Of the top 25 the ones with MS are in the Microsoft camp, meaning they
write software exclusively to the Microsoft API toolkits and
exclusively for Windows.
MS - In the Microsoft camp

                        Software        Sftwr
#       Company Revenue Grwth
MS      1       Microsoft       49,453  10%     61,900  80%     more
>>
           2       IBM     22,089  11%     103,630         21%
more >>
           3       Oracle  17,560  17%     22,102  79%     more >>
           4       HP      11,604  8%      16,111  72%     more >>
           5       Symantec        5,692   8%      6,152   93%
more >>
           6       Activision Blizzard     4,622   73%     5,032
92%     more >>
           7       Lockheed Martin 4,186   6%      42,731  10%
           8       Electronic Arts 4,268   29%     4,268   100%
more >>
           9       CA      3,936   4%      4,305   91%     more >>
         10      Adobe   3,361   10%     3,544   95%     more >>
         11      EMC     3,171   3%      14,876  21%     more >>
         12      SunGard 2,015   17%     5,596   36%     more >>
         13      Cisco   1,984   14%     39,455  5%      more >>
         14      Autodesk        1,982   1%      2,303   86%     more
>>
         15      BMC     1,585   2%      1,698   93%     more >>
         16      Take-Two Interactive    1,452   48%     1,452
100%    more >>
         17      NCR     1,431   6%      5,315   27%     more >>
MS    18      Intuit  1,383   -3%     2,800   49%     more >>
         19      Synopsys        1,200   11%     1,341   89%     more
>>
         20      Citrix  1,180   11%     1,583   75%     more >>
         21      VMWare  1,178   30%     1,881   63%     more >>
         22      Apple   1,131   29%     34,526  3%      more >>
         23      SAS Institute   1,130   5%      2,260   50%     more
>>
         24      Infor   1,100   5%      2,200   50%     more >>
         25      Salesforce.com  959     45%     1,049   91%     more
>>

That's right.
Nearly all of the others write at least some of their applications,
and most of their newer applications, for multiple platforms,
including Windows, Linux, Mac, Unix, and Mainframes.

The only reason Intuit wasn't purchased by Microsoft is because a
federal court ruled that letting Microsoft gain a monopoly over
people's financial records was giving them way too much power.  But
Microsoft did try.

So unless you have a paycheck from Microsoft, it's probably a good
idea to learn at least one or two multiplatform languages, especially
Java.

And yes, you still need to know Windows too.

Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:

> And yes, you still need to know Windows too.

I don't.

Never have, and never will.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| When all else fails, MOVE.L 4.W,A6 and JSR -726(A6)
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 03:52:03 up 45 days, 13:42,  3 users,  load average: 0.20, 0.15, 0.05

On 5/15/2010 10:53 PM, Homer wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
>
>> And yes, you still need to know Windows too.
>
> I don't.
>
> Never have, and never will.

Liar.

"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> schreef in bericht 
news:hsou68$6u8$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 5/15/2010 10:53 PM, Homer wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
>>
>>> And yes, you still need to know Windows too.
>>
>> I don't.
>>
>> Never have, and never will.
>
> Liar.
>
Un_fucking_believable!!
Almost every post this liar spews into COLON (err.. COLA) is about Windows, 
Microsoft or related!
Why do Linux loons lie so much????????????? 

"Clogwog" <clogwog@anon.eu> writes:

> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> schreef in bericht 
> news:hsou68$6u8$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 5/15/2010 10:53 PM, Homer wrote:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
>>>
>>>> And yes, you still need to know Windows too.
>>>
>>> I don't.
>>>
>>> Never have, and never will.
>>
>> Liar.
>>
> Un_fucking_believable!!
> Almost every post this liar spews into COLON (err.. COLA) is about Windows, 
> Microsoft or related!
> Why do Linux loons lie so much????????????? 

My favorite "porky" today was Liarmutt talking about people being locked
into Windows development. He forgot to mention in the thread that so is
he. You would have though he was a big fat smug bearded one for a minute
there.

Hadron wrote:

> My favorite "porky" today was Liarmutt talking about people being locked
> into Windows development. He forgot to mention in the thread that so is
> he. You would have though he was a big fat smug bearded one for a minute
> there.

If you lick Clogwog's sphincter enough, he might promote you to ball
fondler.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Procrastination Day Has Been Postponed!

On May 15, 10:53=A0pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
> > And yes, you still need to know Windows too.
> I don't.

> Never have, and never will.

Which of those Top 100 companies listed do you work for?

> K.http://slated.org

"Tattoo Vampire" <sitting@this.computer> schreef in bericht 
news:13ss0ba4mdnz0.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer...
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> My favorite "porky" today was Liarmutt talking about people being locked
>> into Windows development. He forgot to mention in the thread that so is
>> he. You would have though he was a big fat smug bearded one for a minute
>> there.
>
> If you lick Clogwog's sphincter enough, he might promote you to ball
> fondler.
>
Fantasizing about Marti again, now are you!
You are the "experienced" ball fondler, remember!
[q]
"A little experimentation in college does not make one gay"
http://groups.google.nl/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/8158b1dcb1bab083?hl=nl&dmode=source&output=gplain
[/q] 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

____/ Homer on Sunday 16 May 2010 03:53 : \____

> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
> 
>> And yes, you still need to know Windows too.
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Never have, and never will.

Some jobs might require it; the ones I've had over the past decade (about 6) were all open
to GNU/Linux. Times have changed.

- -- 
		~~ Best of wishes

Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz      | Windows: slippery when dry. You have been warned.
http://Schestowitz.com  |     GNU/Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap:  4088500k total,   417880k used,  3670620k free,   264040k cached
      http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkvwUgUACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7flwCgnK7HzZFl5U8xPLyWHkXUvvVa
NPUAn3yNnpMe1Me311pr8/oW4v8mPkc3
=dWfb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sun, 16 May 2010 22:09:10 +0200, Clogwog wrote:

> "Tattoo Vampire" <sitting@this.computer> schreef in bericht 
> news:13ss0ba4mdnz0.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer...
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> My favorite "porky" today was Liarmutt talking about people being locked
>>> into Windows development. He forgot to mention in the thread that so is
>>> he. You would have though he was a big fat smug bearded one for a minute
>>> there.
>>
>> If you lick Clogwog's sphincter enough, he might promote you to ball
>> fondler.
>>
> Fantasizing about Marti again, now are you!
> You are the "experienced" ball fondler, remember!
> [q]
> "A little experimentation in college does not make one gay"
> http://groups.google.nl/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/8158b1dcb1bab083?hl=nl&dmode=source&output=gplain
> [/q]

Amazing.
Linux advocacy seems to attract the homosexuals like flies to
shit.

I guess you could say that Linux is the Mini Cooper, Chrysler
Sebring Convertible of the operating system world.

Clogwog wrote:

> You are the "experienced" ball fondler, remember!
> [q]
> "A little experimentation in college does not make one gay"
> http://groups.google.nl/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/8158b1dcb1bab083?hl=nl&dmode=source&output=gplain
> [/q]

> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512

I've never used OE to post to Usenet. More likely it's you forging my name,
you hairless twat.
-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Procrastination Day Has Been Postponed!

On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:56:26 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:

> Clogwog wrote:
> 
>> You are the "experienced" ball fondler, remember!
>> [q]
>> "A little experimentation in college does not make one gay"
>> http://groups.google.nl/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/8158b1dcb1bab083?hl=nl&dmode=source&output=gplain
>> [/q]
> 
>> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
> 
> I've never used OE to post to Usenet. More likely it's you forging my name,
> you hairless twat.

More than likely it's HPT nymshifting again for the purpose of
stirring up trouble.

On May 16, 10:07=A0am, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/2010 10:53 PM, Homer wrote:
> > Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:

> >> And yes, you still need to know Windows too.

> > I don't.

> > Never have, and never will.

> Liar.

He might be like a lost of Windows-only programmers.

Self-employed one-trick ponies who can make a living writing IE ASPs
to MS-SQL Databases.

Linux-Only gurus have a significantly wider range of markets -
especially in the server markets, but they probably won't be like this
for months.

There's quite a collection of them in New York's Silicon Alley, they
create web content for Madison Avenue agencies uptown.

On May 16, 3:20=A0pm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> Hadron wrote:
[who quote snipped because it was irrelevant]

Another WinTroll attempt to take a good thread into the sewer with
sleasy personal attacks.

Leave the second grade playground antics at home please.

Especially the Linux advocates.

On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:55:44 -0400, Moshe wrote:

> Amazing.
> Linux advocacy seems to attract the homosexuals like flies to shit.

You should warn people to put their coffee down before handing them a
straight line like that.  8-)

Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> Clogwog wrote:
> 
>> You are the "experienced" ball fondler, remember! [q] "A little
>> experimentation in college does not make one gay" 
>> http://groups.google.nl/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/8158b1dcb1bab083?hl=nl&dmode=source&output=gplain
>> [/q]
>> 
>> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-RFC2646:
>> Format=Flowed; Response X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express
>> 6.00.2900.5512
> 
> I've never used OE to post to Usenet. More likely it's you forging my
> name, you hairless twat.

Flatfish sometimes posts as Clogwog and is a nymthief to boot.  He also
accuses advocates of nymshifting when they haven't.  The whole lot are
amoral.

-- 
HPT

On Sun, 16 May 2010 18:14:07 -0600, High Plains Thumper wrote:

> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>> Clogwog wrote:
>> 
>>> You are the "experienced" ball fondler, remember! [q] "A little
>>> experimentation in college does not make one gay" 
>>> http://groups.google.nl/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/8158b1dcb1bab083?hl=nl&dmode=source&output=gplain
>>> [/q]
>>> 
>>> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-RFC2646:
>>> Format=Flowed; Response X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express
>>> 6.00.2900.5512
>> 
>> I've never used OE to post to Usenet. More likely it's you forging my
>> name, you hairless twat.
> 
> Flatfish sometimes posts as Clogwog and is a nymthief to boot.  He also
> accuses advocates of nymshifting when they haven't.  The whole lot are
> amoral.

Yawn.
More baseless accusations coming from the nym shifter himself.

Notice how HPT goes on the offense when he gets caught.

It's like clockwork.

Verily I say unto thee, that Tattoo Vampire spake thusly:
> Hadron wrote:
> 
>> My favorite "porky" today was Liarmutt talking about people being
>> locked into Windows development. He forgot to mention in the thread
>> that so is he. You would have though he was a big fat smug bearded
>> one for a minute there.
> 
> If you lick Clogwog's sphincter enough, he might promote you to ball 
> fondler.

I didn't see the crux of Hardon's banal response, but I should add that
I was lucky in that I come from the pre-Microsoft generation, and thus
managed to quite easily avoid their software, both in education and
work. Although in the latter years I was asked on two occasions (by two
different agencies) to work on Microsoft-stack related contracts,
however I refused on the simple premise that I have zero professional
Microsoft qualifications or experience. I didn't need to expand on that
explanation.

Today's workforce is an entirely different animal, since most of them
were force fed Microsoft from primary/junior school upwards, in closed
bid contracts that didn't even offer them alternatives, then "protected"
with secret MoUs so the taxpayer can't even see how much they're being
ripped off, or how bent these "deals" are (exclusion contracts). Or IOW,
Microsoft's usual racket.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| When all else fails, MOVE.L 4.W,A6 and JSR -726(A6)
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 03:15:42 up 46 days, 13:06,  2 users,  load average: 3.88, 3.48, 3.35

Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
> On May 15, 10:53 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:

>>> And yes, you still need to know Windows too.
>> 
>> I don't.
> 
>> Never have, and never will.
> 
> Which of those Top 100 companies listed do you work for?

I got paid.

What else matters?

But if some gambler's pop chart fascinates you so much, then it may help
you to know many of my contracts were oil related, so I'm sure most, if
not all, of them are in there somewhere.

Not that I care, beyond the fact that they, like probably most of the
rest in that pop chart, are a bunch of rats gnawing each other's heads off.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| When all else fails, MOVE.L 4.W,A6 and JSR -726(A6)
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 03:28:39 up 46 days, 13:19,  2 users,  load average: 3.67, 3.49, 3.39

Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
> ____/ Homer on Sunday 16 May 2010 03:53 : \____
> 
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
> 
>>> And yes, you still need to know Windows too.
> 
>> I don't.
> 
>> Never have, and never will.
> 
> Some jobs might require it; the ones I've had over the past decade 
> (about 6) were all open to GNU/Linux. Times have changed.

Well it's a good job I'm retired then, because I'd rather empty garbage
cans for a living than Work for gangsters.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| When all else fails, MOVE.L 4.W,A6 and JSR -726(A6)
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 03:32:11 up 46 days, 13:22,  2 users,  load average: 3.66, 3.56, 3.44

Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
> On May 16, 10:07 am, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> On 5/15/2010 10:53 PM, Homer wrote:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
> 
>>>> And yes, you still need to know Windows too.
> 
>>> I don't.
> 
>>> Never have, and never will.
> 
>> Liar.

You're such a denialist it's hysterical, DooFy.

When I was at school, nobody had even heard of Microsoft. The IT
department at the university I attended only offered UNIX systems and
DEC workstations. Not a single contract I've ever worked on ever
required me to even be aware of Microsoft's existence, either in terms
of engineering, consultation or integration and maintenance. There was a
time, DooFy, when Microsoft meant nothing to most real professionals,
and still doesn't as far as I'm concerned.

Deal with it.

> He might be like a lost of Windows-only programmers.

No, I'm just like everyone else used to be before Microsoft, and I plan
on staying that way. Permanently.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| When all else fails, MOVE.L 4.W,A6 and JSR -726(A6)
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 03:45:49 up 46 days, 13:36,  2 users,  load average: 3.06, 3.30, 3.35

Verily I say unto thee, that hotfoot spake thusly:
> On Sun, 16 May 2010 17:55:44 -0400, Moshe wrote:
> 
>> Amazing. Linux advocacy seems to attract the homosexuals like flies
>> to shit.

So why are you here then Moshy, are you looking for a date?

> You should warn people to put their coffee down before handing them
> a straight line like that.  8-)

Be careful that isn't all he hands you.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| When all else fails, MOVE.L 4.W,A6 and JSR -726(A6)
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 03:50:42 up 46 days, 13:41,  2 users,  load average: 3.53, 3.35, 3.35

Homer wrote:

> I didn't see the crux of Hardon's banal response, but I should add
> that I was lucky in that I come from the pre-Microsoft generation,
> and thus managed to quite easily avoid their software, both in
> education and work. Although in the latter years I was asked on two
> occasions (by two different agencies) to work on Microsoft-stack
> related contracts, however I refused on the simple premise that I
> have zero professional Microsoft qualifications or experience. I
> didn't need to expand on that explanation.
> 
> Today's workforce is an entirely different animal, since most of
> them were force fed Microsoft from primary/junior school upwards, in
> closed bid contracts that didn't even offer them alternatives, then
> "protected" with secret MoUs so the taxpayer can't even see how much
> they're being ripped off, or how bent these "deals" are (exclusion
> contracts). Or IOW, Microsoft's usual racket.

I started out in an era that was mainframe and minicomputer based.  I
have watched the history of the microcomputer unfold.  One thing I have
seen is the disappearance of competition and the affects of it.

There used to be a developing cottage industry of office suites with
over a half dozen main competitors, games, helps, etc.

Now, you look for an office suite, there is only Microsoft and they very
well charge what they want.  There has been little improvement with
their office suite since their 97 version, which is now 13 years old.
In some ways it has gotten worse.

Outlook GUI, especially the calendar month mode in 2007 version looks
bloated, pretty but useless.  If there is more than one item in a day,
there is now showing only one item with a greyed out arrow that is
hardly visible.  One must go to the week mode to see the items.  The
2003 was at least more useful from that standpoint.  It never did word
wrap mode in month mode, like other calendars.  Basically it is an "in
your face" product, "do it our way or the highway".

I have seen how Microsoft has deliberately borked the Open Document
converter they wrote, so that a document cannot be successfully
converted to Open Document.

But you are right about the current generation of users, who never
experienced the other products to know what the differences were.  Many
think that Microsoft products are great, because they have nothing to
compare with.

Basically, Microsoft is nothing more than a cash machine, efforts are
spent to the bare bone in the product itself, the rest is in marketing,
astroturfing, lawsuits and ad nauseum.  I have never seen an
organisation so bent on destroying the competition, the court records
bear witness.

There was a pre-WW2 study done by the US Department of Commerce, which
found that when there were more than 10 competitors in an industry, one
was assured fair and reasonable competition and favourable pricing.

If you look at the automobile industry, now there are less than 10
corporations worldwide.  You wonder why your car is so expensive, why
aeroplanes are so expensive, etc.  Yes, some of it is due to litigation
and as such is built in.  However, there are now less than 10
competitors in these industries.  There are cross licensing deals
between the companies such that they sell each other's products.

It is no different in the computer world.  There are less than 10
desktop PC OS's, less than 10 office suites, etc.  Even OpenOffice
attempts now to mimic Microsoft Office, latest being the menu change to
quick print icon, which I hate.  I would prefer the system to allow me
to choose the printer and pages to print, not just print the whole
bloody thing.  It also mimics Microsoft paragraph formatting.  One has
to typeset, gone are the intelligence that was present in WordPerfect 17
years ago, where the system would adapt to your paragraph style and
carry it through.

Then add the confusion with software patents, where one can patent the
XOR function, which is about as non-innovative as one can get.  The
non-uniqueness of FAT file formatting, button arrangements on a computer
appliance, use of an open source server in a car and etc.

The whole industry has become borked and Microsoft is leading the pack.

-- 
HPT

High Plains Thumper stated in post hsr33v$kff$1@news.albasani.net on 5/17/10
2:43 AM:

> It is no different in the computer world.  There are less than 10
> desktop PC OS's, 

How do you figure?  We are told that each of the distros a different
"Linux-based OS" - and clearly there are more than 10 distros.  Even 10
desktop distros.  And this does not include other OSs.  So there are more
than 10 desktop OSs.

> less than 10 office suites, etc.

MS Office
Open Office
iWork
NeoOffice
WordPerfect Office
Star Office
Lotus Symphony
ThinkFree Office
Google Docs
Zoho Office
Oxygen Office
Koffice
SSuite Office

I am sure there are more.

> Even OpenOffice attempts now to mimic Microsoft Office,

When did it not?

> latest being the menu change to quick print icon, which I hate.  I would
> prefer the system to allow me to choose the printer and pages to print, not
> just print the whole bloody thing.

You can set that... oh, and the newest Office versions do not have that icon
by default.

> It also mimics Microsoft paragraph formatting.  One has to typeset, gone are
> the intelligence that was present in WordPerfect 17 years ago, where the
> system would adapt to your paragraph style and carry it through.

You can configure MS Office to do your bidding... which is not to say its
defaults are not annoying.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Tattoo Vampire pulled this Usenet boner:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> My favorite "porky" today was Liarmutt talking about people being locked
>> into Windows development. He forgot to mention in the thread that so is
>> he. You would have though he was a big fat smug bearded one for a minute
>> there.
>
> If you lick Clogwog's sphincter enough, he might promote you to ball
> fondler.

Now we know what "Hadron" does at work.  <grin>

"Hadron" has no idea what I do at work (apart from posting here when bored
or waiting, and writing code that is mostly cross-platform and *not*
locked into Windows).

-- 
You will inherit some money or a small piece of land.

Hadron pulled this Usenet boner:

> Liarmutt

Verily I say unto thee, that High Plains Thumper spake thusly:
> There are cross licensing deals between the companies such that they
> sell each other's products.

I would outlaw this practise as tantamount to price fixing.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| When all else fails, MOVE.L 4.W,A6 and JSR -726(A6)
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 12:37:03 up 46 days, 22:27,  2 users,  load average: 2.88, 3.20, 3.28

Snit wrote:
> High Plains Thumper stated:
> 
>> It is no different in the computer world.  There are less than 10 
>> desktop PC OS's,
> 
> How do you figure?  We are told that each of the distros a different 
> "Linux-based OS" - and clearly there are more than 10 distros.  Even
> 10 desktop distros.  And this does not include other OSs.  So there
> are more than 10 desktop OSs.

Nope, faulty reasoning.  Linux is Linux.  "We are told"?  You don't
understand what a distro is.

>> less than 10 office suites, etc.
> 
> MS Office
> Open Office
> iWork

Not available for other operating systems.

> NeoOffice

Never heard of it.

> WordPerfect Office
> Star Office

Pay version of Open Office with a few value adds.

> Lotus Symphony

Fork of Open Office.

> ThinkFree Office

Never heard of it.

> Google Docs

Not the same category of product.

> Zoho Office

Never heard of it.

> Oxygen Office

Never heard of it.

> Koffice

Not available for other operating systems, requires installation of K
libraries for other Linux desktops.

> SSuite Office

Never heard of it.

Less than 10.

> I am sure there are more.
> 
>> Even OpenOffice attempts now to mimic Microsoft Office,
> 
> When did it not?
> 
>> latest being the menu change to quick print icon, which I hate.  I
>> would prefer the system to allow me to choose the printer and pages
>> to print, not just print the whole bloody thing.
> 
> You can set that... oh, and the newest Office versions do not have
> that icon by default.

No, the only thing one can do is to turn off the icon so it doesn't show
up.  The only other one is "Print Preview".  I wanted the print dialogue
box.

Office 2007 has its Fisher Price interface, which is annoying.

>> It also mimics Microsoft paragraph formatting.  One has to typeset,
>> gone are the intelligence that was present in WordPerfect 17 years
>> ago, where the system would adapt to your paragraph style and carry
>> it through.
> 
> You can configure MS Office to do your bidding... which is not to say
> its defaults are not annoying.

I wish I could configure Snit, but Snit is annoying.  Which this is my
last reply to Snit.

115- Stuart Krivis: "You might as well just give up and plonk him then.
A snit is a snit is a snit and always will be."  15 Aug 2006 (post not
available except in reply)

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5b382420a696f140

-- 
HPT

On Mon, 17 May 2010 06:45:37 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Hadron pulled this Usenet boner:
> 
>> Liarmutt

Five year old Chris Ahlstom detected.

Last seen standing in the corner of the school yard with his
fingers in his ears, screaming as loudly as he can.

Watch for him next week at the sandbox with his head buried in the
sand up to his shoulders.

High Plains Thumper stated in post hsrbhi$8dt$1@news.eternal-september.org
on 5/17/10 5:07 AM:

> Snit wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper stated:
>> 
>>> It is no different in the computer world.  There are less than 10
>>> desktop PC OS's,
>> 
>> How do you figure?  We are told that each of the distros a different
>> "Linux-based OS" - and clearly there are more than 10 distros.  Even
>> 10 desktop distros.  And this does not include other OSs.  So there
>> are more than 10 desktop OSs.
> 
> Nope, faulty reasoning.  Linux is Linux.  "We are told"?  You don't
> understand what a distro is.

I do.  Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate
OS... or at least each significantly different distro (the different
Ubuntu's, for example, might be seen as different versions of the same OS).

>>> less than 10 office suites, etc.
>> 
>> MS Office
>> Open Office
>> iWork
> 
> Not available for other operating systems.

So?  It is an office suite.  MS Office is not available for Linux.

>> NeoOffice
> 
> Never heard of it.

So?
 
>> WordPerfect Office
>> Star Office
> 
> Pay version of Open Office with a few value adds.

So?
 
>> Lotus Symphony
> 
> Fork of Open Office.

So?

>> ThinkFree Office
> 
> Never heard of it.

So?
 
>> Google Docs
> 
> Not the same category of product.

It is an office suite.
 
>> Zoho Office
> 
> Never heard of it.

So?

>> Oxygen Office
> 
> Never heard of it.

So?
 
>> Koffice
> 
> Not available for other operating systems, requires installation of K
> libraries for other Linux desktops.

So?
 
>> SSuite Office
> 
> Never heard of it.

So?
 
> Less than 10.

Use your fingers to help you count if you must... I listed more than 10
office suites.  Who cares what *you* have heard of?
 
>> I am sure there are more.
>> 
>>> Even OpenOffice attempts now to mimic Microsoft Office,
>> 
>> When did it not?
>> 
>>> latest being the menu change to quick print icon, which I hate.  I
>>> would prefer the system to allow me to choose the printer and pages
>>> to print, not just print the whole bloody thing.
>> 
>> You can set that... oh, and the newest Office versions do not have
>> that icon by default.
> 
> No, the only thing one can do is to turn off the icon so it doesn't show
> up.  The only other one is "Print Preview".  I wanted the print dialogue
> box.

I do not have Office 2010.  Maybe they added it back... I doubt it.
Certainly does not appear so based on the MS website screen shots.  Office
2007 clearly does not...

> Office 2007 has its Fisher Price interface, which is annoying.

Ah, you do not like it.  So?
 
>>> It also mimics Microsoft paragraph formatting.  One has to typeset,
>>> gone are the intelligence that was present in WordPerfect 17 years
>>> ago, where the system would adapt to your paragraph style and carry
>>> it through.
>> 
>> You can configure MS Office to do your bidding... which is not to say
>> its defaults are not annoying.
> 
> I wish I could configure Snit, but Snit is annoying.  Which this is my
> last reply to Snit.

All you can do is run from the evidence you are wrong.

You claimed there are less than 10 desktop OSs.  This is clearly incorrect.

You claimed there are less than 10 office suites.  I listed more than that.
Your response was that you had not heard of them or that they did not all
run on all OSs.  So?  Heck, MS Office does not run on most OSs.

You find the facts which contradict your claims to be "annoying".  Oh well.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

"Tattoo Vampire" <sitting@this.computer> schreef in bericht 
news:zx26pwf9u1tz.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer...
> Clogwog wrote:
>
>> You are the "experienced" ball fondler, remember!
>> [q]
>> "A little experimentation in college does not make one gay"
>> http://groups.google.nl/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/8158b1dcb1bab083?hl=nl&dmode=source&output=gplain
>> [/q]
>
>> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-RFC2646: 
>> Format=Flowed; Response X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 
>> 6.00.2900.5512
>
> I've never used OE to post to Usenet. More likely it's you forging my 
> name,
> you hairless twat.

Aaargh!, an open nerve was obviously hit!, when I called you a "fat 
baldynapper"?
Nothing to contribute Don ;-)
http://cbs4denver.com/local/hair.oil.spill.2.1680495.html 

On May 16, 10:28=A0pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
>
> > On May 15, 10:53 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> >> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
> >>> And yes, you still need to know Windows too.
>
> >> I don't.
>
> >> Never have, and never will.
>
> > Which of those Top 100 companies listed do you work for?
>
> I got paid.
>
> What else matters?
>
> But if some gambler's pop chart fascinates you so much, then it may help
> you to know many of my contracts were oil related, so I'm sure most, if
> not all, of them are in there somewhere.
>
> Not that I care, beyond the fact that they, like probably most of the
> rest in that pop chart, are a bunch of rats gnawing each other's heads of=
f.
>

But at least you didn't use Windows!

Snit wrote:

> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate OS

Exactly zero.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Procrastination Day Has Been Postponed!

Tattoo Vampire stated in post 164183ypbva5q$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/17/10 4:05 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate OS
> 
> Exactly zero.

Rick has.  I am sure I can find others.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> writes:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate OS
>
> Exactly zero.

They should do since they are. A distro IS a different OS by the
definition of an OS. Linux is the kernel Campfire, didn't Rick explain
it to you ....

Hadron stated in post hssk3u$ddl$1@news.eternal-september.org on 5/17/10
4:39 PM:

> Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> writes:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate OS
>> 
>> Exactly zero.
> 
> They should do since they are. A distro IS a different OS by the
> definition of an OS. Linux is the kernel Campfire, didn't Rick explain
> it to you ....

But Rick and Tattoo will *never* acknowledge how they have completely
different views of what Linux is.  They just won't.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 5/17/2010 7:05 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate OS
>
> Exactly zero.


Exactly once per distro, according to the braindead (p)Rick:

"Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems"

DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> writes:

> On 5/17/2010 7:05 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate OS
>>
>> Exactly zero.
>
> Exactly once per distro, according to the braindead (p)Rick:
>
> "Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems"

Rick is indeed correct.

Commonly known as "Linux" most distros are indeed seperate OSen. How can
they not be? They have different kernels, distro specific patches and
distro specific selections of Gnus toolsets.

Its just him being sich a pedant that rubs people up.

On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:36:35 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Tattoo Vampire stated in post
> 164183ypbva5q$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on 5/17/10 4:05 PM:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate OS
>> 
>> Exactly zero.
> 
> Rick has.  I am sure I can find others.

.... and what did I say... exactly/



-- 
Rick

On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:41:54 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Hadron stated in post hssk3u$ddl$1@news.eternal-september.org on 5/17/10
> 4:39 PM:
> 
>> Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> writes:
>> 
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate OS
>>> 
>>> Exactly zero.
>> 
>> They should do since they are. A distro IS a different OS by the
>> definition of an OS. Linux is the kernel Campfire, didn't Rick explain
>> it to you ....
> 
> But Rick and Tattoo will *never* acknowledge how they have completely
> different views of what Linux is.  They just won't.

Linux. Kernel.



-- 
Rick

On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:43:19 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 5/17/2010 7:05 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate OS
>>
>> Exactly zero.
> 
> 
> Exactly once per distro, according to the braindead (p)Rick:
> 
> "Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems"

Do you have  message ID for that? No. I'll save you the trouble.

Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems. And more.

-- 
Rick

DFS stated in post hsskar$d26$1@news.eternal-september.org on 5/17/10 4:43
PM:

> On 5/17/2010 7:05 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate OS
>> 
>> Exactly zero.
> 
> 
> Exactly once per distro, according to the braindead (p)Rick:
> 
> "Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems"
> 
Yet Tattoo and Rick will never talk about how they disagree.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post z8ydnVdjj4yhZmzWnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/17/10 7:28 PM:

> On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:36:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post
>> 164183ypbva5q$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on 5/17/10 4:05 PM:
>> 
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate OS
>>> 
>>> Exactly zero.
>> 
>> Rick has.  I am sure I can find others.
> 
> ... and what did I say... exactly/

Look up the quotes yourself... but you have made it clear what I said was
correct.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post z8ydnVZjj4ztZmzWnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/17/10 7:29 PM:

> On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:41:54 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Hadron stated in post hssk3u$ddl$1@news.eternal-september.org on 5/17/10
>> 4:39 PM:
>> 
>>> Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate OS
>>>> 
>>>> Exactly zero.
>>> 
>>> They should do since they are. A distro IS a different OS by the
>>> definition of an OS. Linux is the kernel Campfire, didn't Rick explain
>>> it to you ....
>> 
>> But Rick and Tattoo will *never* acknowledge how they have completely
>> different views of what Linux is.  They just won't.
> 
> Linux. Kernel.
> 
> 
And are the different distros different OSs?  Tattoo is currently saying no.
You?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 5/17/2010 10:30 PM, Rick wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:43:19 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 5/17/2010 7:05 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate OS
>>>
>>> Exactly zero.
>>
>>
>> Exactly once per distro, according to the braindead (p)Rick:
>>
>> "Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems"
>
> Do you have  message ID for that? No. I'll save you the trouble.
>
> Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems. And more.


huh?  In the past you claimed:


"Linux is not an operating system"

"Ubuntu is a distribution with a Linux based operating system."

"Fedora is a distribution with a Linux kernel."

"Fedora is Linux"

"in certain connotations, "Linux" is the kernel, and in others, it is more."

"Linux is a kernel"




You can't keep your idiocy straight from one minute to the next, (p)Rick.

On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:50:46 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post z8ydnVdjj4yhZmzWnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 5/17/10 7:28 PM:
> 
>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:36:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post
>>> 164183ypbva5q$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on 5/17/10 4:05 PM:
>>> 
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate
>>>>> OS
>>>> 
>>>> Exactly zero.
>>> 
>>> Rick has.  I am sure I can find others.
>> 
>> ... and what did I say... exactly/
> 
> Look up the quotes yourself... but you have made it clear what I said
> was correct.

Still can't back up your claims, I see.

... and you are still begging for my attention.


-- 
Rick

On Mon, 17 May 2010 20:03:43 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post z8ydnVZjj4ztZmzWnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 5/17/10 7:29 PM:
> 
>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:41:54 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Hadron stated in post hssk3u$ddl$1@news.eternal-september.org on
>>> 5/17/10 4:39 PM:
>>> 
>>>> Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate
>>>>>> OS
>>>>> 
>>>>> Exactly zero.
>>>> 
>>>> They should do since they are. A distro IS a different OS by the
>>>> definition of an OS. Linux is the kernel Campfire, didn't Rick
>>>> explain it to you ....
>>> 
>>> But Rick and Tattoo will *never* acknowledge how they have completely
>>> different views of what Linux is.  They just won't.
>> 
>> Linux. Kernel.
>> 
>> 
> And are the different distros different OSs?  Tattoo is currently saying
> no. You?

Gee whiz. Just today you were telling everyone what I said.

-- 
Rick

On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:50:05 -0700, Snit wrote:

> DFS stated in post hsskar$d26$1@news.eternal-september.org on 5/17/10
> 4:43 PM:
> 
>> On 5/17/2010 7:05 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate OS
>>> 
>>> Exactly zero.
>> 
>> 
>> Exactly once per distro, according to the braindead (p)Rick:
>> 
>> "Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems"
>> 
> Yet Tattoo and Rick will never talk about how they disagree.

Linux. Kernel.

.... and ...

Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems, and more.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post YIudnf9Md8nklG_WnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/17/10 8:28 PM:

> On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:50:05 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> DFS stated in post hsskar$d26$1@news.eternal-september.org on 5/17/10
>> 4:43 PM:
>> 
>>> On 5/17/2010 7:05 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate OS
>>>> 
>>>> Exactly zero.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Exactly once per distro, according to the braindead (p)Rick:
>>> 
>>> "Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems"
>>> 
>> Yet Tattoo and Rick will never talk about how they disagree.
> 
> Linux. Kernel.
> 
> ... and ...
> 
> 
> Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems, and more.

Do you currently consider each distro (say PCLOS and Ubuntu) to be a
different Linux-based OS?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post YIudnfxMd8nQlG_WnZ2dnUVZ_jAAAAAA@supernews.com on
5/17/10 8:28 PM:

> On Mon, 17 May 2010 20:03:43 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post z8ydnVZjj4ztZmzWnZ2dnUVZ_silnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 5/17/10 7:29 PM:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:41:54 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hadron stated in post hssk3u$ddl$1@news.eternal-september.org on
>>>> 5/17/10 4:39 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate
>>>>>>> OS
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Exactly zero.
>>>>> 
>>>>> They should do since they are. A distro IS a different OS by the
>>>>> definition of an OS. Linux is the kernel Campfire, didn't Rick
>>>>> explain it to you ....
>>>> 
>>>> But Rick and Tattoo will *never* acknowledge how they have completely
>>>> different views of what Linux is.  They just won't.
>>> 
>>> Linux. Kernel.
>>> 
>>> 
>> And are the different distros different OSs?  Tattoo is currently saying
>> no. You?
> 
> Gee whiz. Just today you were telling everyone what I said.

I am checking to see if you will stick with your past claims... but now you
will dodge.  You will not risk openly saying what you have claimed in the
past.  You will not stand up to Tattoo and say you think different distros
are different Linux-based OSs.  You will not speak out against your herd.

Bet on it.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Verily I say unto thee, that High Plains Thumper spake thusly:

> There are less than 10 desktop PC OS's

Wanna bet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems

I think you'll find rather more than just 10 of those are current,
desktop-oriented operating systems. There's at /least/ that amount
just in the "hobby" section alone.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| When all else fails, MOVE.L 4.W,A6 and JSR -726(A6)
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 04:37:55 up 47 days, 14:28,  2 users,  load average: 0.03, 0.05, 0.00

Rick stated in post YIudnf1Md8lAlW_WnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/17/10 8:26 PM:

> On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:50:46 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post z8ydnVdjj4yhZmzWnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 5/17/10 7:28 PM:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:36:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post
>>>> 164183ypbva5q$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on 5/17/10 4:05 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate
>>>>>> OS
>>>>> 
>>>>> Exactly zero.
>>>> 
>>>> Rick has.  I am sure I can find others.
>>> 
>>> ... and what did I say... exactly/
>> 
>> Look up the quotes yourself... but you have made it clear what I said
>> was correct.
> 
> Still can't back up your claims, I see.
> 
> .. and you are still begging for my attention.
> 
> 
See how you will not out and out say that you think, say, PCLOS and Ubuntu
are different OSs, each based on Linux but separate OSs.

You will not say *anything* to go against your herd.  You look at others and
see "herd mentality", but you display it more than anyone else I know.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

DFS stated in post hst18e$coj$1@news.eternal-september.org on 5/17/10 8:23
PM:

> On 5/17/2010 10:30 PM, Rick wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:43:19 -0400, DFS wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5/17/2010 7:05 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate OS
>>>> 
>>>> Exactly zero.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Exactly once per distro, according to the braindead (p)Rick:
>>> 
>>> "Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems"
>> 
>> Do you have  message ID for that? No. I'll save you the trouble.
>> 
>> Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems. And more.
> 
> 
> huh?  In the past you claimed:
> 
> 
> "Linux is not an operating system"
> 
> "Ubuntu is a distribution with a Linux based operating system."
> 
> "Fedora is a distribution with a Linux kernel."
> 
> "Fedora is Linux"
> 
> "in certain connotations, "Linux" is the kernel, and in others, it is more."
> 
> "Linux is a kernel"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't keep your idiocy straight from one minute to the next, (p)Rick.
> 
> 
Rick will not speak out against his herd... even if he disagrees with them.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Homer stated in post 4me9c7-fpi.ln1@sky.matrix on 5/17/10 8:38 PM:

> Verily I say unto thee, that High Plains Thumper spake thusly:
> 
>> There are less than 10 desktop PC OS's
> 
> Wanna bet?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems
> 
> I think you'll find rather more than just 10 of those are current,
> desktop-oriented operating systems. There's at /least/ that amount
> just in the "hobby" section alone.

And for his claim of less than 10 Office suites:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_suite>

HPT's claim is trivial to show to be incorrect.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Mon, 17 May 2010 23:23:52 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 5/17/2010 10:30 PM, Rick wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:43:19 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/17/2010 7:05 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate
>>>>> OS
>>>>
>>>> Exactly zero.
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly once per distro, according to the braindead (p)Rick:
>>>
>>> "Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems"
>>
>> Do you have  message ID for that? No. I'll save you the trouble.
>>
>> Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems. And more.
> 
> 
> huh?  

Nice retort.

> In the past you claimed:
> 
> 
> "Linux is not an operating system"

It is not.

> 
> "Ubuntu is a distribution with a Linux based operating system."

Yes...

> 
> "Fedora is a distribution with a Linux kernel."

Yes ...

> 
> "Fedora is Linux"

Yes, I did say that. But, unlike you, it seems, can alter my beliefs 
based on additional information.

> 
> "in certain connotations, "Linux" is the kernel, and in others, it is
> more."

.... in certain connotations. I didn't say they were corect.

> 
> "Linux is a kernel"

It is.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't keep your idiocy straight from one minute to the next,
> (p)Rick.

Did Mommy let you stay up too late, Kindergarten Boy?

-- 
Rick

On Mon, 17 May 2010 20:38:22 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post YIudnf1Md8lAlW_WnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 5/17/10 8:26 PM:
> 
>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:50:46 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post z8ydnVdjj4yhZmzWnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 5/17/10 7:28 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:36:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post
>>>>> 164183ypbva5q$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on 5/17/10 4:05 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate
>>>>>>> OS
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Exactly zero.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rick has.  I am sure I can find others.
>>>> 
>>>> ... and what did I say... exactly/
>>> 
>>> Look up the quotes yourself... but you have made it clear what I said
>>> was correct.
>> 
>> Still can't back up your claims, I see.
>> 
>> .. and you are still begging for my attention.
>> 
>> 
> See how you will not out and out say that you think, say, PCLOS and
> Ubuntu are different OSs, each based on Linux but separate OSs.
> 
> You will not say *anything* to go against your herd.  You look at others
> and see "herd mentality", but you display it more than anyone else I
> know.

Snit.. go look up herd mentality and then go have 2 or 3 people explain 
it to you. Might start looking like less of a dumb ass.

-- 
Rick

On Mon, 17 May 2010 20:35:49 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post YIudnf9Md8nklG_WnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 5/17/10 8:28 PM:
> 
>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:50:05 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> DFS stated in post hsskar$d26$1@news.eternal-september.org on 5/17/10
>>> 4:43 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On 5/17/2010 7:05 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate
>>>>>> OS
>>>>> 
>>>>> Exactly zero.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Exactly once per distro, according to the braindead (p)Rick:
>>>> 
>>>> "Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems"
>>>> 
>>> Yet Tattoo and Rick will never talk about how they disagree.
>> 
>> Linux. Kernel.
>> 
>> ... and ...
>> 
>> 
>> Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems, and more.
> 
> Do you currently consider each distro (say PCLOS and Ubuntu) to be a
> different Linux-based OS?

You are the one that tells everyone else what I think, as if you were 
clairvoyant.


-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post YIudnfhMd8mCjm_WnZ2dnUVZ_jAAAAAA@supernews.com on
5/17/10 9:10 PM:

.... 
>> Do you currently consider each distro (say PCLOS and Ubuntu) to be a
>> different Linux-based OS?
> 
> You are the one that tells everyone else what I think, as if you were
> clairvoyant.

Notice your dodge - you are petrified to offend your herd.  You will not say
HPT is wrong... even though you have made it clear you know he is.

You are very, very predictable.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post YIudnflMd8kGj2_WnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/17/10 9:07 PM:

> On Mon, 17 May 2010 20:38:22 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post YIudnf1Md8lAlW_WnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 5/17/10 8:26 PM:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:50:46 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Rick stated in post z8ydnVdjj4yhZmzWnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>> 5/17/10 7:28 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:36:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post
>>>>>> 164183ypbva5q$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on 5/17/10 4:05 PM:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate
>>>>>>>> OS
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Exactly zero.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rick has.  I am sure I can find others.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ... and what did I say... exactly/
>>>> 
>>>> Look up the quotes yourself... but you have made it clear what I said
>>>> was correct.
>>> 
>>> Still can't back up your claims, I see.
>>> 
>>> .. and you are still begging for my attention.
>>> 
>>> 
>> See how you will not out and out say that you think, say, PCLOS and
>> Ubuntu are different OSs, each based on Linux but separate OSs.
>> 
>> You will not say *anything* to go against your herd.  You look at others
>> and see "herd mentality", but you display it more than anyone else I
>> know.
> 
> Snit.. go look up herd mentality and then go have 2 or 3 people explain
> it to you. Might start looking like less of a dumb ass.

No need to look anything up - here you are, knowing full well you consider
PCLOS and Ubuntu to be different OSs but afraid to say so (or deny it!)
because you are completely petrified of offending your herd.

Now, if you herd comes to a consensus... you *will* jump on the band wagon.
And repeat it as a mantra as though you actually understand the reasoning
behind the decision.

Hey, you can prove me wrong and state your view before the herd leaders give
you your marching orders.  As if!  LOL!


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post YIudnf5Md8nQj2_WnZ2dnUVZ_jAAAAAA@supernews.com on
5/17/10 9:06 PM:

> On Mon, 17 May 2010 23:23:52 -0400, DFS wrote:
> 
>> On 5/17/2010 10:30 PM, Rick wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:43:19 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 5/17/2010 7:05 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate
>>>>>> OS
>>>>> 
>>>>> Exactly zero.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Exactly once per distro, according to the braindead (p)Rick:
>>>> 
>>>> "Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems"
>>> 
>>> Do you have  message ID for that? No. I'll save you the trouble.
>>> 
>>> Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems. And more.
>> 
>> 
>> huh?  
> 
> Nice retort.
> 
>> In the past you claimed:
>> 
>> 
>> "Linux is not an operating system"
> 
> It is not.

But PCLOS and Ubuntu are. But you will not come right out and say if you
think they are the same OS or different OSs - your herd leaders have not
given you their marching orders.  You have no idea which way to turn.

It is funny to watch.

>> "Ubuntu is a distribution with a Linux based operating system."
> 
> Yes...
> 
>> 
>> "Fedora is a distribution with a Linux kernel."
> 
> Yes ...

But are Ubuntu and Fedora different OSs in your view?

Ah, you sitting there like a deer in the headlights - afraid to say either
way.  I would prefer if you did, but your predictable refusal is at least a
source of amusement for those of us who get how little you understand and
why you use your mantras so often.

>> "Fedora is Linux"
> 
> Yes, I did say that. But, unlike you, it seems, can alter my beliefs
> based on additional information.

When did you herd leaders gave you different marching orders?
 
>> "in certain connotations, "Linux" is the kernel, and in others, it is
>> more."
> 
> ... in certain connotations. I didn't say they were corect.

LOL!  Wishy washy!
 
>> "Linux is a kernel"
> 
> It is.

But you will not come out and say the different distros are different OSs...
not until you get your marching orders.  It is funny!

>> You can't keep your idiocy straight from one minute to the next,
>> (p)Rick.
> 
> Did Mommy let you stay up too late, Kindergarten Boy?



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick wrote:

> Still can't back up your claims, I see.
> 
> .. and you are still begging for my attention.

Snit must have finished working on the one PC he's gotten to repair this
month.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Procrastination Day Has Been Postponed!

Snit wrote:

> But Rick and Tattoo will *never* acknowledge how they have completely
> different views of what Linux is.  They just won't.

You have no idea what my view of Linux is, Michael. Now get your ponytailed
ass into the kitchen and at least do the dishes for your poor hardworking
wife.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Procrastination Day Has Been Postponed!

Rick wrote:

> Gee whiz. Just today you were telling everyone what I said.

He's waiting for his wife to give him permission to spend 5 more minutes on
Usenet, before she makes him get off and clean up the kitchen.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Procrastination Day Has Been Postponed!

Snit wrote:

> You will not stand up to Tattoo

What do I have to do with your latest Snot Circus, geek?

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Procrastination Day Has Been Postponed!

Snit wrote:

> Notice your dodge - you are petrified to offend your herd.  You will not say
> HPT is wrong... even though you have made it clear you know he is.
> 
> You are very, very predictable.

Snit has a new word - "herd" - that he's going to use for the next 6 weeks.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Police toilets stolen! Officers have nothing to go on!

In article <hsr33v$kff$1@news.albasani.net>,
 High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> There was a pre-WW2 study done by the US Department of Commerce, which
> found that when there were more than 10 competitors in an industry, one
> was assured fair and reasonable competition and favourable pricing.
> 
> If you look at the automobile industry, now there are less than 10
> corporations worldwide.  You wonder why your car is so expensive, why

Toyota
General Motors
Volkswagon
Ford
Honda
Nissan
PSA Peugeot Citroën
Hyundai
Suzuki
Fiat
Renault
Daimler
Chrysler
BMW
Kia
Mazda
Mitsubishi
Tata
First Automotive
Fuji
Isuzu
Chana Automobile
Dongfeng Motor
Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Corporation
Chery Automobile
Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation
Volvo
Brilliance China Automotive
Harbin Hafei Automobile
Geely Automobile
Anhui Jianghaul Automobile
GAZ Group
Mahindra & Mahrindra
Proton Holdings
Great Wall Motor Company
Paccar
Chongqing Lifan
MAN SE
Jiangxi Changhe Automobile
China National Heavy Duty Truck Company
LuAZ
Navistar International
Shaanxi Automobile Group
UAZ OJSC
Ashok Leyland
Kuozui Motors

That looks like more than 10 to me. Heck, there are more than 10 in 
China alone.

-- 
--Tim Smith

On Tue, 18 May 2010 03:12:12 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Notice your dodge - you are petrified to offend your herd.  You will
>> not say HPT is wrong... even though you have made it clear you know he
>> is.
>> 
>> You are very, very predictable.
> 
> Snit has a new word - "herd" - that he's going to use for the next 6
> weeks.

He's been trying very hard to show everyone he understands his new word. 
It is too bad he obviously doesn't.

-- 
Rick

Tattoo Vampire pulled this Usenet boner:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> But Rick and Tattoo will *never* acknowledge how they have completely
>> different views of what Linux is.  They just won't.
>
> You have no idea what my view of Linux is, Michael. Now get your ponytailed
> ass ...

I didn't know hair grew that long in the dorsal lumbar region.

How would one keep it clean?   :-D

> into the kitchen and at least do the dishes for your poor hardworking
> wife.
>
> -- 
> Regards,
> [tv]
> Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC
>
> ...Procrastination Day Has Been Postponed!


-- 
Don't kiss an elephant on the lips today.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> I didn't know hair grew that long in the dorsal lumbar region.
> 
> How would one keep it clean?   :-D

In Snit's case, Quack keeps it clean for him.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.

Tim Smith wrote:

> Great Wall Motor Company

I would assume this one is in China? :-D

Interesting name.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....What goes around usually picks up momentum!

Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> writes:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> Notice your dodge - you are petrified to offend your herd.  You will not say
>> HPT is wrong... even though you have made it clear you know he is.
>> 
>> You are very, very predictable.
>
> Snit has a new word - "herd" - that he's going to use for the next 6 weeks.

I guess you have Rick killfiled. Not that I blame you. Snit is feeding
back "herd" to Rick.

He had better watch out. Doing that can cause BSE ...

Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:

> On Mon, 17 May 2010 20:38:22 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Rick stated in post YIudnf1Md8lAlW_WnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 5/17/10 8:26 PM:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:50:46 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Rick stated in post z8ydnVdjj4yhZmzWnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>> 5/17/10 7:28 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:36:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post
>>>>>> 164183ypbva5q$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on 5/17/10 4:05 PM:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate
>>>>>>>> OS
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Exactly zero.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rick has.  I am sure I can find others.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ... and what did I say... exactly/
>>>> 
>>>> Look up the quotes yourself... but you have made it clear what I said
>>>> was correct.
>>> 
>>> Still can't back up your claims, I see.
>>> 
>>> .. and you are still begging for my attention.
>>> 
>>> 
>> See how you will not out and out say that you think, say, PCLOS and
>> Ubuntu are different OSs, each based on Linux but separate OSs.
>> 
>> You will not say *anything* to go against your herd.  You look at others
>> and see "herd mentality", but you display it more than anyone else I
>> know.
>
> Snit.. go look up herd mentality and then go have 2 or 3 people explain 
> it to you. Might start looking like less of a dumb ass.

Erm, it seems you need to. Snit is using your words against you. You
seem unwilling to break from the COLA "herd" .... I guess you are
exhibiting "herd mentality". It is YOU, isnt it, who says this is why
Linux has failed to make inroads into the home desktop? Yes. Yes it was
....

Tattoo Vampire pulled this Usenet boner:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> I didn't know hair grew that long in the dorsal lumbar region.
>> 
>> How would one keep it clean?   :-D
>
> In Snit's case, Quack keeps it clean for him.

And Snit returns the favor by brushing off the flies.  Tit for tat.  <grin>

-- 
Alas, how love can trifle with itself!
		-- William Shakespeare, "The Two Gentlemen of Verona"

Rick stated in post kt-dnYYVIfqI-m_WnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/18/10 3:08 AM:

> On Tue, 18 May 2010 03:12:12 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Notice your dodge - you are petrified to offend your herd.  You will
>>> not say HPT is wrong... even though you have made it clear you know he
>>> is.
>>> 
>>> You are very, very predictable.
>> 
>> Snit has a new word - "herd" - that he's going to use for the next 6
>> weeks.
> 
> He's been trying very hard to show everyone he understands his new word.
> It is too bad he obviously doesn't.

I clearly do.  You follow the "advocate" herd... and until they give you
your marching orders you will not say if you think PCLOS and Ubuntu are the
same OS or different OSs.  You are afraid to.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Tattoo Vampire stated in post 4n1esjubk861$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/18/10 12:12 AM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Notice your dodge - you are petrified to offend your herd.  You will not say
>> HPT is wrong... even though you have made it clear you know he is.
>> 
>> You are very, very predictable.
> 
> Snit has a new word - "herd" - that he's going to use for the next 6 weeks.

Rick will not stand up and say if he agrees with you in that different Linux
based OSs are really the same OS or if he agrees with the idea that each OS
is its own OS.

He is afraid to - his herd has not given him clear marching orders.  He has
no mantra to cover this question, so he just runs.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Hadron stated in post hsu145$39g$2@news.eternal-september.org on 5/18/10
5:27 AM:

> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 20:38:22 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post YIudnf1Md8lAlW_WnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 5/17/10 8:26 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:50:46 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Rick stated in post z8ydnVdjj4yhZmzWnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>>>> 5/17/10 7:28 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:36:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post
>>>>>>> 164183ypbva5q$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on 5/17/10 4:05 PM:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a separate
>>>>>>>>> OS
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Exactly zero.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Rick has.  I am sure I can find others.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ... and what did I say... exactly/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Look up the quotes yourself... but you have made it clear what I said
>>>>> was correct.
>>>> 
>>>> Still can't back up your claims, I see.
>>>> 
>>>> .. and you are still begging for my attention.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> See how you will not out and out say that you think, say, PCLOS and
>>> Ubuntu are different OSs, each based on Linux but separate OSs.
>>> 
>>> You will not say *anything* to go against your herd.  You look at others
>>> and see "herd mentality", but you display it more than anyone else I
>>> know.
>> 
>> Snit.. go look up herd mentality and then go have 2 or 3 people explain
>> it to you. Might start looking like less of a dumb ass.
> 
> Erm, it seems you need to. Snit is using your words against you. You
> seem unwilling to break from the COLA "herd" .... I guess you are
> exhibiting "herd mentality". It is YOU, isnt it, who says this is why
> Linux has failed to make inroads into the home desktop? Yes. Yes it was
> ...
> 
Exactly.  I am using Rick's own mantras against him... but in this case it
is easily supported.  And if I was not right, Rick would have proved me
wrong by taking a stand... a stand on a very, very simple question.

Are PCLOS and Ubuntu different Linux based OSs or are they the same OS?

Until Rick gets his marching orders from the "advocate" herd, he will not
answer - none of his mantras fit this question.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Tattoo Vampire stated in post sncfoek2zbif$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/18/10 12:07 AM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> But Rick and Tattoo will *never* acknowledge how they have completely
>> different views of what Linux is.  They just won't.
> 
> You have no idea what my view of Linux is, Michael.

Right: your comments might have nothing to do with your views... you lie a
lot.

But you claimed to believe that the different distros were not different OSs
- hence why there are not 10 different desktop OSs.

You were wrong, of course, but that is just how it is.  Heck, you were also
wrong when you said there were not more than 10 office suites.  So be it.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:27:47 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 20:38:22 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Rick stated in post YIudnf1Md8lAlW_WnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 5/17/10 8:26 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 19:50:46 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Rick stated in post z8ydnVdjj4yhZmzWnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@supernews.com
>>>>> on 5/17/10 7:28 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:36:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post
>>>>>>> 164183ypbva5q$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on 5/17/10 4:05 PM:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Look at how many times "advocates" claim each distro is a
>>>>>>>>> separate OS
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Exactly zero.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Rick has.  I am sure I can find others.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ... and what did I say... exactly/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Look up the quotes yourself... but you have made it clear what I
>>>>> said was correct.
>>>> 
>>>> Still can't back up your claims, I see.
>>>> 
>>>> .. and you are still begging for my attention.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> See how you will not out and out say that you think, say, PCLOS and
>>> Ubuntu are different OSs, each based on Linux but separate OSs.
>>> 
>>> You will not say *anything* to go against your herd.  You look at
>>> others and see "herd mentality", but you display it more than anyone
>>> else I know.
>>
>> Snit.. go look up herd mentality and then go have 2 or 3 people explain
>> it to you. Might start looking like less of a dumb ass.
> 
> Erm, it seems you need to. Snit is using your words against you. You
> seem unwilling to break from the COLA "herd" .... I guess you are
> exhibiting "herd mentality". It is YOU, isnt it, who says this is why
> Linux has failed to make inroads into the home desktop? Yes. Yes it was
> ...

Hadron, go look up herd mentality and then go have 2 or 3 people explain  
it to you. You might start looking like less of a dumb ass.

-- 
Rick

On Tue, 18 May 2010 07:06:08 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Tattoo Vampire stated in post 4n1esjubk861$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer
> on 5/18/10 12:12 AM:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Notice your dodge - you are petrified to offend your herd.  You will
>>> not say HPT is wrong... even though you have made it clear you know he
>>> is.
>>> 
>>> You are very, very predictable.
>> 
>> Snit has a new word - "herd" - that he's going to use for the next 6
>> weeks.
> 
> Rick will not stand up and say if he agrees with you in that different
> Linux based OSs are really the same OS or if he agrees with the idea
> that each OS is its own OS.

Who says I have to? Why should I have to answer anything you ask? oh... I 
don't.

> 
> He is afraid to - (snip)

You don't get to decide whether I am afraid of something or not. But you 
continue making your incorrect assumptions.

Now, go take your meds and try to rejoin reality.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post EMqdnbXiQvc5YW_WnZ2dnUVZ_vI1AAAA@supernews.com on
5/18/10 1:46 PM:

>>>> See how you will not out and out say that you think, say, PCLOS and
>>>> Ubuntu are different OSs, each based on Linux but separate OSs.
>>>> 
>>>> You will not say *anything* to go against your herd.  You look at
>>>> others and see "herd mentality", but you display it more than anyone
>>>> else I know.
>>> 
>>> Snit.. go look up herd mentality and then go have 2 or 3 people explain
>>> it to you. Might start looking like less of a dumb ass.
>> 
>> Erm, it seems you need to. Snit is using your words against you. You
>> seem unwilling to break from the COLA "herd" .... I guess you are
>> exhibiting "herd mentality". It is YOU, isnt it, who says this is why
>> Linux has failed to make inroads into the home desktop? Yes. Yes it was
>> ...
> 
> Hadron, go look up herd mentality and then go have 2 or 3 people explain
> it to you. You might start looking like less of a dumb ass.

Hard to not notice, Rick, that with all of your posturing and asking
*others* to look thinks up, you are still waiting for your masters to tell
you if Ubuntu and PCLOS are different OSs or the same OS.

Your herd mentality is showing.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post EMqdnbTiQvfTYG_WnZ2dnUVZ_vKonZ2d@supernews.com on
5/18/10 1:49 PM:

> On Tue, 18 May 2010 07:06:08 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post 4n1esjubk861$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer
>> on 5/18/10 12:12 AM:
>> 
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Notice your dodge - you are petrified to offend your herd.  You will
>>>> not say HPT is wrong... even though you have made it clear you know he
>>>> is.
>>>> 
>>>> You are very, very predictable.
>>> 
>>> Snit has a new word - "herd" - that he's going to use for the next 6
>>> weeks.
>> 
>> Rick will not stand up and say if he agrees with you in that different
>> Linux based OSs are really the same OS or if he agrees with the idea
>> that each OS is its own OS.
> 
> Who says I have to? Why should I have to answer anything you ask? oh... I
> don't.
> 
>> 
>> He is afraid to - (snip)
> 
> You don't get to decide whether I am afraid of something or not. But you
> continue making your incorrect assumptions.
> 
> Now, go take your meds and try to rejoin reality.

Gee, more posturing and puffing up of your chest - just because you do not
want it to be so clear how fearful you are of going against your herd.

Come on, Rick: are different distros the same OS or not?

LOL!

All you can do is snip, run, and - let me guess - tell me you will give me
the last word so you do not have to face your herd.

Too darn funny!


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:34:14 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post EMqdnbXiQvc5YW_WnZ2dnUVZ_vI1AAAA@supernews.com on
> 5/18/10 1:46 PM:
> 
>>>>> See how you will not out and out say that you think, say, PCLOS and
>>>>> Ubuntu are different OSs, each based on Linux but separate OSs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You will not say *anything* to go against your herd.  You look at
>>>>> others and see "herd mentality", but you display it more than anyone
>>>>> else I know.
>>>> 
>>>> Snit.. go look up herd mentality and then go have 2 or 3 people
>>>> explain it to you. Might start looking like less of a dumb ass.
>>> 
>>> Erm, it seems you need to. Snit is using your words against you. You
>>> seem unwilling to break from the COLA "herd" .... I guess you are
>>> exhibiting "herd mentality". It is YOU, isnt it, who says this is why
>>> Linux has failed to make inroads into the home desktop? Yes. Yes it
>>> was ...
>> 
>> Hadron, go look up herd mentality and then go have 2 or 3 people
>> explain it to you. You might start looking like less of a dumb ass.
> 
> Hard to not notice, Rick, that with all of your posturing and asking
> *others* to look thinks up, you are still waiting for your masters to
> tell you(snip)

I don't live like you obviously do, Snit. I have no masters.


-- 
Rick

On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:35:37 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post EMqdnbTiQvfTYG_WnZ2dnUVZ_vKonZ2d@supernews.com on
> 5/18/10 1:49 PM:
> 
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 07:06:08 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post
>>> 4n1esjubk861$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on 5/18/10 12:12 AM:
>>> 
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Notice your dodge - you are petrified to offend your herd.  You will
>>>>> not say HPT is wrong... even though you have made it clear you know
>>>>> he is.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You are very, very predictable.
>>>> 
>>>> Snit has a new word - "herd" - that he's going to use for the next 6
>>>> weeks.
>>> 
>>> Rick will not stand up and say if he agrees with you in that different
>>> Linux based OSs are really the same OS or if he agrees with the idea
>>> that each OS is its own OS.
>> 
>> Who says I have to? Why should I have to answer anything you ask? oh...
>> I don't.
>> 
>> 
>>> He is afraid to - (snip)
>> 
>> You don't get to decide whether I am afraid of something or not. But
>> you continue making your incorrect assumptions.
>> 
>> Now, go take your meds and try to rejoin reality.
> 
> Gee, more posturing and puffing up of your chest - just because you do
> not want it to be so clear how fearful you are of going against your
> herd.
> 
> Come on, Rick: are different distros the same OS or not?

You're the self proclaimed IT teacher... you don't know?

> 
> LOL!
> 
> All you can do is snip, run, and - let me guess - tell me you will give
> me the last word so you do not have to face your herd.
> 
> Too darn funny!

It would be funny, if you weren't so pathetic. Now go try to learn about 
herd mentality so you won't look quite so stupid.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post DuCdnYGnJra4kG7WnZ2dnUVZ_hk7AAAA@supernews.com on
5/18/10 2:56 PM:

>> Gee, more posturing and puffing up of your chest - just because you do
>> not want it to be so clear how fearful you are of going against your
>> herd.
>> 
>> Come on, Rick: are different distros the same OS or not?
> 
> You're the self proclaimed IT teacher... you don't know?

I do not know your current view on this... and neither do you - not until
your herd tells you what to believe.  Then you will have a new mantra.

By the way, where did you get the idea I am a "self proclaimed IT teacher"?

>> LOL!
>> 
>> All you can do is snip, run, and - let me guess - tell me you will give
>> me the last word so you do not have to face your herd.
>> 
>> Too darn funny!
> 
> It would be funny, if you weren't so pathetic.

Well, yeah, your need for your herd to tell you what to think is a bit
pathetic.  Your word... for your own actions: "pathetic".

> Now go try to learn about
> herd mentality so you won't look quite so stupid.

Gee, I am describing your herd mentality and you are saying I need to look
up the concept.  How... ironic.  LOL!

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post DuCdnYanJrYukW7WnZ2dnUVZ_hmmnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/18/10 2:54 PM:

> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:34:14 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post EMqdnbXiQvc5YW_WnZ2dnUVZ_vI1AAAA@supernews.com on
>> 5/18/10 1:46 PM:
>> 
>>>>>> See how you will not out and out say that you think, say, PCLOS and
>>>>>> Ubuntu are different OSs, each based on Linux but separate OSs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You will not say *anything* to go against your herd.  You look at
>>>>>> others and see "herd mentality", but you display it more than anyone
>>>>>> else I know.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Snit.. go look up herd mentality and then go have 2 or 3 people
>>>>> explain it to you. Might start looking like less of a dumb ass.
>>>> 
>>>> Erm, it seems you need to. Snit is using your words against you. You
>>>> seem unwilling to break from the COLA "herd" .... I guess you are
>>>> exhibiting "herd mentality". It is YOU, isnt it, who says this is why
>>>> Linux has failed to make inroads into the home desktop? Yes. Yes it
>>>> was ...
>>> 
>>> Hadron, go look up herd mentality and then go have 2 or 3 people
>>> explain it to you. You might start looking like less of a dumb ass.
>> 
>> Hard to not notice, Rick, that with all of your posturing and asking
>> *others* to look thinks up, you are still waiting for your masters to
>> tell you(snip)
> 
> I don't live like you obviously do, Snit. I have no masters.
> 
More posturing and puffing of your chest... as you run from the fact your
herd has not told you if you think different distros are different OSs or
the same one.

Isn't it time you run away screaming... telling me how much I want the "last
word", when all along you know I just want you to stop waiting for your herd
to direct you?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
> Hard to not notice, Rick, that with all of your posturing and asking
> *others* to look thinks up, you are still waiting for your masters to tell
> you if Ubuntu and PCLOS are different OSs or the same OS.

The only correct answer obviously is that they are different distributions
of the same OS.

-- 
BOFH excuse #23:

improperly oriented keyboard

TomB stated in post 20100518235243.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/18/10 3:11
PM:

> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> 
>> Hard to not notice, Rick, that with all of your posturing and asking
>> *others* to look thinks up, you are still waiting for your masters to tell
>> you if Ubuntu and PCLOS are different OSs or the same OS.
> 
> The only correct answer obviously is that they are different distributions
> of the same OS.

At least you are willing to take a stand.  Now that you have, and your view
agrees with HPT's, will Rick take that as enough consensus to gain that as a
new mindless mantra of his... another thing he says because his herd says
it?  Should be interesting to see.

In the past Rick has told me, though, that Linux itself is not the OS...
which does not jive with what you are saying.

Poor Rick.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB stated in post 20100518235243.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/18/10 3:11
PM:

> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> 
>> Hard to not notice, Rick, that with all of your posturing and asking
>> *others* to look thinks up, you are still waiting for your masters to tell
>> you if Ubuntu and PCLOS are different OSs or the same OS.
> 
> The only correct answer obviously is that they are different distributions
> of the same OS.

Then why the term "Linux-based OS"?  If they are all the same OS, then why
say they are merely based on that OS?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:27:17 -0700, Snit wrote:

> TomB stated in post 20100518235243.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/18/10
> 3:11 PM:
> 
>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> 
>>> Hard to not notice, Rick, that with all of your posturing and asking
>>> *others* to look thinks up, you are still waiting for your masters to
>>> tell you if Ubuntu and PCLOS are different OSs or the same OS.
>> 
>> The only correct answer obviously is that they are different
>> distributions of the same OS.
> 
> At least you are willing to take a stand.  Now that you have, and your
> view agrees with HPT's, will Rick take that as enough consensus to gain
> that as a new mindless mantra of his... another thing he says because
> his herd says it?  Should be interesting to see.
> 
> In the past Rick has told me, though, that Linux itself is not the OS...
> which does not jive with what you are saying.

Linux is the kernel.

> 
> Poor Rick.

Wrong again. I am not you.

-- 
Rick

On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:01:35 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post DuCdnYGnJra4kG7WnZ2dnUVZ_hk7AAAA@supernews.com on
> 5/18/10 2:56 PM:
> 
>>> Gee, more posturing and puffing up of your chest - just because you do
>>> not want it to be so clear how fearful you are of going against your
>>> herd.
>>> 
>>> Come on, Rick: are different distros the same OS or not?
>> 
>> You're the self proclaimed IT teacher... you don't know?
> 
> I do not know your current view on this... 

... and yet you tell people what my view is...


> and neither do you -

Actually, I do.

> not
> until your herd tells you what to believe.  Then you will have a new
> mantra.
> 
> By the way, where did you get the idea I am a "self proclaimed IT
> teacher"?

... your proclamations.

> 
>>> LOL!
>>> 
>>> All you can do is snip, run, and - let me guess - tell me you will
>>> give me the last word so you do not have to face your herd.
>>> 
>>> Too darn funny!
>> 
>> It would be funny, if you weren't so pathetic.
> 
> Well, yeah, your need for your herd to tell you what to think is a bit
> pathetic.  Your word... for your own actions: "pathetic".

Now you prove you are a liar.

-I- said -you- are pathetic... and you are.

> 
>> Now go try to learn about
>> herd mentality so you won't look quite so stupid.
> 
> Gee, I am describing your herd mentality and you are saying I need to
> look up the concept.  How... ironic.  LOL!

You have no clue about herd mentality... have fun.


-- 
Rick

On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:30:03 -0700, Snit wrote:

> TomB stated in post 20100518235243.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/18/10
> 3:11 PM:
> 
>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> 
>>> Hard to not notice, Rick, that with all of your posturing and asking
>>> *others* to look thinks up, you are still waiting for your masters to
>>> tell you if Ubuntu and PCLOS are different OSs or the same OS.
>> 
>> The only correct answer obviously is that they are different
>> distributions of the same OS.
> 
> Then why the term "Linux-based OS"?  If they are all the same OS, then
> why say they are merely based on that OS?

What a maroon... I see you  have no idea what a kernel is. Unsurprising.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post 696dnQNQb9TFi27WnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/18/10 3:36 PM:

> On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:30:03 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> TomB stated in post 20100518235243.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/18/10
>> 3:11 PM:
>> 
>>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> 
>>>> Hard to not notice, Rick, that with all of your posturing and asking
>>>> *others* to look thinks up, you are still waiting for your masters to
>>>> tell you if Ubuntu and PCLOS are different OSs or the same OS.
>>> 
>>> The only correct answer obviously is that they are different
>>> distributions of the same OS.
>> 
>> Then why the term "Linux-based OS"?  If they are all the same OS, then
>> why say they are merely based on that OS?
> 
> What a maroon... I see you  have no idea what a kernel is. Unsurprising.

More chest puffing from Rick!  And more fairy stories.

All because he will not say if Ubuntu and PCLOS are the same OS.

By the way: nobody said a thing about the kernel. LOL!


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 5/18/2010 6:31 PM, Rick wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:27:17 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> TomB stated in post 20100518235243.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/18/10
>> 3:11 PM:
>>
>>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>>
>>>> Hard to not notice, Rick, that with all of your posturing and asking
>>>> *others* to look thinks up, you are still waiting for your masters to
>>>> tell you if Ubuntu and PCLOS are different OSs or the same OS.
>>>
>>> The only correct answer obviously is that they are different
>>> distributions of the same OS.
>>
>> At least you are willing to take a stand.  Now that you have, and your
>> view agrees with HPT's, will Rick take that as enough consensus to gain
>> that as a new mindless mantra of his... another thing he says because
>> his herd says it?  Should be interesting to see.
>>
>> In the past Rick has told me, though, that Linux itself is not the OS...
>> which does not jive with what you are saying.
>
> Linux is the kernel.


Linux is whatever you say it is, based on the argument you're losing at 
the moment.

* "Linux is my main operating system."
* "Linux is not an operating system"
* "Linux is a kernel"

* "Fedora is Linux"
* "Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems"

* "Ubuntu is an operating system"
* "Ubuntu is a distribution with a Linux based operating system."
* "Ubuntu isn't Linux"


Years using Linux and you're still confused.  Such a good "advocate".

Rick stated in post DuCdnYOnJrZ1iG7WnZ2dnUVZ_hk7AAAA@supernews.com on
5/18/10 3:34 PM:

> On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:01:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post DuCdnYGnJra4kG7WnZ2dnUVZ_hk7AAAA@supernews.com on
>> 5/18/10 2:56 PM:
>> 
>>>> Gee, more posturing and puffing up of your chest - just because you do
>>>> not want it to be so clear how fearful you are of going against your
>>>> herd.
>>>> 
>>>> Come on, Rick: are different distros the same OS or not?
>>> 
>>> You're the self proclaimed IT teacher... you don't know?
>> 
>> I do not know your current view on this...
> 
> .. and yet you tell people what my view is...

Not your current one.  Your view will change with the direction of your
herd.

>> and neither do you -
> 
> Actually, I do.

Yeah, but you are just being sneaky and not saying.  LOL!

By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS... so maybe that is
enough from your herd to say you agree. A new mantra for Rick: All Linux
distros are the same OS! Not that you would understand your mantra, of
course, but you will be able to say it ... and then when questioned tell
people to look up why.

Because, face it, you have no clue.  :)

>> not
>> until your herd tells you what to believe.  Then you will have a new
>> mantra.
>> 
>> By the way, where did you get the idea I am a "self proclaimed IT
>> teacher"?
> 
> .. your proclamations.

When?  Where?  Point to one.

But you will not.  You are just trying to change the topic from your herd
behavior.

>> 
>>>> LOL!
>>>> 
>>>> All you can do is snip, run, and - let me guess - tell me you will
>>>> give me the last word so you do not have to face your herd.
>>>> 
>>>> Too darn funny!
>>> 
>>> It would be funny, if you weren't so pathetic.
>> 
>> Well, yeah, your need for your herd to tell you what to think is a bit
>> pathetic.  Your word... for your own actions: "pathetic".
> 
> Now you prove you are a liar.
> 
> -I- said -you- are pathetic... and you are.

I noted your behavior was "too darn funny" and you replied it (your
behavior) would be funny if *I* was not pathetic.  Huh?  Clearly the topic
was you and your behavior - not me.  So you got confused in the middle of
your own sentence.

That is pathetic.

>>> Now go try to learn about
>>> herd mentality so you won't look quite so stupid.
>> 
>> Gee, I am describing your herd mentality and you are saying I need to
>> look up the concept.  How... ironic.  LOL!
> 
> You have no clue about herd mentality... have fun.

Watching you is a lesson in herd mentality!



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post DuCdnYCnJraiiG7WnZ2dnUVZ_hmmnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/18/10 3:31 PM:

> On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:27:17 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> TomB stated in post 20100518235243.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/18/10
>> 3:11 PM:
>> 
>>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> 
>>>> Hard to not notice, Rick, that with all of your posturing and asking
>>>> *others* to look thinks up, you are still waiting for your masters to
>>>> tell you if Ubuntu and PCLOS are different OSs or the same OS.
>>> 
>>> The only correct answer obviously is that they are different
>>> distributions of the same OS.
>> 
>> At least you are willing to take a stand.  Now that you have, and your
>> view agrees with HPT's, will Rick take that as enough consensus to gain
>> that as a new mindless mantra of his... another thing he says because
>> his herd says it?  Should be interesting to see.
>> 
>> In the past Rick has told me, though, that Linux itself is not the OS...
>> which does not jive with what you are saying.
> 
> Linux is the kernel.

Yes. Very good!  Your herd has taught you well!

>> Poor Rick.
> 
> Wrong again. I am not you.

Look at Rick puff up his chest.  So funny... all because he needed his herd
to tell him if different distros were the same OS.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 5/18/2010 4:49 PM, Rick wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 07:06:08 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post 4n1esjubk861$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer
>> on 5/18/10 12:12 AM:
>>
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Notice your dodge - you are petrified to offend your herd.  You will
>>>> not say HPT is wrong... even though you have made it clear you know he
>>>> is.
>>>>
>>>> You are very, very predictable.
>>>
>>> Snit has a new word - "herd" - that he's going to use for the next 6
>>> weeks.
>>
>> Rick will not stand up and say if he agrees with you in that different
>> Linux based OSs are really the same OS or if he agrees with the idea
>> that each OS is its own OS.
>
> Who says I have to? Why should I have to answer anything you ask? oh... I
> don't.

Of course you don't have to.  You can let Snit make you look like an 
idiot - he does so regularly.



>> He is afraid to - (snip)
>
> You don't get to decide whether I am afraid of something or not. But you
> continue making your incorrect assumptions.
>
> Now, go take your meds and try to rejoin reality.

Snit is very much in touch with reality.  You, 7, Homer, Rex Ballard and 
a few others are not.

Rick wrote:

> You're the self proclaimed IT teacher... you don't know?

And don't forget Video Perfesser Extraordinaire! "Eeeek!"

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Police toilets stolen! Officers have nothing to go on!

Snit wrote:

> You were wrong, of course, but that is just how it is.  Heck, you were also
> wrong when you said there were not more than 10 office suites.  So be it.

I never said that, dumbass. Learn how to read newsgroup threads.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....We have enough youth, how about a fountain of "smart."

On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20100518235243.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/18/10 3:11
> PM:
>
>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> 
>>> Hard to not notice, Rick, that with all of your posturing and asking
>>> *others* to look thinks up, you are still waiting for your masters to tell
>>> you if Ubuntu and PCLOS are different OSs or the same OS.
>> 
>> The only correct answer obviously is that they are different distributions
>> of the same OS.
>
> At least you are willing to take a stand. (...)
>
> In the past Rick has told me, though, that Linux itself is not the OS...
> which does not jive with what you are saying.

Of course Linux itself is not an OS. It's just a kernel. 'Jives'
perfectly with what I'm saying.

Your next question now could be "But what's the OS then?", and that's
where things get tricky. In my opinion, Linux combined with GNU
constitutes an OS. It is the absolute bare minimum to have a usable
system.

So then my position would become that Ubuntu, PCLOS, Debian, Gentoo...
are different distributions of the GNU/Linux operating system. And I
think that this is about as technically correct as one can get.

So why 'Linux based OS' then? Well, there's no good answer for that.
How about the Debian folks calling their distribution 'The universal
OS' on their website? That *does* totally clash with my definition.
Are the Debian folks wrong? I'd say that they are, technically. Debian
is not an operating system; it's a distribution. Am I mad at the
Debian folks because they call their distro an OS? Of course not. I
know what they mean. It's just taking a little bit of liberty with the
terms.

-- 
BOFH excuse #258:

That's easy to fix, but I can't be bothered.

Tattoo Vampire stated in post 1rq9175mkdy20.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/18/10 4:04 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> You were wrong, of course, but that is just how it is.  Heck, you were also
>> wrong when you said there were not more than 10 office suites.  So be it.
> 
> I never said that, dumbass. Learn how to read newsgroup threads.

Oh, wait, that was HPT.  Whatever... you trolls all look alike to me.  :)


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Notice your dodge - you are petrified to offend your herd.  You
>> will not say HPT is wrong... even though you have made it clear you
>> know he is.
>> 
>> You are very, very predictable.
> 
> Snit has a new word - "herd" - that he's going to use for the next 6
> weeks.

No, actually it is "heard", which he is quite incapable of.

-- 
HPT

On Tue, 18 May 2010 18:46:14 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 5/18/2010 6:31 PM, Rick wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:27:17 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> TomB stated in post 20100518235243.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/18/10
>>> 3:11 PM:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hard to not notice, Rick, that with all of your posturing and asking
>>>>> *others* to look thinks up, you are still waiting for your masters
>>>>> to tell you if Ubuntu and PCLOS are different OSs or the same OS.
>>>>
>>>> The only correct answer obviously is that they are different
>>>> distributions of the same OS.
>>>
>>> At least you are willing to take a stand.  Now that you have, and your
>>> view agrees with HPT's, will Rick take that as enough consensus to
>>> gain that as a new mindless mantra of his... another thing he says
>>> because his herd says it?  Should be interesting to see.
>>>
>>> In the past Rick has told me, though, that Linux itself is not the
>>> OS... which does not jive with what you are saying.
>>
>> Linux is the kernel.
> 
> 
> Linux is whatever you say it is, based on the argument you're losing at
> the moment.
> 
> * "Linux is my main operating system." * "Linux is not an operating
> system"
> * "Linux is a kernel"
> 
> * "Fedora is Linux"
> * "Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems"
> 
> * "Ubuntu is an operating system"
> * "Ubuntu is a distribution with a Linux based operating system." *
> "Ubuntu isn't Linux"
> 
> 
> Years using Linux and you're still confused.  Such a good "advocate".

Give it a rest, Bunky.
I have answered the above many times. Intelligent people can change 
opinions based on new or more information. The fact that you obviously 
don't understand the company speaks volumes about you.



-- 
Rick

On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:47:33 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post DuCdnYCnJraiiG7WnZ2dnUVZ_hmmnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 5/18/10 3:31 PM:
> 
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:27:17 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> TomB stated in post 20100518235243.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/18/10
>>> 3:11 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hard to not notice, Rick, that with all of your posturing and asking
>>>>> *others* to look thinks up, you are still waiting for your masters
>>>>> to tell you if Ubuntu and PCLOS are different OSs or the same OS.
>>>> 
>>>> The only correct answer obviously is that they are different
>>>> distributions of the same OS.
>>> 
>>> At least you are willing to take a stand.  Now that you have, and your
>>> view agrees with HPT's, will Rick take that as enough consensus to
>>> gain that as a new mindless mantra of his... another thing he says
>>> because his herd says it?  Should be interesting to see.
>>> 
>>> In the past Rick has told me, though, that Linux itself is not the
>>> OS... which does not jive with what you are saying.
>> 
>> Linux is the kernel.
> 
> Yes. Very good!  Your herd has t

Idiot.



-- 
Rick

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

____/ Homer on Monday 17 May 2010 03:32 : \____

> 
> 
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>> ____/ Homer on Sunday 16 May 2010 03:53 : \____
>> 
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
>> 
>>>> And yes, you still need to know Windows too.
>> 
>>> I don't.
>> 
>>> Never have, and never will.
>> 
>> Some jobs might require it; the ones I've had over the past decade
>> (about 6) were all open to GNU/Linux. Times have changed.
> 
> Well it's a good job I'm retired then, because I'd rather empty garbage
> cans for a living than Work for gangsters.

To a lot of people, "success" is measured in terms of wealth alone (under the 
assumption that people are paid well for their "good" work, even if it's selling
homoeopathic 'medicine').

- -- 
		~~ Best of wishes


All programs evolve until they can send email. -- Richard Letts
Except Microsoft Exchange. -- Art
http://Schestowitz.com  |    RHAT Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
 00:20:01 up 18 days, 14:33,  1 user,  load average: 0.76, 1.05, 1.30
      http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkvzIeAACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6ESwCfZrIaugLDsFe9GUkWx+YZC3gg
VMgAn0GdFMPf61pa2k+RmxB6Lg6LfmW2
=lzma
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Rick wrote:

> Hadron, go look up herd mentality and then go have 2 or 3 people explain  
> it to you. You might start looking like less of a dumb ass.

He can't find 2 or 3 people who want to talk to him.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Mistress - something between a mister and a mattress.

Snit wrote:

> Oh, wait, that was HPT.  Whatever... you trolls all look alike to me.  :)

LOL

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Don't sweat petty things, or pet sweaty things.

Rick stated in post 696dnTxQb9TXvW7WnZ2dnUVZ_tgAAAAA@supernews.com on
5/18/10 4:18 PM:

> On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:47:33 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post DuCdnYCnJraiiG7WnZ2dnUVZ_hmmnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 5/18/10 3:31 PM:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:27:17 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> TomB stated in post 20100518235243.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/18/10
>>>> 3:11 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hard to not notice, Rick, that with all of your posturing and asking
>>>>>> *others* to look thinks up, you are still waiting for your masters
>>>>>> to tell you if Ubuntu and PCLOS are different OSs or the same OS.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The only correct answer obviously is that they are different
>>>>> distributions of the same OS.
>>>> 
>>>> At least you are willing to take a stand.  Now that you have, and your
>>>> view agrees with HPT's, will Rick take that as enough consensus to
>>>> gain that as a new mindless mantra of his... another thing he says
>>>> because his herd says it?  Should be interesting to see.
>>>> 
>>>> In the past Rick has told me, though, that Linux itself is not the
>>>> OS... which does not jive with what you are saying.
>>> 
>>> Linux is the kernel.
>> 
>> Yes. Very good!  Your herd has t
> 
> Idiot.

You sure are getting worked up over your need for the herd to tell you if
different distros are the same OS or not.

Hey, when are you going to run off screaming?  You usually would have by
now... telling me I get the last word, as if I wanted that and not for you
to actually grow a backbone and take a stand before you know your herd's
viewpoint.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post 696dnT1Qb9SrvW7WnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/18/10 4:18 PM:

> On Tue, 18 May 2010 18:46:14 -0400, DFS wrote:
> 
>> On 5/18/2010 6:31 PM, Rick wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:27:17 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> TomB stated in post 20100518235243.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/18/10
>>>> 3:11 PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hard to not notice, Rick, that with all of your posturing and asking
>>>>>> *others* to look thinks up, you are still waiting for your masters
>>>>>> to tell you if Ubuntu and PCLOS are different OSs or the same OS.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The only correct answer obviously is that they are different
>>>>> distributions of the same OS.
>>>> 
>>>> At least you are willing to take a stand.  Now that you have, and your
>>>> view agrees with HPT's, will Rick take that as enough consensus to
>>>> gain that as a new mindless mantra of his... another thing he says
>>>> because his herd says it?  Should be interesting to see.
>>>> 
>>>> In the past Rick has told me, though, that Linux itself is not the
>>>> OS... which does not jive with what you are saying.
>>> 
>>> Linux is the kernel.
>> 
>> 
>> Linux is whatever you say it is, based on the argument you're losing at
>> the moment.
>> 
>> * "Linux is my main operating system." * "Linux is not an operating
>> system"
>> * "Linux is a kernel"
>> 
>> * "Fedora is Linux"
>> * "Fedora and Ubuntu are Linux-based operating systems"
>> 
>> * "Ubuntu is an operating system"
>> * "Ubuntu is a distribution with a Linux based operating system." *
>> "Ubuntu isn't Linux"
>> 
>> 
>> Years using Linux and you're still confused.  Such a good "advocate".
> 
> Give it a rest, Bunky.
> I have answered the above many times. Intelligent people can change
> opinions based on new or more information. The fact that you obviously
> don't understand the company speaks volumes about you.
> 
> 
Intelligent people can change based on new info... and you can change based
on what your herd says.  No argument here.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

High Plains Thumper stated in post hsv75v$9q9$1@news.albasani.net on 5/18/10
4:17 PM:

> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Notice your dodge - you are petrified to offend your herd.  You
>>> will not say HPT is wrong... even though you have made it clear you
>>> know he is.
>>> 
>>> You are very, very predictable.
>> 
>> Snit has a new word - "herd" - that he's going to use for the next 6
>> weeks.
> 
> No, actually it is "heard", which he is quite incapable of.

I am having fun mocking Rick's inability to take a stand until the
"advocates" tell him what to believe.

And he cannot help but prove me right.

I wish, really, he had proved me wrong.  Oh well.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

DFS stated in post hsv5ie$1el$7@news.eternal-september.org on 5/18/10 3:49
PM:

> On 5/18/2010 4:49 PM, Rick wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 07:06:08 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post 4n1esjubk861$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer
>>> on 5/18/10 12:12 AM:
>>> 
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Notice your dodge - you are petrified to offend your herd.  You will
>>>>> not say HPT is wrong... even though you have made it clear you know he
>>>>> is.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You are very, very predictable.
>>>> 
>>>> Snit has a new word - "herd" - that he's going to use for the next 6
>>>> weeks.
>>> 
>>> Rick will not stand up and say if he agrees with you in that different
>>> Linux based OSs are really the same OS or if he agrees with the idea
>>> that each OS is its own OS.
>> 
>> Who says I have to? Why should I have to answer anything you ask? oh... I
>> don't.
> 
> Of course you don't have to.  You can let Snit make you look like an
> idiot - he does so regularly.

No, Rick makes himself look like an idiot.  I just keep responding to him to
give him chances to try to make himself look better... or to make himself
look even more the fool.

In this case all he had to do was take a stand... before other "advocates"
told him what to believe.  Once TomB told him what to believe he actually
took a stand on a vaguely related topic... but Rick now cannot take a stand
on the actual topic without proving me right about him needing the herd to
tell him what to think.

Poor Rick... he just digs his holes deeper and deeper.

Expect a new mantra from him though: all distros are one OS.  Now that TomB
has told him what to think he will claim to have thought this all along.

>>> He is afraid to - (snip)
>> 
>> You don't get to decide whether I am afraid of something or not. But you
>> continue making your incorrect assumptions.
>> 
>> Now, go take your meds and try to rejoin reality.
> 
> Snit is very much in touch with reality.  You, 7, Homer, Rex Ballard and
> a few others are not.
> 
> 



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 05/18/2010 02:00 AM, Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <hsr33v$kff$1@news.albasani.net>,
>  High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> There was a pre-WW2 study done by the US Department of Commerce, which
>> found that when there were more than 10 competitors in an industry, one
>> was assured fair and reasonable competition and favourable pricing.
>>
>> If you look at the automobile industry, now there are less than 10
>> corporations worldwide.  You wonder why your car is so expensive, why

FUD list provided by "FUDenbusch", a kludge listing, some markets not
available to US, some 1st world countries.

Rearranged with comments in []:

> General Motors
>   Toyota [partner with GM, Corolla rebadged as Chevrolet Prizm]
>   Daihatsu[Now a division of Toyota]
>   Suzuki [Partner with General Motors and Toyota, purchased Daewoo
> Motors with GM]
>   Isuzu [partner with Honda, GM, made GM's Sprint, Colorado]
> Daimler
>   Nissan [partners with Ford, Renault, Daimler]
>   Renault [Alliance with Nissan, Daimler, owns Samsung Motors, Vaz]
>   Fiat [partner with General Motors and Chrysler]
>     Chrysler [formerly partner with Daimler now Fiat]
>   PSA Peugeot Citroën [partners with Fiat, Mitsubishi]
>   Mitsubishi [alliances with DaimlerChrysler, Hyundai, Proton, Volvo,
> PSA Peugeot Citroën]
> Volkswagon [merged with Porche, partner with Suzuki, sold rebadged
> DaimlerChrysler as Routan]
> BMW
> Ford
>   Volvo [Division of Ford]
>   Mazda [partner with Ford, built Probe]
>   Kia [partner with Ford, provided Festiva and Aspire]
>   Geely Automobile [Ford plans to sell Volvo division to Geely]
>   Volkswagon [Ford Brasil & Argentina merger]
> Honda
> Hyundai [part of Hyundai Kia Automotive Group]
> Navistar International [formerly International Harvester, commercial
> trucks]

Obscure makes not imported to US, some 1st world countries, or a very
limited market not competing with US in US:

> Tata [India, purchased Jaguar Land Rover from Ford, purchased Daewoo
> commercial, Hispano Carrocera, partners with Daimler-Benz, Fiat]
> First Automotive [Works, China, joint venture with Toyota, rebadged
> Daihatsu's]
> Fuji
> Chana Automobile
> Dongfeng Motor
> Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Corporation [joint venture with Hyundai]
> Chery Automobile
> Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation
> Brilliance China Automotive [joint venture with BMW]
> Harbin Hafei Automobile
> Anhui Jianghaul Automobile
> GAZ Group
> Mahindra & Mahrindra
> Proton Holdings
> Great Wall Motor Company
> Paccar
> Chongqing Lifan
> MAN SE
> Jiangxi Changhe Automobile
> China National Heavy Duty Truck Company
> LuAZ
> Shaanxi Automobile Group
> UAZ OJSC
> Ashok Leyland [joint venture with Nissan, Hino, based in India]
> Kuozui Motors
> 
> That looks like more than 10 to me.

Nope.

> Heck, there are more than 10 in China alone.

Irrelevant.

-- 
HPT

On Tue, 18 May 2010 17:37:11 -0700, Snit wrote:

> High Plains Thumper stated in post hsv75v$9q9$1@news.albasani.net on
> 5/18/10 4:17 PM:
> 
>> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Notice your dodge - you are petrified to offend your herd.  You will
>>>> not say HPT is wrong... even though you have made it clear you know
>>>> he is.
>>>> 
>>>> You are very, very predictable.
>>> 
>>> Snit has a new word - "herd" - that he's going to use for the next 6
>>> weeks.
>> 
>> No, actually it is "heard", which he is quite incapable of.
> 
> I am having fun mocking Rick's inability to take a stand until the
> "advocates" tell him what to believe.
> 
> And he cannot help but prove me right.
> 
> I wish, really, he had proved me wrong.  Oh well.

Liar.



-- 
Rick

On May 16, 10:32=A0pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:

> > Some jobs might require it; the ones I've had over the past decade
> > (about 6) were all open to GNU/Linux. Times have changed.

> Well it's a good job I'm retired then, because I'd rather empty garbage
> cans for a living than Work for gangsters.

Oh, so you DIDN'T work for Microsoft!!!

Not my opinion - Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson - the federal court
judge who presided over both the Bundling consent decree and the
antitrust hearing - after hearing all of the evidence in both cases,
and rending his formal rulings of fact and law in both cases - told a
reporter that Microsoft's top executives were criminals who should be
prosecuted as criminals.

Of course, the settlement granted them immunity from all prosecution
of any activities related to any of the evidence disclosed during the
procedings - including most of the 9000 documents in the Combs v.
Microsoft trial.

> Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
> =A003:32:11 up 46 days, 13:22, =A02 users, =A0load average: 3.66, 3.56, 3=
..44

That's right, you're one of the good guys :-D

Snit wrote:

> to actually grow a backbone

What do you know about backbones?

"ERA, this is Don."

"Hi, Don, please stop (picking on me)."

*Click*

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Never mind the star, get those camels off my lawn!

Tattoo Vampire stated in post dmsxyoolw4en$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/18/10 7:23 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> to actually grow a backbone
> 
> What do you know about backbones?

I am not the topic... but plenty.  Why?

> "ERA, this is Don."
> 
> "Hi, Don, please stop (picking on me)."
> 
> *Click*

Are you repeating your absurd accusations again?  Whatever - if you had any
backbone you would either put up or shut up.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:

> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:27:47 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> 
>> Erm, it seems you need to. Snit is using your words against you. You
>> seem unwilling to break from the COLA "herd" .... I guess you are
>> exhibiting "herd mentality". It is YOU, isnt it, who says this is why
>> Linux has failed to make inroads into the home desktop? Yes. Yes it was
>> ...
>
> Hadron, go look up herd mentality and then go have 2 or 3 people explain  
> it to you. You might start looking like less of a dumb ass.

Rick, please. Please try not to dig yourself any deeper. We all know
what the term means and we will also admit it exists to a degree.

You are showing it now. QED.

No wonder most of the "advocates" have you killfiled. You're lamer than
Kier.

On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:

> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS... 

I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that
they're all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they *are*
the same OS.

I think it would be best not to refer to a distribution as an OS at
all, because the OS itself (ie. GNU/Linux) is only a small fraction of
the entire package.

I'm sure I've made some claims in the past that contradict with this
opinion, but so be it. Sometimes one uses shortcuts, and just calls a
distribution an OS, or just says Linux, or Linux based OS or whatever.

-- 
BOFH excuse #57:

Groundskeepers stole the root password

TomB stated in post 20100519075010.29@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 1:33 AM:

> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> 
>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
> 
> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that
> they're all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they *are*
> the same OS.

Um.  What?  How can they be distributions of the "same OS" but not the "same
OS"?  

> I think it would be best not to refer to a distribution as an OS at
> all, because the OS itself (ie. GNU/Linux) is only a small fraction of
> the entire package.
> 
> I'm sure I've made some claims in the past that contradict with this
> opinion, but so be it. Sometimes one uses shortcuts, and just calls a
> distribution an OS, or just says Linux, or Linux based OS or whatever.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB wrote:
> brain of Snit:
> 
>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
> 
> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that 
> they're all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they
> *are* the same OS.

Oh, its Snit with his usual mangling of quotes, so typically Snit.
Following is what I said:

HPT: "It is no different in the computer world.  There are less than 10
desktop PC OS's,"

Snit: "How do you figure?  We are told that each of the distros a
different "Linux-based OS" - and clearly there are more than 10 distros.
 Even 10 desktop distros.  And this does not include other OSs.  So
there are more than 10 desktop OSs."

HPT: "Nope, faulty reasoning.  Linux is Linux.  "We are told"?  You
don't understand what a distro is."  17 May 2010

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/bb6d994acef339a2

> I think it would be best not to refer to a distribution as an OS at 
> all, because the OS itself (ie. GNU/Linux) is only a small fraction
> of the entire package.
> 
> I'm sure I've made some claims in the past that contradict with this 
> opinion, but so be it. Sometimes one uses shortcuts, and just calls
> a distribution an OS, or just says Linux, or Linux based OS or
> whatever.

Tom, it is the context of the discussion.  It is not unusual for a troll
to take things way out of context and completely miss the original
intent of the discussion, Snit included.

21- Donald L McDaniel (to Snit): "You're a teacher. I thought you knew
what a metaphor was, and could recognize one when it was presented to
you. I guess I had too much confidence in you."  30 Nov 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/3254ec7af27bfb0f

-- 
HPT

Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> Snit wrote:
> 
>> to actually grow a backbone
> 
> What do you know about backbones?
> 
> "ERA, this is Don."
> 
> "Hi, Don, please stop (picking on me)."
> 
> *Click*

Snit: "In the course of the discussion you felt the "need" to start
telling me about your private life."

Elizabot v2.0.2: "Liar. I mentioned receiving strange phone calls from
your home area and how I'm considering contacting the police."

Snit: "Are these calls not a part of your private life?  I suppose not,
at least not any more, now that you have made them public.  Again, let
me be very clear: I do not want to know about your private life even if
you make it public.  I do not care who calls you.  I do not care who you
call.  I do not care what you do for entertainment - what movies you go
to, who you 'hang out' with, what you do for a living... I do not care.
 I do not want to know.  I do not want you to discuss any of this with me."

Elizabot v2.0.2: "If I find that the phone number that I'm getting these
phone calls is from someone who knows you or can be associated with you
somehow, you'll hear from your local police."

Snit: "And if I get a hemorrhoid shaped like your face my proctologist
will contact you (not that I care what you even look like or what gender
you really are)."  11 Oct 2004

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e9f816395e34b755

-- 
HPT

Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Oh, wait, that was HPT.  Whatever... you trolls all look alike to
>> me.  :)
> 
> LOL

Henry Flam: "You on the other hand must a deeply troubled individual who
has a fragile ego. I needn't agree nor disagree with the points above. I
don't care about them. Your constant complaints, whines, rages, etc.,
wars with the regular Mac advocates, whom you mislabel as trolls, arise
from your sense that any conversation or thread must orbit around you.
People have pointed that out to you but you don't accept that.  Snit I
feel sorry for you. Please go and see a doctor about your solipsism.
There must be a cure for you deep psychological travail."  18 Aug 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/b9bb48e6e6da75c8

-- 
HPT

On Wed, 19 May 2010 07:51:57 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:27:47 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Erm, it seems you need to. Snit is using your words against you. You
>>> seem unwilling to break from the COLA "herd" .... I guess you are
>>> exhibiting "herd mentality". It is YOU, isnt it, who says this is why
>>> Linux has failed to make inroads into the home desktop? Yes. Yes it
>>> was ...
>>
>> Hadron, go look up herd mentality and then go have 2 or 3 people
>> explain it to you. You might start looking like less of a dumb ass.
> 
> Rick, please. Please try not to dig yourself any deeper. We all know
> what the term means and we will also admit it exists to a degree.

ReallY? You'll admit it exists? This an interesting development.

> 
> You are showing it now. QED.
> 
> No wonder most of the "advocates" have you killfiled. You're lamer than
> Kier.

Wow.. that means so much. coming from you </sarcasm>

-- 
Rick

On Wed, 19 May 2010 08:33:49 +0000, TomB wrote:

> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> 
>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
> 
> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that they're
> all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they *are* the same
> OS.

You are going to confuse him. HE may well start squeaking about semantics.

> 
> I think it would be best not to refer to a distribution as an OS at all,
> because the OS itself (ie. GNU/Linux) is only a small fraction of the
> entire package.

It's an OS.. and more. :-)

> 
> I'm sure I've made some claims in the past that contradict with this
> opinion, but so be it. Sometimes one uses shortcuts, and just calls a
> distribution an OS, or just says Linux, or Linux based OS or whatever.



-- 
Rick

On 2010-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20100519075010.29@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 1:33 AM:
>
>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> 
>>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
>> 
>> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that
>> they're all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they *are*
>> the same OS.
>
> Um.  What?  How can they be distributions of the "same OS" but not the "same
> OS"?  

The answer was already present. You just should've read on:

>> I think it would be best not to refer to a distribution as an OS at
>> all, because the OS itself (ie. GNU/Linux) is only a small fraction of
>> the entire package.

Hence distributions are not the same OS, because they are the
distribution of the OS rather than the OS itself.

I know this clashes with eg. the Debian folks presenting Debian as
'The Universal Operating System', but so be it.

-- 
BOFH excuse #83:

Support staff hung over, send aspirin and come back LATER.

In article <hsvddc$isl$1@news.albasani.net>,
 High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >  High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> wrote:
....
> >> If you look at the automobile industry, now there are less than 10
> >> corporations worldwide.  You wonder why your car is so expensive, why

You claimed there are less than 10 corporations *worldwide* in the 
automobile industry.

> 
> FUD list provided by "FUDenbusch", a kludge listing, some markets not
> available to US, some 1st world countries.
> 
> Rearranged with comments in []:
> 
> > General Motors
> >   Toyota [partner with GM, Corolla rebadged as Chevrolet Prizm]

So your theory is that because Chevy sells a rebadged Toyato, General 
Motors and Toyota are the same corporation!?

.... 
> Obscure makes not imported to US, some 1st world countries, or a very
> limited market not competing with US in US:
> 
> > Tata [India, purchased Jaguar Land Rover from Ford, purchased Daewoo
> > commercial, Hispano Carrocera, partners with Daimler-Benz, Fiat]
> > First Automotive [Works, China, joint venture with Toyota, rebadged
> > Daihatsu's]
> > Fuji
> > Chana Automobile
> > Dongfeng Motor
> > Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Corporation [joint venture with Hyundai]
> > Chery Automobile
> > Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation
> > Brilliance China Automotive [joint venture with BMW]
> > Harbin Hafei Automobile
> > Anhui Jianghaul Automobile
> > GAZ Group
> > Mahindra & Mahrindra
> > Proton Holdings
> > Great Wall Motor Company
> > Paccar
> > Chongqing Lifan
> > MAN SE
> > Jiangxi Changhe Automobile
> > China National Heavy Duty Truck Company
> > LuAZ
> > Shaanxi Automobile Group
> > UAZ OJSC
> > Ashok Leyland [joint venture with Nissan, Hino, based in India]
> > Kuozui Motors
> > 
> > That looks like more than 10 to me.
> 
> Nope.

Would you like the list reposted with an increasing sequence of 
consecutive integers started with 1 placed into a one-to-one 
correspondence with the list, so you can see that it is in fact more 
than 10?

> > Heck, there are more than 10 in China alone.
> 
> Irrelevant.

Only if China doesn't count as being part of the world.

-- 
--Tim Smith

On 2010-05-19, Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> claimed:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> to actually grow a backbone
>
> What do you know about backbones?
>
> "ERA, this is Don."
>
> "Hi, Don, please stop (picking on me)."
>
> *Click*

I don't know. I'd say it takes a lot of backbone (or no self esteem) to
call you up long distance and beg to fellate you if you'll stop feeding
it back to s{hi|no}t

-- 
There are no atheists in the foxholes.
Aspire One, Linux Mint 8 (LXDE)
Friends don't let friends use Windows

Snit wrote:

> Are you repeating your absurd accusations again?  Whatever - if you had any
> backbone you would either put up or shut up.

Put up about what, you sissy?

Give me a call and we'll talk about it, LOL :-P

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

...."It's Ensign Polo. He's thread, Jim!"

On 2010-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Rick:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 08:33:49 +0000, TomB wrote:
>
>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> 
>>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
>> 
>> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that
>> they're all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they
>> *are* the same OS.
>
> You are going to confuse him. HE may well start squeaking about
> semantics.

I don't care about semantics. If you break down the concept of a
GNU/Linux distribution, this is the only possible conclusion to arrive
at.

If I had to define 'operating system' I'd say that it is the bare
minimum on software needed to operate a computer. This means a kernel
(Linux) and a basic set of userland applications, including but not
limited to an editor, a compiler and a shell (ie, that which GNU
provides).

A distribution then is that which distributes this OS, conveniently
packaged and with lots of goodies (which are often also available on
other *nixes, and some even on Microsoft Windows).
 
>> I think it would be best not to refer to a distribution as an OS at
>> all, because the OS itself (ie. GNU/Linux) is only a small fraction
>> of the entire package.
>
> It's an OS.. and more. :-)

Indeed.

-- 
BOFH excuse #228:

That function is not currently supported, but Bill Gates assures us it
will be featured in the next upgrade.

Rick stated in post N5-dnW_2QN19IW7WnZ2dnUVZ_ho0AAAA@supernews.com on
5/19/10 3:26 AM:

> On Wed, 19 May 2010 08:33:49 +0000, TomB wrote:
> 
>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> 
>>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
>> 
>> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that they're
>> all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they *are* the same
>> OS.
> 
> You are going to confuse him. HE may well start squeaking about semantics.

I did ask him a question: how can distributions of the "same OS" not be the
"same OS"?  

It is an odd position for him to take.

>> I think it would be best not to refer to a distribution as an OS at all,
>> because the OS itself (ie. GNU/Linux) is only a small fraction of the
>> entire package.
> 
> It's an OS.. and more. :-)

Do you think it is the same OS?  Or will you have to wait for your herd to
make it more clear before you will answer?

I bet you will! 
 
>> I'm sure I've made some claims in the past that contradict with this
>> opinion, but so be it. Sometimes one uses shortcuts, and just calls a
>> distribution an OS, or just says Linux, or Linux based OS or whatever.
> 
> 



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post N5-dnWz2QN3WIW7WnZ2dnUVZ_hqpnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/19/10 3:24 AM:

> On Wed, 19 May 2010 07:51:57 +0200, Hadron wrote:
> 
>> Rick <none@mail.invalid> writes:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 14:27:47 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Erm, it seems you need to. Snit is using your words against you. You
>>>> seem unwilling to break from the COLA "herd" .... I guess you are
>>>> exhibiting "herd mentality". It is YOU, isnt it, who says this is why
>>>> Linux has failed to make inroads into the home desktop? Yes. Yes it
>>>> was ...
>>> 
>>> Hadron, go look up herd mentality and then go have 2 or 3 people
>>> explain it to you. You might start looking like less of a dumb ass.
>> 
>> Rick, please. Please try not to dig yourself any deeper. We all know
>> what the term means and we will also admit it exists to a degree.
> 
> ReallY? You'll admit it exists? This an interesting development.

Huh?  A development in your understanding, perhaps. Nothing more.
 
>> You are showing it now. QED.
>> 
>> No wonder most of the "advocates" have you killfiled. You're lamer than
>> Kier.
> 
> Wow.. that means so much. coming from you </sarcasm>



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Tattoo Vampire stated in post sdlzpau74gr0.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/19/10 5:10 AM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Are you repeating your absurd accusations again?  Whatever - if you had any
>> backbone you would either put up or shut up.
> 
> Put up about what, you sissy?
> 
> Give me a call and we'll talk about it, LOL :-P

Time for you to show evidence of your accusations.

As if you could.  You lied. And you have been busted.  Oh well... it is not
like you care about your word.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB stated in post 20100519120008.10@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 4:31 AM:

> On 2010-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20100519075010.29@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 1:33 AM:
>> 
>>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> 
>>>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
>>> 
>>> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that
>>> they're all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they *are*
>>> the same OS.
>> 
>> Um.  What?  How can they be distributions of the "same OS" but not the "same
>> OS"?  
> 
> The answer was already present. You just should've read on:

I did. 

>>> I think it would be best not to refer to a distribution as an OS at
>>> all, because the OS itself (ie. GNU/Linux) is only a small fraction of
>>> the entire package.
> 
> Hence distributions are not the same OS, because they are the
> distribution of the OS rather than the OS itself.

Interesting position to say that when you get the distro you are not getting
"the OS itself".  So they are all the same OS but you do not get the OS.
Weird.  Maybe you will "re-explain" this again to make some sense.

> I know this clashes with eg. the Debian folks presenting Debian as
> 'The Universal Operating System', but so be it.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB stated in post 20100519141608.413@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 5:58
AM:

> On 2010-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Rick:
>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 08:33:49 +0000, TomB wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> 
>>>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
>>> 
>>> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that
>>> they're all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they
>>> *are* the same OS.
>> 
>> You are going to confuse him. HE may well start squeaking about
>> semantics.
> 
> I don't care about semantics. If you break down the concept of a
> GNU/Linux distribution, this is the only possible conclusion to arrive
> at.

The question is if each distro is the same OS or different OSs.  Not a tough
question.  I have been using the example of PCLOS and Ubuntu so that things
do not get confused with, say, different "flavors" of Ubuntu.

So are PCLOS and Ubuntu the same OS or not?  You have said they are
different distributions of "the same OS" but then denied they are "the same
OS"... which is, well, bizarre.  :)
 
> If I had to define 'operating system' I'd say that it is the bare
> minimum on software needed to operate a computer. This means a kernel
> (Linux) and a basic set of userland applications, including but not
> limited to an editor, a compiler and a shell (ie, that which GNU
> provides).
> 
> A distribution then is that which distributes this OS, conveniently
> packaged and with lots of goodies (which are often also available on
> other *nixes, and some even on Microsoft Windows).

But it is not, you say, "the same OS".  Why not?

>>> I think it would be best not to refer to a distribution as an OS at
>>> all, because the OS itself (ie. GNU/Linux) is only a small fraction
>>> of the entire package.
>> 
>> It's an OS.. and more. :-)
> 
> Indeed.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

High Plains Thumper stated in post ht08ug$p8j$1@news.albasani.net on 5/19/10
1:53 AM:

> TomB wrote:
>> brain of Snit:
>> 
>>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
>> 
>> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that
>> they're all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they
>> *are* the same OS.
> 
> Oh, its Snit with his usual mangling of quotes, so typically Snit.

So explain what TomB means when he says different distros are "the same OS"
but not "the same OS".

It really is, well, an odd position for him to take.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

High Plains Thumper stated in post ht09du$eso$1@news.eternal-september.org
on 5/19/10 2:01 AM:

> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> to actually grow a backbone
>> 
>> What do you know about backbones?
>> 
>> "ERA, this is Don."
>> 
>> "Hi, Don, please stop (picking on me)."
>> 
>> *Click*
> 
> Snit: "In the course of the discussion you felt the "need" to start
> telling me about your private life."

And I still do not want you or her or anyone else to...


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Sinister Midget III stated in post a11dc7-eq5.ln1@home.harry.net on 5/19/10
5:09 AM:

> On 2010-05-19, Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> claimed:
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> to actually grow a backbone
>> 
>> What do you know about backbones?
>> 
>> "ERA, this is Don."
>> 
>> "Hi, Don, please stop (picking on me)."
>> 
>> *Click*
> 
> I don't know. I'd say it takes a lot of backbone (or no self esteem) to
> call you up long distance and beg to fellate you if you'll stop feeding
> it back to s{hi|no}t

Don is just insane... making accusations about things outside of COLA
because he knows he cannot support the accusations he makes in COLA... or
outside, but how could I possible *prove* him wrong about an insane
accusation.

Wait... my phone company allows me to search my phone records.  This can be
proved.  Hey, Don, what date and time.  And what number... I will do a
search for that number and see if there are any incoming or outgoing calls.
I will screencast it and then blur other numbers.

It will be easy to prove you lied.

And Don now will run.  Scared as scared can be.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> Rick stated in post N5-dnW_2QN19IW7WnZ2dnUVZ_ho0AAAA@supernews.com on
> 5/19/10 3:26 AM:
>
>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 08:33:49 +0000, TomB wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> 
>>>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
>>> 
>>> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that they're
>>> all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they *are* the same
>>> OS.
>> 
>> You are going to confuse him. HE may well start squeaking about semantics.
>
> I did ask him a question: how can distributions of the "same OS" not be the
> "same OS"?  
>
> It is an odd position for him to take.

Needless to say also a wrong one.

The OS is the combination of the kernel and the Gnu tools/services etc
generally.

One can say that the Ubuntu Gnu/Linux OS derives from the Debian
one. However Debian and Redhat, for example, are NOT the "same OS" in
any shape or form.


>
>>> I think it would be best not to refer to a distribution as an OS at all,
>>> because the OS itself (ie. GNU/Linux) is only a small fraction of the
>>> entire package.
>> 
>> It's an OS.. and more. :-)
>
> Do you think it is the same OS?  Or will you have to wait for your herd to
> make it more clear before you will answer?
>
> I bet you will! 
>
>>> I'm sure I've made some claims in the past that contradict with this
>>> opinion, but so be it. Sometimes one uses shortcuts, and just calls a
>>> distribution an OS, or just says Linux, or Linux based OS or whatever.
>> 
>> 

On 2010-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20100519120008.10@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 4:31 AM:
>
>>>>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
>>>> 
>>>> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that
>>>> they're all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they
>>>> *are* the same OS.
>>> 
>>> Um.  What?  How can they be distributions of the "same OS" but not
>>> the "same OS"?  
>> 
>> The answer was already present. You just should've read on:
>
> I did. 

In that case you lack understanding.

>>>> I think it would be best not to refer to a distribution as an OS
>>>> at all, because the OS itself (ie. GNU/Linux) is only a small
>>>> fraction of the entire package.
>> 
>> Hence distributions are not the same OS, because they are the
>> distribution of the OS rather than the OS itself.
>
> Interesting position to say that when you get the distro you are not
> getting "the OS itself".  So they are all the same OS but you do not
> get the OS.  Weird.  Maybe you will "re-explain" this again to make
> some sense.

Jumping to irrational conclusions again. You're really making a habit
out of this.

I didn't say that you don't get the OS when you're getting the distro.
What I *did* say was (it's still above, but I'll repeat it anyway):

"The OS itself is only a small fraction of the entire package."

This clearly implies that the OS is part of a distro. You have to be a
genuine idiot to miss this.

-- 
BOFH excuse #92:

Stale file handle (next time use Tupperware(tm)!)

On 2010-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20100519141608.413@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 5:58
> AM:
>
>>>>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
>>>> 
>>>> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that
>>>> they're all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they
>>>> *are* the same OS.
>>> 
>>> You are going to confuse him. HE may well start squeaking about
>>> semantics.
>> 
>> I don't care about semantics. If you break down the concept of a
>> GNU/Linux distribution, this is the only possible conclusion to
>> arrive at.
>
> The question is if each distro is the same OS or different OSs.

The question is erronous. It assumes that a GNU/Linux distro is an OS,
but it isn't. As the term implies, it is a distribution of the OS
comprising of the Linux kernel and the GNU userland tools. Like I've
been saying over and over again.

> Not a tough question.  I have been using the example of PCLOS and
> Ubuntu so that things do not get confused with, say, different
> "flavors" of Ubuntu.
>
> So are PCLOS and Ubuntu the same OS or not?

No, they are not.

> You have said they are different distributions of "the same OS"

Yes, I did.

> but then denied they are "the same OS"...

Indeed. Because they are distributions.

> which is, well, bizarre.  :)

Not if you have a brain to think with.

Here's what wikipedia has to say on the subject:

<quote>
A Linux distribution (also called GNU/Linux distribution by some
vendors and users) is a member of the family of Unix-like software
distributions built on top of the Linux kernel. Such distributions
(often called distros for short) consist of a large collection of
software applications such as word processors, spreadsheets, media
players and database applications. The operating system will consist
of the Linux kernel and, usually, a set of libraries and utilities
from the GNU project, with graphics support from the X Window System.
</quote>

-- 
BOFH excuse #247:

Due to Federal Budget problems we have been forced to cut back on the
number of users able to access the system at one time. (namely none
allowed....)

TomB stated in post 20100519183621.909@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 9:45
AM:

> On 2010-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20100519120008.10@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 4:31 AM:
>> 
>>>>>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that
>>>>> they're all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they
>>>>> *are* the same OS.
>>>> 
>>>> Um.  What?  How can they be distributions of the "same OS" but not
>>>> the "same OS"?
>>> 
>>> The answer was already present. You just should've read on:
>> 
>> I did. 
> 
> In that case you lack understanding.

I do not understand and you will not answer:

    How can they be distributions of the "same OS" but
    not be the "same OS"?

>>>>> I think it would be best not to refer to a distribution as an OS
>>>>> at all, because the OS itself (ie. GNU/Linux) is only a small
>>>>> fraction of the entire package.
>>> 
>>> Hence distributions are not the same OS, because they are the
>>> distribution of the OS rather than the OS itself.
>> 
>> Interesting position to say that when you get the distro you are not
>> getting "the OS itself".  So they are all the same OS but you do not
>> get the OS.  Weird.  Maybe you will "re-explain" this again to make
>> some sense.
> 
> Jumping to irrational conclusions again. You're really making a habit
> out of this.

What "conclusion" did I jump to?  I am merely repeating what you have said!

> I didn't say that you don't get the OS when you're getting the distro.

So when you said you get something "rather than the OS itself" you did not
mean you "don't get the OS".  You really are not very good at this
communication thing.

Listen, this is not a hard question:

    Do you think different distros are the same OS or
    are they different OSs?

Remember, to keep things simply I am not even asking about things such as
different distros of Ubuntu, but about, say, PCLOS and Ubuntu.  Same OS or
not?

> What I *did* say was (it's still above, but I'll repeat it anyway):
> 
> "The OS itself is only a small fraction of the entire package."

It is not relevant to the question.

> This clearly implies that the OS is part of a distro. You have to be a
> genuine idiot to miss this.

I am not saying you did not say *that*, I am noting you *also* said other
things.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Hadron stated in post ht12rb$jdq$3@news.eternal-september.org on 5/19/10
9:15 AM:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> 
>> Rick stated in post N5-dnW_2QN19IW7WnZ2dnUVZ_ho0AAAA@supernews.com on
>> 5/19/10 3:26 AM:
>> 
>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 08:33:49 +0000, TomB wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> 
>>>>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
>>>> 
>>>> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that they're
>>>> all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they *are* the same
>>>> OS.
>>> 
>>> You are going to confuse him. HE may well start squeaking about semantics.
>> 
>> I did ask him a question: how can distributions of the "same OS" not be the
>> "same OS"?  
>> 
>> It is an odd position for him to take.
> 
> Needless to say also a wrong one.
> 
> The OS is the combination of the kernel and the Gnu tools/services etc
> generally.
> 
> One can say that the Ubuntu Gnu/Linux OS derives from the Debian
> one. However Debian and Redhat, for example, are NOT the "same OS" in
> any shape or form.

Ok, so based on that you would say there are two primary Linux based OSs...
and many "flavors" (distros) of each?

>>>> I think it would be best not to refer to a distribution as an OS at all,
>>>> because the OS itself (ie. GNU/Linux) is only a small fraction of the
>>>> entire package.
>>> 
>>> It's an OS.. and more. :-)
>> 
>> Do you think it is the same OS?  Or will you have to wait for your herd to
>> make it more clear before you will answer?
>> 
>> I bet you will! 
>> 
>>>> I'm sure I've made some claims in the past that contradict with this
>>>> opinion, but so be it. Sometimes one uses shortcuts, and just calls a
>>>> distribution an OS, or just says Linux, or Linux based OS or whatever.
>>> 
>>> 



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB stated in post 20100519193036.932@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 10:44
AM:

> On 2010-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20100519141608.413@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 5:58
>> AM:
>> 
>>>>>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that
>>>>> they're all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they
>>>>> *are* the same OS.
>>>> 
>>>> You are going to confuse him. HE may well start squeaking about
>>>> semantics.
>>> 
>>> I don't care about semantics. If you break down the concept of a
>>> GNU/Linux distribution, this is the only possible conclusion to
>>> arrive at.
>> 
>> The question is if each distro is the same OS or different OSs.
> 
> The question is erronous.

No.  It is a simple question.

> It assumes that a GNU/Linux distro is an OS, but it isn't.

So the term "Linux based OS", which is often used for the distros, is
incorrect.

Interesting.

For what it is worth, OS X and OS X Server are the same OS... even though
they come with different things.  I am not saying if they are the same OS
they have to come with the same things.

> As the term implies, it is a distribution of the OS comprising of the Linux
> kernel and the GNU userland tools. Like I've been saying over and over again.

As you dodge the question.

>> Not a tough question.  I have been using the example of PCLOS and
>> Ubuntu so that things do not get confused with, say, different
>> "flavors" of Ubuntu.
>> 
>> So are PCLOS and Ubuntu the same OS or not?
> 
> No, they are not.

Whew.  OK, now you say each distro is *not* the same OS... they are
different OSs.

>> You have said they are different distributions of "the same OS"
> 
> Yes, I did.
> 
>> but then denied they are "the same OS"...
> 
> Indeed. Because they are distributions.

But not distributions of the OS... but not fair when I repeat that back to
you.  Right.  LOL!

>> which is, well, bizarre.  :)
> 
> Not if you have a brain to think with.
> 
> Here's what wikipedia has to say on the subject:
> 
> <quote>
> A Linux distribution (also called GNU/Linux distribution by some
> vendors and users) is a member of the family of Unix-like software
> distributions built on top of the Linux kernel. Such distributions
> (often called distros for short) consist of a large collection of
> software applications such as word processors, spreadsheets, media
> players and database applications. The operating system will consist
> of the Linux kernel and, usually, a set of libraries and utilities
> from the GNU project, with graphics support from the X Window System.
> </quote>

You act like that is in contention.  It is not.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> Hadron stated in post ht12rb$jdq$3@news.eternal-september.org on 5/19/10
> 9:15 AM:
>
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post N5-dnW_2QN19IW7WnZ2dnUVZ_ho0AAAA@supernews.com on
>>> 5/19/10 3:26 AM:
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 08:33:49 +0000, TomB wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that they're
>>>>> all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they *are* the same
>>>>> OS.
>>>> 
>>>> You are going to confuse him. HE may well start squeaking about semantics.
>>> 
>>> I did ask him a question: how can distributions of the "same OS" not be the
>>> "same OS"?  
>>> 
>>> It is an odd position for him to take.
>> 
>> Needless to say also a wrong one.
>> 
>> The OS is the combination of the kernel and the Gnu tools/services etc
>> generally.
>> 
>> One can say that the Ubuntu Gnu/Linux OS derives from the Debian
>> one. However Debian and Redhat, for example, are NOT the "same OS" in
>> any shape or form.
>
> Ok, so based on that you would say there are two primary Linux based OSs...
> and many "flavors" (distros) of each?

Nope. I gave two as an example.

They are all different OSen.

They are all BASED on the Linux Kernel however. Not the same one
admittedly ........

Hadron stated in post ht1bs3$m8o$1@news.eternal-september.org on 5/19/10
11:49 AM:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> 
>> Hadron stated in post ht12rb$jdq$3@news.eternal-september.org on 5/19/10
>> 9:15 AM:
>> 
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Rick stated in post N5-dnW_2QN19IW7WnZ2dnUVZ_ho0AAAA@supernews.com on
>>>> 5/19/10 3:26 AM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 08:33:49 +0000, TomB wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2010-05-18, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> By the way: both HPT and TomB say they are the same OS...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have no idea what HPT said, but I didn't say that. I said that they're
>>>>>> all distribtions of the same OS. That doesn't mean they *are* the same
>>>>>> OS.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You are going to confuse him. HE may well start squeaking about semantics.
>>>> 
>>>> I did ask him a question: how can distributions of the "same OS" not be the
>>>> "same OS"?  
>>>> 
>>>> It is an odd position for him to take.
>>> 
>>> Needless to say also a wrong one.
>>> 
>>> The OS is the combination of the kernel and the Gnu tools/services etc
>>> generally.
>>> 
>>> One can say that the Ubuntu Gnu/Linux OS derives from the Debian
>>> one. However Debian and Redhat, for example, are NOT the "same OS" in
>>> any shape or form.
>> 
>> Ok, so based on that you would say there are two primary Linux based OSs...
>> and many "flavors" (distros) of each?
> 
> Nope. I gave two as an example.
> 
> They are all different OSen.
> 
> They are all BASED on the Linux Kernel however. Not the same one
> admittedly ........
> 
> 
> 
Ok, fair enough.  I thought you meant each of the major distributions.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB stated in post 20100519193036.932@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 10:44
AM:

>> The question is if each distro is the same OS or different OSs.
> 
> The question is erronous. It assumes that a GNU/Linux distro is an OS,
> but it isn't. 

I decided to look at some of the major distros to see if the folks who make
them consider them OSs.  They *clearly* do.  Undoubtedly.  So my allegedly
erroneous assumption is very, very well supported.  How do you explain that?
What makes you think you are  right and the folks who make Ubuntu, PCLOS,
Fedora, openSUSE, Debian, CentOS, Mandriva, Slax, Linux Mint and I *all*
wrong?

<http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu>
    -----
    What is Ubuntu?
    Ubuntu is a community developed operating system ...
    -----
    
<http://pclinuxos.com/?page_id=2>
    -----
    What is PCLinuxOS
    PCLinuxOS is a free easy to use Linux-based Operating System
    ...
    -----
    
<http://fedoraproject.org/>
    -----
    Fedora is a Linux-based operating system ...
    -----
    
<http://www.opensuse.org/>
    -----
    openSUSE is a free and Linux-based operating system ...
    -----
    
<http://www.debian.org/>
    -----
    What is Debian?
    Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer.
    -----
    
<http://www.centos.org/>
    -----
    CentOS is an enterprise operating system.
    -----
    
<http://www2.mandriva.com/linux/what-is-mandriva-linux/>
    -----
    What is Mandriva Linux?
    Mandriva Linux is an operating system for your computer.
    -----
    
<http://www.slax.org/>
    -----
    Slax - your pocket operating system
    -----
    
<http://www.linuxmint.com/faq.php>
    -----
    What is Linux Mint?
    Linux Mint is a free Linux-based operating system ...
    -----

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> TomB stated in post 20100519193036.932@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 10:44
> AM:
>
>>> The question is if each distro is the same OS or different OSs.
>> 
>> The question is erronous. It assumes that a GNU/Linux distro is an OS,
>> but it isn't. 
>
> I decided to look at some of the major distros to see if the folks who make
> them consider them OSs.  They *clearly* do.  Undoubtedly.  So my allegedly
> erroneous assumption is very, very well supported.  How do you explain that?
> What makes you think you are  right and the folks who make Ubuntu, PCLOS,
> Fedora, openSUSE, Debian, CentOS, Mandriva, Slax, Linux Mint and I *all*
> wrong?

TomB gets more ridiculous with every post.

Of course they are OSen.

On May 16, 4:57=A0am, Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of the top 25 the ones with MS are in the Microsoft camp, meaning they
> write software exclusively to the Microsoft API toolkits and
> exclusively for Windows.

> That's right.
> Nearly all of the others write at least some of their applications,
> and most of their newer applications, for multiple platforms,
> including Windows, Linux, Mac, Unix, and Mainframes.

Late to this thread, but you are saying only two of 25 write
EXCLUSIVELY for Microsoft's API.  But how many write EXCLUSIVELY for
Linux?  Probably zero out of 25.

Any large organization is going to have Unix, hence nobody will, save
Intuit and Microsoft (and I'm surprised even these two don't use Unix/
Linux), write EXCLUSIVELY for MSFT's API.

Another damn lie from Rex Ballard.

RL

On 2010-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20100519193036.932@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 10:44
> AM:
>
>>> The question is if each distro is the same OS or different OSs.
>> 
>> The question is erronous. It assumes that a GNU/Linux distro is an
>> OS, but it isn't. 
>
> I decided to look at some of the major distros to see if the folks
> who make them consider them OSs.  They *clearly* do.  Undoubtedly.
> So my allegedly erroneous assumption is very, very well supported.
> How do you explain that?  What makes you think you are  right and
> the folks who make Ubuntu, PCLOS, Fedora, openSUSE, Debian, CentOS,
> Mandriva, Slax, Linux Mint and I *all* wrong?

Yes, I am fully aware of that, and I have noted it myself in my
previous postings.

And yes, technically they are all wrong. These companies/communities
are not creating an operating system; they are distributing one.

No matter how you look at it, at the core of almost every distribution
lies the GNU/Linux operating system. And that's what the distributors
are distributing. Not their own OS, but the GNU/Linux OS.

So my position remain the same. A GNU/Linux distribution is not an OS.
It is - as the name suggests - a distributions of the GNU/Linux OS.

You want to refer to a distribution as an OS? That's fine by my. After
all, that is - as you correctly noted - what most distributors do
themselves. Hell, even I do so on occasion (although I try not to).

-- 
BOFH excuse #99:

SIMM crosstalk.

Snit wrote:

> Time for you to show evidence of your accusations.

Well, Michael, I'm sorry but I don't keep a tap on my business phone to
record conversations. Ours was so short I wouldn't have had time to hit the
record button anyhow. :-D

So, all I have to rely on is my memory, which is pretty good overall,
especially when it comes to phone calls from whining trolls.

Can you hear me now? Good!

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Capital Punishment means never having to say "you again?"

Snit wrote:

> Wait... my phone company allows me to search my phone records.  This can be
> proved.  Hey, Don, what date and time.  And what number... I will do a
> search for that number and see if there are any incoming or outgoing calls.
> I will screencast it and then blur other numbers.
> 
> It will be easy to prove you lied.
> 
> And Don now will run.  Scared as scared can be.

I don't recall the exact date or time but I'm sure I posted here that day or
shortly after to poke fun at you. :-D

I'll not post our office number here, but I'm sure you know our website.
Look there.

And images can *still* be faked, you know. :-P

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Tweety of Borg: I tawt I attimilated a Puddy Tat!

TomB stated in post 20100519231718.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 3:20
PM:

> On 2010-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20100519193036.932@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 10:44
>> AM:
>> 
>>>> The question is if each distro is the same OS or different OSs.
>>> 
>>> The question is erronous. It assumes that a GNU/Linux distro is an
>>> OS, but it isn't.
>> 
>> I decided to look at some of the major distros to see if the folks
>> who make them consider them OSs.  They *clearly* do.  Undoubtedly.
>> So my allegedly erroneous assumption is very, very well supported.
>> How do you explain that?  What makes you think you are  right and
>> the folks who make Ubuntu, PCLOS, Fedora, openSUSE, Debian, CentOS,
>> Mandriva, Slax, Linux Mint and I *all* wrong?
> 
> Yes, I am fully aware of that, and I have noted it myself in my
> previous postings.

Notice how I ask you a question and you respond with something other than an
answer.  Then you just say they are all wrong and you are right.

> And yes, technically they are all wrong. These companies/communities
> are not creating an operating system; they are distributing one.

They do not claim to be creating it... they are very clear they are using
the Linux kernel, etc.
 
> No matter how you look at it, at the core of almost every distribution
> lies the GNU/Linux operating system.

Are you using OS and kernel interchangeably?

> And that's what the distributors
> are distributing. Not their own OS, but the GNU/Linux OS.
> 
> So my position remain the same. A GNU/Linux distribution is not an OS.
> It is - as the name suggests - a distributions of the GNU/Linux OS.

It is not an OS but the OS being distributed.  Please explain.

> You want to refer to a distribution as an OS? That's fine by my. After
> all, that is - as you correctly noted - what most distributors do
> themselves. Hell, even I do so on occasion (although I try not to).



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Tattoo Vampire stated in post 1jwt24m2sm4cy$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/19/10 3:59 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Wait... my phone company allows me to search my phone records.  This can be
>> proved.  Hey, Don, what date and time.  And what number... I will do a
>> search for that number and see if there are any incoming or outgoing calls.
>> I will screencast it and then blur other numbers.
>> 
>> It will be easy to prove you lied.
>> 
>> And Don now will run.  Scared as scared can be.
> 
> I don't recall the exact date or time but I'm sure I posted here that day or
> shortly after to poke fun at you. :-D
> 
> I'll not post our office number here, but I'm sure you know our website.
> Look there.
> 
> And images can *still* be faked, you know. :-P

You will not post any info to actually help verify or deny the claim.  Gee,
what a shock.  And I said a video, not just an image.  Harder to fake.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 5/19/2010 6:59 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> Wait... my phone company allows me to search my phone records.  This can be
>> proved.  Hey, Don, what date and time.  And what number... I will do a
>> search for that number and see if there are any incoming or outgoing calls.
>> I will screencast it and then blur other numbers.
>>
>> It will be easy to prove you lied.
>>
>> And Don now will run.  Scared as scared can be.
>
> I don't recall the exact date or time but I'm sure I posted here that day or
> shortly after to poke fun at you. :-D
>
> I'll not post our office number here, but I'm sure you know our website.
> Look there.
>
> And images can *still* be faked, you know. :-P

And you can *still* tell lies, such as your offices migrated to Linux, 
and Snit called you.

Both are fabrications.

Snit wrote:

> You will not post any info to actually help verify or deny the claim.  Gee,
> what a shock.  And I said a video, not just an image.  Harder to fake.

How do you expect anyone to believe any "evidence" you provide? And how do
we know exactly what number you called from? It could have been from home,
from your office, from your cell, from a pay phone...

Your offer to "look up" such a call in your phone records is therefore,
laughable. But since you have to have everything handed to you, here is the
link to my office's main line:

http://www.era-advantagerealty.com/getagent/list.php?&oid=021400000&

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Never mind the star, get those camels off my lawn!

Tattoo Vampire stated in post fvmht6g0yj9m$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/19/10 3:54 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Time for you to show evidence of your accusations.
> 
> Well, Michael, I'm sorry but I don't keep a tap on my business phone to
> record conversations.

Remember: I have described a way your claim can be proved or disproved:

    Give the date, time, and phone number.

Heck, even just the phone number you claimed I called.  I can do a search
for it and do a screencast.  If the number does not come up, and it will
not, you will be proved a liar.

Hence the reason you will run.  100% predictable.

> Ours was so short I wouldn't have had time to hit the
> record button anyhow. :-D
> 
> So, all I have to rely on is my memory, which is pretty good overall,
> especially when it comes to phone calls from whining trolls.
> 
> Can you hear me now? Good!



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

DFS stated in post ht1tbt$10i$2@news.eternal-september.org on 5/19/10 4:48
PM:

> On 5/19/2010 6:59 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Wait... my phone company allows me to search my phone records.  This can be
>>> proved.  Hey, Don, what date and time.  And what number... I will do a
>>> search for that number and see if there are any incoming or outgoing calls.
>>> I will screencast it and then blur other numbers.
>>> 
>>> It will be easy to prove you lied.
>>> 
>>> And Don now will run.  Scared as scared can be.
>> 
>> I don't recall the exact date or time but I'm sure I posted here that day or
>> shortly after to poke fun at you. :-D
>> 
>> I'll not post our office number here, but I'm sure you know our website.
>> Look there.
>> 
>> And images can *still* be faked, you know. :-P
> 
> And you can *still* tell lies, such as your offices migrated to Linux,
> and Snit called you.
> 
> Both are fabrications.

I have even given Tattoo a way we can prove or disprove his silly claim.

And he is running.  He knows he is a liar.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 5/19/2010 8:01 PM, Snit wrote:
> DFS stated in post ht1tbt$10i$2@news.eternal-september.org on 5/19/10 4:48
> PM:
>
>> On 5/19/2010 6:59 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wait... my phone company allows me to search my phone records.  This can be
>>>> proved.  Hey, Don, what date and time.  And what number... I will do a
>>>> search for that number and see if there are any incoming or outgoing calls.
>>>> I will screencast it and then blur other numbers.
>>>>
>>>> It will be easy to prove you lied.
>>>>
>>>> And Don now will run.  Scared as scared can be.
>>>
>>> I don't recall the exact date or time but I'm sure I posted here that day or
>>> shortly after to poke fun at you. :-D
>>>
>>> I'll not post our office number here, but I'm sure you know our website.
>>> Look there.
>>>
>>> And images can *still* be faked, you know. :-P
>>
>> And you can *still* tell lies, such as your offices migrated to Linux,
>> and Snit called you.
>>
>> Both are fabrications.
>
> I have even given Tattoo a way we can prove or disprove his silly claim.
>
> And he is running.  He knows he is a liar.


Now he's whining that you actually left your house and drove around 
until you found a pay phone and fumbled around with quarters.

What an idiot.

Tattoo Vampire stated in post 1xt8noebojoa1.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/19/10 4:53 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> You will not post any info to actually help verify or deny the claim.  Gee,
>> what a shock.  And I said a video, not just an image.  Harder to fake.
> 
> How do you expect anyone to believe any "evidence" you provide?

Why would they not?  Look at how you and others accuse me of lying - and
obviously look for examples - and *always* fail.

Always.

Who else has had so many who troll fact-check him?  Who else has been so
quick to admit to their mistakes, such as when I incorrectly told -hh he had
a posted image that was much larger than it needed to be.

I am clearly very honest... if I was not, there would not be such examples
of my admitting errors, and there would be examples of my alleged lies.

So there is no reason to doubt me.  So right now it is my very good word
against your meaningless word.  And I am offering to even make the case
against you stronger... and you are running, even though if you were not
lying your case would be easy to prove.  One number.  One search.  Your case
would be proved.  I could not easily back out now and just not post the
video... so you would have me backed against a wall.

But you will run.  You backed yourself against a wall.

> And how do we know exactly what number you called from? It could have been
> from home, from your office, from your cell, from a pay phone...
> 
> Your offer to "look up" such a call in your phone records is therefore,
> laughable. But since you have to have everything handed to you, here is the
> link to my office's main line:
> 
> http://www.era-advantagerealty.com/getagent/list.php?&oid=021400000&

What number do you imagine I called?

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> TomB stated in post 20100519231718.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 3:20
> PM:
>
>> On 2010-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> TomB stated in post 20100519193036.932@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 10:44
>>> AM:
>>> 
>>>>> The question is if each distro is the same OS or different OSs.
>>>> 
>>>> The question is erronous. It assumes that a GNU/Linux distro is an
>>>> OS, but it isn't.
>>> 
>>> I decided to look at some of the major distros to see if the folks
>>> who make them consider them OSs.  They *clearly* do.  Undoubtedly.
>>> So my allegedly erroneous assumption is very, very well supported.
>>> How do you explain that?  What makes you think you are  right and
>>> the folks who make Ubuntu, PCLOS, Fedora, openSUSE, Debian, CentOS,
>>> Mandriva, Slax, Linux Mint and I *all* wrong?
>> 
>> Yes, I am fully aware of that, and I have noted it myself in my
>> previous postings.
>
> Notice how I ask you a question and you respond with something other than an
> answer.  Then you just say they are all wrong and you are right.
>
>> And yes, technically they are all wrong. These companies/communities
>> are not creating an operating system; they are distributing one.
>
> They do not claim to be creating it... they are very clear they are using
> the Linux kernel, etc.

Huh? The do claim to create an distribute  a Linux BASED OS.

>
>> No matter how you look at it, at the core of almost every distribution
>> lies the GNU/Linux operating system.
>
> Are you using OS and kernel interchangeably?

He is.

>
>> And that's what the distributors
>> are distributing. Not their own OS, but the GNU/Linux OS.
>> 
>> So my position remain the same. A GNU/Linux distribution is not an
>> OS.

Yes it is.

>> It is - as the name suggests - a distributions of the GNU/Linux OS.
>

All are different. All have different versions of kernel gnus there
they are different OSen.

> It is not an OS but the OS being distributed.  Please explain.
>
>> You want to refer to a distribution as an OS? That's fine by my. After
>> all, that is - as you correctly noted - what most distributors do
>> themselves. Hell, even I do so on occasion (although I try not to).

On 05/19/2010 04:59 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> Snit wrote:
> 
>> <SNIP>
> 
> And images can *still* be faked, you know. :-P

Like on Joel Crump's facebook site.  ;-P

-- 
HPT

Snit wrote:

> What number do you imagine I called?

Are you pretending to be stupid or actually stupid? The office number is
right there.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....I'm NOT unemployed. ....I'm a consultant.

Snit wrote:

> I have even given Tattoo a way we can prove or disprove his silly claim.
> 
> And he is running.  He knows he is a liar.

The number's been given to you.

And quit licking d00F's ass, you might end up tonguing Quack as well since
he's already down there.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Did you expect mere proof to sway my opinion?

High Plains Thumper wrote:

> Like on Joel Crump's facebook site.  ;-P

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Did you expect mere proof to sway my opinion?

Tattoo Vampire stated in post 1i3slebcvctzi.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/19/10 5:14 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> I have even given Tattoo a way we can prove or disprove his silly claim.
>> 
>> And he is running.  He knows he is a liar.
> 
> The number's been given to you.

If so I did not see it.  Please post again.




-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Tattoo Vampire stated in post msszwkb92qpq.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/19/10 5:13 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> What number do you imagine I called?
> 
> Are you pretending to be stupid or actually stupid? The office number is
> right there.

What is the number?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Hadron stated in post ht1uhq$pon$1@news.eternal-september.org on 5/19/10
5:08 PM:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> 
>> TomB stated in post 20100519231718.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 3:20
>> PM:
>> 
>>> On 2010-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> TomB stated in post 20100519193036.932@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 10:44
>>>> AM:
>>>> 
>>>>>> The question is if each distro is the same OS or different OSs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The question is erronous. It assumes that a GNU/Linux distro is an
>>>>> OS, but it isn't.
>>>> 
>>>> I decided to look at some of the major distros to see if the folks
>>>> who make them consider them OSs.  They *clearly* do.  Undoubtedly.
>>>> So my allegedly erroneous assumption is very, very well supported.
>>>> How do you explain that?  What makes you think you are  right and
>>>> the folks who make Ubuntu, PCLOS, Fedora, openSUSE, Debian, CentOS,
>>>> Mandriva, Slax, Linux Mint and I *all* wrong?
>>> 
>>> Yes, I am fully aware of that, and I have noted it myself in my
>>> previous postings.
>> 
>> Notice how I ask you a question and you respond with something other than an
>> answer.  Then you just say they are all wrong and you are right.
>> 
>>> And yes, technically they are all wrong. These companies/communities
>>> are not creating an operating system; they are distributing one.
>> 
>> They do not claim to be creating it... they are very clear they are using
>> the Linux kernel, etc.
> 
> Huh? The do claim to create an distribute  a Linux BASED OS.

Yes... but they do not claim to create the kernel.  Sorry if I was not
clear.
 
>>> No matter how you look at it, at the core of almost every distribution
>>> lies the GNU/Linux operating system.
>> 
>> Are you using OS and kernel interchangeably?
> 
> He is.

It does seem like this.

>>> And that's what the distributors
>>> are distributing. Not their own OS, but the GNU/Linux OS.
>>> 
>>> So my position remain the same. A GNU/Linux distribution is not an
>>> OS.
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
>>> It is - as the name suggests - a distributions of the GNU/Linux OS.
>> 
> 
> All are different. All have different versions of kernel gnus there
> they are different OSen.

He is claiming they are a distribution of something they are not.  It is
utter nonsense.

>> It is not an OS but the OS being distributed.  Please explain.
>> 
>>> You want to refer to a distribution as an OS? That's fine by my. After
>>> all, that is - as you correctly noted - what most distributors do
>>> themselves. Hell, even I do so on occasion (although I try not to).
> 



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

DFS stated in post ht1u8k$951$2@news.eternal-september.org on 5/19/10 5:03
PM:

> On 5/19/2010 8:01 PM, Snit wrote:
>> DFS stated in post ht1tbt$10i$2@news.eternal-september.org on 5/19/10 4:48
>> PM:
>> 
>>> On 5/19/2010 6:59 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Wait... my phone company allows me to search my phone records.  This can
>>>>> be
>>>>> proved.  Hey, Don, what date and time.  And what number... I will do a
>>>>> search for that number and see if there are any incoming or outgoing
>>>>> calls.
>>>>> I will screencast it and then blur other numbers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It will be easy to prove you lied.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And Don now will run.  Scared as scared can be.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't recall the exact date or time but I'm sure I posted here that day
>>>> or
>>>> shortly after to poke fun at you. :-D
>>>> 
>>>> I'll not post our office number here, but I'm sure you know our website.
>>>> Look there.
>>>> 
>>>> And images can *still* be faked, you know. :-P
>>> 
>>> And you can *still* tell lies, such as your offices migrated to Linux,
>>> and Snit called you.
>>> 
>>> Both are fabrications.
>> 
>> I have even given Tattoo a way we can prove or disprove his silly claim.
>> 
>> And he is running.  He knows he is a liar.
> 
> 
> Now he's whining that you actually left your house and drove around
> until you found a pay phone and fumbled around with quarters.
> 
> What an idiot.

I saw that... he is already making excuses for why the facts do not support
his claim.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 5/19/2010 9:01 PM, Snit wrote:
> DFS stated in post ht1u8k$951$2@news.eternal-september.org on 5/19/10 5:03
> PM:
>
>> On 5/19/2010 8:01 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> DFS stated in post ht1tbt$10i$2@news.eternal-september.org on 5/19/10 4:48
>>> PM:
>>>
>>>> On 5/19/2010 6:59 PM, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wait... my phone company allows me to search my phone records.  This can
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> proved.  Hey, Don, what date and time.  And what number... I will do a
>>>>>> search for that number and see if there are any incoming or outgoing
>>>>>> calls.
>>>>>> I will screencast it and then blur other numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It will be easy to prove you lied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And Don now will run.  Scared as scared can be.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't recall the exact date or time but I'm sure I posted here that day
>>>>> or
>>>>> shortly after to poke fun at you. :-D
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll not post our office number here, but I'm sure you know our website.
>>>>> Look there.
>>>>>
>>>>> And images can *still* be faked, you know. :-P
>>>>
>>>> And you can *still* tell lies, such as your offices migrated to Linux,
>>>> and Snit called you.
>>>>
>>>> Both are fabrications.
>>>
>>> I have even given Tattoo a way we can prove or disprove his silly claim.
>>>
>>> And he is running.  He knows he is a liar.
>>
>>
>> Now he's whining that you actually left your house and drove around
>> until you found a pay phone and fumbled around with quarters.
>>
>> What an idiot.
>
> I saw that... he is already making excuses for why the facts do not support
> his claim.


Did you or anyone from your household phone Tattoo Vampire (Don Zeigler)?

Tattoo Vampire stated in post yno1pmpn1x3r$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/19/10 5:15 PM:

> High Plains Thumper wrote:
> 
>> Like on Joel Crump's facebook site.  ;-P
> 
> BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why is it you and others who troll always run from the topic of Linux and
OSS and make personal attacks and accusations?  I find it sad how much you
fear talking on topic.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

DFS stated in post ht21o4$2nh$2@news.eternal-september.org on 5/19/10 6:02
PM:

.... 
>>> Now he's whining that you actually left your house and drove around
>>> until you found a pay phone and fumbled around with quarters.
>>> 
>>> What an idiot.
>> 
>> I saw that... he is already making excuses for why the facts do not support
>> his claim.
> 
> 
> Did you or anyone from your household phone Tattoo Vampire (Don Zeigler)?

Absolutely not.  Period.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit wrote:

> If so I did not see it.  Please post again.

If you can't follow a simple link to a web page that shows you the number in
question, that's not my problem.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Yea, I'm a pacifist. Wanna make somethin' of it, bub?

Snit wrote:

> Why is it you and others who troll always run from the topic of Linux and
> OSS and make personal attacks and accusations?

I like making personal attacks and accusations, you meowing parsnip.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Yea, I'm a pacifist. Wanna make somethin' of it, bub?

Snit wrote:

> Absolutely not.  Period.

You're a liar, as you already know.

Does your hardworking spouse know you and DFS have something going on? She
may; it would explain a lot of her Facebook postings.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Taglines: the toilet-stall walls of the Internet

Tattoo Vampire stated in post 15aop1l1se9eb$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/19/10 7:01 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Absolutely not.  Period.
> 
> You're a liar, as you already know.

It is amazing how many times you and others who troll make such accusations,
only to run screaming when challenged to show evidence.

You and those you troll with fear speaking of Linux and OSS, so you make
accusations against people to try to put then on the defensive.

Now talk about OSS if you want to keep my attention.  Your accusations are
boring.  And stupid.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Tattoo Vampire stated in post 1g3j63e6cwvl2.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/19/10 6:57 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> If so I did not see it.  Please post again.
> 
> If you can't follow a simple link to a web page that shows you the number in
> question, that's not my problem.

You did not say what number.  Nor will you.

More signs even you know you are lying.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Why is it you and others who troll always run from the topic of
>> Linux and OSS and make personal attacks and accusations?
> 
> I like making personal attacks and accusations, you meowing parsnip.

Funny how Snit quickly shows up, when one of his socks is criticised.

-- 
HPT

Snit wrote:

> You did not say what number.

There is an office number and a fax number on that page. Which one do you
think you should call, dingdong?

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Ultimate office automation: networked coffee machines.

High Plains Thumper wrote:

> Funny how Snit quickly shows up, when one of his socks is criticised.

Snit shows up quickly, period. Apparently the computer owners in the
Prescott area have wised up and are taking their business elsewhere. :)

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....We now return to your previously-scheduled topics.

Snit wrote:

> Now talk about OSS if you want to keep my attention.

I don't need to keep your attention. You're always chasing me trying to hump
my leg.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....We now return to your previously-scheduled topics.

High Plains Thumper stated in post ht2ap5$sv3$1@news.eternal-september.org
on 5/19/10 8:37 PM:

> Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Why is it you and others who troll always run from the topic of
>>> Linux and OSS and make personal attacks and accusations?
>> 
>> I like making personal attacks and accusations, you meowing parsnip.
> 
> Funny how Snit quickly shows up, when one of his socks is criticised.

See how you and others who troll make accusations you will *never* support.

Never.

You are just proving me right.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Tattoo Vampire stated in post fxnylyy5lrdp.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/19/10 8:38 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> You did not say what number.
> 
> There is an office number and a fax number on that page. Which one do you
> think you should call, dingdong?

What number do you want me to search for?  The specific number... not a web
site.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Wed, 19 May 2010 23:38:41 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> You did not say what number.
> 
> There is an office number and a fax number on that page. Which one do
> you think you should call, dingdong?

Why are you playing his passive/aggressive game? If there are only 2 
phone numbers on the page, and they are plainly labeled, he knows which 
number. Anyone reading the thread will know this also.

-- 
Rick

Tattoo Vampire pulled this Usenet boner:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> Why is it you and others who troll always run from the topic of Linux and
>> OSS and make personal attacks and accusations?
>
> I like making personal attacks and accusations, you meowing parsnip.
                                                      ===============

LOL.

-- 
You will have long and healthy life.

Rick wrote:

> Why are you playing his passive/aggressive game? If there are only 2 
> phone numbers on the page, and they are plainly labeled, he knows which 
> number. Anyone reading the thread will know this also.

Snit makes me laugh at times.

Why do you play his passive/aggressive game? :-D

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....My other computer runs the Enterprise.

On 2010-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20100519231718.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 3:20
> PM:
>
>>>>> The question is if each distro is the same OS or different OSs.
>>>> 
>>>> The question is erronous. It assumes that a GNU/Linux distro is
>>>> an OS, but it isn't.
>>> 
>>> I decided to look at some of the major distros to see if the folks
>>> who make them consider them OSs.  They *clearly* do.  Undoubtedly.
>>> So my allegedly erroneous assumption is very, very well supported.
>>> How do you explain that?  What makes you think you are  right and
>>> the folks who make Ubuntu, PCLOS, Fedora, openSUSE, Debian,
>>> CentOS, Mandriva, Slax, Linux Mint and I *all* wrong?
>> 
>> Yes, I am fully aware of that, and I have noted it myself in my
>> previous postings.
>
> Notice how I ask you a question and you respond with something other
> than an answer.  Then you just say they are all wrong and you are
> right.

The answer to your question is right below.

>> And yes, technically they are all wrong. These
>> companies/communities are not creating an operating system; they
>> are distributing one.
>
> They do not claim to be creating it... they are very clear they are
> using the Linux kernel, etc.

So if they are not creating an operating system, why do they claim
that their creation *is* an operating system?

>> No matter how you look at it, at the core of almost every
>> distribution lies the GNU/Linux operating system.
>
> Are you using OS and kernel interchangeably?

No, I am calling the combination of the Linux kernel and the GNU
userland an operating system. And that's exactly what it is. And it is
this operating system that distributors are distributing, along with a
bunch of other stuff.

Let's look at it as follows:

The Linux kernel and the GNU userland (which, combined, form the
GNU/Linux operating system) are only two of the many components that
make up a distribution. Why would you say that the entire distribution
*is* one of the components? It's the same as saying that a cake is
milk, or that a house is bricks.

>> And that's what the distributors are distributing. Not their own
>> OS, but the GNU/Linux OS.
>> 
>> So my position remain the same. A GNU/Linux distribution is not an
>> OS.  It is - as the name suggests - a distributions of the
>> GNU/Linux OS.
>
> It is not an OS but the OS being distributed.  Please explain.

How does this need an explanation? It's perfectly clear.

Each distribution is built from a vast array of components, including
but not limited to the Linux kernel, the GNU userland tools, the
graphical subsystem X.org and a broad range of F/OSS software. Calling
a distribution an operating system is just not accurate.

It is a very low level and technical view, but it is correct, and way
more accurate than calling a distribution an operating system.

-- 
BOFH excuse #271:

The kernel license has expired

TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2010-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20100519231718.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 3:20
>> PM:
>>
>>>>>> The question is if each distro is the same OS or different OSs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The question is erronous. It assumes that a GNU/Linux distro is
>>>>> an OS, but it isn't.
>>>> 
>>>> I decided to look at some of the major distros to see if the folks
>>>> who make them consider them OSs.  They *clearly* do.  Undoubtedly.
>>>> So my allegedly erroneous assumption is very, very well supported.
>>>> How do you explain that?  What makes you think you are  right and
>>>> the folks who make Ubuntu, PCLOS, Fedora, openSUSE, Debian,
>>>> CentOS, Mandriva, Slax, Linux Mint and I *all* wrong?
>>> 
>>> Yes, I am fully aware of that, and I have noted it myself in my
>>> previous postings.
>>
>> Notice how I ask you a question and you respond with something other
>> than an answer.  Then you just say they are all wrong and you are
>> right.
>
> The answer to your question is right below.
>
>>> And yes, technically they are all wrong. These
>>> companies/communities are not creating an operating system; they
>>> are distributing one.
>>
>> They do not claim to be creating it... they are very clear they are
>> using the Linux kernel, etc.
>
> So if they are not creating an operating system, why do they claim
> that their creation *is* an operating system?

So you now agree they are creating an OS? (They are indeed).

Do you know what "create" means?

QED : they are all different OSen.

Homer wrote:
> High Plains Thumper spake thusly:
> 
>> There are less than 10 desktop PC OS's
> 
> Wanna bet?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems
> 
> I think you'll find rather more than just 10 of those are current,
> desktop-oriented operating systems. There's at /least/ that amount
> just in the "hobby" section alone.

You're point?  Or have you turned troll and are you doing selective
snippages like Snit?

-- 
HPT

On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>
>> TomB stated in post 20100519231718.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 3:20
>> PM:
>>
>>> No matter how you look at it, at the core of almost every distribution
>>> lies the GNU/Linux operating system.
>>
>> Are you using OS and kernel interchangeably?
>
> He is.

No, I am not. I am referring to the combination of the GNU userland
and the Linux kernel as an operating system. And that's exactly what
those two components are.

-- 
BOFH excuse #67:

descramble code needed from software company

High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> writes:

> Homer wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper spake thusly:
>> 
>>> There are less than 10 desktop PC OS's
>> 
>> Wanna bet?
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems
>> 
>> I think you'll find rather more than just 10 of those are current,
>> desktop-oriented operating systems. There's at /least/ that amount
>> just in the "hobby" section alone.
>
> You're point?  Or have you turned troll and are you doing selective
> snippages like Snit?


His point is that you are wrong. Again.

TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>
>>> TomB stated in post 20100519231718.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 3:20
>>> PM:
>>>
>>>> No matter how you look at it, at the core of almost every distribution
>>>> lies the GNU/Linux operating system.
>>>
>>> Are you using OS and kernel interchangeably?
>>
>> He is.
>
> No, I am not. I am referring to the combination of the GNU userland
> and the Linux kernel as an operating system. And that's exactly what
> those two components are.

As you are well aware I have already said. Which then means that distros
ARE all different OSen since they all use different kernels, drivers and
gnu components.

Rick stated in post maSdnSMyssWDm2jWnZ2dnUVZ_rmrnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/20/10 2:51 AM:

> On Wed, 19 May 2010 23:38:41 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> You did not say what number.
>> 
>> There is an office number and a fax number on that page. Which one do
>> you think you should call, dingdong?
> 
> Why are you playing his passive/aggressive game? If there are only 2
> phone numbers on the page, and they are plainly labeled, he knows which
> number. Anyone reading the thread will know this also.

So what is the number, Rick?

Seems nobody is willing to say what number.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB stated in post 20100520101323.619@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/20/10 4:35
AM:

> On 2010-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20100519231718.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 3:20
>> PM:
>> 
>>>>>> The question is if each distro is the same OS or different OSs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The question is erronous. It assumes that a GNU/Linux distro is
>>>>> an OS, but it isn't.
>>>> 
>>>> I decided to look at some of the major distros to see if the folks
>>>> who make them consider them OSs.  They *clearly* do.  Undoubtedly.
>>>> So my allegedly erroneous assumption is very, very well supported.
>>>> How do you explain that?  What makes you think you are  right and
>>>> the folks who make Ubuntu, PCLOS, Fedora, openSUSE, Debian,
>>>> CentOS, Mandriva, Slax, Linux Mint and I *all* wrong?
>>> 
>>> Yes, I am fully aware of that, and I have noted it myself in my
>>> previous postings.
>> 
>> Notice how I ask you a question and you respond with something other
>> than an answer.  Then you just say they are all wrong and you are
>> right.
> 
> The answer to your question is right below.

Nope.  You declare yourself right... but you never answer the question.
 
>>> And yes, technically they are all wrong. These
>>> companies/communities are not creating an operating system; they
>>> are distributing one.
>> 
>> They do not claim to be creating it... they are very clear they are
>> using the Linux kernel, etc.
> 
> So if they are not creating an operating system, why do they claim
> that their creation *is* an operating system?

Are you so lost you think they are claiming to create the Linux kernel?
They never even suggest that.

>>> No matter how you look at it, at the core of almost every
>>> distribution lies the GNU/Linux operating system.
>> 
>> Are you using OS and kernel interchangeably?
> 
> No, I am calling the combination of the Linux kernel and the GNU
> userland an operating system. And that's exactly what it is. And it is
> this operating system that distributors are distributing, along with a
> bunch of other stuff.
> 
> Let's look at it as follows:
> 
> The Linux kernel and the GNU userland (which, combined, form the
> GNU/Linux operating system) are only two of the many components that
> make up a distribution. Why would you say that the entire distribution
> *is* one of the components? It's the same as saying that a cake is
> milk, or that a house is bricks.

I have no idea why you would say the entire distribution is one of the
components.  Nobody else is.

>>> And that's what the distributors are distributing. Not their own
>>> OS, but the GNU/Linux OS.
>>> 
>>> So my position remain the same. A GNU/Linux distribution is not an
>>> OS.  It is - as the name suggests - a distributions of the
>>> GNU/Linux OS.
>> 
>> It is not an OS but the OS being distributed.  Please explain.
> 
> How does this need an explanation? It's perfectly clear.

LOL! 

No.  It is not.  It is gibberish.  Nonsense.  It is double-talk silliness.

If something is not X, when you distribute it, it does not become X.  Yet
you claim that the distros are not OSs but they become OSs when distributed.
That is insane.

> Each distribution is built from a vast array of components, including
> but not limited to the Linux kernel, the GNU userland tools, the
> graphical subsystem X.org and a broad range of F/OSS software.

None of this is in contention.  Why do you keep repeating it?

> Calling a distribution an operating system is just not accurate.

So you say.  Contrary to at least most major distro builders.  You just
declare yourself right.

> It is a very low level and technical view, but it is correct, and way
> more accurate than calling a distribution an operating system.

But you say it becomes one once distributed... and that it is "perfectly
clear" that it does so.

You are not making sense at all.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Hadron stated in post ht3d7h$bqd$2@news.eternal-september.org on 5/20/10
6:25 AM:

> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> TomB stated in post 20100519231718.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 3:20
>>>> PM:
>>>> 
>>>>> No matter how you look at it, at the core of almost every distribution
>>>>> lies the GNU/Linux operating system.
>>>> 
>>>> Are you using OS and kernel interchangeably?
>>> 
>>> He is.
>> 
>> No, I am not. I am referring to the combination of the GNU userland
>> and the Linux kernel as an operating system. And that's exactly what
>> those two components are.
> 
> As you are well aware I have already said. Which then means that distros
> ARE all different OSen since they all use different kernels, drivers and
> gnu components.

My favorite quote from TomB on this topic:

  Snit:
    It is not an OS but the OS being distributed.  Please explain.

  TomB:
    How does this need an explanation? It's perfectly clear.

So a distro is not an OS to TomB... until it is distributed and then it
magically becomes an OS.  Plus more, to be fair to his view.

And this is just "perfectly clear" to him.  Anyone who does not understand
and agree is just being absurd and not reading his comments.

Yeah, *that* makes sense.  LOL!


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Hadron stated in post ht3adj$vn$4@news.eternal-september.org on 5/20/10 5:37
AM:

> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 2010-05-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> TomB stated in post 20100519231718.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 3:20
>>> PM:
>>> 
>>>>>>> The question is if each distro is the same OS or different OSs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The question is erronous. It assumes that a GNU/Linux distro is
>>>>>> an OS, but it isn't.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I decided to look at some of the major distros to see if the folks
>>>>> who make them consider them OSs.  They *clearly* do.  Undoubtedly.
>>>>> So my allegedly erroneous assumption is very, very well supported.
>>>>> How do you explain that?  What makes you think you are  right and
>>>>> the folks who make Ubuntu, PCLOS, Fedora, openSUSE, Debian,
>>>>> CentOS, Mandriva, Slax, Linux Mint and I *all* wrong?
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, I am fully aware of that, and I have noted it myself in my
>>>> previous postings.
>>> 
>>> Notice how I ask you a question and you respond with something other
>>> than an answer.  Then you just say they are all wrong and you are
>>> right.
>> 
>> The answer to your question is right below.
>> 
>>>> And yes, technically they are all wrong. These
>>>> companies/communities are not creating an operating system; they
>>>> are distributing one.
>>> 
>>> They do not claim to be creating it... they are very clear they are
>>> using the Linux kernel, etc.
>> 
>> So if they are not creating an operating system, why do they claim
>> that their creation *is* an operating system?
> 
> So you now agree they are creating an OS? (They are indeed).
> 
> Do you know what "create" means?
> 
> QED : they are all different OSen.

TomB is getting confused and thinking they are claiming to create the kernel
and userland tools.

But nobody has said they have written Linux from scratch!


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
> So a distro is not an OS to TomB... until it is distributed and then
> it magically becomes an OS.  Plus more, to be fair to his view.

I *never* said that a distro magically becomes an OS when distributed.
This is another one of your idiotic twists.

-- 
BOFH excuse #3:

electromagnetic radiation from satellite debris

TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
>> So a distro is not an OS to TomB... until it is distributed and then
>> it magically becomes an OS.  Plus more, to be fair to his view.
>
> I *never* said that a distro magically becomes an OS when distributed.
> This is another one of your idiotic twists.

Why are you snipping?

I know why.

You got twisted and mixed up again.

A Distro IS an OS. End of subject.

TomB stated in post 20100520193052.240@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/20/10 10:37
AM:

> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> 
>> So a distro is not an OS to TomB... until it is distributed and then
>> it magically becomes an OS.  Plus more, to be fair to his view.
> 
> I *never* said that a distro magically becomes an OS when distributed.
> This is another one of your idiotic twists.

If you think I have not understood you correctly then explain yourself
clearly without contradicting yourself.  Here are some of your comments on
this topic:

    The only correct answer obviously is that they are different
    distributions of the same OS.

And:

    I said that they're all distribtions of the same OS. That
    doesn't mean they *are* the same OS.

Notice how you flip flop and say they are the "same OS" and then say this
does not mean, to you, that they are the "same OS".   And then you say they
are not the OS, but when distributed they are an OS:

    Hence distributions are not the same OS, because they are the
    distribution of the OS rather than the OS itself.
    
Huh?

    A distribution then is that which distributes this OS...
    
Here you acknowledge they are distributing the OS, but above you denied they
are distributing an OS.  Utter nonsense.  I then showed you that at least
most of the major distros describe their products as an OS.  You just
insisted you were right... and gave *no* reasoning as to why.  You did try
to move the goal posts though:

    These companies/communities are not creating an operating
    system; they are distributing one.
    
and:

    So if they are not creating an operating system, why do they
    claim that their creation *is* an operating system?

Note how *nobody* said any of the distro managers were creating a whole
OS... but now you are acknowledging they *are* distributing one.  Before you
said they were not the "same OS".  So are they distributing different OSs?
Well, you have denied that, too.

I suspect what you might mean, maybe, is that they are all distributing the
same OS along with other things (suites of programs, for example). This
would mean, of course, that you think they are all the same OS, but that
each distro of this "same OS" also comes with other things.  This is similar
to my view of OS X and OS X Server.  They are the same OS, they just come
with different things.  Is that what you have been trying to say... or what
you have finally concluded now that you have had a chance to think this
through?  If not, what the heck is your point?  As it is you talk in
contradictions and word salad and then whine when you are not understood.






-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:

> TomB stated in post 20100520193052.240@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/20/10 10:37
> AM:
>
>> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> 
>>> So a distro is not an OS to TomB... until it is distributed and then
>>> it magically becomes an OS.  Plus more, to be fair to his view.
>> 
>> I *never* said that a distro magically becomes an OS when distributed.
>> This is another one of your idiotic twists.
>
> If you think I have not understood you correctly then explain yourself
> clearly without contradicting yourself.  Here are some of your comments on
> this topic:
>
>     The only correct answer obviously is that they are different
>     distributions of the same OS.
>
> And:
>
>     I said that they're all distribtions of the same OS. That
>     doesn't mean they *are* the same OS.
>
> Notice how you flip flop and say they are the "same OS" and then say this
> does not mean, to you, that they are the "same OS".   And then you say they
> are not the OS, but when distributed they are an OS:
>
>     Hence distributions are not the same OS, because they are the
>     distribution of the OS rather than the OS itself.
>
> Huh?
>
>     A distribution then is that which distributes this OS...
>
> Here you acknowledge they are distributing the OS, but above you denied they
> are distributing an OS.  Utter nonsense.  

Case closed. Poor old TomB. And he tries so hard.

On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>
> A Distro IS an OS. End of subject.

I know that a GNU/Linux distro is often called an OS, but I say it
inaccurate to do so. Here's a very accurate assessment:

"Unix-like operating systems are built from a collection of libraries,
applications and developer tools, plus a kernel to allocate resources
and talk to the hardware — Hurd, GNU's kernel is actively developed,
but is still some way from being ready for daily use, so GNU is often
used with the kernel Linux.

The combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating system,
now used by millions.

Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There are many
variants or “distributions” of GNU/Linux."

http://www.gnu.org

Perfectly in accordance with anything I said so far. Debian, Ubuntu,
PCLOS, Slackware, Mandriva... All distributions of the *GNU/Linux
operating system*.

So no, distributors are not creating an operating system. They are
distributing the GNU/Linux operating system. And that's why the only
accurate term is distribution.

Now, Snit agreed with me that distributors are not creating an
operating system (oddly enough he didn't disagree with you when you
said they do, but that's another story), so that's cool. My question
to Snit thus remains:

If distributors are not creating on operating system, why then call it
an operating system?

-- 
BOFH excuse #234:

Someone is broadcasting pygmy packets and the router doesn't know how
to deal with them.

TomB stated in post 20100520195811.914@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/20/10 11:17
AM:

> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> 
>> A Distro IS an OS. End of subject.
> 
> I know that a GNU/Linux distro is often called an OS, but I say it
> inaccurate to do so. Here's a very accurate assessment:
> 
> "Unix-like operating systems are built from a collection of libraries,
> applications and developer tools, plus a kernel to allocate resources
> and talk to the hardware � Hurd, GNU's kernel is actively developed,
> but is still some way from being ready for daily use, so GNU is often
> used with the kernel Linux.

Notice how it talks about applications, developer tools, the kernel, GNU,
etc.

> The combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating system,
> now used by millions.

You have said this... but your own source includes applications, developer
tools, etc.
 
> Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There are many
> variants or �distributions� of GNU/Linux."
> 
> http://www.gnu.org
> 
> Perfectly in accordance with anything I said so far. Debian, Ubuntu,
> PCLOS, Slackware, Mandriva... All distributions of the *GNU/Linux
> operating system*.

But are the same OS or not?  This was the initial question.

> So no, distributors are not creating an operating system.

As in not creating all aspects of it, such as the kernel and GNU?  If so,
well, *nobody* said they were.  You keep moving goal posts.

> They are
> distributing the GNU/Linux operating system. And that's why the only
> accurate term is distribution.

So according to you they are distributing the same OS.  Which was the
initial question... but you have been dancing around the question.

> Now, Snit agreed with me that distributors are not creating an
> operating system (oddly enough he didn't disagree with you when you
> said they do, but that's another story), so that's cool.

And that you made up.  OK, so you make things up.  Whatever.

> My question to Snit thus remains:
> 
> If distributors are not creating on operating system, why then call it an
> operating system?

Why not?  Must you "create" the ham to create a ham sandwich?  If you have a
computer and then add components to it, and then distribute it to another
(give away, sell, whatever) is it not right for me to say you have
distributed a computer?  And if you and 100 other people are doing the same
thing, are you not all distributing computers?  Now imagine you each have
your own style - so you are distributing special TomBComputers and I am
distributing SnitComputers.  Must we have created the computers from scratch
to say we are distributing computers?  Of course not.  And your computers
can be very different from mine... we both are distributing different
computers.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Hadron stated in post ht3trv$2c4$4@news.eternal-september.org on 5/20/10
11:09 AM:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
> 
>> TomB stated in post 20100520193052.240@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/20/10 10:37
>> AM:
>> 
>>> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> 
>>>> So a distro is not an OS to TomB... until it is distributed and then
>>>> it magically becomes an OS.  Plus more, to be fair to his view.
>>> 
>>> I *never* said that a distro magically becomes an OS when distributed.
>>> This is another one of your idiotic twists.
>> 
>> If you think I have not understood you correctly then explain yourself
>> clearly without contradicting yourself.  Here are some of your comments on
>> this topic:
>> 
>>     The only correct answer obviously is that they are different
>>     distributions of the same OS.
>> 
>> And:
>> 
>>     I said that they're all distribtions of the same OS. That
>>     doesn't mean they *are* the same OS.
>> 
>> Notice how you flip flop and say they are the "same OS" and then say this
>> does not mean, to you, that they are the "same OS".   And then you say they
>> are not the OS, but when distributed they are an OS:
>> 
>>     Hence distributions are not the same OS, because they are the
>>     distribution of the OS rather than the OS itself.
>> 
>> Huh?
>> 
>>     A distribution then is that which distributes this OS...
>> 
>> Here you acknowledge they are distributing the OS, but above you denied they
>> are distributing an OS.  Utter nonsense.
> 
> Case closed. Poor old TomB. And he tries so hard.

I *think* TomB is trying to say that in his view are all the same OS -
GNU/Linux - and that the difference is in what is added to the OS.

But if so, then why does he deny they are all the same OS?  So maybe not.
He will likely just say I am making things up and still misrepresenting his
view... all the time while talking in circles.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>
>> A Distro IS an OS. End of subject.
>
> I know that a GNU/Linux distro is often called an OS, but I say it
> inaccurate to do so. Here's a very accurate assessment:
>
> "Unix-like operating systems are built from a collection of libraries,
> applications and developer tools, plus a kernel to allocate resources
> and talk to the hardware — Hurd, GNU's kernel is actively developed,
> but is still some way from being ready for daily use, so GNU is often
> used with the kernel Linux.

Err exactly.

>
> The combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating system,
> now used by millions.
>
> Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There are many
> variants or “distributions” of GNU/Linux."
>
> http://www.gnu.org
>
> Perfectly in accordance with anything I said so far. Debian, Ubuntu,
> PCLOS, Slackware, Mandriva... All distributions of the *GNU/Linux
> operating system*.

No. They are all variations of Gnu/Linux BASED Operating Systems.

>
> So no, distributors are not creating an operating system. They are
> distributing the GNU/Linux operating system. And that's why the only
> accurate term is distribution.
>
> Now, Snit agreed with me that distributors are not creating an
> operating system (oddly enough he didn't disagree with you when you
> said they do, but that's another story), so that's cool. My question
> to Snit thus remains:
>
> If distributors are not creating on operating system, why then call it
> an operating system?

Err, they are creating operating systems.

You seem to get more and more confused with every post.

On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:39:31 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>
>>> So a distro is not an OS to TomB... until it is distributed and then
>>> it magically becomes an OS.  Plus more, to be fair to his view.
>>
>> I *never* said that a distro magically becomes an OS when distributed.
>> This is another one of your idiotic twists.
> 
> Why are you snipping?
> 
> I know why.
> 
> You got twisted and mixed up again.
> 
> A Distro IS an OS. End of subject.

I have TomB scored way down, along with (p)rick because of those
very reasons.
They are both getting quite boring and tiresome with their
semantic game playing.

It's the old Linux is the kernel except when Linux is not the
kernel.

"Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ht3vmh$eqf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:

<snip>  <snip>  <snip>  <snip>


These semantic word games will (once again) spiral out of control. "Linux" 
and the various distros "are what they are."   While they all stem from the 
same GNU/Linux code base... where you draw the line between the 'same OS' 
and 'different OS' is going to differ. Differences between Ubuntu and Mint 
are minor-to-negligible but differences between Ubuntu and some version of 
Linux running in my DVD are going to be significant enough where (perhaps 
not technically) - for all practical purposes mind as well be a different 
OS.

Moshe stated in post ckevvuhwj537.rsbdmti8q6c9$.dlg@40tude.net on 5/20/10
12:13 PM:

> On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:39:31 +0200, Hadron wrote:
> 
>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> 
>>>> So a distro is not an OS to TomB... until it is distributed and then
>>>> it magically becomes an OS.  Plus more, to be fair to his view.
>>> 
>>> I *never* said that a distro magically becomes an OS when distributed.
>>> This is another one of your idiotic twists.
>> 
>> Why are you snipping?
>> 
>> I know why.
>> 
>> You got twisted and mixed up again.
>> 
>> A Distro IS an OS. End of subject.
> 
> I have TomB scored way down, along with (p)rick because of those
> very reasons.
> They are both getting quite boring and tiresome with their
> semantic game playing.
> 
> It's the old Linux is the kernel except when Linux is not the
> kernel.

Well, I can see both sides.  Old-school views of an OS were the kernel and a
bit more (and TomB includes more). When people get an OS today, though, they
expect it to come with lots more.  Distros almost always coem with the "lots
more"... and I think most of us would agree that, say, OpenOffice is not a
part of the OS itself, even though it comes with many distros.

So it really is just semantics as to where to draw the line at the OS.  I
consider each a big enough modification to be a different OS.  I do not have
a specific exact level of difference here - some of this is just based on
marketing, I admit.  No big deal.  In other words, different flavors of
Ubuntu can be seen as the different flavors of the same OS, where Mint is
seen as a different OS.

TomB, I think, sees them all as the same OS *plus* more.  But maybe not - he
speaks in double-talk where he denies they are the same OS, but then he also
says they are.  I am waiting to see if he actually tries to clear this up or
just goes round and round.  And blames me and others.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20100520195811.914@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/20/10 11:17
> AM:
>
>> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>> 
>>> A Distro IS an OS. End of subject.
>> 
>> I know that a GNU/Linux distro is often called an OS, but I say it
>> inaccurate to do so. Here's a very accurate assessment:
>> 
>> "Unix-like operating systems are built from a collection of
>> libraries, applications and developer tools, plus a kernel to
>> allocate resources and talk to the hardware ‹ Hurd, GNU's kernel
>> is actively developed, but is still some way from being ready for
>> daily use, so GNU is often used with the kernel Linux.
>
> Notice how it talks about applications, developer tools, the kernel,
> GNU, etc.

You don't understand a bit of it. GNU provides the applications,
developer tools and libraries they're talking about. It's not GNU and
those. GNU *is* those. The only thing GNU lacks to provide a fully
fledged operating system is a (finished) kernel, which is why
Torvald's Linux is used.

>> The combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating system,
>> now used by millions.
>
> You have said this... but your own source includes applications,
> developer tools, etc.

Yup. In other words: GNU.

>> Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There are
>> many variants or ³distributions² of GNU/Linux."
>> 
>> http://www.gnu.org
>> 
>> Perfectly in accordance with anything I said so far. Debian,
>> Ubuntu, PCLOS, Slackware, Mandriva... All distributions of the
>> *GNU/Linux operating system*.
>
> But are the same OS or not?  This was the initial question.

And my answer still is that they are no OSes, but distributions of the
GNU/Linux OS.

>> So no, distributors are not creating an operating system.
>
> As in not creating all aspects of it, such as the kernel and GNU?

Those are the only aspects of it. All the rest (X.org, KDE, Gnome,
OpenOffice, Kino, you name it) are applications running on the OS (in
case GNU/Linux, but also FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, yes for some even
Microsoft Windows and OSX).

> If so, well, *nobody* said they were.  You keep moving goal posts.

My goal posts are steady as hell.

>> They are distributing the GNU/Linux operating system. And that's
>> why the only accurate term is distribution.
>
> So according to you they are distributing the same OS.

Indeed they are.

> Which was the initial question...

No, it wasn't.

> but you have been dancing around the question.

No, I haven't.

>> Now, Snit agreed with me that distributors are not creating an
>> operating system (oddly enough he didn't disagree with you when you
>> said they do, but that's another story), so that's cool.
>
> And that you made up.  OK, so you make things up.  Whatever.

Don't make up things at all. Here, directly copy/pasted from a few
posts back:

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

>> Me: And yes, technically they are all wrong. These
>> companies/communities are not creating an operating system; they
>> are distributing one.
>
> You (agreeing that distributors are not creating an operating
> system): They do not claim to be creating it... they are very clear
> they are using the Linux kernel, etc.

Hadron (disagreeing with you, and consequently me): Huh? The do claim
to create an distribute  a Linux BASED OS.

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

So which is it according to you? Are they creating on OS or not? And
if they are not, why call it an OS then? And if they are, why aren't
they claiming it (like you said above)?

>> My question to Snit thus remains:
>> 
>> If distributors are not creating on operating system, why then call
>> it an operating system?
>
> Why not?  Must you "create" the ham to create a ham sandwich?

No. Just like you don't have to create GNU/Linux to create a GNU/Linux
distribution.

Do you call a ham sandwich 'pig meat'? No? So why would you call a
GNU/Linux distribution an operating system?

-- 
BOFH excuse #363:

Out of cards on drive D:

Ezekiel pulled this Usenet boner:

> These semantic word games will (once again) spiral out of control.

Yep.  Thanks for bringing some sense into this thread, Zeke.

-- 
Give thought to your reputation.  Consider changing name and moving to
a new town.

TomB stated in post 20100520211354.831@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/20/10 12:46
PM:

> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20100520195811.914@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/20/10 11:17
>> AM:
>> 
>>> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>>> 
>>>> A Distro IS an OS. End of subject.
>>> 
>>> I know that a GNU/Linux distro is often called an OS, but I say it
>>> inaccurate to do so. Here's a very accurate assessment:
>>> 
>>> "Unix-like operating systems are built from a collection of
>>> libraries, applications and developer tools, plus a kernel to
>>> allocate resources and talk to the hardware � Hurd, GNU's kernel
>>> is actively developed, but is still some way from being ready for
>>> daily use, so GNU is often used with the kernel Linux.
>> 
>> Notice how it talks about applications, developer tools, the kernel,
>> GNU, etc.
> 
> You don't understand a bit of it.

Please, TomB, give your views without trying to make yourself feel better
about yourself by putting others down.

> GNU provides the applications, developer tools and libraries they're talking
> about. It's not GNU and those. GNU *is* those. The only thing GNU lacks to
> provide a fully fledged operating system is a (finished) kernel, which is why
> Torvald's Linux is used.
> 
>>> The combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating system,
>>> now used by millions.
>> 
>> You have said this... but your own source includes applications,
>> developer tools, etc.
> 
> Yup. In other words: GNU.

Not all applications are GNU.  The text you quoted is not specific.

>>> Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There are
>>> many variants or ��distributions�� of GNU/Linux."
>>> 
>>> http://www.gnu.org
>>> 
>>> Perfectly in accordance with anything I said so far. Debian,
>>> Ubuntu, PCLOS, Slackware, Mandriva... All distributions of the
>>> *GNU/Linux operating system*.
>> 
>> But are the same OS or not?  This was the initial question.
> 
> And my answer still is that they are no OSes, but distributions of the
> GNU/Linux OS.

Based on your own source, an OS has "a collection of libraries, applications
and developer tools, plus a kernel to allocate resources and talk to the
hardware".  So how can you say, for example, Ubuntu does not have those (and
is thus not an OS)? I know you are not that ignorant.

Maybe you mean it is an OS *and more*?  That would at least be a defendable
position.

>>> So no, distributors are not creating an operating system.
>> 
>> As in not creating all aspects of it, such as the kernel and GNU?
> 
> Those are the only aspects of it. All the rest (X.org, KDE, Gnome,
> OpenOffice, Kino, you name it) are applications running on the OS (in
> case GNU/Linux, but also FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, yes for some even
> Microsoft Windows and OSX).

And you think you need to make a point that distro managers are not
*creating* all of that!  You are just being silly - making insinuations that
are absurd.

>> If so, well, *nobody* said they were.  You keep moving goal posts.
> 
> My goal posts are steady as hell.

I never heard anyone describe hell as "steady", perhaps you are correct.  :)

Either way, you have gone from "are distros OSs" to "do distro managers
*create* OpenOffice".  That is a *huge* moving of goal posts!

>>> They are distributing the GNU/Linux operating system. And that's
>>> why the only accurate term is distribution.
>> 
>> So according to you they are distributing the same OS.
> 
> Indeed they are.

Yet you denied it before.  Why?

>> Which was the initial question...
> 
> No, it wasn't.

Yes, it was.  Since before you entered the thread the question has been if
the different distros are the same OS or not.  HPT claimed, incorrectly:

    There are less than 10 desktop PC OS's...

This has been shown to be wrong even if you count all Linux distros as one
OS, but, in any case, I noted how the distros are generally called "Linux
based OSs"... meaning they are different OSs.  This lead to the question of
if different distros are the same OS or not.  In your first response to me
in this thread, you responded to my noting how Rick was (and is):

    still waiting for your masters to tell you if Ubuntu and PCLOS
    are different OSs or the same OS.

Your response was to that they were "the same OS".

    they are different distributions of the same OS.

Excellent - you took a stand.  As I have said, it is a defendable one... but
then in your next post you flip flopped:

    That doesn't mean they *are* the same OS.

So the question of if they are or are not the same OS (with, say different
things added) has been the question since before you even entered the
thread.  

What question did you think you were answering?

>> but you have been dancing around the question.
> 
> No, I haven't.

Right: you are just saying they are "the same OS" but "That doesn't mean
they *are* the same OS."  No dancing from you at all.  :)

>>> Now, Snit agreed with me that distributors are not creating an
>>> operating system (oddly enough he didn't disagree with you when you
>>> said they do, but that's another story), so that's cool.
>> 
>> And that you made up.  OK, so you make things up.  Whatever.
> 
> Don't make up things at all. Here, directly copy/pasted from a few
> posts back:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>>> Me: And yes, technically they are all wrong. These
>>> companies/communities are not creating an operating system; they
>>> are distributing one.
>> 
>> You (agreeing that distributors are not creating an operating
>> system): They do not claim to be creating it... they are very clear
>> they are using the Linux kernel, etc.
> 
> Hadron (disagreeing with you, and consequently me): Huh? The do claim
> to create an distribute  a Linux BASED OS.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> So which is it according to you? Are they creating on OS or not? And
> if they are not, why call it an OS then? And if they are, why aren't
> they claiming it (like you said above)?

As I noted, you made up your claim.  I never said what you attributed to me.

But, when you say "creating an OS" you are playing a game - do you mean
creating, for example, the Linux kernel?  If so, then clearly not!  If you
mean putting together an OS from pre-existing things and, often, their own
work, then clearly so.

>>> My question to Snit thus remains:
>>> 
>>> If distributors are not creating on operating system, why then call
>>> it an operating system?
>> 
>> Why not?  Must you "create" the ham to create a ham sandwich?
> 
> No. Just like you don't have to create GNU/Linux to create a GNU/Linux
> distribution.

Nor has anyone suggested you must.

> Do you call a ham sandwich 'pig meat'? No? So why would you call a
> GNU/Linux distribution an operating system?

Funny how you snipped the better analogy, below (where your word games
fail):

>> If you have a computer and then add components to it, and then distribute it
>> to another (give away, sell, whatever) is it not right for me to say you have
>> distributed a computer?  And if you and 100 other people are doing the same
>> thing, are you not all distributing computers?  Now imagine you each have
>> your own style - so you are distributing special TomBComputers and I am
>> distributing SnitComputers.  Must we have created the computers from scratch
>> to say we are distributing computers?  Of course not.  And your computers can
>> be very different from mine... we both are distributing different computers.

What you are doing is just insisting your view of what makes an OS is the
*only* reasonable one... even though *clearly* it is not only not the only
one it is not the one that is generally used by those who make the distros.
As you have been shown.  Your "evidence" to support your view is just to say
you are right and they are wrong as you flip-flop and move goal posts.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Ezekiel stated in post ht420a$ie1$1@news.eternal-september.org on 5/20/10
12:19 PM:

> 
> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ht3vmh$eqf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> <snip>  <snip>  <snip>  <snip>
> 
> 
> These semantic word games will (once again) spiral out of control. "Linux"
> and the various distros "are what they are."   While they all stem from the
> same GNU/Linux code base... where you draw the line between the 'same OS'
> and 'different OS' is going to differ. Differences between Ubuntu and Mint
> are minor-to-negligible but differences between Ubuntu and some version of
> Linux running in my DVD are going to be significant enough where (perhaps
> not technically) - for all practical purposes mind as well be a different
> OS.

Pretty much agree.  From a past post:

    -----
    Well, I can see both sides.  Old-school views of an OS were
    the kernel and a bit more (and TomB includes more). When
    people get an OS today, though, they expect it to come with
    lots more.  Distros almost always come with the "lots
    more"... and I think most of us would agree that, say,
    OpenOffice is not a part of the OS itself, even though it
    comes with many distros.

    So it really is just semantics as to where to draw the line
    at the OS.  I consider each a big enough modification to be a
    different OS.  I do not have a specific exact level of
    difference here - some of this is just based on marketing, I
    admit.  No big deal.  In other words, different flavors of
    Ubuntu can be seen as the different flavors of the same OS,
    where Mint is seen as a different OS.

    TomB, I think, sees them all as the same OS *plus* more.  But
    maybe not - he speaks in double-talk where he denies they are
    the same OS, but then he also says they are.  I am waiting to
    see if he actually tries to clear this up or just goes round
    and round.  And blames me and others.
    -----

As far as I have seen, TomB is just ignoring such comments of mine - so what
his actual view is can be anyone's guess... he will not say but just claims
people are trying to twist his words (which are written in word salad).


Keep in mind, though, that pretty much all major distro sites describe their
products as OSs, and the term "Linux-based OS" to describe a distro is
common in COLA.  They are generally seen as different OSs.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:30:57 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:

> Rick wrote:
> 
>> Why are you playing his passive/aggressive game? If there are only 2
>> phone numbers on the page, and they are plainly labeled, he knows which
>> number. Anyone reading the thread will know this also.
> 
> Snit makes me laugh at times.
> 
> Why do you play his passive/aggressive game? :-D

I play much less now then in days past.

-- 
Rick

On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:39:31 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>
>>> So a distro is not an OS to TomB... until it is distributed and then
>>> it magically becomes an OS.  Plus more, to be fair to his view.
>>
>> I *never* said that a distro magically becomes an OS when distributed.
>> This is another one of your idiotic twists.
> 
> Why are you snipping?
> 
> I know why.
> 
> You got twisted and mixed up again.
> 
> A Distro IS an OS. End of subject.

So what part of the operating system is a word processor? Does the 
operating system need a graphic editor, email client or server to 
function properly? Where in an operating systems does a news client fit. 
What will break in the OS if the news client is removed?

-- 
Rick

On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:19:37 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ht3vmh$eqf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> <snip>  <snip>  <snip>  <snip>
> 
> 
> These semantic word games will (once again) spiral out of control.

All ready has :-)

> "Linux" and the various distros "are what they are."   While they all
> stem from the same GNU/Linux code base... where you draw the line
> between the 'same OS' and 'different OS' is going to differ. Differences
> between Ubuntu and Mint are minor-to-negligible but differences between
> Ubuntu and some version of Linux running in my DVD are going to be
> significant enough where (perhaps not technically) - for all practical
> purposes mind as well be a different OS.

Another question to consider is how much can be stripped from a 
distribution and still have a functions operating system?

-- 
Rick

On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:13:37 -0400, Moshe wrote:

> On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:39:31 +0200, Hadron wrote:
> 
>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>>
>>>> So a distro is not an OS to TomB... until it is distributed and then
>>>> it magically becomes an OS.  Plus more, to be fair to his view.
>>>
>>> I *never* said that a distro magically becomes an OS when distributed.
>>> This is another one of your idiotic twists.
>> 
>> Why are you snipping?
>> 
>> I know why.
>> 
>> You got twisted and mixed up again.
>> 
>> A Distro IS an OS. End of subject.
> 
> I have TomB scored way down, along with (p)rick because of those very
> reasons.
> They are both getting quite boring and tiresome with their semantic game
> playing.
> 
> It's the old Linux is the kernel except when Linux is not the kernel.

-Linux- is the kernel.



-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post TtOdnZXsHtwnNWjWnZ2dnUVZ_vQ6AAAA@supernews.com on
5/20/10 2:25 PM:

> On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:39:31 +0200, Hadron wrote:
> 
>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> 
>>>> So a distro is not an OS to TomB... until it is distributed and then
>>>> it magically becomes an OS.  Plus more, to be fair to his view.
>>> 
>>> I *never* said that a distro magically becomes an OS when distributed.
>>> This is another one of your idiotic twists.
>> 
>> Why are you snipping?
>> 
>> I know why.
>> 
>> You got twisted and mixed up again.
>> 
>> A Distro IS an OS. End of subject.
> 
> So what part of the operating system is a word processor? Does the
> operating system need a graphic editor, email client or server to
> function properly? Where in an operating systems does a news client fit.
> What will break in the OS if the news client is removed?

Only you, Rick, would think in terms of things "breaking" if you remove a
news client from an OS.  OS X does not come with a news client, and while I
wish it did, nothing is "broken" about it because it does not.  Still, most
people expect a modern desktop OS to include a pretty big suite of programs.
Do you know of any even moderately popular ones that do not?



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post TtOdnZTsHtz_NGjWnZ2dnUVZ_vSnnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/20/10 2:28 PM:

> On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:19:37 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
> 
>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ht3vmh$eqf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> <snip>  <snip>  <snip>  <snip>
>> 
>> 
>> These semantic word games will (once again) spiral out of control.
> 
> All ready has :-)
> 
>> "Linux" and the various distros "are what they are."   While they all
>> stem from the same GNU/Linux code base... where you draw the line
>> between the 'same OS' and 'different OS' is going to differ. Differences
>> between Ubuntu and Mint are minor-to-negligible but differences between
>> Ubuntu and some version of Linux running in my DVD are going to be
>> significant enough where (perhaps not technically) - for all practical
>> purposes mind as well be a different OS.
> 
> Another question to consider is how much can be stripped from a
> distribution and still have a functions operating system?

Why would that matter?  Nobody is saying all distros are bare bones.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 14:31:55 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post TtOdnZXsHtwnNWjWnZ2dnUVZ_vQ6AAAA@supernews.com on
> 5/20/10 2:25 PM:
> 
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:39:31 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>> 
>>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>>> 
>>>>> So a distro is not an OS to TomB... until it is distributed and then
>>>>> it magically becomes an OS.  Plus more, to be fair to his view.
>>>> 
>>>> I *never* said that a distro magically becomes an OS when
>>>> distributed. This is another one of your idiotic twists.
>>> 
>>> Why are you snipping?
>>> 
>>> I know why.
>>> 
>>> You got twisted and mixed up again.
>>> 
>>> A Distro IS an OS. End of subject.
>> 
>> So what part of the operating system is a word processor? Does the
>> operating system need a graphic editor, email client or server to
>> function properly? Where in an operating systems does a news client
>> fit. What will break in the OS if the news client is removed?
> 
> Only you, Rick, would think in terms of things "breaking" if you remove
> a news client from an OS.  OS X does not come with a news client, and
> while I wish it did, nothing is "broken" about it because it does not. 

No duh. Maybe that's because usenet client is not part of the OS.

> Still, most people expect a modern desktop OS to include a pretty big
> suite of programs. Do you know of any even moderately popular ones that
> do not?

So, what "big suite of programs" is included in the retail versions of 
Windows 7? And most people don't know what an operating system is.

-- 
Rick

On Thu, 20 May 2010 14:33:05 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post TtOdnZTsHtz_NGjWnZ2dnUVZ_vSnnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 5/20/10 2:28 PM:
> 
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:19:37 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>> 
>>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ht3vmh$eqf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
>>> 
>>> <snip>  <snip>  <snip>  <snip>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> These semantic word games will (once again) spiral out of control.
>> 
>> All ready has :-)
>> 
>>> "Linux" and the various distros "are what they are."   While they all
>>> stem from the same GNU/Linux code base... where you draw the line
>>> between the 'same OS' and 'different OS' is going to differ.
>>> Differences between Ubuntu and Mint are minor-to-negligible but
>>> differences between Ubuntu and some version of Linux running in my DVD
>>> are going to be significant enough where (perhaps not technically) -
>>> for all practical purposes mind as well be a different OS.
>> 
>> Another question to consider is how much can be stripped from a
>> distribution and still have a functions operating system?
> 
> Why would that matter?  Nobody is saying all distros are bare bones.

They are discussing what an operating system is and comparing operating 
systems with distributions. Try to keep up.



-- 
Rick

On 5/20/2010 5:22 PM, Rick wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:30:57 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>
>>> Why are you playing his passive/aggressive game? If there are only 2
>>> phone numbers on the page, and they are plainly labeled, he knows which
>>> number. Anyone reading the thread will know this also.
>>
>> Snit makes me laugh at times.
>>
>> Why do you play his passive/aggressive game? :-D
>
> I play much less now then in days past.

Now you just play your own dumbass game.  And you play it very well.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

____/ Rex Ballard on Wednesday 19 May 2010 02:17 : \____

> 
> 
> On May 16, 10:32 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
> 
>> > Some jobs might require it; the ones I've had over the past decade
>> > (about 6) were all open to GNU/Linux. Times have changed.
> 
>> Well it's a good job I'm retired then, because I'd rather empty garbage
>> cans for a living than Work for gangsters.
> 
> Oh, so you DIDN'T work for Microsoft!!!
> 
> Not my opinion - Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson - the federal court
> judge who presided over both the Bundling consent decree and the
> antitrust hearing - after hearing all of the evidence in both cases,
> and rending his formal rulings of fact and law in both cases - told a
> reporter that Microsoft's top executives were criminals who should be
> prosecuted as criminals.
> 
> Of course, the settlement granted them immunity from all prosecution
> of any activities related to any of the evidence disclosed during the
> procedings - including most of the 9000 documents in the Combs v.
> Microsoft trial.

Picky -- it's Comes vs Microsoft.

People can access that at http://antitrust.slated.org


>> Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
>> 03:32:11 up 46 days, 13:22,  2 users,  load average: 3.66, 3.56, 3.44
> 
> That's right, you're one of the good guys :-D

- -- 
		~~ Best of wishes


You know you're a Unix guy when your dreams start with #!/bin/sh.
http://Schestowitz.com  | Mandriva Linux |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
         run-level 2  Apr 30 09:46
      http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkv1ybcACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4XUwCfZ3SbsLZ7nqM1RC0uy69KZvlj
hzMAn0oV+piEYsluixrdamhkvUYCLl0L
=c2ov
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On May 20, 5:33=A0pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Rick stated in post TtOdnZTsHtz_NGjWnZ2dnUVZ_vSnn...@supernews.com on
> 5/20/10 2:28 PM:
> > On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:19:37 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
> >> These semantic word games will (once again) spiral out of control.

> > All ready has :-)

> > Another question to consider is how much can be stripped from a
> > distribution and still have a functions operating system?

The whole concept of an operating system has changed radically over
the last 30 years.  When Bill Gates wrote PC-DOS/MS-DOS to compete
with CP/M - the operating system did as little as possible.
Applications had to manage their own memory, set up terminate and stay
resident programs (multitasking of sorts - but not really), and even
most of the hardware was exposed to the programmer who was ENCOURAGED
to go out their and use peeks and pokes in Microsoft BASIC to try and
do things with graphics, or to call subroutines in MBASIC to do
things.

The only problem was that there were so many entry points, and they
were so poorly documented, that when Franklin responded to Apple as a
defendent in a lawsuit, by saying that they had to support something
like 1500 documented entry points, Apple was quite eager to settle -
it only knew of about 600 entry points and was very worried that if
they made changes to the Apple ROM, they might alienate customers -
and lose customers to companies like Franklin - or even IBM.

Most operating systems have a central interface, usually through a
trap instruction or similar vector, which then can be used to
interface a programmer library to the operating system.  Whether it's
Microsoft Foundation classes that talk to the BDOS calls, or the GlibC
and XLib calls that interface with the Linux kernel functions and the
X11 server.

Even back in the days of the mainframes, you needed JCL scripts to
actually start your jobs.  Today, the scripts have gotten "prettier" -
Microsoft shortcuts even have a little GUI interface that you can use
to customize the shortcut - which ultimately boils down to little more
than a simple command line interface or command.  In UNIX the shell
scripting languages got more and more sophisticated, and eventually
metalanguages that could be written and tested like scripts, but were
compiled and optimized each time they ran - giving them excellent
performance - languages like PERL, Python, and Ruby, for example.

Microsoft took a different tack on things.  They wanted to make sure
that users could always get the help they needed.  Most users had
trouble learning MS-DOS programs, and all though Mac and Windows were
relatively easy to use, it wasn't always easy for new users to figure
out what each button did, what menu options were available, and what
options might conflict with other options.  Microsoft's solution was
to compile all sorts of hand-holding, exception handling, friendly
prompts and greetings, pop-ups, wizards, and other extensive user
support facilities into every application.  In addition, each
application had to be able to do anything you could do to a particular
type of object or file.  For example, if an application created a
spreadsheet, it also had to be able to save it to disk, display it on
the screen, print it to the printer, get user input for every cell,
and provide help for every option, feature and function - all in a
single process.   To put it mildly, the Microsoft "applications" were
more like operating systems all by themselves.  Much of this was do to
the limitations and deficiencies of early versions of Windows, and the
Intel processors they ran on.  Until the 80386 processor came out,
Windows didn't even have memory management, let alone floating point,
graphics accelerators, dual data pipelines, and instruction pre-
fetch.  The programming styles required to get Windows even marginally
operational on an 80286 were kept in place even when Microsoft's
systems were running on 80386, 80486, and Pentium machines.

When Microsoft came out with Win95B, they decided that the best way to
keep the applications from clobbering each other, was to put nearly
all of the common functions into very large libraries that would be
loaded by an executable that pretty much just loaded the libraries
into shared memory and kept them there for applications like Word,
Excel, Write, and PowerPoint.  IIRC Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer even
stated that almost 80% of the functionality of MS-Office was in the
Windows Operating system Libraries.

This of course really blurred the line between application and
operating system.  Which is exactly what Microsoft wanted to do.
Microsoft had been forced into a settlement with the Federal Trade
Commission under the George H. W. Bush Administration back in 1990,
and after several attempts to settle, the Clinton administration
finally got a judge who would accept a settlement - Judge Thomas
Penfield Jackson.

Microsoft had agreed not to bundle applications such as Word, Excel,
and PowerPoint with Windows, and agreed to sell them separately, so
that customers could purchase other applications such as WordPerfect,
Lotus 1-2-3, and Corel Draw - if they preferred.  Microsoft got around
this by offering customers prices that were extremely low - if they
bought the applications when they purchased the computer.  In most
cases, the manufacturer or retailer only had to enable the feature by
installing a relatavely small veneer application.  Relatively small
because most of the code that did the heavy lifting was already in the
libraries - and small compared to installing whole no libraries full
of WordPerfect, Lotus, and Corel libraries and code.

Microsoft also started slipping in more and more "Applets" - for
example, even if customers didn't want to buy Word right away, they
could get Write.  And things really came to a head over the Internet
Explorer browser.  At this point, Marc Andreeson was already upset
with the NCSA, a federal agency who had sold his Mosaic code to
Microsoft without getting his permission to sell derivative rights and
other rights that Andreeson had not granted to the NCSA under their
public license.  Furthermore, Jim Barksdale, who had become CEO of the
company, was not happy that he had invested in NetScape and Microsoft
was about to drive him out of business.  Finally, about 23 states had
software companies who had been burned by Microsoft, and some computer
manufacturers who weren't to pleased with Bill Gates and friends
either.

When Microsoft threatened to revoke Compaq's licenses to Windows - on
it's most popular PC Prolinea line, and then actually DID send them
notice that their licenses HAD been revoked - Because they had removed
the IE Icon from the desktop, and replaced it with NetScape's Icon, it
pushed things over the top.  Microsoft started aggressively bundling
everything it could as tightly as possible - until the libraries were
so full of stuff that it was almost impossible to run anything BUT
Microsoft's software.  Of course, you ended up with a lot of "Dead
Code" too.

During the Antitrust lawsuit, the argument was that there were so many
applications that were only available for Windows, that nobody could
even thing of purchasing anything BUT Windows with their PCs.
Ironically, while the DOJ was suing Microsoft for Antitrust
violations, trying to get the company forced into divestature,
NetScape, Novell, and IBM, along with about 30 other companies were
starting to look very seriously at Linux.  They realized that it was
only a matter of time before Microsoft kicked them off the desktop
too, and that their best shot in the long-term was to start hedging
their bets, and finding ways to create applications that ran on BOTH
Linux and Windows.

Red Hat purchased a company called Cygnus who created a wrapper
library that let you run Linux applications on Windows.  The wrapper
was so thin and light that you could compile Linux source code using a
cygnus provided gcc compiler, and bring up almost any application that
would run on Linux - on Windows.  Of course, Cygnus followed the Linux
paradigm of providing a package manager and update tool that let you
install and update a couple thousand applications.  Performance isn't
bad either.  The down side - security is only as strong as Windows.
If you have executable files on a FAT file system - you're pretty
vulnerable.  Instead of getting the legendary Linux/Unix security
model - you're stuck with the Windows security model.  Not too bad if
you're running XP, but a big problem if you're running Windows 98 with
WiFi at StarBucks.

Sun had been touting Java as "Write once run anywhere" - but Microsoft
kept thwarting that by replacing Sun's "run-anywhere" classes and
libraries with their own NMI based implementations - supposedly to
improve speed and performance - but mostly to make sure that Java code
compiled on Windows would NOT run on Linux or Solaris or BSD or Mac.
Sun

Red Hat, Caldera, Mandrake, and SUSE even tried at various times to
encourage, cajole, beg, and otherwise enroll the major OEMs like Dell,
HP, IBM, Toshiba, E-Machines, and Gateway - into installing a "dual
boot" configuration.  Users could decided at boot time which system
they wanted, and boot into it.  The hope was that eventually users
would boot into Linux more often, and boot into Windows less often,
and then want to buy software and support from the Linux
distributors.  In 1984 and 1985, Windows 3.1 was getting very long in
the tooth, Windows NT 3.1 and 3.5 weren't doing well in the
marketplace at all, and PC sales were not doing very well.  To make
matters worse, Microsoft's repeated attempts to hype "Chicago" or
Windows 95 - was killing sales even further - since customers wanted
to wait until Windows 95 rather than purchase another machine with
Windows 3.1 on it.  Red Hat's "dual boot" approach, and a price tag of
$2 per machine, including the media, with no minumum commitment - was
looking very attractive.  Several companies like ALR, AST, Micron, and
some other companies that were struggling decided it was worth the
gamble.

IBM was also getting the bugs out of Warp 3.0 and Warp 4.0 and
realized that they had to put a bunch more software into the "standard
package".  They purchased Lotus and started including SmartSuite.
They also offered OEMs a boot manager that would allow customers to
boot multiple operating systems, including OS/2, Windows, and even
Linux.

Ironically, SCO was probably the first to start the whole "hyper-
bundle" distribution concept.  They didn't give it away.  Instead,
they had "groups" of software or bundles you could by to make your
UNIX experience better.  You could get the basic kernel and networking
for about $700, then for another $300 you could add NFS and RPC, for
another $300 you could add X11, and for another $300 you could add
OpenDesktop, which was the model upon which Windows 2000 and Office
2000 were based.  It took many years for Microsoft to reach the point
where they could achieve the same result with their heavier kernel,
libraries, and application frameworks.  Ironically, the key to the
performance breakthrough was that they unbundled the objects, and
group code by function - reducing the amount of "dead code" loaded
into memory.

> Why would that matter? =A0Nobody is saying all distros are bare bones.

But Microsoft and it's minions would like us to think that there
should be only ONE of each application, and only a minimal number of
applications - and everything else should require a purchase from
Microsoft.

Microsoft's stated goal is a PC on every desktop and every home -
running [only] Microsoft software.


Since Linux doesn't have the $4 billion for advertizing, placement
control over $40 billion in Co-op advertizing from OEMs, partners, and
software companies, and $8 billion to defend itself from it's own
criminal actions when it gets caught, and generally attracts a more
ethical type of person, Linux has to compete by ENCOURAGING
COMPETITION.

In those very early days of Soft Landing Systems Linux and Slackware
1.0 Linux, they just ported everything that was available in source
code form, with either a GNU or BSD license, and encouraged anyone who
wanted to contribute source code under similar terms to send in the
code so they could put it on the CDs.  Ironically, even many of those
early companies who contributed did very well, because they got the
interest of corporate customers who requested enhancements, ugrades,
plug-ins, and customizations.  Brewster Kahle of Thinking Machines and
his team left Thinking Machines with their blessings and went on to
provide hosting and search services for companies like Dow Jones and
McGraw-Hill and licensed a version to Verity, before selling
themselves to AOL for $10 million - all in about 3 years.

Linux has also gotten more pragmatic.  In the early days, purists like
Richard Stallman and the folks in the Debian crowd wouldn't even use
GIF or JPEG because of the proprietary license agreements.  Even
though GNU image manipulators and compression tools predated most of
those other standards, they just decided to avoid them altogether.

Other companies like Red Hat, Novell, and IBM have worked to help form
a "patent umbrella" to help protect all Linux users, by filing for
lots of patents and citing as much Open Source software as prior art
as possible.  Even if the application is rejected because it's not
sufficiently original - the application itself becomes part of the
permanent patent office archives - and none of the cited prior art can
be patented by anybody else, even if it was never patented.

So what is an operating system?  And what is an application?  It
really is getting harder and harder to tell.  It's even getting hard
to tell what is a computer?  Back in the 1980s, you turned on your PC,
you started up your editor or spreadsheet, and the computer on your
desktop did all the work.  You spent 90% of your time typing bytes
into a computer that stored those bytes into a hard drive, then spit
them out onto a printer.  And then you could back it up to a floppy.
Some of those early PCs didn't even have a hard drive.

Today, we get on a PC, be it Windows or Linux - it really doesn't
matter that much.  We fire up a web browser, an e-mail reader, and
some instant messaging software.  We use the Web 2.0 web browser that
goes out to some Linux server that asks some other Linux server to
search a text database that's spread across dozens or even thousands
of Linux servers.  The servers come back with their best results,
which get sent back to the Linux server which converts them from SGML
or XML into HTML as a list of results, which then gets passed to the
browser.  The browser then follows the instructions in the HTML and
AJAX Javascript, pulling down the animated display, laying out the
text, and putting up a picture or two.  We click one of the links -
which takes us to an IIS server connected to a Solaris server which
offers to lets us shop for what we want at substantial discounts.  We
enter some information about what we want, and the IIS server sends
the request as SOAP/XML to the Solaris/DB2 database, which scans
through about 320 drives controlled by Linux - and gives us the best
possible match at the best possible price - at this moment.  We click
order, and the request gets sent from the IIS server to the AIX server
which coordinates the order with the actual provider, confirms the
credit card information, and sends a message to an HP_UX machine
connected to a Mainframe that updates the status, confirms your order,
and assures regulatory compliance.

When you finally get your response back, about 700 milliseconds later,
you print it out by sending it to the embedded Linux controller that
interfaces to the printer - controlled by another Linux controller -
that actually generates the color image.  It looks just like the one
your Linux controlled HDTV display has been showing you for the last
few seconds.

And you merrily think you did it all on your WINDOWS Operating
system!!!

Never-mind that it works just as well from a Linux desktop - or a Mac.

If you REALLY wanted to do this with ONLY Windows, you could try and
find one of those old daisy-wheel or dot-matrix printers, you could
unplug your PC from everything, plug in an old fat CRT monitor -
probably EGA or VGA, and you could compose your document using Word -
with no support in the form of clip-art or other layouts and themes
that you would have had to have downloaded though *nix systems.

You can then print up your document on your old Epson dot-matrix
printer, and then fold it up, put it into an envelope, lick the flap,
and seal it shut.  You can write the address of the recipient, or
maybe burn a sheet of lables (since dot-matrix printers didn't like
printing on uneven surfaces), then you can put on a stamp, walk it
down to the post office - where they will scan it using a Linux
powered mail sorter, and route it using Linux and Unix based routing
software, using *nix based tracking.....

Oh - OK - you could WALK that envelope to the recipient - hopefully
not too far away - and leave it somewhere that they are likely to get
it.  Not many people have in-boxes anymore, but you might be able to
leave it on their chair, or keyboard, or tape it to their monitor.

Since you don't have e-mail, she will have to red-line her comments
using a real red pen, and try to tell you what fonts and such she
might prefer - because your Epson didn't do a very good job of
printing since it's really old and the ribbon is really worn.

Now, doesn't WINDOWS make everything so much more efficient?

Rick stated in post OpCdne_juK2gMWjWnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/20/10 2:40 PM:

> On Thu, 20 May 2010 14:33:05 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post TtOdnZTsHtz_NGjWnZ2dnUVZ_vSnnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 5/20/10 2:28 PM:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:19:37 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ht3vmh$eqf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>> <snip>  <snip>  <snip>  <snip>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> These semantic word games will (once again) spiral out of control.
>>> 
>>> All ready has :-)
>>> 
>>>> "Linux" and the various distros "are what they are."   While they all
>>>> stem from the same GNU/Linux code base... where you draw the line
>>>> between the 'same OS' and 'different OS' is going to differ.
>>>> Differences between Ubuntu and Mint are minor-to-negligible but
>>>> differences between Ubuntu and some version of Linux running in my DVD
>>>> are going to be significant enough where (perhaps not technically) -
>>>> for all practical purposes mind as well be a different OS.
>>> 
>>> Another question to consider is how much can be stripped from a
>>> distribution and still have a functions operating system?
>> 
>> Why would that matter?  Nobody is saying all distros are bare bones.
> 
> They are discussing what an operating system is and comparing operating
> systems with distributions. Try to keep up.

I have kept up... and you dodged the question.   Why in the context of the
discussion would it matter how much can be stripped from a distro and still
have a functioning OS?

You have no answer.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post TtOdnZHsHtwkNmjWnZ2dnUVZ_vQ6AAAA@supernews.com on
5/20/10 2:38 PM:

.... 
>>> So what part of the operating system is a word processor? Does the
>>> operating system need a graphic editor, email client or server to
>>> function properly? Where in an operating systems does a news client
>>> fit. What will break in the OS if the news client is removed?
>> 
>> Only you, Rick, would think in terms of things "breaking" if you remove
>> a news client from an OS.  OS X does not come with a news client, and
>> while I wish it did, nothing is "broken" about it because it does not.
> 
> No duh. 

At least you realize that you are the only one having such thoughts.

> Maybe that's because usenet client is not part of the OS.

Your definition is absurd: just because something can be removed without
breaking other parts of the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.
Really, your comment here shows deep ignorance.
 
>> Still, most people expect a modern desktop OS to include a pretty big
>> suite of programs. Do you know of any even moderately popular ones that
>> do not?
> 
> So, what "big suite of programs" is included in the retail versions of
> Windows 7? 

You are dodging my question... unless you are implying that Windows 7 does
not come with a "big suite of programs."  Is that what you are trying to
say, though in a very wishy-washy way?

In any case, it comes with at least two basic word processors, a calculator,
games, a paint program and more.  I do not have a full list for you handy...
but I am also not your research department.

> And most people don't know what an operating system is.

Do you think the people who make Linux-based OSs do?

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post TtOdnZfsHtwXNGjWnZ2dnUVZ_vQ6AAAA@supernews.com on
5/20/10 2:28 PM:

> On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:13:37 -0400, Moshe wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:39:31 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>> 
>>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> 
>>>>> So a distro is not an OS to TomB... until it is distributed and then it
>>>>> magically becomes an OS.  Plus more, to be fair to his view.
>>>>> 
>>>> I *never* said that a distro magically becomes an OS when distributed. This
>>>> is another one of your idiotic twists.
>>>> 
>>> Why are you snipping?
>>> 
>>> I know why.
>>> 
>>> You got twisted and mixed up again.
>>> 
>>> A Distro IS an OS. End of subject.
>>> 
>> I have TomB scored way down, along with (p)rick because of those very
>> reasons. They are both getting quite boring and tiresome with their semantic
>> game playing.
>> 
>> It's the old Linux is the kernel except when Linux is not the kernel.
> 
> -Linux- is the kernel.

Do you consistently use it with such meaning?


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

DFS stated in post ht4hci$a95$1@news.eternal-september.org on 5/20/10 4:41
PM:

> On 5/20/2010 5:22 PM, Rick wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:30:57 -0400, Tattoo Vampire wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Why are you playing his passive/aggressive game? If there are only 2
>>>> phone numbers on the page, and they are plainly labeled, he knows which
>>>> number. Anyone reading the thread will know this also.
>>> 
>>> Snit makes me laugh at times.
>>> 
>>> Why do you play his passive/aggressive game? :-D
>> 
>> I play much less now then in days past.
> 
> Now you just play your own dumbass game.  And you play it very well.

It has always been that way... but Rick blames me for his games.  It is just
one of the silly games he plays.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Verily I say unto thee, that High Plains Thumper spake thusly:
> Homer wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper spake thusly:
>> 
>>> There are less than 10 desktop PC OS's
>> 
>> Wanna bet?
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems
>> 
>> I think you'll find rather more than just 10 of those are current, 
>> desktop-oriented operating systems. There's at /least/ that amount 
>> just in the "hobby" section alone.
> 
> You're point?  Or have you turned troll and are you doing selective 
> snippages like Snit?

No hostility intended, it just frustrates me that so few people know or
care about anything beyond the mainstream offerings.

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| When all else fails, MOVE.L 4.W,A6 and JSR -726(A6)
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 02:33:04 up 50 days, 12:23,  2 users,  load average: 0.16, 0.07, 0.01

On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:56:49 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post TtOdnZHsHtwkNmjWnZ2dnUVZ_vQ6AAAA@supernews.com on
> 5/20/10 2:38 PM:
> 
> ...
>>>> So what part of the operating system is a word processor? Does the
>>>> operating system need a graphic editor, email client or server to
>>>> function properly? Where in an operating systems does a news client
>>>> fit. What will break in the OS if the news client is removed?
>>> 
>>> Only you, Rick, would think in terms of things "breaking" if you
>>> remove a news client from an OS.  OS X does not come with a news
>>> client, and while I wish it did, nothing is "broken" about it because
>>> it does not.
>> 
>> No duh.
> 
> At least you realize that you are the only one having such thoughts.
> 
>> Maybe that's because usenet client is not part of the OS.
> 
> Your definition is absurd: just because something can be removed without
> breaking other parts of the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.
> Really, your comment here shows deep ignorance.

You really do enjoy looking stupid, don't you?

>  
>>> Still, most people expect a modern desktop OS to include a pretty big
>>> suite of programs. Do you know of any even moderately popular ones
>>> that do not?
>> 
>> So, what "big suite of programs" is included in the retail versions of
>> Windows 7?
> 
> You are dodging my question... unless you are implying that Windows 7
> does not come with a "big suite of programs."  Is that what you are
> trying to say, though in a very wishy-washy way?

Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of programs."

> 
> In any case, it comes with at least two basic word processors, a
> calculator, games, a paint program and more.  I do not have a full list
> for you handy... but I am also not your research department.
> 
>> And most people don't know what an operating system is.
> 
> Do you think the people who make Linux-based OSs do?

I think that people that put together Linux based operating systems do 
know what operating systems are.

-- 
Rick

On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:49:06 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post OpCdne_juK2gMWjWnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 5/20/10 2:40 PM:
> 
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 14:33:05 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post TtOdnZTsHtz_NGjWnZ2dnUVZ_vSnnZ2d@supernews.com on
>>> 5/20/10 2:28 PM:
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 15:19:37 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ht3vmh$eqf$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>> TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>> <snip>  <snip>  <snip>  <snip>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> These semantic word games will (once again) spiral out of control.
>>>> 
>>>> All ready has :-)
>>>> 
>>>>> "Linux" and the various distros "are what they are."   While they
>>>>> all stem from the same GNU/Linux code base... where you draw the
>>>>> line between the 'same OS' and 'different OS' is going to differ.
>>>>> Differences between Ubuntu and Mint are minor-to-negligible but
>>>>> differences between Ubuntu and some version of Linux running in my
>>>>> DVD are going to be significant enough where (perhaps not
>>>>> technically) - for all practical purposes mind as well be a
>>>>> different OS.
>>>> 
>>>> Another question to consider is how much can be stripped from a
>>>> distribution and still have a functions operating system?
>>> 
>>> Why would that matter?  Nobody is saying all distros are bare bones.
>> 
>> They are discussing what an operating system is and comparing operating
>> systems with distributions. Try to keep up.
> 
> I have kept up... and you dodged the question.   Why in the context of
> the discussion would it matter how much can be stripped from a distro
> and still have a functioning OS?

Are you really stupid enough to think that everything included in a linux 
based distribution is part of the operating system? 

> 
> You have no answer.

.... and you never tire of being wrong.

-- 
Rick

On Fri, 21 May 2010 02:39:52 +0100, Homer wrote:


> No hostility intended, it just frustrates me that so few people know or
> care about anything beyond the mainstream offerings.

Average Joe doesn't give a hoot about desktop Linux.
It's been ignored for 15+ years and will continue to be ignored
until it can offer average Joe a better overall computing
experience than Windows does.

Being free doesn't seem to matter.

 

Snit wrote:

> Seems nobody is willing to say what number.

How about the one on the page that says "Office: XXX-YYY-ZZZZ"?

You're too much of a wimp to call me again, Snot. I'd give you the
ass-chewing your boss should have. Wait, I forgot, you're not employed.
-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Veni, Vidi, Velcro. (I came, I saw, I stuck around)

Tattoo Vampire stated in post 1ny20p28dnt7k$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/20/10 7:34 PM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Seems nobody is willing to say what number.
> 
> How about the one on the page that says "Office: XXX-YYY-ZZZZ"?

I have never called XXX-YYY-ZZZZ. Never, even if you "translate" that to
999-999-9999.

> You're too much of a wimp to call me again, Snot. I'd give you the
> ass-chewing your boss should have. Wait, I forgot, you're not employed.

Your whole BS about my calling you is another of your lies.  You are a
liar... and all you are doing is making up stories about me.

Oh well... nobody said you are not pathetic.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post OpCdnevjuK0admjWnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/20/10 7:10 PM:

....
>>>>> Another question to consider is how much can be stripped from a
>>>>> distribution and still have a functions operating system?
>>>> 
>>>> Why would that matter?  Nobody is saying all distros are bare bones.
>>> 
>>> They are discussing what an operating system is and comparing operating
>>> systems with distributions. Try to keep up.
>> 
>> I have kept up... and you dodged the question.   Why in the context of
>> the discussion would it matter how much can be stripped from a distro
>> and still have a functioning OS?
> 
> Are you really stupid enough to think that everything included in a linux
> based distribution is part of the operating system?
> 
>> 
>> You have no answer.
> 
> ... and you never tire of being wrong.

Sure: your answer is you will say what you believe when your herd tells you
what to believe.  Face it, you simply are going to run from this question,
too:

    Why in the context of the discussion would it matter how much
    can be stripped from a distro and still have a functioning OS?

You simply have no answer.  Maybe your herd will help you.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 5/20/2010 10:56 PM, Snit wrote:
> Tattoo Vampire stated in post 1ny20p28dnt7k$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
> 5/20/10 7:34 PM:
>
>> Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Seems nobody is willing to say what number.
>>
>> How about the one on the page that says "Office: XXX-YYY-ZZZZ"?
>
> I have never called XXX-YYY-ZZZZ. Never, even if you "translate" that to
> 999-999-9999.
>
>> You're too much of a wimp to call me again, Snot. I'd give you the
>> ass-chewing your boss should have. Wait, I forgot, you're not employed.
>
> Your whole BS about my calling you is another of your lies.  You are a
> liar... and all you are doing is making up stories about me.
>
> Oh well... nobody said you are not pathetic.

I certainly never said it.

Rick stated in post OpCdnejjuK29dmjWnZ2dnUVZ_ggAAAAA@supernews.com on
5/20/10 7:08 PM:

> On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:56:49 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post TtOdnZHsHtwkNmjWnZ2dnUVZ_vQ6AAAA@supernews.com on
>> 5/20/10 2:38 PM:
>> 
>> ...
>>>>> So what part of the operating system is a word processor? Does the
>>>>> operating system need a graphic editor, email client or server to
>>>>> function properly? Where in an operating systems does a news client
>>>>> fit. What will break in the OS if the news client is removed?
>>>> 
>>>> Only you, Rick, would think in terms of things "breaking" if you
>>>> remove a news client from an OS.  OS X does not come with a news
>>>> client, and while I wish it did, nothing is "broken" about it because
>>>> it does not.
>>> 
>>> No duh.
>> 
>> At least you realize that you are the only one having such thoughts.
>> 
>>> Maybe that's because usenet client is not part of the OS.
>> 
>> Your definition is absurd: just because something can be removed without
>> breaking other parts of the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.
>> Really, your comment here shows deep ignorance.
> 
> You really do enjoy looking stupid, don't you?

Your response is not even related to your absurd definition.  Again: just
because something can be removed without breaking other parts of the OS does
not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact that you claimed to think so
does show extreme ignorance on your part.  So be it.

>>>> Still, most people expect a modern desktop OS to include a pretty big
>>>> suite of programs. Do you know of any even moderately popular ones
>>>> that do not?
>>> 
>>> So, what "big suite of programs" is included in the retail versions of
>>> Windows 7?
>> 
>> You are dodging my question... unless you are implying that Windows 7
>> does not come with a "big suite of programs."  Is that what you are
>> trying to say, though in a very wishy-washy way?
> 
> Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of programs."

It comes without some programs that were installed by default in earlier
versions of Windows, but I would love to hear you reasoning behind this
claim of yours.  As if you have any reasoning without your herd telling you
what to believe.  But go for it - give your thoughts on the matter.

By the way, do not forget to include in your discussion: Gadgets, Paint,
WordPad, Notepad, Spades, Backgammon, Checkers, Windows Media Player,
Explorer, Windows Media Center, Calculator, PowerShell, XPS Viewer, Snipping
tool... And Windows XP!  Granted, not all of those are available in all Win
7 distros.

>> In any case, it comes with at least two basic word processors, a
>> calculator, games, a paint program and more.  I do not have a full list
>> for you handy... but I am also not your research department.
>> 
>>> And most people don't know what an operating system is.
>> 
>> Do you think the people who make Linux-based OSs do?
> 
> I think that people that put together Linux based operating systems do
> know what operating systems are.

So then it is safe to say you agree the following are all OSs:

<http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu>
    -----
    What is Ubuntu?
    Ubuntu is a community developed operating system ...
    -----
    
<http://pclinuxos.com/?page_id=2>
    -----
    What is PCLinuxOS
    PCLinuxOS is a free easy to use Linux-based Operating System
    ...
    -----
    
<http://fedoraproject.org/>
    -----
    Fedora is a Linux-based operating system ...
    -----
    
<http://www.opensuse.org/>
    -----
    openSUSE is a free and Linux-based operating system ...
    -----
    
<http://www.debian.org/>
    -----
    What is Debian?
    Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer.
    -----
    
<http://www.centos.org/>
    -----
    CentOS is an enterprise operating system.
    -----
    
<http://www2.mandriva.com/linux/what-is-mandriva-linux/>
    -----
    What is Mandriva Linux?
    Mandriva Linux is an operating system for your computer.
    -----
    
<http://www.slax.org/>
    -----
    Slax - your pocket operating system
    -----
    
<http://www.linuxmint.com/faq.php>
    -----
    What is Linux Mint?
    Linux Mint is a free Linux-based operating system ...
    -----



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Thu, 20 May 2010 20:09:37 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post OpCdnejjuK29dmjWnZ2dnUVZ_ggAAAAA@supernews.com on
> 5/20/10 7:08 PM:
> 
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:56:49 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post TtOdnZHsHtwkNmjWnZ2dnUVZ_vQ6AAAA@supernews.com on
>>> 5/20/10 2:38 PM:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>>>> So what part of the operating system is a word processor? Does the
>>>>>> operating system need a graphic editor, email client or server to
>>>>>> function properly? Where in an operating systems does a news client
>>>>>> fit. What will break in the OS if the news client is removed?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Only you, Rick, would think in terms of things "breaking" if you
>>>>> remove a news client from an OS.  OS X does not come with a news
>>>>> client, and while I wish it did, nothing is "broken" about it
>>>>> because it does not.
>>>> 
>>>> No duh.
>>> 
>>> At least you realize that you are the only one having such thoughts.
>>> 
>>>> Maybe that's because usenet client is not part of the OS.
>>> 
>>> Your definition is absurd: just because something can be removed
>>> without breaking other parts of the OS does not mean it is not a part
>>> of the OS. Really, your comment here shows deep ignorance.
>> 
>> You really do enjoy looking stupid, don't you?
> 
> Your response is not even related to your absurd definition.  Again:
> just because something can be removed without breaking other parts of
> the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact that you
> claimed to think so does show extreme ignorance on your part.  So be it.

You really do enjoy looking stupid, don't you?

> 
>>>>> Still, most people expect a modern desktop OS to include a pretty
>>>>> big suite of programs. Do you know of any even moderately popular
>>>>> ones that do not?
>>>> 
>>>> So, what "big suite of programs" is included in the retail versions
>>>> of Windows 7?
>>> 
>>> You are dodging my question... unless you are implying that Windows 7
>>> does not come with a "big suite of programs."  Is that what you are
>>> trying to say, though in a very wishy-washy way?
>> 
>> Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of programs."
> 
> It comes without some programs that were installed by default in earlier
> versions of Windows, but I would love to hear you reasoning behind this
> claim of yours.  As if you have any reasoning without your herd telling
> you what to believe.  But go for it - give your thoughts on the matter.
> 
> By the way, do not forget to include in your discussion: Gadgets, Paint,
> WordPad, Notepad, Spades, Backgammon, Checkers, Windows Media Player,
> Explorer, Windows Media Center, Calculator, PowerShell, XPS Viewer,
> Snipping tool... And Windows XP!  Granted, not all of those are
> available in all Win 7 distros.

Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of programs."

> 
>>> In any case, it comes with at least two basic word processors, a
>>> calculator, games, a paint program and more.  I do not have a full
>>> list for you handy... but I am also not your research department.
>>> 
>>>> And most people don't know what an operating system is.
>>> 
>>> Do you think the people who make Linux-based OSs do?
>> 
>> I think that people that put together Linux based operating systems do
>> know what operating systems are.
> 
> So then it is safe to say you agree the following are all OSs:

No, it isn't safe to say that.

> 
> <http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu>
>     -----
>     What is Ubuntu?
>     Ubuntu is a community developed operating system ... -----
>     
> <http://pclinuxos.com/?page_id=2>
>     -----
>     What is PCLinuxOS
>     PCLinuxOS is a free easy to use Linux-based Operating System ...
>     -----
>     
> <http://fedoraproject.org/>
>     -----
>     Fedora is a Linux-based operating system ... -----
>     
> <http://www.opensuse.org/>
>     -----
>     openSUSE is a free and Linux-based operating system ... -----
>     
> <http://www.debian.org/>
>     -----
>     What is Debian?
>     Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. -----
>     
> <http://www.centos.org/>
>     -----
>     CentOS is an enterprise operating system. -----
>     
> <http://www2.mandriva.com/linux/what-is-mandriva-linux/>
>     -----
>     What is Mandriva Linux?
>     Mandriva Linux is an operating system for your computer. -----
>     
> <http://www.slax.org/>
>     -----
>     Slax - your pocket operating system
>     -----
>     
> <http://www.linuxmint.com/faq.php>
>     -----
>     What is Linux Mint?
>     Linux Mint is a free Linux-based operating system ... -----


-- 
Rick

On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:57:30 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post OpCdnevjuK0admjWnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 5/20/10 7:10 PM:
> 
> ...
>>>>>> Another question to consider is how much can be stripped from a
>>>>>> distribution and still have a functions operating system?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why would that matter?  Nobody is saying all distros are bare bones.
>>>> 
>>>> They are discussing what an operating system is and comparing
>>>> operating systems with distributions. Try to keep up.
>>> 
>>> I have kept up... and you dodged the question.   Why in the context of
>>> the discussion would it matter how much can be stripped from a distro
>>> and still have a functioning OS?
>> 
>> Are you really stupid enough to think that everything included in a
>> linux based distribution is part of the operating system?
>> 
>> 
>>> You have no answer.
>> 
>> ... and you never tire of being wrong.
> 
> Sure: your answer is you will say what you believe when your herd

... no use continuing.


-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post OpCdneTjuK3JYWjWnZ2dnUVZ_ggAAAAA@supernews.com on
5/20/10 8:21 PM:

> On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:57:30 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post OpCdnevjuK0admjWnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 5/20/10 7:10 PM:
>> 
>> ...
>>>>>>> Another question to consider is how much can be stripped from a
>>>>>>> distribution and still have a functions operating system?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Why would that matter?  Nobody is saying all distros are bare bones.
>>>>> 
>>>>> They are discussing what an operating system is and comparing
>>>>> operating systems with distributions. Try to keep up.
>>>> 
>>>> I have kept up... and you dodged the question.   Why in the context of
>>>> the discussion would it matter how much can be stripped from a distro
>>>> and still have a functioning OS?
>>> 
>>> Are you really stupid enough to think that everything included in a
>>> linux based distribution is part of the operating system?
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> You have no answer.
>>> 
>>> ... and you never tire of being wrong.
>> 
>> Sure: your answer is you will say what you believe when your herd tells you
>> what to believe.  Face it, you simply are going to run from this question,
>> too:
>> 
>>     Why in the context of the discussion would it matter how much
>>     can be stripped from a distro and still have a functioning OS?
>> 
>> You simply have no answer.  Maybe your herd will help you.
> 
> .. no use continuing.

Do you realize you just proved me right?  Until your herd tells you what to
believe you will just run from the question.  You are such a good little
sheep.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post OpCdneXjuK2WYWjWnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/20/10 8:20 PM:

.... 
>> Your response is not even related to your absurd definition.  Again:
>> just because something can be removed without breaking other parts of
>> the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact that you
>> claimed to think so does show extreme ignorance on your part.  So be it.
> 
> You really do enjoy looking stupid, don't you?

Well, pretending you will respond before your herd gives you the go ahead
could make one look pretty "stupid", but only if the person believed you
would actually be something other than a sheep.  I know you will not.

.... 
>>> Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of programs."
>> 
>> It comes without some programs that were installed by default in earlier
>> versions of Windows, but I would love to hear you reasoning behind this
>> claim of yours.  As if you have any reasoning without your herd telling
>> you what to believe.  But go for it - give your thoughts on the matter.
>> 
>> By the way, do not forget to include in your discussion: Gadgets, Paint,
>> WordPad, Notepad, Spades, Backgammon, Checkers, Windows Media Player,
>> Explorer, Windows Media Center, Calculator, PowerShell, XPS Viewer,
>> Snipping tool... And Windows XP!  Granted, not all of those are
>> available in all Win 7 distros.
> 
> Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of programs."

LOL!  Great lack of support for your claim there, Rick.

Maybe your herd will help you with this one, too.

Face it: you are amazingly bad at supporting your claims.  Absolutely
amazingly horrid, really.
> 
>> 
>>>> In any case, it comes with at least two basic word processors, a
>>>> calculator, games, a paint program and more.  I do not have a full
>>>> list for you handy... but I am also not your research department.
>>>> 
>>>>> And most people don't know what an operating system is.
>>>> 
>>>> Do you think the people who make Linux-based OSs do?
>>> 
>>> I think that people that put together Linux based operating systems do
>>> know what operating systems are.
>> 
>> So then it is safe to say you agree the following are all OSs:
> 
> No, it isn't safe to say that.

Not until your herd gives you the go ahead... OK.

>> <http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu>
>>     -----
>>     What is Ubuntu?
>>     Ubuntu is a community developed operating system ... -----
>>     
>> <http://pclinuxos.com/?page_id=2>
>>     -----
>>     What is PCLinuxOS
>>     PCLinuxOS is a free easy to use Linux-based Operating System ...
>>     -----
>>     
>> <http://fedoraproject.org/>
>>     -----
>>     Fedora is a Linux-based operating system ... -----
>>     
>> <http://www.opensuse.org/>
>>     -----
>>     openSUSE is a free and Linux-based operating system ... -----
>>     
>> <http://www.debian.org/>
>>     -----
>>     What is Debian?
>>     Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. -----
>>     
>> <http://www.centos.org/>
>>     -----
>>     CentOS is an enterprise operating system. -----
>>     
>> <http://www2.mandriva.com/linux/what-is-mandriva-linux/>
>>     -----
>>     What is Mandriva Linux?
>>     Mandriva Linux is an operating system for your computer. -----
>>     
>> <http://www.slax.org/>
>>     -----
>>     Slax - your pocket operating system
>>     -----
>>     
>> <http://www.linuxmint.com/faq.php>
>>     -----
>>     What is Linux Mint?
>>     Linux Mint is a free Linux-based operating system ... -----
> 

Poor Rick... backed himself into a corner again.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-05-21, Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> claimed:

> You're too much of a wimp to call me again, Snot. I'd give you the
> ass-chewing your boss should have. Wait, I forgot, you're not employed.

Don't worry. His wife works enough for both of them. She has to because
of her lazy bum leech of a husband.

-- 
On a radiator repair shop: Best place to take a leak.
Aspire One, Linux Mint 8 (LXDE)
Friends don't let friends use Windows

On Thu, 20 May 2010 21:27:18 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post OpCdneXjuK2WYWjWnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 5/20/10 8:20 PM:
> 
> ...
>>> Your response is not even related to your absurd definition.  Again:
>>> just because something can be removed without breaking other parts of
>>> the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact that you
>>> claimed to think so does show extreme ignorance on your part.  So be
>>> it.
>> 
>> You really do enjoy looking stupid, don't you?
> 
> Well, pretending you will respond before your herd gives you the go
> ahead could make one look pretty "stupid", but only if the person
> believed you would actually be something other than a sheep.  I know you
> will not.

You really do enjoy looking stupid, don't you?

> 
> ...
>>>> Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of programs."
>>> 
>>> It comes without some programs that were installed by default in
>>> earlier versions of Windows, but I would love to hear you reasoning
>>> behind this claim of yours.  As if you have any reasoning without your
>>> herd telling you what to believe.  But go for it - give your thoughts
>>> on the matter.
>>> 
>>> By the way, do not forget to include in your discussion: Gadgets,
>>> Paint, WordPad, Notepad, Spades, Backgammon, Checkers, Windows Media
>>> Player, Explorer, Windows Media Center, Calculator, PowerShell, XPS
>>> Viewer, Snipping tool... And Windows XP!  Granted, not all of those
>>> are available in all Win 7 distros.
>> 
>> Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of programs."
> 
> LOL!  Great lack of support for your claim there, Rick.

Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of programs."

> 
> Maybe your herd will help you with this one, too.

You really do enjoy looking stupid, don't you?

> 
> Face it: you are amazingly bad at supporting your claims.  Absolutely
> amazingly horrid, really.
>> 
>> 
>>>>> In any case, it comes with at least two basic word processors, a
>>>>> calculator, games, a paint program and more.  I do not have a full
>>>>> list for you handy... but I am also not your research department.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> And most people don't know what an operating system is.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do you think the people who make Linux-based OSs do?
>>>> 
>>>> I think that people that put together Linux based operating systems
>>>> do know what operating systems are.
>>> 
>>> So then it is safe to say you agree the following are all OSs:
>> 
>> No, it isn't safe to say that.
> 
> Not until your herd gives you the go ahead... OK.

... no use continuing. Go learn about herd mentality, so you won't look 
like such a dumb ass.
-- 
Rick

Snit wrote:

> Your whole BS about my calling you is another of your lies.  You are a
> liar... and all you are doing is making up stories about me.

I have no reason to lie about it. You blocked your number but I don't forget
a voice. The first time I saw one of your videos and heard you speak I knew
exactly who it was who had called me on the phone.

If you weren't such a gutless wuss, you could have called and we could have
had a pleasant conversation. Instead you resorted to a one-sentence whine
and then hung up.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....This just in: Research causes cancer in rats!

Sinister Midget III wrote:

> Don't worry. His wife works enough for both of them. She has to because
> of her lazy bum leech of a husband.

I pity her.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....This just in: Research causes cancer in rats!

Snit wrote:

> Do you realize you just proved me right?  Until your herd tells you what to
> believe you will just run from the question.  You are such a good little
> sheep.

A jellyfish calling someone else a sheep. Amusing.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....This just in: Research causes cancer in rats!

Rick stated in post ycydnfUIcY4kwWvWnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/21/10 3:13 AM:

.... 
>> Well, pretending you will respond before your herd gives you the go
>> ahead could make one look pretty "stupid", but only if the person
>> believed you would actually be something other than a sheep.  I know you
>> will not.
> 
> You really do enjoy looking stupid, don't you?

.... 
>>> Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of programs."
>> 
>> LOL!  Great lack of support for your claim there, Rick.
> 
> Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of programs."
> 
>> 
>> Maybe your herd will help you with this one, too.
> 
> You really do enjoy looking stupid, don't you?
> 
>> 
>> Face it: you are amazingly bad at supporting your claims.  Absolutely
>> amazingly horrid, really.

.... 
>> Not until your herd gives you the go ahead... OK.
> 
> .. no use continuing. Go learn about herd mentality, so you won't look
> 
> like such a dumb ass.

Who do you think you are fooling?  Until your herd gives you marching orders
you will not answer questions.  You know you have no answers.  Again:

* Just because something can be removed without breaking other parts
  of the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact that
  you claimed to think so does show extreme ignorance on your part.

* You claim 'Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of
  programs."'  Do you have a shred of support for your claim?
  Keep in mind you have been given a partial list of programs
  that come with Windows 7.

Other than running away scared, spewing insults and accusations, do you have
a response.  As in: do you have an *intelligent* response.

I bet not.  But it is fun to help you make a complete fool of yourself.  It
would be better if you proved me wrong.  As if!

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Tattoo Vampire stated in post ew03ry6ts2s6.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/21/10 5:03 AM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Do you realize you just proved me right?  Until your herd tells you what to
>> believe you will just run from the question.  You are such a good little
>> sheep.
> 
> A jellyfish calling someone else a sheep. Amusing.

Huh?  Here you are just name calling.  I have pointed out, repeatedly, where
Rick will not give a response until the herd has spoken.  He is clearly
controlled by herd mentality - hence the reason for his strong focus on it.
He sees the world as he is.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Tattoo Vampire stated in post 1nsdmtfh5vbf4$.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on
5/21/10 5:01 AM:

> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Your whole BS about my calling you is another of your lies.  You are a
>> liar... and all you are doing is making up stories about me.
> 
> I have no reason to lie about it.

But yet you do.  This means you are a pathological liar... you lie for "no
reason."  


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Verily I say unto thee, that Tattoo Vampire spake thusly:
> Snit wrote:
> 
>> Your whole BS about my calling you is another of your lies.  You
>> are a liar... and all you are doing is making up stories about me.
> 
> I have no reason to lie about it. You blocked your number but I don't
> forget a voice. The first time I saw one of your videos and heard you
> speak I knew exactly who it was who had called me on the phone.
> 
> If you weren't such a gutless wuss, you could have called and we
> could have had a pleasant conversation. Instead you resorted to a
> one-sentence whine and then hung up.

Snit has a stalker's mentality, and probably mental health issues too,
by the sound of it. That is simply not normal behaviour, and should be
reported. Anonymous calling only prevents the receiver from seeing the
CLI number, but the telecoms co. will have the actual number logged on
their system anyway, as required by law (in most countries AFAIK).

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| When all else fails, MOVE.L 4.W,A6 and JSR -726(A6)
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.31.5
 14:36:43 up 51 days, 27 min,  2 users,  load average: 0.14, 0.06, 0.01

On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:31:23 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post ycydnfUIcY4kwWvWnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 5/21/10 3:13 AM:
> 
> ...
>>> Well, pretending you will respond before your herd gives you the go
>>> ahead could make one look pretty "stupid", but only if the person
>>> believed you would actually be something other than a sheep.  I know
>>> you will not.
>> 
>> You really do enjoy looking stupid, don't you?
> 
> ...
>>>> Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of programs."
>>> 
>>> LOL!  Great lack of support for your claim there, Rick.
>> 
>> Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of programs."
>> 
>> 
>>> Maybe your herd will help you with this one, too.
>> 
>> You really do enjoy looking stupid, don't you?
>> 
>> 
>>> Face it: you are amazingly bad at supporting your claims.  Absolutely
>>> amazingly horrid, really.
> 
> ...
>>> Not until your herd gives you the go ahead... OK.
>> 
>> .. no use continuing. Go learn about herd mentality, so you won't look
>> 
>> like such a dumb ass.
> 
> Who do you think you are fooling?  Until your herd 


Go learn about herd mentality, so you won't look like such a dumb ass.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post ArGdncLleZBWEmvWnZ2dnUVZ_voAAAAA@supernews.com on
5/21/10 6:51 AM:

>> Who do you think you are fooling?  Until your herd gives you marching orders
>> you will not answer questions.  You know you have no answers.  Again:
>> 
>> * Just because something can be removed without breaking other parts
>>   of the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact that
>>   you claimed to think so does show extreme ignorance on your part.
>> 
>> * You claim 'Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of
>>   programs."'  Do you have a shred of support for your claim?
>>   Keep in mind you have been given a partial list of programs
>>   that come with Windows 7.
>> 
>> Other than running away scared, spewing insults and accusations, do you have
>> a response.  As in: do you have an *intelligent* response.
>> 
>> I bet not.  But it is fun to help you make a complete fool of yourself.  It
>> would be better if you proved me wrong.  As if!

> Go learn about herd mentality, so you won't look like such a dumb ass.

You, Rick, are a living lesson in herd mentality.  As you keep proving.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:35:03 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Tattoo Vampire stated in post ew03ry6ts2s6.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer
> on 5/21/10 5:03 AM:
> 
>> Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Do you realize you just proved me right?  Until your herd tells you
>>> what to believe you will just run from the question.  You are such a
>>> good little sheep.
>> 
>> A jellyfish calling someone else a sheep. Amusing.
> 
> Huh?  Here you are just name calling.  I have pointed out, repeatedly,
> where Rick will not give a response until the herd has spoken.  He is
> clearly controlled by herd mentality - hence the reason for his strong
> focus on it. He sees the world as he is.

You clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about.



-- 
Rick

On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:03:01 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post ArGdncLleZBWEmvWnZ2dnUVZ_voAAAAA@supernews.com on
> 5/21/10 6:51 AM:
> 
>>> Who do you think you are fooling?  Until your herd gives you marching
>>> orders you will not answer questions.  You know you have no answers. 
>>> Again:
>>> 
>>> * Just because something can be removed without breaking other parts
>>>   of the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact that
>>>   you claimed to think so does show extreme ignorance on your part.
>>> 
>>> * You claim 'Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of
>>>   programs."'  Do you have a shred of support for your claim? Keep in
>>>   mind you have been given a partial list of programs that come with
>>>   Windows 7.
>>> 
>>> Other than running away scared, spewing insults and accusations, do
>>> you have a response.  As in: do you have an *intelligent* response.
>>> 
>>> I bet not.  But it is fun to help you make a complete fool of
>>> yourself.  It would be better if you proved me wrong.  As if!
> 
>> Go learn about herd mentality, so you won't look like such a dumb ass.
> 
> You, Rick, are a living lesson in herd mentality.  As you keep proving.

Fine, fine. Identify this herd you keep rambling on about.



-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post ArGdnf3leZDYDmvWnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/21/10 7:05 AM:

> On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:35:03 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post ew03ry6ts2s6.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer
>> on 5/21/10 5:03 AM:
>> 
>>> Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Do you realize you just proved me right?  Until your herd tells you
>>>> what to believe you will just run from the question.  You are such a
>>>> good little sheep.
>>> 
>>> A jellyfish calling someone else a sheep. Amusing.
>> 
>> Huh?  Here you are just name calling.  I have pointed out, repeatedly,
>> where Rick will not give a response until the herd has spoken.  He is
>> clearly controlled by herd mentality - hence the reason for his strong
>> focus on it. He sees the world as he is.
> 
> You clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about.
> 
> 

Sure I do... I am talking about how you refuse to even try to support your
claims or often even make a claim until your herd has spoken.  Here are some
examples:

* You will not say if you think different distros are the same OS or
  not.

* You will not say why you think Win 7 does not come with a suite
  of programs.

* You repeatedly run away, making up stories about how others want "the
  last word," simply because they are asking you to actually grow a back
  bone and answer questions.

* Just because something can be removed without breaking other parts
  of the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact that
  you claimed to think so does show extreme ignorance on your part.
  You refuse to comment on this, too.

On and on, Rick... to obfuscate your BS, you make accusations and spew
insults and eventually just run.  It is what you do. It is what you will do
in this thread.  It is your pattern, and it is completely predictable.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post WYydnfl026NaDmvWnZ2dnUVZ_joAAAAA@supernews.com on
5/21/10 7:08 AM:

> On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:03:01 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post ArGdncLleZBWEmvWnZ2dnUVZ_voAAAAA@supernews.com on
>> 5/21/10 6:51 AM:
>> 
>>>> Who do you think you are fooling?  Until your herd gives you marching
>>>> orders you will not answer questions.  You know you have no answers.
>>>> Again:
>>>> 
>>>> * Just because something can be removed without breaking other parts
>>>>   of the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact that
>>>>   you claimed to think so does show extreme ignorance on your part.
>>>> 
>>>> * You claim 'Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of
>>>>   programs."'  Do you have a shred of support for your claim? Keep in
>>>>   mind you have been given a partial list of programs that come with
>>>>   Windows 7.
>>>> 
>>>> Other than running away scared, spewing insults and accusations, do
>>>> you have a response.  As in: do you have an *intelligent* response.
>>>> 
>>>> I bet not.  But it is fun to help you make a complete fool of
>>>> yourself.  It would be better if you proved me wrong.  As if!
>> 
>>> Go learn about herd mentality, so you won't look like such a dumb ass.
>> 
>> You, Rick, are a living lesson in herd mentality.  As you keep proving.
> 
> Fine, fine. 

Glad you agree.

> Identify this herd you keep rambling on about.

Are you saying you have not understood the many times I have already named
who - specifically the COLA "advocates"?  Heck, I have even named some
names!

And now, Rick, how you have not answered the above question.  And you will
not - not until your herd has given you marching orders.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Sinister Midget III <fardblossom@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2010-05-21, Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> claimed:
>
>> You're too much of a wimp to call me again, Snot. I'd give you the
>> ass-chewing your boss should have. Wait, I forgot, you're not employed.
>
> Don't worry. His wife works enough for both of them. She has to because
> of her lazy bum leech of a husband.

Where is Creepy Chris Ahlstrom to condemn these attacks on Snit's
private life?

On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:33:03 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post ArGdnf3leZDYDmvWnZ2dnUVZ_vqdnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 5/21/10 7:05 AM:
> 
>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:35:03 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Tattoo Vampire stated in post
>>> ew03ry6ts2s6.dlg@sitting.at.this.computer on 5/21/10 5:03 AM:
>>> 
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Do you realize you just proved me right?  Until your herd tells you
>>>>> what to believe you will just run from the question.  You are such a
>>>>> good little sheep.
>>>> 
>>>> A jellyfish calling someone else a sheep. Amusing.
>>> 
>>> Huh?  Here you are just name calling.  I have pointed out, repeatedly,
>>> where Rick will not give a response until the herd has spoken.  He is
>>> clearly controlled by herd mentality - hence the reason for his strong
>>> focus on it. He sees the world as he is.
>> 
>> You clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> Sure I do... I am talking about how you refuse to even try to support
> your claims or often even make a claim until your herd has spoken.

You clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about

 > Here are some examples:
> 
> * You will not say if you think different distros are the same OS or
>   not.

I didn't make any claim about that one way or the other.

> 
> * You will not say why you think Win 7 does not come with a suite
>   of programs.

Because it doesn't.

> 
> * You repeatedly run away, making up stories about how others want "the
>   last word," simply because they are asking you to actually grow a back
>   bone and answer questions.

You're a liar.

> 
> * Just because something can be removed without breaking other parts
>   of the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact that you
>   claimed to think so does show extreme ignorance on your part. You
>   refuse to comment on this, too.

Is it now your position that word processors, spread sheets, graphic 
editors, mail and usenet clients, web browsers and media players all all 
part of the operating system in Windows and Linux based systems?

> 
> On and on, Rick... to obfuscate your BS, you make accusations and spew
> insults and eventually just run.  It is what you do. It is what you will
> do in this thread.  It is your pattern, and it is completely
> predictable.

You're a liar.

before you "assign" me to a herd, identify the herd.

-- 
Rick

On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:34:29 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post WYydnfl026NaDmvWnZ2dnUVZ_joAAAAA@supernews.com on
> 5/21/10 7:08 AM:
> 
>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:03:01 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post ArGdncLleZBWEmvWnZ2dnUVZ_voAAAAA@supernews.com on
>>> 5/21/10 6:51 AM:
>>> 
>>>>> Who do you think you are fooling?  Until your herd gives you
>>>>> marching orders you will not answer questions.  You know you have no
>>>>> answers. Again:
>>>>> 
>>>>> * Just because something can be removed without breaking other parts
>>>>>   of the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact that
>>>>>   you claimed to think so does show extreme ignorance on your part.
>>>>> 
>>>>> * You claim 'Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of
>>>>>   programs."'  Do you have a shred of support for your claim? Keep
>>>>>   in mind you have been given a partial list of programs that come
>>>>>   with Windows 7.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Other than running away scared, spewing insults and accusations, do
>>>>> you have a response.  As in: do you have an *intelligent* response.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I bet not.  But it is fun to help you make a complete fool of
>>>>> yourself.  It would be better if you proved me wrong.  As if!
>>> 
>>>> Go learn about herd mentality, so you won't look like such a dumb
>>>> ass.
>>> 
>>> You, Rick, are a living lesson in herd mentality.  As you keep
>>> proving.
>> 
>> Fine, fine.
> 
> Glad you agree.

I didn't agree, dumbass. And here we go again. You lying, saying I agree 
with you, when I plainly don't.

> 
>> Identify this herd you keep rambling on about.
> 
> Are you saying you have not understood the many times I have already
> named who - specifically the COLA "advocates"?  Heck, I have even named
> some names!
> 
> And now, Rick, how you have not answered the above question.  And you
> will not - not until your herd has given you marching orders.

Identify this herd you keep rambling on about. You won't you can't. It 
seems to me you're just pissed because I won't answer one of your 
questions... as if everyone is forced to answer just because you asked a 
question.


-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post iMidnSFrq4a5P2vWnZ2dnUVZ_vgAAAAA@supernews.com on
5/21/10 8:09 AM:

.... 
>> Here are some examples:
>> 
>> * You will not say if you think different distros are the same OS or
>>   not.
> 
> I didn't make any claim about that one way or the other.
> 
>> 
>> * You will not say why you think Win 7 does not come with a suite
>>   of programs.
> 
> Because it doesn't.

And your support is... where?  Remember, I have given you a fairly lengthy
yet incomplete list of programs that come with it.

In the end: you have no support.
 
>> * You repeatedly run away, making up stories about how others want "the
>>   last word," simply because they are asking you to actually grow a back
>>   bone and answer questions.
> 
> You're a liar.

And here you just call people names.  No defense for your cowardly actions.
 
>> * Just because something can be removed without breaking other parts
>>   of the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact that you
>>   claimed to think so does show extreme ignorance on your part. You
>>   refuse to comment on this, too.
> 
> Is it now your position that word processors, spread sheets, graphic
> editors, mail and usenet clients, web browsers and media players all all
> part of the operating system in Windows and Linux based systems?

And here you move the goal post and try to divert from your absurd claims.

>> On and on, Rick... to obfuscate your BS, you make accusations and spew
>> insults and eventually just run.  It is what you do. It is what you will
>> do in this thread.  It is your pattern, and it is completely
>> predictable.
> 
> You're a liar.

But you did exactly as I predicted you would.  You are very, very
predictable.  


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post iMidnSBrq4YuP2vWnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/21/10 8:11 AM:

> On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:34:29 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post WYydnfl026NaDmvWnZ2dnUVZ_joAAAAA@supernews.com on
>> 5/21/10 7:08 AM:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:03:01 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Rick stated in post ArGdncLleZBWEmvWnZ2dnUVZ_voAAAAA@supernews.com on
>>>> 5/21/10 6:51 AM:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Who do you think you are fooling?  Until your herd gives you
>>>>>> marching orders you will not answer questions.  You know you have no
>>>>>> answers. Again:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> * Just because something can be removed without breaking other parts
>>>>>>   of the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact that
>>>>>>   you claimed to think so does show extreme ignorance on your part.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> * You claim 'Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of
>>>>>>   programs."'  Do you have a shred of support for your claim? Keep
>>>>>>   in mind you have been given a partial list of programs that come
>>>>>>   with Windows 7.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Other than running away scared, spewing insults and accusations, do
>>>>>> you have a response.  As in: do you have an *intelligent* response.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I bet not.  But it is fun to help you make a complete fool of
>>>>>> yourself.  It would be better if you proved me wrong.  As if!
>>>> 
>>>>> Go learn about herd mentality, so you won't look like such a dumb
>>>>> ass.
>>>> 
>>>> You, Rick, are a living lesson in herd mentality.  As you keep
>>>> proving.
>>> 
>>> Fine, fine.
>> 
>> Glad you agree.
> 
> I didn't agree, dumbass.

Nice retcon.

And you proved me right.  Again.  You dodged my comments and questions.

You simply are not going to until your herd tells you which direction to go.

Then, ironically, you ask *me* to identify your herd.  Again. LOL!


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:37:11 +0100, Homer wrote:


> Snit has a stalker's mentality, and probably mental health issues too,
> by the sound of it. That is simply not normal behaviour, and should be
> reported.

Look whose talking.


Someone should throw a net over you [Homer] because you are one of
the biggest nuts in COLA.

BTW calling people at home or their place of employment is
unacceptable.
I agree with you in that respect.

 

On Fri, 21 May 2010 17:04:59 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Sinister Midget III <fardblossom@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 2010-05-21, Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> claimed:
>>
>>> You're too much of a wimp to call me again, Snot. I'd give you the
>>> ass-chewing your boss should have. Wait, I forgot, you're not employed.
>>
>> Don't worry. His wife works enough for both of them. She has to because
>> of her lazy bum leech of a husband.
> 
> Where is Creepy Chris Ahlstrom to condemn these attacks on Snit's
> private life?

He can't talk with his mouth full.
Liarmutt that is.

On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20100520211354.831@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/20/10 12:46
> PM:
> 
>>>>> A Distro IS an OS. End of subject.
>>>> 
>>>> I know that a GNU/Linux distro is often called an OS, but I say
>>>> it inaccurate to do so. Here's a very accurate assessment:
>>>> 
>>>> "Unix-like operating systems are built from a collection of
>>>> libraries, applications and developer tools, plus a kernel to
>>>> allocate resources and talk to the hardware ‹ Hurd, GNU's
>>>> kernel is actively developed, but is still some way from being
>>>> ready for daily use, so GNU is often used with the kernel Linux.
>>> 
>>> Notice how it talks about applications, developer tools, the
>>> kernel, GNU, etc.
>> 
>> You don't understand a bit of it.
>
> Please, TomB, give your views without trying to make yourself feel
> better about yourself by putting others down.

Hey, I learned from the master.

>> GNU provides the applications, developer tools and libraries
>> they're talking about. It's not GNU and those. GNU *is* those. The
>> only thing GNU lacks to provide a fully fledged operating system is
>> a (finished) kernel, which is why Torvald's Linux is used.
>> 
>>>> The combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating
>>>> system, now used by millions.
>>> 
>>> You have said this... but your own source includes applications,
>>> developer tools, etc.
>> 
>> Yup. In other words: GNU.
>
> Not all applications are GNU.  The text you quoted is not specific.

The text *is* about GNU. Of all the applications they mention, they
mean the GNU version.

>>>> Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There are
>>>> many variants or ³distributions² of GNU/Linux."
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.gnu.org
>>>> 
>>>> Perfectly in accordance with anything I said so far. Debian,
>>>> Ubuntu, PCLOS, Slackware, Mandriva... All distributions of the
>>>> *GNU/Linux operating system*.
>>> 
>>> But are the same OS or not?  This was the initial question.
>> 
>> And my answer still is that they are no OSes, but distributions of
>> the GNU/Linux OS.
>
> Based on your own source, an OS has "a collection of libraries,
> applications and developer tools, plus a kernel to allocate
> resources and talk to the hardware".

Indeed. A very good definition of 'OS'.

> So how can you say, for example, Ubuntu does not have those (and is
> thus not an OS)? I know you are not that ignorant.

You bet I am not.

> Maybe you mean it is an OS *and more*?  That would at least be a
> defendable position.

Like I made clear from the beginning. That surely took a long time to
sink in...

>>>> So no, distributors are not creating an operating system.
>>> 
>>> As in not creating all aspects of it, such as the kernel and GNU?
>> 
>> Those are the only aspects of it. All the rest (X.org, KDE, Gnome,
>> OpenOffice, Kino, you name it) are applications running on the OS
>> (in case GNU/Linux, but also FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, yes for some
>> even Microsoft Windows and OSX).
>
> And you think you need to make a point that distro managers are not
> *creating* all of that!  You are just being silly - making
> insinuations that are absurd.

What I said is that they are not creating an OS, but a distribution of
an OS (in casu GNU/Linux). The OS is called GNU/Linux; the
distribution is called Debian, Mandrake, SuSE, etc.

Calling a distribution an operating system is inaccurate.

Yes, GNU/Linux distributions are all built around the same OS.  No,
not all distributions are the same, and they certainly are not the
same /OS/, as the OS itself - as I have said before - is only a small
part of the entire distribution.

Even with other software (browsers, office suites, window managers,
video players) being common accross all desktop oriented distros, each
distro is still very different. They have different release policies
(eg. rolling versus versioned), different package management
(eg.binary vs. source), different implementation of run levels and
system initialisation (eg. classic init vs. Canonical's upstart),
specific wrapper scrips for certain functions/tasks (Debian's a2enmod
script springs to mind) and a whole slew of other distro specific
approaches to certain tasks.

>>> If so, well, *nobody* said they were.  You keep moving goal posts.
>> 
>> My goal posts are steady as hell.
>
> I never heard anyone describe hell as "steady", perhaps you are
> correct.  :)

That's actually funny.

> Either way, you have gone from "are distros OSs" to "do distro
> managers *create* OpenOffice".  That is a *huge* moving of goal
> posts!

But unfortunately that's another lie. I've never questioned the fact
that GNU/Linux distributors do not create the F/OSS they distribute
(in most cases that is, because the sometimes do create stuff that
ends up in other distros, such as Canonical's upstart or RedHat's
network-manager applet).

>>>> They are distributing the GNU/Linux operating system. And that's
>>>> why the only accurate term is distribution.
>>> 
>>> So according to you they are distributing the same OS.
>> 
>> Indeed they are.
>
> Yet you denied it before.  Why?

Not denied that even once.

>>> Which was the initial question...
>> 
>> No, it wasn't.
>
> Yes, it was.  Since before you entered the thread the question has
> been if the different distros are the same OS or not.  HPT claimed,
> incorrectly:
>
>     There are less than 10 desktop PC OS's...

Never read that post, but for what it's worth: I do not agree with it
(unless you'd say that all *nixes are one OS, which would be an absurd
statement).

> This has been shown to be wrong even if you count all Linux distros
> as one OS, but, in any case, I noted how the distros are generally
> called "Linux based OSs"... meaning they are different OSs.

I do not deny that they're often called OSes (even by the distributors
themselves). All I'm saying is that it's inaccurate say they are.
Technically they're distributions of the same OS.

> This lead to the question of if different distros are the same OS or
> not.  In your first response to me in this thread, you responded to
> my noting how Rick was (and is):
>
>     still waiting for your masters to tell you if Ubuntu and PCLOS
>     are different OSs or the same OS.
>
> Your response was to that they were "the same OS".
>
>     they are different distributions of the same OS.
>
> Excellent - you took a stand.  As I have said, it is a defendable
> one... but then in your next post you flip flopped:
>
>     That doesn't mean they *are* the same OS.

That's not a "flip flop" at all. If you think it is, you have a
problem.

> So the question of if they are or are not the same OS (with, say
> different things added) has been the question since before you even
> entered the thread.  

I understand the question, don't worry. You just don't understand the
answer (or do not want to understand it).

> What question did you think you were answering?
>
>>> but you have been dancing around the question.
>> 
>> No, I haven't.
>
> Right: you are just saying they are "the same OS"

Not at all. I have always said that they are distributions of the same
OS, which indeed doesn't mean that they *are* the same OS for the
simple reason that distributions != OS.

> but "That doesn't mean they *are* the same OS."  No dancing from you
> at all.  :)

You got that right!

>>>> Now, Snit agreed with me that distributors are not creating an
>>>> operating system (oddly enough he didn't disagree with you when
>>>> you said they do, but that's another story), so that's cool.
>>> 
>>> And that you made up.  OK, so you make things up.  Whatever.
>> 
>> Don't make up things at all. Here, directly copy/pasted from a few
>> posts back:
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>>>> Me: And yes, technically they are all wrong. These
>>>> companies/communities are not creating an operating system; they
>>>> are distributing one.
>>> 
>>> You (agreeing that distributors are not creating an operating
>>> system): They do not claim to be creating it... they are very
>>> clear they are using the Linux kernel, etc.
>> 
>> Hadron (disagreeing with you, and consequently me): Huh? The do
>> claim to create an distribute  a Linux BASED OS.
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> So which is it according to you? Are they creating on OS or not?
>> And if they are not, why call it an OS then? And if they are, why
>> aren't they claiming it (like you said above)?
>
> As I noted, you made up your claim.  I never said what you
> attributed to me.

Come on, get real. In the quoted bit above you agree that distributors
are not creating an OS:

"They do not claim to be creating it..."

So if they are not creating an OS, then what are they creating
according to you? An OS? Say what???

My answer is a distribution, and more specific a GNU/Linux
distribution.

> But, when you say "creating an OS" you are playing a game - do you
> mean creating, for example, the Linux kernel?  If so, then clearly
> not!  If you mean putting together an OS from pre-existing things
> and, often, their own work, then clearly so.

They're putting together a distribution, of which one of the
components is the GNU/Linux OS. Simple as that.

>>>> My question to Snit thus remains:
>>>> 
>>>> If distributors are not creating on operating system, why then
>>>> call it an operating system?
>>> 
>>> Why not?  Must you "create" the ham to create a ham sandwich?
>> 
>> No. Just like you don't have to create GNU/Linux to create a
>> GNU/Linux distribution.
>
> Nor has anyone suggested you must.

Indeed not. But just like you don't call the ham sandwich 'meat'
because that's one of the ingredient, you don't call a GNU/Linux
distribution 'OS' because that's one of the components.

>> Do you call a ham sandwich 'pig meat'? No? So why would you call a
>> GNU/Linux distribution an operating system?
>
> Funny how you snipped the better analogy, below (where your word
> games fail):

Actually the above analogy is pretty good. One of the best ones I've
recently seen.

The one below fails on multiple levels, so I didn't bother to comment
on it because it would only lead to more pointless sillyness.

>>> If you have a computer and then add components to it, and then
>>> distribute it to another (give away, sell, whatever) is it not
>>> right for me to say you have distributed a computer?  And if you
>>> and 100 other people are doing the same thing, are you not all
>>> distributing computers?  Now imagine you each have your own style
>>> - so you are distributing special TomBComputers and I am
>>> distributing SnitComputers.  Must we have created the computers
>>> from scratch to say we are distributing computers?  Of course not.
>>> And your computers can be very different from mine... we both are
>>> distributing different computers.
>
> What you are doing is just insisting your view of what makes an OS
> is the *only* reasonable one... even though *clearly* it is not only
> not the only one it is not the one that is generally used by those
> who make the distros.  As you have been shown.  Your "evidence" to
> support your view is just to say you are right and they are wrong as
> you flip-flop and move goal posts.

If that's your conclusion: fine by me. My opinion is my own, and I
stand by it.

-- 
BOFH excuse #250:

Program load too heavy for processor to lift.

On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
> TomB stated in post 20100520101323.619@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/20/10 4:35
> AM:
>
>> The Linux kernel and the GNU userland (which, combined, form the
>> GNU/Linux operating system) are only two of the many components
>> that make up a distribution. Why would you say that the entire
>> distribution *is* one of the components? It's the same as saying
>> that a cake is milk, or that a house is bricks.
>
> I have no idea why you would say the entire distribution is one of
> the components.  Nobody else is.

From my point of view, *you* are. I mean, you do agree that the
GNU/Linux combo is a vital part of most distributions, don't you? It
will be hard not to, that's for sure.

Now, since I (and many others with me) consider GNU/Linux an operating
system, that means that - from my point of view at least - an
operating system is a vital component of a distribution. Right?

Hence, if you are calling a distribution an operating system, you are
actually saying that the entire distribution is one of its components.

Just straight and honest logic.

-- 
BOFH excuse #292:

We ran out of dial tone and we're and waiting for the phone company to
deliver another bottle.

On 5/21/2010 11:11 AM, Rick wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:34:29 -0700, Snit wrote:

>>>> You, Rick, are a living lesson in herd mentality.  As you keep
>>>> proving.
>>>
>>> Fine, fine.
>>
>> Glad you agree.
>
> I didn't agree, dumbass. And here we go again. You lying, saying I agree
> with you, when I plainly don't.


You don't agree with Snit about herd mentality?  Then why have you spent 
years here on cola using it as an excuse for Linux crapware failure?

You're an idiot, (p)Rick.

DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> writes:

> On 5/21/2010 11:11 AM, Rick wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:34:29 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>>>> You, Rick, are a living lesson in herd mentality.  As you keep
>>>>> proving.
>>>>
>>>> Fine, fine.
>>>
>>> Glad you agree.
>>
>> I didn't agree, dumbass. And here we go again. You lying, saying I agree
>> with you, when I plainly don't.
>
> You don't agree with Snit about herd mentality?  Then why have you spent 
> years here on cola using it as an excuse for Linux crapware failure?
>
> You're an idiot, (p)Rick.

I have come to the conclusion that  ThRick is a troll. No one could be
so confused surely?

TomB stated in post 20100521163223.918@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/21/10 10:31
AM:

.... 
>>>>>> A Distro IS an OS. End of subject.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I know that a GNU/Linux distro is often called an OS, but I say
>>>>> it inaccurate to do so. Here's a very accurate assessment:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Unix-like operating systems are built from a collection of
>>>>> libraries, applications and developer tools, plus a kernel to
>>>>> allocate resources and talk to the hardware � Hurd, GNU's
>>>>> kernel is actively developed, but is still some way from being
>>>>> ready for daily use, so GNU is often used with the kernel Linux.
>>>> 
>>>> Notice how it talks about applications, developer tools, the
>>>> kernel, GNU, etc.
>>> 
>>> You don't understand a bit of it.
>> 
>> Please, TomB, give your views without trying to make yourself feel
>> better about yourself by putting others down.
> 
> Hey, I learned from the master.

Rick?  

>>> GNU provides the applications, developer tools and libraries
>>> they're talking about. It's not GNU and those. GNU *is* those. The
>>> only thing GNU lacks to provide a fully fledged operating system is
>>> a (finished) kernel, which is why Torvald's Linux is used.
>>> 
>>>>> The combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating
>>>>> system, now used by millions.
>>>> 
>>>> You have said this... but your own source includes applications,
>>>> developer tools, etc.
>>> 
>>> Yup. In other words: GNU.
>> 
>> Not all applications are GNU.  The text you quoted is not specific.
> 
> The text *is* about GNU. Of all the applications they mention, they
> mean the GNU version.

<http://www.gnu.org/>
    -----
    Unix-like operating systems are built from a collection
    of libraries, applications and developer tools, plus a
    kernel to allocate resources and talk to the hardware
    -----

But do not read it just here.  Click the link.  See how "applications" is a
link.  Good!  Now click it.  You get:

<http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/>
    -----
    3DLDF - 3D drawing package
    a2ps - Any to PostScript filter
    Abdabi - Service discovery system for DotGNU
    acct - GNU system accounting utilities
    ACM - Aerial combat simulation game
    ...
    -----

But, according to you, the applications referenced are not the ones they
have the word *linked* to.  Interesting.  I look forward to your attempt to
support that!

>>>>> Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There are
>>>>> many variants or ��distributions�� of GNU/Linux."
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.gnu.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perfectly in accordance with anything I said so far. Debian,
>>>>> Ubuntu, PCLOS, Slackware, Mandriva... All distributions of the
>>>>> *GNU/Linux operating system*.
>>>> 
>>>> But are the same OS or not?  This was the initial question.
>>> 
>>> And my answer still is that they are no OSes, but distributions of
>>> the GNU/Linux OS.
>> 
>> Based on your own source, an OS has "a collection of libraries,
>> applications and developer tools, plus a kernel to allocate
>> resources and talk to the hardware".
> 
> Indeed. A very good definition of 'OS'.

And here is the list of "applications" being referenced:

    <http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/>

>> So how can you say, for example, Ubuntu does not have those (and is
>> thus not an OS)? I know you are not that ignorant.
> 
> You bet I am not.
> 
>> Maybe you mean it is an OS *and more*?  That would at least be a
>> defendable position.
> 
> Like I made clear from the beginning. That surely took a long time to
> sink in...

I have quoted your silliness... you have both claimed they are not the "same
OS" and claimed they are the "same OS".  As I have noted (and proved with
quotes):

    -----
    Well, I can see both sides.  Old-school views of an OS were
    the kernel and a bit more (and TomB includes more). When
    people get an OS today, though, they expect it to come with
    lots more.  Distros almost always coem with the "lots
    more"... and I think most of us would agree that, say,
    OpenOffice is not a part of the OS itself, even though it
    comes with many distros.

    So it really is just semantics as to where to draw the line
    at the OS.  I consider each a big enough modification to be a
    different OS.  I do not have a specific exact level of
    difference here - some of this is just based on marketing, I
    admit.  No big deal.  In other words, different flavors of
    Ubuntu can be seen as the different flavors of the same OS,
    where Mint is seen as a different OS.

    TomB, I think, sees them all as the same OS *plus* more.  But
    maybe not - he speaks in double-talk where he denies they are
    the same OS, but then he also says they are.  I am waiting to
    see if he actually tries to clear this up or just goes round
    and round.  And blames me and others.
    -----

>>>>> So no, distributors are not creating an operating system.
>>>> 
>>>> As in not creating all aspects of it, such as the kernel and GNU?
>>> 
>>> Those are the only aspects of it. All the rest (X.org, KDE, Gnome,
>>> OpenOffice, Kino, you name it) are applications running on the OS
>>> (in case GNU/Linux, but also FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, yes for some
>>> even Microsoft Windows and OSX).
>> 
>> And you think you need to make a point that distro managers are not
>> *creating* all of that!  You are just being silly - making
>> insinuations that are absurd.
> 
> What I said is that they are not creating an OS, but a distribution of
> an OS (in casu GNU/Linux).

When you say "creating an OS" do you mean creating, for example, the Linux
kernel?  If so, then clearly the people making, say, Ubuntu are not doing
that!  If you mean putting together an OS from pre-existing things and,
often, their own work, then clearly do that.  Will you define what you mean?

> The OS is called GNU/Linux; the distribution is called Debian, Mandrake, SuSE,
> etc.

Except, of course, when it is not.  As I have shown you:

<http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu>
    -----
    What is Ubuntu?
    Ubuntu is a community developed operating system ...
    -----
    
<http://pclinuxos.com/?page_id=2>
    -----
    What is PCLinuxOS
    PCLinuxOS is a free easy to use Linux-based Operating System
    ...
    -----
    
<http://fedoraproject.org/>
    -----
    Fedora is a Linux-based operating system ...
    -----
    
<http://www.opensuse.org/>
    -----
    openSUSE is a free and Linux-based operating system ...
    -----
    
<http://www.debian.org/>
    -----
    What is Debian?
    Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer.
    -----
    
<http://www.centos.org/>
    -----
    CentOS is an enterprise operating system.
    -----
    
<http://www2.mandriva.com/linux/what-is-mandriva-linux/>
    -----
    What is Mandriva Linux?
    Mandriva Linux is an operating system for your computer.
    -----
    
<http://www.slax.org/>
    -----
    Slax - your pocket operating system
    -----
    
<http://www.linuxmint.com/faq.php>
    -----
    What is Linux Mint?
    Linux Mint is a free Linux-based operating system ...
    -----

> Calling a distribution an operating system is inaccurate.

I understand that is your view.  And, as I have said, it is even one that
can be supported.  It is not, however, the only reasonable view... but I
doubt you will accept that.

> Yes, GNU/Linux distributions are all built around the same OS.  No,
> not all distributions are the same, and they certainly are not the
> same /OS/, as the OS itself - as I have said before - is only a small
> part of the entire distribution.

So now you say they are not all the same OS... as in the OS itself... as in
GNU/Linux.  Why can't you at least try to be consistent from one sentence to
the next?

> Even with other software (browsers, office suites, window managers,
> video players) being common accross all desktop oriented distros, each
> distro is still very different. They have different release policies
> (eg. rolling versus versioned), different package management
> (eg.binary vs. source), different implementation of run levels and
> system initialisation (eg. classic init vs. Canonical's upstart),
> specific wrapper scrips for certain functions/tasks (Debian's a2enmod
> script springs to mind) and a whole slew of other distro specific
> approaches to certain tasks.

You posted that as filler?  Has anyone suggested otherwise?

>>>> If so, well, *nobody* said they were.  You keep moving goal posts.
>>> 
>>> My goal posts are steady as hell.
>> 
>> I never heard anyone describe hell as "steady", perhaps you are
>> correct.  :)
> 
> That's actually funny.

Thanks.  :)

>> Either way, you have gone from "are distros OSs" to "do distro
>> managers *create* OpenOffice".  That is a *huge* moving of goal
>> posts!
> 
> But unfortunately that's another lie.

Please stop making absurd accusations.

> I've never questioned the fact that GNU/Linux distributors do not create the
> F/OSS they distribute (in most cases that is, because the sometimes do create
> stuff that ends up in other distros, such as Canonical's upstart or RedHat's
> network-manager applet).

Again: filler?  You jump topics a lot.

>>>>> They are distributing the GNU/Linux operating system. And that's
>>>>> why the only accurate term is distribution.
>>>> 
>>>> So according to you they are distributing the same OS.
>>> 
>>> Indeed they are.
>> 
>> Yet you denied it before.  Why?
> 
> Not denied that even once.

TomB, about Linux distros:
    -----
    That doesn't mean they *are* the same OS.
    -----
    Hence distributions are not the same OS ...
    -----

You keep going back and forth.  Are the different distributions the same OS
(with each adding different stuff) or are they *not* the same OS?

You have said both.

>>>> Which was the initial question...
>>> 
>>> No, it wasn't.
>> 
>> Yes, it was.  Since before you entered the thread the question has
>> been if the different distros are the same OS or not.  HPT claimed,
>> incorrectly:
>> 
>>     There are less than 10 desktop PC OS's...
> 
> Never read that post, but for what it's worth: I do not agree with it
> (unless you'd say that all *nixes are one OS, which would be an absurd
> statement).

OK.

>> This has been shown to be wrong even if you count all Linux distros
>> as one OS, but, in any case, I noted how the distros are generally
>> called "Linux based OSs"... meaning they are different OSs.
> 
> I do not deny that they're often called OSes (even by the distributors
> themselves). All I'm saying is that it's inaccurate say they are.
> Technically they're distributions of the same OS.

So you say not... but before you said:
    
    -----
    Hence distributions are not the same OS ...
    -----

How can the be the same OS and not the same OS?  Do you not see where your
claims are contradictory?

>> This lead to the question of if different distros are the same OS or
>> not.  In your first response to me in this thread, you responded to
>> my noting how Rick was (and is):
>> 
>>     still waiting for your masters to tell you if Ubuntu and PCLOS
>>     are different OSs or the same OS.
>> 
>> Your response was to that they were "the same OS".
>> 
>>     they are different distributions of the same OS.
>> 
>> Excellent - you took a stand.  As I have said, it is a defendable
>> one... but then in your next post you flip flopped:
>> 
>>     That doesn't mean they *are* the same OS.
> 
> That's not a "flip flop" at all. If you think it is, you have a
> problem.

LOL!  Yeah, X both is and is not Y, according to you, and that is not a flip
flop.  

>> So the question of if they are or are not the same OS (with, say
>> different things added) has been the question since before you even
>> entered the thread.
> 
> I understand the question, don't worry. You just don't understand the
> answer (or do not want to understand it).

What question do you think you are answering?  You will not even say!

>> What question did you think you were answering?
>> 
>>>> but you have been dancing around the question.
>>> 
>>> No, I haven't.
>> 
>> Right: you are just saying they are "the same OS"
> 
> Not at all. I have always said that they are distributions of the same
> OS

LOL!  Not at all... except you are.  Huh?

> , which indeed doesn't mean that they *are* the same OS for the
> simple reason that distributions != OS.

So people who download and install Ubuntu are not downloading and installing
an OS.  Um.  OK.  Seems to work as one very well.

>> but "That doesn't mean they *are* the same OS."  No dancing from you
>> at all.  :)
> 
> You got that right!
> 
>>>>> Now, Snit agreed with me that distributors are not creating an
>>>>> operating system (oddly enough he didn't disagree with you when
>>>>> you said they do, but that's another story), so that's cool.
>>>> 
>>>> And that you made up.  OK, so you make things up.  Whatever.
>>> 
>>> Don't make up things at all. Here, directly copy/pasted from a few
>>> posts back:
>>> 
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>>>> Me: And yes, technically they are all wrong. These
>>>>> companies/communities are not creating an operating system; they
>>>>> are distributing one.
>>>> 
>>>> You (agreeing that distributors are not creating an operating
>>>> system): They do not claim to be creating it... they are very
>>>> clear they are using the Linux kernel, etc.
>>> 
>>> Hadron (disagreeing with you, and consequently me): Huh? The do
>>> claim to create an distribute  a Linux BASED OS.
>>> 
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> So which is it according to you? Are they creating on OS or not?
>>> And if they are not, why call it an OS then? And if they are, why
>>> aren't they claiming it (like you said above)?
>> 
>> As I noted, you made up your claim.  I never said what you
>> attributed to me.
> 
> Come on, get real. In the quoted bit above you agree that distributors
> are not creating an OS:
> 
> "They do not claim to be creating it..."

They do not claim to have created the Linux kernel.  They do not claim to
have written OpenOffice.

If you think otherwise then show it!

> So if they are not creating an OS , then what are they creating according to
> you? An OS? Say what???

Huh?  I never said they are not creating an OS.  You made that up.  Remember
this... you ran from it in the past:

    -----
    If you have a computer and then add components to it, and
    then distribute it to another (give away, sell, whatever) is
    it not right for me to say you have distributed a computer?
    And if you and 100 other people are doing the same thing, are
    you not all distributing computers?  Now imagine you each
    have your own style - so you are distributing special
    TomBComputers and I am distributing SnitComputers.  Must we
    have created the computers from scratch to say we are
    distributing computers?  Of course not.  And your computers
    can be very different from mine... we both are distributing
    different computers.
    -----

> My answer is a distribution, and more specific a GNU/Linux
> distribution.

Which both is and is not the same OS... or so you say.

>> But, when you say "creating an OS" you are playing a game - do you
>> mean creating, for example, the Linux kernel?  If so, then clearly
>> not!  If you mean putting together an OS from pre-existing things
>> and, often, their own work, then clearly so.
> 
> They're putting together a distribution, of which one of the
> components is the GNU/Linux OS. Simple as that.

Nice dodge.  When you say "creating an OS", do you mean:

A) Creating the Linux kernel and Gnu (and maybe a little more)
B) Putting together an OS from pre-existing things and, sometimes,
   their own work

I am open to a C.  No desire to push a false dichotomy... but please
actually answer the question!

>>>>> My question to Snit thus remains:
>>>>> 
>>>>> If distributors are not creating on operating system, why then
>>>>> call it an operating system?
>>>> 
>>>> Why not?  Must you "create" the ham to create a ham sandwich?
>>> 
>>> No. Just like you don't have to create GNU/Linux to create a
>>> GNU/Linux distribution.
>> 
>> Nor has anyone suggested you must.
> 
> Indeed not. But just like you don't call the ham sandwich 'meat'
> because that's one of the ingredient, you don't call a GNU/Linux
> distribution 'OS' because that's one of the components.

So what do you think is being referenced in the following quotes?

<http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu>
    -----
    What is Ubuntu?
    Ubuntu is a community developed operating system ...
    -----
    
<http://pclinuxos.com/?page_id=2>
    -----
    What is PCLinuxOS
    PCLinuxOS is a free easy to use Linux-based Operating System
    ...
    -----
    
<http://fedoraproject.org/>
    -----
    Fedora is a Linux-based operating system ...
    -----
    
<http://www.opensuse.org/>
    -----
    openSUSE is a free and Linux-based operating system ...
    -----
    
<http://www.debian.org/>
    -----
    What is Debian?
    Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer.
    -----
    
<http://www.centos.org/>
    -----
    CentOS is an enterprise operating system.
    -----
    
<http://www2.mandriva.com/linux/what-is-mandriva-linux/>
    -----
    What is Mandriva Linux?
    Mandriva Linux is an operating system for your computer.
    -----
    
<http://www.slax.org/>
    -----
    Slax - your pocket operating system
    -----
    
<http://www.linuxmint.com/faq.php>
    -----
    What is Linux Mint?
    Linux Mint is a free Linux-based operating system ...
    -----

>>> Do you call a ham sandwich 'pig meat'? No? So why would you call a
>>> GNU/Linux distribution an operating system?
>> 
>> Funny how you snipped the better analogy, below (where your word
>> games fail):
> 
> Actually the above analogy is pretty good. One of the best ones I've
> recently seen.
> 
> The one below fails on multiple levels, so I didn't bother to comment
> on it because it would only lead to more pointless sillyness.
> 
>>>> If you have a computer and then add components to it, and then
>>>> distribute it to another (give away, sell, whatever) is it not
>>>> right for me to say you have distributed a computer?  And if you
>>>> and 100 other people are doing the same thing, are you not all
>>>> distributing computers?  Now imagine you each have your own style
>>>> - so you are distributing special TomBComputers and I am
>>>> distributing SnitComputers.  Must we have created the computers
>>>> from scratch to say we are distributing computers?  Of course not.
>>>> And your computers can be very different from mine... we both are
>>>> distributing different computers.
>> 
>> What you are doing is just insisting your view of what makes an OS
>> is the *only* reasonable one... even though *clearly* it is not only
>> not the only one it is not the one that is generally used by those
>> who make the distros.  As you have been shown.  Your "evidence" to
>> support your view is just to say you are right and they are wrong as
>> you flip-flop and move goal posts.
> 
> If that's your conclusion: fine by me. My opinion is my own, and I
> stand by it.

Have your opinion... I have even noted it is *a* reasonable one (assuming
you mean what I have guessed you mean, not what you have actually said)...
but do you see where your opinion is not the only one (and do you see where
you have worded it horribly)?

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 2010-05-21, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> GNU provides the applications, developer tools and libraries
>>>> they're talking about. It's not GNU and those. GNU *is* those.
>>>> The only thing GNU lacks to provide a fully fledged operating
>>>> system is a (finished) kernel, which is why Torvald's Linux is
>>>> used.
>>>> 
>>>>>> The combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating
>>>>>> system, now used by millions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You have said this... but your own source includes applications,
>>>>> developer tools, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> Yup. In other words: GNU.
>>> 
>>> Not all applications are GNU.  The text you quoted is not
>>> specific.
>> 
>> The text *is* about GNU. Of all the applications they mention, they
>> mean the GNU version.
>
><http://www.gnu.org/> ----- Unix-like operating systems are built
>from a collection of libraries, applications and developer tools,
>plus a kernel to allocate resources and talk to the hardware -----
>
> But do not read it just here.  Click the link.  See how
> "applications" is a link.  Good!  Now click it.  You get:
>
><http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/> ----- 3DLDF - 3D drawing package a2ps
>- Any to PostScript filter Abdabi - Service discovery system for
>DotGNU acct - GNU system accounting utilities ACM - Aerial combat
>simulation game ...  -----
>
> But, according to you, the applications referenced are not the ones
> they have the word *linked* to.  Interesting.  I look forward to
> your attempt to support that!

I fail to see your point. Besides the GNU operating system, GNU also
releases regular software that isn't part of the OS. Just like eg.
Microsoft does. I never denied that. Why do you think I did?

>>>>>> Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There
>>>>>> are many variants or ³distributions² of GNU/Linux."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.gnu.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Perfectly in accordance with anything I said so far. Debian,
>>>>>> Ubuntu, PCLOS, Slackware, Mandriva... All distributions of the
>>>>>> *GNU/Linux operating system*.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But are the same OS or not?  This was the initial question.
>>>> 
>>>> And my answer still is that they are no OSes, but distributions
>>>> of the GNU/Linux OS.
>>> 
>>> Based on your own source, an OS has "a collection of libraries,
>>> applications and developer tools, plus a kernel to allocate
>>> resources and talk to the hardware".
>> 
>> Indeed. A very good definition of 'OS'.
>
> And here is the list of "applications" being referenced:
>
>     <http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/>

Yup. The applications integral to the OS and other, additional
applications. Sure.

>>>>>> So no, distributors are not creating an operating system.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As in not creating all aspects of it, such as the kernel and
>>>>> GNU?
>>>> 
>>>> Those are the only aspects of it. All the rest (X.org, KDE,
>>>> Gnome, OpenOffice, Kino, you name it) are applications running on
>>>> the OS (in case GNU/Linux, but also FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, yes
>>>> for some even Microsoft Windows and OSX).
>>> 
>>> And you think you need to make a point that distro managers are
>>> not *creating* all of that!  You are just being silly - making
>>> insinuations that are absurd.
>> 
>> What I said is that they are not creating an OS, but a distribution
>> of an OS (in casu GNU/Linux).
>
> When you say "creating an OS" do you mean creating, for example, the
> Linux kernel?  If so, then clearly the people making, say, Ubuntu
> are not doing that!  If you mean putting together an OS from
> pre-existing things and, often, their own work, then clearly do
> that.  Will you define what you mean?
>
>> The OS is called GNU/Linux; the distribution is called Debian,
>> Mandrake, SuSE, etc.
>
> Except, of course, when it is not.  As I have shown you:

<snip reposting of distribution websites>

No matter how many people call a distro an operating system, I still
think that:

>> Calling a distribution an operating system is inaccurate.
>
> I understand that is your view.  And, as I have said, it is even one
> that can be supported.  It is not, however, the only reasonable
> view... but I doubt you will accept that.

I have no problem at all in accepting that. If you think that an
operating system should have more than the basic stuff provided by the
GNU/Linux combo, feel free to call a distro an operating system.

But to me it's still inaccurate, yes even wrong.

>> Yes, GNU/Linux distributions are all built around the same OS.  No,
>> not all distributions are the same, and they certainly are not the
>> same /OS/, as the OS itself - as I have said before - is only a
>> small part of the entire distribution.
>
> So now you say they are not all the same OS... as in the OS
> itself... as in GNU/Linux.  Why can't you at least try to be
> consistent from one sentence to the next?

I am consistent as hell. You *think* that I am not, because you won't
accept that I don't consider a distro an OS.

>> Even with other software (browsers, office suites, window managers,
>> video players) being common accross all desktop oriented distros,
>> each distro is still very different. They have different release
>> policies (eg. rolling versus versioned), different package
>> management (eg.binary vs. source), different implementation of run
>> levels and system initialisation (eg. classic init vs. Canonical's
>> upstart), specific wrapper scrips for certain functions/tasks
>> (Debian's a2enmod script springs to mind) and a whole slew of other
>> distro specific approaches to certain tasks.
>
> You posted that as filler?  Has anyone suggested otherwise?

In an earlier thread you were whining because I didn't want to explain
the relevant differences between distributions (the one where you were
too lazy to look them up yourself). So here you have some.  Consider
it a bonus.

You're welcome by the way.

What? You knew this already? So you were just trolling in the other
thread then?

>>>>> If so, well, *nobody* said they were.  You keep moving goal
>>>>> posts.
>>>> 
>>>> My goal posts are steady as hell.
>>> 
>>> I never heard anyone describe hell as "steady", perhaps you are
>>> correct.  :)
>> 
>> That's actually funny.
>
> Thanks.  :)

You're welcome.

>>> Either way, you have gone from "are distros OSs" to "do distro
>>> managers *create* OpenOffice".  That is a *huge* moving of goal
>>> posts!
>> 
>> But unfortunately that's another lie.
>
> Please stop making absurd accusations.

I am not. You are. I never said anything about distributors creating
OpenOffice or not.

>> I've never questioned the fact that GNU/Linux distributors do not
>> create the F/OSS they distribute (in most cases that is, because
>> the sometimes do create stuff that ends up in other distros, such
>> as Canonical's upstart or RedHat's network-manager applet).
>
> Again: filler?  You jump topics a lot.

Just giving you a little information along the side.

>>>>>> They are distributing the GNU/Linux operating system. And
>>>>>> that's why the only accurate term is distribution.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So according to you they are distributing the same OS.
>>>> 
>>>> Indeed they are.
>>> 
>>> Yet you denied it before.  Why?
>> 
>> Not denied that even once.
>
> TomB, about Linux distros:
>    -----
>    That doesn't mean they *are* the same OS.
>    -----
>    Hence distributions are not the same OS ...
>    -----

In both snippets I say that distributions are not the same OS. Where's
the contradiction?

(Remember: I do not consider a distro an OS).

> You keep going back and forth.  Are the different distributions the
> same OS (with each adding different stuff) or are they *not* the
> same OS?
>
> You have said both.

No, I haven't. You can repeat that lie as many times as you want; it
won't become the truth all of a sudden.

>>>>> Which was the initial question...
>>>> 
>>>> No, it wasn't.
>>> 
>>> Yes, it was.  Since before you entered the thread the question has
>>> been if the different distros are the same OS or not.  HPT
>>> claimed, incorrectly:
>>> 
>>>     There are less than 10 desktop PC OS's...
>> 
>> Never read that post, but for what it's worth: I do not agree with
>> it (unless you'd say that all *nixes are one OS, which would be an
>> absurd statement).
>
> OK.
>
>>> This has been shown to be wrong even if you count all Linux
>>> distros as one OS, but, in any case, I noted how the distros are
>>> generally called "Linux based OSs"... meaning they are different
>>> OSs.
>> 
>> I do not deny that they're often called OSes (even by the
>> distributors themselves). All I'm saying is that it's inaccurate
>> say they are.  Technically they're distributions of the same OS.
>
> So you say not... but before you said:
>     
>     -----
>     Hence distributions are not the same OS ...
>     -----
>
> How can the be the same OS and not the same OS?  Do you not see
> where your claims are contradictory?

My claims are not contradictory. You *think* they are, because you are
unable or unwilling to accept that I don't consider distributions to
be operating systems.

Do you understand now?

>>> As I noted, you made up your claim.  I never said what you
>>> attributed to me.
>> 
>> Come on, get real. In the quoted bit above you agree that
>> distributors are not creating an OS:
>> 
>> "They do not claim to be creating it..."
>
> They do not claim to have created the Linux kernel.

You replied "They do not claim to be creating it" to me saying "These
companies/communities are not creating an operating system; they are
distributing one", so the 'it' clearly refers to 'operating system',
not 'the Linux kernel'.

Or do you thing that the Linux kernel is an operating system?

>> My answer is a distribution, and more specific a GNU/Linux
>> distribution.
>
> Which both is and is not the same OS... or so you say.

Again that lie. It's getting tiresome...

>>> But, when you say "creating an OS" you are playing a game - do you
>>> mean creating, for example, the Linux kernel?  If so, then clearly
>>> not!  If you mean putting together an OS from pre-existing things
>>> and, often, their own work, then clearly so.
>> 
>> They're putting together a distribution, of which one of the
>> components is the GNU/Linux OS. Simple as that.
>
> Nice dodge.  When you say "creating an OS", do you mean:
>
> A) Creating the Linux kernel and Gnu (and maybe a little more) B)
> Putting together an OS from pre-existing things and, sometimes,
> their own work
>
> I am open to a C.  No desire to push a false dichotomy... but please
> actually answer the question!

I obviously mean 'A' (without the little more).  'B' is creating a
distribution.

-- 
BOFH excuse #348:

We're on Token Ring, and it looks like the token got loose.

TomB stated in post 20100521205636.937@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/21/10 12:43
PM:

> On 2010-05-21, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>>> GNU provides the applications, developer tools and libraries
>>>>> they're talking about. It's not GNU and those. GNU *is* those.
>>>>> The only thing GNU lacks to provide a fully fledged operating
>>>>> system is a (finished) kernel, which is why Torvald's Linux is
>>>>> used.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating
>>>>>>> system, now used by millions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You have said this... but your own source includes applications,
>>>>>> developer tools, etc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yup. In other words: GNU.
>>>> 
>>>> Not all applications are GNU.  The text you quoted is not
>>>> specific.
>>> 
>>> The text *is* about GNU. Of all the applications they mention, they
>>> mean the GNU version.
>> 
>> <http://www.gnu.org/> ----- Unix-like operating systems are built
>> from a collection of libraries, applications and developer tools,
>> plus a kernel to allocate resources and talk to the hardware -----
>> 
>> But do not read it just here.  Click the link.  See how
>> "applications" is a link.  Good!  Now click it.  You get:
>> 
>> <http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/> ----- 3DLDF - 3D drawing package a2ps
>> - Any to PostScript filter Abdabi - Service discovery system for
>> DotGNU acct - GNU system accounting utilities ACM - Aerial combat
>> simulation game ...  -----
>> 
>> But, according to you, the applications referenced are not the ones
>> they have the word *linked* to.  Interesting.  I look forward to
>> your attempt to support that!
> 
> I fail to see your point. Besides the GNU operating system, GNU also
> releases regular software that isn't part of the OS. Just like eg.
> Microsoft does. I never denied that. Why do you think I did?

Your comments about how those applications are not the ones being
referenced... that was a pretty big hint you did not see those as the ones
being referenced.  :)

>>>>>>> Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There
>>>>>>> are many variants or ��distributions�� of GNU/Linux."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> http://www.gnu.org
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Perfectly in accordance with anything I said so far. Debian,
>>>>>>> Ubuntu, PCLOS, Slackware, Mandriva... All distributions of the
>>>>>>> *GNU/Linux operating system*.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But are the same OS or not?  This was the initial question.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And my answer still is that they are no OSes, but distributions
>>>>> of the GNU/Linux OS.
>>>> 
>>>> Based on your own source, an OS has "a collection of libraries,
>>>> applications and developer tools, plus a kernel to allocate
>>>> resources and talk to the hardware".
>>> 
>>> Indeed. A very good definition of 'OS'.
>> 
>> And here is the list of "applications" being referenced:
>> 
>>     <http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/>
> 
> Yup. The applications integral to the OS and other, additional
> applications. Sure.

So you agree those are the applications being referenced.  Good!

>>>>>>> So no, distributors are not creating an operating system.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As in not creating all aspects of it, such as the kernel and
>>>>>> GNU?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Those are the only aspects of it. All the rest (X.org, KDE,
>>>>> Gnome, OpenOffice, Kino, you name it) are applications running on
>>>>> the OS (in case GNU/Linux, but also FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, yes
>>>>> for some even Microsoft Windows and OSX).
>>>> 
>>>> And you think you need to make a point that distro managers are
>>>> not *creating* all of that!  You are just being silly - making
>>>> insinuations that are absurd.
>>> 
>>> What I said is that they are not creating an OS, but a distribution
>>> of an OS (in casu GNU/Linux).
>> 
>> When you say "creating an OS" do you mean creating, for example, the
>> Linux kernel?  If so, then clearly the people making, say, Ubuntu
>> are not doing that!  If you mean putting together an OS from
>> pre-existing things and, often, their own work, then clearly do
>> that.  Will you define what you mean?
>> 
>>> The OS is called GNU/Linux; the distribution is called Debian,
>>> Mandrake, SuSE, etc.
>> 
>> Except, of course, when it is not.  As I have shown you:
> 
> <snip reposting of distribution websites>
> 
> No matter how many people call a distro an operating system, I still
> think that:

What you *think* is not the question (and is not coherent... as noted, it is
self contradictory).

>>> Calling a distribution an operating system is inaccurate.
>> 
>> I understand that is your view.  And, as I have said, it is even one
>> that can be supported.  It is not, however, the only reasonable
>> view... but I doubt you will accept that.
> 
> I have no problem at all in accepting that. If you think that an
> operating system should have more than the basic stuff provided by the
> GNU/Linux combo, feel free to call a distro an operating system.

Yet you want to argue it... without saying what question you are answering.

> But to me it's still inaccurate, yes even wrong.

Is there anyone right other than you?  Your own sources disagree (remember,
the list of apps they referenced).

>>> Yes, GNU/Linux distributions are all built around the same OS.  No,
>>> not all distributions are the same, and they certainly are not the
>>> same /OS/, as the OS itself - as I have said before - is only a
>>> small part of the entire distribution.
>> 
>> So now you say they are not all the same OS... as in the OS
>> itself... as in GNU/Linux.  Why can't you at least try to be
>> consistent from one sentence to the next?
> 
> I am consistent as hell. You *think* that I am not, because you won't
> accept that I don't consider a distro an OS.

It is your flip-flops that make me think you are not consistent.  Just so
you know.  :)

>>> Even with other software (browsers, office suites, window managers,
>>> video players) being common accross all desktop oriented distros,
>>> each distro is still very different. They have different release
>>> policies (eg. rolling versus versioned), different package
>>> management (eg.binary vs. source), different implementation of run
>>> levels and system initialisation (eg. classic init vs. Canonical's
>>> upstart), specific wrapper scrips for certain functions/tasks
>>> (Debian's a2enmod script springs to mind) and a whole slew of other
>>> distro specific approaches to certain tasks.
>> 
>> You posted that as filler?  Has anyone suggested otherwise?
> 
> In an earlier thread you were whining because I didn't want to explain
> the relevant differences between distributions (the one where you were
> too lazy to look them up yourself). So here you have some.  Consider
> it a bonus.
> 
> You're welcome by the way.
> 
> What? You knew this already? So you were just trolling in the other
> thread then?

Quote this alleged "trolling"... and why answer an unrelated question from
another thread here, now?  You jump all over the place.

>>>>>> If so, well, *nobody* said they were.  You keep moving goal
>>>>>> posts.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My goal posts are steady as hell.
>>>> 
>>>> I never heard anyone describe hell as "steady", perhaps you are
>>>> correct.  :)
>>> 
>>> That's actually funny.
>> 
>> Thanks.  :)
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
>>>> Either way, you have gone from "are distros OSs" to "do distro
>>>> managers *create* OpenOffice".  That is a *huge* moving of goal
>>>> posts!
>>> 
>>> But unfortunately that's another lie.
>> 
>> Please stop making absurd accusations.
> 
> I am not. You are. I never said anything about distributors creating
> OpenOffice or not.

You are the one babbling about creating an OS.  I discussed that.  You got
lost.  

>>> I've never questioned the fact that GNU/Linux distributors do not
>>> create the F/OSS they distribute (in most cases that is, because
>>> the sometimes do create stuff that ends up in other distros, such
>>> as Canonical's upstart or RedHat's network-manager applet).
>> 
>> Again: filler?  You jump topics a lot.
> 
> Just giving you a little information along the side.

You babbled about them creating the OS... but then would not say if you
meant creating the kernel.  Will you now or just give "side" info?

>>>>>>> They are distributing the GNU/Linux operating system. And
>>>>>>> that's why the only accurate term is distribution.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So according to you they are distributing the same OS.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Indeed they are.
>>>> 
>>>> Yet you denied it before.  Why?
>>> 
>>> Not denied that even once.
>> 
>> TomB, about Linux distros:
>>    -----
>>    That doesn't mean they *are* the same OS.
>>    -----
>>    Hence distributions are not the same OS ...
>>    -----
> 
> In both snippets I say that distributions are not the same OS. Where's
> the contradiction?
> 
> (Remember: I do not consider a distro an OS).

I can understand a distro being an OS and more... but to say it is not even
an OS... that is completely unsupportable.  And elsewhere you note they are
all the same OS.

Same OS or not?  Please make up your mind.

>> You keep going back and forth.  Are the different distributions the
>> same OS (with each adding different stuff) or are they *not* the
>> same OS?
>> 
>> You have said both.
> 
> No, I haven't. You can repeat that lie as many times as you want; it
> won't become the truth all of a sudden.

This is getting tedious.  I repeatedly quote your flip flops.

Let's try this again:

Say I have two computers - one running Ubuntu and the other PCLOS.  In your
mind are they running the same OS or different OSs?
 
>>>>>> Which was the initial question...
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, it wasn't.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, it was.  Since before you entered the thread the question has
>>>> been if the different distros are the same OS or not.  HPT
>>>> claimed, incorrectly:
>>>> 
>>>>     There are less than 10 desktop PC OS's...
>>> 
>>> Never read that post, but for what it's worth: I do not agree with
>>> it (unless you'd say that all *nixes are one OS, which would be an
>>> absurd statement).
>> 
>> OK.
>> 
>>>> This has been shown to be wrong even if you count all Linux
>>>> distros as one OS, but, in any case, I noted how the distros are
>>>> generally called "Linux based OSs"... meaning they are different
>>>> OSs.
>>> 
>>> I do not deny that they're often called OSes (even by the
>>> distributors themselves). All I'm saying is that it's inaccurate
>>> say they are.  Technically they're distributions of the same OS.
>> 
>> So you say not... but before you said:
>>     
>>     -----
>>     Hence distributions are not the same OS ...
>>     -----
>> 
>> How can the be the same OS and not the same OS?  Do you not see
>> where your claims are contradictory?
> 
> My claims are not contradictory. You *think* they are, because you are
> unable or unwilling to accept that I don't consider distributions to
> be operating systems.
> 
> Do you understand now?

I understand your contradictions. You claim not to.

>>>> As I noted, you made up your claim.  I never said what you
>>>> attributed to me.
>>> 
>>> Come on, get real. In the quoted bit above you agree that
>>> distributors are not creating an OS:
>>> 
>>> "They do not claim to be creating it..."
>> 
>> They do not claim to have created the Linux kernel.
> 
> You replied "They do not claim to be creating it" to me saying "These
> companies/communities are not creating an operating system; they are
> distributing one", so the 'it' clearly refers to 'operating system',
> not 'the Linux kernel'.
> 
> Or do you thing that the Linux kernel is an operating system?

It is the kernel... an important part of the OS.

>>> My answer is a distribution, and more specific a GNU/Linux
>>> distribution.
>> 
>> Which both is and is not the same OS... or so you say.
> 
> Again that lie. It's getting tiresome...

You ignore the fact I keep quoting you.  :)

So they are the same OS (GNU/Linux) but they are not the same OS.

And you see no problem with your stance.  LOL!

>>>> But, when you say "creating an OS" you are playing a game - do you
>>>> mean creating, for example, the Linux kernel?  If so, then clearly
>>>> not!  If you mean putting together an OS from pre-existing things
>>>> and, often, their own work, then clearly so.
>>> 
>>> They're putting together a distribution, of which one of the
>>> components is the GNU/Linux OS. Simple as that.
>> 
>> Nice dodge.  When you say "creating an OS", do you mean:
>> 
>> A) Creating the Linux kernel and Gnu (and maybe a little more) B)
>> Putting together an OS from pre-existing things and, sometimes,
>> their own work
>> 
>> I am open to a C.  No desire to push a false dichotomy... but please
>> actually answer the question!
> 
> I obviously mean 'A' (without the little more).  'B' is creating a
> distribution.

So you are saying when a distro manager talks about creating an OS, you
think they are claiming to create the Linux kernel and Gnu.  Really!  I do
not think they are making that claim at all!

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB stated in post 20100521195556.204@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/21/10 11:06
AM:

> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 20100520101323.619@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/20/10 4:35
>> AM:
>> 
>>> The Linux kernel and the GNU userland (which, combined, form the
>>> GNU/Linux operating system) are only two of the many components
>>> that make up a distribution. Why would you say that the entire
>>> distribution *is* one of the components? It's the same as saying
>>> that a cake is milk, or that a house is bricks.
>> 
>> I have no idea why you would say the entire distribution is one of
>> the components.  Nobody else is.
> 
> From my point of view, *you* are.

What I am saying is what is relevant, not your twisting of it - your claimed
"point of view."  But here you are, openly admitting you are trying to twist
things - clearly to make things muddied and confusing.  It is an odd game
you are playing.  Here... you define what you mean by an OS: the kernel,
libraries, applications, developer tools, etc.

  TomB
      I know that a GNU/Linux distro is often called an OS, but I
      say it inaccurate to do so. Here's a very accurate
      assessment:
      "Unix-like operating systems are built from a collection of
      libraries, applications and developer tools..."
      
  Snit:
      Notice how it talks about applications, developer tools,
      the kernel, GNU, etc.

  TomB
    You don't understand a bit of it.  GNU provides the
    applications, developer tools and libraries they're talking
    about. It's not GNU and those. GNU *is* those.
      
But:
    <http://www.gnu.org/>
    -----
    Unix-like operating systems are built from a collection of
    libraries, applications and developer tools, plus a kernel to
    allocate resources and talk to the hardware
    -----

And if you look to see what is meant by "applications" in that context:

    <http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/>
    -----
    3DLDF - 3D drawing package
    a2ps - Any to PostScript filter
    Abdabi - Service discovery system for DotGNU
    acct - GNU system accounting utilities
    ACM - Aerial combat simulation game
    ...
    -----
    
You use the term "Gnu" to include applications you say - even of the sort
referenced by the link of your source, such as 3D drawing programs, combat
simulations, etc.  OK.  How do distros differ from what you have described
as an OS?  

I bet you have no answer for that, just as you have no answer for the
following questions:

    -----
    If you have a computer and then add components to it, and
    then distribute it to another (give away, sell, whatever) is
    it not right for me to say you have distributed a computer?
    ----

Can you answer?

    -----
    And if you and 100 other people are doing the same thing, are
    you not all distributing computers?
    -----

Again: can you answer?

    -----
    Now imagine you each have your own style - so you are
    distributing special TomBComputers and I am distributing
    SnitComputers.  Must we have created the computers from
    scratch to say we are distributing computers?
    -----

And, again, no answer from you I bet (you have dodged before).

To me the answer is clear: Of course not.  We need not to have created the
computer from scratch to say we are distributing computers. And your
computers can be very different from mine... we both are distributing
different computers.  It is not like this is a trick question!

But you do not want to answer... you want to obfuscate.  And then blame
others for not understanding you.  Even with your dodging and obfuscation, I
suspect I have figured out what you believe - even though you have said
clearly contradictory things.  I even told you what I was guessing... am I
close?

    -----
    I suspect what you might mean, maybe, is that they are all
    distributing the same OS along with other things (suites of
    programs, for example). This would mean, of course, that you
    think they are all the same OS, but that each distro of this
    "same OS" also comes with other things.  This is similar to
    my view of OS X and OS X Server.  They are the same OS, they
    just come with different things.  Is that what you have been
    trying to say... or what you have finally concluded now that
    you have had a chance to think this through?  If not, what
    the heck is your point?  As it is you talk in contradictions
    and word salad and then whine when you are not understood.
    -----

And, stated to someone else:

    -----
    Well, I can see both sides.  Old-school views of an OS were
    the kernel and a bit more (and TomB includes more). When
    people get an OS today, though, they expect it to come with
    lots more.  Distros almost always coem with the "lots
    more"... and I think most of us would agree that, say,
    OpenOffice is not a part of the OS itself, even though it
    comes with many distros.

    So it really is just semantics as to where to draw the line
    at the OS.  I consider each a big enough modification to be a
    different OS.  I do not have a specific exact level of
    difference here - some of this is just based on marketing, I
    admit.  No big deal.  In other words, different flavors of
    Ubuntu can be seen as the different flavors of the same OS,
    where Mint is seen as a different OS.

    TomB, I think, sees them all as the same OS *plus* more.  But
    maybe not - he speaks in double-talk where he denies they are
    the same OS, but then he also says they are.  I am waiting to
    see if he actually tries to clear this up or just goes round
    and round.  And blames me and others.
    -----
    
Why not just say if I am close or not to what your views are?  Oh... you are
*trying* to confuse things.  That much is very clear.

> I mean, you do agree that the GNU/Linux combo is a vital part of most
> distributions, don't you? It will be hard not to, that's for sure.

This is not in contention.  But you claimed they are not the same OS... also
that they are.

> Now, since I (and many others with me) consider GNU/Linux an operating system,

The same OS you get with each Linux distro... what you said was not the same
OS.  Right?

> that means that - from my point of view at least - an operating system is a
> vital component of a distribution. Right?

That is what I have been guessing... but you have been denying they are OSs
at all (even when in context it is clear the OS might come with more than
just the OS!).

> Hence, if you are calling a distribution an operating system, you are actually
> saying that the entire distribution is one of its components.

But, above, you defined the OS to include the applications!

> Just straight and honest logic.

Other than your flip flops you mean... right?

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

TomB stated in post 20100520151631.858@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/20/10 6:20
AM:

> On 2010-05-20, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>> 
>>> TomB stated in post 20100519231718.159@usenet.drumscum.be on 5/19/10 3:20
>>> PM:
>>> 
>>>> No matter how you look at it, at the core of almost every distribution
>>>> lies the GNU/Linux operating system.
>>> 
>>> Are you using OS and kernel interchangeably?
>> 
>> He is.
> 
> No, I am not. I am referring to the combination of the GNU userland
> and the Linux kernel as an operating system. And that's exactly what
> those two components are.

Elsewhere, though, you included the applications... and from your own
source, the referenced applications were:

    <http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/>
    -----
    3DLDF - 3D drawing package
    a2ps - Any to PostScript filter
    Abdabi - Service discovery system for DotGNU
    acct - GNU system accounting utilities
    ACM - Aerial combat simulation game
    ...
    -----


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Homer wrote:

> Snit has a stalker's mentality, and probably mental health issues too,
> by the sound of it.

Yes, he has admitted in the past to having mental health issues. Obviously
he never got any better.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....I misplaced my dictionary. Now I'm at a loss for words.

Hadron wrote:

> Where is Creepy Chris Ahlstrom to condemn these attacks on Snit's
> private life?

Where are Snit and DFS to stick their noses up your ass?

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....I misplaced my dictionary. Now I'm at a loss for words.

On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:52:53 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post iMidnSFrq4a5P2vWnZ2dnUVZ_vgAAAAA@supernews.com on
> 5/21/10 8:09 AM:
> 
> ...
>>> Here are some examples:
>>> 
>>> * You will not say if you think different distros are the same OS or
>>>   not.
>> 
>> I didn't make any claim about that one way or the other.
>> 
>> 
>>> * You will not say why you think Win 7 does not come with a suite
>>>   of programs.
>> 
>> Because it doesn't.
> 
> And your support is... where?  Remember, I have given you a fairly
> lengthy yet incomplete list of programs that come with it.
> 
> In the end: you have no support.

The support is.. look at Windows, it does not come with a suite  of 
programs.

>  
>>> * You repeatedly run away, making up stories about how others want
>>> "the
>>>   last word," simply because they are asking you to actually grow a
>>>   back bone and answer questions.
>> 
>> You're a liar.
> 
> And here you just call people names.  No defense for your cowardly
> actions.

You're a liar.

>  
>>> * Just because something can be removed without breaking other parts
>>>   of the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact that
>>>   you claimed to think so does show extreme ignorance on your part.
>>>   You refuse to comment on this, too.
>> 
>> Is it now your position that word processors, spread sheets, graphic
>> editors, mail and usenet clients, web browsers and media players all
>> all part of the operating system in Windows and Linux based systems?
> 
> And here you move the goal post and try to divert from your absurd
> claims.

Answer the question: Is it now your position that word processors, spread 
sheets, graphic editors, mail and usenet clients, web browsers and media 
players all all part of the operating system in Windows and Linux based 
systems?

> 
>>> On and on, Rick... to obfuscate your BS, you make accusations and spew
>>> insults and eventually just run.  It is what you do. It is what you
>>> will do in this thread.  It is your pattern, and it is completely
>>> predictable.
>> 
>> You're a liar.
> 
> But you did exactly as I predicted you would.  You are very, very
> predictable.

You are psychotic.

-- 
Rick

On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:57:58 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Rick stated in post iMidnSBrq4YuP2vWnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@supernews.com on
> 5/21/10 8:11 AM:
> 
>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:34:29 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>> Rick stated in post WYydnfl026NaDmvWnZ2dnUVZ_joAAAAA@supernews.com on
>>> 5/21/10 7:08 AM:
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:03:01 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Rick stated in post ArGdncLleZBWEmvWnZ2dnUVZ_voAAAAA@supernews.com
>>>>> on 5/21/10 6:51 AM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Who do you think you are fooling?  Until your herd gives you
>>>>>>> marching orders you will not answer questions.  You know you have
>>>>>>> no answers. Again:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> * Just because something can be removed without breaking other
>>>>>>> parts
>>>>>>>   of the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact
>>>>>>>   that you claimed to think so does show extreme ignorance on your
>>>>>>>   part.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> * You claim 'Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of
>>>>>>>   programs."'  Do you have a shred of support for your claim? Keep
>>>>>>>   in mind you have been given a partial list of programs that come
>>>>>>>   with Windows 7.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Other than running away scared, spewing insults and accusations,
>>>>>>> do you have a response.  As in: do you have an *intelligent*
>>>>>>> response.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I bet not.  But it is fun to help you make a complete fool of
>>>>>>> yourself.  It would be better if you proved me wrong.  As if!
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Go learn about herd mentality, so you won't look like such a dumb
>>>>>> ass.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You, Rick, are a living lesson in herd mentality.  As you keep
>>>>> proving.
>>>> 
>>>> Fine, fine.
>>> 
>>> Glad you agree.
>> 
>> I didn't agree, dumbass.
> 
> Nice retcon.

I didn't agree, dumbass.

> 
> And you proved me right.  Again.  You dodged my comments and questions.
> 
> You simply are not going to until your herd tells you which direction to
> go.
> 
> Then, ironically, you ask *me* to identify your herd.  Again. LOL!

And, replacing what you dishonestly snipperd:

Identify this herd you keep rambling on about. You won't you can't. It 
seems to me you're just pissed because I won't answer one of your 
questions... as if everyone is forced to answer just because you asked a 
question.



-- 
Rick

On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:09:26 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 5/21/2010 11:11 AM, Rick wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:34:29 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>>>>> You, Rick, are a living lesson in herd mentality.  As you keep
>>>>> proving.
>>>>
>>>> Fine, fine.
>>>
>>> Glad you agree.
>>
>> I didn't agree, dumbass. And here we go again. You lying, saying I
>> agree with you, when I plainly don't.
> 
> 
> You don't agree with Snit about herd mentality? 

Snit doesn't have a clue about herd mentality.

> Then why have you spent
> years here on cola using it as an excuse for Linux crapware failure?

There hasn't been one

> 
> You're an idiot, (p)Rick.

Oh look, Kindergarten Boy tries to feel good about himself by denigrating 
my name. Well, if that's the only way you can feel good about yourself.. 
you go right ahead.

-- 
Rick

Rick stated in post 8tydnXowhbCzwGrWnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/21/10 9:27 PM:

> On Fri, 21 May 2010 14:09:26 -0400, DFS wrote:
> 
>> On 5/21/2010 11:11 AM, Rick wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:34:29 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> You, Rick, are a living lesson in herd mentality.  As you keep
>>>>>> proving.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Fine, fine.
>>>> 
>>>> Glad you agree.
>>> 
>>> I didn't agree, dumbass. And here we go again. You lying, saying I
>>> agree with you, when I plainly don't.
>> 
>> 
>> You don't agree with Snit about herd mentality?
> 
> Snit doesn't have a clue about herd mentality.

And you are the expert.  You live and breath it every day.  I am simply not
the herd animal you are.  Agreed.

>> Then why have you spent
>> years here on cola using it as an excuse for Linux crapware failure?
> 
> There hasn't been one
> 
>> 
>> You're an idiot, (p)Rick.
> 
> Oh look, Kindergarten Boy tries to feel good about himself by denigrating
> my name. Well, if that's the only way you can feel good about yourself..
> you go right ahead.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post 8tydnXswhbAhwWrWnZ2dnUVZ_rAAAAAA@supernews.com on
5/21/10 9:25 PM:

> On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:57:58 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post iMidnSBrq4YuP2vWnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@supernews.com on
>> 5/21/10 8:11 AM:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:34:29 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Rick stated in post WYydnfl026NaDmvWnZ2dnUVZ_joAAAAA@supernews.com on
>>>> 5/21/10 7:08 AM:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 07:03:01 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rick stated in post ArGdncLleZBWEmvWnZ2dnUVZ_voAAAAA@supernews.com
>>>>>> on 5/21/10 6:51 AM:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Who do you think you are fooling?  Until your herd gives you
>>>>>>>> marching orders you will not answer questions.  You know you have
>>>>>>>> no answers. Again:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> * Just because something can be removed without breaking other
>>>>>>>> parts
>>>>>>>>   of the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact
>>>>>>>>   that you claimed to think so does show extreme ignorance on your
>>>>>>>>   part.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> * You claim 'Windows 7 does not come with a "big suite of
>>>>>>>>   programs."'  Do you have a shred of support for your claim? Keep
>>>>>>>>   in mind you have been given a partial list of programs that come
>>>>>>>>   with Windows 7.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Other than running away scared, spewing insults and accusations,
>>>>>>>> do you have a response.  As in: do you have an *intelligent*
>>>>>>>> response.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I bet not.  But it is fun to help you make a complete fool of
>>>>>>>> yourself.  It would be better if you proved me wrong.  As if!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Go learn about herd mentality, so you won't look like such a dumb
>>>>>>> ass.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You, Rick, are a living lesson in herd mentality.  As you keep
>>>>>> proving.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Fine, fine.
>>>> 
>>>> Glad you agree.
>>> 
>>> I didn't agree, dumbass.
>> 
>> Nice retcon.
> 
> I didn't agree, dumbass.
> 
>> 
>> And you proved me right.  Again.  You dodged my comments and questions.
>> 
>> You simply are not going to until your herd tells you which direction to
>> go.
>> 
>> Then, ironically, you ask *me* to identify your herd.  Again. LOL!
> 
> And, replacing what you dishonestly snipperd:
> 
> Identify this herd you keep rambling on about. You won't you can't. It
> seems to me you're just pissed because I won't answer one of your
> questions... as if everyone is forced to answer just because you asked a
> question.
> 
> 
Your herd is the "advocates"... as I have repeatedly noted.  And you just
dishonestly lie about it.  Interesting.

And you do not answer my questions because your herd has not given you
direction.  You need them to know what you should think.  As you note, I
know nothing of herd mentality - and you live and breath it.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Rick stated in post 8tydnXgwhbDowWrWnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@supernews.com on
5/21/10 9:24 PM:

> On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:52:53 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
>> Rick stated in post iMidnSFrq4a5P2vWnZ2dnUVZ_vgAAAAA@supernews.com on
>> 5/21/10 8:09 AM:
>> 
>> ...
>>>> Here are some examples:
>>>> 
>>>> * You will not say if you think different distros are the same OS or
>>>>   not.
>>> 
>>> I didn't make any claim about that one way or the other.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> * You will not say why you think Win 7 does not come with a suite
>>>>   of programs.
>>> 
>>> Because it doesn't.
>> 
>> And your support is... where?  Remember, I have given you a fairly
>> lengthy yet incomplete list of programs that come with it.
>> 
>> In the end: you have no support.
> 
> The support is.. look at Windows, it does not come with a suite  of
> programs.

Please read what I wrote and *try* to show some understanding ... you know,
of the part where I talk about the fairly lengthy yet incomplete list of
programs that come with it.

LOL!

Do not worry - your herd will come to try to rescue you soon.
 
>>>> * You repeatedly run away, making up stories about how others want
>>>> "the
>>>>   last word," simply because they are asking you to actually grow a
>>>>   back bone and answer questions.
>>> 
>>> You're a liar.
>> 
>> And here you just call people names.  No defense for your cowardly
>> actions.
> 
> You're a liar.

Accusations instead of trying to support your claims.  It is what you do.
 
>>>> * Just because something can be removed without breaking other parts
>>>>   of the OS does not mean it is not a part of the OS.  The fact that
>>>>   you claimed to think so does show extreme ignorance on your part.
>>>>   You refuse to comment on this, too.
>>> 
>>> Is it now your position that word processors, spread sheets, graphic
>>> editors, mail and usenet clients, web browsers and media players all
>>> all part of the operating system in Windows and Linux based systems?
>> 
>> And here you move the goal post and try to divert from your absurd
>> claims.
> 
> Answer the question: ...

See how you run from my questions by asking your own.  By all means, answer
mine and I will answer yours.  But you will run.  Always.  Until your herd
has told you how to think.

>>>> On and on, Rick... to obfuscate your BS, you make accusations and spew
>>>> insults and eventually just run.  It is what you do. It is what you
>>>> will do in this thread.  It is your pattern, and it is completely
>>>> predictable.
>>> 
>>> You're a liar.
>> 
>> But you did exactly as I predicted you would.  You are very, very
>> predictable.
> 
> You are psychotic.

Ah, you think only psychotic people can understand you.  Interesting.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Tattoo Vampire pulled this Usenet boner:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Where is Creepy Chris Ahlstrom to condemn these attacks on Snit's
>> private life?
>
> Where are Snit and DFS to stick their noses up your ass?

Where are the attacks on Snit's private life?

All that's happened is that Don claimed Snit called him once.

If false, Don is merely guilty of attacking Snit's public/usenet persona.

If true, Snit is guilty of attacking Don's private life.

What kind of morals did this "Hadron" grow up with?

-- 
A morgue is a morgue is a morgue.  They can paint the walls with aggressively
cheerful primary colors and splashy bold graphics, but it's still a holding
place for the dead until they can be parted out to organ banks.  Not that I
would have cared normally but my viewpoint was skewed.  The relentless
pleasance of the room I sat in seemed only grotesque.
		-- Pat Cadigan, "Mindplayers"

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Where are the attacks on Snit's private life?
> 
> All that's happened is that Don claimed Snit called him once.
> 
> If false, Don is merely guilty of attacking Snit's public/usenet persona.
> 
> If true, Snit is guilty of attacking Don's private life.
> 
> What kind of morals did this "Hadron" grow up with?

Quirk is referring to the comments about Snit's wife working while he does
nothing, I assume.

But those comments are probably true based on the evidence. Michael Glasser
patrols this newsgroup virtually all hours of the day. It's not possible for
him to be doing that and be gainfully employed.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....I'm! A! Graduate! Of! The! Bill! Shatner! Acting! School!

Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> writes:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Where are the attacks on Snit's private life?
>> 
>> All that's happened is that Don claimed Snit called him once.

Liar. Don was not the worst offender. And less of the "Don" you suck
up. It's "Tat" to you ... (think about it...)

>> 
>> If false, Don is merely guilty of attacking Snit's public/usenet persona.
>> 
>> If true, Snit is guilty of attacking Don's private life.
>> 
>> What kind of morals did this "Hadron" grow up with?
>
> Quirk is referring to the comments about Snit's wife working while he does
> nothing, I assume.
>
> But those comments are probably true based on the evidence. Michael Glasser
> patrols this newsgroup virtually all hours of the day. It's not possible for
> him to be doing that and be gainfully employed.

I am referring to that. Creepy knows full well that that and more has
been done here with clever seeding of google with his full name and
company name.

Why am I not surprised the snivelling weenie is trying to play it down.

Tattoo Vampire pulled this Usenet boner:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Where are the attacks on Snit's private life?
>> 
>> All that's happened is that Don claimed Snit called him once.
>> 
>> If false, Don is merely guilty of attacking Snit's public/usenet persona.
>> 
>> If true, Snit is guilty of attacking Don's private life.
>> 
>> What kind of morals did this "Hadron" grow up with?
>
> Quirk is referring to the comments about Snit's wife working while he does
> nothing, I assume.

That's just speculation and trolling.  I believe even the imbecile "Hadron"
understands this.

> But those comments are probably true based on the evidence. Michael Glasser
> patrols this newsgroup virtually all hours of the day. It's not possible for
> him to be doing that and be gainfully employed.

Based on the length and number of his posts, you might think that.
However...

I spend a fair amount of time here myself, whenever I find myself needing a
quick break from whatever I'm doing (e.g. now, studying a Qt 4 tutorial, my
first work on a GUI in years).

It's like getting up every now and then to stretch and take a pee.

Literally!  :-D

> ...I'm! A! Graduate! Of! The! Bill! Shatner! Acting! School!

Do you have "Shatner pants" (bulges), too?

-- 
Fine day for friends.
So-so day for you.

On 2010-05-22, Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> claimed:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Where are the attacks on Snit's private life?
>> 
>> All that's happened is that Don claimed Snit called him once.
>> 
>> If false, Don is merely guilty of attacking Snit's public/usenet persona.
>> 
>> If true, Snit is guilty of attacking Don's private life.
>> 
>> What kind of morals did this "Hadron" grow up with?
>
> Quirk is referring to the comments about Snit's wife working while he does
> nothing, I assume.
>
> But those comments are probably true based on the evidence. Michael Glasser
> patrols this newsgroup virtually all hours of the day. It's not possible for
> him to be doing that and be gainfully employed.

Queef's just circling the wagons for his snithole buddy. Who cares what
that worthless pile of "Larry" has to say?

S[no|hi]t can't possibly have a job. Even somebody working under a
hire-a-retard program has to have /some/ value, and "The" "Prescott"
"Computer" "Guy" has none.

-- 
Oxymoron: Definite possibility
Aspire One, Linux Mint 8 (LXDE)
Friends don't let friends use Windows

Sinister Midget III <fardblossom@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2010-05-22, Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> claimed:
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Where are the attacks on Snit's private life?
>>> 
>>> All that's happened is that Don claimed Snit called him once.
>>> 
>>> If false, Don is merely guilty of attacking Snit's public/usenet persona.
>>> 
>>> If true, Snit is guilty of attacking Don's private life.
>>> 
>>> What kind of morals did this "Hadron" grow up with?
>>
>> Quirk is referring to the comments about Snit's wife working while he does
>> nothing, I assume.
>>
>> But those comments are probably true based on the evidence. Michael Glasser
>> patrols this newsgroup virtually all hours of the day. It's not possible for
>> him to be doing that and be gainfully employed.
>
> Queef's just circling the wagons for his snithole buddy. Who cares what
> that worthless pile of "Larry" has to say?

Stealing Moshe's statements I see.

Note that I am NOT (you are wrong) defending Snit. I am pointing out the
hypocrisy oozing from the creepy hypocrite.

>
> S[no|hi]t can't possibly have a job. Even somebody working under a
> hire-a-retard program has to have /some/ value, and "The" "Prescott"
> "Computer" "Guy" has none.

How sad.

On 2010-05-22, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
> Tattoo Vampire pulled this Usenet boner:
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Where are the attacks on Snit's private life?
>>> 
>>> All that's happened is that Don claimed Snit called him once.
>>> 
>>> If false, Don is merely guilty of attacking Snit's public/usenet
>>> persona.
>>> 
>>> If true, Snit is guilty of attacking Don's private life.
>>> 
>>> What kind of morals did this "Hadron" grow up with?
>>
>> Quirk is referring to the comments about Snit's wife working while
>> he does nothing, I assume.
>
> That's just speculation and trolling.  I believe even the imbecile
> "Hadron" understands this.
>
>> But those comments are probably true based on the evidence. Michael
>> Glasser patrols this newsgroup virtually all hours of the day. It's
>> not possible for him to be doing that and be gainfully employed.
>
> Based on the length and number of his posts, you might think that.
> However...
>
> I spend a fair amount of time here myself, whenever I find myself
> needing a quick break from whatever I'm doing (e.g. now, studying a
> Qt 4 tutorial, my first work on a GUI in years).
>
> It's like getting up every now and then to stretch and take a pee.
>
> Literally!  :-D

There's a big difference between spending a fail amount of time in
here and spending an *awful lot* of time in here. I know once I get
engaged in a 'bitch fight' with Snit, I do not have the time (or even
the intention) to keep up with him without having to sacifice my
personal and work life (which I will not do).

-- 
BOFH excuse #19:

floating point processor overflow

Hadron wrote:

> I am referring to that. Creepy knows full well that that and more has
> been done here with clever seeding of google with his full name and
> company name.

Hey, stupid. Snit has published information about his web site here, where
his info can be accessed.

-- 
Regards,
[tv]
Owner/proprietor, Trollus Amongus, LLC

....Never share a foxhole with anyone braver than you are.