy.  Those are the creations of Linux crackers.


> If we talk gaming however, then you are correct. The M$hit platform
> is a good one for gaming, and very little else.

And for development, and office productivity, and multimedia, and graphics.



>>>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the
>>>> same machine
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You are seriously deluded. They do not "run" slower at all, they are
>>> merely not TSRs (like the VAST majority of the alternative).
>>
>> You'll just have to do some research.
>> http://www.linuxgazette.com/book/view/5447
>>
>> I'm not just making this up.  Try loading Excel under Windows, vs.
>> Calc under Linux, on the same machine.
>>
> TSR, ever heard of it? Obviously not ....... take your own research
> advice and DO SOME.

Damn.  Bring back Kelsey and Wolfgang - bring me someone with some smarts.



>>>> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
>>>
>>>
>>> Plenty of humor here, we get plenty of laughs from the feeble
>>> attempts from the likes of yourself who obviously know absolutely
>>> nothing at all about what you speak of.
>>
>> You're just deluded about Linux is all.  Nothing negative registers
>> in your mind; it's like you have a firewall around your tiny brain
>> to keep out the truth.

> I have spent the last 10 years fixing M$hit running machines for a
> Fortune 500 company, because I am unaware and do not know anything
> about them. Negative does register very well, everything you post is
> negative and uninformed (not to mention being uneducated as to
> subject matter)

But you can't refute any of it, at all.




0
nospam21 (19047)
7/14/2004 7:11:21 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
<nospam@nospam.com>
 wrote
on Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400
<10fahpcqfnlge06@corp.supernews.com>:
> Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>
>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>
>
> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux weirdos, it
> must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>
> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when Munich
> Germany installs just 14,000

Well, one's gotta start somewhere. :-)  And I'm wondering
whether those XP sales numbers are for:

- real full license purchases
- upgrades
- OEM installations

I suspect the last to predominate.

>
> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it
> pre-loaded - but when you ask about Linux over the
> phone you're met with "Lin what?" or silence or
> sometimes a click and then silence.

I rarely purchase computers over the phone, myself.  However,
an interesting anomaly -- the place where I bought my
recent toy was unwilling to use its "abandonware" disk
(oh well) but it did mention strangely enough that they
couldn't keep Win98 in stock.  Now why is that?

(After its warranty expires I'm going to have to find
me a clone microprocessor and turn this Kayak into
a dual-headed beast.  With my luck Win98 will croak
after I do that.)

>
> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy"
> OS - to lend Linux a veneer of badly needed usability
> and respectability

And these are?

I am not happy with X cut and pasting -- mostly because
it's inconsistently implemented and rather complex.
(The programmer has a choice of using cut buffers or the
PRIMARY atom to initiate data transfer; INCR was added in
later to further enhance complexity but also to allow for
arbitrarily long pastes; the programmer also has to worry
about who has the selection token as only one window is
allowed to have it at a time.  I would have far preferred
for each application or widget to allow for highlighting
of the selection area regardless, but to attempt to take
the selection token only when it knows it has focus.
(A selected area without the token might be highlighted
as gray, for example.)  This also helps to solve the
"replace the selected text with the pasted text" problem.
Of course we're mimicking Windows here -- but that part
I'm proud to mimic; it's one of the few things Windows
does tolerably well.  There are also a number of issues
regarding pasting between formats; while X supports it
nicely (the owner provides the formats it supports; the
paster app picks the one it likes) I'm not knowledgeable
enough regarding standardization efforts in that area
outside of good old-fashioned UTF-8 text.)

But Windows is no better, really.  In fact, it's worse;
with X at least one merely needs to use one finger.
With Windows, one has to use two: CTRL + X, C, or V.
I've also lost count of the number of times I ended up
pasting the wrong thing because I did CTRL/C CTRL/V too
quickly.  With X, at least, I know where the text is
coming from -- it's highlighted.

>
> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost
> like it's an odd subculture

It is an alternative, and an odd subculture to those who
are used to the monothreading monolithic monopolistic
monoculture of Monows...erm, Windows.

>
> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone

That's simply ignorance.

>
> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps

Well, there are retraining costs to consider, not to mention
all of those archived documents in Word format.  It's a pity,
but offices have to deal with this issue.

>
> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows
> on the same machine

You've yet to prove this, bright boy.

>
> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
>

Projection.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
0
ewill4 (1430)
7/14/2004 8:00:27 PM
[snips]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux weirdos, it
> must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
> 
> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when Munich
> Germany installs just 14,000

McDonald's: Over 200 billion served.
Burger Heaven: nowhere near that many, despite *much* better quality
burgers.

Conclusion: McDonald's is real food, the other stuff is just wishful
thinking and we must be jealous of McD's success.

Failure to cope with reality: A gourmet burger joint *cannot* compete with
McD's in terms of volume or gross sales; if nothing else, not everyone
wants to wait 30 minutes for a  gourmet burger, when a 30-second wait
will get them sawdust and plastic cheese in sweetened buns.


> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but
> when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?" or
> silence or sometimes a click and then silence.

Must be dealing with some low-quality places, then.  Most of the places I
buy hardware, they may not offer Linux as a preinstall *yet*... but they
know about it and, in many cases, are considering offering it.

> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
> Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability

Copying features?  Like multi-user support?  Ooh, no, Linux had that
before Windows did.  Remote desktop support?  Hmm... X has had that a long
time now... and Windows just got it with XP.  Maybe you mean things like
multi-desktop support... whoops, no, Windows doesn't do that (except as an
unsupported add on).  Maybe it's other things, like the ability to run
your servers free of silly-ass connection limits?  Nope, Windows hasn't
got that.

Well... how about little things?  For example, my setup - which is the
default in at least two major distros - includes the ability to set up
image lists for wallpapers and automatically switch them - with about six
scaling/tiling settings.  I don't think Windows does that, does it?

Looks like Windows lacks a whole mess of features... and includes several
it actually copied from Linux - but poorly.

> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an odd
> subculture

If you have two options, each is an alternative.

> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone

By you, apparently.  I don't know anyone who has actually used, or even
seen Linux that says that.

> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps

Like Moz clones IE?  (When, exactly, did IE get popup blocking, tabbed
browsing, etc, included?) 

> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
> machine

I'm sure that can be true.  I might also point out that a) it's not
universally true by any means, and b) the notion of "faster" is somewhat
slippery without being very specific.  What part is slower - UI response
in X?  Application launches?  Total systemic throughput under load?


0
kelseyb (715)
7/14/2004 8:05:38 PM
"DFS" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<10fahpcqfnlge06@corp.supernews.com>...
> Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> 
> 
> > Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
> 
> 
> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux weirdos, it
> must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
> 
> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when Munich
> Germany installs just 14,000

Doesn't bother me a bit. I just feel sorry for all those stupid people
that have windoze shoved down their throats. Same way I feel sorry for
a rape victim. Or one of your dates.

> 
> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but when
> you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?" or silence or
> sometimes a click and then silence.
> 
See above. Ditto on your date. If you ever had one. Riding to the mall
with your mom doesn't count.

> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend Linux a
> veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
> 
Wrong. You don't know anything about Linux, so you should keep your
mouth shut. You don't talk about sex, do you?

> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an odd
> subculture
> 
People who refuse to follow the herd are seen as different. But the
herd usually ends up at the slaughter house. Is that where you want to
be?

> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
> 
I paid for my Linux. Even at $90, it is 100 times more valuable than
$200 windose achs-pee.

> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
> 
Wrong again. Where do you get this stuff? Meet a girl. Have a
relationship. Get put in jail.

> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
> machine
> 
Way wrong. Take a PC running any version of windows for 6 months or
longer. Put any distro on it and even the dumbest skeptic, like you,
will be amazed at how fast that old PC really is. That's one thing
that really scares OEMs. If you can take old equipment and do real
business computing on it, why do you need to invest in new equipment?
Not because someone wants to be able to read the newest version of
word documents.

> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
Wrong again, pizza face. You have no idea how hard we're laughing at
you.

Byedy-bye,

Andy C.(never #)

ps. your friends in microsoft.public.dont_have_a_clue miss you very
much. d:D
0
acamfield (102)
7/14/2004 8:12:28 PM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:12:29 -0400, DFS wrote:

> nunya wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>>
>>>
>>>Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux weirdos, it
>>>must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>>
>>>* can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when
>>>Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>>
>> 
>> Wrong information doofus, not sold but BUNDLED (as in forced).
> 
> Nobody is forced to do anything, moron.  Those PC vendors aren't forced 
> to offer WindowsXP, and you're not forced to buy those machines.

You really should read about network effects and monopoly power. You might
not look so stupid if you did some reading.

 
>>>* that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but when
>>>you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?" or silence
>>>or sometimes a click and then silence.
>>>
>> 
>> Wrong again, Dell just told M$hit to fuck off entirely.
> 
> Please tell me you're not serious, and that you're not really running 
> around  believing this.
> 
> 
> 
>>>* that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
>>>Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>>>
>> 
>> Which "features" would those be? Actually, it is the other way around if
>> you bothered to check.
> 
> Too many to list, actually: taskbar, taskbar sizing, Start button (or K 
> or whatever) with Win95 style menu with distro name along left, show 
> desktop, the way menu choices are selected/deselected,

NeXT had it's Dock first.

> "Control  Centers"

Apple had control panels before micro$oft had window$. IIRC, so did the
Amiga and ST.


> cascading menus with pointers indicating more choices (ala 
> Win95),

X Windows window managers had those long ago, and the Mac had them before
m$ had window$.

> little icons next to the menu choices,

IIRC, Apple.

> three form controls  (min,restore,close),

They were in X Windows years ago, if you wanted them. *nix gives you a
choice.

> menu  choices themselves (file, edit, view, 
> options, window, help),

Those options predate GUIs and micro$oft OSes.

> file managers that list objects/higher levels on 
> left, and details/lower levels on right,

Other GUIs had that before m$.

> screen savers/screen 

didn't come from micro$oft.

> saver-passwords/screen saver-power management, desktop shortcuts with a 
> little arrow on them, right-click on the desktop to create new 
> files/manage display, etc.
> 
> It goes on and on and on.

Yes, it does, and nothing you have listed originated with micro$oft.


>>>* that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an odd
>>>subculture
>>>
>> 
>> Alternative does not mean subculture at all, it means rather a CHOICE.
> 
> Don't ever forget FREE!

We don't. Free Software is an important concept.


>>>* that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>>
>> 
>> By M$hit cronies only.
> 
> By the general uninformed public.

The general uninformed public can't even tell you what an operating system
does. Even you can't tell the difference between an app (a text editor)
and an OS.

 
>>>* that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>>>
>> 
>> Now that is funny.
> 
> It is, isn't it?  The best apps are created for Windows, then Linux 
> copies their features, shamelessly and blatantly.

Like m$'s Excel copied VisiCalc?

>>>* that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
>>>machine
>>>
>> 
>> You are seriously deluded. They do not "run" slower at all, they are
>> merely not TSRs (like the VAST majority of the alternative).
> 
> You'll just have to do some research. 
> http://www.linuxgazette.com/book/view/5447
> 
> I'm not just making this up.  Try loading Excel under Windows, vs. Calc 
> under Linux, on the same machine.

Calc? Be specific.

 
>>>No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
>> 
>> 
>> Plenty of humor here, we get plenty of laughs from the feeble attempts
>> from the likes of yourself who obviously know absolutely nothing at all
>> about what you speak of.
> 
> You're just deluded about Linux is all.  Nothing negative registers in 
> your mind; it's like you have a firewall around your tiny brain to keep 
> out the truth.

You are just an ignorant bigot.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
7/14/2004 9:07:32 PM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:21:01 -0700, David Koski wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:12:29 -0400, DFS wrote:
> 
>>> Which "features" would those be? Actually, it is the other way around if
>>> you bothered to check.
>> 
>> Too many to list, actually: taskbar, taskbar sizing, Start button (or K 
>> or whatever) with Win95 style menu with distro name along left, show 
> 
> Perhaps you are confusing Linux and KDE. That is not uncommon.

He doesn't know the difference. He seems to think KDE is Linux. He doesn't
seem to have heard of Gnome, AfterStep, Blackbox, WindowMaker or any of
the others and he certainly can't tell the difference between an app and
the OS. He seems to think a text editor is integral to an OS.

> 
>> desktop, the way menu choices are selected/deselected, "Control 
>> Centers", cascading menus with pointers indicating more choices (ala 
>> Win95), little icons next to the menu choices, three form controls 
>> (min,restore,close), menu  choices themselves (file, edit, view, 
>> options, window, help), file managers that list objects/higher levels on 
>> left, and details/lower levels on right, screen savers/screen 
>> saver-passwords/screen saver-power management, desktop shortcuts with a 
>> little arrow on them, right-click on the desktop to create new 
>> files/manage display, etc.
> 
> Those things may be relevant to someone who thinks Bill Gates invented
> them all.

And he does think Gates & Co. invented those things.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
7/14/2004 9:09:46 PM
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>
>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when
>> Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>
> McDonald's: Over 200 billion served.
> Burger Heaven: nowhere near that many, despite *much* better quality
> burgers.
>
> Conclusion: McDonald's is real food, the other stuff is just wishful
> thinking and we must be jealous of McD's success.

Conclusion: Linux drips down over your chin, and you have to take strong
medicine to counteract its effects on your body.



> Failure to cope with reality: A gourmet burger joint *cannot* compete
> with McD's in terms of volume or gross sales; if nothing else, not
> everyone wants to wait 30 minutes for a  gourmet burger, when a
> 30-second wait will get them sawdust and plastic cheese in sweetened
> buns.

Failure to cope with reality: the gourmet burger is FREE! and still nobody
wants it.



>> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but
>> when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?"
>> or silence or sometimes a click and then silence.
>
> Must be dealing with some low-quality places, then.  Most of the
> places I buy hardware, they may not offer Linux as a preinstall
> *yet*... but they know about it and, in many cases, are considering
> offering it.

 1-866-597-8626




>> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
>> Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>
> Copying features?  Like multi-user support?  Ooh, no, Linux had that
> before Windows did.  Remote desktop support?  Hmm... X has had that a
> long time now... and Windows just got it with XP.  Maybe you mean
> things like multi-desktop support... whoops, no, Windows doesn't do
> that (except as an unsupported add on).  Maybe it's other things,
> like the ability to run your servers free of silly-ass connection
> limits?  Nope, Windows hasn't got that.


> Well... how about little things?  For example, my setup - which is the
> default in at least two major distros - includes the ability to set up
> image lists for wallpapers and automatically switch them - with about
> six scaling/tiling settings.  I don't think Windows does that, does
> it?

Like a slide show for wallpaper?  Yes, I saw that in KDE (I think it was).

Not a native WinServer2K3 feature (can't speak for XP).  However, available
here
http://drn.digitalriver.com/product.php%5Bid%5D77617%5Bcid%5D67%5BSiteID%5Dcomputerworld
for FREE!



> Looks like Windows lacks a whole mess of features... and includes
> several it actually copied from Linux - but poorly.

I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that wasn't
copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps.



>> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an
>> odd subculture
>
> If you have two options, each is an alternative.

Only Linux is labeled as such.


>> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>
> By you, apparently.  I don't know anyone who has actually used, or
> even seen Linux that says that.

Rightly or wrongly, that's often the perception.



>> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>
> Like Moz clones IE?  (When, exactly, did IE get popup blocking, tabbed
> browsing, etc, included?)

No, like Excel clones Calc and Gnumeric.  Like Word clone Writer.



>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
>> machine
>
> I'm sure that can be true.  I might also point out that a) it's not
> universally true by any means, and b) the notion of "faster" is
> somewhat slippery without being very specific.  What part is slower -
> UI response in X?  Application launches?  Total systemic throughput
> under load?

At least a and b, from what I've read.



0
nospam21 (19047)
7/14/2004 9:14:59 PM
Andrew Camfield wrote:
> "DFS" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<10fahpcqfnlge06@corp.supernews.com>...
>> Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>
>>
>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>
>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when
>> Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>
> Doesn't bother me a bit. I just feel sorry for all those stupid people
> that have windoze shoved down their throats.

At $100 to $300 a pop, they were glad to savor the Windows XPerience.


> Same way I feel sorry for
> a rape victim. Or one of your dates.

Who says they're different?



>> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded -
>> but when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin
>> what?" or silence or sometimes a click and then silence.
>>
> See above. Ditto on your date. If you ever had one. Riding to the mall
> with your mom doesn't count.

It might.  You haven't been to my hometown.



>> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
>> Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>>
> Wrong. You don't know anything about Linux, so you should keep your
> mouth shut.

If Linux didn't offer a certain amount of Windows look and feel it would go
nowhere fast.



> You don't talk about sex, do you?

???


>> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an
>> odd subculture
>>
> People who refuse to follow the herd are seen as different. But the
> herd usually ends up at the slaughter house. Is that where you want to
> be?

Yes, you Linux nuts definitely are different.



>> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>
> I paid for my Linux. Even at $90, it is 100 times more valuable than
> $200 windose achs-pee.

Funny, then, that you would never pay $20,000 for it.  Hell, you probably
wouldn't pay $200 for it.

You cola nuts will blab about how valuable Linux is, but absolutely refuse
to put your money where your mouth is.




>> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>>
> Wrong again. Where do you get this stuff?

From looking at OpenOffice, and various other Linux apps.



> Meet a girl. Have a relationship. Get put in jail.

I bet you get put in jail, then have many relationships.



>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
>> machine
>>
> Way wrong. Take a PC running any version of windows for 6 months or
> longer. Put any distro on it and even the dumbest skeptic, like you,
> will be amazed at how fast that old PC really is.

You haven't been keeping up with the Linux world, have you boy?

Everyone's complaining about KDE and OpenOffice.




> That's one thing
> that really scares OEMs. If you can take old equipment and do real
> business computing on it, why do you need to invest in new equipment?
> Not because someone wants to be able to read the newest version of
> word documents.

Much of the world DOES want to read the newest versions of Word .docs.
That's why MS is so rich.


>> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
> Wrong again, pizza face. You have no idea how hard we're laughing at
> you.

Good.  That makes the truth easier to swallow.


> Byedy-bye,
>
> Andy C.(never #)

Well said.


> ps. your friends in microsoft.public.dont_have_a_clue miss you very
> much. d:D

A fine bunch of fellows.


0
nospam21 (19047)
7/14/2004 9:26:09 PM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:14:59 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
(snip)
> 
> 
> 
>> Looks like Windows lacks a whole mess of features... and includes
>> several it actually copied from Linux - but poorly.
> 
> I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that wasn't
> copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps.

Name one original app that has come from micro$oft.

> 
> 
> 
>>> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an
>>> odd subculture
>>
>> If you have two options, each is an alternative.
> 
> Only Linux is labeled as such.

Really? BSD, Linux, window$, MacOS are all alternatives.

> 
> 
>>> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>
>> By you, apparently.  I don't know anyone who has actually used, or
>> even seen Linux that says that.
> 
> Rightly or wrongly, that's often the perception.

Education cures that misperception.

 
>>> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>>
>> Like Moz clones IE?  (When, exactly, did IE get popup blocking, tabbed
>> browsing, etc, included?)
> 
> No, like Excel clones Calc and Gnumeric.  Like Word clone Writer.

.... like VisiCalc clone Excel, and Electric Pencil clone Word...

> 
> 
> 
>>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
>>> machine
>>
>> I'm sure that can be true.  I might also point out that a) it's not
>> universally true by any means, and b) the notion of "faster" is
>> somewhat slippery without being very specific.  What part is slower -
>> UI response in X?  Application launches?  Total systemic throughput
>> under load?
> 
> At least a and b, from what I've read.

A. is NOT universally true.
B. thanks for agreeing 'faster' is perception.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
7/14/2004 9:39:01 PM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:26:09 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Andrew Camfield wrote:
>> "DFS" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:<10fahpcqfnlge06@corp.supernews.com>...
>>> Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>>
>>>
>>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>>
>>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when
>>> Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>
>> Doesn't bother me a bit. I just feel sorry for all those stupid people
>> that have windoze shoved down their throats.
> 
> At $100 to $300 a pop, they were glad to savor the Windows XPerience.
> 
> 
>> Same way I feel sorry for
>> a rape victim. Or one of your dates.
> 
> Who says they're different?

You are such a waste of flesh.

> 
> 
> 
>>> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded -
>>> but when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin
>>> what?" or silence or sometimes a click and then silence.
>>>
>> See above. Ditto on your date. If you ever had one. Riding to the mall
>> with your mom doesn't count.
> 
> It might.  You haven't been to my hometown.

You are such a waste of flesh.

> 
> 
> 
>>> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
>>> Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>>>
>> Wrong. You don't know anything about Linux, so you should keep your
>> mouth shut.
> 
> If Linux didn't offer a certain amount of Windows look and feel it would go
> nowhere fast.

My GUI environment looks nothing like window$. Neither do most IceWM,
Blackbox, FluxBox or WindowMaker environments.

 
>> You don't talk about sex, do you?
> 
> ???
> 
> 
>>> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an
>>> odd subculture
>>>
>> People who refuse to follow the herd are seen as different. But the
>> herd usually ends up at the slaughter house. Is that where you want to
>> be?
> 
> Yes, you Linux nuts definitely are different.

Your bigotry is showing.


>>> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>>
>> I paid for my Linux. Even at $90, it is 100 times more valuable than
>> $200 windose achs-pee.
> 
> Funny, then, that you would never pay $20,000 for it.  Hell, you probably
> wouldn't pay $200 for it.

Why should he?

> 
> You cola nuts will blab about how valuable Linux is, but absolutely refuse
> to put your money where your mouth is.

You are a liar. And you are stupid. You cannot fathom any paradigm but
m$'s illegal one.

 
>>> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>>>
>> Wrong again. Where do you get this stuff?
> 
> From looking at OpenOffice, and various other Linux apps.

Then why don't you go bitch at micro$oft for riping off VisiCalc?


>> Meet a girl. Have a relationship. Get put in jail.
> 
> I bet you get put in jail, then have many relationships.
> 
> 
> 
>>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
>>> machine
>>>
>> Way wrong. Take a PC running any version of windows for 6 months or
>> longer. Put any distro on it and even the dumbest skeptic, like you,
>> will be amazed at how fast that old PC really is.
> 
> You haven't been keeping up with the Linux world, have you boy?
> 
> Everyone's complaining about KDE and OpenOffice.

You're a liar.


>> That's one thing
>> that really scares OEMs. If you can take old equipment and do real
>> business computing on it, why do you need to invest in new equipment?
>> Not because someone wants to be able to read the newest version of
>> word documents.
> 
> Much of the world DOES want to read the newest versions of Word .docs.
> That's why MS is so rich.

You are showing your ignorance.
 
>>> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
>> Wrong again, pizza face. You have no idea how hard we're laughing at
>> you.
> 
> Good.  That makes the truth easier to swallow.

You swallow, huh?

> 
> 
>> Byedy-bye,
>>
>> Andy C.(never #)
> 
> Well said.
> 
> 
>> ps. your friends in microsoft.public.dont_have_a_clue miss you very
>> much. d:D
> 
> A fine bunch of fellows.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
7/14/2004 9:43:33 PM
Rick wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:14:59 -0400, DFS wrote:
> 
>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>> [snips]
>>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
> (snip)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Looks like Windows lacks a whole mess of features... and includes
>>> several it actually copied from Linux - but poorly.
>> 
>> I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that
>> wasn't copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps.
> 
> Name one original app that has come from micro$oft.

Ummmm, clippy??? 
0
noting (1244)
7/14/2004 10:06:30 PM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:09:46 +0000, Rick wrote this message:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:21:01 -0700, David Koski wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:12:29 -0400, DFS wrote:
>> 
>>>> Which "features" would those be? Actually, it is the other way around if
>>>> you bothered to check.
>>> 
>>> Too many to list, actually: taskbar, taskbar sizing, Start button (or K 
>>> or whatever) with Win95 style menu with distro name along left, show 
>> 
>> Perhaps you are confusing Linux and KDE. That is not uncommon.
> 
> He doesn't know the difference. He seems to think KDE is Linux. He doesn't
> seem to have heard of Gnome, AfterStep, Blackbox, WindowMaker or any of
> the others and he certainly can't tell the difference between an app and
> the OS. He seems to think a text editor is integral to an OS.

Oh, but he's a ONE week linux expert! Didn't you know?   
 
>>> desktop, the way menu choices are selected/deselected, "Control 
>>> Centers", cascading menus with pointers indicating more choices (ala 
>>> Win95), little icons next to the menu choices, three form controls 
>>> (min,restore,close), menu  choices themselves (file, edit, view, 
>>> options, window, help), file managers that list objects/higher levels on 
>>> left, and details/lower levels on right, screen savers/screen 
>>> saver-passwords/screen saver-power management, desktop shortcuts with a 
>>> little arrow on them, right-click on the desktop to create new 
>>> files/manage display, etc.
>> 
>> Those things may be relevant to someone who thinks Bill Gates invented
>> them all.
> 
> And he does think Gates & Co. invented those things.

So more delusional crap from the DooFu$...

-- 
-the leading virus distribution
program to date, Microsoft Windows, 
has seen many viruses spread.....
LinuxFORMAT magazine - June 2004.
0
willpoast (5106)
7/14/2004 10:25:21 PM
Rick wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:14:59 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>> [snips]
>>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
> (snip)
>>
>>
>>
>>> Looks like Windows lacks a whole mess of features... and includes
>>> several it actually copied from Linux - but poorly.
>>
>> I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that
>> wasn't copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps.
>
> Name one original app that has come from micro$oft.

Hold on, boy.  Even though I didn't specifically ask a question, you have
some info to provide.  Here, let me restate it:

"I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that wasn't
copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps."

I'm willing to be wrong.  Am I?






>>>> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an
>>>> odd subculture
>>>
>>> If you have two options, each is an alternative.
>>
>> Only Linux is labeled as such.
>
> Really? BSD, Linux, window$, MacOS are all alternatives.

Between Windows and Linux, Linux is labeled "alternative."




>>>> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>>
>>> By you, apparently.  I don't know anyone who has actually used, or
>>> even seen Linux that says that.
>>
>> Rightly or wrongly, that's often the perception.
>
> Education cures that misperception.

As does a stinky, drunk, home-rolled cigarette smoking Linux nut babbling
about libre! in a bar.




>>>> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>>>
>>> Like Moz clones IE?  (When, exactly, did IE get popup blocking,
>>> tabbed browsing, etc, included?)
>>
>> No, like Excel clones Calc and Gnumeric.  Like Word clone Writer.
>
> ... like VisiCalc clone Excel, and Electric Pencil clone Word...

Excel is no clone of VisiCalc.  Word is no clone of Electric Pencil.

But you are a clone of dullard.




>>>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the
>>>> same machine
>>>
>>> I'm sure that can be true.  I might also point out that a) it's not
>>> universally true by any means, and b) the notion of "faster" is
>>> somewhat slippery without being very specific.  What part is slower
>>> - UI response in X?  Application launches?  Total systemic
>>> throughput under load?
>>
>> At least a and b, from what I've read.
>
> A. is NOT universally true.
> B. thanks for agreeing 'faster' is perception.

I was unclear.  I was referring to
part a) UI response in X
part b) application launches



0
nospam21 (19047)
7/14/2004 10:26:14 PM
DFS wrote:

>> Name one original app that has come from micro$oft.
> 
> Hold on, boy.��Even�though�I�didn't�specifically�ask�a�question,�you�have
> some info to provide.��Here,�let�me�restate�it:
> 
> "I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that
> wasn't copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps."
> 
> I'm willing to be wrong.��Am�I?
> 

Guess he can't "Name one original app that has come from micro$oft."
0
noting (1244)
7/14/2004 10:37:31 PM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:07:08 +0000, nunya wrote this message:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:11:21 -0400, DFS wrote:
> 
>> nunya wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:12:29 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> nunya wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>>>>>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when
>>>>>> Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong information doofus, not sold but BUNDLED (as in forced).
>>>>
>>>> Nobody is forced to do anything, moron.  Those PC vendors aren't forced
>>>> to offer WindowsXP, and you're not forced to buy those machines.
>>>>
>>> Really? Then WHY is it that numerous vendors (and customers as well)
>>> have been strongarmed into paying for something bundled again?
>> 
>> Who?  When?  Where?
>> 
> Do some research

He's *incapable* of it.

>>>>>> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but
>>>>>> when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?"
>>>>>> or silence or sometimes a click and then silence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong again, Dell just told M$hit to fuck off entirely.
>>>>
>>>> Please tell me you're not serious, and that you're not really running
>>>> around  believing this.
>>>>
>>> Do some research, heed your own advice for once.
>>> http://www.newsforge.com/articles/04/07/07/1848210.shtml?tid=149
>> 
>> You are a Linux moron.  Read the article again.
>> 
> I do not need to read it again, I CHOSE (foreign concept to you) to send
> you there to determine if YOU actually can not only read english but
> comprehend it. No, I did not at all miss the humor tag (nor the fictional
> call line) the first time I read it.

A] I don't think he can read, & B] If he can, he certainly cannot
comprehend what he reads.

<snip>
>>> Pop quiz, which one of those was an M$hit "feature" or innovation that
>>> was not taken (read stolen) from open source software? Answer: NONE
>> 
>> Answer: ALL.
>> 
> Do some research. M$ has innovated NOTHING, EVER, in it's ENTIRE
> history.

*Ahem*, this was posted by him a while back -
"If it weren't for Windows, you wouldn't be posting anything right now."
DFS -  comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:55:04 
*That's* how much this kid knows!

<snip>
>>> You seem to be hung up on the concept of "free" again. There is
>>> nothing that I can remember ever being totally free. "Free" software
>>> has a price, whether it be monetary to a developer or the price of an
>>> internet connection to download source files.
>> 
>> I'm not impressed.
>> 
> I am not attempting to impress anyone at all, I am a secure ADULT and
> not a child.

<snip>
>>> Viruses, trojans, backdoors,
>>> spyware, adware ........ the list goes on and on.
>> 
>> Those aren't apps, boy.  Those are the creations of Linux crackers.
>> 
> They ARE apps child. You do not comprehend the slightest basic knowledge
> of programming I see. You are obviously not more than a "point-clicky,
> don't care what happens" user. And obviously are absolutely unaware that
> the VAST majority of cracking software happens to be MADE FOR, RUNS ONLY
> ON, and is BUILT ON WINDOWS.
> The vast majority of Linux users and/or crackers have not the slightest
> interest in anything M$hit AT ALL. Believing otherwise shows only more
> training by marketers and media, not thinking for oneself.

He only can do what M$ tells him to.

>>> If we talk gaming however, then you are correct. The M$hit platform is
>>> a good one for gaming, and very little else.
>> 
>> And for development, and office productivity, and multimedia, and
>> graphics.
>> 
> Do some research, wrong on EVERY count given.

As I've said before, he's *incapable* of doing any research. That's been
proved time after time.

<snip>
>> Damn.  Bring back Kelsey and Wolfgang - bring me someone with some
>> smarts.
>> 
> You need not run away at all, merely DO SOME RESEARCH (other than
> reading advertisements).

He can't keep up with anyone smart. All he can do is repeat the same old
mantra over & over....
He's a boring idiot.

<snip>
-- 
-the leading virus distribution
program to date, Microsoft Windows, 
has seen many viruses spread.....
LinuxFORMAT magazine - June 2004.
0
willpoast (5106)
7/14/2004 10:39:00 PM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:06:30 -0700, Ralph wrote this message:

> Rick wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:14:59 -0400, DFS wrote:
>> 
>>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>> [snips]
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
>> (snip)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Looks like Windows lacks a whole mess of features... and includes
>>>> several it actually copied from Linux - but poorly.
>>> 
>>> I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that
>>> wasn't copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps.
>> 
>> Name one original app that has come from micro$oft.
> 
> Ummmm, clippy???

What was that other thing? You know...used to see it a
lot...the..erm...it's on the tip of my tongue..ah, yes!
The BSOD! 

-- 
-the leading virus distribution
program to date, Microsoft Windows, 
has seen many viruses spread.....
LinuxFORMAT magazine - June 2004.
0
willpoast (5106)
7/14/2004 10:51:23 PM
Rick wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:26:09 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> Andrew Camfield wrote:
>>> "DFS" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:<10fahpcqfnlge06@corp.supernews.com>...
>>>> Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>>>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>>>
>>>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months
>>>> when Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>>
>>> Doesn't bother me a bit. I just feel sorry for all those stupid
>>> people that have windoze shoved down their throats.
>>
>> At $100 to $300 a pop, they were glad to savor the Windows XPerience.
>>
>>
>>> Same way I feel sorry for
>>> a rape victim. Or one of your dates.
>>
>> Who says they're different?
>
> You are such a waste of flesh.

You misspelled "taste."



>>>> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded -
>>>> but when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin
>>>> what?" or silence or sometimes a click and then silence.
>>>>
>>> See above. Ditto on your date. If you ever had one. Riding to the
>>> mall with your mom doesn't count.
>>
>> It might.  You haven't been to my hometown.
>
> You are such a waste of flesh.


You misspelled "paste."


>>>> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
>>>> Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>>>>
>>> Wrong. You don't know anything about Linux, so you should keep your
>>> mouth shut.
>>
>> If Linux didn't offer a certain amount of Windows look and feel it
>> would go nowhere fast.
>
> My GUI environment looks nothing like window$. Neither do most IceWM,
> Blackbox, FluxBox or WindowMaker environments.

And you're going nowhere fast, like Linux.




>>> You don't talk about sex, do you?
>>
>> ???
>>
>>
>>>> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an
>>>> odd subculture
>>>>
>>> People who refuse to follow the herd are seen as different. But the
>>> herd usually ends up at the slaughter house. Is that where you want
>>> to be?
>>
>> Yes, you Linux nuts definitely are different.
>
> Your bigotry is showing.

As does yours, dullard.




>>>> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>>>
>>> I paid for my Linux. Even at $90, it is 100 times more valuable than
>>> $200 windose achs-pee.
>>
>> Funny, then, that you would never pay $20,000 for it.  Hell, you
>> probably wouldn't pay $200 for it.
>
> Why should he?

Because he says Linux is valued at $20,000.



>> You cola nuts will blab about how valuable Linux is, but absolutely
>> refuse to put your money where your mouth is.
>
> You are a liar. And you are stupid. You cannot fathom any paradigm but
> m$'s illegal one.

I see you also try as hard as possible not to pay.  How's that feel to use
all that FREE! software all the time, and give little back?




>>>> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>>>>
>>> Wrong again. Where do you get this stuff?
>>
>> From looking at OpenOffice, and various other Linux apps.
>
> Then why don't you go bitch at micro$oft for riping off VisiCalc?

Excel resembles VisiCalc about as much as you resemble a



>>> Meet a girl. Have a relationship. Get put in jail.
>>
>> I bet you get put in jail, then have many relationships.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the
>>>> same machine
>>>>
>>> Way wrong. Take a PC running any version of windows for 6 months or
>>> longer. Put any distro on it and even the dumbest skeptic, like you,
>>> will be amazed at how fast that old PC really is.
>>
>> You haven't been keeping up with the Linux world, have you boy?
>>
>> Everyone's complaining about KDE and OpenOffice.
>
> You're a liar.

OK.  Not everyone.  Not you.



>>> That's one thing
>>> that really scares OEMs. If you can take old equipment and do real
>>> business computing on it, why do you need to invest in new
>>> equipment? Not because someone wants to be able to read the newest
>>> version of word documents.
>>
>> Much of the world DOES want to read the newest versions of Word
>> .docs. That's why MS is so rich.
>
> You are showing your ignorance.

You are showing your naivete and denial and disregard for what most of the
world wants to use.


>>>> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
>>> Wrong again, pizza face. You have no idea how hard we're laughing at
>>> you.
>>
>> Good.  That makes the truth easier to swallow.
>
> You swallow, huh?

(p)Rick, you are so quick with the quips.




>>> Byedy-bye,
>>>
>>> Andy C.(never #)
>>
>> Well said.
>>
>>
>>> ps. your friends in microsoft.public.dont_have_a_clue miss you very
>>> much. d:D
>>
>> A fine bunch of fellows.



0
nospam21 (19047)
7/14/2004 10:54:31 PM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:26:14 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Rick wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:14:59 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>> [snips]
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
>> (snip)
>>>
>>>> Looks like Windows lacks a whole mess of features... and includes
>>>> several it actually copied from Linux - but poorly.
>>>
>>> I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that
>>> wasn't copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps.
>>
>> Name one original app that has come from micro$oft.
> 
> Hold on, boy.  Even though I didn't specifically ask a question, you have
> some info to provide.  Here, let me restate it:

You hold on, asshole.

> 
> "I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that wasn't
> copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps."
> 
> I'm willing to be wrong.  Am I?

Name one original app that has come from micro$oft. BTW, you do know that
lots of GNU tools are used in Unix, right? Hmmm?


>>>>> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an
>>>>> odd subculture
>>>>
>>>> If you have two options, each is an alternative.
>>>
>>> Only Linux is labeled as such.
>>
>> Really? BSD, Linux, window$, MacOS are all alternatives.
> 
> Between Windows and Linux, Linux is labeled "alternative."

They are 2 alternatives. There are more.

 
>>>>> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>>>
>>>> By you, apparently.  I don't know anyone who has actually used, or
>>>> even seen Linux that says that.
>>>
>>> Rightly or wrongly, that's often the perception.
>>
>> Education cures that misperception.
> 
> As does a stinky, drunk, home-rolled cigarette smoking Linux nut babbling
> about libre! in a bar.

Why do you like looking like an idiot?

>>>>> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>>>>
>>>> Like Moz clones IE?  (When, exactly, did IE get popup blocking,
>>>> tabbed browsing, etc, included?)
>>>
>>> No, like Excel clones Calc and Gnumeric.  Like Word clone Writer.
>>
>> ... like VisiCalc clone Excel, and Electric Pencil clone Word...
> 
> Excel is no clone of VisiCalc.  Word is no clone of Electric Pencil.

Excel was a clone of VisiCalc and Electric Pencil was around long before
Word. Of course you don't know this because you weren't around when
VisiCalc and electric Pencil were.

> 
> But you are a clone of dullard.

So says the bigoted idiot.

>>>>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the
>>>>> same machine
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that can be true.  I might also point out that a) it's not
>>>> universally true by any means, and b) the notion of "faster" is
>>>> somewhat slippery without being very specific.  What part is slower
>>>> - UI response in X?  Application launches?  Total systemic
>>>> throughput under load?
>>>
>>> At least a and b, from what I've read.
>>
>> A. is NOT universally true.
>> B. thanks for agreeing 'faster' is perception.
> 
> I was unclear.  I was referring to
> part a) UI response in X
> part b) application launches

You still aren't clear.
-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
7/15/2004 1:57:42 AM
Rick wrote:

> BTW, you do know that
> lots of GNU tools are used in Unix, right? Hmmm?

And have been for a VERY long time.
0
noting (1244)
7/15/2004 1:58:57 AM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:54:31 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Rick wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:26:09 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Camfield wrote:
>>>> "DFS" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:<10fahpcqfnlge06@corp.supernews.com>...
>>>>> Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>>>>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>>>>
>>>>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months
>>>>> when Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't bother me a bit. I just feel sorry for all those stupid
>>>> people that have windoze shoved down their throats.
>>>
>>> At $100 to $300 a pop, they were glad to savor the Windows XPerience.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Same way I feel sorry for
>>>> a rape victim. Or one of your dates.
>>>
>>> Who says they're different?
>>
>> You are such a waste of flesh.
> 
> You misspelled "taste."

You are an idiot, and a waste of flesh. Why do you like to rape your dates?

>>>>> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded -
>>>>> but when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin
>>>>> what?" or silence or sometimes a click and then silence.
>>>>>
>>>> See above. Ditto on your date. If you ever had one. Riding to the
>>>> mall with your mom doesn't count.
>>>
>>> It might.  You haven't been to my hometown.
>>
>> You are such a waste of flesh.
> 
> 
> You misspelled "paste."

You are such and idiot and a waste of flesh. Why do you date your mom, and
have you treated her like your other dates?

> 
> 
>>>>> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
>>>>> Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>>>>>
>>>> Wrong. You don't know anything about Linux, so you should keep your
>>>> mouth shut.
>>>
>>> If Linux didn't offer a certain amount of Windows look and feel it
>>> would go nowhere fast.
>>
>> My GUI environment looks nothing like window$. Neither do most IceWM,
>> Blackbox, FluxBox or WindowMaker environments.
> 
> And you're going nowhere fast, like Linux.

Linux is going lots of places fast, and you show your ignorance of *nix
based GUI environments.

>>>> You don't talk about sex, do you?
>>>
>>> ???
>>>
>>>
>>>>> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an
>>>>> odd subculture
>>>>>
>>>> People who refuse to follow the herd are seen as different. But the
>>>> herd usually ends up at the slaughter house. Is that where you want
>>>> to be?
>>>
>>> Yes, you Linux nuts definitely are different.
>>
>> Your bigotry is showing.
> 
> As does yours, dullard.

It can't be showing, because I'm not bigoted. On the other hand, you have
proved your bigotry in every post.


>>>>> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>>>>
>>>> I paid for my Linux. Even at $90, it is 100 times more valuable than
>>>> $200 windose achs-pee.
>>>
>>> Funny, then, that you would never pay $20,000 for it.  Hell, you
>>> probably wouldn't pay $200 for it.
>>
>> Why should he?
> 
> Because he says Linux is valued at $20,000.

So what? Why should he pay for something if the developer is not asking
for payment?

>>> You cola nuts will blab about how valuable Linux is, but absolutely
>>> refuse to put your money where your mouth is.
>>
>> You are a liar. And you are stupid. You cannot fathom any paradigm but
>> m$'s illegal one.
> 
> I see you also try as hard as possible not to pay.  How's that feel to use
> all that FREE! software all the time, and give little back?

I have paid for every distro I have installed except for Fedora Core, and
Red Hat markets that as a community distro. I give back to the community
by filing bug reports with the developers. I see you are too stupid to
understand the paradigm.


>>>>> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>>>>>
>>>> Wrong again. Where do you get this stuff?
>>>
>>> From looking at OpenOffice, and various other Linux apps.
>>
>> Then why don't you go bitch at micro$oft for riping off VisiCalc?
> 
> Excel resembles VisiCalc about as much as you resemble a

You are such a freaking idiot. You don't even know where Excel came from
nor can you figure out its progression.
 
>>>> Meet a girl. Have a relationship. Get put in jail.
>>>
>>> I bet you get put in jail, then have many relationships.
>>>
>>>>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the
>>>>> same machine
>>>>>
>>>> Way wrong. Take a PC running any version of windows for 6 months or
>>>> longer. Put any distro on it and even the dumbest skeptic, like you,
>>>> will be amazed at how fast that old PC really is.
>>>
>>> You haven't been keeping up with the Linux world, have you boy?
>>>
>>> Everyone's complaining about KDE and OpenOffice.
>>
>> You're a liar.
> 
> OK.  Not everyone.  Not you.

Your exception, while true, doesn't correct you lie.


>>>> That's one thing
>>>> that really scares OEMs. If you can take old equipment and do real
>>>> business computing on it, why do you need to invest in new
>>>> equipment? Not because someone wants to be able to read the newest
>>>> version of word documents.
>>>
>>> Much of the world DOES want to read the newest versions of Word
>>> .docs. That's why MS is so rich.
>>
>> You are showing your ignorance.
> 
> You are showing your naivete and denial and disregard for what most of the
> world wants to use.

NO, you still won't read and learn about network effects and abuse of
monopoly power.

And much of the world is trying very hard to switch from micro$oft
products.

> 
> 
>>>>> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
>>>> Wrong again, pizza face. You have no idea how hard we're laughing at
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> Good.  That makes the truth easier to swallow.
>>
>> You swallow, huh?
> 
> (p)Rick, you are so quick with the quips.

Yes, asshole, I am. But then, you are the one that dates your mother and
rapes your dates.

 
>>>> Byedy-bye,
>>>>
>>>> Andy C.(never #)
>>>
>>> Well said.
>>>
>>>
>>>> ps. your friends in microsoft.public.dont_have_a_clue miss you very
>>>> much. d:D
>>>
>>> A fine bunch of fellows.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
7/15/2004 2:10:02 AM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:06:30 -0700, Ralph wrote:

> Rick wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:14:59 -0400, DFS wrote:
>> 
>>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>> [snips]
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
>> (snip)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Looks like Windows lacks a whole mess of features... and includes
>>>> several it actually copied from Linux - but poorly.
>>> 
>>> I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that
>>> wasn't copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps.
>> 
>> Name one original app that has come from micro$oft.
> 
> Ummmm, clippy???

Oh crap... OK, so there's one. Two if you count Bob.
-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
7/15/2004 2:16:48 AM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:51:23 +0100, William Poaster wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:06:30 -0700, Ralph wrote this message:
> 
>> Rick wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:14:59 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>>> [snips]
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Looks like Windows lacks a whole mess of features... and includes
>>>>> several it actually copied from Linux - but poorly.
>>>> 
>>>> I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that
>>>> wasn't copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps.
>>> 
>>> Name one original app that has come from micro$oft.
>> 
>> Ummmm, clippy???
> 
> What was that other thing? You know...used to see it a
> lot...the..erm...it's on the tip of my tongue..ah, yes!
> The BSOD!

I saw a blue screen on XP today. It said something about doing  memory
dump... something about window$ had gone belly up somewhere... I thought
there were no more blue screens with XP.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
7/15/2004 2:18:12 AM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:37:31 -0700, Ralph wrote:

> DFS wrote:
> 
>>> Name one original app that has come from micro$oft.
>> 
>> Hold on, boy.��Even�though�I�didn't�specifically�ask�a�question,�you�have
>> some info to provide.��Here,�let�me�restate�it:
>> 
>> "I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that
>> wasn't copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps."
>> 
>> I'm willing to be wrong.��Am�I?
>> 
> 
> Guess he can't "Name one original app that has come from micro$oft."

And he doesn't understand the 'evolution' of Excel or any other
spreadsheet.
-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
7/15/2004 2:19:49 AM
Rick wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:37:31 -0700, Ralph wrote:
> 
>> DFS wrote:
>> 
>>>> Name one original app that has come from micro$oft.
>>> 
>>> Hold on, boy.  Even though I didn't specifically ask a question, you
>>> have some info to provide.  Here, let me restate it:
>>> 
>>> "I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that
>>> wasn't copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps."
>>> 
>>> I'm willing to be wrong.  Am I?
>>> 
>> 
>> Guess he can't "Name one original app that has come from micro$oft."
> 
> And he doesn't understand the 'evolution' of Excel or any other
> spreadsheet.

as in

Visicalc -> Lotus 1-2-3 -> Excel ?


0
Punjab
7/15/2004 2:35:46 AM
Kelsey Bjarnason, after spending 3 minutes figuring out which end of the pen to
use, wrote:

> [snips]
> 
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:

  <snip>

  Careful, Kelsey, you've got yourself a stalker now. You (and everyone else and
their pet rocks) have shown DumbFuckingShit how stupid he is, and he's now
obsessed with trying to prove to you that he really is smart in some way.

0
A_Place_Th (85)
7/15/2004 3:36:08 AM
ray, you sound reasonable so you get a DFS reply


ray wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 +0000, DFS wrote:
>
>> Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>
>>
>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>
> Wouldn't use the term 'toy', but it is a FACT that every version of
> MS-Win up to Win98 was based on DOS. BTW MS stole DOS in the first
> place.

Sorry to say, but everyone except you knows MS bought it (as QDOS) for
$50,000 from Seattle Computer Company.  I've seen the receipt reprinted in a
book.



>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when
>> Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>
> Aint' marketing great.

It can be; it's part of what makes MS so rich and powerful.


>> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded -
>> but when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin
>> what?" or silence or sometimes a click and then silence.
>
> See previous comment

Yet some of the Linux nutcases think Linux doesn't need better marketing
efforts.



>> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
>> Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>
> Copy what?????

Oh, just bunches of Windows interface features and behaviors.



>> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an
>> odd subculture
>
> It's always nice to have alternatives.

I agree.  Or not.  But I have the choice.



>> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>
> So what's wrong with free beer?

You'll need to do some research on the short but meteoric rise of DFS on
cola; that question will be answered therein.



>> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>
> Only because inertia gives MS the advantage of more development
> resources. Most Linux 'clones' are better than the MS equivalents.

Yes, some are.



>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
>> machine
>
> Quite simply not true.

Well, you'll just have to find on the 'Net where many Linux users have
expressed the same.




>> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
>
> I'm not hostile - you no likey, you no gotta usey.

Well there you go!  Live and let live and all that.

You sure you haven't been _forced_ to buy and use Windows at some time in
your life?  Apparently that's what pushed these cola nuts over the edge.



> I've been told I
> have a decent sense of humor; but anyway, better to be pissed off
> than pissed on.

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy.

Well, between you and Ghost In The Machine and - to a lesser extent - Kelsey
Bjarnason and Wolfgang Weisselberg, cola has a few reasonable and reasonably
likable guys.

But that dullard (p)Rick needs some charm school lessons.



0
nospam21 (19047)
7/15/2004 4:00:36 AM
DFS wrote:

> ray, you sound reasonable so you get a DFS reply
> 
> 
> ray wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 +0000, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>>
>>>
>>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>
>> Wouldn't use the term 'toy', but it is a FACT that every version of
>> MS-Win up to Win98 was based on DOS. BTW MS stole DOS in the first
>> place.
> 
> Sorry to say, but everyone except you knows MS bought it (as QDOS) for
> $50,000 from Seattle Computer Company.  I've seen the receipt reprinted in
> a book.
> 

That's right, MS never could write an OS for themselves 

> 
> 
>>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when
>>> Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>
>> Aint' marketing great.
> 
> It can be; it's part of what makes MS so rich and powerful.

It is the ONLY thing, other than illegally using its monopoly. 

> 
> 
>>> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded -
>>> but when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin
>>> what?" or silence or sometimes a click and then silence.
>>
>> See previous comment
> 
> Yet some of the Linux nutcases think Linux doesn't need better marketing
> efforts.
> 

Hmmm, seems to be doing OK with out it. Sure has MS running scared! Every
time MS lowers its prices to head off Linux, MS admits that Linux is a
threat!

> 
> 
>>> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
>>> Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>>
>> Copy what?????
> 
> Oh, just bunches of Windows interface features and behaviors.
> 

You mean the ones MS copied from others?

> 
> 
>>> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an
>>> odd subculture
>>
>> It's always nice to have alternatives.
> 
> I agree.  Or not.  But I have the choice.
> 
> 
> 
>>> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>
>> So what's wrong with free beer?
> 
> You'll need to do some research on the short but meteoric rise of DFS on
> cola; that question will be answered therein.

What rise? There has been many wintrolls here that have out performed you. I
doubt you are even coming up to the status of an average wintroll. 


> 
> 
> 
>>> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>>
>> Only because inertia gives MS the advantage of more development
>> resources. Most Linux 'clones' are better than the MS equivalents.
> 
> Yes, some are.
> 
> 
> 
>>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
>>> machine
>>
>> Quite simply not true.
> 
> Well, you'll just have to find on the 'Net where many Linux users have
> expressed the same.
> 

Yeah, tell that to the people that have built the Linux clusters that are at
the top of the worlds 500 fastest computer list! And where is Windows on
that list? Oh, yeah, MS promisses that they will build a version of windows
that will cluster well, someday!

> 
> 
> 
>>> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
>>
>> I'm not hostile - you no likely, you no gotta usey.
> 
> Well there you go!  Live and let live and all that.
> 
> You sure you haven't been _forced_ to buy and use Windows at some time in
> your life?  Apparently that's what pushed these cola nuts over the edge.
> 
> 
> 
>> I've been told I
>> have a decent sense of humor; but anyway, better to be pissed off
>> than pissed on.
> 
> I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy.

I though you already had one, or both. Either way, it would explain your
lack of cognitive skills. 

> 
> Well, between you and Ghost In The Machine and - to a lesser extent -
> Kelsey Bjarnason and Wolfgang Weisselberg, cola has a few reasonable and
> reasonably likable guys.

The list does not include you.

> 
> But that dullard (p)Rick needs some charm school lessons.

he could teach you lessons in charm. 

0
noting (1244)
7/15/2004 4:11:40 AM
In Dread Ink, the Grave hand of The Ghost In The Machine Did Inscribe:
>
> But Windows is no better, really.  In fact, it's worse;
> with X at least one merely needs to use one finger.
> With Windows, one has to use two: CTRL + X, C, or V.
> I've also lost count of the number of times I ended up
> pasting the wrong thing because I did CTRL/C CTRL/V too
> quickly.  With X, at least, I know where the text is
> coming from -- it's highlighted.

On the gripping hand, I want to make Windows XP do X style
cut-and-paste. I guess its all in what you are used to.

-- 
American Revolutions:
Wins    Loss
1       1
                Wanna go for best two outta three, Yankee?
0
bsims (38)
7/15/2004 4:13:02 AM
On 2004-07-15, Rick <rick@none.com> sputtered:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:51:23 +0100, William Poaster wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:06:30 -0700, Ralph wrote this message:
>> 
>>> Rick wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:14:59 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>>>> [snips]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>> (snip)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Looks like Windows lacks a whole mess of features... and includes
>>>>>> several it actually copied from Linux - but poorly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that
>>>>> wasn't copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps.
>>>> 
>>>> Name one original app that has come from micro$oft.
>>> 
>>> Ummmm, clippy???
>> 
>> What was that other thing? You know...used to see it a
>> lot...the..erm...it's on the tip of my tongue..ah, yes!
>> The BSOD!
>
> I saw a blue screen on XP today. It said something about doing  memory
> dump... something about window$ had gone belly up somewhere... I thought
> there were no more blue screens with XP.

BSODs are legacy applications these days. They're there for people who
prefer not being able to read a bunch of crap on a screen versus not
knowing why their machine keeps rebooting.

The ones I really like are the ones that come up during the boot
process with no chance to get to a recovery console, go to "safe" mode
(ha ha ha ha) or anything else. I've seen those in flavors of both blue
and black.

-- 
MS-Blaster - Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
0
sinister2419 (3164)
7/15/2004 4:13:08 AM
In article <pan.2004.07.14.20.05.37.294368@xxnospamyy.lightspeed.bc.ca>
(Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:05:38 -0700), Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
> 
>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when Munich
>> Germany installs just 14,000
> 
> McDonald's: Over 200 billion served.

The McDonald's analog is one of my favorites.

>> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but
>> when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?" or
>> silence or sometimes a click and then silence.
> 
> Must be dealing with some low-quality places, then.

Customer: Can I get that McBurger without ketchup?
McSlave:  You can just scrape it off.

0
hamilcar2 (2912)
7/15/2004 7:14:27 AM
Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from Brad Sims:

> In Dread Ink, the Grave hand of The Ghost In The Machine Did Inscribe:
>>
>> I've also lost count of the number of times I ended up
>> pasting the wrong thing because I did CTRL/C CTRL/V too
>> quickly.  With X, at least, I know where the text is
>> coming from -- it's highlighted.
>
> On the gripping hand, I want to make Windows XP do X style
> cut-and-paste. I guess its all in what you are used to.

In Windows, I find myself trying to do the highlight-middleclick thing.
I also find myself waiting for the window in which the mouse is sitting to both
accept focus and auto-raise.  I also keep looking for a way to get to the next
virtual desktop.  Also wish that a middle-click or right-click on the desktop
would bring up the Start menu.  And sometimes I'll even double-click on the
title bar of a window and be surprised when it goes full-screen instead of
rolling up.

You miss those little things when you've gotten used to X conveniences.

-- 
Free as in freedom
Power as in empowerment
0
iso
7/15/2004 7:31:29 AM
Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from Hamilcar Barca:

>> Must be dealing with some low-quality places, then.
>
> Customer: Can I get that McBurger without ketchup?
> McSlave:  You can just scrape it off.

I just got myself a Win Burger.  WHERE's THE BEEF!!!?!?!?!???

-- 
Free as in freedom
Power as in empowerment
0
iso
7/15/2004 7:32:47 AM
Linønut wrote:

> Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from Hamilcar Barca:
> 
>>> Must be dealing with some low-quality places, then.
>>
>> Customer: Can I get that McBurger without ketchup?
>> McSlave:  You can just scrape it off.
> 
> I just got myself a Win Burger.  WHERE's THE BEEF!!!?!?!?!???
> 

You want patches with that ?


0
Punjab
7/15/2004 7:37:44 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Lin�nut wrote:

>> Customer: Can I get that McBurger without ketchup?
>> McSlave:  You can just scrape it off.
>
> I just got myself a Win Burger.  WHERE's THE BEEF!!!?!?!?!???

You'll have to wait for Longhorn to get that.  ETA somewhere between
2006 and 2008 ... maybe ...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA9jzYd1ZThqotgfgRAjAPAJ9iw0Et8zIrfRZHxZG4WqRQYU3UMACgugnL
YZP3Huq06cra+pCtpJsxRiE=
=BUAY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
PeKaJe

When the going gets tough, everyone leaves.
		-- Lynch
0
usenet21 (2482)
7/15/2004 8:14:19 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Lin�nut wrote:

> I also keep looking for a way to get to the next virtual desktop.

That's my biggest problem with Windows.  I'm used to having many
desktops active at one time, and in KDE I bound the next desktop
function to the useless menu key.  Needless to say, this gives me a few
odd problems when I sit down at a Windows machine, and the reflexes take
over ... :-)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA9j4bd1ZThqotgfgRApqBAKDK/aI+k+PK99DxahD4RmR/QzWR0gCeKmDu
pG9OUcxMLhqEtBenP4QhNzE=
=MhR3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
PeKaJe

If you can count your money, you don't have a billion dollars.
		-- J. Paul Getty
0
usenet21 (2482)
7/15/2004 8:19:43 AM
[snips]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:36:08 -0500, Norwegian Formula wrote:

>   Careful, Kelsey, you've got yourself a stalker now. You (and everyone else and
> their pet rocks) have shown DumbFuckingShit how stupid he is, and he's now
> obsessed with trying to prove to you that he really is smart in some way.

He can prove that trivially: by providing an actual argument with some
actual substance to it.


0
kelseyb (715)
7/15/2004 8:28:52 AM
[snips]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:14:59 -0400, DFS wrote:

>> Conclusion: McDonald's is real food, the other stuff is just wishful
>> thinking and we must be jealous of McD's success.
> 
> Conclusion: Linux drips down over your chin, and you have to take strong
> medicine to counteract its effects on your body.

Actually, according to a recently-released "documentary", that would be
more correctly said of McD's - you know, the 200-billion served folks? 
Hmm.  You were recently crowing about how your stuff must be so good,
because, after all, it's sold 200 million copies.

Can't have it both ways.  If popularity equates to quality, as you imply,
then McD's is gourmet food.

> Failure to cope with reality: the gourmet burger is FREE! and still
> nobody wants it.

I don't know why you persist in capitalizing "free" that way - and adding
an exclamation point, to boot.  The software is, as has been pointed out
to you repeatedly, free - though it may cost you money to buy it.

I should also point out that your assertion about nobody wanting it is,
quite simply, a flat-out, unabashed, unadulterated lie - and you know
you're lying when you say it.

It's not a question of a mistake, or a misunderstanding, or a lack of
experience, or anything else where uttering a falsehood might be
excusable; it is, quite simply, an intentional and willful lie on your
part.

I once had a discussion with a local chapter of the JW's over a book they
were flogging.  In it, they'd very carefully quoted an author out of
context to make it appear he was saying something in direct opposition to
what his actual point was.  My question to them was simple: is your faith
so weak that you need to actually lie to support it?  If so, it's not much
of a faith, and why would you expect anyone else to adopt it?

I ask the same of you: is your faith - in Windows, rather than in deity -
so weak that you need to actually lie to support it?  If so, it's not much
of a faith, and why would you expect anyone else to adopt it?

Your arguments in favor of Windows, on the whole, are stupendously bad. 
You whine that Linux apps steal ideas from Windows apps - while ignoring
the fact that Windows apps, themselves, have been doing this for years. 
You also ignore that Windows is, in fact, adopting ideas from OSS.  You
ignore the damages caused by the Windows' poor security model, yet you
harp on about the vulnerabilities in Linux... neglecting to note that most
of those vulnerabilities *do not affect* most Linux users in the first
place.

You whinge that patches and updates happen apparently too often for your
tastes.  This notion I find really amusing.  When you examine a given
Linux distro - Mandrake, say - you'll find a given rate of
notifications... but those notifcations include not just the core OS, but
all the bundled applications - 1,000 or more, generally - as well.

To have a comparably low rate of notifications, then, Windows would have
to offer _at least_ 100 times fewer notifications than a given Linux
distro, since the Windows update notifications only encompass the OS
itself, not the thousands of applications available.

Even sources which do include other applications - Secunia, say - only
list *published* vulnerabilities.  Since most Windows application vendors
won't even notify their own customers when a vulnerability is found,
arguing that such lists are comprehensive is silly.

So, Mandrake has, say, 500 notifications a year, over 1,000 or more
applications.  Let us know when Windows Update gets down to no more than 5
notifications a year.  Until it does, your whining about the rate of Linux
alerts and updates does nothing but make Windows look bad.  Which is
pretty funny, since your obvious purpose is to try to make Linux look bad.

That's the real irony, though, of most of what you do and say in here. 
Every time you post something in an attempt to make Linux look bad, a
simple examination of the reality of the situation shows Windows to be the
loser.  Whether it's "stealing ideas" or too-frequent notifications
and patches, or security holes, or, indeed, pretty much anything you offer
up to suggest Linux is somehow bad or lacking, simply looking at the scope
of what's involved, be it in terms of application base that the
notifications are derived from, or scope of damages, both potential and
actual, Windows consistently loses out in such comparisons... but you
still spew forth your nonsense, attempting to make Linux look bad by
comparison, and failing, completely, to manage it.

>> Must be dealing with some low-quality places, then.  Most of the places
>> I buy hardware, they may not offer Linux as a preinstall *yet*... but
>> they know about it and, in many cases, are considering offering it.
> 
>  1-866-597-8626

Oh, my, you know a phone number.  Let me guess - dial-a-date?

> Not a native WinServer2K3 feature (can't speak for XP).  However,
> available here
> http://drn.digitalriver.com/product.php%5Bid%5D77617%5Bcid%5D67%5BSiteID%5Dcomputerworld
> for FREE!

So Windows does not, in fact, do it with the bundled tools, does it?  My
OS does.  Hell, name pretty much any task - word processing,
spreadsheeting, database development, web serving, proxy serving, game
playing, video editing... my OS does it, with the bundled tools.  Does
yours?  Oh, well, lost that one, didn't you?

> I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that
> wasn't copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps.

Even if that were true - so what?

>> If you have two options, each is an alternative.
> 
> Only Linux is labeled as such.

Windows, OS/2, DOS, Solaris, Linux, BSD... all are altneratives.  Is the
concept too much for you to grasp?

>> Like Moz clones IE?  (When, exactly, did IE get popup blocking, tabbed
>> browsing, etc, included?)
> 
> No, like Excel clones Calc and Gnumeric.  Like Word clone Writer.

I'm not even going to comment on that one. :)

>> somewhat slippery without being very specific.  What part is slower -
>> UI response in X?  Application launches?  Total systemic throughput
>> under load?
> 
> At least a and b, from what I've read.

But neither a nor b are particularly important.  Which matters more: that
it takes a few seconds longer to launch an app, or twice as long to
repaint a desktop, or that when running a dozen processes, your systemic
throughput remains high?


0
kelseyb (715)
7/15/2004 9:05:39 AM
On 15 Jul 2004 08:19:43 GMT, Peter Jensen wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Lin�nut wrote:
> 
>> I also keep looking for a way to get to the next virtual desktop.
> 
> That's my biggest problem with Windows.  I'm used to having many
> desktops active at one time, and in KDE I bound the next desktop
> function to the useless menu key.  Needless to say, this gives me a few
> odd problems when I sit down at a Windows machine, and the reflexes take
> over ... :-)
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQFA9j4bd1ZThqotgfgRApqBAKDK/aI+k+PK99DxahD4RmR/QzWR0gCeKmDu
> pG9OUcxMLhqEtBenP4QhNzE=
> =MhR3
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Install the power toy and then you can use window+1, window+2, window+3,
window+4.  I have a few issues with it - especially the graphical chooser
on a lower end video card - but if you avoid that or turn off the animated
transition's it works ok.  Remember - NT has always supported virtual
desktops natively - they just have never exposed it in the UI before.

-- 
Tom Shelton
0
tom271 (867)
7/15/2004 9:20:46 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tom Shelton wrote:

> Install the power toy and then you can use window+1, window+2,
> window+3, window+4.  I have a few issues with it - especially the
> graphical chooser on a lower end video card - but if you avoid that or
> turn off the animated transition's it works ok.  Remember - NT has
> always supported virtual desktops natively - they just have never
> exposed it in the UI before.

Does this allow me to map the menu key to the "next desktop" command,
while mapping ctrl+menu to "move current window to next desktop"?  If
not, then I still have the same problem.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA9lDZd1ZThqotgfgRAgRqAJ4n1MHACpsgfKQaJBEV+wNxJ38zZgCfTPm3
q8SeoXOWEv/TKpk+kdr+HMU=
=wXU/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
PeKaJe

Are the STEWED PRUNES still in the HAIR DRYER?
0
usenet21 (2482)
7/15/2004 9:39:40 AM
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:18:12 +0000, Rick wrote this message:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:51:23 +0100, William Poaster wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:06:30 -0700, Ralph wrote this message:
>> 
>>> Rick wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:14:59 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>>>> [snips]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>> (snip)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Looks like Windows lacks a whole mess of features... and includes
>>>>>> several it actually copied from Linux - but poorly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that
>>>>> wasn't copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps.
>>>> 
>>>> Name one original app that has come from micro$oft.
>>> 
>>> Ummmm, clippy???
>> 
>> What was that other thing? You know...used to see it a
>> lot...the..erm...it's on the tip of my tongue..ah, yes!
>> The BSOD!
> 
> I saw a blue screen on XP today. It said something about doing  memory
> dump... something about window$ had gone belly up somewhere... I thought
> there were no more blue screens with XP.

Oh, there are! My partner showed me one or two. One, on a dual boot
machine, had - 
*** STOP: 0x00000079 (parameter1, parameter2, parameter3, parameter4)
MISMATCHED_HAL
Now this dual boot machine had XP installed....& the other OS? 
NO it wasn't linux, it was *another* M$haft product Windows Server 2003 !!!

Another XP BSOD she came across said -
"STOP 0x0000007E in Pci.sys?"
This was when a CardBus Compact Flash (CF) adapter had been disconnected
from one machine! Is there a fix for it? Nah, don't be silly! 


-- 
-the leading virus distribution
program to date, Microsoft Windows, 
has seen many viruses spread.....
LinuxFORMAT magazine - June 2004.
0
willpoast (5106)
7/15/2004 10:31:39 AM
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:14:59 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>>> Conclusion: McDonald's is real food, the other stuff is just wishful
>>> thinking and we must be jealous of McD's success.
>>
>> Conclusion: Linux drips down over your chin, and you have to take
>> strong medicine to counteract its effects on your body.
>
> Actually, according to a recently-released "documentary", that would
> be more correctly said of McD's - you know, the 200-billion served
> folks? Hmm.

If I gorged myself with Linux for a month straight, I'd be sick.


> You were recently crowing about how your stuff must be
> so good, because, after all, it's sold 200 million copies.

There you go with the lies.


> Can't have it both ways.  If popularity equates to quality, as you
> imply, then McD's is gourmet food.

Windows is popular, and Windows is quality software, but the two aren't
necessarily related.


>> Failure to cope with reality: the gourmet burger is FREE! and still
>> nobody wants it.
>
> I don't know why you persist in capitalizing "free" that way - and
> adding an exclamation point, to boot.  The software is, as has been
> pointed out to you repeatedly, free - though it may cost you money to
> buy it.

You know exactly why I capitalize and exclaim.



> I should also point out that your assertion about nobody wanting it
> is, quite simply, a flat-out, unabashed, unadulterated lie - and you
> know you're lying when you say it.
>
> It's not a question of a mistake, or a misunderstanding, or a lack of
> experience, or anything else where uttering a falsehood might be
> excusable; it is, quite simply, an intentional and willful lie on your
> part.

Quit playing around.  As you know, nobody = few.

Will it make you feel better if I say "Failure to cope with reality: the
gourmet burger is FREE! and still few want it."?   (sorry, not gonna do it.
Few just doesn't have the punch that nobody does.)




> I once had a discussion with a local chapter of the JW's over a book
> they were flogging.  In it, they'd very carefully quoted an author
> out of context to make it appear he was saying something in direct
> opposition to what his actual point was.  My question to them was
> simple: is your faith so weak that you need to actually lie to
> support it?  If so, it's not much of a faith, and why would you
> expect anyone else to adopt it?

You lie at least as much as you claim I do.


> I ask the same of you: is your faith - in Windows, rather than in
> deity - so weak that you need to actually lie to support it?  If so,
> it's not much of a faith, and why would you expect anyone else to
> adopt it?

Because it provides an excellent computing experience.



> Your arguments in favor of Windows, on the whole, are stupendously
> bad. You whine that Linux apps steal ideas from Windows apps -

And they do, constantly.


> while
> ignoring the fact that Windows apps, themselves, have been doing this
> for years.

Why would you expect me to say anything bad about Windows?  Are you stupid?

That's what the rest of cola does.


> You also ignore that Windows is, in fact, adopting ideas
> from OSS.

I see much more of the other way around.


> You ignore the damages caused by the Windows' poor
> security model,

Zero damages are caused by Windows poor security model.


> yet you harp on about the vulnerabilities in Linux...

It only seems like I harp on about them, because you're (cola collectively)
too sensitive to any criticism about Linux.  Guess what?  Too bad.  It's not
gonna stop.


> neglecting to note that most of those vulnerabilities *do not affect*
> most Linux users in the first place.

Don't be silly.  If most of those vulnerabilities didn't affect most Linux
users, you and half of Linuxdom wouldn't have your
"apt-get-nightly-security-updates-so-I-can-sleep" scripts in place.


> You whinge that patches and updates happen apparently too often for
> your tastes.

You mean Ready. Set. Patch.?

Let me ask you: how often do you apply security fixes and patches to your
Linux systems?  I'm curious.


> This notion I find really amusing.  When you examine a
> given Linux distro - Mandrake, say - you'll find a given rate of
> notifications... but those notifcations include not just the core OS,
> but all the bundled applications - 1,000 or more, generally - as well.
>
> To have a comparably low rate of notifications, then, Windows would
> have to offer _at least_ 100 times fewer notifications than a given
> Linux distro, since the Windows update notifications only encompass
> the OS itself, not the thousands of applications available.
>
> Even sources which do include other applications - Secunia, say - only
> list *published* vulnerabilities.  Since most Windows application
> vendors won't even notify their own customers when a vulnerability is
> found, arguing that such lists are comprehensive is silly.

Who's arguing that?


> So, Mandrake has, say, 500 notifications a year, over 1,000 or more
> applications.  Let us know when Windows Update gets down to no more
> than 5 notifications a year.  Until it does, your whining about the
> rate of Linux alerts and updates does nothing but make Windows look
> bad.

If so, I wonder why you argue everything I say about Linux security
advisories vs vulnerabilities.  If my posts actually make Windows look bad,
why do you argue about every point in them?


> Which is pretty funny, since your obvious purpose is to try to make Linux
look bad.

What makes Linux look bad is you loons claiming it's "secure" but a hop,
skip and a jump over to www.linuxsecurity.com shows otherwise.



> That's the real irony, though, of most of what you do and say in here.
> Every time you post something in an attempt to make Linux look bad, a
> simple examination of the reality of the situation shows Windows to
> be the loser.  Whether it's "stealing ideas" or too-frequent
> notifications
> and patches, or security holes, or, indeed, pretty much anything you
> offer up to suggest Linux is somehow bad or lacking, simply looking
> at the scope of what's involved, be it in terms of application base
> that the notifications are derived from, or scope of damages, both
> potential and actual, Windows consistently loses out in such
> comparisons... but you still spew forth your nonsense, attempting to
> make Linux look bad by comparison, and failing, completely, to manage
> it.

Yet my posts seem to upset you to the nth degree?  What's that all about?


>>> Must be dealing with some low-quality places, then.  Most of the
>>> places I buy hardware, they may not offer Linux as a preinstall
>>> *yet*... but they know about it and, in many cases, are considering
>>> offering it.
>>
>>  1-866-597-8626
>
> Oh, my, you know a phone number.  Let me guess - dial-a-date?

Give it a try, boy.  Ask them about buying a machine with Linux pre-loaded.
(it's a PC vendor, not a porn number fraidy-cat)



>> Not a native WinServer2K3 feature (can't speak for XP).  However,
>> available here
>>
http://drn.digitalriver.com/product.php%5Bid%5D77617%5Bcid%5D67%5BSiteID%5Dcomputerworld
>> for FREE!
>
> So Windows does not, in fact, do it with the bundled tools, does it?
> My OS does.  Hell, name pretty much any task - word processing,
> spreadsheeting, database development, web serving, proxy serving, game
> playing, video editing... my OS does it, with the bundled tools.  Does
> yours?  Oh, well, lost that one, didn't you?

Of course I lost that one.  Linux comes bundled with dozens of apps and
tools not in Windows.

And guess what?  They're all FREE!  Thank the Lord for that, eh?  Otherwise,
Linux goes nowhere - fast.

Oh, excuse me, I lied again, didn't I?  I said "nowhere" when it's clear
Linux is going _somewhere_.  After all, it runs on German civil servants
desktops.



>> I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that
>> wasn't copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps.
>
> Even if that were true - so what?

So then the whole Linux "community" is composed of drones copying features
from other sources, and giving them away for free.


>>> If you have two options, each is an alternative.
>>
>> Only Linux is labeled as such.
>
> Windows, OS/2, DOS, Solaris, Linux, BSD... all are altneratives.  Is
> the concept too much for you to grasp?

I've seen with my own eyes a shelf space labeled "Alternative OS's".  Guess
what was on the shelf?



>>> Like Moz clones IE?  (When, exactly, did IE get popup blocking,
>>> tabbed browsing, etc, included?)
>>
>> No, like Excel clones Calc and Gnumeric.  Like Word clone Writer.
>
> I'm not even going to comment on that one. :)

I'm sure you're not.



>>> somewhat slippery without being very specific.  What part is slower
>>> - UI response in X?  Application launches?  Total systemic
>>> throughput under load?
>>
>> At least a and b, from what I've read.
>
> But neither a nor b are particularly important.  Which matters more:
> that it takes a few seconds longer to launch an app, or twice as long
> to repaint a desktop, or that when running a dozen processes, your
> systemic throughput remains high?

Depends on the user and what you expect out of the software.

I do know that what's important to _you_ is whatever feature Linux does
better than Windows.  If the apps load and run slower under Linux, suddenly
that's not important to you (though it used to be).  If gaming is worse on
Linux, it no longer matters (though it used to).  You change your opinions
and expectations to match your OS, not the other way around.






0
nospam21 (19047)
7/15/2004 4:22:25 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, William Poaster
<willpoast@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx>
 wrote
on Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:51:23 +0100
<pan.2004.07.14.22.51.22.347641@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx>:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:06:30 -0700, Ralph wrote this message:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:14:59 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>>> [snips]
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Looks like Windows lacks a whole mess of features... and includes
>>>>> several it actually copied from Linux - but poorly.
>>>> 
>>>> I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that
>>>> wasn't copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps.
>>> 
>>> Name one original app that has come from micro$oft.
>> 
>> Ummmm, clippy???
>
> What was that other thing? You know...used to see it a
> lot...the..erm...it's on the tip of my tongue..ah, yes!
> The BSOD! 
>


I was thinking more along the lines of Microsoft BOB, myself. :-)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
0
ewill4 (1430)
7/15/2004 8:01:07 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter Jensen
<usenet@pekajemaps.homeip.net>
 wrote
on 15 Jul 2004 08:14:19 GMT
<40f63cdb$0$212$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk>:
>
> Lin�nut wrote:
>
>>> Customer: Can I get that McBurger without ketchup?
>>> McSlave:  You can just scrape it off.
>>
>> I just got myself a Win Burger.  WHERE's THE BEEF!!!?!?!?!???
>
> You'll have to wait for Longhorn to get that.  ETA somewhere between
> 2006 and 2008 ... maybe ...
>

But will it still dribble down one's chin after those patches
in the exact same fashion?

:-)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
0
ewill4 (1430)
7/15/2004 8:01:08 PM
[snips]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:22:25 -0400, DFS wrote:

>> Can't have it both ways.  If popularity equates to quality, as you
>> imply, then McD's is gourmet food.
> 
> Windows is popular, and Windows is quality software, but the two aren't
> necessarily related.

Then your repeated harping on "400 million sold" really means absolutely
nothing in relation to any argument you have in favor of Windows or
against Linux, and thus, has absolutely zero applicability to virtually
anything discussed in here.  So why do you keep bringing it up?  Oh,
right, because you are, in fact, implying that "volume means quality".

>> I don't know why you persist in capitalizing "free" that way - and
>> adding an exclamation point, to boot.  The software is, as has been
>> pointed out to you repeatedly, free - though it may cost you money to
>> buy it.
> 
> You know exactly why I capitalize and exclaim.

I do indeed - because you're dishonestly misrepresenting "libre" as
"gratis" hoping someone else as stupid as you are might buy it.

>> It's not a question of a mistake, or a misunderstanding, or a lack of
>> experience, or anything else where uttering a falsehood might be
>> excusable; it is, quite simply, an intentional and willful lie on your
>> part.
> 
> Quit playing around.  As you know, nobody = few.

No, nobody = nobody.  Not one single person anywhere.  Few = few, which
is a different matter entirely.

> Will it make you feel better if I say "Failure to cope with reality: the
> gourmet burger is FREE! and still few want it."?   (sorry, not gonna do
> it. Few just doesn't have the punch that nobody does.)

I see.  "Catchy" is better than honest.

>> I ask the same of you: is your faith - in Windows, rather than in deity
>> - so weak that you need to actually lie to support it?  If so, it's not
>> much of a faith, and why would you expect anyone else to adopt it?
> 
> Because it provides an excellent computing experience.

This is why you need to lie to support it?  If it were so excellent, you
wouldn't need to lie about it.

> Why would you expect me to say anything bad about Windows?  Are you
> stupid?

I expect you to behave honestly, nothing more.  You suggest that a
behaviour is bad - stealing ideas from someone else.  If so, then it's bad
no matter who does it - yet you conveniently overlook it when *your* side
does it.  That's not being honest.

>> You also ignore that Windows is, in fact, adopting ideas from OSS.
> 
> I see much more of the other way around.

"Much more" implies that there is at least some going the other way. 
Which I don't see you berating Windows for.  If this behaviour is bad
enough to berate Linux for, it's bad enough to berate *everyone* for. 
Unless you're dishonest, of course.

>> You ignore the damages caused by the Windows' poor security model,
> 
> Zero damages are caused by Windows poor security model.

$220 billion and counting, actually.  All them worms and viruses would
not exist or, at the very least, would be extremely less damaging, but for
Windows virtually non-existant security model.  All those damages are
*directly* a result of MS's screwups.

Oh, one could suggest it's the virus writers... but that's missing a key
point.  Banks don't make vaults out of cardboards and then whine that it
wasn't *their* fault the money got stolen, blame the nasty crooks... banks
are *expected* to provide security that will defeat all but the most
inventive crooks.  *SO ARE OPERATING SYSTEMS*.  At least, those with
exposure such as internet connections where not having such security
creates the risk.

> It only seems like I harp on about them, because you're (cola
> collectively) too sensitive to any criticism about Linux.  Guess what?
> Too bad.  It's not gonna stop.

Umm... no.  *We* criticize Linux.  You harp on about, for the most part,
trivial crap and worse, you manage to get most of that wrong.

One criticism I had of Linux was it's lack of really flexible security -
something beyond the simple user/group/other model.  Guess what?  It has
adopted ACLs.  Not universally yet, but the code is there and being
tested, quite extensively.

Others criticized the performance of Linux in high-load environments; the
response to this was the O(1) scheduler.

Others criticized the apparent unresponsiveness of some apps in some
situations, especially as involved multimedia in moderately loaded
systems.  The response to this was a pre-emptible kernel.

*We* criticize Linux, and things get done - Linux improves.  You don't
criticize, you piss and moan, but in a completely ineffectual way that
does nothing to improve Linux - nor even to promote Windows.  All it
accomplishes is making you look foolish.

>> neglecting to note that most of those vulnerabilities *do not affect*
>> most Linux users in the first place.
> 
> Don't be silly.  If most of those vulnerabilities didn't affect most
> Linux users, you and half of Linuxdom wouldn't have your
> "apt-get-nightly-security-updates-so-I-can-sleep" scripts in place.

Again, unable to grasp simple concepts.  Of the - what was it you claimed?
52 vulnerabilities? - a grand total of *two* had even the possibility to
affect my system.  The rest simply *do not affect my system*.

The next guy, using, say, Fedora, is in a similar situation - of the
umpteen vulnerabilities you whinged about, *maybe* as many as three or for
are liable to affect him.

Of the entire list of vulnerabilities, any given Linux box is not going to
be susceptible to more than maybe 4 items - meaning that, exactly as I
said, those vulnerabilities simply *do not affect* most Linux systems in
the first place.  Hell, a number of them you've posted were in packages so
obscure I've never even heard of them, let alone used them - no way in
hell they're going to have any effect at all on my system - nor on, I
suspect, any but the smallest number of boxes.

Most Windows vulnerabilities, by contrast, do in fact affect the majority
of Windows users.  An issue with IIS won't... but one with IE most
certainly will, unless it is extremely limited by other means, such as
only affecting Win95 users or some such.

> Let me ask you: how often do you apply security fixes and patches to
> your Linux systems?  I'm curious.

As often as they come down the pike.  Let's see, there's a notification
right now, as a matter of fact, about some issues.  Let's take a look:


"subversion - A Concurrent Versioning system similar to but better than
CVS

Potential Denial of Service and Heap Overflow issue related to the parsing
of strings in the 'svn://' family of access protocols. Only sites running
'svnserve' are affected."

Okay, well, I'm not, and even if I were, it wouldn't be externally
accessible - so the vulnerability has absolutely *zero* impact on my
security.


"aspell - A Free and Open Source spell checker

A bug in the aspell utility word-list-compress can allow an attacker to
execute arbitrary code."

Really?  How?  Let's see.  A little hunting doesn't reveal much, but
here's a possibility:

"Due to insufficient bounds checking, a malformed
 wordlist can cause for a stack based buffer overflow
 to occur, possibly allowing execution of arbitrary
 code with the privileges of the invoking user."

Doesn't affect me one iota, as I'm the only one with an account on the box
at the moment.  Net security risk: zero.

"neon - An HTTP and WebDAV client library

 A buffer overflow exists in neon which allows remote attackers to execute
 arbitrary code with the privileges of the user utilizing neon."

Really?  How odd.  Well, I don't use WebDAV, even implicitly, so that
part's out... what about the other part?  Let's have a look...

Ah.  Used by subversion, apparently to connect to remove subversion
servers - possibly also local ones.  The local ones wouldn't matter, and I
don't connect to any remote ones - net security impact: zero.

"tla - Arch Revision Control System

The tla package includes a vulnerable version of the neon library"

Which, as we've already determined, has zero actual impact.

"squid - Squid WWW proxy server

This security update fixes a buffer overflow in the code of the NTLM
authentication helper. This bug could be exploited remotely by providing a
long password. As a result the attacker could execute arbitrary code."

This one has the possibility of being an issue, but for one minor nit:
NTLM appears to apply to https: connections - which are not routed through
my squid proxy.  Net security impact: zero.

Apart from those, there are two updates, one for WonderShaper which I
don't actually use, and one for hotplug, which is a functionality
enhancement, apparently.

So... five listed security fixes, but *zero* actual risk.  I could run
these exact same versions, with these exact same vulnerabilities, for the
next two years without worry.  Which means I can't be bothered running the
update right now, even though it's just a mouse-click away.  Hardly seems
worth the effort.


>> So, Mandrake has, say, 500 notifications a year, over 1,000 or more
>> applications.  Let us know when Windows Update gets down to no more
>> than 5 notifications a year.  Until it does, your whining about the
>> rate of Linux alerts and updates does nothing but make Windows look
>> bad.
> 
> If so, I wonder why you argue everything I say about Linux security
> advisories vs vulnerabilities.  If my posts actually make Windows look
> bad, why do you argue about every point in them?

Because they are wrong.  Stupidly wrong.  Amazingly, blindingly,
stupendously wrong.  That they happen to make Windows look bad by
comparison is simply a side-effect.

We don't mind criticisms of Linux.  What annoys us is *wrong* criticisms,
such as claiming there are N Linux vulnerability notifications; if there
were, then any Linux system would, in fact, be susceptible to all N of
them.  Except they're not - most of the ones you count only affect a
portion of Linux users - those who use RedHat, for example - and have zero
impact on anyone else.  If a vulnerability were a *Linux* vulnerability,
rather than a *RedHat* vulnerability, all Linux users would be affected,
but they're not - so it isn't, by definition, a Linux vulnerability.  You
don't seem to get that.

> What makes Linux look bad is you loons claiming it's "secure" but a hop,
> skip and a jump over to www.linuxsecurity.com shows otherwise.

Except for your stunning inability to differentiate distros, compare
apples to apples, handle complex tasks such as counting, then, having
mastered that, doing a comparative analysis of, say, Windows security
versus that of a given Linux distro, or even Linux distros in general.

Windows Update *alone* has an _effective_ rate of issues over 100 times
more frequent than any Linux distro you can name.  By comparison, Linux
security *is* almost absolute.

>> and actual, Windows consistently loses out in such comparisons... but
>> you still spew forth your nonsense, attempting to make Linux look bad
>> by comparison, and failing, completely, to manage it.
> 
> Yet my posts seem to upset you to the nth degree?  What's that all
> about?

Stupidity annoys some people.  So does willful dishonesty.

>>>  1-866-597-8626
>>
>> Oh, my, you know a phone number.  Let me guess - dial-a-date?
> 
> Give it a try, boy.  Ask them about buying a machine with Linux
> pre-loaded. (it's a PC vendor, not a porn number fraidy-cat)

*A* PC vendor.  Oh, goodie.  I've got 50 of 'em within an hour's drive,
*most* of which are either selling Linux, offering Linux preloads, or
considering selling Linux preloads.

Last I heard, Dell was doing it.  IBM, apparently is doing it.  Hell,
Walmart is, IIRC, still doing it.  Oh, but you found *one* that isn't. 
How totally impressive.  I know several who aren't, and who aren't even
considering it - of those, exactly one is a large, well-known outfit...
and their tech staff, at least the ones I've talked to, actually know
enough about Linux to recommend buying - or not buying - certain hardware,
if nothing else.

>> So Windows does not, in fact, do it with the bundled tools, does it? My
>> OS does.  Hell, name pretty much any task - word processing,
>> spreadsheeting, database development, web serving, proxy serving, game
>> playing, video editing... my OS does it, with the bundled tools.  Does
>> yours?  Oh, well, lost that one, didn't you?
> 
> Of course I lost that one.  Linux comes bundled with dozens of apps and
> tools not in Windows.

Funny, Windows costs twice as much as my Linux distro did... and doesn't
come with even a comparable application list?  How pathetic.  Oh, by the
way, it's not "dozens" of apps, it's thousands.  You're going to be
hard-pressed to argue that *all* of those, except a couple dozen, have, in
fact, got equivalents which are bundled with Windows.

> And guess what?  They're all FREE!  Thank the Lord for that, eh?
> Otherwise, Linux goes nowhere - fast.

Indeed.  Freedom is an important thing in Linux-land.

> Oh, excuse me, I lied again, didn't I?  I said "nowhere" when it's clear
> Linux is going _somewhere_.  After all, it runs on German civil servants
> desktops.

Among others.  England, Australia, I hear Chicago is adopting it, China,
and many, many other places.

>>> I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that
>>> wasn't copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps.
>>
>> Even if that were true - so what?
> 
> So then the whole Linux "community" is composed of drones copying
> features from other sources, and giving them away for free.

You mean, instead of copying features then charging for them, like Windows
and Windows apps are wont to do?  Oh, how terrible.

>> Windows, OS/2, DOS, Solaris, Linux, BSD... all are altneratives.  Is
>> the concept too much for you to grasp?
> 
> I've seen with my own eyes a shelf space labeled "Alternative OS's".
> Guess what was on the shelf?

I see.  You've gone from "Only Linux is labelled as an alternative OS" to
"Some local compan[y|ies] happen to have a shel labelled 'Alternative
OSs' and only stock Linux there."  One side of that discussion encompasses
the entire planet, the other, your local neighborhood, but, since your
neighborhood does things one way, apparently everyone else must, too.

It must be nice to have such an ego: "That which relates to me must also
relate to everyone else."  Sorry, but your personal pet view of the
universe - which has long since been established to be woefully
short-sighted and restricted - is hardly as all-encompassing as you seem
to think it is.

>> But neither a nor b are particularly important.  Which matters more:
>> that it takes a few seconds longer to launch an app, or twice as long
>> to repaint a desktop, or that when running a dozen processes, your
>> systemic throughput remains high?
> 
> Depends on the user and what you expect out of the software.

Indeed, but expecting a snappy UI is, frankly, a bit silly.  It's one
thing for the UI to be really, exceptionally slow - like Windows often is
when it's busy doing something, often incurring response delays of 10
seconds or more - it's another to simply not be instantaneous.

> I do know that what's important to _you_ is whatever feature Linux does
> better than Windows.

On the contrary.  What's important to me is usability.  For example, in
Windows, I'm used to tools such as FrontPage and the like which have both
WYSIWYG web editing - as much as WYSIWG means in web terms, at least - and
the ability to do things such as changing "look and feel" across an entire
site with a click or six.  Someone actually suggested such a package for
Linux a while back, though I can't for the life of me recall what it was
called - but that was one of my big annoyances with using Linux - the lack
of a *site* editor, rather than a *page* editor.  I've said so, publicly,
here, several times.

Another annoyance I have is the less-than-clear and
less-than-flexible logging functionality in some aspects of Linux.  For
example, try getting your firewall logs to log to a separate file.  Or try
to figure out whether fetchmail, procmail, postix or ipop is "mail" as far
as the log is concerned; it's less than immediately obvious.

The kicker is, if I don't like something, I have the option to change it. 
I *have*, in fact, changed several things to work the way I want them,
whcih was possible because I have the sources - something I don't have in
Windows, yet Windows suffers most of the same faults.


> If the apps load and run slower under Linux, suddenly that's not important to you (though it used to be).

It was, at one point, as it was really, significantly slower.  It's not
anymore.  A factor of twenty slowdown is a problem; a factor of two isn't.

> If gaming is worse on Linux, it no longer matters (though it used to).

Yes, gaming support for Linux is lacking.  I don't recall saying that lack
of gaming doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter all that much to me, really,
as I've never been much of a gamer... but Linux *is* lacking in that
regard.

Thing is, that's not really Linux's fault; it has the ability to run
games; game developers simply haven't, on the whole, made use of it. 
That's changing, though; some of the more popular (and some very
anticipated) games are, indeed, available for (or being developed for)
Linux.

> You change your opinions and expectations to match your OS, not the
> other way around.

Except that's not the case.  You're looking at comments made two years
ago, but failing, completely, to realize that two years, in Linux-land, is
an eternity.  An eternity in which vast amounts of development have been
done.  Multimedia is improved.  Responsiveness is much better.  Gaming
support has always been there, just un-used... but wine and winex are also
constantly improving, meaning more and more games are playable under Linux.

Many moons ago, I had a tape drive.  It sucked.  Backing up onto tape was
a slow and painful process.  The whole concept of tape drives, at least
for PC-class machines, struck me as a largely stupid idea.

At some point, though, DAT drives were created.  Backup times were
significantly improved.  Storage density was significantly improved. 
Suddenly, backing up to tape became a reasonable thing to do.

You're doing the equivalent of looking at comments which pertain to the
old tape technology and suggesting that there's something underhanded
about changing one's mind about tape backups - but you're not considering
that the technology itself has improved in the interim.

Two or three years ago, I said I didn't think Linux was ready for the
desktop.  Help systems, for example, were badly fragmented.  Howtos were
scattered hither and yon.  Many configuration tools were less than
wonderfully good, so people who don't like text files to configure things
were somewhat limited.

In the interim, though, the tools, the technology, has improved a hell of
a lot.  It's a QIC-tape to DAT-tape scope of improvement, and that
improvement has made Linux eminently usable for all but a few very
specialized applications.

So feel free to take things out of context, to fail to account for the
changes in the thing under discussion, to ignore the improvements and
enhancements that have been made.  Feel free to suggest that quotes which
applied two or three years ago are somehow relevant to *today's* Linux. 
All it does is, again, make you look foolish.


0
kelseyb (715)
7/15/2004 9:34:48 PM
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:22:25 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>>> Can't have it both ways.  If popularity equates to quality, as you
>>> imply, then McD's is gourmet food.
>>
>> Windows is popular, and Windows is quality software, but the two
>> aren't
>> necessarily related.
>
> Then your repeated harping on "400 million sold" really means
> absolutely nothing in relation to any argument you have in favor of
> Windows or against Linux, and thus, has absolutely zero applicability
> to virtually anything discussed in here.  So why do you keep bringing
> it up?  Oh, right, because you are, in fact, implying that "volume
> means quality".

That's how you interpret it.  I never made a link between quality and
volume.  I only report that sales of 200,000,000 (not 400) Windows XP
indicate that's what the market wants.

Certainly some Linux/OSS software is high quality.




>>> I don't know why you persist in capitalizing "free" that way - and
>>> adding an exclamation point, to boot.  The software is, as has been
>>> pointed out to you repeatedly, free - though it may cost you money
>>> to buy it.
>>
>> You know exactly why I capitalize and exclaim.
>
> I do indeed - because you're dishonestly misrepresenting "libre" as
> "gratis" hoping someone else as stupid as you are might buy it.

First you said you don't know why I capitalize it, now you say you do
indeed.  Why don't you just skip the intro and call me dishonest and stupid,
and quit beating around the bush?



>>> It's not a question of a mistake, or a misunderstanding, or a lack
>>> of experience, or anything else where uttering a falsehood might be
>>> excusable; it is, quite simply, an intentional and willful lie on
>>> your part.
>>
>> Quit playing around.  As you know, nobody = few.
>
> No, nobody = nobody.  Not one single person anywhere.  Few = few,
> which is a different matter entirely.

By convention nobody = few.  As you know.




>> Will it make you feel better if I say "Failure to cope with reality:
>> the
>> gourmet burger is FREE! and still few want it."?   (sorry, not gonna
>> do
>> it. Few just doesn't have the punch that nobody does.)
>
> I see.  "Catchy" is better than honest.

And since every cola nut including you knows what is meant by "nobody wants
it" or "nobody bought Clinton's book" I think I'll keep using it just as I
have.

Nobody cares.  Except you.



>>> I ask the same of you: is your faith - in Windows, rather than in
>>> deity - so weak that you need to actually lie to support it?  If
>>> so, it's not much of a faith, and why would you expect anyone else
>>> to adopt it?
>>
>> Because it provides an excellent computing experience.
>
> This is why you need to lie to support it?  If it were so excellent,
> you wouldn't need to lie about it.

Now I lied about my Windows experience?


>> Why would you expect me to say anything bad about Windows?  Are you
>> stupid?
>
> I expect you to behave honestly, nothing more.  You suggest that a
> behaviour is bad - stealing ideas from someone else.  If so, then
> it's bad no matter who does it - yet you conveniently overlook it
> when *your* side does it.  That's not being honest.

I'm not overlooking anything.  You expect me to trash Windows?  Except in
rare instances, when I feel it really comes up short, that's not gonna
happen.

That's what the rest of your cola pals are for.



>>> You also ignore that Windows is, in fact, adopting ideas from OSS.
>>
>> I see much more of the other way around.
>
> "Much more" implies that there is at least some going the other way.
> Which I don't see you berating Windows for.  If this behaviour is bad
> enough to berate Linux for, it's bad enough to berate *everyone* for.
> Unless you're dishonest, of course.

And of course for every Windows slam you've written, you've given equal time
to Linux shortcomings.



>>> You ignore the damages caused by the Windows' poor security model,
>>
>> Zero damages are caused by Windows poor security model.
>
> $220 billion and counting, actually.  All them worms and viruses would
> not exist or, at the very least, would be extremely less damaging,
> but for Windows virtually non-existant security model.  All those
> damages are *directly* a result of MS's screwups.
>
> Oh, one could suggest it's the virus writers... but that's missing a
> key point.

It's the ONLY point.


> Banks don't make vaults out of cardboards and then whine
> that it wasn't *their* fault the money got stolen, blame the nasty
> crooks... banks are *expected* to provide security that will defeat
> all but the most inventive crooks.

Money's not an OS.

And now you'll say the crooks who write Windows viruses aren't inventive.



> *SO ARE OPERATING SYSTEMS*.  At
> least, those with exposure such as internet connections where not
> having such security creates the risk.

No, YOU think the OS should protect your system.  I consider it my
responsibility to protect my system from outside attacks.



>> It only seems like I harp on about them, because you're (cola
>> collectively) too sensitive to any criticism about Linux.  Guess
>> what?
>> Too bad.  It's not gonna stop.
>
> Umm... no.  *We* criticize Linux.

That's a bald-faced lie.  I have NEVER seen a Linux-critical post here on
cola.


> You harp on about, for the most
> part, trivial crap and worse, you manage to get most of that wrong.

If it's trivial, why does it bother you so much?


> One criticism I had of Linux was it's lack of really flexible
> security - something beyond the simple user/group/other model.  Guess
> what?  It has adopted ACLs.  Not universally yet, but the code is
> there and being tested, quite extensively.
>
> Others criticized the performance of Linux in high-load environments;
> the response to this was the O(1) scheduler.
>
> Others criticized the apparent unresponsiveness of some apps in some
> situations, especially as involved multimedia in moderately loaded
> systems.  The response to this was a pre-emptible kernel.
>
> *We* criticize Linux, and things get done - Linux improves.

But you don't criticize Linux in public - at least not on this newsgroup.


> You don't
> criticize, you piss and moan, but in a completely ineffectual way that
> does nothing to improve Linux - nor even to promote Windows.

Hey, I taught a Linux nut a new word: ineffectual.



> All it
> accomplishes is making you look foolish.

That's what you all say, yet nobody (or few) on cola gets more responses.
So, either cola nuts are foolish (for responding to me), or I'm not foolish.
Which is it?



>>> neglecting to note that most of those vulnerabilities *do not
>>> affect* most Linux users in the first place.
>>
>> Don't be silly.  If most of those vulnerabilities didn't affect most
>> Linux users, you and half of Linuxdom wouldn't have your
>> "apt-get-nightly-security-updates-so-I-can-sleep" scripts in place.
>
> Again, unable to grasp simple concepts.  Of the - what was it you
> claimed? 52 vulnerabilities? - a grand total of *two* had even the
> possibility to affect my system.  The rest simply *do not affect my
> system*.

For the tenth time, YOU are not the Linux user universe.  Many Linux users
ARE affected by those vulnerabilities.



> The next guy, using, say, Fedora, is in a similar situation - of the
> umpteen vulnerabilities you whinged about, *maybe* as many as three
> or for are liable to affect him.
>
> Of the entire list of vulnerabilities, any given Linux box is not
> going to be susceptible to more than maybe 4 items - meaning that,
> exactly as I said, those vulnerabilities simply *do not affect* most
> Linux systems in the first place.  Hell, a number of them you've
> posted

I didn't post them.

> were in packages so obscure I've never even heard of them, let
> alone used them - no way in hell they're going to have any effect at
> all on my system - nor on, I suspect, any but the smallest number of
> boxes.
>
> Most Windows vulnerabilities, by contrast, do in fact affect the
> majority of Windows users.  An issue with IIS won't... but one with
> IE most certainly will, unless it is extremely limited by other
> means, such as only affecting Win95 users or some such.

Why are you bringing up Windows problems?  I thought you moved on to
"systems that just work"?





>> Let me ask you: how often do you apply security fixes and patches to
>> your Linux systems?  I'm curious.
>
> As often as they come down the pike.

Same here, which is about once every few weeks.

I've purposely NOT applied Windows Update to my new WinServer2K3
installation for about 8 days now.  I want to see how I'll be affected with
just the router firewall in place and no other security or antivirus
measures implemented.  I use IE regularly, and have it set at "average"
levels of security.


> Let's see, there's a
> notification right now, as a matter of fact, about some issues.
> Let's take a look:
>
>
> "subversion - A Concurrent Versioning system similar to but better
> than CVS
>
> Potential Denial of Service and Heap Overflow issue related to the
> parsing of strings in the 'svn://' family of access protocols. Only
> sites running 'svnserve' are affected."
>
> Okay, well, I'm not, and even if I were, it wouldn't be externally
> accessible - so the vulnerability has absolutely *zero* impact on my
> security.
>
>
> "aspell - A Free and Open Source spell checker
>
> A bug in the aspell utility word-list-compress can allow an attacker
> to execute arbitrary code."
>
> Really?  How?  Let's see.  A little hunting doesn't reveal much, but
> here's a possibility:
>
> "Due to insufficient bounds checking, a malformed
>  wordlist can cause for a stack based buffer overflow
>  to occur, possibly allowing execution of arbitrary
>  code with the privileges of the invoking user."
>
> Doesn't affect me one iota, as I'm the only one with an account on
> the box at the moment.  Net security risk: zero.
>
> "neon - An HTTP and WebDAV client library
>
>  A buffer overflow exists in neon which allows remote attackers to
>  execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the user utilizing
> neon."
>
> Really?  How odd.  Well, I don't use WebDAV, even implicitly, so that
> part's out... what about the other part?  Let's have a look...
>
> Ah.  Used by subversion, apparently to connect to remove subversion
> servers - possibly also local ones.  The local ones wouldn't matter,
> and I don't connect to any remote ones - net security impact: zero.
>
> "tla - Arch Revision Control System
>
> The tla package includes a vulnerable version of the neon library"
>
> Which, as we've already determined, has zero actual impact.
>
> "squid - Squid WWW proxy server
>
> This security update fixes a buffer overflow in the code of the NTLM
> authentication helper. This bug could be exploited remotely by
> providing a long password. As a result the attacker could execute
> arbitrary code."
>
> This one has the possibility of being an issue, but for one minor nit:
> NTLM appears to apply to https: connections - which are not routed
> through my squid proxy.  Net security impact: zero.
>
> Apart from those, there are two updates, one for WonderShaper which I
> don't actually use, and one for hotplug, which is a functionality
> enhancement, apparently.
>
> So... five listed security fixes, but *zero* actual risk.  I could run
> these exact same versions, with these exact same vulnerabilities, for
> the next two years without worry.  Which means I can't be bothered
> running the update right now, even though it's just a mouse-click
> away.  Hardly seems worth the effort.

But you'll do it anyway, since writing that description of those five "zero
risk security issues" took much longer than applying them.



>>> So, Mandrake has, say, 500 notifications a year, over 1,000 or more
>>> applications.  Let us know when Windows Update gets down to no more
>>> than 5 notifications a year.  Until it does, your whining about the
>>> rate of Linux alerts and updates does nothing but make Windows look
>>> bad.
>>
>> If so, I wonder why you argue everything I say about Linux security
>> advisories vs vulnerabilities.  If my posts actually make Windows
>> look
>> bad, why do you argue about every point in them?
>
> Because they are wrong.  Stupidly wrong.  Amazingly, blindingly,
> stupendously wrong.  That they happen to make Windows look bad by
> comparison is simply a side-effect.

They (my pointing out and posting links to advisories and vulnerabilities)
CANNOT be wrong unless I mistype the link, or miscount the number of
advisories - which to date I haven't.



> We don't mind criticisms of Linux.  What annoys us is *wrong*
> criticisms, such as claiming there are N Linux vulnerability
> notifications; if there were, then any Linux system would, in fact,
> be susceptible to all N of them.  Except they're not - most of the
> ones you count only affect a portion of Linux users - those who use
> RedHat, for example - and have zero impact on anyone else.  If a
> vulnerability were a *Linux* vulnerability, rather than a *RedHat*
> vulnerability, all Linux users would be affected, but they're not -
> so it isn't, by definition, a Linux vulnerability.  You don't seem to
> get that.

I get that you believe a Windows vulnerability impacts all Win users (as
when you stupidly and wrongly say "Most Windows vulnerabilities, by
contrast, do in fact affect the majority of Windows users.").  I'm affected
only by WinServer issues, or by issues affecting components or apps I use.


>> What makes Linux look bad is you loons claiming it's "secure" but a
>> hop,
>> skip and a jump over to www.linuxsecurity.com shows otherwise.
>
> Except for your stunning inability to differentiate distros, compare
> apples to apples, handle complex tasks such as counting, then, having
> mastered that, doing a comparative analysis of, say, Windows security
> versus that of a given Linux distro, or even Linux distros in general.

You seem to be saying here that different distros aren't Linux.
www.linuxsecurity.com doesn't agree.


> Windows Update *alone* has an _effective_ rate of issues over 100
> times more frequent than any Linux distro you can name.  By
> comparison, Linux security *is* almost absolute.

Almost, but not sufficient so that you'll wager $10 large that I can't break
into your box.  (I notice you keep avoiding the issue.  Can't say as I blame
you.).



>>> and actual, Windows consistently loses out in such comparisons...
>>> but you still spew forth your nonsense, attempting to make Linux
>>> look bad by comparison, and failing, completely, to manage it.
>>
>> Yet my posts seem to upset you to the nth degree?  What's that all
>> about?
>
> Stupidity annoys some people.  So does willful dishonesty.

Both of which you display to varying degrees.  I think you're more dishonest
than stupid.



>>>>  1-866-597-8626
>>>
>>> Oh, my, you know a phone number.  Let me guess - dial-a-date?
>>
>> Give it a try, boy.  Ask them about buying a machine with Linux
>> pre-loaded. (it's a PC vendor, not a porn number fraidy-cat)
>
> *A* PC vendor.  Oh, goodie.  I've got 50 of 'em within an hour's
> drive,
> *most* of which are either selling Linux, offering Linux preloads, or
> considering selling Linux preloads.
>
> Last I heard, Dell was doing it.  IBM, apparently is doing it.  Hell,
> Walmart is, IIRC, still doing it.  Oh, but you found *one* that isn't.
> How totally impressive.  I know several who aren't, and who aren't
> even considering it - of those, exactly one is a large, well-known
> outfit... and their tech staff, at least the ones I've talked to,
> actually know enough about Linux to recommend buying - or not buying
> - certain hardware, if nothing else.

Just try the number.  It's toll free.  Ask the first salesperson who answers
whether you can get Linux pre-loaded.  I'm curious what they'll say.

Last time I checked, the salesperson didn't know, had to ask someone in the
background, then transferred me to someone else.


>>> So Windows does not, in fact, do it with the bundled tools, does
>>> it? My OS does.  Hell, name pretty much any task - word processing,
>>> spreadsheeting, database development, web serving, proxy serving,
>>> game playing, video editing... my OS does it, with the bundled
>>> tools.  Does yours?  Oh, well, lost that one, didn't you?
>>
>> Of course I lost that one.  Linux comes bundled with dozens of apps
>> and
>> tools not in Windows.
>
> Funny, Windows costs twice as much as my Linux distro did... and
> doesn't come with even a comparable application list?  How pathetic.

What's pathetic is copying apps from Windows and Unix, then giving them
away, often with the stated intention to hurt MS.



> Oh, by the way, it's not "dozens" of apps, it's thousands.  You're
> going to be hard-pressed to argue that *all* of those, except a
> couple dozen, have, in fact, got equivalents which are bundled with
> Windows.

Did I ever say they were?  No.


>> And guess what?  They're all FREE!  Thank the Lord for that, eh?
>> Otherwise, Linux goes nowhere - fast.
>
> Indeed.  Freedom is an important thing in Linux-land.

You misspelled "the" as "an".



>> Oh, excuse me, I lied again, didn't I?  I said "nowhere" when it's
>> clear
>> Linux is going _somewhere_.  After all, it runs on German civil
>> servants
>> desktops.
>
> Among others.  England, Australia, I hear Chicago is adopting it,
> China, and many, many other places.

I'm curious to hear about any large-scale success stories.  I read just this
evening in Linux Journal (or Linux Review) that Oracle is moving all
in-house staff to Linux, and is porting all their products (the article
didn't say some - it said all).



>>>> I honestly think there's not a single original Linux app - one that
>>>> wasn't copied from previously available Unix or Windows apps.
>>>
>>> Even if that were true - so what?
>>
>> So then the whole Linux "community" is composed of drones copying
>> features from other sources, and giving them away for free.
>
> You mean, instead of copying features then charging for them, like
> Windows and Windows apps are wont to do?  Oh, how terrible.

It is terrible.  You'd think so too if your own business was proprietary
software.




>>> Windows, OS/2, DOS, Solaris, Linux, BSD... all are altneratives.  Is
>>> the concept too much for you to grasp?
>>
>> I've seen with my own eyes a shelf space labeled "Alternative OS's".
>> Guess what was on the shelf?
>
> I see.  You've gone from "Only Linux is labelled as an alternative
> OS" to "Some local compan[y|ies] happen to have a shel labelled
> 'Alternative
> OSs' and only stock Linux there."  One side of that discussion
> encompasses the entire planet, the other, your local neighborhood,
> but, since your neighborhood does things one way, apparently everyone
> else must, too.

You'll just have to go here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=alternative+operating+systems&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N

My local MicroCenter has a few feet of shelf space devoted to Linux/OSS.
They have a decent variety, though usually just one or two boxes of each:
Xandros, Mandrake, SuSE, FreeBSD, RedHat, Lindows.


> It must be nice to have such an ego: "That which relates to me must
> also relate to everyone else."  Sorry, but your personal pet view of
> the universe - which has long since been established to be woefully
> short-sighted and restricted - is hardly as all-encompassing as you
> seem to think it is.

You are fooling yourself if you think Linux is not considered "the
alternative" to Windows.



>>> But neither a nor b are particularly important.  Which matters more:
>>> that it takes a few seconds longer to launch an app, or twice as
>>> long to repaint a desktop, or that when running a dozen processes,
>>> your systemic throughput remains high?
>>
>> Depends on the user and what you expect out of the software.
>
> Indeed, but expecting a snappy UI is, frankly, a bit silly.

LOL!  How ignorant!

It's the single most important criteria with which most users judge an OS's
speed.  They won't care that it runs 12 open apps with stability, but they
will care that it takes 10 seconds to open each app, and 10 seconds to load
a document.  (not saying that's Linux' speed)



> It's one
> thing for the UI to be really, exceptionally slow - like Windows
> often is when it's busy doing something, often incurring response
> delays of 10 seconds or more - it's another to simply not be
> instantaneous.




>> I do know that what's important to _you_ is whatever feature Linux
>> does better than Windows.
>
> On the contrary.  What's important to me is usability.  For example,
> in Windows, I'm used to tools such as FrontPage and the like which
> have both WYSIWYG web editing - as much as WYSIWG means in web terms,
> at least - and the ability to do things such as changing "look and
> feel" across an entire site with a click or six.  Someone actually
> suggested such a package for Linux a while back, though I can't for
> the life of me recall what it was called - but that was one of my big
> annoyances with using Linux - the lack of a *site* editor, rather
> than a *page* editor.  I've said so, publicly, here, several times.

I hear a compliment of a Windows app and a complaint about Linux in there
somewhere.
I'm shocked.


> Another annoyance I have is the less-than-clear and
> less-than-flexible logging functionality in some aspects of Linux.
> For example, try getting your firewall logs to log to a separate
> file.  Or try to figure out whether fetchmail, procmail, postix or
> ipop is "mail" as far as the log is concerned; it's less than
> immediately obvious.

I'm beginning to hear a lot more dissatisfaction with Linux than you've
previously revealed.  Have some problems this week, did you?


> The kicker is, if I don't like something, I have the option to change
> it. I *have*, in fact, changed several things to work the way I want
> them, whcih was possible because I have the sources - something I
> don't have in Windows, yet Windows suffers most of the same faults.

And you'll hopefully never have the Windows source.


>> If the apps load and run slower under Linux, suddenly that's not
>> important to you (though it used to be).
>
> It was, at one point, as it was really, significantly slower.  It's
> not anymore.  A factor of twenty slowdown is a problem; a factor of
> two isn't.

Sure it is.


>> If gaming is worse on Linux, it no longer matters (though it used
>> to).
>
> Yes, gaming support for Linux is lacking.  I don't recall saying that
> lack of gaming doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter all that much to
> me, really, as I've never been much of a gamer... but Linux *is*
> lacking in that regard.

No kidding?  When I say that you dismiss it as a non-issue.  It's just more
of your dishonesty.



> Thing is, that's not really Linux's fault; it has the ability to run
> games; game developers simply haven't, on the whole, made use of it.
> That's changing, though; some of the more popular (and some very
> anticipated) games are, indeed, available for (or being developed for)
> Linux.

Hopefully (for you) you'll soon be able to brag about games on Linux, and
dismiss 10 years of non-gaming in a flash.



>> You change your opinions and expectations to match your OS, not the
>> other way around.
>
> Except that's not the case.

I see that it is.



> You're looking at comments made two years
> ago, but failing, completely, to realize that two years, in
> Linux-land, is an eternity.  An eternity in which vast amounts of
> development have been done.  Multimedia is improved.  Responsiveness
> is much better.

During which time Windows has improved very much as well, but until this
post you've very consistently bashed it.  It's almost as if you decided 2
years ago you were going to drop Windows forever and embrace Linux.


> Gaming support has always been there, just
> un-used... but wine and winex are also constantly improving, meaning
> more and more games are playable under Linux.
>
> Many moons ago, I had a tape drive.  It sucked.  Backing up onto tape
> was a slow and painful process.  The whole concept of tape drives, at
> least for PC-class machines, struck me as a largely stupid idea.
>
> At some point, though, DAT drives were created.  Backup times were
> significantly improved.  Storage density was significantly improved.
> Suddenly, backing up to tape became a reasonable thing to do.
>
> You're doing the equivalent of looking at comments which pertain to
> the old tape technology and suggesting that there's something
> underhanded about changing one's mind about tape backups - but you're
> not considering that the technology itself has improved in the
> interim.
>
> Two or three years ago, I said I didn't think Linux was ready for the
> desktop.  Help systems, for example, were badly fragmented.  Howtos
> were scattered hither and yon.  Many configuration tools were less
> than wonderfully good, so people who don't like text files to
> configure things were somewhat limited.
>
> In the interim, though, the tools, the technology, has improved a
> hell of a lot.  It's a QIC-tape to DAT-tape scope of improvement, and
> that improvement has made Linux eminently usable for all but a few
> very specialized applications.
>
> So feel free to take things out of context, to fail to account for the
> changes in the thing under discussion, to ignore the improvements and
> enhancements that have been made.  Feel free to suggest that quotes
> which applied two or three years ago are somehow relevant to
> *today's* Linux. All it does is, again, make you look foolish.

I will feel free to do all those things, as you seem to feel free to.




0
nospam21 (19047)
7/16/2004 3:12:33 AM
Peter Jensen wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> DFS wrote:
>
>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>
>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>
>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when
>> Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>
> Actually, only a fraction of a percentage of those copies were sold
> separately.  The fact that all the rest came bundled should tell you
> what a monopoly can do to the market.

It tells me every PC vendor who pre-loads WinXP did so willingly.  And they
did so willingly because that's what the people want.



>> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but
>> when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?"
>> or silence or sometimes a click and then silence.
>
> I wouldn't know ... I haven't bought a pre-built machine over five
> years.

I last bought one 4 years ago.

I recently mail-ordered the parts and built this one I'm using now.  What a
hassle!  I did get a nice-looking, quiet, desktop case factor system, but it
was far more trouble than it's worth.  Of course, I'm gonna have to do it
again next time, mainly 'cause I prefer PCPower & Cooling power supplies,
Intel mobos, Crucial or Corsair memory, Zalman CPU coolers, and desktop
cases (no towers).

Then again, Dell, Falcon NW and VelocityMicro sell some sweet systems.



>> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
>> Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>>
>> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>
>> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>
> I rearrange this so it becomes obvious that you're using the same
> argument three times.  Let me list the programs I use the most often:
>
> Konsole
> Bash
> Screen
> Vim
> GCC and GNU Make
> Pine
> Slrn
> Irssi
>
> For each one I'd like you to describe what Windows apps and
> functionality have been "cloned".

Don't each of those have their origins in Unix?  I forgot to include Unix as
a source for Linux apps.



>> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an
>> odd subculture
>
> The word "alternative" doesn't have a negative association, though you
> try to imply it.  Alternative just means it's not the most common
> system.  Nobody is denying that.  However, being an alternative OS
> does also give some protection in that it isn't a mono-culture.

Like it or not, the Linux image is of a technical, bewildering system that's
hard to install and configure.  Some of that is true, some isn't.


>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
>> machine
>
> Blatant lie.

Load up KDE and OpenOffice and come back and apologize.  Accepted.


>> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
>
> You'll probably find that we're only hostile towards people that act
> like jerks.  Such as you.

Most of you are extremely hostile to any pro-Windows or anti-Linux poster.



> Would a hostile person spend hours on IRC,
> patiently helping newbies get started with Gentoo?

That Gentoo system looks interesting.  Sounds like you compile everything
for your system, rather than load existing binaries, so it's supposed to be
a bit faster?  They do have a good website.



> Is for humorless, I don't see it.  I often laugh at your stupidity and
> ignorance :-)

What stupidity?  What ignorance?

I've displayed neither, ever.




> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFA9Xfrd1ZThqotgfgRAuJqAJ9fxlFWmu3GutB8DDJMkyugFYX+VQCfXtF4
> fuVXg38EI6OYjb4fBpcCJQU=
> =eYUn
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



0
nospam21 (19047)
7/16/2004 3:16:41 AM
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:16:41 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Peter Jensen wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>>
>>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>>
>>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when
>>> Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>
>> Actually, only a fraction of a percentage of those copies were sold
>> separately.  The fact that all the rest came bundled should tell you
>> what a monopoly can do to the market.
> 
> It tells me every PC vendor who pre-loads WinXP did so willingly.  And they
> did so willingly because that's what the people want.

Courts on 2 continents do not agree with you.


>>> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded - but
>>> when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin what?"
>>> or silence or sometimes a click and then silence.
>>
>> I wouldn't know ... I haven't bought a pre-built machine over five
>> years.
> 
> I last bought one 4 years ago.
> 
> I recently mail-ordered the parts and built this one I'm using now.  What a
> hassle!  I did get a nice-looking, quiet, desktop case factor system, but it
> was far more trouble than it's worth.  Of course, I'm gonna have to do it
> again next time, mainly 'cause I prefer PCPower & Cooling power supplies,
> Intel mobos, Crucial or Corsair memory, Zalman CPU coolers, and desktop
> cases (no towers).
> 
> Then again, Dell, Falcon NW and VelocityMicro sell some sweet systems.
> 
> 
> 
>>> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
>>> Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>>>
>>> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>>
>>> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>>
>> I rearrange this so it becomes obvious that you're using the same
>> argument three times.  Let me list the programs I use the most often:
>>
>> Konsole
>> Bash
>> Screen
>> Vim
>> GCC and GNU Make
>> Pine
>> Slrn
>> Irssi
>>
>> For each one I'd like you to describe what Windows apps and
>> functionality have been "cloned".
> 
> Don't each of those have their origins in Unix?  I forgot to include Unix as
> a source for Linux apps.

Many of those a GNU tools, if that is what you are asking.


>>> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an
>>> odd subculture
>>
>> The word "alternative" doesn't have a negative association, though you
>> try to imply it.  Alternative just means it's not the most common
>> system.  Nobody is denying that.  However, being an alternative OS
>> does also give some protection in that it isn't a mono-culture.
> 
> Like it or not, the Linux image is of a technical, bewildering system that's
> hard to install and configure.  Some of that is true, some isn't.

And education will fix that misconception. After all, everyone can't be as
stupid or bigoted as you.

> 
> 
>>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the same
>>> machine
>>
>> Blatant lie.
> 
> Load up KDE and OpenOffice and come back and apologize.  

What for?

> Accepted.

There was nothing to accept.

> 
> 
>>> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
>>
>> You'll probably find that we're only hostile towards people that act
>> like jerks.  Such as you.
> 
> Most of you are extremely hostile to any pro-Windows or anti-Linux poster.

You're a liar, not because you use window$, but because you are ... a liar.


>> Would a hostile person spend hours on IRC,
>> patiently helping newbies get started with Gentoo?
> 
> That Gentoo system looks interesting.  Sounds like you compile everything
> for your system, rather than load existing binaries, so it's supposed to be
> a bit faster?  They do have a good website.
> 
> 
> 
>> Is for humorless, I don't see it.  I often laugh at your stupidity and
>> ignorance :-)
> 
> What stupidity?  What ignorance?
> 
> I've displayed neither, ever.

AHAH ahah HAHA hahaha haha HAH a...

You display both and bigotry.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
7/16/2004 4:35:56 AM
[snips]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:16:41 -0400, DFS wrote:

>> Actually, only a fraction of a percentage of those copies were sold
>> separately.  The fact that all the rest came bundled should tell you
>> what a monopoly can do to the market.
> 
> It tells me every PC vendor who pre-loads WinXP did so willingly.  And they
> did so willingly because that's what the people want.

"Hi.  Here's the deal.  You can either sell our OS for $300... or for $30.
Your competitors sell it for $30.  If you want to compete and stay in
business, you'll have to sell it for $30 - but that means selling nothing
that competes with it.  It's your business, so choose 'willingly' - do
you want to stay in business, or go bankrupt?"

Ah, yes.  The "willingness" of the person at gunpoint to do as they're
told rather than getting shot.  Truly a free and uninfluenced choice.


> I recently mail-ordered the parts and built this one I'm using now. What
> a hassle!  I did get a nice-looking, quiet, desktop case factor system,
> but it was far more trouble than it's worth.

Huh?  Takes an hour, tops, to go from a box of bits to a working system;
90 minutes to 2 hours if you include software installation.

I usually save a good $100 by buying systems this way, so unless you're
actually billing the time at $50 an hour or more, it is, indeed, worth it.

> Like it or not, the Linux image is of a technical, bewildering system
> that's hard to install and configure.  Some of that is true, some isn't.

And most of it is based on Linux of a couple of years ago and more.

> Most of you are extremely hostile to any pro-Windows or anti-Linux
> poster.

No, just the stupid ones.

> That Gentoo system looks interesting.  Sounds like you compile
> everything for your system, rather than load existing binaries, so it's
> supposed to be a bit faster?  They do have a good website.

It's mostly faster because it doesn't default to throwing in everything
including the kitchen sink.  


> What stupidity?  What ignorance?
> 
> I've displayed neither, ever.

You just answered your questions.


0
kelseyb (715)
7/16/2004 5:18:50 AM
Rick wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:16:41 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> Peter Jensen wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>>>
>>>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>>>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>>>
>>>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months
>>>> when Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>>
>>> Actually, only a fraction of a percentage of those copies were sold
>>> separately.  The fact that all the rest came bundled should tell you
>>> what a monopoly can do to the market.
>>
>> It tells me every PC vendor who pre-loads WinXP did so willingly.
>> And they did so willingly because that's what the people want.
>
> Courts on 2 continents do not agree with you.

(p)Rick, you really are an idiot.

Linux at Dell:
http://search.dell.com/results.aspx?cat=sys&s=gen&c=us&l=en&cs=&k=Linux&x=10&y=5

Dell has been selling Linux on their servers since early 1999, at least.
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/power/en/ps2q00_lionx?c=us&l=en&s=gen

Michael Dell recently claimed they're the "Number one in Linux in the U.S."
(I assume that means sells more Linux-loaded servers)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1501767,00.asp

And, they offer RedHat on their Precision Workstations, right this very
minute:
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/precn?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd

And Dell offered Linux on desktops for a period; few bought them so they
discontinued the marketing.

Tell me again how MS uses their "illegal monopoly" to force everyone to buy
Windows?


Linux at HP:
http://search.hp.com/gwuseng/query.html?submit.x=0&submit.y=0&qt=Linux&la=en&col=hpcom+ccen+ccenfor

"HP already sells more than 100,000 Linux-based workstations and business
desktop PCs each quarter", Fink said.
http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,1761,a=122579,00.asp

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,108861,00.asp
4th quarter 2002 HP sales (a little dated, so you can start whining
whenever).  In Q402, HP sold 6.17 million PCs.  If 100,000 were Linux sales,
then 6.07 million were Windows sales.  That's: Linux 1.6%, Windows 98.4%.

So, Linux been available at the two biggest desktop sellers for years, but
desktop users don't want it - they want Windows XP.

Those are the facts, boy.





>>>> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded -
>>>> but when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin
>>>> what?" or silence or sometimes a click and then silence.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't know ... I haven't bought a pre-built machine over five
>>> years.
>>
>> I last bought one 4 years ago.
>>
>> I recently mail-ordered the parts and built this one I'm using now.
>> What a hassle!  I did get a nice-looking, quiet, desktop case factor
>> system, but it was far more trouble than it's worth.  Of course, I'm
>> gonna have to do it again next time, mainly 'cause I prefer PCPower
>> & Cooling power supplies, Intel mobos, Crucial or Corsair memory,
>> Zalman CPU coolers, and desktop cases (no towers).
>>
>> Then again, Dell, Falcon NW and VelocityMicro sell some sweet
>> systems.

You're slipping, (p)Rick.  You had a chance to call me stupid right here,
and you let it pass.



>>>> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
>>>> Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>>>>
>>>> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>>>
>>>> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>>>
>>> I rearrange this so it becomes obvious that you're using the same
>>> argument three times.  Let me list the programs I use the most
>>> often:
>>>
>>> Konsole
>>> Bash
>>> Screen
>>> Vim
>>> GCC and GNU Make
>>> Pine
>>> Slrn
>>> Irssi
>>>
>>> For each one I'd like you to describe what Windows apps and
>>> functionality have been "cloned".
>>
>> Don't each of those have their origins in Unix?  I forgot to include
>> Unix as a source for Linux apps.
>
> Many of those a GNU tools, if that is what you are asking.

OK.



>>>> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an
>>>> odd subculture
>>>
>>> The word "alternative" doesn't have a negative association, though
>>> you try to imply it.  Alternative just means it's not the most
>>> common system.  Nobody is denying that.  However, being an
>>> alternative OS does also give some protection in that it isn't a
>>> mono-culture.
>>
>> Like it or not, the Linux image is of a technical, bewildering
>> system that's hard to install and configure.  Some of that is true,
>> some isn't.
>
> And education will fix that misconception. After all, everyone can't
> be as stupid or bigoted as you.

But I see I'm not so stupid that you can't keep from reading and responding
to everything I post.  So, either you're extra stupid (for responding to a
stupid post), or I'm not.  Pick one, fool.



>>>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the
>>>> same machine
>>>
>>> Blatant lie.
>>
>> Load up KDE and OpenOffice and come back and apologize.
>
> What for?

For calling me a liar.


>> Accepted.
>
> There was nothing to accept.

There will be once he runs KDE / OpenOffice and WinXP / MSOffice on the same
machine.




>>>> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
>>>
>>> You'll probably find that we're only hostile towards people that act
>>> like jerks.  Such as you.
>>
>> Most of you are extremely hostile to any pro-Windows or anti-Linux
>> poster.
>
> You're a liar, not because you use window$, but because you are ... a
> liar.

Evidence?



>>> Would a hostile person spend hours on IRC,
>>> patiently helping newbies get started with Gentoo?
>>
>> That Gentoo system looks interesting.  Sounds like you compile
>> everything for your system, rather than load existing binaries, so
>> it's supposed to be a bit faster?  They do have a good website.

Why no insult here, dullard?



>>> Is for humorless, I don't see it.  I often laugh at your stupidity
>>> and ignorance :-)
>>
>> What stupidity?  What ignorance?
>>
>> I've displayed neither, ever.
>
> AHAH ahah HAHA hahaha haha HAH a...
>
> You display both and bigotry.

When?  Where?





0
nospam21 (19047)
7/16/2004 5:19:16 AM
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:16:41 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>>> Actually, only a fraction of a percentage of those copies were sold
>>> separately.  The fact that all the rest came bundled should tell you
>>> what a monopoly can do to the market.
>>
>> It tells me every PC vendor who pre-loads WinXP did so willingly.
>> And they did so willingly because that's what the people want.
>
> "Hi.  Here's the deal.  You can either sell our OS for $300... or for
> $30. Your competitors sell it for $30.  If you want to compete and
> stay in business,  you'll have to sell it for $30 - but that means
> selling nothing that competes with it.  It's your business, so choose
> 'willingly' - do you want to stay in business, or go bankrupt?"

Yes, they'll only stay in business if they sell Windows.  That's true.  And
that's true because that's what the consumers want.


> Ah, yes.  The "willingness" of the person at gunpoint to do as they're
> told rather than getting shot.  Truly a free and uninfluenced choice.

Yes, truly a free choice.

But of course their choices might be influenced by MS.  Don't be naive.  MS
offers them favorable terms to sell their products - more favorable terms if
they sell only their products.  EVERY company does this if they can.  I took
a look at high-end stereophile speakers recently, and found out some brands
are sold ONLY through Hi-Fi Buys.



>> I recently mail-ordered the parts and built this one I'm using now.
>> What
>> a hassle!  I did get a nice-looking, quiet, desktop case factor
>> system, but it was far more trouble than it's worth.
>
> Huh?  Takes an hour, tops, to go from a box of bits to a working
> system; 90 minutes to 2 hours if you include software installation.

Maybe if you've built a few previously, and planned and ordered everything
at once.  This was my first from the ground up.



> I usually save a good $100 by buying systems this way, so unless
> you're actually billing the time at $50 an hour or more, it is,
> indeed, worth it.

It's a huge hassle and time-consumer to mail order and build an entire PC.
Some of it's kind of fun, but looking at it from a use of time perspective,
it's definitely not worth it to me.  Researching, online ordering, multiple
vendors (usually), multiple shipments that come days apart, unpacking,
assembly, unforeseen parts needing another order or a drive to the store,
OEM parts needing cables, installing the mobo/chipset drivers, then OS, then
apps.

I think my biggest problem was not making a long list and buying
_everything_ I would need at once.  They were out of the DVD player I
wanted, so I ordered it later.  Didn't like any of the power supplies, so I
ordered from a separate company.  The stock Intel heat sink/fan was too
loud, so that's another trip to the store.  Needed another IDE cable.

Buying components to build a system is an exercise in choice overload.
Spend some time looking around newegg.com.  There are a dozen vendors for
nearly every PC component.  Thousands of choices.  About 50 to 75 models of
P4 and AMD CPU chips alone.

In the end, I like my system - it's not real fast and powerful (mainly to be
used for WinServer and Linux testing/development), but it's quiet and stable
and very nice looking (jet black ATCS home theater case from Cooler Master)
and wasn't expensive ($700) - but I'm going to seriously consider buying a
pre-built one next time.

Which will be soon.  Doom 3 ship date is less than three weeks, with
Half-Life 2 soon thereafter (everyone hopes).  You need to dust off your
WinXP box, get out some good headphones or speakers, turn out the lights and
experience the latest id and Valve creations.  Guaranteed to fascinate,
frighten and frag!


>> Like it or not, the Linux image is of a technical, bewildering system
>> that's hard to install and configure.  Some of that is true, some
>> isn't.
>
> And most of it is based on Linux of a couple of years ago and more.

It's (the perception) isn't changing that fast, though Linux may be.  My
latest Computer Shopper mag (don't start laughing.  I also subscribe to Dr.
Dobbs, Maximum PC, PC Magazine, and MSDN Magazine) has an article about
dual-booting Linux and Windows.  They repeat the warning about "If you don't
want to get your hands dirty with newsgroup support, etc, Linux isn't for
you."  And they're right.



>> Most of you are extremely hostile to any pro-Windows or anti-Linux
>> poster.
>
> No, just the stupid ones.

No, ALL of them.



>> That Gentoo system looks interesting.  Sounds like you compile
>> everything for your system, rather than load existing binaries, so
>> it's supposed to be a bit faster?  They do have a good website.
>
> It's mostly faster because it doesn't default to throwing in
> everything including the kitchen sink.

I think getting a Gentoo system up and running from scratch would be a good
Linux learning experience.



>> What stupidity?  What ignorance?
>>
>> I've displayed neither, ever.
>
> You just answered your questions.

But you didn't.




0
nospam21 (19047)
7/16/2004 6:19:37 AM
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:19:16 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Rick wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:16:41 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Jensen wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>>>>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>>>>
>>>>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months
>>>>> when Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>>>
>>>> Actually, only a fraction of a percentage of those copies were sold
>>>> separately.  The fact that all the rest came bundled should tell you
>>>> what a monopoly can do to the market.
>>>
>>> It tells me every PC vendor who pre-loads WinXP did so willingly.
>>> And they did so willingly because that's what the people want.
>>
>> Courts on 2 continents do not agree with you.
> 
> (p)Rick, you really are an idiot.

You really should read the papers more, and get a concept of why micro$oft
lost those decisions on 2 continents and why they are now losing
marketshare to *nix -now-. 

> 
> Linux at Dell:
> http://search.dell.com/results.aspx?cat=sys&s=gen&c=us&l=en&cs=&k=Linux&x=10&y=5
> 
> Dell has been selling Linux on their servers since early 1999, at least.
> http://www1.us.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/power/en/ps2q00_lionx?c=us&l=en&s=gen
> 
> Michael Dell recently claimed they're the "Number one in Linux in the U.S."
> (I assume that means sells more Linux-loaded servers)
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1501767,00.asp
> 
> And, they offer RedHat on their Precision Workstations, right this very
> minute:
> http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/precn?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd
> 
> And Dell offered Linux on desktops for a period; few bought them so they
> discontinued the marketing.
> 
> Tell me again how MS uses their "illegal monopoly" to force everyone to buy
> Windows?

AGAIN, you need to educate yourself as to why micro$oft is losing
marketshare to *nix ... NOW. You also need to educate yourself about
micro$oft's past illegal behavior and their present behavior.

> 
> 
> Linux at HP:
> http://search.hp.com/gwuseng/query.html?submit.x=0&submit.y=0&qt=Linux&la=en&col=hpcom+ccen+ccenfor
> 
> "HP already sells more than 100,000 Linux-based workstations and business
> desktop PCs each quarter", Fink said.
> http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,1761,a=122579,00.asp
> 
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,108861,00.asp
> 4th quarter 2002 HP sales (a little dated, so you can start whining
> whenever).  In Q402, HP sold 6.17 million PCs.  If 100,000 were Linux sales,
> then 6.07 million were Windows sales.  That's: Linux 1.6%, Windows 98.4%.
> 
> So, Linux been available at the two biggest desktop sellers for years, but
> desktop users don't want it - they want Windows XP.

You really do need to educate yourself in regards to network effects and
monopoly power.

> 
> Those are the facts, boy.

A list of 'facts' doesn't always equal the truth, asshole.

>>>>> * that nearly every PC vendor in the world offers it pre-loaded -
>>>>> but when you ask about Linux over the phone you're met with "Lin
>>>>> what?" or silence or sometimes a click and then silence.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't know ... I haven't bought a pre-built machine over five
>>>> years.
>>>
>>> I last bought one 4 years ago.
>>>
>>> I recently mail-ordered the parts and built this one I'm using now.
>>> What a hassle!  I did get a nice-looking, quiet, desktop case factor
>>> system, but it was far more trouble than it's worth.  Of course, I'm
>>> gonna have to do it again next time, mainly 'cause I prefer PCPower
>>> & Cooling power supplies, Intel mobos, Crucial or Corsair memory,
>>> Zalman CPU coolers, and desktop cases (no towers).
>>>
>>> Then again, Dell, Falcon NW and VelocityMicro sell some sweet
>>> systems.
> 
> You're slipping, (p)Rick.  You had a chance to call me stupid right here,
> and you let it pass.
> 

How about... lying bigot?

> 
> 
>>>>> * that you're forced to copy the features in the "toy" OS - to lend
>>>>> Linux a veneer of badly needed usability and respectability
>>>>>
>>>>> * that Linux is often considered a free Windows clone
>>>>>
>>>>> * that Linux apps really are, or try to be, clones of Windows apps
>>>>
>>>> I rearrange this so it becomes obvious that you're using the same
>>>> argument three times.  Let me list the programs I use the most
>>>> often:
>>>>
>>>> Konsole
>>>> Bash
>>>> Screen
>>>> Vim
>>>> GCC and GNU Make
>>>> Pine
>>>> Slrn
>>>> Irssi
>>>>
>>>> For each one I'd like you to describe what Windows apps and
>>>> functionality have been "cloned".
>>>
>>> Don't each of those have their origins in Unix?  I forgot to include
>>> Unix as a source for Linux apps.
>>
>> Many of those a GNU tools, if that is what you are asking.
> 
> OK.

OK?? OK??? That's it? I suppose you have no clue about how and why RMS
start the GNU project (BTW, GNU's not Unix. Go from there).

>>>>> * that _your_ OS is considered "alternative" - almost like it's an
>>>>> odd subculture
>>>>
>>>> The word "alternative" doesn't have a negative association, though
>>>> you try to imply it.  Alternative just means it's not the most
>>>> common system.  Nobody is denying that.  However, being an
>>>> alternative OS does also give some protection in that it isn't a
>>>> mono-culture.
>>>
>>> Like it or not, the Linux image is of a technical, bewildering
>>> system that's hard to install and configure.  Some of that is true,
>>> some isn't.
>>
>> And education will fix that misconception. After all, everyone can't
>> be as stupid or bigoted as you.
> 
> But I see I'm not so stupid that you can't keep from reading and responding
> to everything I post.  So, either you're extra stupid (for responding to a
> stupid post), or I'm not.  Pick one, fool.

Once again you present an invalid question. There is no correct solution
offered, asshole. I do respond to many of your posts, but I do not think
I, or anyone, will change your bigoted mindset. However, pointing out your
lies may allow others to see you for what you, and micro$oft, are.

And since you only respond to a fraction of my posts, I can only conclude
you cannot refute the majority of my statements.

>>>>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the
>>>>> same machine
>>>>
>>>> Blatant lie.
>>>
>>> Load up KDE and OpenOffice and come back and apologize.
>>
>> What for?
> 
> For calling me a liar.

I am not in the habit of apologizing for telling the truth.

> 
> 
>>> Accepted.
>>
>> There was nothing to accept.
> 
> There will be once he runs KDE / OpenOffice and WinXP / MSOffice on the same
> machine.

I have done it. OO.o runs well.

 
>>>>> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
>>>>
>>>> You'll probably find that we're only hostile towards people that act
>>>> like jerks.  Such as you.
>>>
>>> Most of you are extremely hostile to any pro-Windows or anti-Linux
>>> poster.
>>
>> You're a liar, not because you use window$, but because you are ... a
>> liar.
> 
> Evidence?

Your posts.

 
>>>> Would a hostile person spend hours on IRC,
>>>> patiently helping newbies get started with Gentoo?
>>>
>>> That Gentoo system looks interesting.  Sounds like you compile
>>> everything for your system, rather than load existing binaries, so
>>> it's supposed to be a bit faster?  They do have a good website.
> 
> Why no insult here, dullard?

I didn't feel like it, asshole.

 
>>>> Is for humorless, I don't see it.  I often laugh at your stupidity
>>>> and ignorance :-)
>>>
>>> What stupidity?  What ignorance?
>>>
>>> I've displayed neither, ever.
>>
>> AHAH ahah HAHA hahaha haha HAH a...
>>
>> You display both and bigotry.
> 
> When?  Where?

Denial ain't just a river.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
7/16/2004 2:31:00 PM
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 02:19:37 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:16:41 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>>> Actually, only a fraction of a percentage of those copies were sold
>>>> separately.  The fact that all the rest came bundled should tell you
>>>> what a monopoly can do to the market.
>>>
>>> It tells me every PC vendor who pre-loads WinXP did so willingly.
>>> And they did so willingly because that's what the people want.
>>
>> "Hi.  Here's the deal.  You can either sell our OS for $300... or for
>> $30. Your competitors sell it for $30.  If you want to compete and
>> stay in business,  you'll have to sell it for $30 - but that means
>> selling nothing that competes with it.  It's your business, so choose
>> 'willingly' - do you want to stay in business, or go bankrupt?"
> 
> Yes, they'll only stay in business if they sell Windows.  That's true.  And
> that's true because that's what the consumers want.


You show you stupidity. In this scenario, selling window$ was not in
question. The illegal part was micro$oft setting the vendors price so much
higher if the vendor sold competing products and/or not bundling m$
software.

> 
> 
>> Ah, yes.  The "willingness" of the person at gunpoint to do as they're
>> told rather than getting shot.  Truly a free and uninfluenced choice.
> 
> Yes, truly a free choice.
> 
> But of course their choices might be influenced by MS.  Don't be naive.  MS
> offers them favorable terms to sell their products - more favorable terms if
> they sell only their products.  EVERY company does this if they can.  I took
> a look at high-end stereophile speakers recently, and found out some brands
> are sold ONLY through Hi-Fi Buys.


..... but there were other speakers at Hi-Fi Buys, and what every brand you
were buying did nothold 95%+ of the market.
> 
> 
> 
(snip)
> 
> It's (the perception) isn't changing that fast, though Linux may be.  My
> latest Computer Shopper mag (don't start laughing.  I also subscribe to Dr.
> Dobbs, Maximum PC, PC Magazine, and MSDN Magazine) has an article about
> dual-booting Linux and Windows.  They repeat the warning about "If you don't
> want to get your hands dirty with newsgroup support, etc, Linux isn't for
> you."  And they're right.

You can pay for support from a vendor. Or, you can get world-wide support
for $0. Many times that support comes directly from the coders.


>>> Most of you are extremely hostile to any pro-Windows or anti-Linux
>>> poster.
>>
>> No, just the stupid ones.
> 
> No, ALL of them.

You're a lair. Many of us only reply in a hostile manner when people like
you continue to post inaccurate and bigoted messages.

 
>>> That Gentoo system looks interesting.  Sounds like you compile
>>> everything for your system, rather than load existing binaries, so
>>> it's supposed to be a bit faster?  They do have a good website.
>>
>> It's mostly faster because it doesn't default to throwing in
>> everything including the kitchen sink.
> 
> I think getting a Gentoo system up and running from scratch would be a good
> Linux learning experience.

Then go do it.

> 
> 
> 
>>> What stupidity?  What ignorance?
>>>
>>> I've displayed neither, ever.
>>
>> You just answered your questions.
> 
> But you didn't.

And you show your stupidity again.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
7/16/2004 2:37:38 PM
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:45:28 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Over in the 'Best thing about Linux' thread, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> 
> 
>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
> 
> 
> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux weirdos, it
> must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):


Assclown says what?

0
garv1 (42)
7/16/2004 7:14:39 PM
On 2004-07-16, DFS <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Peter Jensen wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>>
>>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>>
>>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months when
>>> Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>
>> Actually, only a fraction of a percentage of those copies were sold
>> separately.  The fact that all the rest came bundled should tell you
>> what a monopoly can do to the market.
>
> It tells me every PC vendor who pre-loads WinXP did so willingly.  And they
> did so willingly because that's what the people want.

IBM didn't tell that to Microsoft's anti-trust judge.

[deletia]
-- 
It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate. 

        They brought us the email virus.
                                                     
	In my Atari days, such a notion would have             |||
	been considered a complete absurdity.                 / | \



                                                     
0
jedi (14754)
7/16/2004 8:02:48 PM
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2004-07-16, DFS <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Peter Jensen wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>>>
>>>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>>>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>>>
>>>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months
>>>> when Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>>
>>> Actually, only a fraction of a percentage of those copies were sold
>>> separately.  The fact that all the rest came bundled should tell you
>>> what a monopoly can do to the market.
>>
>> It tells me every PC vendor who pre-loads WinXP did so willingly.
>> And they did so willingly because that's what the people want.
>
> IBM didn't tell that to Microsoft's anti-trust judge.

You're lying.



> [deletia]


0
nospam21 (19047)
7/16/2004 9:11:38 PM
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:11:38 -0400, DFS wrote:

> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2004-07-16, DFS <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Peter Jensen wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>>>>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>>>>
>>>>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months
>>>>> when Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>>>
>>>> Actually, only a fraction of a percentage of those copies were sold
>>>> separately.  The fact that all the rest came bundled should tell you
>>>> what a monopoly can do to the market.
>>>
>>> It tells me every PC vendor who pre-loads WinXP did so willingly.
>>> And they did so willingly because that's what the people want.
>>
>> IBM didn't tell that to Microsoft's anti-trust judge.
> 
> You're lying.
> 

Go read the testimony.

-- 
Rick

0
rick83 (2468)
7/16/2004 10:37:32 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
<rick@none.com>
 wrote
on Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:37:32 GMT
<pan.2004.07.16.22.37.31.875477@none.com>:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:11:38 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2004-07-16, DFS <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> Peter Jensen wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>
>>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amazing what using a real OS instead of a toy can do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that this opinion is shared by most or all of you Linux
>>>>>> weirdos, it must burn you to no end that a "toy" OS (WindowsXP):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * can sell 200,000,000 copies - but you have to crow for months
>>>>>> when Munich Germany installs just 14,000
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, only a fraction of a percentage of those copies were sold
>>>>> separately.  The fact that all the rest came bundled should tell you
>>>>> what a monopoly can do to the market.
>>>>
>>>> It tells me every PC vendor who pre-loads WinXP did so willingly.
>>>> And they did so willingly because that's what the people want.
>>>
>>> IBM didn't tell that to Microsoft's anti-trust judge.
>> 
>> You're lying.
>> 
>
> Go read the testimony.
>

Did you have a link thereto?  :-)

A Google scan coughed up

http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux_News03/HP-Mandrake-Linux-Desktop-PC-2_Story01.html

which is titled

Gael Duval Tells Why Mandrake Linux Is better Than MS Windows.
(dated 2003-07-11).

(Disclaimer: I use Gentoo.)

It's fairly blatant advocacy for Linux, but it *is* advocacy. :-)

Even better news: it links to

http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux_News03/HP-Mandrake-Linux-Desktop-PC_Story01.html

which is subtitled

HP to Ship Desktop PCs with Mandrake 9.1 Linux Pre-Installed.
(dated 2003-07-05 so this isn't all that new news).

Very good news all around, though it's not quite what I wanted,
articlewise. :-)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
0
ewill4 (1430)
7/17/2004 1:18:49 AM
[snips]

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 02:19:37 -0400, DFS wrote:

>> Ah, yes.  The "willingness" of the person at gunpoint to do as they're
>> told rather than getting shot.  Truly a free and uninfluenced choice.
> 
> Yes, truly a free choice.

DFS's dishonesty reaches a new low; something I thought was impossible. 
He actually has the gall to suggest that a person facing a gun, or a
business facing loss of the majority of their sales, have an actual free
and uninfluenced choice.

DFS goes back in the sandbox; even Kadaitcha Man, with all his crap, is
more honest than this.


0
kelseyb (715)
7/17/2004 5:57:20 AM
Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from Kelsey Bjarnason:

> DFS's dishonesty reaches a new low; something I thought was impossible. 
> He actually has the gall to suggest that a person facing a gun, or a
> business facing loss of the majority of their sales, have an actual free
> and uninfluenced choice.
>
> DFS goes back in the sandbox; even Kadaitcha Man, with all his crap, is
> more honest than this.

Still, you seem to have a high tolerance for assholes, Kelsey.

-- 
Free as in freedom
Power as in empowerment
0
iso
7/17/2004 1:36:13 PM
[snips]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:36:13 -0500, Lin�nutlin�nut wrote:

>> DFS goes back in the sandbox; even Kadaitcha Man, with all his crap, is
>> more honest than this.
> 
> Still, you seem to have a high tolerance for assholes, Kelsey.

I have this silly tendency to assume that most people are fundamentally
reaonable.  Thus, when I encounter a DFS or a Kadaitcha, I tend to give
them the benefit of the doubt.  A *lot* of benefit of the doubt.  More,
apparently, than they deserve.


0
kelseyb (715)
7/17/2004 5:34:12 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

DFS wrote:

>> Actually, only a fraction of a percentage of those copies were sold
>> separately.  The fact that all the rest came bundled should tell you
>> what a monopoly can do to the market.
>
> It tells me every PC vendor who pre-loads WinXP did so willingly.  And
> they did so willingly because that's what the people want.

The monopoly has given the public the impression that this is all there
is.  That's what marketing can do.  Besides, what vendor is going to
refuse 90+% discounts on the OEM version of Windows?

>> I haven't bought a pre-built machine over five years.
>
> I last bought one 4 years ago.
>
> I recently mail-ordered the parts and built this one I'm using now.

I find it hard to believe that you have the capacity to do that, but
still can't understand Linux ...

> What a hassle!  I did get a nice-looking, quiet, desktop case factor
> system, but it was far more trouble than it's worth.

If you can't get that quiet, powerful and cheap system otherwise, then
it's indeed worth the trouble.

> Of course, I'm gonna have to do it again next time, mainly 'cause I
> prefer PCPower & Cooling power supplies, Intel mobos, Crucial or
> Corsair memory, Zalman CPU coolers, and desktop cases (no towers).
>
> Then again, Dell, Falcon NW and VelocityMicro sell some sweet systems.

IMO they're always over-priced for the el-cheapo hardware they stuff
inside.

>> I rearrange this so it becomes obvious that you're using the same
>> argument three times.  Let me list the programs I use the most often:
>>
>> Konsole Bash Screen Vim GCC and GNU Make Pine Slrn Irssi
>>
>> For each one I'd like you to describe what Windows apps and
>> functionality have been "cloned".
>
> Don't each of those have their origins in Unix?

Not all, no.

> I forgot to include Unix as a source for Linux apps.

There's a reason for that.  *nix is pretty standardized (POSIX and all
that), so porting apps back and forth is usually quite easy.
Particularly the GNU autotools have made this task trivial.  Of all
major modern OSes, only Windows is really different to program for.

>> The word "alternative" doesn't have a negative association, though
>> you try to imply it.  Alternative just means it's not the most common
>> system.  Nobody is denying that.  However, being an alternative OS
>> does also give some protection in that it isn't a mono-culture.
>
> Like it or not, the Linux image is of a technical, bewildering system
> that's hard to install and configure.  Some of that is true, some
> isn't.

But the likes of you do nothing to mitigate the wrong impression.  And
with the latest distros targeted at Windows users, none of what you
mention is true.

>>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the
>>> same machine
>>
>> Blatant lie.
>
> Load up KDE and OpenOffice

Not slow here.  What are you doing wrong?

> and come back and apologize.

I have nothing to apologize for.  Time from BIOS to logged in KDE on my
system is somewhere between 1 and 2 minutes.  That includes startup of
web-server, mail-server, ssh-server, and much more.

> Accepted.

What is?

>>> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
>>
>> You'll probably find that we're only hostile towards people that act
>> like jerks.  Such as you.
>
> Most of you are extremely hostile to any pro-Windows or anti-Linux
> poster.

Who wouldn't be in a Linux *advocacy* forum?  I also hate the so-called
Linux advocates that deliberately post their stuff in the Windows
groups.  I hate *all* trolls.  You are one of them.

>> Would a hostile person spend hours on IRC, patiently helping newbies
>> get started with Gentoo?
>
> That Gentoo system looks interesting.  Sounds like you compile
> everything for your system, rather than load existing binaries, so
> it's supposed to be a bit faster?  They do have a good website.

Actually, the speed improvements aren't the main reason to compile
everything.  The really big bonus is that you exclude more than 99% of
the dependency hell issues by compiling yourself.  Other Gentoo bonuses
is the truly excellent init system and the ease of keeping the system
upgraded.

>> Is for humorless, I don't see it.  I often laugh at your stupidity
>> and ignorance :-)
>
> What stupidity?  What ignorance?
>
> I've displayed neither, ever.

You do it in almost every post.  The very fact that you keep coming back
for more abuse shows that you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.  Or
perhaps you're some sort of pervert that enjoys abuse, I don't know. :-)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA+mZcd1ZThqotgfgRArYUAJ41heWdv/NmxsxU9Q12E5snrg7UcQCgj8oP
zJpRBRJ2Rhox+Pi5pLdOy9A=
=Gqaz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
PeKaJe
    Sit back and watch the messages. This is actually more important than one
    might think as there is a bug in GNU Mach whereby hitting a key during the
    boot process causes the kernel to panic -- GNU Hurd Installation Guide
0
usenet21 (2482)
7/18/2004 12:00:32 PM
Peter Jensen wrote:

>> It tells me every PC vendor who pre-loads WinXP did so willingly.��And
>> they did so willingly because that's what the people want.
> 
> The monopoly has given the public the impression that this is all there
> is.��That's�what�marketing�can�do.��Besides,�what�vendor�is�going�to
> refuse 90+% discounts on the OEM version of Windows?

A stupid one, now that Linux is here. 
0
noting (1244)
7/18/2004 2:27:51 PM
mlw <mlw@nospam.no> wrote in message news:<izcJc.72917$JR4.37933@attbi_s54>...
>
> [snip]
>
> Everyone knows that you are safe in a car during a lightening storm because
> of the rubber tires. Just because everyone "knows" something, doesn't mean
> it is true.

<nitpick>
Actually you're safe in a car because it acts like a Faraday cage and
directs the charge around the vehicle. Rubber actually becomes more
conductive in very string electric fields.
</nitpick>

-- 
C.
0
Chris_un (5)
7/19/2004 3:23:47 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter Jensen
<usenet@pekajemaps.homeip.net>
 wrote
on 18 Jul 2004 12:00:32 GMT
<40fa6660$0$203$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk>:
>
> DFS wrote:
>
>>> Actually, only a fraction of a percentage of those copies were sold
>>> separately.  The fact that all the rest came bundled should tell you
>>> what a monopoly can do to the market.
>>
>> It tells me every PC vendor who pre-loads WinXP did so willingly.  And
>> they did so willingly because that's what the people want.
>
> The monopoly has given the public the impression that this is all there
> is.  That's what marketing can do.  Besides, what vendor is going to
> refuse 90+% discounts on the OEM version of Windows?

I'll admit to some astonishment that it was that high.  Is this in the
Halloween reports, the court case, or what?

[snip for brevity]

>>>> * that modern Linux distros often run slower than Windows on the
>>>> same machine
>>>
>>> Blatant lie.

One minor problem admittedly is apples and oranges.  Does vi == Edit?
Does Emacs == Notepad?  Where does Wordpad fit into all this?

Unless one has an app that's been ported to both Windows and Linux
(OpenOffice has, for example), a comparison is at best tricky.
Personally, I think Linux is generally snappier, but I can't say I can
quantify it.

>>
>> Load up KDE and OpenOffice
>
> Not slow here.  What are you doing wrong?

<AOL> I wonder also.  </AOL>

Perhaps DFS didn't order enough RAM?

Linux works *very* well on a 4 MB 20 MHz 386 (with some
swap space), but that doesn't mean the rest of the system
(which has a plethora of libraries, tools, and such,
just like Windows!) will run snappily.


>
>> and come back and apologize.
>
> I have nothing to apologize for.  Time from BIOS to logged in KDE on my
> system is somewhere between 1 and 2 minutes.  That includes startup of
> web-server, mail-server, ssh-server, and much more.
>
>> Accepted.
>
> What is?
>
>>>> No wonder you're all so hostile and humorless.
>>>
>>> You'll probably find that we're only hostile towards people that act
>>> like jerks.  Such as you.
>>
>> Most of you are extremely hostile to any pro-Windows or anti-Linux
>> poster.
>
> Who wouldn't be in a Linux *advocacy* forum?  I also hate the so-called
> Linux advocates that deliberately post their stuff in the Windows
> groups.  I hate *all* trolls.  You are one of them.
>
>>> Would a hostile person spend hours on IRC, patiently helping newbies
>>> get started with Gentoo?
>>
>> That Gentoo system looks interesting.  Sounds like you compile
>> everything for your system, rather than load existing binaries, so
>> it's supposed to be a bit faster?  They do have a good website.
>
> Actually, the speed improvements aren't the main reason to compile
> everything.  The really big bonus is that you exclude more than 99% of
> the dependency hell issues by compiling yourself.  Other Gentoo bonuses
> is the truly excellent init system and the ease of keeping the system
> upgraded.

<AOL> Me too! :-) </AOL>.  Makes life a lot simpler.

The only caveat is a glitch somewhere in my ATI9000 and the drivers
therefor -- I'm not all that happy although the card generally works,
when I go back to 3.2.8.  But that's not really a Linux or Gentoo issue.

>
>>> Is for humorless, I don't see it.  I often laugh at your stupidity
>>> and ignorance :-)
>>
>> What stupidity?  What ignorance?
>>
>> I've displayed neither, ever.
>
> You do it in almost every post.  The very fact that you keep coming back
> for more abuse shows that you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.  Or
> perhaps you're some sort of pervert that enjoys abuse, I don't know. :-)
>
Take your pick:

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame47.html
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame15.html

(Me, I'm a

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame35.html

Hey, somebody's gotta occasionally toot that horn. :-) )


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
0
ewill4 (1430)
7/19/2004 4:01:33 PM
Chris_un@clapham.org (Chris Hall) writes:

> mlw <mlw@nospam.no> wrote in message news:<izcJc.72917$JR4.37933@attbi_s54>...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Everyone knows that you are safe in a car during a lightening storm because
>> of the rubber tires. Just because everyone "knows" something, doesn't mean
>> it is true.
>
> <nitpick>
> Actually you're safe in a car because it acts like a Faraday cage and
> directs the charge around the vehicle. Rubber actually becomes more
> conductive in very string electric fields.
> </nitpick>

I think you missed the point, the original author must have meant to
point out that some "common knowledge" is erroneous. I don't think how
anyone can believe that a lightening able to travek for several
kilometers through free air would stop at the sight of four rubber
wheels when it could just travel the 2-3 dm from the ground.
Preposterous.

And, even more so, you are not completely safe in the car. Last summer
a car was actually struck and parts of it melted and caught fire.
Faraday cage or not, there is a substantial amount of amperes that are
going through the ionized channel known as the lightning - meeting the
car who actually do possess some resistance a lot of heat develops
that will vaporise parts of it into plasma and melt other parts of it
and molten steel is rather unpleasant to the human body.

-- 
Ichimusai http://ichimusai.org/ AA #769 ICQ: 1645566 Yahoo: Ichimusai
MSN: Ichimusai1972 AOL: Ichimusai1972 IRC: Ichimusai@IRCNet
 21:53:00  up 3 days,  8:14,  1 user,  load average: 0.11, 0.07, 0.03
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
0
ichi (103)
7/19/2004 7:57:58 PM
Chris Hall wrote:

> mlw <mlw@nospam.no> wrote in message
> news:<izcJc.72917$JR4.37933@attbi_s54>...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Everyone knows that you are safe in a car during a lightening storm
>> because of the rubber tires. Just because everyone "knows" something,
>> doesn't mean it is true.
> 
> <nitpick>
> Actually you're safe in a car because it acts like a Faraday cage and
> directs the charge around the vehicle. Rubber actually becomes more
> conductive in very string electric fields.
> </nitpick>

Yes, I know, and if you take a minute to re-read the paragraph in the
context of the post, you'd see.
0
mlw (2191)
7/19/2004 10:01:09 PM
mlw <mlw@nospam.no> wrote in message news:<FwXKc.120756$%_6.22100@attbi_s01>...
> Chris Hall wrote:
> 
> > mlw <mlw@nospam.no> wrote in message
> > news:<izcJc.72917$JR4.37933@attbi_s54>...
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> Everyone knows that you are safe in a car during a lightening storm
> >> because of the rubber tires. Just because everyone "knows" something,
> >> doesn't mean it is true.
> > 
> > <nitpick>
> > Actually you're safe in a car because it acts like a Faraday cage and
> > directs the charge around the vehicle. Rubber actually becomes more
> > conductive in very string electric fields.
> > </nitpick>
> 
> Yes, I know, and if you take a minute to re-read the paragraph in the
> context of the post, you'd see.

Note to self, stop posting to usenet when hung-over.

My appologies, I really didn't read the last sentence like that.

-- 
C.
0
Chris_un (5)
7/20/2004 11:34:12 AM
On 15 Jul 2004 09:39:40 GMT, Peter Jensen
<usenet@pekajemaps.homeip.net> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Tom Shelton wrote:
>
>> Install the power toy and then you can use window+1, window+2,
>> window+3, window+4.  I have a few issues with it - especially the
>> graphical chooser on a lower end video card - but if you avoid that or
>> turn off the animated transition's it works ok.  Remember - NT has
>> always supported virtual desktops natively - they just have never
>> exposed it in the UI before.
>
>Does this allow me to map the menu key to the "next desktop" command,
>while mapping ctrl+menu to "move current window to next desktop"?  If
>not, then I still have the same problem.

This probably a little late, since this thread was a couple of weeks
ago, but fwiw, when you absolutely have to use Windows, and you want
multiple desktops and the capability to bring up the menu by
right-clicking on the desktop, look into an alternate shell called
Litestep.  It gives you both of those, plus many people think it's
more stable than Windows' explorer shell.  (www.shellfront.org  or
www.litestep.net)

Tom
0
tallguy (5)
7/31/2004 3:37:29 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

*tuple vs tuple example print os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.tmpnam()),*("a","b","c"))
I have been trying to find documentation on the behavior Can anyone tell me why the first example works and the second doesn't and where I can read about it in the language reference? Steve print os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.tmpnam()),*("a","b","c")) #works OUTPUT:/var/tmp/a/b/c and print os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.tmpnam()),("a","b","c")) # doesn't OUTPUT:Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in ? File "/System/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.3/lib/pyth...

""""""""""""""""""""""ADD ME""""""""""""""""""""
Hi , Hope you are doing great. Please let me take this opportunity to introduce myself, Iam Karthik working with BhanInfo Inc, a NY based company. We have consultants on our bench on various technologies, my request is to add me to your distribution list and kindly do send me the requirements. i have the below list available 1. Mainframe 2. Java 3.. Financial Analyst 4. Data Architect If there is any vendor ship agreement which has to be signed then I would like to take an opportunity to represent my company and expect your cooperation... We look forward to build a ve...

"""""""""ADD ME""""""""""
Hi , Hope you are doing great. Please let me take this opportunity to introduce myself, Iam Karthik working with BhanInfoi Inc, a NY based company. We have consultants on our bench on various technologies, my request is to add me to your distribution list and kindly do send me the requirements. i have the below list available 1. Mainframe 2. Java 3.. Financial Analyst 4. Data Architect If there is any vendor ship agreement which has to be signed then I would like to take an opportunity to represent my company and expect your cooperation... ...

OS X "Created" vs "Modified"
Am I missing something, here? Does OS X only show the date a file was originally created, instead of last modified? Is there a setting or something I just can't find? TIA KCP In article <powell_on_tour-89615D.15412516032005@news.sentex.ca>, K P <powell_on_tour@hotmail.com> wrote: > Am I missing something, here? Does OS X only show the date a file was > originally created, instead of last modified? Is there a setting or > something I just can't find? > > TIA > > KCP Found it. Should have looked under "View Options" first. Blam...

More "slopware" for the "hobby OS?"
http://www.scienceprog.com/kontrollerlab-ide-development-software-for-avr-under-linux/ http://tinyurl.com/4lprxz Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> writes: > http://www.scienceprog.com/kontrollerlab-ide-development-software-for-avr-under-linux/ > > http://tinyurl.com/4lprxz Seriously, are you retarded? What on earth is that supposed to prove? YOu might as well post a link to emacs/postgres/apache etc. Why post a link to some advert infested crap site when it also exists, in a far better implementation for the OS you pretend to despise : Windows. You ARE g...

Urgent Requirement in """""""""""""NEW YORK""""""""""""""""
Hello Partners, Please find the requirement below. Please send the updated resume along with rate and contact no. REQ#1: Title : Java Developer ( Rating Project) Duration : 6 months Rate : open Location : NY strong java, WebLogic 9.2, Web Services, Oracle REQ#2: Title : Java Developer Duration : 4 months Rate : open Location : NY Strong java, SQL REQ#3: Title : VB.Net Consultant Location : NY Duration : 4 months Rate : open Primarily looking at someone who has Excel, VB.net a...

"If then; if then;" and "If then; if;"
I have a raw data set which is a hierarchical file: H 321 s. main st P Mary E 21 F P william m 23 M P Susan K 3 F H 324 S. Main St I use the folowing code to read the data to creat one observation per detail(P) record including hearder record(H): data test; infile 'C:\Documents and Settings\retain.txt'; retain Address; input type $1. @; if type='H' then input @3 Address $12.; if type='P' then input @3 Name $10. @13 Age 3. @16 Gender $1.; run; but the output is not what I want: 1 321 s. main H 2 321 s. main P Mary E 21 F 3 321 s...

"/a" is not "/a" ?
Hi everybody, while testing a module today I stumbled on something that I can work around but I don't quite understand. >>> a = "a" >>> b = "a" >>> a == b True >>> a is b True >>> c = "/a" >>> d = "/a" >>> c == d True # all good so far >>> c is d False # eeeeek! Why c and d point to two different objects with an identical string content rather than the same object? Manu Emanuele D'Arrigo wrote: >>>> c = "/a" >>>&...

about "++" and "--"
why this program snippet display "8,7,7,8,-7,-8" the program is: main() { int i=8; printf("%d\n%d\n%d\n%d\n%d\n%d\n",++i,--i,i++,i--,-i++,-i--); } > why this program snippet display "8,7,7,8,-7,-8" Ask your compiler-vendor because this result is IMHO implementation-defined. Check this out: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/misc-technical-issues.html#faq-39.15 http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/misc-technical-issues.html#faq-39.16 Regards, Irina Marudina fxc123@gmail.com wrote: > why this program snippet display "8,7,7,8,-7,-8&q...

"or" and "and"
Hi, I'm just getting to discover ruby, but I find it very nice programming language. I just still don't understand how the "or" and "and" in ruby... I was playing with ruby and for example made a def to print Stem and Leaf plot (for those who didn't have a statistics course or slept on it, e.g. http://cnx.org/content/m10157/latest/) Here is the Beta version of it: class Array def n ; self.size ; end def stem_and_leaf(st = 1) # if st != (2 or 5 or 10) then ; st = 1 ; end k = Hash.new(0) self.each {|x| k[x.to_f] += 1 } k = k.sort{|a, b| a[0].to_f <=&g...

"my" and "our"
Hi, while testing a program, I erroneously declared the same variable twice within a block, the first time with "my", the second time with "our": { my $fz = 'VTX_Link'; .... ( around 200 lines of code, all in the same block) our $fz = 'VTX_Linkset'; ... } So the initial contents of the $fz declared with "my" is lost, because "our" creates a lexical alias for the global $fz, thus overwriting the previous "my" declaration. It was my error, no question. But I wonder why Perl doesn't mention this - even with "use s...

why "::", not "."
Why does the method of modules use a dot, and the constants a double colon? e.g. Math::PI and Math.cos -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. On Oct 26, 2010, at 01:48 , Oleg Igor wrote: > Why does the method of modules use a dot, and the constants a double > colon? > e.g. > Math::PI and Math.cos For the same reason why inner-classes/modules use double colon, because = they're constants and that's how you look up via constant namespace. Math::PI and ActiveRecord::Base are the same type of lookup... it is = just that Base is a module and PI is a float....

"out" and "in out"
Hi i found the following explaination: In Ada, "in" parameters are similar to C++ const parameters. They are effectively read-only within the scope of the called subprogram. Ada "in out" parameters have a reliable initial value (that passed in from the calling subprogram) and may be modified within the scope of the called procedure. Ada "out" parameters have no reliable initial value, but are expected to be assigned a value within the called procedure. What does "have no reliable initial value" mean when considering the "out" parameter? By c...

Urgent Requirement for """""""""""""""INFORMATICA DEVELOPER"""""""""""""
Hello Partners, How are you ? Please find the requirements below. Title: Database/ETL Developer Duration: 6 months Location: NY Exp: 7+ Locals preferred Database/ETL requirements (Mandatory) Candidate must have worked with financial instruments, preferably Mutual Funds but, Equities are also ok. PL/SQL - packages, Stored procs, Functions, Aggregate functions, Pipelined Functions Informatica 8.6 - especially complex mappings, complex maplets, complex workflows, transformations Oracle 10g/11g Unix/Linux shell scripting ...

Win7: "almost a dream OS", Linux: "WHAT A NIGHTMARE !!!"
"It's nicer than Vista, faster than XP -- almost a dream OS." http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136192/Windows_7_How_low_can_you_go_?taxonomyId=89&pageNumber=3 "Of importance in the spec was 8GB RAM and I speced a NVidia 8600 GTS graphics card .... WHAT A NIGHTMARE !!! Since then ... I�ve installed various flavors of Linux and continually had lockups/hard freezes (No Num Lock or Caps lock... and you can�t ping the machine). Flavors of Linux that I tried were Ubuntu (7.04 64bit, 7.10 32bit and 64bit, 8.04 Alpha4 64bit), Debian Etch 64bit, Debian Lenny 64bit. Al...

Urgent need """""""""""INFORMATICA DEVELOPER"""""""""""""
Hello Partners, How are you ? Please find the requirements below. Title: Database/ETL Developer Duration: 6 months Location: NY Exp: 7+ Locals preferred Database/ETL requirements (Mandatory) Candidate must have worked with financial instruments, preferably Mutual Funds but, Equities are also ok. PL/SQL - packages, Stored procs, Functions, Aggregate functions, Pipelined Functions Informatica 8.6 - especially complex mappings, complex maplets, complex workflows, transformations Oracle 10g/11g Unix/Linux shell scripting Database/ETL requirements (Optional) Data warehousing experience Threading and job concepts in 10g/11g Cost based Optimizer concepts in 10g/11g Must : Experience with XML files and partitioning concepts in Oracle, Collections, Material Views Note : No phone calls please. : send Resumes to karthik@bhaninfo.com Thanks & Regards Karthik BhanInfo karthik@bhaninfo.com ...

"In" "Out" and "Trash"
I just bought a new computer and I re-installed Eudora Light on my new computer. But when I open Eudora, the "In", "Out" and "Trash" links are not on the left side of the screen the way they were on my old computer. How can I get these links back on the left side of the screen? Thank you. On 25 Mar 2007 09:49:22 -0700, "abx" <abfunex@yahoo.com> wrote: >I just bought a new computer and I re-installed Eudora Light on my new >computer. But when I open Eudora, the "In", "Out" and "Trash" links >are ...

Does it need a ";" at the very after of "if" and "for"
write code like: int main(void) { int a=10; if(a<20) {} } Compiler ok on dev-cpp . don't we have to add a ";" after if statement? marsarden said: > write code like: > > int main(void) > { > int a=10; > if(a<20) > {} > } > > Compiler ok on dev-cpp . don't we have to add a ";" after if > statement? The syntax for 'if' is: if(expression) statement There is no semicolon after the ) but before the statement. The statement is either a normal statement (which can be empty), ending in a semicolon:- if(expr) ...

A problem about "[ ]" "( )" "="
I want to read several images saved in a director,and give them to I1,I2 ,I3....,using the following codes: filelist=dir(['c:\MATLAB701\work\...\*.jpg']); for i=1 :length(filelist) I=imread(fullfile('c:\MATLAB701\work\...',filelist(i).name)); end; but failed. Then I used I(i)=imread... ,still failed. How could I do? "John" <mailofww@126.com> wrote in message news:ef19e12.-1@webx.raydaftYaTP... >I want to read several images saved in a director,and give them to > I1,I2 ,I3....,using the following codes: > filelist=dir(['c:\MATLAB701\work\.....

[News] UNIX/Linux Called Real OS; Windows "Insufficient OS"
Why *I* like Linux and Unix (and Mac OS X too!) ,----[ Quote ] | But there's more. There's what we call the "Unix Philosophy", which is that | small tools should do one thing and do it well, while being designed so that | they can get whatever input they need from the output of something else and | vice versa. It's pipelines, stringing together little tools to get big | results. Windows programs just are NOT written with that in mind - if they do | allow command line use at all, they spit out too much on the output side and | aren't even smart enough to do so o...

"Linux" vs "GNU/Linux"
Found this interesting transcript <http://linuxhelp.blogspot.com/2006/04/unabridged-selective-transcript-of.html> of a talk given by Richard Stallman while he was over in the West Island recently. Among other things, he explains why he wants people to use the term "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux" when referring to the operating system: However after people started using essentially the GNU system with Linux added, and called it Linux, it no longer led then to the philosophy associated with GNU - the philosophy of free software. Instead o...

"wrong OS or OS version"
I tried to install the Labview 7.0 runtime on an embedded NT system. After 56% of the installation prgcess I got an error message:Wrong OS or OS version for application What is wrong ? Is embedded NT not supported by LV 7.0? The LV 6.1 runtime can be installed without any problems Nutronik wrote: > I tried to install the Labview 7.0 runtime on an embedded NT system. > After 56% of the installation prgcess I got an error message:Wrong OS > or OS version for application > > What is wrong ? Is embedded NT not supported by LV 7.0? > The LV 6.1 runtime can be installed without...

OS X or OS "Ten"
Yeah, so this is a stupid question, and yes I know it is "OS Ten", but how many people just call it OS "X" anyway? I do out of habit, and because I use windows and mac (and whatever comes my way really, I am just an 'OS neutral' user)all my 'mac friends' make fun of me becaue I say it that way...they say it shows that I am an 'outsider' (in jest really). So what's the word on that? ...are there any more of us? l. PS ....and yes I did search for the answer to this and have determinded that I do not say it 'correctly' but I am wonderi...

Urgent JAVA Requirement in """"""NEW YORK"""""""""
Hello Partners, How are you ? Please find the requirement below. Location : NY Duration : 8 mnths Rate :Open Job description: Java/J2EE Web Service Developer =B7 (4+ years of application development experience in Java/J2EE and Web service technologies. =B7 Experience with spring & Hibernate. =B7 Experience with J2EE Application Server (preferably Web logic). =B7 Preferable Aqua logic DSP Experience =B7 Preferable Sonic ESB Composite Service experience Experience w...

Web resources about - "Real OS" vs. "Toy OS" - comp.os.linux.advocacy

Resources last updated: 2/25/2016 4:17:47 PM