Linux is free, or at least most distributions of Linux are free.
That is a good thing because anyone who would pay money for what
consists of a CD or 2 or 3 or 5 of alpa level applications that are
riddled with bugs is a fool.
Who the hell cares about getting the source code?
I want applications that actually work.
I don't want to use 3 out of 20 of the features my printer is capable
of, I want to use my printer the way it was designed to be used.
I don't want some half assed,reverse engineered driver for my video
card.
I don't want some half assed reverse designed driver for my sound card.
I don't want to have to run some ndis wrapper in order to use my
wireless network card.
I don't want to have to dual boot Windows so I can transfer information
back and forth between my LGX or Motorola phone.
I want to use itunes and Rhapsody and for those who claim itunes works
with wine you better try it before spouting lies.
It is slow as a stuck pig.
Speaking of wine, I don't want to have to use Wine just to use quality
Windows applications.
I have yet to see a Windows application run better under wine than
under real windows.

So Linux is free.

Yea, it is.

Now where is the masses of people replacing Windows with Linux.
The truth is in 10 years Linux useage on a desktop system has gone just
about nowhere and for good reason.
Linux sucks.
That's the good reason.
Get used to hearing it because that's the way Linux is perceived.
Back in the 1970's a popular phrase uttered by rockers was "disco sux".
Now it's changed to "Linux sux".

The Homo K wrote:

> Back in the 1970's a popular phrase uttered by rockers was "disco sux".

Right...and now 80 percent of the Billboard 100 is hiphop and rap.

Go figure.



"18 years, 18 years
 She got one of yo kids got you for 18 years
 I know somebody payin child support for one of his kids
 His baby momma's car and crib is bigger than his
 You will see him on TV Any Given Sunday
 Win the Superbowl and drive off in a Hyundai
 She was spose to buy ya shorty TYCO with ya money
 She went to the doctor got lypo with ya money
 She walkin around lookin like Michael with ya money
 Should of got that insured, GEICO for ya moneeey
 If you aint no punk holla We Want Prenup
 WE WANT PRENUP!, Yeaah
 It's something that you need to have
 Cause when she leave yo ass she gone leave with half
 18 years, 18 years
 And on the 18th birthday he found out it wasn't his"




-- 
http://www.texeme.com
        
"...i know that the hypnotized never lie." 

Lousy troll attempt.

-- 
Rick

On Sunday 28 August 2005 02:13 The Homo K wrote:

> Speaking of wine, I don't want to have to use Wine just to use quality
> Windows applications.

That latter is perhaps a contradiction in terms, Ellen.

Now do stop the x-posting, eh?

Bill

The Homo K wrote:
<snip>

*plonk*

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:13:04 -0700, The Homo K wrote:

Question If Linux is so buggy. Why do you have to choke up your windows
box with all the anti spyware and virsus software?

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:15:52 -0700, carl wagner wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:13:04 -0700, The Homo K wrote:
> 
> Question If Linux is so buggy. Why do you have to choke up your windows
> box with all the anti spyware and virsus software?

Huh?
Same reason my Ford sucks and I have to put new tires on my BMW.
That Ford sucking is really costing me a fortune in new tires for my BMW.

-- 
The Anthill Mob	
Kill the RAID to reply 

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:23:58 +0000, Rick wrote:

> Lousy troll attempt.

I think what they do is recycle these from 1997 or so.  I have to have
seen this article at least 50 times before.

-- 
While money doesn't buy love, it puts you in a great bargaining
position.


_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
               <><><><><><><>   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <><><><><><><><>
  

The Homo K wrote:

>

*plonk*

> Who the hell cares about getting the source code?

Your employer, among others.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:13:04 -0700, The Homo K wrote:

> Linux is free, or at least most distributions of Linux are free.
> That is a good thing because anyone who would pay money for what
> consists of a CD or 2 or 3 or 5 of alpa level applications that are
> riddled with bugs is a fool.

So what does that make you. We got all our bugs free. You paid for them
when purchased windows.:-)

At first I thought you were a homosexual, then thought maybe it meant
homosapian, but finnally figured out it meant homogenized milk, all milky
and not clear on anything.

-- 
KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233)
Need good help? Provide all system info with question.
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:13:04 -0700, The Homo K wrote:

> Linux is free, or at least most distributions of Linux are free.
> That is a good thing because anyone who would pay money for what
> consists of a CD or 2 or 3 or 5 of alpa level applications that are
> riddled with bugs is a fool.

Yawn troll.

Wes Newell wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:13:04 -0700, The Homo K wrote:
<snip>
> 
> At first I thought you were a homosexual, then thought maybe it meant
> homosapian, but finnally figured out it meant homogenized milk, all milky
> and not clear on anything.
> 


ROTFLMAO

-- 
Regards

Neil

Registered Linux User 324599
Microsoft is to software what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:13:04 -0700, The Homo K wrote:

> Linux is free, or at least most distributions of Linux are free.

Yep. Great, isn't it?

> That is a good thing because anyone who would pay money for what
> consists of a CD or 2 or 3 or 5 of alpa level applications that are
> riddled with bugs is a fool.

Nope. We're not fools, because we're not paying for alpha level
applications. Tried SUSE 9.2 or 9.3? Looks pretty good to me. Mandriva's
fine, too. Hell, even Linspire isn't bad. Nor are a boatload of other
distros you can either pay for or get for nothing

> Who the hell cares about getting the source code?

That depends. On a personal level, it's of no *practical* importance to
me. But there's more to it than that. In one sense, it can be seen as
having symbolic importance. It's like a guarantee that is given to you
freely, that you'll always have the software available to you.

> I want applications that actually work.

Then use Linux, because my Linux applications work just fine. What do you
think I am posting with right now? Pan, on Mandrake 10.1 via ssh from
Mandriva LE. 

> I don't want to use 3 out of 20 of the features my printer is capable
> of, I want to use my printer the way it was designed to be used.
> I don't want some half assed,reverse engineered driver for my video
> card.

Nor do I. I use the Nvidia driver. 

> I don't want some half assed reverse designed driver for my sound card.

Nor do I.

> I don't want to have to run some ndis wrapper in order to use my
> wireless network card.

Complain to the wireless card manufacturers.

> I don't want to have to dual boot Windows so I can transfer information
> back and forth between my LGX or Motorola phone.

I doubt you have to.

> I want to use itunes and Rhapsody and for those who claim itunes works
> with wine you better try it before spouting lies.

you are in no position to talk about others 'spouting lies', since that is
all you are doing. And not everyone wants iTunes.

> It is slow as a stuck pig.

Wrong.

> Speaking of wine, I don't want to have to use Wine just to use quality
> Windows applications.

So don't. Use Windows.

> I have yet to see a Windows application run better under wine than
> under real windows.

So?

> 
> So Linux is free.

Very. It's Free, too.

> 
> Yea, it is.
> 
> Now where is the masses of people replacing Windows with Linux.

Brazil, China, England, India, to name a few.

> The truth is in 10 years Linux useage on a desktop system has gone just
> about nowhere and for good reason.

No, it is not the truth. In ten years Linux has gone from being a tiny
kernel to the heart of a fully-fledged and powerful operating system.

> Linux sucks.

Funny, it works very well on my three desktops and my laptop. It doesn't
suck in the slightest.

> That's the good reason.

No, that is a lie.

> Get used to hearing it because that's the way Linux is perceived.

That is another lie.

> Back in the 1970's a popular phrase uttered by rockers was "disco sux".
> Now it's changed to "Linux sux".

That is another lie. You seem incapable of being remotely honest.

-- 
Kier

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:13:04 -0700, The Homo K wrote:

> Linux is free, or at least most distributions of Linux are free.
> That is a good thing because anyone who would pay money for what
> consists of a CD or 2 or 3 or 5 of alpa level applications that are
> riddled with bugs is a fool.

I don't know what you've been smoking, but I find that Linux software, in
general, is of quite high quality - at least the equal of MS software.

> Who the hell cares about getting the source code?

No one unless you actually have the smarts to improve the code.

> I want applications that actually work.

I've had fewer problems with Linux software than I ever had with MS. I
remember the workarounds that were necessary when we went from VB6 to
Visual Studio! The old code would no longer run.

> I don't want to use 3 out of 20 of the features my printer is capable
> of, I want to use my printer the way it was designed to be used.

I find that my Brother Laser Printer and my Epson R320 Photo printer both
work quite well with Linux.

> I don't want some half assed,reverse engineered driver for my video
> card.

Then use the one supplied by the manufacturer. I find that the nvidia
driver is quite good. Also the Unichrome driver for my mini-itx works
quite well.

> I don't want some half assed reverse designed driver for my sound card.

OK, so use one that works.

> I don't want to have to run some ndis wrapper in order to use my
> wireless network card.

I don't use wireless - but my network cards work flawlessly.

> I don't want to have to dual boot Windows so I can transfer information
> back and forth between my LGX or Motorola phone.

Have yet to figure why the hell I'd want to.

> I want to use itunes and Rhapsody and for those who claim itunes works
> with wine you better try it before spouting lies.
> It is slow as a stuck pig.
> Speaking of wine, I don't want to have to use Wine just to use quality
> Windows applications.

That is an oxymoron. In my experience, 'quality Windows' applications are
quite rare. BTW - I use Windows on my Linux system. X-Windows was here and
working long before MS started to use the term.

> I have yet to see a Windows application run better under wine than
> under real windows.

I don't use wine, I have no need of any MS apps.

> 
> So Linux is free.
> 
> Yea, it is.
> 
> Now where is the masses of people replacing Windows with Linux.

Mostly, they are not. Seems that people are afraid of anything new. They'd
rather rant and rave and complain about all the problems they have with MS
than try anything new. BUT - in January of this year I installed Mandrake
Linux on the public access internet computers at the local library. To
date there have been NO complaints, and a customer satisfaction survey a
month ago indicated that patrons are quite satisfied with Linux - actually
a large number showed by their responses that they were not aware they
were NOT running MS; except, of course, that everything just worked.

> The truth is in 10 years Linux useage on a desktop system has gone just
> about nowhere and for good reason.
> Linux sucks.
> That's the good reason.
> Get used to hearing it because that's the way Linux is perceived.

Perception is often deceiving - how else does one explain the continued
popularity of the Ford Explorer which rolls over and self destructs when a
tire goes flat?

> Back in the 1970's a popular phrase uttered by rockers was "disco sux".
> Now it's changed to "Linux sux".

If you don't like Linux, you certainly don't have to use it. Linux is all
about choice - which we would not have if MS was totally in charge.

m$ is still at it...

On 2005-08-28, The Homo K <the_homo_k@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Linux is free, or at least most distributions of Linux are free.
> That is a good thing because anyone who would pay money for what
> consists of a CD or 2 or 3 or 5 of alpa level applications that are
> riddled with bugs is a fool.
> Who the hell cares about getting the source code?
> I want applications that actually work.
> I don't want to use 3 out of 20 of the features my printer is capable
> of, I want to use my printer the way it was designed to be used.
> I don't want some half assed,reverse engineered driver for my video
> card.
> I don't want some half assed reverse designed driver for my sound card.
> I don't want to have to run some ndis wrapper in order to use my
> wireless network card.
> I don't want to have to dual boot Windows so I can transfer information
> back and forth between my LGX or Motorola phone.
> I want to use itunes and Rhapsody and for those who claim itunes works
> with wine you better try it before spouting lies.
> It is slow as a stuck pig.
> Speaking of wine, I don't want to have to use Wine just to use quality
> Windows applications.
> I have yet to see a Windows application run better under wine than
> under real windows.
>
> So Linux is free.
>
> Yea, it is.
>
> Now where is the masses of people replacing Windows with Linux.
> The truth is in 10 years Linux useage on a desktop system has gone just
> about nowhere and for good reason.
> Linux sucks.
> That's the good reason.
> Get used to hearing it because that's the way Linux is perceived.
> Back in the 1970's a popular phrase uttered by rockers was "disco sux".
> Now it's changed to "Linux sux".
>

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:13:04 -0700, The Homo K wrote:

> Who the hell cares about getting the source code? 

I reckon there were a few IT managers that would have loved to have the
source code for certain programs circa 1999, especially software that was
no longer supported.

Ce  27 Aug 2005 18:13:04 -0700, notre cher(e) "The Homo K"
<the_homo_k@yahoo.com> �crivais:

>Linux is free, or at least most distributions of Linux are free.
>That is a good thing because anyone who would pay money for what
>consists of a CD or 2 or 3 or 5 of alpa level applications that are
>riddled with bugs is a fool.

[OPEN TROLLED FILL]

Oki

WIN$$$ is NOT FREE....  BAD Thing Because it's full og Bugs.
Linux at equal application contain < of bug...

Sorry, this is real ....

[CLOSE TROLLED FILL]


labra

labra@ wrote:
> Ce  27 Aug 2005 18:13:04 -0700, notre cher(e) "The Homo K"
> <the_homo_k@yahoo.com> �crivais:
>
>> Linux is free, or at least most distributions of Linux are free.
>> That is a good thing because anyone who would pay money for what
>> consists of a CD or 2 or 3 or 5 of alpa level applications that are
>> riddled with bugs is a fool.
>
> [OPEN TROLLED FILL]
>
> Oki
>
> WIN$$$ is NOT FREE....  BAD Thing Because it's full og Bugs.
> Linux at equal application contain < of bug...
>
> Sorry, this is real ....
>
> [CLOSE TROLLED FILL]
>
>
> labra


THAT took you 12 days to come up with? Pathetic.

Rebecca wrote:
> labra@ wrote:
>> Ce  27 Aug 2005 18:13:04 -0700, notre cher(e) "The Homo K"
>> <the_homo_k@yahoo.com> �crivais:
>>
>>> Linux is free, or at least most distributions of Linux are free.
>>> That is a good thing because anyone who would pay money for what
>>> consists of a CD or 2 or 3 or 5 of alpa level applications that are
>>> riddled with bugs is a fool.
>>
>> [OPEN TROLLED FILL]
>>
>> Oki
>>
>> WIN$$$ is NOT FREE....  BAD Thing Because it's full og Bugs.
>> Linux at equal application contain < of bug...
>>
>> Sorry, this is real ....
>>
>> [CLOSE TROLLED FILL]
>>
>>
>> labra
>
>
> THAT took you 12 days to come up with? Pathetic.

linux makes you stupid 

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:46:21 -0500, sbb78247 wrote:

> linux makes you stupid

Linux might make *you* stupid.  It makes me money.

-- 
rapskat -  22:01:02 up 1 day, 13:39,  1 user,  load average: 0.42, 0.26, 0.18
        "Cogito ergo sum...cogito."

rapskat wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:46:21 -0500, sbb78247 wrote:
> 
> 
>>linux makes you stupid
> 
> 
> Linux might make *you* stupid.  It makes me money.
> 
There's lots of things I'd call a person who makes money selling free 
software. "Stupid" is probably way, way down the list.

rapskat wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:46:21 -0500, sbb78247 wrote:
>
>> linux makes you stupid
>
> Linux might make *you* stupid.  It makes me money.

That was stupid. Get that from using linux?

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 22:15:57 -0400, George T Ellison III wrote:

> rapskat wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:46:21 -0500, sbb78247 wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>linux makes you stupid
>> 
>> 
>> Linux might make *you* stupid.  It makes me money.
>> 
> There's lots of things I'd call a person who makes money selling free 
> software. "Stupid" is probably way, way down the list.

You can't sell free software.  You can sell a compilation of it into one
put together distribution.  You can sell administration & support for it.
You can sell the media and/or bandwidth you use to distribute it.  You can
sell marketing for it.  You can sell packaging for it.  You can sell the
labor and time needed to implement it.  You can sell the services it
provides. But the software itself, no you can't sell that.  If you did,
then it wouldn't be "free" now would it?  

Of course, Open Source Software is not "free" software as in beer, so
that's a moot point.  It may be available gratis, and often is, but Linux
is not "free as in beer" software. Linux is Open Source Software.  Linux
is "free as in freedom" software.  Meaning that the source code is openly
available for anyone to look at, modify or whatever. 

There are several ways to make money using Open Source Software, only one
of which is actually selling the software itself.

-- 
rapskat -  23:05:24 up 1 day, 14:43,  1 user,  load average: 0.16, 0.30, 0.24
	"After 3 weeks of intense cryptanalysis, the Naval codebreakers were
still baffled by the messages.  They called the Navajo language a 'wierd
succession of gutteral, nasal, tongue-twisting sounds... we couldn't
even transcribe it, much less crack it.'"
	- The Code Book, Simon Singh.

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:13:15 -0700, "Rebecca"
<nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:

>THAT took you 12 days to come up with? Pathetic.
>
  Do YOU have ANYTHING useful, or contributory to the thread to say?

 Pathetic indeed.

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 19:17:42 -0700, "Rebecca"
<nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:

>rapskat wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:46:21 -0500, sbb78247 wrote:
>>
>>> linux makes you stupid
>>
>> Linux might make *you* stupid.  It makes me money.
>
>That was stupid. Get that from using linux?
>
  Somebody needs to poke you in the hiney hole...

  With a big, wooden, splintery NYPD broomstick handle!

  Your address *should* be "lamelikebutbumblefukt".  You certainly are
NOT "godlike" or "humble", ditsoflex.

 A good indicator is your edit of the follow up.  You could be a
little more lame, but I am suspecting that you are actually flatfish.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, rapskat
<rapskat@gmail.com>
 wrote
on Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:20:53 -0400
<pan.2005.09.08.03.20.50.667821@rapskat.com>:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 22:15:57 -0400, George T Ellison III wrote:
>
>> rapskat wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:46:21 -0500, sbb78247 wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>linux makes you stupid
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Linux might make *you* stupid.  It makes me money.
>>> 
>> There's lots of things I'd call a person who makes money selling free 
>> software. "Stupid" is probably way, way down the list.
>
> You can't sell free software.  You can sell a compilation of it into one
> put together distribution.  You can sell administration & support for it.
> You can sell the media and/or bandwidth you use to distribute it.  You can
> sell marketing for it.  You can sell packaging for it.  You can sell the
> labor and time needed to implement it.  You can sell the services it
> provides. But the software itself, no you can't sell that.  If you did,
> then it wouldn't be "free" now would it?  
>
> Of course, Open Source Software is not "free" software as in beer, so
> that's a moot point.  It may be available gratis, and often is, but Linux
> is not "free as in beer" software. Linux is Open Source Software.  Linux
> is "free as in freedom" software.  Meaning that the source code is openly
> available for anyone to look at, modify or whatever. 
>
> There are several ways to make money using Open Source Software, only one
> of which is actually selling the software itself.
>

I think he was trying to compliment you. :-)  But you're
absolutely right, though I'm not sure how free "free"
is in this context; there's a few issues regarding actual
distribution of the software that requires energy, cost,
time, bandwidth, and such like.  These are generally
minor, though Gentoo may well become a very expensive
distribution in some respects (though also very flexible),
as it requires compilation on the user's system -- which
takes power, time, and a little effort, especially when
something breaks.  Other distros: download the binary,
hope that it is compiled correctly for one's system and
contains no hidden malware from a binary editor, and go.

"Free" is admittedly more a philosophical question more
than anything else.  Even "free speech" nowadays gets
a little weird; is the Internet press, speech, or
FCC-controlled communications medium?  Only the last
requires regulation regarding those "seven little words..."

TCO is an interesting concept, too.  Rightly or wrongly,
it was (AFAICT) introduced by Microsoft, and Microsoft's
claims that Windows is cheaper are interesting -- though
I am forced to ask "what metric did they use?".  Part of
TCO is experience and training; Unix admins tend to be
older and more expensive, AIUI.  One also needs fewer
of them. :-)

(This may be one reason why Microsoft does so well in the
small business market.)

I don't think Linux makes one stupid, but it does make
one think.  Some of the processes Windows tries to make
transparent Linux exposes to the user, even if Linux
is based on an ancient object-oriented system, namely,
Unix -- back before "OO" became such a buzzword; an
app program can open() any device as though it were a
file, and read() from and write() to it.  Of course the
design isn't perfect -- ioctl() fills in some of the gaps.
Microsoft has a "handle" concept, which is vaguely similar
but only works for already-opened devices, and Microsoft's
design gets bizarre because of "AUX", "CLOCK$", "PRN",
and other such magic file names.  At least with Unix and
Linux one can control such names by using 'mknod' and
'rm'; there's nothing really special about /dev although
nowadays it's likely to be a pseudo filesystem (udev or
IIRC the deprecated devfs) as opposed to a real one.  Hell,
maybe a future incarnation of Linux will allow mknod's
of pseudo-ttys dynamically in one's current directory,
similar to 'mkfifo' now.  (There's a few issues for that
one, admittedly.)

And of course it's interesting that RH Enterprise is more
expensive than Windows XP Professional.  But that's a
detail for those who pay for RH Enterprise -- my employer,
for one -- not for the tinkering hobbyist.  One might
make analogies with the car market -- 50 years or so the
highlight of a young man's day might have been playing with
his carburetor, headers, chrome customization, or painting
his "hot rod", or at least that's the impression I get
from movies such as "Grease". :-) (I was born too late.)
Who knows what will happen about 30-40 years from now?
We'll probably have generic information terminals all
over the place (come to think of it, we're fairly close
to that now).

Hopefully, they'll be running something virus-free -- and
"free" in this context should be obvious. :-)  The last
thing I want would be an engineered takeover of all
machines in, say, 2016 during a Presidential Election
season -- OK, make that late 2015, nowadays :-P -- and
censorship of all articles mentioning "Democrat", "liberal",
"labor", "fairness", and "welfare" (or, if one prefers,
"Republican", "neo-conservative", "trickle-down", "fairness",
and "needy" :-) ).  Recall that Osama did a cameo in 2004.
Something tells me Osama would *love* to be able to infect
every information kiosk and broadcast his message...and he'd
not be alone in that wish.

Hmm....

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

NunYa Bidness wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 19:17:42 -0700, "Rebecca"
> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>
>> rapskat wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:46:21 -0500, sbb78247 wrote:
>>>
>>>> linux makes you stupid
>>>
>>> Linux might make *you* stupid.  It makes me money.
>>
>> That was stupid. Get that from using linux?
>>
>  Somebody needs to poke you in the hiney hole...
>
>  With a big, wooden, splintery NYPD broomstick handle!

Name who. It certainly isn't going to be you.

>
>  Your address *should* be "lamelikebutbumblefukt".  You certainly are
> NOT "godlike" or "humble", ditsoflex.

Jealousy like that is sooo ugly.

>
> A good indicator is your edit of the follow up.  You could be a
> little more lame, but I am suspecting that you are actually flatfish.

Tell the fuckwit who edited it in the first place... or don't you know who 
did it? Afterall, linux makes you stupid.

NunYa Bidness wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:13:15 -0700, "Rebecca"
> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>
>> THAT took you 12 days to come up with? Pathetic.
>>
>  Do YOU have ANYTHING useful, or contributory to the thread to say?

I already did. Has linux made you that stupid already?


> -- 
> Pathetic indeed.

Nice sig. Quite apt too.

"Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message 
news:dfr0pi.1dk.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
> NunYa Bidness wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:13:15 -0700, "Rebecca"
>> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>>
>>> THAT took you 12 days to come up with? Pathetic.
>>>
>>  Do YOU have ANYTHING useful, or contributory to the thread to say?
>
> I already did. Has linux made you that stupid already?
>
>
>> -- 
>> Pathetic indeed.
>
> Nice sig. Quite apt too.
>
>

Rebecca,

        You must lead a very painful and lonely life. It is
    indeed sad that your only way of feeling alive
    is to solicit bitter and hateful replies. Although this
    provides you interaction, it is ultimately self
    defeating as it leaves you the constant recipient of
    abuse.  Imagine how much more rewarding it would feel
    to have others appreciate you and your contributions.
        Constantly throwing stones to get attention not only
    makes others angry, but in the end leaves you feeling
    unwanted, un-liked, and depressed.  It doesn't have
    to be this way !
        Please consider taking a positive stance and sharing
    your knowledge instead of your distain for humanity.
    I assure you that you don't need to throw stones
    to get attention. Knowledge, helpful advise, and a
    few kind words will draw folks to you and fill that
    empty void with friends, that just plain like you.

    Linux is free, but the freedom that you seek is social
    and it will not be found in any technology, but within
    yourself.

Enjoy,
Postmaster 

Postmaster wrote:
> "Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
> news:dfr0pi.1dk.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
>> NunYa Bidness wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:13:15 -0700, "Rebecca"
>>> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>>>
>>>> THAT took you 12 days to come up with? Pathetic.
>>>>
>>>  Do YOU have ANYTHING useful, or contributory to the thread to say?
>>
>> I already did. Has linux made you that stupid already?
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Pathetic indeed.
>>
>> Nice sig. Quite apt too.
>>
>>
>
> Rebecca,
>
>        You must lead a very painful and lonely life. It is
>    indeed sad that your only way of feeling alive
>    is to solicit bitter and hateful replies. Although this
>    provides you interaction, it is ultimately self
>    defeating as it leaves you the constant recipient of
>    abuse.  Imagine how much more rewarding it would feel
>    to have others appreciate you and your contributions.
>        Constantly throwing stones to get attention not only
>    makes others angry, but in the end leaves you feeling
>    unwanted, un-liked, and depressed.  It doesn't have
>    to be this way !
>        Please consider taking a positive stance and sharing
>    your knowledge instead of your distain for humanity.
>    I assure you that you don't need to throw stones
>    to get attention. Knowledge, helpful advise, and a
>    few kind words will draw folks to you and fill that
>    empty void with friends, that just plain like you.
>
>    Linux is free, but the freedom that you seek is social
>    and it will not be found in any technology, but within
>    yourself.
>
> Enjoy,
> Postmaster

Dear Postmaster,

   Please be so kind as to go fuck yourself.

Thankyou,
Rebecca

The Linux distros that we have installed have been indeed quite buggy,
very unpolished software.

The Homo K wrote:
> Linux is free, or at least most distributions of Linux are free.
> That is a good thing because anyone who would pay money for what
> consists of a CD or 2 or 3 or 5 of alpa level applications that are
> riddled with bugs is a fool.
> Who the hell cares about getting the source code?
> I want applications that actually work.
> I don't want to use 3 out of 20 of the features my printer is capable
> of, I want to use my printer the way it was designed to be used.
> I don't want some half assed,reverse engineered driver for my video
> card.
> I don't want some half assed reverse designed driver for my sound card.
> I don't want to have to run some ndis wrapper in order to use my
> wireless network card.
> I don't want to have to dual boot Windows so I can transfer information
> back and forth between my LGX or Motorola phone.
> I want to use itunes and Rhapsody and for those who claim itunes works
> with wine you better try it before spouting lies.
> It is slow as a stuck pig.
> Speaking of wine, I don't want to have to use Wine just to use quality
> Windows applications.
> I have yet to see a Windows application run better under wine than
> under real windows.
>
> So Linux is free.
>
> Yea, it is.
>
> Now where is the masses of people replacing Windows with Linux.
> The truth is in 10 years Linux useage on a desktop system has gone just
> about nowhere and for good reason.
> Linux sucks.
> That's the good reason.
> Get used to hearing it because that's the way Linux is perceived.
> Back in the 1970's a popular phrase uttered by rockers was "disco sux".
> Now it's changed to "Linux sux".

added "microsoft.public.windowsxp.general" to newsgroups so that
the m$ people won't feel left out since all the microsoft.public.xx
groups were not included.


["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.suse.]
On 2005-09-08, Rebecca <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote:
> Postmaster wrote:
>> "Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
>> news:dfr0pi.1dk.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
>>> NunYa Bidness wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:13:15 -0700, "Rebecca"
>>>> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>>>>
>>>>> THAT took you 12 days to come up with? Pathetic.
>>>>>
>>>>  Do YOU have ANYTHING useful, or contributory to the thread to say?
>>>
>>> I already did. Has linux made you that stupid already?
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Pathetic indeed.
>>>
>>> Nice sig. Quite apt too.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Rebecca,
>>
>>        You must lead a very painful and lonely life. It is
>>    indeed sad that your only way of feeling alive
>>    is to solicit bitter and hateful replies. Although this
>>    provides you interaction, it is ultimately self
>>    defeating as it leaves you the constant recipient of
>>    abuse.  Imagine how much more rewarding it would feel
>>    to have others appreciate you and your contributions.
>>        Constantly throwing stones to get attention not only
>>    makes others angry, but in the end leaves you feeling
>>    unwanted, un-liked, and depressed.  It doesn't have
>>    to be this way !
>>        Please consider taking a positive stance and sharing
>>    your knowledge instead of your distain for humanity.
>>    I assure you that you don't need to throw stones
>>    to get attention. Knowledge, helpful advise, and a
>>    few kind words will draw folks to you and fill that
>>    empty void with friends, that just plain like you.
>>
>>    Linux is free, but the freedom that you seek is social
>>    and it will not be found in any technology, but within
>>    yourself.
>>
>> Enjoy,
>> Postmaster
>
> Dear Postmaster,
>
>    Please be so kind as to go fuck yourself.
>
> Thankyou,
> Rebecca
>
>

"Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message 
news:dfr2mt.4p4.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
> Postmaster wrote:
>> "Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
>> news:dfr0pi.1dk.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
>>> NunYa Bidness wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:13:15 -0700, "Rebecca"
>>>> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>>>>
>>>>> THAT took you 12 days to come up with? Pathetic.
>>>>>
>>>>  Do YOU have ANYTHING useful, or contributory to the thread to say?
>>>
>>> I already did. Has linux made you that stupid already?
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Pathetic indeed.
>>>
>>> Nice sig. Quite apt too.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Rebecca,
>>
>>        You must lead a very painful and lonely life. It is
>>    indeed sad that your only way of feeling alive
>>    is to solicit bitter and hateful replies. Although this
>>    provides you interaction, it is ultimately self
>>    defeating as it leaves you the constant recipient of
>>    abuse.  Imagine how much more rewarding it would feel
>>    to have others appreciate you and your contributions.
>>        Constantly throwing stones to get attention not only
>>    makes others angry, but in the end leaves you feeling
>>    unwanted, un-liked, and depressed.  It doesn't have
>>    to be this way !
>>        Please consider taking a positive stance and sharing
>>    your knowledge instead of your distain for humanity.
>>    I assure you that you don't need to throw stones
>>    to get attention. Knowledge, helpful advise, and a
>>    few kind words will draw folks to you and fill that
>>    empty void with friends, that just plain like you.
>>
>>    Linux is free, but the freedom that you seek is social
>>    and it will not be found in any technology, but within
>>    yourself.
>>
>> Enjoy,
>> Postmaster
>
> Dear Postmaster,
>
>   Please be so kind as to go fuck yourself.
>
> Thankyou,
> Rebecca
>
>
Rebecca,

        I believe that your statement sums up the validity of your
    arguments, your personality, your value to society, and should
    help convince everyone why they should disregard all of your posts,
    and indeed feel sorry for you and your tortured existence.   Since,
    your reaction was so vile, my post likely struck a nerve.
        I do feel sorry for you, as your life must be a never ending
    frustration with everyone, and everything around you. You spew
    nothing but hatred and only attempt to instigate hostilities.  This
    spiraling path that you have chosen is truly sad.  I wish I
    could say something to help you see a better path, but alas,
    the change must start from within you.

    I do have a limited supply of olive branches, please resist the
    temptation to simply set each of them on fire :-)

Enjoy,
Postmaster

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 10:49:43 -0700, "Rebecca"
<nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:

>NunYa Bidness wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 19:17:42 -0700, "Rebecca"
>> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>>
>>> rapskat wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:46:21 -0500, sbb78247 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> linux makes you stupid
>>>>
>>>> Linux might make *you* stupid.  It makes me money.
>>>
>>> That was stupid. Get that from using linux?
>>>
>>  Somebody needs to poke you in the hiney hole...
>>
>>  With a big, wooden, splintery NYPD broomstick handle!
>
>Name who. It certainly isn't going to be you.

 Too late.
>
>>
>>  Your address *should* be "lamelikebutbumblefukt".  You certainly are
>> NOT "godlike" or "humble", ditsoflex.
>
>Jealousy like that is sooo ugly.

  No...  YOU are like soooo ugly...  In fact, you're fugly.
>
>>
>> A good indicator is your edit of the follow up.  You could be a
>> little more lame, but I am suspecting that you are actually flatfish.
>
>Tell the fuckwit who edited it in the first place... or don't you know who 
>did it? Afterall, linux makes you stupid.
>
  That fukwit would be YOU.  The post before yours was in the right
group, and YOUR post had a "follow up" edit.  That makes YOU the
fukwitless twit that did it.

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 11:23:59 -0700, "Rebecca"
<nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:

>Postmaster wrote:
>> "Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
>> news:dfr0pi.1dk.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
>>> NunYa Bidness wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:13:15 -0700, "Rebecca"
>>>> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>>>>
>>>>> THAT took you 12 days to come up with? Pathetic.
>>>>>
>>>>  Do YOU have ANYTHING useful, or contributory to the thread to say?
>>>
>>> I already did. Has linux made you that stupid already?
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Pathetic indeed.
>>>
>>> Nice sig. Quite apt too.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Rebecca,
>>
>>        You must lead a very painful and lonely life. It is
>>    indeed sad that your only way of feeling alive
>>    is to solicit bitter and hateful replies. Although this
>>    provides you interaction, it is ultimately self
>>    defeating as it leaves you the constant recipient of
>>    abuse.  Imagine how much more rewarding it would feel
>>    to have others appreciate you and your contributions.
>>        Constantly throwing stones to get attention not only
>>    makes others angry, but in the end leaves you feeling
>>    unwanted, un-liked, and depressed.  It doesn't have
>>    to be this way !
>>        Please consider taking a positive stance and sharing
>>    your knowledge instead of your distain for humanity.
>>    I assure you that you don't need to throw stones
>>    to get attention. Knowledge, helpful advise, and a
>>    few kind words will draw folks to you and fill that
>>    empty void with friends, that just plain like you.
>>
>>    Linux is free, but the freedom that you seek is social
>>    and it will not be found in any technology, but within
>>    yourself.
>>
>> Enjoy,
>> Postmaster
>
>Dear Postmaster,
>
>   Please be so kind as to go fuck yourself.
>
>Thankyou,
>Rebecca
>

  Hahahaha... the ugly fat bitch even gets pissed when she gets
pegged.  Proof that he is correct.

On 8 Sep 2005 11:55:47 -0700, eros.tintory@hotmail.com Gave us:

>The Linux distros that we have installed have been indeed quite buggy,
>very unpolished software.

  An idiot like you wouldn't even know what the word "polish" means.

  The term for today is: 
Surface Quality

eros.tintory@hotmail.com poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> The Linux distros that we have installed have been indeed quite buggy,
> very unpolished software.

Which ones, and what were their version numbers?

-- 
Code is community.

NunYa Bidness wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 10:49:43 -0700, "Rebecca"
> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>
>> NunYa Bidness wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 19:17:42 -0700, "Rebecca"
>>> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>>>
>>>> rapskat wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:46:21 -0500, sbb78247 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> linux makes you stupid
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux might make *you* stupid.  It makes me money.
>>>>
>>>> That was stupid. Get that from using linux?
>>>>
>>>  Somebody needs to poke you in the hiney hole...
>>>
>>>  With a big, wooden, splintery NYPD broomstick handle!
>>
>> Name who. It certainly isn't going to be you.
>
> Too late.
>>
>>>
>>>  Your address *should* be "lamelikebutbumblefukt".  You certainly
>>> are NOT "godlike" or "humble", ditsoflex.
>>
>> Jealousy like that is sooo ugly.
>
>  No...  YOU are like soooo ugly...  In fact, you're fugly.
>>
>>>
>>> A good indicator is your edit of the follow up.  You could be a
>>> little more lame, but I am suspecting that you are actually
>>> flatfish.
>>
>> Tell the fuckwit who edited it in the first place... or don't you
>> know who did it? Afterall, linux makes you stupid.
>>
>  That fukwit would be YOU.  The post before yours was in the right
> group, and YOUR post had a "follow up" edit.  That makes YOU the
> fukwitless twit that did it.

So, you really are that stupid. Go reply to it.

Postmaster wrote:
> "Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
> news:dfr2mt.4p4.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
>> Postmaster wrote:
>>> "Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dfr0pi.1dk.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
>>>> NunYa Bidness wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:13:15 -0700, "Rebecca"
>>>>> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>>>>>
>>>>>> THAT took you 12 days to come up with? Pathetic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>  Do YOU have ANYTHING useful, or contributory to the thread to
>>>>> say?
>>>>
>>>> I already did. Has linux made you that stupid already?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Pathetic indeed.
>>>>
>>>> Nice sig. Quite apt too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rebecca,
>>>
>>>        You must lead a very painful and lonely life. It is
>>>    indeed sad that your only way of feeling alive
>>>    is to solicit bitter and hateful replies. Although this
>>>    provides you interaction, it is ultimately self
>>>    defeating as it leaves you the constant recipient of
>>>    abuse.  Imagine how much more rewarding it would feel
>>>    to have others appreciate you and your contributions.
>>>        Constantly throwing stones to get attention not only
>>>    makes others angry, but in the end leaves you feeling
>>>    unwanted, un-liked, and depressed.  It doesn't have
>>>    to be this way !
>>>        Please consider taking a positive stance and sharing
>>>    your knowledge instead of your distain for humanity.
>>>    I assure you that you don't need to throw stones
>>>    to get attention. Knowledge, helpful advise, and a
>>>    few kind words will draw folks to you and fill that
>>>    empty void with friends, that just plain like you.
>>>
>>>    Linux is free, but the freedom that you seek is social
>>>    and it will not be found in any technology, but within
>>>    yourself.
>>>
>>> Enjoy,
>>> Postmaster
>>
>> Dear Postmaster,
>>
>>   Please be so kind as to go fuck yourself.
>>
>> Thankyou,
>> Rebecca
>>
>>
> Rebecca,
>
>        I believe that your statement sums up the validity of your
>    arguments, your personality, your value to society, and should
>    help convince everyone why they should disregard all of your posts,
>    and indeed feel sorry for you and your tortured existence.   Since,
>    your reaction was so vile, my post likely struck a nerve.
>        I do feel sorry for you, as your life must be a never ending
>    frustration with everyone, and everything around you. You spew
>    nothing but hatred and only attempt to instigate hostilities.  This
>    spiraling path that you have chosen is truly sad.  I wish I
>    could say something to help you see a better path, but alas,
>    the change must start from within you.
>
>    I do have a limited supply of olive branches, please resist the
>    temptation to simply set each of them on fire :-)
>
> Enjoy,
> Postmaster

Oh dear. You're about to go postal...

Go ahead, no one will notice.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:45:21 GMT, NunYa Bidness
<nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> spewed the following drivel:

>On 8 Sep 2005 11:55:47 -0700, eros.tintory@hotmail.com Gave us:
>
>>The Linux distros that we have installed have been indeed quite
buggy,
>>very unpolished software.
>
>  An idiot like you wouldn't even know what the word "polish" means.

It means, like from Poland or something, huh?
>
>  The term for today is: 
>Surface Quality
__

-nos1eep

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 14:47:44 -0700, "Rebecca"
<nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:

>Oh dear. You're about to go postal...
>
>Go ahead, no one will notice.

  What are you?  Two years old?

 You could be more retarded, but I do not see how.

NunYa Bidness wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 14:47:44 -0700, "Rebecca"
> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>
>> Oh dear. You're about to go postal...
>>
>> Go ahead, no one will notice.
>
>  What are you?  Two years old?
>
> You could be more retarded, but I do not see how.


It's called a mirror.

Rebecca wrote:
> Postmaster wrote:
>> "Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
>> news:dfr2mt.4p4.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
>>> Postmaster wrote:
>>>> "Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:dfr0pi.1dk.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...

<snip>

Rebecca, did you even bother to read anything he wrote?

pcbutts1 wrote:
> Rebecca wrote:
>> Postmaster wrote:
>>> "Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
>>> news:dfr2mt.4p4.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
>>>> Postmaster wrote:
>>>>> "Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:dfr0pi.1dk.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
>
> <snip>
>
> Rebecca, did you even bother to read anything he wrote?


Of course not. He's a luser, he wouldn't have written anything I would 
bother reading.

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:22:11 -0700, "Rebecca"
<nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:

>NunYa Bidness wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 14:47:44 -0700, "Rebecca"
>> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>>
>>> Oh dear. You're about to go postal...
>>>
>>> Go ahead, no one will notice.
>>
>>  What are you?  Two years old?
>>
>> You could be more retarded, but I do not see how.
>
>
>It's called a mirror.

  If I looked in a mirror, I would not see you, dipshit.

  Are you a direct descendant of Dingus Con?

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:56:48 -0700, "Rebecca"
<nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:

>pcbutts1 wrote:
>> Rebecca wrote:
>>> Postmaster wrote:
>>>> "Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:dfr2mt.4p4.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
>>>>> Postmaster wrote:
>>>>>> "Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:dfr0pi.1dk.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Rebecca, did you even bother to read anything he wrote?
>
>
>Of course not. He's a luser, he wouldn't have written anything I would 
>bother reading.
>

  Leave to an E-1 grade (make that 4-F) twit to attempt to make
assessments about others.

NunYa Bidness wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:22:11 -0700, "Rebecca"
> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>
>> NunYa Bidness wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 14:47:44 -0700, "Rebecca"
>>> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>>>
>>>> Oh dear. You're about to go postal...
>>>>
>>>> Go ahead, no one will notice.
>>>
>>>  What are you?  Two years old?
>>>
>>> You could be more retarded, but I do not see how.
>>
>>
>> It's called a mirror.
>
>  If I looked in a mirror, I would not see you, dipshit.

Yes, I know that. Just how stupid are you to think I didn't?

NunYa Bidness wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 16:56:48 -0700, "Rebecca"
> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>
>> pcbutts1 wrote:
>>> Rebecca wrote:
>>>> Postmaster wrote:
>>>>> "Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:dfr2mt.4p4.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
>>>>>> Postmaster wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:dfr0pi.1dk.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Rebecca, did you even bother to read anything he wrote?
>>
>>
>> Of course not. He's a luser, he wouldn't have written anything I
>> would bother reading.
>>
>
>  Leave to an E-1 grade (make that 4-F) twit to attempt to make
> assessments about others.

Okay, I accept your self-assessment and will agree with you. Now run along 
and don't butt into others conversations. That's a good little twit.

Postmaster wrote:
> "Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message 
> news:dfr0pi.1dk.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
> 
>>NunYa Bidness wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:13:15 -0700, "Rebecca"
>>><nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>>>
>>>
>>>>THAT took you 12 days to come up with? Pathetic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do YOU have ANYTHING useful, or contributory to the thread to say?
>>
>>I already did. Has linux made you that stupid already?
>>
>>
>>
>>>-- 
>>>Pathetic indeed.
>>
>>Nice sig. Quite apt too.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Rebecca,
> 
>         You must lead a very painful and lonely life. It is
>     indeed sad that your only way of feeling alive
>     is to solicit bitter and hateful replies. Although this
>     provides you interaction, it is ultimately self
>     defeating as it leaves you the constant recipient of
>     abuse.  Imagine how much more rewarding it would feel
>     to have others appreciate you and your contributions.
>         Constantly throwing stones to get attention not only
>     makes others angry, but in the end leaves you feeling
>     unwanted, un-liked, and depressed.  It doesn't have
>     to be this way !
>         Please consider taking a positive stance and sharing
>     your knowledge instead of your distain for humanity.
>     I assure you that you don't need to throw stones
>     to get attention. Knowledge, helpful advise, and a
>     few kind words will draw folks to you and fill that
>     empty void with friends, that just plain like you.
> 
>     Linux is free, but the freedom that you seek is social
>     and it will not be found in any technology, but within
>     yourself.
> 
> Enjoy,
> Postmaster 
> 
> 
I am going to save most of what is said here and send it to my team. 
This isn't just good advice on a newsgroup, this is good advice for 
living your life and treating other people.

Postmaster - you are to be commended for your response. Indeed.

Robert Cook wrote:
> Postmaster wrote:
>> "Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
>> news:dfr0pi.1dk.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...
>>
>>> NunYa Bidness wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 15:13:15 -0700, "Rebecca"
>>>> <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> THAT took you 12 days to come up with? Pathetic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do YOU have ANYTHING useful, or contributory to the thread to say?
>>>
>>> I already did. Has linux made you that stupid already?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Pathetic indeed.
>>>
>>> Nice sig. Quite apt too.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Rebecca,
>>
>>         You must lead a very painful and lonely life. It is
>>     indeed sad that your only way of feeling alive
>>     is to solicit bitter and hateful replies. Although this
>>     provides you interaction, it is ultimately self
>>     defeating as it leaves you the constant recipient of
>>     abuse.  Imagine how much more rewarding it would feel
>>     to have others appreciate you and your contributions.
>>         Constantly throwing stones to get attention not only
>>     makes others angry, but in the end leaves you feeling
>>     unwanted, un-liked, and depressed.  It doesn't have
>>     to be this way !
>>         Please consider taking a positive stance and sharing
>>     your knowledge instead of your distain for humanity.
>>     I assure you that you don't need to throw stones
>>     to get attention. Knowledge, helpful advise, and a
>>     few kind words will draw folks to you and fill that
>>     empty void with friends, that just plain like you.
>>
>>     Linux is free, but the freedom that you seek is social
>>     and it will not be found in any technology, but within
>>     yourself.
>>
>> Enjoy,
>> Postmaster
>>
>>
> I am going to save most of what is said here and send it to my team.
> This isn't just good advice on a newsgroup, this is good advice for
> living your life and treating other people.
>
> Postmaster - you are to be commended for your response. Indeed.


Good god, suck his dick in private.

> > Postmaster - you are to be commended for your response. Indeed.
>
>
> Good god, suck his dick in private.

Hmm must be a Windows user ..........

"Jack Ouzzi" <mick.sturbes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126283761.176653.53430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>>> Postmaster - you are to be commended for your response. Indeed.
>>
>>
>> Good god, suck his dick in private.
>
> Hmm must be a Windows user ..........

Just curious.  If you took the IQ of every petty arguer in these flame wars 
and added them all together, do you suppose it would add up to 100?

A linux looker who happily went back to Windows that works. 

Glenn wrote:
> "Jack Ouzzi" <mick.sturbes@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126283761.176653.53430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> >>> Postmaster - you are to be commended for your response. Indeed.
> >>
> >>
> >> Good god, suck his dick in private.
> >
> > Hmm must be a Windows user ..........
>
> Just curious.  If you took the IQ of every petty arguer in these flame wars
> and added them all together, do you suppose it would add up to 100?
>
> A linux looker who happily went back to Windows that works.

Nope, just posting so that my posts appear together for people to make
judgements.

Fine, if you are happy with Windoze that's cool. Linux is FAR better
though if you try it properly.

Jack Ouzzi wrote:
>>> Postmaster - you are to be commended for your response. Indeed.
>>
>>
>> Good god, suck his dick in private.
>
> Hmm must be a Windows user ..........


I don't think he is... too stupid: linux makes you stupid.

Jack Ouzzi wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>> "Jack Ouzzi" <mick.sturbes@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1126283761.176653.53430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>>>>> Postmaster - you are to be commended for your response. Indeed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good god, suck his dick in private.
>>>
>>> Hmm must be a Windows user ..........
>>
>> Just curious.  If you took the IQ of every petty arguer in these
>> flame wars and added them all together, do you suppose it would add
>> up to 100?
>>
>> A linux looker who happily went back to Windows that works.
>
> Nope, just posting so that my posts appear together for people to make
> judgements.
>

Don't you mean "...so that my name appears in lights"  Or, did you really 
mean that you have nothing to add, but you'll post anyway?

Rebecca wrote:

> Don't you mean "...so that my name appears in lights"  Or, did you really
> mean that you have nothing to add, but you'll post anyway?

Yawn ......  ;-)

Jack Ouzzi wrote:
> Rebecca wrote:
>
>> Don't you mean "...so that my name appears in lights"  Or, did you
>> really mean that you have nothing to add, but you'll post anyway?
>
> Yawn ......  ;-)

I'll take that as a 'Yes to both' -- choice too tough to make.

Rebecca wrote:
> Jack Ouzzi wrote:
> > Rebecca wrote:
> >
> >> Don't you mean "...so that my name appears in lights"  Or, did you
> >> really mean that you have nothing to add, but you'll post anyway?
> >
> > Yawn ......  ;-)
> 
> I'll take that as a 'Yes to both' -- choice too tough to make.

Yes

chrisv wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>
>> A linux looker who happily went back to Windows that works.
>
> When did you last try it?  If it's been a year, you should give it
> another chance - you may be surprised at the rapid rate of
> improvement.  I'd recommend Mepis Linux, which runs as a "live" CD for
> a fast, risk-free  trial, and also is super-easy to install on a spare
> hard-drive.


*plonk* 

Glenn wrote:

>A linux looker who happily went back to Windows that works. 

When did you last try it?  If it's been a year, you should give it
another chance - you may be surprised at the rapid rate of
improvement.  I'd recommend Mepis Linux, which runs as a "live" CD for
a fast, risk-free  trial, and also is super-easy to install on a spare
hard-drive.

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:kgj3i1131rlbvdoa0204690rikh39r5htc@4ax.com
> Glenn wrote:
>
>> A linux looker who happily went back to Windows that works.
>
> When did you last try it?  If it's been a year, you should give it
> another chance - you may be surprised at the rapid rate of
> improvement.  I'd recommend Mepis Linux, which runs as a "live" CD for
> a fast, risk-free  trial, and also is super-easy to install on a spare
> hard-drive.

Not that long ago actually.  I had man 10.1 installed, had TB & FF 
downloaded and couldn't get it loaded (installed).  I was called stupid, 
ignorant, a moron just for starters.  All of the names were probably true 
but I was smart enough to go back to Windows.  One of the dumber ones even 
complained because I was polite.

I see this is crossposted.  I have said the above in mandrakes ng.  I also 
said the following.............

You guys could change your tactics and gain more converts than running 
everyone down.  Change the vinegar to honey?

Take myself for instance.  I have mandrake 10.1 on a spare 20g hd.  If I 
wasn't interested, I wouldn't have it.  If I ask a question about it and I 
have, it is going to be in relation to what I would be doing in windows, the 
system that I DO know.  Why should that be so _threatening_?  Someone real 
sharp could tell me how to do it step by step in linux (show me once and 
I'll never have to ask about that operation again) how to do it better than 
windows.  If you think about it, why else would I be asking?  That does two 
things. Materially shows your system is better than windows (how's that for 
a challenge? {G}) and helps make me and other lurkers into converts.  Why 
can't you see that?

Please don't respond to this and start yet another war.  No one is going to 
win.  Just reflect on the wisdom or folly (your choice) of the thought.

PS  It did lead to another flame war.  No one won !!

Lin=F8nutlin=F8nut@bone.com wrote:
> eros.tintory@hotmail.com poked his little head through the XP firewall an=
d said:
>
> > The Linux distros that we have installed have been indeed quite buggy,
> > very unpolished software.
>
> Which ones, and what were their version numbers?

We installed Debian 3.1 rev0a on a couple of our office Compaq Evo
desktops. Debian was unable to detect the Compaq Intel 82845 video
card, which BTW is standard on all of our 230+ corporate desktops
(Compaq standard corporate video for the Evo). We had to mess with the
X configuration, configured it with both vesa and i810 drivers, none of
which gave us more than 800x600@73 resolution. These machines run WinXP
Pro at 1024x768@85 with no problem whatsoever. Our staff was also very
dissapointed with the Debian graphical interface: fonts sucked (jaggy,
terrible), the whole look and feel of the gnome desktop was old and
outdated (butt ugly in one of our employee's words). We switched to
KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE is
cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate envirnment.
The FedoraCore 4 installation story was even worse, everything
installed well but the FC4 installer failed to setup dual-boot
properly, so after rebooting, the 3 Compaq Evos went straight to
Windows without presenting a grub menu, a royal waste of my time and
our staff. We paid little money for the Debian 3.1 rev0a and FC4 CDs at
CheapBytes.com, but at the end of the day we realized once again that
you get what you pay for, Linux still sucks!

Eros Tintory

<eros.tintory@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1126294566.999963.105480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Lin�nutlin�nut@bone.com wrote:
> eros.tintory@hotmail.com poked his little head through the XP firewall and 
> said:
>
> > The Linux distros that we have installed have been indeed quite buggy,
> > very unpolished software.
>
> Which ones, and what were their version numbers?

We installed Debian 3.1 rev0a on a couple of our office Compaq Evo
desktops. Debian was unable to detect the Compaq Intel 82845 video
card, which BTW is standard on all of our 230+ corporate desktops
(Compaq standard corporate video for the Evo). We had to mess with the
X configuration, configured it with both vesa and i810 drivers, none of
which gave us more than 800x600@73 resolution. These machines run WinXP
Pro at 1024x768@85 with no problem whatsoever. Our staff was also very
dissapointed with the Debian graphical interface: fonts sucked (jaggy,
terrible), the whole look and feel of the gnome desktop was old and
outdated (butt ugly in one of our employee's words). We switched to
KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE is
cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate envirnment.
The FedoraCore 4 installation story was even worse, everything
installed well but the FC4 installer failed to setup dual-boot
properly, so after rebooting, the 3 Compaq Evos went straight to
Windows without presenting a grub menu, a royal waste of my time and
our staff. We paid little money for the Debian 3.1 rev0a and FC4 CDs at
CheapBytes.com, but at the end of the day we realized once again that
you get what you pay for, Linux still sucks!

Eros Tintory
--------------------------------------

Eros,

    Could you provide a model number for the EVO that
is having difficulty ? It's not too unusual for one to need
an update or a vendor specific driver (for Linux, or Windows)

    With the model number I (or you) could look up the support
info on the hp web site and see if there are any updates
that would help.

Enjoy,
Postmaster

Postmaster wrote:
> <eros.tintory@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126294566.999963.105480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Lin=F8nutlin=F8nut@bone.com wrote:
> > eros.tintory@hotmail.com poked his little head through the XP firewall =
and
> > said:
> >
> > > The Linux distros that we have installed have been indeed quite buggy,
> > > very unpolished software.
> >
> > Which ones, and what were their version numbers?
>
> We installed Debian 3.1 rev0a on a couple of our office Compaq Evo
> desktops. Debian was unable to detect the Compaq Intel 82845 video
> card, which BTW is standard on all of our 230+ corporate desktops
> (Compaq standard corporate video for the Evo). We had to mess with the
> X configuration, configured it with both vesa and i810 drivers, none of
> which gave us more than 800x600@73 resolution. These machines run WinXP
> Pro at 1024x768@85 with no problem whatsoever. Our staff was also very
> dissapointed with the Debian graphical interface: fonts sucked (jaggy,
> terrible), the whole look and feel of the gnome desktop was old and
> outdated (butt ugly in one of our employee's words). We switched to
> KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE is
> cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate envirnment.
> The FedoraCore 4 installation story was even worse, everything
> installed well but the FC4 installer failed to setup dual-boot
> properly, so after rebooting, the 3 Compaq Evos went straight to
> Windows without presenting a grub menu, a royal waste of my time and
> our staff. We paid little money for the Debian 3.1 rev0a and FC4 CDs at
> CheapBytes.com, but at the end of the day we realized once again that
> you get what you pay for, Linux still sucks!
>
> Eros Tintory
> --------------------------------------
>
> Eros,
>
>     Could you provide a model number for the EVO that
> is having difficulty ? It's not too unusual for one to need
> an update or a vendor specific driver (for Linux, or Windows)
>
>     With the model number I (or you) could look up the support
> info on the hp web site and see if there are any updates
> that would help.


Here you go: Compaq Evo D51C/P2A/40/P/256C US

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:36:07 -0700, eros.tintory wrote:

> 
> Linønutlinønut@bone.com wrote:
>> eros.tintory@hotmail.com poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>
>> > The Linux distros that we have installed have been indeed quite buggy,
>> > very unpolished software.
>>
>> Which ones, and what were their version numbers?
> 
> We installed Debian 3.1 rev0a on a couple of our office Compaq Evo
> desktops. Debian was unable to detect the Compaq Intel 82845 video
> card, which BTW is standard on all of our 230+ corporate desktops
> (Compaq standard corporate video for the Evo). We had to mess with the
> X configuration, configured it with both vesa and i810 drivers, none of
> which gave us more than 800x600@73 resolution. These machines run WinXP
> Pro at 1024x768@85 with no problem whatsoever. Our staff was also very
> dissapointed with the Debian graphical interface: fonts sucked (jaggy,
> terrible), the whole look and feel of the gnome desktop was old and
> outdated (butt ugly in one of our employee's words).

Your 'employee' is clearly blind. Gnome 2.8 is hardly 'old and outdated'.
And certainly not ugly, butt or otherwise. In fact, the more recent Gnomes
have almost made me want to desert KDE, because they're so attractive. Not
only that, Gnome is packed with innovation.

As for the fonts - don't pull that troll-crap out of your sorry arse.

> We switched to
> KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE is
> cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate envirnment.

Ahahhahahhahaha! You really are joking. Cartoonish? Bullshit.


> The FedoraCore 4 installation story was even worse, everything
> installed well but the FC4 installer failed to setup dual-boot
> properly, so after rebooting, the 3 Compaq Evos went straight to
> Windows without presenting a grub menu, a royal waste of my time and
> our staff.

And you haven't the brains to learn to edit a text file to point Grub to
the right place? 

 We paid little money for the Debian 3.1 rev0a and FC4 CDs at
> CheapBytes.com, but at the end of the day we realized once again that
> you get what you pay for, Linux still sucks!

No, it does not. What you mean is, you are too lazy to learn how to
administer Linux.

-- 
Kier

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 08:37:13 -0700, "Rebecca"
<nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> Gave us:

>Good god, suck his dick in private.
>

  Try the complete "Kung Fu" series.

  You need help.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:46:04 GMT, "Glenn" <pilcheg@kc.rr.com> Gave us:

>"Jack Ouzzi" <mick.sturbes@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1126283761.176653.53430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>>>> Postmaster - you are to be commended for your response. Indeed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Good god, suck his dick in private.
>>
>> Hmm must be a Windows user ..........
>
>Just curious.  If you took the IQ of every petty arguer in these flame wars 
>and added them all together, do you suppose it would add up to 100?
>
>A linux looker who happily went back to Windows that works. 

  "arguer"  Sheesh.

  Mine is an order of magnitude higher than hers. She barely breaks
double digits.

 Likely higher than yours as well, boy.

<eros.tintory@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1126296213.597816.57700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Postmaster wrote:
> <eros.tintory@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126294566.999963.105480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Lin�nutlin�nut@bone.com wrote:
> > eros.tintory@hotmail.com poked his little head through the XP firewall 
> > and
> > said:
> >
> > > The Linux distros that we have installed have been indeed quite buggy,
> > > very unpolished software.
> >
> > Which ones, and what were their version numbers?
>
> We installed Debian 3.1 rev0a on a couple of our office Compaq Evo
> desktops. Debian was unable to detect the Compaq Intel 82845 video
> card, which BTW is standard on all of our 230+ corporate desktops
> (Compaq standard corporate video for the Evo). We had to mess with the
> X configuration, configured it with both vesa and i810 drivers, none of
> which gave us more than 800x600@73 resolution. These machines run WinXP
> Pro at 1024x768@85 with no problem whatsoever. Our staff was also very
> dissapointed with the Debian graphical interface: fonts sucked (jaggy,
> terrible), the whole look and feel of the gnome desktop was old and
> outdated (butt ugly in one of our employee's words). We switched to
> KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE is
> cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate envirnment.
> The FedoraCore 4 installation story was even worse, everything
> installed well but the FC4 installer failed to setup dual-boot
> properly, so after rebooting, the 3 Compaq Evos went straight to
> Windows without presenting a grub menu, a royal waste of my time and
> our staff. We paid little money for the Debian 3.1 rev0a and FC4 CDs at
> CheapBytes.com, but at the end of the day we realized once again that
> you get what you pay for, Linux still sucks!
>
> Eros Tintory
> --------------------------------------
>
> Eros,
>
>     Could you provide a model number for the EVO that
> is having difficulty ? It's not too unusual for one to need
> an update or a vendor specific driver (for Linux, or Windows)
>
>     With the model number I (or you) could look up the support
> info on the hp web site and see if there are any updates
> that would help.


Here you go: Compaq Evo D51C/P2A/40/P/256C US
------------

Eros,

    I'm still poking around but thought I would give you a few
    pointer to the Linux certified HP products.

    Desktops & Notebooks:
        http://h10018.www1.hp.com/wwsolutions/linux/products/clients/clientscert-redhat.html

    Workstations:
        http://h10018.www1.hp.com/wwsolutions/linux/products/clients/workstationcert.html

    General Linux certification:
        http://h10018.www1.hp.com/wwsolutions/linux/certifications.html

    General Linux offerings:
        http://h10018.www1.hp.com/wwsolutions/linux/offerings.html


    So far I have not found the D51C Linux stuff.  It is possible that
    this system is simply not supported, or that I just have not
    found it yet :-)

    Note: I don't think there are Win98 drivers for this video chipset 
either :-)

    Never fear, even if you have a system that isn't on the officially
    supported list, its pretty likely that we can make it work, with a
    bit of tweaking.

    Since you are the owner of this equipment, have you tried
    HP support ? It would be much easier for you to give them
    a call than for me as I won't have the answers to many of
    their questions... (like serial numbers, purchase date...and so on)

    I'll keep poking about and see what I can find too.

Enjoy,
Postmaster

chrisv poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Glenn wrote:
>
>>A linux looker who happily went back to Windows that works. 
>
> When did you last try it?  If it's been a year, you should give it
> another chance - you may be surprised at the rapid rate of
> improvement.  I'd recommend Mepis Linux, which runs as a "live" CD for
> a fast, risk-free  trial, and also is super-easy to install on a spare
> hard-drive.

GNU/Linux/OSS does indeed progress rapidly, and it works better than XP
on stuff that hasn't been co-opted by Microsoft.

Personally, I would do everything possible to avoid Windows.  It is like
avoiding the watching of TV... you usually find much better things to
do.

-- 
Code is community.

Glenn poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Not that long ago actually.  I had man 10.1 installed, had TB & FF 
> downloaded and couldn't get it loaded (installed).  I was called stupid, 
> ignorant, a moron just for starters.

You would have to be, unfortunately.  There are many otherwise
intelligent people who cannot deal with simple items that merely lie
beyond their domain of competence.

> All of the names were probably true 
> but I was smart enough to go back to Windows.

As if going back to the default option is any indication of smarts.

> Please don't respond to this and start yet another war.  No one is going to 
> win.  Just reflect on the wisdom or folly (your choice) of the thought.

It's not a matter of winning.  It is a matter of deflecting your
misinformation.

-- 
Code is community.

eros.tintory@hotmail.com poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Lin�nutlin�nut@bone.com wrote:
>> eros.tintory@hotmail.com poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>> > The Linux distros that we have installed have been indeed quite buggy,
>> > very unpolished software.
>>
>> Which ones, and what were their version numbers?

Amazing.  In what follows, everything is a lie or a probable lie.
>
> We installed Debian 3.1 rev0a on a couple of our office Compaq Evo
> desktops.

A probable lie, except that rev0a does exist.  I doubt tinfoil loaded
it, however.

> Debian was unable to detect the Compaq Intel 82845 video
> card,

A mixed up lie here.  The Compaq 82845 is a chip, based on Intel i845,
  and is support with the i830 driver.
   
> which BTW is standard on all of our 230+ corporate desktops
> (Compaq standard corporate video for the Evo). We had to mess with the
> X configuration, configured it with both vesa and i810 drivers, none of
> which gave us more than 800x600@73 resolution.

Bullshit.

> Our staff was also very
> dissapointed with the Debian graphical interface: fonts sucked (jaggy,
> terrible),

I happen to have a slightly earlier version of Debian 3.1 on my laptop,
and the fonts are very good.  Of course, you're claiming you could
only view them at 800x600.  Were you simply too stupid to turn on
anti-aliasing?
   
> the whole look and feel of the gnome desktop was old and
> outdated (butt ugly in one of our employee's words).

Bulshit.

> We switched to
> KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE is
> cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate envirnment.

Here's the point at which one knows you are simply trolling,
deliberately lying to get your silly jollies by reading the
responses.

Pathetic.

> The FedoraCore 4 installation story was even worse, everything
> installed well but the FC4 installer failed to setup dual-boot
> properly, so after rebooting, the 3 Compaq Evos went straight to
> Windows without presenting a grub menu, a royal waste of my time and
> our staff. We paid little money for the Debian 3.1 rev0a and FC4 CDs at
> CheapBytes.com, but at the end of the day we realized once again that
> you get what you pay for, Linux still sucks!
>
> Eros Tintory

I give you a score of 5.0.  You started out plausibly, but almost
immediately told some whoppers that are just too obvious to get a rise
out of all but the most rabid fanboy.

-- 
Code is community.

Postmaster poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

>> Which ones, and what were their version numbers?
>
> We installed Debian 3.1 rev0a on a couple of our office Compaq Evo
> desktops.
> --------------------------------------
>
> Eros,
>
>     Could you provide a model number for the EVO that
> is having difficulty ? It's not too unusual for one to need
> an update or a vendor specific driver (for Linux, or Windows)
>
>     With the model number I (or you) could look up the support
> info on the hp web site and see if there are any updates
> that would help.

Whaddaya know! A sock puppet from verizon.net, just like Lefty Bigfoot.

-- 
Code is community.

"NunYa Bidness" <nunyabidness@nunyabidness.org> wrote in message
news:h6u3i1p9p10n9htjhdv564orgnu5t6j1bq@4ax.com
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:46:04 GMT, "Glenn" <pilcheg@kc.rr.com> Gave us:
>
>>
>> Just curious.  If you took the IQ of every petty arguer in these
>> flame wars and added them all together, do you suppose it would add
>> up to 100?
>>
>> A linux looker who happily went back to Windows that works.
>
>  "arguer"  Sheesh.
>
>  Mine is an order of magnitude higher than hers. She barely breaks
> double digits.
>
> Likely higher than yours as well, boy.

I have no doubt.  Purdue University in Indiana USA said mine in 1949 was 161 
BOY.  Kids!!!! 

<eros.tintory@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1126296213.597816.57700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Postmaster wrote:
> <eros.tintory@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126294566.999963.105480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Lin�nutlin�nut@bone.com wrote:
> > eros.tintory@hotmail.com poked his little head through the XP firewall 
> > and
> > said:
> >
> > > The Linux distros that we have installed have been indeed quite buggy,
> > > very unpolished software.
> >
> > Which ones, and what were their version numbers?
>
> We installed Debian 3.1 rev0a on a couple of our office Compaq Evo
> desktops. Debian was unable to detect the Compaq Intel 82845 video
> card, which BTW is standard on all of our 230+ corporate desktops
> (Compaq standard corporate video for the Evo). We had to mess with the
> X configuration, configured it with both vesa and i810 drivers, none of
> which gave us more than 800x600@73 resolution. These machines run WinXP
> Pro at 1024x768@85 with no problem whatsoever. Our staff was also very
> dissapointed with the Debian graphical interface: fonts sucked (jaggy,
> terrible), the whole look and feel of the gnome desktop was old and
> outdated (butt ugly in one of our employee's words). We switched to
> KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE is
> cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate envirnment.
> The FedoraCore 4 installation story was even worse, everything
> installed well but the FC4 installer failed to setup dual-boot
> properly, so after rebooting, the 3 Compaq Evos went straight to
> Windows without presenting a grub menu, a royal waste of my time and
> our staff. We paid little money for the Debian 3.1 rev0a and FC4 CDs at
> CheapBytes.com, but at the end of the day we realized once again that
> you get what you pay for, Linux still sucks!
>
> Eros Tintory
> --------------------------------------
>
> Eros,
>
>     Could you provide a model number for the EVO that
> is having difficulty ? It's not too unusual for one to need
> an update or a vendor specific driver (for Linux, or Windows)
>
>     With the model number I (or you) could look up the support
> info on the hp web site and see if there are any updates
> that would help.


Here you go: Compaq Evo D51C/P2A/40/P/256C US
------------------

Eros,

    Have you tried the Intel Linux drivers for the 82845 ?

    http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df-external/Detail_Desc.aspx?agr=N&ProductID=865&DwnldID=8211&strOSs=39&OSFullName=Linux*&lang=eng

Enjoy,
Postmaster

Glenn wrote:
> "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:kgj3i1131rlbvdoa0204690rikh39r5htc@4ax.com
> 
>> Glenn wrote:
>>
>>> A linux looker who happily went back to Windows that works.
>>
>>
>> When did you last try it?  If it's been a year, you should give it
>> another chance - you may be surprised at the rapid rate of
>> improvement.  I'd recommend Mepis Linux, which runs as a "live" CD for
>> a fast, risk-free  trial, and also is super-easy to install on a spare
>> hard-drive.
> 
> 
> Not that long ago actually.  I had man 10.1 installed, had TB & FF 
> downloaded and couldn't get it loaded (installed).  I was called stupid, 
> ignorant, a moron just for starters.  All of the names were probably 
> true but I was smart enough to go back to Windows.  One of the dumber 
> ones even complained because I was polite.
> 
> I see this is crossposted.  I have said the above in mandrakes ng.  I 
> also said the following.............
> 
> You guys could change your tactics and gain more converts than running 
> everyone down.  Change the vinegar to honey?
> 
> Take myself for instance.  I have mandrake 10.1 on a spare 20g hd.  If I 
> wasn't interested, I wouldn't have it.  If I ask a question about it and 
> I have, it is going to be in relation to what I would be doing in 
> windows, the system that I DO know.  Why should that be so 
> _threatening_?  Someone real sharp could tell me how to do it step by 
> step in linux (show me once and I'll never have to ask about that 
> operation again) how to do it better than windows.  If you think about 
> it, why else would I be asking?  That does two things. Materially shows 
> your system is better than windows (how's that for a challenge? {G}) and 
> helps make me and other lurkers into converts.  Why can't you see that?
> 
> Please don't respond to this and start yet another war.  No one is going 
> to win.  Just reflect on the wisdom or folly (your choice) of the thought.
> 
> PS  It did lead to another flame war.  No one won !!
> 
> 
No one ever does. They just like to fight. They have nothing better to 
do with their time, and they think Linux needs to be "defended" from any 
"challenge" that comes along. Same thing happens in the Windows 
newsgroups, I imagine. I don't go there, so I wouldn't know. Yes, it is 
pathetic. It's pathetic in the Linux newsgroups, and it's pathetic in 
the Windows newsgroups. Will it ever stop? Nope. There is a never-ending 
supply of this type of advocate. More's the pity.

I was there in Mandrake, Glenn. Calling them on the flame wars only 
leads to more flames. Seeing the error of their ways isn't in them.

Please consider trying Linux again. It DOES work, for most things people 
usually do with Windows. It isn't perfect, and it doesn't do everything, 
but it's coming along. The OS that does everthing without problems 
hasn't been developed yet.

TJ, a Linux user who didn't give up at the first difficulty.

"TJ" <tjatari@dreamscape.com> wrote in message
news:11i5lml8a70sq02@corp.supernews.com
>>
>
> I was there in Mandrake, Glenn. Calling them on the flame wars only
> leads to more flames. Seeing the error of their ways isn't in them.

I saw you there.  Thank you!!
>
> Please consider trying Linux again. It DOES work, for most things
> people usually do with Windows. It isn't perfect, and it doesn't do
> everything, but it's coming along. The OS that does everthing without
> problems hasn't been developed yet.

Analyze the above paragraph.  I have to ask a logical question that will set 
the flamers into a tizzy.

Your quote of "It DOES work, for most things people usually do with 
Windows."  makes me focus in on the word "most".

This isn't a smart aleck question but if a person has everything he needs in 
windows, why would he go to something _almost_ as good?  Perhaps someone 
just starting out may to save money.  If his time is worth anything at all, 
isn't the cost of a program that loads and runs cheaper than spending days 
on end learning how to get a program loaded?  Anyway, the OS is the only 
cost if you so desire.  I can't think of a program that isn't free from some 
of the sites like Pricelessware, etc.

If we were face to face, we could discuss this pleasantly and logically but 
the flamers will have a ball with it.  Incoming, Duck!!

Regards, Glenn

Glenn wrote:

> This isn't a smart aleck question but if a person has everything he needs
> in windows, why would he go to something almost as good?

Quite: but I suspect most of us who have tried and switched to Linux had
lots of things which didn't quite work in Windows - or worked with such a
level of difficulty that they were a constant incentive to wish there was
an alternative.

Then one day one of those things just got annoying enough to make us look
seriously elsewhere, and found that 'almost as good' in several areas
combined with 'rather better' in several others.  (The fact that a complete
start-to-finish Linux installation, including printer, scanner etc,
involved precisely one reboot, when the same machine had spent most of the
previous evening being rebooted after a few minutes uptime over and over
again to get Windows and various drivers installed was the first 'rather
better' for me).

I have machines running both systems in the house: which one people (myself,
my wife and five children aged between 6 and 21) prefer to use depends
entirely on what they want to do.   I have to say that the Linux machines
are more heavily used, by quite a long way: there is just the odd thing
where Windows is easier, though.

Perhaps one day Windows will catch up with Linux on the things Linux does
better, and vice versa: for the moment, each has its own very real
drawbacks.   It's a question of which drawbacks actually matter to you. 

For me, the security, ability to do most maintenance without half a dozen
reboots, and seamless local networking brought Linux out well ahead, even
after years of working with Windows (from 3.1 through to XP)  in network
and desktop environments.  

-- 
David Aldred

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:59:13 +0000, Glenn wrote:

> 
> This isn't a smart aleck question but if a person has everything he needs in 
> windows, why would he go to something _almost_ as good?

It's a question worth considering. In general, the answer is, if you have
what you need in Windows, use Windows. But there's more to it than that,
IMO. For one thing, it's frequently better, not 'almost as good'.

> Perhaps someone just starting out may to save money.  If his time is
> worth anything at all, isn't the cost of a program that loads and runs
> cheaper than spending days on end learning how to get a program loaded?

This isn't the first time I've come across this idea of a person's time
being calculated in monetary terms. Seems a bit odd to me. Isn't learning
itself worth something - a satisfaction gained in obtaining new skills?
And while you're learning the new skills, the old ones don't suddenly
vanish.

I'm reminded of a discussion between two characters in the SF drama
Babylon 5. Ranger Marcus Cole offers to teach his friend Susan Ivanova to
speak Minbari, an alien language. She replies something to the effect of,
it would probably take her a year to get anywhere with it. Marcus says,
where will she be in a year's time if she doesn't learn it? Will any less
time have passed?

In other words, time goes by whether or not you learn new skills, so why
not learn them?

There's also the fact that Linux has now reached a level where it isn't
difficult for most people to use. Smetimes of course you'll find
situations where some greater effort is required, but for most of the
everyday tasks people do on a PC, Linux is there now. 

So, why should anyone switch? you ask. Because it offers advantages that
many users find worth any effort it's necessary to make. Few worries, if
any, about malware and viruses, an OS which is *your* property, to do with
pretty much as you wish so long as you honour the GPL. The upholding of an
ethical stance. A stable OS with a huge range of choices. These are just
*some* of the reasons a use may find to switch


> Anyway, the OS is the only cost if you so desire. I can't think of a
> program that isn't free from some of the sites like Pricelessware, etc.

Free as in genuine freeware or dodgy stuff? There are thousands of
packages that you can install for Linux, totally freely.

-- 
Kier

"David Aldred" <david@familyaldred.org.uk> wrote in message
news:qgdbv2xqup.ln2@main.familyaldred.org.uk
> Glenn wrote:
>
>> This isn't a smart aleck question but if a person has everything he
>> needs in windows, why would he go to something almost as good?
>
> Quite: but I suspect most of us who have tried and switched to Linux
> had lots of things which didn't quite work in Windows - or worked
> with such a level of difficulty that they were a constant incentive
> to wish there was an alternative.
>
> Then one day one of those things just got annoying enough to make us
> look seriously elsewhere, and found that 'almost as good' in several
> areas combined with 'rather better' in several others.  (The fact
> that a complete start-to-finish Linux installation, including
> printer, scanner etc, involved precisely one reboot, when the same
> machine had spent most of the previous evening being rebooted after a
> few minutes uptime over and over again to get Windows and various
> drivers installed was the first 'rather better' for me).
>
> I have machines running both systems in the house: which one people
> (myself, my wife and five children aged between 6 and 21) prefer to
> use depends entirely on what they want to do.   I have to say that
> the Linux machines are more heavily used, by quite a long way: there
> is just the odd thing where Windows is easier, though.
>
> Perhaps one day Windows will catch up with Linux on the things Linux
> does better, and vice versa: for the moment, each has its own very
> real drawbacks.   It's a question of which drawbacks actually matter
> to you.
>
> For me, the security, ability to do most maintenance without half a
> dozen reboots, and seamless local networking brought Linux out well
> ahead, even after years of working with Windows (from 3.1 through to
> XP)  in network and desktop environments.

Thank you for a good sensible answer.  You make good points.  BTW, I can't 
remember the last time I have had to reboot.  :) 

"Kier" <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.09.10.16.47.53.460941@tiscali.co.uk
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:59:13 +0000, Glenn wrote:
>
>>
>> This isn't a smart aleck question but if a person has everything he
>> needs in windows, why would he go to something _almost_ as good?
>
> It's a question worth considering. In general, the answer is, if you
> have what you need in Windows, use Windows. But there's more to it
> than that, IMO. For one thing, it's frequently better, not 'almost as
> good'.
>
>> Perhaps someone just starting out may to save money.  If his time is
>> worth anything at all, isn't the cost of a program that loads and
>> runs cheaper than spending days on end learning how to get a program
>> loaded?
>
> This isn't the first time I've come across this idea of a person's
> time being calculated in monetary terms. Seems a bit odd to me. Isn't
> learning itself worth something - a satisfaction gained in obtaining
> new skills? And while you're learning the new skills, the old ones
> don't suddenly vanish.
>
> I'm reminded of a discussion between two characters in the SF drama
> Babylon 5. Ranger Marcus Cole offers to teach his friend Susan
> Ivanova to speak Minbari, an alien language. She replies something to
> the effect of, it would probably take her a year to get anywhere with
> it. Marcus says, where will she be in a year's time if she doesn't
> learn it? Will any less time have passed?
>
> In other words, time goes by whether or not you learn new skills, so
> why not learn them?
>
> There's also the fact that Linux has now reached a level where it
> isn't difficult for most people to use. Smetimes of course you'll find
> situations where some greater effort is required, but for most of the
> everyday tasks people do on a PC, Linux is there now.
>
> So, why should anyone switch? you ask. Because it offers advantages
> that many users find worth any effort it's necessary to make. Few
> worries, if any, about malware and viruses, an OS which is *your*
> property, to do with pretty much as you wish so long as you honour
> the GPL. The upholding of an ethical stance. A stable OS with a huge
> range of choices. These are just *some* of the reasons a use may find
> to switch
>
>
>> Anyway, the OS is the only cost if you so desire. I can't think of a
>> program that isn't free from some of the sites like Pricelessware,
>> etc.
>
> Free as in genuine freeware or dodgy stuff? There are thousands of
> packages that you can install for Linux, totally freely.

Another good sensible answer.  You make good points.  BTW, just the fact 
that I monitor this ng should show that I have an interest in linux. 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0066_01C5B5FF.FA78B5F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"David Aldred" <david@familyaldred.org.uk> wrote in message
news:qgdbv2xqup.ln2@main.familyaldred.org.uk 
> Glenn wrote:
> 
>> This isn't a smart aleck question but if a person has everything he
>> needs in windows, why would he go to something almost as good?
> 
> Quite: but I suspect most of us who have tried and switched to Linux
> had lots of things which didn't quite work in Windows - or worked
> with such a level of difficulty that they were a constant incentive
> to wish there was an alternative.
> 
> Then one day one of those things just got annoying enough to make us
> look seriously elsewhere, and found that 'almost as good' in several
> areas combined with 'rather better' in several others.  (The fact
> that a complete start-to-finish Linux installation, including
> printer, scanner etc, involved precisely one reboot, when the same
> machine had spent most of the previous evening being rebooted after a
> few minutes uptime over and over again to get Windows and various
> drivers installed was the first 'rather better' for me).
> 
> I have machines running both systems in the house: which one people
> (myself, my wife and five children aged between 6 and 21) prefer to
> use depends entirely on what they want to do.   I have to say that
> the Linux machines are more heavily used, by quite a long way: there
> is just the odd thing where Windows is easier, though.
> 
> Perhaps one day Windows will catch up with Linux on the things Linux
> does better, and vice versa: for the moment, each has its own very
> real drawbacks.   It's a question of which drawbacks actually matter
> to you. 
> 
> For me, the security, ability to do most maintenance without half a
> dozen reboots, and seamless local networking brought Linux out well
> ahead, even after years of working with Windows (from 3.1 through to
> XP)  in network and desktop environments.

Thank you for a good sensible answer.  You make good points.  BTW, I can't
remember the last time I have had to reboot.  
------=_NextPart_000_0066_01C5B5FF.FA78B5F0
Content-Type: image/gif;
	name="smile.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <006201c5b629$e34c7400$4102a8c0@GlennsXP>

R0lGODlhDwAPAJEBAAAAAL+/v///AAAAACH5BAEAAAEALAAAAAAPAA8AAAIujA2Zx5EC4WIgWnnq
vQBJLTyhE4khaG5Wqn4tp4ErFnMY+Sll9naUfGpkFL5DAQA7

------=_NextPart_000_0066_01C5B5FF.FA78B5F0--

"Kier" <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.09.10.16.47.53.460941@tiscali.co.uk...
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:59:13 +0000, Glenn wrote:
>
>>
>> This isn't a smart aleck question but if a person has everything he needs 
>> in
>> windows, why would he go to something _almost_ as good?
>
> It's a question worth considering. In general, the answer is, if you have
> what you need in Windows, use Windows. But there's more to it than that,
> IMO. For one thing, it's frequently better, not 'almost as good'.
>
>> Perhaps someone just starting out may to save money.  If his time is
>> worth anything at all, isn't the cost of a program that loads and runs
>> cheaper than spending days on end learning how to get a program loaded?
>
> This isn't the first time I've come across this idea of a person's time
> being calculated in monetary terms. Seems a bit odd to me. Isn't learning
> itself worth something - a satisfaction gained in obtaining new skills?
> And while you're learning the new skills, the old ones don't suddenly
> vanish.
>
> I'm reminded of a discussion between two characters in the SF drama
> Babylon 5. Ranger Marcus Cole offers to teach his friend Susan Ivanova to
> speak Minbari, an alien language. She replies something to the effect of,
> it would probably take her a year to get anywhere with it. Marcus says,
> where will she be in a year's time if she doesn't learn it? Will any less
> time have passed?
>
> In other words, time goes by whether or not you learn new skills, so why
> not learn them?
>
> There's also the fact that Linux has now reached a level where it isn't
> difficult for most people to use. Smetimes of course you'll find
> situations where some greater effort is required, but for most of the
> everyday tasks people do on a PC, Linux is there now.
>
> So, why should anyone switch? you ask. Because it offers advantages that
> many users find worth any effort it's necessary to make. Few worries, if
> any, about malware and viruses, an OS which is *your* property, to do with
> pretty much as you wish so long as you honour the GPL. The upholding of an
> ethical stance. A stable OS with a huge range of choices. These are just
> *some* of the reasons a use may find to switch
>
>
>> Anyway, the OS is the only cost if you so desire. I can't think of a
>> program that isn't free from some of the sites like Pricelessware, etc.
>
> Free as in genuine freeware or dodgy stuff? There are thousands of
> packages that you can install for Linux, totally freely.
>
> -- 
> Kier
>
>

Kier,

    I've been following along and thought I might have
    a comment that would fit into the discussion.

    The statement:
        "This isn't a smart aleck question but if a person has everything he 
needs in
        windows, why would he go to something _almost_ as good?"

    is interesting to me. In my little part of the universe, I see all
    operating systems and applications as having the same question
    apply.  So... I evaluate each solution and use the one that seems
    to make the most sense. Here's my split: (for what it's worth)

    1. Kids systems: (Windows 98,Me,XP) They need to be able to
        run the latest cool games, and run the same GUI interface
        as the systems at school.
    2. The home office: ( Quicken, online banking...Windows XP-Pro)
    3. The infrastructure systems:  (Linux)
        a. Backup engine: Linux, samba and cron make this a snap.
        b. Infrastructure: Linux ( Handy for setting up VPNs, Iptables,
            Caching web server, monitor systems on private LAN
            and disable kids systems at bedtime, DHCP server,
            DDNS server,  DMZ for hardware video conferencing
            systems, Multimedia server, printer spooling, general
            purpose shared storage, intrusion detection system, and
            secure tunnel access for when I'm on the road.)
        c. Game server: Linux. ( For multi-player games like Half-Life )
        d. Linux containment arena. This is a Linux system running
            VMware, with Windows inside of the virtual machine. This
            is handy for tinkering with hazardous materials (virus
            disassembly, running un-trusted software, examination for
            spyware and so on) The virtual machine is created, software
            tested, and then the virtual machine is erased. The ability
            to wink the entire universe into oblivion, and have the
            ability to create a containment field, is sometimes very handy 
:-)
        e. Authentication: Radius server on Linux.
    4. Lab systems:  For doing development. Win95,98,NT,Me,XP Home,
        XP Pro, Win2k, Win2003, Suse 8,9, BSD 4.1, HP-UX, Solaris,
        RHEL 3,4,  Fedora Core 1,2,3,4, Knoppix, CentOS, and
        general purpose desktop services (for Unix-ish work)

    Note: All Windows systems also have anti-virus software, as well
        as anti-spyware, anti-popup, and various other safety net
        software.

        For me, I use whatever system makes the most sense for
    any particular job I am working on, and can either walk over
    to the appropriate system (be it Win or Unix) or simply
    VNC from where I am.  I don't feel the need to ever make
    the decision to use Windows OR use Linux/Unix. Simply
    use the best tool for any given job. I see the best overall
    solution as being a blend of resources :-)

    My analogy: If I need a truck, I don't drive the sports car, but
        there are times when I want the sports car.

Enjoy
Postmaster

 

Glenn wrote:

> This isn't a smart aleck question but if a person has everything he 
> needs in windows, why would he go to something _almost_ as good?  

I built myself an uber-gaming Winbox and still I find myself using the 
old PIII linux box for everything except games. (Except for the games 
I've got running on the linbox...)

The kids are happy doing their schoolwork, watching movies, listening to 
music etc. on either computer.

When (if) nVidia supports SLI in their linux drivers, I'll switch that 
one to linux too.

I like Windows except when it comes to reinstalling. Typing in serial 
numbers, chasing up program updates, rebooting...

That I often have to do the same when I fix PCs for workmates doesn't help.

I'm offering to set them up with a dual-boot Win/linux setup these days.

The cost of software is also another factor.

Updating linux is simple, no serial numbers to worry about, very few 
reboots required.

I've got nothing against Windows. I just find linux nicer to use.

-- 
Toosmoky
Ride the Penguin...
http://toosmoky.d2.net.au

"Toosmoky" <toosmoky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:43236703$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au
> Glenn wrote:
>
>> This isn't a smart aleck question but if a person has everything he
>> needs in windows, why would he go to something _almost_ as good?
>
> I built myself an uber-gaming Winbox and still I find myself using the
> old PIII linux box for everything except games. (Except for the games
> I've got running on the linbox...)
>
> The kids are happy doing their schoolwork, watching movies, listening
> to music etc. on either computer.
>
> When (if) nVidia supports SLI in their linux drivers, I'll switch that
> one to linux too.
>
> I like Windows except when it comes to reinstalling. Typing in serial
> numbers, chasing up program updates, rebooting...
>
> That I often have to do the same when I fix PCs for workmates doesn't
> help.
> I'm offering to set them up with a dual-boot Win/linux setup these
> days.
> The cost of software is also another factor.
>
> Updating linux is simple, no serial numbers to worry about, very few
> reboots required.
>
> I've got nothing against Windows. I just find linux nicer to use.

Yet another good sensible answer.  You guys make good points.  Just stating 
good facts (opinions in this case) is so much more persuasive than a rant. 
:) 

Glenn wrote:
> "Toosmoky" <toosmoky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:43236703$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au
> 
>> Glenn wrote:
>>
>>> This isn't a smart aleck question but if a person has everything he
>>> needs in windows, why would he go to something _almost_ as good?
>>
>>
>>
>> I've got nothing against Windows. I just find linux nicer to use.
> 
> 
> Yet another good sensible answer.  You guys make good points.  Just 
> stating good facts (opinions in this case) is so much more persuasive 
> than a rant. :)

"Almost as good" is your phrase, Glenn, not mine. I agree with most of 
the above posts. Linux is better at some things than Windows, worse at 
others, and for several it doesn't really make much of a difference to me.

I didn't exactly "switch" from Windows to  Linux. I still use both. I 
use Linux for all my Internet stuff because of the whole virus/spyware 
thing. I got very tired of spending so much time updating 
antivirus/antispyware databases and scanning for infections. If I don't 
update at least once a week my antivirus program practically scolds me. 
I have better things to do with my computer time.

I have one specialty app for Windows that doesn't exist in Linux. I have 
another app that exists, but can't use my old Windows files. I would 
have to recreate everything with the Linux app, and I don't have the 
desire to do so. The Windows app works fine, so I use it. If I had the 
programming skills, I'd try my hand at writing an app for Linux. My 
skills are very out of date, so I don't.

I even have a couple of games I still fire up my Atari STe for. If I had 
the space, I'd spend some time playing "Star Raiders" on my Atari 800, 
the first computer I ever owned.

I operate a small farm in Central NY. I own two tractors. I use one for 
some things, and the other for other things. It all depends on which 
does the particular job best - and sometimes it doesn't really matter. I 
just LIKE using one better for a particular job. That's the way it is 
with my computers, too.

Why shouldn't it be so? Except for the trolls, who here is saying that 
one HAS to use one system to the exclusion of the other?

TJ

TJ wrote:


> I operate a small farm in Central NY. I own two tractors. 
> 
> TJ

TJ??? Is that YOU??? [[gg]]

"We switched to
KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE is
cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate envirnment.
"

And the WinXP Playskool interface is any better? If you're as smart as
you think you are, you should be using the command line (or at least be
using a distro that actually costs some money, since if something
doesn't come shrinkwrapped and has a price tag as big as your mouth is
it's not worth having.)

On the other side of things, yes, Linux SUCKS! FREEBSD RULES!!! DAEMONS
FOREVER!!! :-)

One more thing: don't you think there's a reason why *70%* of all the
websites on the net are hosted on Linux servers? Or why *GOOGLE* hosts
all it's stuff on Linux? Just think this to yourself the next time you
search the web with Google: Linux made this all happen.... :-)

On 10 Sep 2005 21:36:57 -0700, nate.pilk@gmail.com Gave us:

>"We switched to
>KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE is
>cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate envirnment.
>"

 KDE cartoonish?  When was the last time any of them looked?

>And the WinXP Playskool interface is any better? If you're as smart as
>you think you are, you should be using the command line (or at least be
>using a distro that actually costs some money, since if something
>doesn't come shrinkwrapped and has a price tag as big as your mouth is
>it's not worth having.)

  Hehehe... bubble buttoned dialogs...  ooooohhh snazzy! They got it
from us.

>On the other side of things, yes, Linux SUCKS! FREEBSD RULES!!! DAEMONS
>FOREVER!!! :-)

  You forgot to turn your lamo loop off.

On 10 Sep 2005 21:43:06 -0700, nate.pilk@gmail.com Gave us:

>One more thing: don't you think there's a reason why *70%* of all the
>websites on the net are hosted on Linux servers? Or why *GOOGLE* hosts
>all it's stuff on Linux? Just think this to yourself the next time you
>search the web with Google: Linux made this all happen.... :-)

  Exactly.  Think of it as an enabler.

greymaus wrote:
> TJ wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>I operate a small farm in Central NY. I own two tractors. 
>>
>>TJ
> 
> 
> TJ??? Is that YOU??? [[gg]]
> 
> 
> 
Yes, Mauser. 'Tis me.

TJ

NunYa Bidness wrote:

> On 10 Sep 2005 21:36:57 -0700, nate.pilk@gmail.com Gave us:
> 
>>"We switched to
>>KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE is
>>cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate envirnment.
>>"
> 
>  KDE cartoonish?  When was the last time any of them looked?

KDE 137 skins, choose one.

www.kde.org  
And probably didn't bother to get into look and feel and choose 
a scheme, I like old classical KDE.

-- 
"Today the official spokesman for the Foxes 
  agreed an investigation into what happened 
  to the henhouse may be needed."


Cheerful Charlie

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 08:49:55 -0500, WCB
<wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> Gave us:

>NunYa Bidness wrote:
>
>> On 10 Sep 2005 21:36:57 -0700, nate.pilk@gmail.com Gave us:
>> 
>>>"We switched to
>>>KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE is
>>>cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate envirnment.
>>>"
>> 
>>  KDE cartoonish?  When was the last time any of them looked?
>
>KDE 137 skins, choose one.

  That does not make it "cartoonish" Sheesh... by far not.
>
>www.kde.org  
>And probably didn't bother to get into look and feel and choose 
>a scheme, I like old classical KDE.

  I use the standard as well.  I perform work with my PC, and rarely
have the time to sit and play with my desktop as I so often see the
girls at work doing.

Lin�nut wrote:

> eros.tintory@hotmail.com poked his little head through the XP firewall and
> said:
> 
>> Lin�nutlin�nut@bone.com wrote:
>>> eros.tintory@hotmail.com poked his little head through the XP firewall
>>> and said:
>>> > The Linux distros that we have installed have been indeed quite buggy,
>>> > very unpolished software.
>>>
>>> Which ones, and what were their version numbers?
> 
> Amazing.  In what follows, everything is a lie or a probable lie.
>>
>> We installed Debian 3.1 rev0a on a couple of our office Compaq Evo
>> desktops.
> 
> A probable lie, except that rev0a does exist.  I doubt tinfoil loaded
> it, however.
> 
>> Debian was unable to detect the Compaq Intel 82845 video
>> card,
> 
> A mixed up lie here.  The Compaq 82845 is a chip, based on Intel i845,
>   and is support with the i830 driver.
>    
>> which BTW is standard on all of our 230+ corporate desktops
>> (Compaq standard corporate video for the Evo). We had to mess with the
>> X configuration, configured it with both vesa and i810 drivers, none of
>> which gave us more than 800x600@73 resolution.
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
>> Our staff was also very
>> dissapointed with the Debian graphical interface: fonts sucked (jaggy,
>> terrible),
> 
> I happen to have a slightly earlier version of Debian 3.1 on my laptop,
> and the fonts are very good.  Of course, you're claiming you could
> only view them at 800x600.  Were you simply too stupid to turn on
> anti-aliasing?

HOLD IT!
Let me butt in with a quick question... Where do I set that in kde? I
couldnt find it.
Thanks
ok, you all can go back to the batle now.
RESUME THE BATTLE!
Eric


>    
>> the whole look and feel of the gnome desktop was old and
>> outdated (butt ugly in one of our employee's words).
> 
> Bulshit.
> 
>> We switched to
>> KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE is
>> cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate envirnment.
> 
> Here's the point at which one knows you are simply trolling,
> deliberately lying to get your silly jollies by reading the
> responses.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
>> The FedoraCore 4 installation story was even worse, everything
>> installed well but the FC4 installer failed to setup dual-boot
>> properly, so after rebooting, the 3 Compaq Evos went straight to
>> Windows without presenting a grub menu, a royal waste of my time and
>> our staff. We paid little money for the Debian 3.1 rev0a and FC4 CDs at
>> CheapBytes.com, but at the end of the day we realized once again that
>> you get what you pay for, Linux still sucks!
>>
>> Eros Tintory
> 
> I give you a score of 5.0.  You started out plausibly, but almost
> immediately told some whoppers that are just too obvious to get a rise
> out of all but the most rabid fanboy.
> 

Eric wrote:

> Let me butt in with a quick question... Where do I set that in kde? I
> couldnt find it

In KControl->Look&Feel->Fonts maybe ;)

<snip>
> HOLD IT!
> Let me butt in with a quick question... Where do I set that in kde? I
> couldnt find it.
> Thanks
> ok, you all can go back to the batle now.
> RESUME THE BATTLE!
> Eric
>

Try the KDE Control Center -> Look and Feel -> FONTS

<snip>

NunYa Bidness wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 08:49:55 -0500, WCB
> <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> Gave us:
> 
>>NunYa Bidness wrote:
>>
>>> On 10 Sep 2005 21:36:57 -0700, nate.pilk@gmail.com Gave us:
>>> 
>>>>"We switched to
>>>>KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE is
>>>>cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate envirnment.
>>>>"
>>> 
>>>  KDE cartoonish?  When was the last time any of them looked?
>>
>>KDE 137 skins, choose one.
> 
>   That does not make it "cartoonish" Sheesh... by far not.
>>
>>www.kde.org
>>And probably didn't bother to get into look and feel and choose
>>a scheme, I like old classical KDE.
> 
>   I use the standard as well.  I perform work with my PC, and rarely
> have the time to sit and play with my desktop as I so often see the
> girls at work doing.
  
KDE seems to be set up to pop up a gaudy look that is indeed 
cartoonish. Easily changed if you know KDE. Bitchy to do if you 
have never seen it before.

I know what some People mean about Mandrake.
Cretinous login icons.  Dumb looking dog, moronic
cartoon penguins, stupid goldfish.

Dorky looky graphics, amateurish looking 'slideshow'
slides, screensaver.  

Truely bad wallpapers.

What Mandrive really needs more than anything else 
right now is a talented graphics designer with class
and a sense that for corporate America, they want 
a system out of the box that would not embaress one
to see if an important client walked through the area.

And it would NOT hurt if Mandrake put up a site with
alternative wallpapers, icons, and other stuff with 
professionalism in mind. 

And somewhere on the desktop, an icon that leads to 
demonstrations as to where ALL of that sort of stuff
is and how to quickly change it.

You don't need flashy eye candy.  Just good solid, usable,
professional looking, easily changed user interfaces
that instill a sense of confidence this is not just something 
together by amateurs.

Bluntly, Mandriva does look irritatingly amateurish
and often outright butt plug ugly.



-- 
"Today the official spokesman for the Foxes 
  agreed an investigation into what happened 
  to the henhouse may be needed."


Cheerful Charlie

[x-posting removed]

> WCB <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> said:

[snip]

> KDE seems to be set up to pop up a gaudy look that is indeed 
> cartoonish. Easily changed if you know KDE. Bitchy to do if you 
> have never seen it before.

I'm forced to agree that Keramik is ugly. It has that striped thing going
on, which I find very irritating, but at least it's somewhat color
coordinated. I think XP's default theme is as ugly, but I won't accept the
fact that KDE's is harder to change. Observe:

   KDE:
   1. 'K' Button -> Control Center -> Appearance & Themes -> Theme Manager
   2. Pick one, hit 'Apply' button
   
Completely obvious.


   Windows XP (to get rid of Teletubby Hill theme):
   (which actually rearranges the main interface/menu on theme change)
   
   1. Right click on the Start Button, left-click on Properties, click
      bullet for 'Classic Start menu', then on the 'Apply' Button.
   2. Go to Start -> Settings -> Control Panels, and double-click the
      display control panel. Pick some other theme from the 'Theme'
      drop-down box.
   3. Click on the 'Appearance' tab, and pick some other scheme in the
      'Color scheme' drop-down box.
      
The Windows XP stuff is all over the place. It's in the Start Menu
properties, four places in the Display properties, and also in the My
Computer properties. It also has two places that toggle the 'Effects', but
they're in two different places, and look entirely different. Things that
were in one spot in Win9x are in another in 2000/XP, neither place easy to
find. For some reason, changing the 'Start Menu' properties makes 'My
Computer', 'My Network Places' reappear on the desktop, but those are also
found under the 'Desktop' tab in Display properties, but you have to click
on a special button to see the options. What any of these things have to do
with screen resolution and color depth, I cannot answer.

Ask me about how to turn off bubble tips, if you dare.


[snip]


-- 

WCB wrote:
> I know what some People mean about Mandrake. 
> Cretinous login icons.  Dumb looking dog, moronic 
> cartoon penguins, stupid goldfish.

This reminds me of the Windows search function.  There's a dog sitting 
there.  It sniffs and barks from time to time.  Very professional.  An 
important client walks by, and the dog goes *wuff*.

But compared to the "Office Assistant" (miaou, wuff, squeek, rrooaarr, 
etc), it's nothing.  It's like watching the Smurfs.

WCB wrote:
> NunYa Bidness wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 08:49:55 -0500, WCB
>><wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> Gave us:
>>
>>
>>>NunYa Bidness wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 10 Sep 2005 21:36:57 -0700, nate.pilk@gmail.com Gave us:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"We switched to
>>>>>KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE is
>>>>>cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate envirnment.
>>>>>"
>>>>
>>>> KDE cartoonish?  When was the last time any of them looked?
>>>
>>>KDE 137 skins, choose one.
>>
>>  That does not make it "cartoonish" Sheesh... by far not.
>>
>>>www.kde.org
>>>And probably didn't bother to get into look and feel and choose
>>>a scheme, I like old classical KDE.
>>
>>  I use the standard as well.  I perform work with my PC, and rarely
>>have the time to sit and play with my desktop as I so often see the
>>girls at work doing.
> 
>   
> KDE seems to be set up to pop up a gaudy look that is indeed 
> cartoonish. Easily changed if you know KDE. Bitchy to do if you 
> have never seen it before.
> 
> I know what some People mean about Mandrake.
> Cretinous login icons.  Dumb looking dog, moronic
> cartoon penguins, stupid goldfish.
> 
> Dorky looky graphics, amateurish looking 'slideshow'
> slides, screensaver.  
> 
> Truely bad wallpapers.
> 
> What Mandrive really needs more than anything else 
> right now is a talented graphics designer with class
> and a sense that for corporate America, they want 
> a system out of the box that would not embaress one
> to see if an important client walked through the area.
> 
> And it would NOT hurt if Mandrake put up a site with
> alternative wallpapers, icons, and other stuff with 
> professionalism in mind. 

Why there are plenty of sites that already have these!
> 
> And somewhere on the desktop, an icon that leads to 
> demonstrations as to where ALL of that sort of stuff
> is and how to quickly change it.

Why are you to stupid to find them without help? My 7 year old can do it 
without help.... Are you really that dumb?
> 
> You don't need flashy eye candy.  Just good solid, usable,
> professional looking, easily changed user interfaces
> that instill a sense of confidence this is not just something 
> together by amateurs.
> 
> Bluntly, Mandriva does look irritatingly amateurish
> and often outright butt plug ugly.
> 
> 
> 
Yeah WBC and you know what "butt plug ugly" looks like! Looking in that 
mirror again ?

> Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> said:

> This reminds me of the Windows search function.  There's a dog sitting 
> there.  It sniffs and barks from time to time.  Very professional.  An 
> important client walks by, and the dog goes *wuff*.

Oh yeah, I forgot. The only thing harder than disabling bubble tips is
disabling the Fisher-Price search feature of XP. Only Microsoft would spread
all the interface feature settings over eight different locations, two of
them involving directly editing the registry.


-- 

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:47:44 -0500, WCB wrote:

> NunYa Bidness wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 08:49:55 -0500, WCB
>> <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> Gave us:
>> 
>>>NunYa Bidness wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10 Sep 2005 21:36:57 -0700, nate.pilk@gmail.com Gave us:
>>>> 
>>>>>"We switched to
>>>>>KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE is
>>>>>cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate envirnment.
>>>>>"
>>>> 
>>>>  KDE cartoonish?  When was the last time any of them looked?
>>>
>>>KDE 137 skins, choose one.
>> 
>>   That does not make it "cartoonish" Sheesh... by far not.
>>>
>>>www.kde.org
>>>And probably didn't bother to get into look and feel and choose
>>>a scheme, I like old classical KDE.
>> 
>>   I use the standard as well.  I perform work with my PC, and rarely
>> have the time to sit and play with my desktop as I so often see the
>> girls at work doing.
>   
> KDE seems to be set up to pop up a gaudy look that is indeed 
> cartoonish. Easily changed if you know KDE. Bitchy to do if you 
> have never seen it before.
> 
> I know what some People mean about Mandrake.
> Cretinous login icons.  Dumb looking dog, moronic
> cartoon penguins, stupid goldfish.

The latest Mandriva, according to the people who created it, and therefore
should know what they're talking about, wasn't really meant for anyone but
geek-types. It's a transitional thing. Personally I do fine the weird
penguin a bit annoying, but I don't think it's going to last.

Dunno what you mean about the goldfish.

> 
> Dorky looky graphics, amateurish looking 'slideshow'
> slides, screensaver.

That's nothing new. It doesn't seem to have hurt them any.
  
> 
> Truely bad wallpapers.

Frankly, most of the distros have pretty bad wallpaers for KDE, though
that seems to be changing. It's not a big issue for me, I always change to
my own favourite wallpapers more or less straight away.

> 
> What Mandrive really needs more than anything else right now is a
> talented graphics designer with class and a sense that for corporate
> America, they want a system out of the box that would not embaress one
> to see if an important client walked through the area.

Have you checked all this is the same in the coporate versions?

> 
> And it would NOT hurt if Mandrake put up a site with alternative
> wallpapers, icons, and other stuff with professionalism in mind.

You can get icons and wallpapers of all kinds at kde-look.org, so why
should Mandriva have to do it? Myself, I keep a number of favourites to
hand for whenever I'm installing or perhaps using a Live Cd

> 
> And somewhere on the desktop, an icon that leads to demonstrations as to
> where ALL of that sort of stuff is and how to quickly change it.
> 
> You don't need flashy eye candy.  Just good solid, usable, professional
> looking, easily changed user interfaces that instill a sense of
> confidence this is not just something together by amateurs.

The KDE Control Centre makes it prety easy to change any aspect of the
desktop. And when you start Mandriva for the first time, it usually asks
if you'd like to set up your desktop

> 
> Bluntly, Mandriva does look irritatingly amateurish and often outright
> butt plug ugly.

You want ugly? Take a look at Fedora.

IMO, the next official release of Mandriva will look more 'professional',
if that's what you really want. LE2005 is just a transitional release.

-- 
Kier

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bones
<Bones@domain.dom>
 wrote
on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:10:24 GMT
<slrndicna0.1vb.Bones@hydrogen.intra.net>:
>> Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@arcor.de> said:
>
>> This reminds me of the Windows search function.  There's a dog sitting 
>> there.  It sniffs and barks from time to time.  Very professional.  An 
>> important client walks by, and the dog goes *wuff*.
>
> Oh yeah, I forgot. The only thing harder than disabling bubble tips is
> disabling the Fisher-Price search feature of XP. Only Microsoft would spread
> all the interface feature settings over eight different locations, two of
> them involving directly editing the registry.
>

Not quite that bad for little doggy -- at least, AFAIK.  The paper
clip, OTOH, seems to be resistant.

I'll probably have to figure out at some point how to
disable the OpenOffice lightbulb but it's already far less
annoying than doggy or paper clip.  (Of course part of
that is because I don't use OpenOffice that much anyway.
I prefer vi. :-)  Vive la choice. )

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> said:

> I'll probably have to figure out at some point how to
> disable the OpenOffice lightbulb but it's already far less
> annoying than doggy or paper clip.

Still annoying, though.

Tools->Options->(+)OpenOffice.org->General, and uncheck 'Help Agent'.


-- 

YouCanToo wrote:

> WCB wrote:
>> NunYa Bidness wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 08:49:55 -0500, WCB
>>><wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> Gave us:
>>>
>>>
>>>>NunYa Bidness wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 10 Sep 2005 21:36:57 -0700, nate.pilk@gmail.com Gave us:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"We switched to
>>>>>>KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE
>>>>>>is cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate
>>>>>>envirnment. "
>>>>>
>>>>> KDE cartoonish?  When was the last time any of them looked?
>>>>
>>>>KDE 137 skins, choose one.
>>>
>>>  That does not make it "cartoonish" Sheesh... by far not.
>>>
>>>>www.kde.org
>>>>And probably didn't bother to get into look and feel and choose
>>>>a scheme, I like old classical KDE.
>>>
>>>  I use the standard as well.  I perform work with my PC, and rarely
>>>have the time to sit and play with my desktop as I so often see the
>>>girls at work doing.
>> 
>>   
>> KDE seems to be set up to pop up a gaudy look that is indeed
>> cartoonish. Easily changed if you know KDE. Bitchy to do if you
>> have never seen it before.
>> 
>> I know what some People mean about Mandrake.
>> Cretinous login icons.  Dumb looking dog, moronic
>> cartoon penguins, stupid goldfish.
>> 
>> Dorky looky graphics, amateurish looking 'slideshow'
>> slides, screensaver.
>> 
>> Truely bad wallpapers.
>> 
>> What Mandrive really needs more than anything else
>> right now is a talented graphics designer with class
>> and a sense that for corporate America, they want
>> a system out of the box that would not embaress one
>> to see if an important client walked through the area.
>> 
>> And it would NOT hurt if Mandrake put up a site with
>> alternative wallpapers, icons, and other stuff with
>> professionalism in mind.
> 
> Why there are plenty of sites that already have these!

Mandriva should look gorgeous, luxurious, beautiful,
and professional out of the box.  Hire a designer.
I shouldn't have to look an an ugly system and start 
googling how to change it all.  


>> 
>> And somewhere on the desktop, an icon that leads to
>> demonstrations as to where ALL of that sort of stuff
>> is and how to quickly change it.
> 
> Why are you to stupid to find them without help? My 7 year old can do it
> without help.... Are you really that dumb?

I am not, but its still not doing it the right way.
Stick this in a business enviroment and you don't want
people not experts at this to not have all they need to know in 
one, central location, easy to find, now, without time wasting.

Its again, a matter of professionalism.

>> You don't need flashy eye candy.  Just good solid, usable,
>> professional looking, easily changed user interfaces
>> that instill a sense of confidence this is not just something
>> together by amateurs.
>> 
>> Bluntly, Mandriva does look irritatingly amateurish
>> and often outright butt plug ugly.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> Yeah WBC and you know what "butt plug ugly" looks like! Looking in that
> mirror again ?


My aren't you mature?







-- 
"Today the official spokesman for the Foxes 
  agreed an investigation into what happened 
  to the henhouse may be needed."


Cheerful Charlie

Kier wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:47:44 -0500, WCB wrote:
> 
>> NunYa Bidness wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 08:49:55 -0500, WCB
>>> <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> Gave us:
>>> 
>>>>NunYa Bidness wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10 Sep 2005 21:36:57 -0700, nate.pilk@gmail.com Gave us:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>"We switched to
>>>>>>KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE
>>>>>>is cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate
>>>>>>envirnment. "
>>>>> 
>>>>>  KDE cartoonish?  When was the last time any of them looked?
>>>>
>>>>KDE 137 skins, choose one.
>>> 
>>>   That does not make it "cartoonish" Sheesh... by far not.
>>>>
>>>>www.kde.org
>>>>And probably didn't bother to get into look and feel and choose
>>>>a scheme, I like old classical KDE.
>>> 
>>>   I use the standard as well.  I perform work with my PC, and rarely
>>> have the time to sit and play with my desktop as I so often see the
>>> girls at work doing.
>>   
>> KDE seems to be set up to pop up a gaudy look that is indeed
>> cartoonish. Easily changed if you know KDE. Bitchy to do if you
>> have never seen it before.
>> 
>> I know what some People mean about Mandrake.
>> Cretinous login icons.  Dumb looking dog, moronic
>> cartoon penguins, stupid goldfish.
> 
> The latest Mandriva, according to the people who created it, and therefore
> should know what they're talking about, wasn't really meant for anyone but
> geek-types. It's a transitional thing. Personally I do fine the weird
> penguin a bit annoying, but I don't think it's going to last.
> 
> Dunno what you mean about the goldfish.

The login icons for  Mandrake.  Stupid dog, goldfish, ostrich, cartoon
penguins.

>> 
>> Dorky looky graphics, amateurish looking 'slideshow'
>> slides, screensaver.
> 
> That's nothing new. It doesn't seem to have hurt them any.

It could be better.

>> 
>> Truely bad wallpapers.
> 
> Frankly, most of the distros have pretty bad wallpaers for KDE, though
> that seems to be changing. It's not a big issue for me, I always change to
> my own favourite wallpapers more or less straight away.
> 
>> 
>> What Mandrive really needs more than anything else right now is a
>> talented graphics designer with class and a sense that for corporate
>> America, they want a system out of the box that would not embaress one
>> to see if an important client walked through the area.
> 
> Have you checked all this is the same in the coporate versions?

No.  I have heard complaints about the star eyed penguin 
and other nonsense.  I can imagine......


> 
>> 
>> And it would NOT hurt if Mandrake put up a site with alternative
>> wallpapers, icons, and other stuff with professionalism in mind.
> 
> You can get icons and wallpapers of all kinds at kde-look.org, so why
> should Mandriva have to do it? Myself, I keep a number of favourites to
> hand for whenever I'm installing or perhaps using a Live Cd
> 

Because Mandrake could create a Mandrake specific
look with professionalism in mind, rather than wading
through masses of crap.  Its something aimed at corporate
users.  For example large cursors and other needs for
people with vision problems.  Little courtesies like this that 
say "we are a professional distribution".  


>> And somewhere on the desktop, an icon that leads to demonstrations as to
>> where ALL of that sort of stuff is and how to quickly change it.
>> 
>> You don't need flashy eye candy.  Just good solid, usable, professional
>> looking, easily changed user interfaces that instill a sense of
>> confidence this is not just something together by amateurs.
> 
> The KDE Control Centre makes it pretty easy to change any aspect of the
> desktop. And when you start Mandriva for the first time, it usually asks
> if you'd like to set up your desktop

Still it would be nice to have a less amateurish look with stuff 
KDE look and feel does not deal with. 


>> Bluntly, Mandriva does look irritatingly amateurish and often outright
>> butt plug ugly.
> 
> You want ugly? Take a look at Fedora.

If its uglier than Mandrake I am in fear.

Compare the Mandrake Move live CD to Knoppix.


> IMO, the next official release of Mandriva will look more 'professional',
> if that's what you really want. LE2005 is just a transitional release.
> 

I am sticking with 10.1 until 2006 is out and debugged a bit.
Give it at least a month.  With Mandriva's purchase of Conectiva 
and the other comapny (can't remember off the top of my head),
hopefully they will now have time and manpower now to pay a bit more
attention to overall aesthetics.   

-- 
"Today the official spokesman for the Foxes 
  agreed an investigation into what happened 
  to the henhouse may be needed."


Cheerful Charlie

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 20:35:50 -0400, Eric <nospam@email.com> wrote:

>> only view them at 800x600.  Were you simply too stupid to turn on
>> anti-aliasing?
>
> HOLD IT!
> Let me butt in with a quick question... Where do I set that in kde? I
> couldnt find it.

Menu/System/Configuration/KDE/LookNFeel,
Check the box for "Use anti-aliasing for fonts".
You may want to use the config option, to exclude smaller fonts.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

-- 
Change nomail.afraid.org to rogers.com to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

WCB wrote:

> Mandriva should look gorgeous, luxurious, beautiful,
> and professional out of the box.  Hire a designer.
> I shouldn't have to look an an ugly system and start
> googling how to change it all.

I hope you know look & feel is a very subjective matter. What is ugly for
you seem beautiful for another. Seven billions human on earth, each one
have is own definition of a beauty.

> Its again, a matter of professionalism.

I'm not sure you know definition of professionalism.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bones
<Bones@domain.dom>
 wrote
on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:37:51 GMT
<slrndie0j2.11d.Bones@hydrogen.intra.net>:
>> The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> said:
>
>> I'll probably have to figure out at some point how to
>> disable the OpenOffice lightbulb but it's already far less
>> annoying than doggy or paper clip.
>
> Still annoying, though.
>
> Tools->Options->(+)OpenOffice.org->General, and uncheck 'Help Agent'.
>

Close; it's "Help Agent" section, Activate.  :-)  Mind you, I'm
wondering about the Help Agent Reset button; that's a little weird.

But thanks for that.  :-)  And yes, there's a Help button.

    Help Agent Reset

       If you have not opened the Help Agent for a particular situation
       three times in succession, but rather have closed it or let it
       close automatically, the Help Agent for this situation is not
       shown again. The situation is removed from the relevant internal
       list.

       Click the Reset button to restore the default list of situations
       for which the Help Agent is displayed.

But OK, no Secret Agent Man lightbulb for me. ;-)  They've given you
a lightbulb and taken away your name...

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

On Wednesday 14 September 2005 18:17, Paul Pygeon stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses...:

> WCB wrote:
> 
>> Mandriva should look gorgeous, luxurious, beautiful,
>> and professional out of the box.  Hire a designer.
>> I shouldn't have to look an an ugly system and start
>> googling how to change it all.
> 
> I hope you know look & feel is a very subjective matter. What is ugly
> for you seem beautiful for another. Seven billions human on earth,
> each one have is own definition of a beauty.

Don't exaggerate, it's only six billion people, last time I counted them
all... :-�

-- 
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 07:26:36 -0500, WCB wrote:

> Kier wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:47:44 -0500, WCB wrote:
>> 
>>> NunYa Bidness wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 08:49:55 -0500, WCB
>>>> <wbarwell@Mungggedd.mylinuxisp.com> Gave us:
>>>> 
>>>>>NunYa Bidness wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10 Sep 2005 21:36:57 -0700, nate.pilk@gmail.com Gave us:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>"We switched to
>>>>>>>KDE, and immediatelly eveybody in the team screamed "no way!!!", KDE
>>>>>>>is cartoonished and geeky, unacceptable in a serious corporate
>>>>>>>envirnment. "
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  KDE cartoonish?  When was the last time any of them looked?
>>>>>
>>>>>KDE 137 skins, choose one.
>>>> 
>>>>   That does not make it "cartoonish" Sheesh... by far not.
>>>>>
>>>>>www.kde.org
>>>>>And probably didn't bother to get into look and feel and choose
>>>>>a scheme, I like old classical KDE.
>>>> 
>>>>   I use the standard as well.  I perform work with my PC, and rarely
>>>> have the time to sit and play with my desktop as I so often see the
>>>> girls at work doing.
>>>   
>>> KDE seems to be set up to pop up a gaudy look that is indeed
>>> cartoonish. Easily changed if you know KDE. Bitchy to do if you
>>> have never seen it before.
>>> 
>>> I know what some People mean about Mandrake.
>>> Cretinous login icons.  Dumb looking dog, moronic
>>> cartoon penguins, stupid goldfish.

>> 
>> The latest Mandriva, according to the people who created it, and therefore
>> should know what they're talking about, wasn't really meant for anyone but
>> geek-types. It's a transitional thing. Personally I do fine the weird
>> penguin a bit annoying, but I don't think it's going to last.
>> 
>> Dunno what you mean about the goldfish.
> 
> The login icons for  Mandrake.  Stupid dog, goldfish, ostrich, cartoon
> penguins.

So, you don't like 'em. Some do. You're not forced to use 'em.

> 
>>> 
>>> Dorky looky graphics, amateurish looking 'slideshow'
>>> slides, screensaver.
>> 
>> That's nothing new. It doesn't seem to have hurt them any.
> 
> It could be better.

Granted the slideshow isn't anything special

> 
>>> 
>>> Truely bad wallpapers.
>> 
>> Frankly, most of the distros have pretty bad wallpaers for KDE, though
>> that seems to be changing. It's not a big issue for me, I always change to
>> my own favourite wallpapers more or less straight away.
>> 
>>> 
>>> What Mandrive really needs more than anything else right now is a
>>> talented graphics designer with class and a sense that for corporate
>>> America, they want a system out of the box that would not embaress one
>>> to see if an important client walked through the area.
>> 
>> Have you checked all this is the same in the coporate versions?
> 
> No.  I have heard complaints about the star eyed penguin 
> and other nonsense.  I can imagine......

I will agree the penguin is pretty bad, but hopefully only temporary.

> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> And it would NOT hurt if Mandrake put up a site with alternative
>>> wallpapers, icons, and other stuff with professionalism in mind.
>> 
>> You can get icons and wallpapers of all kinds at kde-look.org, so why
>> should Mandriva have to do it? Myself, I keep a number of favourites to
>> hand for whenever I'm installing or perhaps using a Live Cd
>> 
> 
> Because Mandrake could create a Mandrake specific
> look with professionalism in mind, rather than wading
> through masses of crap.  Its something aimed at corporate
> users.  For example large cursors and other needs for
> people with vision problems.  Little courtesies like this that 
> say "we are a professional distribution".

Then it would be better included in the distro itself, IMO.
  
> 
> 
>>> And somewhere on the desktop, an icon that leads to demonstrations as to
>>> where ALL of that sort of stuff is and how to quickly change it.
>>> 
>>> You don't need flashy eye candy.  Just good solid, usable, professional
>>> looking, easily changed user interfaces that instill a sense of
>>> confidence this is not just something together by amateurs.
>> 
>> The KDE Control Centre makes it pretty easy to change any aspect of the
>> desktop. And when you start Mandriva for the first time, it usually asks
>> if you'd like to set up your desktop
> 
> Still it would be nice to have a less amateurish look with stuff 
> KDE look and feel does not deal with. 
> 
> 
>>> Bluntly, Mandriva does look irritatingly amateurish and often outright
>>> butt plug ugly.
>> 
>> You want ugly? Take a look at Fedora.
> 
> If its uglier than Mandrake I am in fear.

:-) Well, it does perhaps depend on your definition of ugly. 


> 
> Compare the Mandrake Move live CD to Knoppix.
> 
> 
>> IMO, the next official release of Mandriva will look more 'professional',
>> if that's what you really want. LE2005 is just a transitional release.
>> 
> 
> I am sticking with 10.1 until 2006 is out and debugged a bit.

LE2005 is okay - at least, I've had no real trouble with it at all

> Give it at least a month.  With Mandriva's purchase of Conectiva 
> and the other comapny (can't remember off the top of my head),
> hopefully they will now have time and manpower now to pay a bit more
> attention to overall aesthetics.

Perhaps so. Still, I shall kind of miss the old, 'amateur' Mandrake look.

-- 
Kier

[snips]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:59:13 +0000, Glenn wrote:

> Your quote of "It DOES work, for most things people usually do with 
> Windows."  makes me focus in on the word "most".
> 
> This isn't a smart aleck question but if a person has everything he needs in 
> windows, why would he go to something _almost_ as good?

For me - and many - it's not "almost as good", it's "considerably better,
in virtually every way".  The limiting factors are a few speciality areas.

For example,if you _need_ to use Simply Accounting, or some other program
which only exists in Windows (and can't run in wine), you'll have to use
Windows.  That doesn't make Windows better; it simply makes it necessary;
there is a difference.

Here at work, I'm migrating all the desktops to Linux.  There's a couple
which have Windows-only apps that the developers _must_ have.  Fine. 
Simple solution: they're getting dual-boot boxes, with the Windows side
locked down so they can't even use a web browser.  Want networking, etc? 
Boot Linux.

If for no other reason than security, this is the way we're going.  Here's
one reason why.  We have a firewall.  A very effective one.  And AV tools.
And all the usual goodies.  Yet we're getting port scans, inside the LAN,
from places _outside_ the LAN.  Scans which are _not_ coming through the
firewall.

What it means is, someone, despite having all the AV and other goodies,
has managed to get a piece of malware in, which is letting an external
attacker effectively roam our LAN.

This sort of crap is unacceptable in a _home_ network.  In a development
network, where there's actual proprietary information, it is not simply
unacceptable, it is - to the company - potentially fatal.

Yes, one could spend a week locking down the Windows systems, and _maybe_
that will fix it.  Simplest solution, however, is Linux.  Drop in Linux
desktops and a firewall on each desktop, watch the problem disappear.

Do the guys still need Windows? Sure, sometimes, for some things.  And
they'll get it.  Just a very, very, limited-functionality version of it. 
It's the only way to do this safely.