PCLinuxOS .93 Big Daddy? A Piece Of Shit!!!!!
simpl...@yahoo.com
the big shalong but I thought I would give PCLinuxOS .93, the newest
version a try.
Big mistake.
This POS is even worse than Ubuntu which sucks so bad it is not even
worth talking about.
So, wireless did not work.
Sound did not work.
My video was 640x480.
My printer did not work.
My DVD drive was recognized as a CDRW.
My DSL did not work.
Every 3rd or 4th boot the system would go into an endless reboot cycle.
Linux?
You have to ask yorself why there are 300+ different versions.
Maybe, just maybe none of them fully works.
My advice is to combine them all into one mega version of Linux.
And actually make it work.
simpl...@yahoo.com
notbob
> You have to ask yorself why there are 300+ different versions.
> Maybe, just maybe none of them fully works.
M$ only has one version and I doesn't work.
WCJ
> Look, everyone outside of the Linux oddballs, knows that Linux sucks
> the big shalong but I thought I would give PCLinuxOS .93, the newest
> version a try.
>
> Big mistake.
>
> This POS is even worse than Ubuntu which sucks so bad it is not even
> worth talking about.
That's odd. Millions of people think Ubuntu is quite nice--including
me! I installed it recently so I'd be familiar with it when I recommend
it to windoze users, and I decided to keep it. EVERYTHING works: My
digital camera (Kodak), my scanner (HP), my network printers (Canon,
HP), my wireless router (Linksys), sound...DSL...CD...DVD...you name it.
> So, wireless did not work.
> Sound did not work.
> My video was 640x480.
> My printer did not work.
> My DVD drive was recognized as a CDRW.
> My DSL did not work.
> Every 3rd or 4th boot the system would go into an endless reboot cycle.
Maybe you're just too stupid to figure out how to get things running?
If that's the case, go back to 'doze, and let Bill Gate$ dictate to you
what you can and can't do in terms of customizing your OS (and other
software).
> Linux?
>
> You have to ask yorself why there are 300+ different versions.
Because variety is the spice of life? Different strokes for different
folks? Not everyone will like the same Linux distro...and unlike 'doze
users, we LIKE--and EXPECT to have--choice.
> Maybe, just maybe none of them fully works.
They work fine for me. If I were you, I'd look in the mirror for the
source of the problems you're having...
--
When will Micro$oft make something that doesn't suck?
When they start making vacuum cleaners!
www.cafepress.com/saproducts/1687108
The Ghost In The Machine
<not...@nothome.com>
wrote
on Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:25:34 -0500
<jomdnXfRO4PzD3bZ...@comcast.com>:
Pedant Point: Windows has more than one version. According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions
there are currently 8 versions of XP (counting the Ns),
6 versions of 2003 server, 1 version of XP Embedded,
and 4 other miscellaneous versions.
Windows Vista is slated to have 6, plus 2 mandated by the EU
for antitrust violations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista
Windows Vienna (formerly BlackComb) is planned.
It is not entirely clear how well any of them work, or will work. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Poly-poly man
If you're going to start flame wars, do it in *.advocacy, so that no one
actually HAS to read the crap.
Linux works just fine, even better than 'doze. Lets take a printer
installation.
Linux: plug it in, "Would you like to configure [printer model here] Now?",
yes, "Would you like to print a test page", yes, oh look, there it is!
Windoze: plug it in, "New Hardware Detected", "Searching the database", "No
drivers found", "Installed as: Unknown Device", find the driver, find the
_docs_ for the driver, find out you were supposed to install the driver
_first_, curse a while, weeks later have a printer that sort of works.
The choice is clear. If you're stupid, get a mac*. If you have at least a
brain stem, get Linux.
poly-p man
* Macs are great. They rock, stuff just works, but it's kind crippled. Get
me a mac, I'll dual-boot linux. I'll do lots with the mac, and I'll devel
under Linux. I was NOT trying to get you mac users mad!
--
There's no place like ~
Help!! I'm being Nibbled to death by cats!!!
"Cardboard is the scourge of humanity, but oh, so very tasty."
TheLetterK
> So, wireless did not work.
Works for me.
> Sound did not work.
Works for me.
> My video was 640x480.
1280x960, as expected.
> My printer did not work.
Works for me.
> My DVD drive was recognized as a CDRW.
Recognized as a DVD drive for me.
> My DSL did not work.
On a network, so I can't say.
> Every 3rd or 4th boot the system would go into an endless reboot cycle.
Never had that happen to me.
>
> Linux?
It's a great operating system.
>
> You have to ask yorself why there are 300+ different versions.
Choice.
> Maybe, just maybe none of them fully works.
No, not very likely.
>
> My advice is to combine them all into one mega version of Linux.
My advice is for you to get a life and stop trolling COLA.
Alan Connor
Correction: The same idiot troll who has been posting anti-Linux
garbage for the benefit of his own sockpuppets here for weeks,
thinks that we believe that he is suddenly a girl just because he
wrote a girl's name on the From line, wrote:
(Yeh. Troll's _are_ that stupid.)
> Path: text.usenetserver.com!atl-c01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!atl-c05.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!postnews.google.com!i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: simpl...@yahoo.com
> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.windows-xp
> Subject: PCLinuxOS .93 Big Daddy? A Piece Of Shit!!!!!
> Date: 22 Aug 2006 16:19:27 -0700
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 25
> Message-ID: <1156288767....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.82.130.210
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1156288773 20765 127.0.0.1 (22 Aug 2006 23:19:33 GMT)
Dickless punk is using an anonymous proxy. Probably without the
owner being aware of the fact.
Probably uses the same one to spam with.
And never makes a cent doing it.
> X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:19:33 +0000 (UTC)
> User-Agent: G2/0.2
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Windoze-weenie.
Whatta surprise.
> Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> Injection-Info: i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=206.82.130.210; posting-account=VIc5_wwAAADSjf8EeJOfS9TG9pLJrPj8
> Xref: usenetserver.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:1282117 comp.os.linux.misc:549784 alt.os.windows-xp:622714
> X-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:19:33 EDT (text.usenetserver.com)
<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>
It's that troll again. Too busy running his mouth on hundreds of
newsgroups under dozens of aliases to take the time it takes to
learn Linux, and trying to blame Linux for _his_ failings.
Then he posts dozens and dozens of questions to the Linux groups,
about subjects covered in the basic docs, but using a variety of
aliases so no one can get a handle on just what he knows....
Brilliant!
Time to grow up, Junior.
You'll never learn anything if you don't shut your stinking punk
mouth every once in a while.
Never read one of your articles, never will (nor any replies to
them) regardless of which alias you have been hiding behind at
the moment, with your tail between your legs where your balls
should be.
Don't care what you think about Linux.
And I sure as hell wouldn't help juvenile delinquent like you
learn Linux.
What's this? Your 15th bitchy, childish, and ignorant anti-Linux
thread on this group?
<BIG yawn>
Aren't you getting tired of talking to your own sockpuppets?
Maybe it's time to have your medications adjusted.
Note: I won't be downloading any articles on this thread.
Alan
--
If you don't have the integrity to post under a single, unique
alias, without the "X-No-Archive: yes" header, than I won't
download your articles nor any responses to them. Yes, I can
tell. See my headers for personal info.
ray
That's interesting. I've not tried PCLinuxOS recently, but I regularly run
Kubuntu on three different computers (including one laptop) and I've not
had any of your problems - wireless works, sound works, video is 1024x768
or 1152x864 or whatever else I want, printers work fine and are shared on
all five computers in the house, DVD+-RW works fine in all modes, DSL was
working fine until I got tired of Qwest playing with the billing and went
to Teton Wireless - it works fine to and trivial to install. And no reboot
cycles since I dropped MS.
Since you're not satisfied, you don't have to use it - that's what Linux
is about CHOICE. Without it there would be none.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> Look, everyone outside of the Linux oddballs, knows that Linux sucks
> the big shalong but I thought I would give PCLinuxOS .93, the newest
> version a try.
No, you didn't. If you had, if you had a shred of honesty or integrity,
you'd not be hiding behind a bogus name, cross-posting like a troll and
generally making it clear you aren't even vaguely human.
What you thought you would do is slam Linux, without even the pretense of
an evaluation.
> Big mistake.
Yes, it was, thinking anyone would be fooled by your pathetic attempts.
> This POS is even worse than Ubuntu which sucks so bad it is not even
> worth talking about.
Don't know about PCLinuxOS, but Ubuntu works just fine, thanks.
> You have to ask yorself why there are 300+ different versions.
Because different people have different needs. Gee, what a concept.
> My advice is to combine them all into one mega version of Linux. And
> actually make it work.
However, since you're a troll, nobody really cares what you say.
BearItAll
I'm not a contender for Master Mind, Mensa have never been in touch offering
me a place in their club. No one comes to me seeking greater knowledge or
wisdom.
But I never have any trouble getting any Linux working. In fact I'm a
natural lazy git so if XP was less trouble than Linux I would probably use
that.
I admit I have been in UNIX for about 27 years and Linux since it started.
But I'll never claim to know everything about each. But I do know how to
read a HOWTO or install/setup instructions. There isn't anything that I do
on computers that I can't do on my Linux's.
But these days, from quite a few versions ago of most of the key distros,
there is very little to do after the install. A new home machine:- I would
go through the basic setup, some package additions of the sort I know I
like. Connect to my network, being all Linux I use an nfs tree. Then load
codecs for sound & video.
That is a lot less work that installing a new XP, and a great deal faster
from start to finish.
Lets run through a typical XP fresh install. Pop in the DVD and boot. It
takes ages going through the hardware check, but you have to wait in case
it asks for a reboot after adjusting for the drive type. You let it do it's
partitions, on a typical large drive you might as well go off and have a
piza, writing ntfs on a large drive will always be slow.
You don't actually get a lot of choices as the system loads, so why on earth
does it need to be so slow? If each XP is the same then the majority of
it's applications/utilities and registry settings could simply be copied to
the target. No need at all to go through the install/dependancies/registry
write proceedure for each one.
Eventually, after an age, the Windows screen comes up for the first time.
Then it starts. A pop up that tells you you have unused icons on the
screen, you just loaded them! You dismiss that pop up, it comes back along
with the 'Improve your windows experience' pop up. Some hardware ones will
also pop up then try to install so you might have several installs of
hardware going on simmultaniously. One of them will ask for a restart, with
a timer. If this one restarts while the others are still installing you
know they'll be trouble, but there isn't a cancel button, just the one
button 'OK' to restart XP or wait and it will restart anyway. Then some
'register this software Now' popups will start, maybe a few Dell or other
PC hackers pop ups as well. If you have symantec or McAfee then your in
even more trouble because they too will have pop ups and demand restarts
and registration while taking up huge memory resources showing you first
hand why MS Win will never be known as a great memory management system.
All of this is going on in the first few minutes of a new XP installation.
It's a right F'ing mess.
Chris
> Why is it that Linux zealots like to blame the user all the time?
> Why does it always seem to be th users fault when Linux fails?
>
> Let's see, we have Windows XP which costs about $200.00 and Linux
> which is free.
> So?
> Why isn't Linux taking over the marketplace?
Because you get Windows 'free' with every PC bought - that's why MS have
been found guilty of abusing their position as a monopoly.
If everyone had the choice to install their own OS everytime they bought
a PC the playing field would be much more level and I know which I
would choose.
I spent ~5hr on Saturday re-installing XP for my father-in-law. My God
that was painful! All the re-boots and downloading of security updates
for XP (53), Office (9) and Norton Internet Security (14, sic). Plus
having to install and configure all the drivers for printers, scanners,
graphics, DSL, etc. What a waste of a day!
I also installed Mepis Linux on the same machine which took <1hr with
everything configured and installed from the one CD - yes one, not 4 or
5, but *one* installation CD. Life's too short to waste on Windows. If
you actually want to get things done use Linux.
The Natural Philosopher
applications, and you have reasonable security upstream then the choice
of OS is entirely dependent on what the application vendor has chosen to
support.
As a graphic artist, you probably have a MAC.
If its real time internet games, largely its a PC.
A decent windowing system on Linux has only been around for about half
the time that a halfway decent one has been on Windoze...naturally the
desktop apps are mainly windows biased.
Yes windows is not a proper operating system, yes its been shamelessly
promoted using very dubious business techniques.
However its sheer ubiquity mekas it a hard one to beat.
WE used to run Linux *servers*, and PC/MAC desktops. In fact I have just
got my SOHO setup to this state.
And all Linux desktop STILL won't cover all the ground I need covering,
though its getting MUCH closer.
chrisv
>Correction: The same idiot troll who has been posting anti-Linux
>garbage for the benefit of his own sockpuppets here for weeks,
Weeks? "Flatfish" has been doing this tired old act for YEARS.
The Ghost In The Machine
<a@b.c>
wrote
on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:24:43 +0100
<115632859...@proxy00.news.clara.net>:
Um...you've convolved this into a hardware problem, methinks. :-)
Graphic artists will probably use Mac OSX on Macintoshes
(although lately they've been sporting Intel cores -- an
interesting development and we'll see how it pans out).
Not that I would know either way, at this point; I can draw
stick figures but that's about it. (Of course with Gimp
I can make beautifully rainbowed stick figures... :-) )
Real time Internet games ... I'm not into that beyond
Nexuiz, which is very playable on my Athlon. Most likely
you meant high-end Intel or AMD hardware running Windows,
but I for one don't see why Linux can't edge into that
space, development efforts by game companies permitting.
The Unreal engine, the Quake engine, and the new Doom
engine all run on Linux, as well as Windows. (Different
code, but same source, AFAIK.) I don't know what Halo
uses, though, and what other engines are out there
beyond Crystalspace, which was quite interesting a year
or so back but now seems to have wandered off somewhere
else.
>
> A decent windowing system on Linux has only been around for about half
> the time that a halfway decent one has been on Windoze...naturally the
> desktop apps are mainly windows biased.
X has been around for at least a year less than Windows.
>
> Yes windows is not a proper operating system,
Windows has been a proper OS since 3.11. (Andrew Schullman's
_Unauthorized Windows95_. It's a bit esoteric but apparently
it revolves around a hook routine that Windows manages. There's
been a few issues with memory protection, of course.)
> yes its been shamelessly
> promoted using very dubious business techniques.
Very true.
>
> However its sheer ubiquity mekas it a hard one to beat.
It's a monopoly, as far as I can tell, although an eroding
one at this point -- Microsoft has shown considerable
talent in shooting itself in the foot (with some help from
Sony's rootkit).
>
> WE used to run Linux *servers*, and PC/MAC desktops. In fact I have just
> got my SOHO setup to this state.
>
> And all Linux desktop STILL won't cover all the ground I need covering,
> though its getting MUCH closer.
>
I'll admit to some curiosity as to Linux's deficiencies in
this area. Especially since Linux is demonstrably *ahead*
of Windows in such areas as the XGL "cube"/wobble windows.
Personally, I'm not sure such is all that useful, but it's
cool to demo. :-)
Presumably at some point Linux might very well jump to a
full-fledged pseudo-3D system, where every window is
a GL surface, and not only can be flipped, rotated, bent,
folded, spindled, stapled, and multilated by the window
manager, but can also display things popping out of itself
sort of like a child's fold-out book, and do other crazy
things such as including itself in another window (not just
the main desktop window).
Of course Windows has been doing windows-within-documents
using ActiveX for awhile. I'm not sure how well.
chrisv
> Charlie wrote:
>> Why is it that Linux zealots like to blame the user all the time?
>> Why does it always seem to be th users fault when Linux fails?
>>
>> Let's see, we have Windows XP which costs about $200.00 and Linux
>> which is free.
>> So?
>> Why isn't Linux taking over the marketplace?
>
> Because you get Windows 'free' with every PC bought
No you don't you fuckwitted cunt. Why do arseholes like you bother to poast
when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Chris
A well informed argument intelligently put.
I bow to superior intellect. Please forgive my indiscretion.
WCJ
See how he put 'free' in quotes? Since you're unable to glean the
meaning of that sentence on your own, let me explain it to you: People
who buy PCs with windoze preinstalled on it (as most PCs have been for
the past 10+ years) don't have any choice as to the OS it comes with.
They see it as part of the whole package, just like the hard drive,
motherboard, and other components they have no CHOICE in installing.
Although it's technically not free, it's viewed as simply part of the
whole package you get when you buy a new computer.
chrisv
>No you don't you (snip)
Ignore the forger.
chrisv
>some idiot forging chrisv wrote:
>>
>>(snip)
>
>See how he put 'free' in quotes?
My advice would be to not bother responding to anyone who uses
language like the idiot forging my name did. Feeding the trolls does
not make them go away.
chrisv
Is that why you're still here?
Clogwog
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, notbob
> <not...@nothome.com>
> wrote
> on Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:25:34 -0500
> <jomdnXfRO4PzD3bZ...@comcast.com>:
>> On 2006-08-22, simpl...@yahoo.com <simpl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You have to ask yorself why there are 300+ different versions.
>>> Maybe, just maybe none of them fully works.
>>
>> M$ only has one version and I doesn't work.
>
> Pedant Point: Windows has more than one version. According to
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions
>
> there are currently 8 versions of XP (counting the Ns),
> 6 versions of 2003 server, 1 version of XP Embedded,
> and 4 other miscellaneous versions.
>
> Windows Vista is slated to have 6, plus 2 mandated by the EU
> for antitrust violations.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista
>
> Windows Vienna (formerly BlackComb) is planned.
>
> It is not entirely clear how well any of them work, or will work. :-)
They work for 96.97 percent of the OS market on the web, only a few Linux
oddballs gathered in COLA can't get it to work properly!
http://www.persberichten.com/Detailx.asp?id=35060
Linux makes you stupid! Dump Linux, it's crapware!
--
Ubuntu user:
<quote>
Sjouke Burry
a comp. anywhere without WIN.
MS demands installation in (most??) cases, and you
cannot get a refund in case you dont want WIN.
This is called a "MONOPOLY", for nontechnical people.
Nobody is stopping you from removing WIN, but you
can kiss your money goodby.
Of course you can build your own computer, but most
people can(dare)not.
The Ghost In The Machine
<BWAHA...@BWAHAHAHAAA.LOL>
wrote
on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:20:01 +0200
<200608231919...@smtp4.wanadoo.nl>:
[snip irrelevance]
I knew I forgot somebody. :-P
CBFalconer
The real one posts with Forte, the fake with Outhouse Excess.
--
Chuck F (cbfal...@yahoo.com) (cbfal...@maineline.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE maineline address!
chrisv
> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> WCJ wrote:
>>
>>> some idiot forging chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (snip)
>>>
>>> See how he put 'free' in quotes?
>>
>> My advice would be to not bother responding to anyone who uses
>> language like the idiot forging my name did. Feeding the trolls does
>> not make them go away.
>
> The real one posts with Forte, the fake with Outhouse Excess.
WOW! Nothing gets by you. Are you a detective in real life?
The Ghost In The Machine
<chr...@nospam.invalid>
wrote
on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:34:00 -0700
<44ecd7d8$0$7261$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>:
He was simply complimenting you on your choice of news readers.
(FSVO "simply", "complimenting", "you", "choice", "news", and
"readers".)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net -- insert random moron here
Julie
> <chr...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote
> on Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:34:00 -0700
> <44ecd7d8$0$7261$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>:
>> CBFalconer wrote:
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> WCJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> some idiot forging chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>
>>>>> See how he put 'free' in quotes?
>>>>
>>>> My advice would be to not bother responding to anyone who uses
>>>> language like the idiot forging my name did. Feeding the trolls
>>>> does not make them go away.
>>>
>>> The real one posts with Forte, the fake with Outhouse Excess.
>>
>> WOW! Nothing gets by you. Are you a detective in real life?
>>
>
> He was simply complimenting you on your choice of news readers.
I concur. Outlook Express is the best!
BTW: Are lusers jealous? It would seem so.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:53:49 -0400, Charlie wrote:
>> They work fine for me. If I were you, I'd look in the mirror for the
>> source of the problems you're having...
>
> Why is it that Linux zealots like to blame the user all the time?
Because in the majority of cases we see here, the problems aren't being
reported by _users_, but by _trolls_. So the problems are largely
manufactured, or the "user" had to go out of his way to find the perfect
combination of distro, hardware, etc, to make the bug happen. Thus, it
*is*, in the vast majority of cases, a user problem.
William Poaster
Furthermore, some trolls have picked up on some problems reported in tech
groups & embroidered them, claiming *they're* the ones that had the
problem. It soon becomes apparent that they have been nowhere near a linux
distribution.
--
I used to like a good joke.
What happened?
I thought there was a better way, so I
stopped using Windows & switched to linux.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:46:35 +0100, William Poaster wrote:
> Furthermore, some trolls have picked up on some problems reported in tech
> groups & embroidered them, claiming *they're* the ones that had the
> problem. It soon becomes apparent that they have been nowhere near a linux
> distribution.
Indeed. And Kaffeine is a command-line app. Remember, we were so
informed by one of our newest short-bus-riders.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:49:37 +0200, Sjouke Burry wrote:
>>>Because you get Windows 'free' with every PC bought
>>
>>
>> No you don't you fuckwitted cunt. Why do arseholes like you bother to poast
>> when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
>>
>>
> You might as wel call it free, when you cannot buy
> a comp. anywhere without WIN.
Sorry to disappoint you, but there are not one, not two, but *three*
separate retailers within *two blocks* of where I am right now, and every
single one of them *defaults* to selling "naked" PCs - no OS installed.
"Cannot buy a computer anywhere without Windows." Gods, you're an idiot.
Pal...@dodge.city
>simpl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Look, everyone outside of the Linux oddballs, knows that Linux sucks
>> the big shalong but I thought I would give PCLinuxOS .93, the newest
>> version a try.
>>
>> Big mistake.
>>
>> This POS is even worse than Ubuntu which sucks so bad it is not even
>> worth talking about.
From your statement it's pretty evident that you don't have a clue
about Linux. You're one of those numb-nuts who expect someone to hold
their hand and make all the decisions for them. As a long time Redmond
user, I installed Ubuntu w/o a hitch...a very smooth install. The only
problem I found with Ubuntu were it's references and links to Nelson
Mandella, a person I dislike intensely because of his attitude towards
the U.S.
I like Big Daddy more than Ubuntu......for many reasons.(besides
Mandella) It is a distro that I will follow.
As for "POS", I submit that it's you who are the "POS" and not an
operating system.
>
>That's odd. Millions of people think Ubuntu is quite nice--including
>me! I installed it recently so I'd be familiar with it when I recommend
>it to windoze users, and I decided to keep it. EVERYTHING works: My
>digital camera (Kodak), my scanner (HP), my network printers (Canon,
>HP), my wireless router (Linksys), sound...DSL...CD...DVD...you name it.
>
>> So, wireless did not work.
>> Sound did not work.
>> My video was 640x480.
>> My printer did not work.
>> My DVD drive was recognized as a CDRW.
>> My DSL did not work.
>> Every 3rd or 4th boot the system would go into an endless reboot cycle.
Were you drinking heavily before the install?
>Maybe you're just too stupid to figure out how to get things running?
The most logical answer.
>If that's the case, go back to 'doze, and let Bill Gate$ dictate to you
>what you can and can't do in terms of customizing your OS (and other
>software).
>
>> Linux?
>>
>> You have to ask yorself why there are 300+ different versions.
Because a free environment embraces (the catchword for 2006)
competition. How many entrepreneurs were there in Soviet Russia?
>Because variety is the spice of life? Different strokes for different
>folks? Not everyone will like the same Linux distro...and unlike 'doze
>users, we LIKE--and EXPECT to have--choice.
>
>> Maybe, just maybe none of them fully works.
That's probably true.........for someone like you. I think you're one
of those ignorant people who could "fuck up a one car funeral"!
Aquila Deus
> Look, everyone outside of the Linux oddballs, knows that Linux sucks
> the big shalong but I thought I would give PCLinuxOS .93, the newest
> version a try.
>
> Big mistake.
>
> This POS is even worse than Ubuntu which sucks so bad it is not even
> worth talking about.
>
Does PCLinuxOS tell you it's supported?
> Sound did not work.
Does PCLinuxOS tell you it's supported?
> My video was 640x480.
You know that only nvidia cards work for linux?
> My printer did not work.
Install vmware
> My DVD drive was recognized as a CDRW.
Download Nero Linux.
> My DSL did not work.
Configure your router for auto-connect pppoe.
> Every 3rd or 4th boot the system would go into an endless reboot cycle.
Don't use gdm or kdm.
Scott Nudds
<Pal...@Dodge.City> wrote in message
news:19a8g21bgagdqkud0...@4ax.com...
> From your statement it's pretty evident that you don't have a clue
> about Linux. You're one of those numb-nuts who expect someone to hold
> their hand and make all the decisions for them. As a long time Redmond
> user, I installed Ubuntu w/o a hitch...a very smooth install.
Wrong you shit licking moron. <YOU> didn't install Ubuntu. Ubuntu
installed Ubuntu.
You just sat there with your finger up your ass waiting to grab another
McNugget.
<Pal...@Dodge.City> wrote in message
news:19a8g21bgagdqkud0...@4ax.com...
> The only
> problem I found with Ubuntu were it's references and links to Nelson
> Mandella, a person I dislike intensely because of his attitude towards
> the U.S.
Lets make this very clear. AmeriKKKa is a nation of low grade morons that
is currently in last place among first world nations and soon to be second
world status.
The faster we exterminate the AmeriKKKan nation, the better off the rest
of the world will be. Now AmeriKKKans might not be bright enough to notice
that their national net worth has declied 60% over the last 7 years, or
aware enough to know that they are now a net importer of food, and not
sentient enough to know that AmeriKKKan fiscal liabilities now greatly
exceed yearly GDP. But the rest of the world does, and we will continue to
bury you.
DFS
> Lets make this very clear. AmeriKKKa is a nation of low grade
> morons that is currently in last place among first world nations and
> soon to be second world status.
>
> The faster we exterminate the AmeriKKKan nation, the better off the
> rest of the world will be.
>
> Now AmeriKKKans might not be bright
> enough to notice that their national net worth has declied 60% over
> the last 7 years, or aware enough to know that they are now a net
> importer of food, and not sentient enough to know that AmeriKKKan
> fiscal liabilities now greatly exceed yearly GDP. But the rest of
> the world does, and we will continue to bury you.
I know this is just a childish, ignorant troll on your part, but hopefully
the facts will shut your ineffectual squeaking (unless you turn out to be
like Rex Ballard and just ignore reality):
Go here https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html and here
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html, and when you
find some per-capita measures that support your stupidity, get back to me.
Scott Nudds
> > Lets make this very clear. AmeriKKKa is a nation of low grade
> > morons that is currently in last place among first world nations and
> > soon to be second world status.
> >
> > The faster we exterminate the AmeriKKKan nation, the better off the
> > rest of the world will be.
> >
> > Now AmeriKKKans might not be bright
> > enough to notice that their national net worth has declied 60% over
> > the last 7 years, or aware enough to know that they are now a net
> > importer of food, and not sentient enough to know that AmeriKKKan
> > fiscal liabilities now greatly exceed yearly GDP. But the rest of
> > the world does, and we will continue to bury you.
"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message
news:LU1Ng.17784$IM1....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> I know this is just a childish, ignorant troll on your part, but hopefully
> the facts will shut your ineffectual squeaking (unless you turn out to be
> like Rex Ballard and just ignore reality):
The faster we exterminate the AmeriKKKan state, the faster we can get on
with solving the worlds problems.
Faced with a potential government shutdown, the Senate votes to raise the
nation's debt limit for the fourth time in five years. The bill passed by a
52-48 vote, increasing the ceiling to $9 trillion. The bill now goes to the
president.
The debt now stands at more than $8.2 trillion.
Scott Nudds
"ray" <r...@zianet.com> wrote
> > So, wireless did not work.
> > My video was 640x480.
> >
That's about what I experienced with my new machine (almost a year old now),
on some versions of the Linux Shit Stick. No video, no audio, no
networking. the Nforce chipset wasn't well supported with the versions I
tried (all recent within the last 4 months) Oh, this was a duel core AMD 64
machine.
Never got a chance to see it multitask because I couldn't get the OS to boot
and or couldn't get online to get anything to test it.
Now on the older 1.1 Ghz Celeron I'm using now to type this message, they
would boot, but ya, 640 x 400 video or vesa at best, maybe 2d video
acceleration - never could tell - no audio at times, mixer failure, but the
Networking wroked at least. And worked well for the most part.
Linux not ready for prime time.
Scott Nudds
"Chris" <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote
> Because you get Windows 'free' with every PC bought - that's why MS have
> been found guilty of abusing their position as a monopoly.
What are you on drugs? Windows does not come free. It's purchased by the
vendor as part of their agreement with Microsoft.
Vendors can install Linux of course. But no one purchases the LInux Shit
Stick.
Scott Nudds
"Sjouke Burry" <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote
> You might as wel call it free, when you cannot buy
> a comp. anywhere without WIN.
Sure you can. Get a MAC. It's a PC these days.
"Sjouke Burry" <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote
> MS demands installation in (most??) cases, and you
> cannot get a refund in case you dont want WIN.
Sure you can. Just pick up a motherboard and case, and put the two pieces
together yourself. Will
take you a whole 10 minutes.
"Sjouke Burry" <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote
> This is called a "MONOPOLY", for nontechnical people.
Impossible the Libertarians tell me. Only government (because government is
pure evil) can create monopolies.
"Sjouke Burry" <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote
> Nobody is stopping you from removing WIN, but you
> can kiss your money goodby.
It's spent anyhow, so you might as well use a LinTard OS if you like. It
costs nothing, but perhaps a few weeks of configuration, a few months of
frustration several days of resignation, and then a reinstall of Windows
after that.
How much is your time worth?
"Sjouke Burry" <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnlll> wrote
> Of course you can build your own computer, but most
> people can(dare)not.
Building one from sand is difficult. Plugging a motherboard into a case
is trivial. I bet you could even get the store monkey to plug the simms in
for you.
On, on that note, you should take steps to plug the simms in before you
mount the Motherboard.
Scott Nudds
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@ncoldns.com> wrote
> Sorry to disappoint you, but there are not one, not two, but *three*
> separate retailers within *two blocks* of where I am right now, and every
> single one of them *defaults* to selling "naked" PCs - no OS installed.
Oh, my God.. Are you Living in Russia?
Scott Nudds
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@ncoldns.com> wrote
> Because in the majority of cases we see here, the problems aren't being
> reported by _users_, but by _trolls_. So the problems are largely
> manufactured, or the "user" had to go out of his way to find the perfect
> combination of distro, hardware, etc, to make the bug happen.
Ahahahahahah.. Ya it's all a conspiracy to make the Linux Shit Stick look
bad.
Lets just forget the last 30 years where Unix was unable to compete
effectively against a superior OS like DOS.
Ahahahahahahahah...
Linux = Shit Stick...
Gordon
>
> Vendors can install Linux of course. But no one purchases the LInux
> Shit
Ummm NO. What frigging planet are you on? NO-ONE PURCHASES LINUX BECAUSE MS
BLACKMAILS VENDORS INTO NOT GIVING IT AS A CHOICE. Do some economic and
accounting research first before you post such garbled hypocritical
nonsense
Scott Nudds
"Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote
> Ummm NO. What frigging planet are you on? NO-ONE PURCHASES LINUX BECAUSE
MS
> BLACKMAILS VENDORS INTO NOT GIVING IT AS A CHOICE.
There is no blackmail involved at all. It's a business proposition that
is common in all industries.
Pepsie goes to a grocery store and tells the store that they will get a
lowered price if their products are placed at eye level. Coke goes to a
corner store and tells them that they will get some free cases if they stop
selling soda from other vendors. Neilson goes to a corner store and tells
them that they will furnish them with ice cream refrigerators if they only
stock Neilson ice creams.
This is common industry practice.
Are you AmeriKKKans not aware of how AmeriKKKan capitalism works?
Stupid... Stupid... Fuckers.....
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Scott Nudds wrote:
>> Lets make this very clear. AmeriKKKa is a nation of low grade
>> morons that is currently in last place among first world nations and
>> soon to be second world status.
>>
>> The faster we exterminate the AmeriKKKan nation, the better off the
>> rest of the world will be.
>>
>> Now AmeriKKKans might not be bright
>> enough to notice that their national net worth has declied 60% over
>> the last 7 years, or aware enough to know that they are now a net
>> importer of food, and not sentient enough to know that AmeriKKKan
>> fiscal liabilities now greatly exceed yearly GDP. But the rest of
>> the world does, and we will continue to bury you.
> I know this is just a childish, ignorant troll on your part,
Name one post of his that isn't.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon
>
> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote
>> Ummm NO. What frigging planet are you on? NO-ONE PURCHASES LINUX BECAUSE
> MS
>> BLACKMAILS VENDORS INTO NOT GIVING IT AS A CHOICE.
>
> There is no blackmail involved at all. It's a business proposition that
> is common in all industries.
Umm no. No business I've ever worked in says to its "customers" - " we will
seel you our product at $x for so many million units. If you DARE to sell a
competing product as well, even if it's only one unit, then we will charge
you $10x for each unit of ours".
that's not common business practice, that's economic blackmail.
And yes, as a Management Accountant and Systems Accountant I *DO* know what
I'm talking about. You obviously do not.
>
> Pepsie goes to a grocery store and tells the store that they will get a
> lowered price if their products are placed at eye level. Coke goes to a
> corner store and tells them that they will get some free cases if they
> stop
> selling soda from other vendors.
Oh no they do NOT - I've worked in the retail sector. That just doesn't
happen.
> Neilson goes to a corner store and tells
> them that they will furnish them with ice cream refrigerators if they only
> stock Neilson ice creams.
>
> This is common industry practice.
>
> Are you AmeriKKKans not aware of how AmeriKKKan capitalism works?
BTW, I'm NOT "Amerikkkan" (whatever THAT means) so just piss off and learn
some REAL world facts.
>
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> BTW, I'm NOT "Amerikkkan" (whatever THAT means) so just piss off and learn
> some REAL world facts.
Ah, I think that's the old troll about all americans being members of the
ku klux klan.
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
Scott Nudds
> Scott Nudds wrote:
> > There is no blackmail involved at all. It's a business proposition
that
> > is common in all industries.
"Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote
> Umm no. No business I've ever worked in says to its "customers" - " we
will
> seel you our product at $x for so many million units. If you DARE to sell
a
> competing product as well, even if it's only one unit, then we will charge
> you $10x for each unit of ours".
Obviously you have never worked for a large corporation.
"Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote
> that's not common business practice, that's economic blackmail.
Nope, it's common business practice. Just how do you think those products
make it to the center shelf anyhow? You do realize don't you that products
on the top and bottom shelves sell significantly less than those at chest
height, simply because of their position.
Why do you think grocery stores spend so much time moving product from
shelf to shelf?
Ahahahahaha Ignorant AmeriKKKans - Don't even know how AmeriKKKan
Capitalism works.
"Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote
> And yes, as a Management Accountant and Systems Accountant I *DO* know
what
> I'm talking about.
You don't know squat. Child.
> > Pepsie goes to a grocery store and tells the store that they will get
a
> > lowered price if their products are placed at eye level. Coke goes to a
> > corner store and tells them that they will get some free cases if they
> > stop selling soda from other vendors.
"Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote
> Oh no they do NOT - I've worked in the retail sector. That just doesn't
> happen.
It happens all the time. That's why many grocery stores don't carry off
brand names for soda, chips, and such. They are contractually obligated
<NOT> to.
"Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote
> BTW, I'm NOT "Amerikkkan" (whatever THAT means) so just piss off and learn
> some REAL world facts.
Ahahahahah Right....
Scott Nudds
<spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote
> Ah, I think that's the old troll about all americans being members of the
> ku klux klan.
AmeriKKKa has made good progress in the battle against it's own racial
intollerance. It will be essentially gone once the existing generation of
old geezers are dead.
But AmeriKKKa will not exist as a viable country at that point.
Gordon
>
>
>> Scott Nudds wrote:
>> > There is no blackmail involved at all. It's a business proposition
> that
>> > is common in all industries.
>
>
> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote
>> Umm no. No business I've ever worked in says to its "customers" - " we
> will
>> seel you our product at $x for so many million units. If you DARE to sell
> a
>> competing product as well, even if it's only one unit, then we will
>> charge you $10x for each unit of ours".
>
> Obviously you have never worked for a large corporation.
certainly have - AND in the IT industry.....
>
>
>
>
> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote
>> that's not common business practice, that's economic blackmail.
>
> Nope, it's common business practice. Just how do you think those
> products
> make it to the center shelf anyhow? You do realize don't you that
> products on the top and bottom shelves sell significantly less than those
> at chest height, simply because of their position.
>
> Why do you think grocery stores spend so much time moving product from
> shelf to shelf?
because in the UK the producer pays the STORE, not the other way round.
>
> Ahahahahaha Ignorant AmeriKKKans - Don't even know how AmeriKKKan
> Capitalism works.
>
>
> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote
>> And yes, as a Management Accountant and Systems Accountant I *DO* know
> what
>> I'm talking about.
>
> You don't know squat. Child.
I know a dam sight more "squat" (and BTW, "Squat" is what you do when you
shit) about economics and business finance and operations than you EVER
will.
>
>
>> > Pepsie goes to a grocery store and tells the store that they will get
> a
>> > lowered price if their products are placed at eye level. Coke goes to
>> > a corner store and tells them that they will get some free cases if
>> > they stop selling soda from other vendors.
>
>
> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote
>> Oh no they do NOT - I've worked in the retail sector. That just doesn't
>> happen.
>
> It happens all the time. That's why many grocery stores don't carry
> off
> brand names for soda, chips, and such. They are contractually obligated
> <NOT> to.
>
Bullshit. that just proves you don't have even the simplest understanding of
commerce, do you? If that were the case, how come stores DO sell a range of
the same type of product? What a lot of crap you do talk.
>
> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com.invalid> wrote
>> BTW, I'm NOT "Amerikkkan" (whatever THAT means) so just piss off and
>> learn some REAL world facts.
>
> Ahahahahah Right....
So are you? Going to get some real world knowledge?
Scott Nudds
"notbob" <not...@nothome.com> wrote
> M$ only has one version and I doesn't work.
Really? You mean those 500 million PC's out ther all running Windows are
down, non-functional - unable to boot and be operated.
Hmmm Why hasn't this fact been in the news, and why haven't any of the PC's
I have or my friends have been affected by this outage?
Maybe you are just a liar.
Ya that's it. A Lying LinTard.
Scott Nudds
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
> Windows Vienna (formerly BlackComb) is planned.
>
> It is not entirely clear how well any of them work, or will work. :-)
Reviews have Vista working very well indeed. It ships in November you know.
Personally if I were Microsoft I would be a little more relaxed on the
release date.
Scott Nudds
"WCJ" <nos...@bogus.fake.com> wrote
> That's odd. Millions of people think Ubuntu is quite nice--including
> me!
Quite impossible since there aren't even a million Linux users out there.
You really do need to take that LinSux Shit Stick out of your mouth and
get some oxygen to that adolescent brain of yours.
"WCJ" <nos...@bogus.fake.com> wrote
> I installed it recently so I'd be familiar with it when I recommend
> it to windoze users, and I decided to keep it. EVERYTHING works:
That's nice. It refuses to start up X on my machine.
Scott Nudds
"Charlie" <charli...@fish.net> wrote
> Why is it that Linux zealots like to blame the user all the time?
Because they <start> with the premise that the OS os flawless, and hence
any flaw in the OS must not be a flaw or operator failure.
I see this kind of logic all the time from "the faithful" of any religion,
be it the religion of Linux or the religion of the Free Market, or the
religion of Conservative Liedeology.
God is the God of love, but God wipes out the entire human population of
the earth except 2. Why? Operator error.
"Charlie" <charli...@fish.net> wrote
> Why isn't Linux taking over the marketplace?
> Doesn't seem normal to me.
For the very sane reasons Unix was killed by DOS. Becaue Linux is a user
hostile, unworkable, and unmanagabele Shit stick.
Gordon
>
> For the very sane reasons Unix was killed by DOS.
So show me all the DOS servers then........
> Becaue Linux is a
> user
> hostile, unworkable, and unmanagabele Shit stick.
Which is why the number of Linux servers is equal to, or surpasses, the
number of Windows servers.
Go and eat your own shit you fathead.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Really? You mean those 500 million PC's out ther all running Windows are
> down, non-functional - unable to boot and be operated.
>
> Hmmm Why hasn't this fact been in the news, and why haven't any of the PC's
> I have or my friends have been affected by this outage?
old news in a tape loop until they get it sorted out.
Your system is also down, but you don't realize it because the
malware that infects it is doing a fabulous impersonation of a
working Windows system. Unfortunately, all the email and usenet
posts you think you are sending are actually being routed to
a Commodore 64 in Nigeria.
BTW, I happen to be the only surviving heir of a deposed prince
with 50 million dollars that I would like to deposit in your
bank account. I'll send you details in a moment... but first I
want to watch this breaking news about President Kennedy being
shot. :-o
Later,
Thad
Peter Köhlmann
< snip flatfish droppings >
Ehrman's Commentary:
(1) Things will get worse before they get better.
(2) Who said things would get better?
Balwinder S "bsd" Dheeman
> For the very sane reasons Unix was killed by DOS. Becaue Linux is a user
> hostile, unworkable, and unmanagabele Shit stick.
Ha, ha, ha! You make me laugh... LOL and ROTF, as might be others at
your limited knowledge and childish quote.
FYI, MS/PC-DOS is and was single-tasking and single-user system, more
over Windows 95, 98, SE, ME, NT and XP etc. are still single-user
systems. Are'nt you comparing all these said asses with a tried and test
horse i.e. a true time-sharing or real-time, multi-tasking, multi-user
and even preemptive system Unix and, or Linux?
BTW, Have ever visted http://www.levenez.com/unix/ and, or hundreds of
thousands of other such sites which have been contributing a lot of
valuable information, knowledge, intellectual property and, or code to
the entire world since long and that too for free?
--
Dr Balwinder S "bsd" Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709
Anu's Linux@HOME Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India Distros: Ubuntu, Fedora, Knoppix
Home: http://cto.homelinux.net/~bsd/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/
The Ghost In The Machine
<nos...@foo.com>
wrote
on Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:35:09 -0700
<mSwSg.87694$ED.5...@read2.cgocable.net>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
>> Windows Vienna (formerly BlackComb) is planned.
>>
>> It is not entirely clear how well any of them work, or will work. :-)
>
> Reviews have Vista working very well indeed. It ships
> in November you know.
2006 or 2007? Last I heard it was Easter.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39283444,00.htm
Of course RC1 is already out, but that doesn't quite count.
>
> Personally if I were Microsoft I would be a little more relaxed on the
> release date.
>
Indeed; vaporware is their stock in trade. As anticipation
builds up for the much-balleyhooed Vista system, which
will smash all pretense at Linux superiority (or so they
want one to think), people will get very excited at what
all the fuss is about.
Or not.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
The Ghost In The Machine
<gor...@gbpcomputing.co.uk>
wrote
on Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:52:05 +0100
<4nvkvqF...@individual.net>:
> Scott Nudds wrote:
>
>>
>> For the very sane reasons Unix was killed by DOS.
>
> So show me all the DOS servers then........
DOS killed Unix on the desktop. :-) (If one can call
it killing when Unix couldn't even get started thereon.)
Unix was overkill therefor (and unrunnable thereon)
on such chips as the 8088 and 68000, and Windows was
definitely the most exciting (or at least the most
reasonable business-wise) solution in the 3.1 timeframe
for what was then maybe a 2M 8088 or 80286 machine.
(The 186 never got started for some reason.)
Of course minis were slightly beefier -- e.g. VAX 11/750s
or 11/780s as opposed to IBM PCs. (The one we had could
address 8 MB RAM. IBM PCs couldn't even get 1/10th of that
until someone designed LIM/EMS. But DEC is now more or less
swallowed, so go figure.)
Ah, the Amiga; had Commodore had more of a clue, things
could have been interesting. I'm not sure how Apple missed
the boat, either, but they're at least still fighting,
albeit in a different realm; instead of the iMac we're
being deluged by the iPod, which isn't a desktop but is
apparently *very* popular, and keeping Apple afloat.
I doubt Zune will make it, frankly. I'm not sure why Apple
never went into the game market but suspect they figured they
didn't want to expend all of their creative energy thereon,
or something.
In any event, DOS beat Unix on the desktop; Unix beat everyone
else on the server and now Linux is eating the classical Unix's
lunch.
I'm not sure if Unix minds, or not; the hardware vendors probably
don't give a fig, although we do get the occasional Solarisvocate.
>
>
>> Becaue Linux is a
>> user
>> hostile, unworkable, and unmanagabele Shit stick.
>
> Which is why the number of Linux servers is equal to, or surpasses, the
> number of Windows servers.
Servers, yes. Not desktops.
>
> Go and eat your own shit you fathead.
>
Now now, be nice to Scott. He can't help it. He was brainwashed
apparently at an early age by that guy in a moth suit. ;-)
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Ah, the Amiga; had Commodore had more of a clue, things
> could have been interesting. I'm not sure how Apple missed
> the boat, either, but they're at least still fighting,
> albeit in a different realm; instead of the iMac we're
> being deluged by the iPod, which isn't a desktop but is
> apparently *very* popular, and keeping Apple afloat.
and preferred working with it over the Apple IIe or IBM PC that I
also had access to. Years later I briefly had my hands on a Video
Toaster, and it reminded me how far Amiga had pushed the envelope
when it came to consumer graphics.
> Now now, be nice to Scott. He can't help it. He was brainwashed
> apparently at an early age by that guy in a moth suit. ;-)
The weird thing about Scott is that he occasionally posts something
that resembles rational discourse... but then inevitably falls back
to the usenet equivalent of toret's syndrome. Sure, he isn't the
only one around here with a tendency to use crude language (just
the most extreme), but too often there does not even seem to be a
real point obscured by all that vitriol. Troll posts are one thing,
but his rants sometimes range out to freaky-weird-land.
Scott, chill dude. All that hostility can't be good for your blood
pressure.
Thad
Scott Nudds
> Scott Nudds
> > Reviews have Vista working very well indeed. It ships
> > in November you know.
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
> 2006 or 2007? Last I heard it was Easter.
2 months approx.
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
> Of course RC1 is already out, but that doesn't quite count.
It's getting very good reviews and the final release will obviously be
better than RC1.
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
> Indeed; vaporware is their stock in trade.
Vapour may certianly be your stock and trade, but Microsoft delivers
pretty much on time and pretty much what they announce. Personally I'm
pleased that WinFS is not part of Vista.
Vista is pretty much the end of Linux. And of Sun Microsystems. Vista
and dot net is the beginning of the era of grid computing.
Scott Nudds
<tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote
> The networks are equally effected... so they are just rebroadcasting
> old news in a tape loop until they get it sorted out.
Well that can't be the case either because some of he news they broadcast
yesterday was different than the day before. However I note that the
AmeriKKKan news media decided not to broadcast the fact that two, two star
generals - just retired - came to congress and testified that Rumfeld was a
liar and inept and was doing great harm to the U.S. military and to
AmeriKKKa and should either resign or be fired. They went on to further
state that the Bush Regime was corrupt and needed to be voted out of office.
Odd that the AmeriKKKan news would avoid covering such testimony isn't it?
<tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote
> Your system is also down, but you don't realize it because the
> malware that infects it is doing a fabulous impersonation of a
> working Windows system.
If that were the case then you wouild have had nothing to respond to, but
since you did respond - and responded in context - that the message was
received, and hence sent by me.
Handshaking of this kind is essential in any form of network
communication.
Scott Nudds
"Gordon" <gor...@gbpcomputing.co.uk> wrote
> Which is why the number of Linux servers is equal to, or surpasses, the
> number of Windows servers.
Hmmm lets see, Linux servers control 17% of the server market, and Windows
40% of the server market.
So this means that Windows is installed on more servers than Linux.
Stupid.... Stupid... Shit Sucking LinTard.
Gordon
>
> "Gordon" <gor...@gbpcomputing.co.uk> wrote
>> Which is why the number of Linux servers is equal to, or surpasses, the
>> number of Windows servers.
>
> Hmmm lets see, Linux servers control 17% of the server market, and Windows
> 40% of the server market.
Link?
Gordon
>
> "Gordon" <gor...@gbpcomputing.co.uk> wrote
>> Which is why the number of Linux servers is equal to, or surpasses, the
>> number of Windows servers.
>
> Hmmm lets see, Linux servers control 17% of the server market, and Windows
> 40% of the server market.
>
> So this means that Windows is installed on more servers than Linux.
>
here's a link that disproves you (yet again)
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS00153905
Quote: (from 2004)...
Unix Servers (ie NON-WINDOWS) and Windows Servers Nearly Tied in Worldwide
Revenue
Unix server and Windows server revenue was statistically tied in 1Q04. This
is the first quarter in which this has occurred, reflecting increased IT
spending in Windows servers to run a wide range of workloads. "Both
platforms have a rich inventory of ISV applications, but Unix servers have
traditionally gained more revenue from sales in the midrange enterprise and
high-end enterprise server segments, based on their ability to support
scalable workloads and high RAS levels for mission-critical-workloads,"
said Jean S. Bozman, vice president of Enterprise Computing.
Balwinder S "bsd" Dheeman
> In comp.os.linux.misc "Balwinder S \"bsd\" Dheeman" <bsd.S...@cto.homelinux.net> wrote:
> : FYI, MS/PC-DOS is and was single-tasking and single-user system, more
> : over Windows 95, 98, SE, ME, NT and XP etc. are still single-user
> : systems. Are'nt you comparing all these said asses with a tried and test
>
> incorrect. NT and all successors ( 2K, XP,Vista ) have always been multi
> user systems. DOS, 95, 98, ME and so on however are indeed single user
> hence more-or-less impossible to make secure and stable.
Ok, let me make it clear, all these may provide you but only multiple
user-profiles and not user-accounts; none of these can handle more than
one user simultaneously, I have not test Vista as yet.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Q0ASg.120006$sS1....@read1.cgocable.net>:
>
>> Scott Nudds
>> > Reviews have Vista working very well indeed. It ships
>> > in November you know.
>
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
>> 2006 or 2007? Last I heard it was Easter.
>
> 2 months approx.
You didn't even look at the provided link, did you?
In any event, according to Wiki Win95 went through 5 "release
candidates" before the final variant came out on 1995-08-24,
and SP1 didn't take long to follow: 1995-12-31.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_95
The fanfare for Win95 was impressive: lighting up the Empire State
building, for one, and of course the song "Start Me Up".
I suspect Vista will have similar fanfare, though I don't know what
they'll do to top lighting the Empire State Building.
>
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
>> Of course RC1 is already out, but that doesn't quite count.
>
> It's getting very good reviews and the final release will obviously be
> better than RC1.
It had better be.
>
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
>> Indeed; vaporware is their stock in trade.
>
> Vapour may certianly be your stock and trade,
Right...who invented tabbed browsing first?
And the WinFS feature qualifies, and even made it into the Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
> but Microsoft delivers
> pretty much on time and pretty much what they announce. Personally I'm
> pleased that WinFS is not part of Vista.
Oh, those "pretties" pretty much blast your argument to smithereenies.
>
>
> Vista is pretty much the end of Linux. And of Sun Microsystems. Vista
> and dot net is the beginning of the era of grid computing.
>
Ah, so Vista will go into servers as well, then?
Yeah, that'll be impressive, won't it? Aero on an IIS
capable box taking up more than half the system memory
and requiring a $500 graphics card on a 1U rack unit.
Say...where does a 1U rack unit put the graphics card? :-)
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:00:04 +0000, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> Ah, so Vista will go into servers as well, then? Yeah, that'll be
> impressive, won't it? Aero on an IIS capable box taking up more than half
> the system memory and requiring a $500 graphics card on a 1U rack unit.
> Say...where does a 1U rack unit put the graphics card? :-)
Vista: twice the units, half the throughput! :)
The Ghost In The Machine
<kbjar...@ncoldns.com>
wrote
on Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:44:15 -0700
<pan.2006.09.27....@ncoldns.com>:
You're an optimist. :-)
Mind you, there was a benchmark or two that showed Linux to falter at
about 1600 incoming connections sometime way back. I don't remember if
it's the infamous Mindcraft affair, or a more recent offering.
I'm also curious as to a C# benchmark for networking purposes.
Apparently C#/.NET is not all that hot for networking, though
it's probably reasonably good for prototyping, if one knows
the language (I do not).
DFS
> Aero on an IIS capable box taking up more than half the system memory
> and requiring a $500 graphics card on a 1U rack unit.
My $85 (last year) Sapphire Radeon 9600 Atlantis meets all Aero
requirements.
'Course, $85 will probably break the bank of the average cola Linux user, so
here's a better card for $62 (including shipping)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102410
Happy Aero-ing!
The Ghost In The Machine
<nospam@dfs_.com>
wrote
on Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:48:30 -0400
<d%DSg.22964$8s6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> Aero on an IIS capable box taking up more than half the system memory
>> and requiring a $500 graphics card on a 1U rack unit.
>
> My $85 (last year) Sapphire Radeon 9600 Atlantis meets all Aero
> requirements.
Really? What experience level?
>
> 'Course, $85 will probably break the bank of the average cola Linux user, so
> here's a better card for $62 (including shipping)
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102410
>
> Happy Aero-ing!
>
OpenGL is better and apparently easier to program. :-P
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Conventional memory has to be one of the most UNconventional
architectures I've seen in a computer system.
DFS
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
> <nospam@dfs_.com>
> wrote
> on Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:48:30 -0400
> <d%DSg.22964$8s6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:
>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>>> Aero on an IIS capable box taking up more than half the system
>>> memory and requiring a $500 graphics card on a 1U rack unit.
>>
>> My $85 (last year) Sapphire Radeon 9600 Atlantis meets all Aero
>> requirements.
>
> Really? What experience level?
2 different tests
* MS Vista Upgrade Advisor
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/upgradeadvisor/default.mspx
which said "Elegant User Experience with Windows® Aero™: No action
required - This feature is supported by your computer."
* one supplied by Dell
http://support.dell.com/support/topics/global.aspx/support/product_support/en/vista_test?c=us&l=en&s=gen ,
which under 'Min Vista Requirements' says Aero
>> 'Course, $85 will probably break the bank of the average cola Linux
>> user, so here's a better card for $62 (including shipping)
>>
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102410
>>
>> Happy Aero-ing!
>
> OpenGL is better and apparently easier to program. :-P
Open what? Never heard of it... does it run DirectX 10?
Scott Nudds
> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
> >> 2006 or 2007? Last I heard it was Easter.
> >
> > 2 months approx.
>
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
> In any event, according to Wiki Win95 went through 5 "release
> candidates" before the final variant came out on 1995-08-24,
> and SP1 didn't take long to follow: 1995-12-31.
Meaningless, as we are discussing the November release of Vista. You do
realize that don't you LinTard... It was you who raised the issue.
Stupid.. .Stupid... LinTard...
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
> I suspect Vista will have similar fanfare, though I don't know what
> they'll do to top lighting the Empire State Building.
AmeriKKKans are fascinated by those kinds of things. You should see the
morons sing and dance at trade shows. Lamers, Monkeys.... Chips.
> > It's getting very good reviews and the final release will obviously be
> > better than RC1.
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
> It had better be.
Why do you care?
> > Vapour may certianly be your stock and trade,
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
> Right...who invented tabbed browsing first?
Who cares? It's like asking who invtented using a dialog box to show a
picture of a cob of corn.
This isn't an invention at all, but the utilization of an existing tool.
The tab control.
Stupid;... Stupid.... LinTard.
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
> And the WinFS feature qualifies, and even made it into the Wikipedia:
You don't even know why WinFS exists And why it will be eventaually
re-integrated into windows. It's a feature that no one needs today, but is
one key to Microsoft's vision of the future.
> > but Microsoft delivers
> > pretty much on time and pretty much what they announce. Personally I'm
> > pleased that WinFS is not part of Vista.
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
> Oh, those "pretties" pretty much blast your argument to smithereenies.
Nothing you have said makes much sense, let alone blasts anything to
smitherenes...
You are quite delusional.
> > Vista is pretty much the end of Linux. And of Sun Microsystems.
Vista
> > and dot net is the beginning of the era of grid computing.
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
> Ah, so Vista will go into servers as well, then?
The improved stack will go a long way in that direction yes. But it's not
so much that but the inability of LinTard boxes to be able to support DotNet
protocols, that's going to kill your zit faced community.
Gordon
> Stupid.. .Stupid... LinTard...
From your message headers:
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
Stupid stupid windoze cretin - your version of Outlook Express is OUT OF
DATE.
Quick, patch patch patch before it's too late. Current version
6.00.2900.2180
Scott Nudds
> it killing when Unix couldn't even get started thereon.)
There were literally dozens of different versions of Unix for the desktop.
Coherent Unix being just one of them. Xenix was another - available for the
Tandy Model 16. You had OS9 for the Taney Color computer. There was a
version of Unix for the mac, an a version of Unix for the Atari ST, and a
version of Unix for the Amiga, in fact multiple versions of Unix for all of
these machines.
And then you had several unix only machines competeing with the PC,
including ove very slick 68000 based laptop - the first I believe.
And then you had xenix and other versions of linux for the 286, and then a
couple of versions for the 386+ and now the Linux Turd.
DOS killed them all with the exception of Linux which has had no impact on
Windows.
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
> Unix was overkill therefor (and unrunnable thereon)
> on such chips as the 8088 and 68000, and Windows was
> definitely the most exciting (or at least the most
> reasonable business-wise) solution in the 3.1 timeframe
> for what was then maybe a 2M 8088 or 80286 machine.
> (The 186 never got started for some reason.)
Yup, DOS killed Unix precisely because DOS was <NOT> multitasking.
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
> Ah, the Amiga; had Commodore had more of a clue, things
> could have been interesting.
Ya, well they didn't, and neither did AT&T. Get over it.
> I'm not sure how Apple missed the boat, either, but they're at least
still fighting,
> albeit in a different realm; instead of the iMac we're
> being deluged by the iPod, which isn't a desktop but is
> apparently *very* popular, and keeping Apple afloat.
Apple lost the battle by attempting to sell a higher priced unit without
the ability for third party companies
to produce devices for their expansion ports. The statement was something
to th eeffect that Jobs would not allow any one to put their dirty hardware
on his clean expansion bus.
> In any event, DOS beat Unix on the desktop; Unix beat everyone
> else on the server and now Linux is eating the classical Unix's
> lunch.
Unix has always destroyed Unix.
Scott Nudds
> Scott Nudds wrote:
> > Hmmm lets see, Linux servers control 17% of the server market, and
Windows
> > 40% of the server market.
>
From: "Gordon" <gor...@gbpcomputing.co.uk>
> Link?
You are incapable of doing a web search ay?
Linux Turd
Scott Nudds
"Gordon" <gor...@gbpcomputing.co.uk> wrote
> Quote: (from 2004)...
> Unix Servers (ie NON-WINDOWS) and Windows Servers Nearly Tied in Worldwide
> Revenue
> Unix server and Windows server revenue was statistically tied in 1Q04.
This
> is the first quarter in which this has occurred, reflecting increased IT
> spending in Windows servers to run a wide range of workloads. "Both
> platforms have a rich inventory of ISV applications, but Unix servers have
> traditionally gained more revenue from sales in the midrange enterprise
and
> high-end enterprise server segments, based on their ability to support
> scalable workloads and high RAS levels for mission-critical-workloads,"
> said Jean S. Bozman, vice president of Enterprise Computing.
Ahahahahahah. Unix server and WIndows server. That's all of Unix you Shit
Licking LinTard Moron.
This tells you that Windows owns about 50% of the server market, to
Linux/Unix 50%.
Now it occurrs to me that Linux owns less thatn 100% of the remaining 50%,
and hence has a smaller market share than Windows.
Which is contrary to your earlier claim.
You are a moron. And thanx for disproving your own assertion.
Fucking LinTard Morons. Slit their ignorant throats.
Scott Nudds
> over Windows 95, 98, SE, ME, NT and XP etc. are still single-user
> systems.
Yup, only one person can use my keyboard at a time. having two people try
to control my mouse is rather difficult as well. there are no facilities
for one person to type at the keyboard while another person runs another
application with the mouse.
However, other users can connect to my PC while I am using it, and log on
as sepecific users and use my files remotely.
Woo Hoo...
"Balwinder S "bsd" Dheeman" <bsd.S...@cto.homelinux.net> wrote
> Are'nt you comparing all these said asses with a tried and test
> horse i.e. a true time-sharing or real-time, multi-tasking, multi-user
> and even preemptive system Unix and, or Linux?>
I'm making no comparison at all LinTard. You are.
What I am saying - which is clear to everyone here but you apparently, is
that DOS kicked Unix ass clear to mars and back.
"Balwinder S "bsd" Dheeman" <bsd.S...@cto.homelinux.net> wrote
> BTW, Have ever visted http://www.levenez.com/unix/ and, or hundreds of
> thousands of other such sites which have been contributing a lot of
> valuable information, knowledge, intellectual property and, or code to
> the entire world since long and that too for free?
Virtually all shit. Open source is a failure.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> "Balwinder S "bsd" Dheeman" <bsd.S...@cto.homelinux.net> wrote
>> FYI, MS/PC-DOS is and was single-tasking and single-user system, more
>> over Windows 95, 98, SE, ME, NT and XP etc. are still single-user
>> systems.
> Yup, only one person can use my keyboard at a time. having two people try
> to control my mouse is rather difficult as well. there are no facilities
> for one person to type at the keyboard while another person runs another
> application with the mouse.
Hahaha, another stupid thing said by nudds.
What a surprise, eh?
The poor fool doesn't even know what multi-user implies.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andre
> "Balwinder S "bsd" Dheeman" <bsd.S...@cto.homelinux.net> wrote
>
> What I am saying - which is clear to everyone here but you apparently, is
> that DOS kicked Unix ass clear to mars and back.
>
Apparantly you'r to stupid to understand that:
after 15 years of MSDOS/WINDOWS XP, UNIX is still used, ( a lot )
multi user is with terminals, not two or more people on your keyboard,
opensource is "something" from and for very sympathetic people,
you better not try to ever use Linux.
Andre
Gordon
YOU prove YOUR argument. I don't have to prove YOUR argument.
Of course you can't, that's why you didn't provide any links.
Gordon
> Yup, only one person can use my keyboard at a time. having two people
> try
> to control my mouse is rather difficult as well. there are no facilities
> for one person to type at the keyboard while another person runs another
> application with the mouse.
You have NO IDEA about "multi-users" have you?
What a spastic demented winDOZE areshole you are.
Arny Krueger
> Windows 95, 98, SE, ME, NT and XP etc. are still single-user systems.
Someone never heard of Citrix, which is NT-based, or Windows NT server with
terminal services. Remember that XP is really NT 5.1.
Windows XP all by itself is multi-user with serial console access.
Hadron Quark
Gordon. The new Shirley Temple.
"proof".
LOL. You'll be saying Linux will take over Windows within a year next.
--
Offer limited to residents of the contiguous United States.
Gordon
> Gordon <gor...@gbpcomputing.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Scott Nudds wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Scott Nudds wrote:
>>>> > Hmmm lets see, Linux servers control 17% of the server market, and
>>> Windows
>>>> > 40% of the server market.
>>>>
>>>
>>> From: "Gordon" <gor...@gbpcomputing.co.uk>
>>>> Link?
>>>
>>> You are incapable of doing a web search ay?
>>
>> YOU prove YOUR argument. I don't have to prove YOUR argument.
>> Of course you can't, that's why you didn't provide any links.
>
> Gordon. The new Shirley Temple.
>
> "proof".
>
> LOL. You'll be saying Linux will take over Windows within a year next.
>
I can but wish! :-)
st...@worldbadminton.com
:> In comp.os.linux.misc "Balwinder S \"bsd\" Dheeman" <bsd.S...@cto.homelinux.net> wrote:
:> : FYI, MS/PC-DOS is and was single-tasking and single-user system, more
:> : over Windows 95, 98, SE, ME, NT and XP etc. are still single-user
:> : systems. Are'nt you comparing all these said asses with a tried and test
:>
:> Again- hate to dig into "discussions" like this but this is factually
:> incorrect. NT and all successors ( 2K, XP,Vista ) have always been multi
:> user systems. DOS, 95, 98, ME and so on however are indeed single user
:> hence more-or-less impossible to make secure and stable.
: Ok, let me make it clear, all these may provide you but only multiple
: user-profiles and not user-accounts; none of these can handle more than
: one user simultaneously, I have not test Vista as yet.
Again- factually incorrect. All NT variants are simultaneous
multi-user. There are 3 users running on my XP box as as I type
this. If you would like to learn more about Windows, though,
please wander by a Windows group.
regards
Stan
--
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com
flatfish+++
> Gordon <gor...@gbpcomputing.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Scott Nudds wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Scott Nudds wrote:
>>>> > Hmmm lets see, Linux servers control 17% of the server market, and
>>> Windows
>>>> > 40% of the server market.
>>>>
>>>
>>> From: "Gordon" <gor...@gbpcomputing.co.uk>
>>>> Link?
>>>
>>> You are incapable of doing a web search ay?
>>
>> YOU prove YOUR argument. I don't have to prove YOUR argument.
>> Of course you can't, that's why you didn't provide any links.
>
> Gordon. The new Shirley Temple.
>
> "proof".
>
> LOL. You'll be saying Linux will take over Windows within a year next.
Looks like Gorden is an Excel User in fact.
http://www.gbpcomputing.co.uk/about_me.htm
http://www.gbpcomputing.co.uk/
"Gordon is an Advanced Excel user and also has a wide knowledge of current
PC Operating Systems and commonly-used commercial Office applications."
I guess making money using Linux is a wee bit difficult.
chrisv
Apparently, linux has made you stupid. (It does that, you know.)
Current version: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
Gordon
OK that's the version of msoe.dll - the main dialog box says the version as
above.....
--
Registered Linux User no 240308
PCLinuxOS 0.93 & SLED 10
gordonDOTburgessparkerATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
to email me replace the obvious!
chrisv
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> Gordon wrote:
>>> Scott Nudds wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Stupid.. .Stupid... LinTard...
>>>
>>> From your message headers:
>>> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
>>>
>>> Stupid stupid windoze cretin - your version of Outlook Express is
>>> OUT OF DATE.
>>>
>>> Quick, patch patch patch before it's too late. Current version
>>> 6.00.2900.2180
>>
>> Apparently, linux has made you stupid. (It does that, you know.)
>>
>> Current version: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
>
> OK that's the version of msoe.dll - the main dialog box says the
> version as above.....
You posted what was in his header, I posted what would be in a header using
current update levels. (That's like comparing apples to apples.) Why would
you compare his header information to something else? Oh wait... I forgot,
linux makes you stupid.
Gordon
But the message header STILL shows an out-of date OE....cretin.
chrisv
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> Gordon wrote:
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gordon wrote:
>>>>> Scott Nudds wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Stupid.. .Stupid... LinTard...
>>>>>
>>>>> From your message headers:
>>>>> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid stupid windoze cretin - your version of Outlook Express is
>>>>> OUT OF DATE.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quick, patch patch patch before it's too late. Current version
>>>>> 6.00.2900.2180
>>>>
>>>> Apparently, linux has made you stupid. (It does that, you know.)
>>>>
>>>> Current version: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
>>>
>>> OK that's the version of msoe.dll - the main dialog box says the
>>> version as above.....
>>
>> You posted what was in his header, I posted what would be in a header
>> using current update levels. (That's like comparing apples to
>> apples.) Why would you compare his header information to something
>> else? Oh wait... I forgot, linux makes you stupid.
>
> But the message header STILL shows an out-of date OE....cretin.
I'm curious, I have stated twice that linux makes you stupid. Why do you
feel this overwhelming need to keep proving it? WE KNOW ALREADY!
The Ghost In The Machine
<nos...@foo.com>
wrote
on Thu, 28 Sep 2006 06:15:25 -0700
<LgNSg.121895$sS1.1...@read1.cgocable.net>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
>> DOS killed Unix on the desktop. :-) (If one can call
>> it killing when Unix couldn't even get started thereon.)
DOS. First introduced in 1981. Monotasking file system with
various stupidities. Initially supported by IBM, big for
business.
>
> There were literally dozens of different versions of Unix for the desktop.
> Coherent Unix being just one of them.
The name is Coherent, not Coherent Unix. It is somewhat Unix like,
but has no Unix code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_(operating_system)
Originally produced for the PDP-11 in 1980. Was ported to
IBM PC compatibles in 1983. Too late to do it any good.
Died in 1995 once Linux began to pick up traction amongst the hobbyist
sphere.
> Xenix was another - available for the
> Tandy Model 16.
Xenix. Licensed by Microsoft from AT&T in the 70's. Not
sold to end users, but to OEMs. Ported to 8086 in 1983.
Too late to do it any good.
> You had OS9 for the Taney Color computer.
OS9/OS-9000. Developed by Microware in the 1980's. Too late to do it
any good. Runs on 68000 platforms.
> There was a
> version of Unix for the mac,
MacMach, Early 1990s. Way too late to do any good.
A/UX, 1988. Way too late to do any good.
> an a version of Unix for the Atari ST,
Wiki indicates Idris. Ported to Atari ST in 1986. Specialty platform;
way too late to do any good.
> and a
> version of Unix for the Amiga,
AT&T SVr4 (Amix). Speciality platform, way too late to do any good.
Ran only on A3000 and A4000 with MMU.
> in fact multiple versions of Unix for all of
> these machines.
>
> And then you had several unix only machines competeing with the PC,
> including ove very slick 68000 based laptop - the first I believe.
DOS was first, DOS was therefore best, especially with IBM behind it.
Remember, back then IBM meant mean "Incredibly Big and Meaningful".
(This was well before the IBM/MS split.)
>
> And then you had xenix and other versions of linux for the 286, and then a
> couple of versions for the 386+ and now the Linux Turd.
Correct, and all of them are now dead, except for Linux which is still
fighting.
>
> DOS killed them all with the exception of Linux which has had
> no impact on Windows.
Thus far. Anticipated result unknown, mostly because cost structures of
businesses are being heavily squeezed right now.
>
>
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
>> Unix was overkill therefor (and unrunnable thereon)
>> on such chips as the 8088 and 68000, and Windows was
>> definitely the most exciting (or at least the most
>> reasonable business-wise) solution in the 3.1 timeframe
>> for what was then maybe a 2M 8088 or 80286 machine.
>> (The 186 never got started for some reason.)
>
> Yup, DOS killed Unix precisely because DOS was <NOT> multitasking.
No, it killed Unix because DOS was first and worked. Screw multitasking.
Macs for years had no preemptive multitasking of any sort; one
had to Yield().
>
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote
>> Ah, the Amiga; had Commodore had more of a clue, things
>> could have been interesting.
>
> Ya, well they didn't, and neither did AT&T. Get over it.
>
>
>> I'm not sure how Apple missed the boat, either, but they're at least
> still fighting,
>> albeit in a different realm; instead of the iMac we're
>> being deluged by the iPod, which isn't a desktop but is
>> apparently *very* popular, and keeping Apple afloat.
>
> Apple lost the battle by attempting to sell a higher priced unit without
> the ability for third party companies
> to produce devices for their expansion ports. The statement was something
> to th eeffect that Jobs would not allow any one to put their dirty hardware
> on his clean expansion bus.
Apple needs to be ruthlessly crushed. Presumably Microsoft
is working on that with Zune.
Linux, similarly, needs to be ruthlessly crushed.
>
>
>> In any event, DOS beat Unix on the desktop; Unix beat everyone
>> else on the server and now Linux is eating the classical Unix's
>> lunch.
>
> Unix has always destroyed Unix.
>
And at this point Unix is destroying itself. Windows is obviously the
best platform out there, since so many people are adopting it for their
servers.
Oh, wait, they're not?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #40490127:
for(;;) ;
The Ghost In The Machine
<gor...@gbpcomputing.co.uk>
wrote
on Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:53:39 +0100
<4o22dnF...@individual.net>:
*sigh* If I must, I must. A google coughed up a few relevant pages.
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
suggests Apache is dwindling; IIS is now at 31.26% and
Apache is at 61.64%. Projected collision between Apache
and IIS appears to be sometime in late 2008, if current
trends continue and I'm eyeballing this graph correctly.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-253320.html
suggests 41% Windows, 27% Linux, 17% Netware, 14% Unix, 2% other.
This is for the "server operating system" market -- number of units.
(Source: IDC)
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2026
suggests Linux is Doomed, thanks to Microsoft, with Windows
based servers accounting for 37% of sales revenue. .NET is
a resounding success, apparently, with Microsoft making
it very simple to work on.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/26802826
Microsoft is apparently winning the war.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
Windows. The choice of a bunch of people who like very weird behavior on
a regular basis, random crashes, and "extend, embrace, and extinguish".
The Ghost In The Machine
<4o1q41F...@individual.net>:
The trends in computers may very well make "multi-user"
largely irrelevant. Quick, how many computers do you have
near you right now? I have four (six if I count my desktop
as three, but one of them's powered off and the other I
don't have a monitor for and am not currently accessing
it remotely).
1. Desktop.
2. Phone.
3. Beeper.
4. Watch.
Granted, only two might even bother to run an OS,
and that's only because the phone is a Cisco unit, as
opposed to an old Ma-bell-like dial affair or a mechanical
multiline touch-tone. Nor is it clear precisely what
my watch might have microprocessor-wise; it's a fairly
stupid but durable digital affair, and it's served me
for decades. The beeper isn't quite as ancient, but has
only 4x20 display capability.
Servers, of course, should have multisession capabilities,
and a good desktop will allow multiple windows of IE or
Firefox. In the case of Unix or Linux, one could set up a
system that's both desktop and a server, for things such
as sharing files and website testing. We happen to use
JBoss here but one could just as easily, funds and such
permitting, set up each and every developer and quality
assurance member with a Windows Server 2003 Edition with
a small number of CALs for purposes of developing and
testing .NET-based products.
Some games are slightly amusing as each player might take
half of the keyboard. The left player might use WASD
keys for movement and left shift for shoot or something,
with the right player taking either the inverted-T cursors
or the keypad. Regrettably, many keyboards might have problems
with four keys being pressed simultaneously -- an issue if
both players want to move diagonally in certain games.
Many games have network capability, of course; two
computers spray packets over the LAN or the Internet as
the players thereon operate their respective keyboards
and mice to try to accomplish something.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Insert random misquote here.
The Ghost In The Machine
<nospam@dfs_.com>
wrote
<UPFSg.22974$8s6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
>> <nospam@dfs_.com>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:48:30 -0400
>> <d%DSg.22964$8s6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>:
>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aero on an IIS capable box taking up more than half the system
>>>> memory and requiring a $500 graphics card on a 1U rack unit.
>>>
>>> My $85 (last year) Sapphire Radeon 9600 Atlantis meets all Aero
>>> requirements.
>>
>> Really? What experience level?
>
>
> 2 different tests
>
> * MS Vista Upgrade Advisor
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/upgradeadvisor/default.mspx
> which said "Elegant User Experience with Windows® Aero™: No action
> required - This feature is supported by your computer."
I have no idea what that <99> is supposed to be; apparently it's an
encoding gone awry. U+0099 is a nonprinting character. I would think
that what was there is "tm" but that's character U+2122 which encodes
0xE2 0x84 0xA2.
(The circle R came through fine.)
On a slightly more relevant note: I'm not sure what "Elegant" means in
this context; my understanding was that the performance measurement
system was a number from 1 to 5, with 5 being the best.
>
> * one supplied by Dell
> http://support.dell.com/support/topics/global.aspx/support/product_support/en/vista_test?c=us&l=en&s=gen ,
> which under 'Min Vista Requirements' says Aero
>
>
>
>
>
>>> 'Course, $85 will probably break the bank of the average cola Linux
>>> user, so here's a better card for $62 (including shipping)
>>>
>>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102410
>>>
>>> Happy Aero-ing!
>>
>> OpenGL is better and apparently easier to program. :-P
>
> Open what? Never heard of it... does it run DirectX 10?
>
It's a competitor thereto. I'm not sure which of the two game
developers prefer, and it may depend on the developer. From what
little I've seen OpenGL looks a bit easier to program simple demos
such as spinning multicolored triangles. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Does anyone else remember the 1802?