Windows Sucks - A Wakeup Call
Roy Schestowitz
receive a reminder as to why Windows is an _utterly terrible_ environment
for work. Among the many perils that I had: O/S comes incomplete and remains
incomplete in most households, e.g. no graphical toolkit other than
paint.exe, no Web browser with something as fundamental as the notion of the
tab. Then come deficiencies such as:
-Only a single (virtual) desktop
-No clipboard stack. Copy something and say farewell to whatever else you
help. Forget about being about to copy 3 things and then spew them out.
-Speed is terrible. It makes you re-evaluate the need for so-called
bleeding-edge hardware, which Linux rarely needs.
-Crashes. The modern Windows XP computer crashed on me for no reason. It took
no less than 5 minutes to restore and attain the same position. By that
point, the trail of thought was cut. Where is productivity? Where has user
confidence gone?
Anyone who chooses to use Windows for day-to-day use has my commiserations.
It is sad to think that many people out there are handling businesses in
such a poor environment. I have not even touched the issue of security,
among others. This is just q quick mental note that I had to unburden myself
of.
DFS
> Every once in a while, especially while on vacation in foreign
> houses, I receive a reminder as to why Windows is an _utterly
> terrible_ environment for work.
Of course it's not. It's not like it's Ubuntu or Fedora.
And on the topic of work, I have to wonder about a few things:
If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do some Linux apps take
great pains to blatantly and blanketly tell you they "have been reported to
cause data loss"? (KPilot) They don't even qualify the statement as
occurring under
certain conditions, or with certain settings. It's as if they've resigned
their software to losing your data, so use it at your own risk, at work.
If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do Linux installations
prompt you to make boot and recovery diskettes?
If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do so many people have
such a hard time installing and configuring it, for work?
If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why does OpenOffice load so
slowly that you have to drum your fingers so you don't fall asleep, at work?
If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why hasn't the corporate world
embraced it, for work?
> Among the many perils that I had: O/S
> comes incomplete and remains incomplete in most households, e.g. no
> graphical toolkit other than paint.exe, no Web browser with something
> as fundamental as the notion of the tab.
Interesting: you still don't understand the difference between an operating
system and an application.
> Then come deficiencies such as:
>
> -Only a single (virtual) desktop
There are many free ones available for Windows.
> -No clipboard stack. Copy something and say farewell to whatever else
> you help. Forget about being about to copy 3 things and then spew
> them out.
There are only about a dozen free Windows clipboard managers.
But one thing confounds me: why do some Linux slopware apps blow away the
clipboard contents when you close the app? Why do they insult the user and
his data and his wishes with such rude behavior? This doesn't happen in the
Windows world. Only OSS.
> -Speed is terrible. It makes you re-evaluate the need for so-called
> bleeding-edge hardware, which Linux rarely needs.
Lots of Linux nuts justify their cheap ways with this excuse. But don't
worry, Windows users will continue to purchase leading edge equipment and
fund hardware development so the Linux "community" can eventually enjoy 5th
generation equipment for $39.
> -Crashes. The modern Windows XP computer crashed on me for no reason.
Lie.
> It took no less than 5 minutes to
> restore and attain the same position.
I doubt it. Just like I doubt everything you say.
> By that point, the trail of thought was cut. Where is
> productivity? Where has user confidence gone?
You use Linux. You're used to reduced productivity: slow boot, slow app
launching, slow file navigation, multimedia hassles beyond compare,
poorly-interoperable office apps, etc.
> Anyone who chooses to use Windows for
> day-to-day use has my commiserations.
That would be at least 94% of the computer-using world. That would be the
vast majority of employees at EVERY Fortune 500 company.
Executives of GE, Boeing and Morgan Stanley, versus lying Linux lunatics?
Let me think...
> It is sad to think that many people out there are
> handling businesses in such a poor environment.
Don't worry - you personally will never have to run a real business with
Linux. That's a guarantee.
> I have not even touched the issue of security, among others.
Why? It's not like you'll have anything honest to say about it, either.
> This is just q quick mental note
> that I had to unburden myself of.
Meaning you couldn't help yourself; you HAD to mentally masturbate on cola.
Better here than in "foreign houses" I guess...
Erik Funkenbusch
> Every once in a while, especially while on vacation in foreign houses, I
> receive a reminder as to why Windows is an _utterly terrible_ environment
> for work. Among the many perils that I had: O/S comes incomplete and remains
> incomplete in most households, e.g. no graphical toolkit other than
> paint.exe, no Web browser with something as fundamental as the notion of the
> tab. Then come deficiencies such as:
Ahh.. the usual Linux advocate hypocricy in action. If Microsoft were to
include full featured applications, then they are guilty of bundling and
abusing their market, but if they don't then it's incomplete.
> -Only a single (virtual) desktop
Fixed with a 30 second download.
> -No clipboard stack. Copy something and say farewell to whatever else you
> help. Forget about being about to copy 3 things and then spew them out.
Office includes a clipboard stack by default. There are other ones you can
download for free.
> -Speed is terrible. It makes you re-evaluate the need for so-called
> bleeding-edge hardware, which Linux rarely needs.
Hand waving.
> -Crashes. The modern Windows XP computer crashed on me for no reason. It took
> no less than 5 minutes to restore and attain the same position. By that
> point, the trail of thought was cut. Where is productivity? Where has user
> confidence gone?
Crashes are a result of bad drivers or bad hardware in 99.999% of the
cases.
> Anyone who chooses to use Windows for day-to-day use has my commiserations.
> It is sad to think that many people out there are handling businesses in
> such a poor environment. I have not even touched the issue of security,
> among others. This is just q quick mental note that I had to unburden myself
> of.
I feel the same about Linux on the desktop.
Kier
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Every once in a while, especially while on vacation in foreign
>> houses, I receive a reminder as to why Windows is an _utterly
>> terrible_ environment for work.
>
> Of course it's not. It's not like it's Ubuntu or Fedora.
Ubuntu and Fedora work, and work well. It's pretty clear you know little
about either one.
>
> And on the topic of work, I have to wonder about a few things:
>
> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do some Linux apps take
> great pains to blatantly and blanketly tell you they "have been reported to
> cause data loss"? (KPilot) They don't even qualify the statement as
> occurring under
> certain conditions, or with certain settings. It's as if they've resigned
> their software to losing your data, so use it at your own risk, at work.
Because the developers are honest.
>
> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do Linux installations
> prompt you to make boot and recovery diskettes?
Because you would be stupid not to do so - howefvfer good an install
process is, something might go wrong. This goes just the same for Windows,
and don't pretendit doesn't.
>
> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do so many people have
> such a hard time installing and configuring it, for work?
What hard time? It's easier than installing Windows from sctratch, that's
for sure.
>
> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why does OpenOffice load so
> slowly that you have to drum your fingers so you don't fall asleep, at work?
It doesn't. Unless you fall asleep in eight seconds, which is how long it
usually takes to load on my PC.
>
> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why hasn't the corporate world
> embraced it, for work?
It has, in many places. The smart ones.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Among the many perils that I had: O/S
>> comes incomplete and remains incomplete in most households, e.g. no
>> graphical toolkit other than paint.exe, no Web browser with something
>> as fundamental as the notion of the tab.
>
> Interesting: you still don't understand the difference between an operating
> system and an application.
Of course he does.
>
>
>
>> Then come deficiencies such as:
>>
>> -Only a single (virtual) desktop
>
> There are many free ones available for Windows.
They aren't included, though. You have to find them.
>
>
>> -No clipboard stack. Copy something and say farewell to whatever else
>> you help. Forget about being about to copy 3 things and then spew
>> them out.
>
> There are only about a dozen free Windows clipboard managers.
Why aren't they included, then?
>
> But one thing confounds me: why do some Linux slopware apps blow away the
> clipboard contents when you close the app? Why do they insult the user and
> his data and his wishes with such rude behavior? This doesn't happen in the
> Windows world. Only OSS.
You are such a liar.
>
>
>
>> -Speed is terrible. It makes you re-evaluate the need for so-called
>> bleeding-edge hardware, which Linux rarely needs.
>
> Lots of Linux nuts justify their cheap ways with this excuse. But don't
> worry, Windows users will continue to purchase leading edge equipment and
> fund hardware development so the Linux "community" can eventually enjoy 5th
> generation equipment for $39.
Lying idiot.
>
>
>
>> -Crashes. The modern Windows XP computer crashed on me for no reason.
>
> Lie.
I'd like to see you prove that he lied. I really would. Just calling him a
liar because you want to believe he is, is meaningless.
>
>
>
>> It took no less than 5 minutes to
>> restore and attain the same position.
>
> I doubt it. Just like I doubt everything you say.
Why should anyone believe you over him? Why should *you* be considered
homest, not him?
>
>
>
>> By that point, the trail of thought was cut. Where is
>> productivity? Where has user confidence gone?
>
> You use Linux. You're used to reduced productivity: slow boot, slow app
> launching, slow file navigation, multimedia hassles beyond compare,
> poorly-interoperable office apps, etc.
Bollocks.
>
>
>
>
>> Anyone who chooses to use Windows for
>> day-to-day use has my commiserations.
>
> That would be at least 94% of the computer-using world. That would be the
> vast majority of employees at EVERY Fortune 500 company.
Really? YOu checked them all, did you?
>
> Executives of GE, Boeing and Morgan Stanley, versus lying Linux lunatics?
> Let me think...
That would make a change, since you so rarely do.
>
>
>
>
>> It is sad to think that many people out there are
>> handling businesses in such a poor environment.
>
> Don't worry - you personally will never have to run a real business with
> Linux. That's a guarantee.
Really? Once again, I'd love to see you prove that, considering how little
you know about him.
>
>
>
>> I have not even touched the issue of security, among others.
>
> Why? It's not like you'll have anything honest to say about it, either.
And you do? Ahhahahhahahahah!
>
>
>
>> This is just q quick mental note
>> that I had to unburden myself of.
>
> Meaning you couldn't help yourself; you HAD to mentally masturbate on cola.
> Better here than in "foreign houses" I guess...
You're disgusting.
--
Kier
AZ Nomad
I use both at work: linux for s/w development and windows for email, document
development, internet access.
Probably 20% of my time on the windows box is spent waiting for it to quit
thrashing. It has "only" 384M of memory. I'm not doing anything memory
intensive, but just the combination of windows xp, sp2, and lotus notes takes it
to its knees.
Ray Ingles
> Anyone who chooses to use Windows for day-to-day use has my commiserations.
A quote from my brother who just took delivery of a new Dell yesterday:
------
SO, this box has AOL, Netzero, and Earthlink already installed on it,
and I cannot find any way to remove them. No way at all - AOL doesn't
even have "uninstall" in the Help files. And the little bastard tried to
get on the Internet about five times according to Zonealarm. As fas as
I'm concerned, it's spyware and I want it gone. Just deleting it will
still leave little AOL-bots strewn all over the hard drive, right?
Plus I can't get the speakers to work. But it is a nice computer :-)
------
Ah, yes, the "superior user experience" of Windows. I'm sending him
a live CD or two in the next care package (he's several states away).
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Joe and Suzanne Werfelman of Sciota, Pa., were shocked to hear
from their son, Richard, a 23-year-old law student called up by
his military-police unit, that he had been issued a protective
vest without the plates that stop automatic-rifle rounds. They
bought and shipped the plates themselves, at a cost of $660.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/991161.asp?0cv=KB10
("Support the Troops", indeed.)
Sinister Midget
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 05:22:55 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Every once in a while, especially while on vacation in foreign houses, I
>> receive a reminder as to why Windows is an _utterly terrible_ environment
>> for work. Among the many perils that I had: O/S comes incomplete and remains
>> incomplete in most households, e.g. no graphical toolkit other than
>> paint.exe, no Web browser with something as fundamental as the notion of the
>> tab. Then come deficiencies such as:
>
> Ahh.. the usual Linux advocate hypocricy in action. If Microsoft were to
> include full featured applications, then they are guilty of bundling and
> abusing their market, but if they don't then it's incomplete.
Or they could allow OEMs to put other companies' products with the
install and/or stop sabotaging said products in the furtherance of
their own monopolistic aims.
>> -Only a single (virtual) desktop
>
> Fixed with a 30 second download.
Unsupported.
>> -No clipboard stack. Copy something and say farewell to whatever else you
>> help. Forget about being about to copy 3 things and then spew them out.
>
> Office includes a clipboard stack by default. There are other ones you can
> download for free.
Offal doesn't come with Windross.
>> -Speed is terrible. It makes you re-evaluate the need for so-called
>> bleeding-edge hardware, which Linux rarely needs.
>
> Hand waving.
With truth in hand.
>> -Crashes. The modern Windows XP computer crashed on me for no reason. It took
>> no less than 5 minutes to restore and attain the same position. By that
>> point, the trail of thought was cut. Where is productivity? Where has user
>> confidence gone?
>
> Crashes are a result of bad drivers or bad hardware in 99.999% of the
> cases.
Or bad software in the other 83% of the time.*
>> Anyone who chooses to use Windows for day-to-day use has my commiserations.
>> It is sad to think that many people out there are handling businesses in
>> such a poor environment. I have not even touched the issue of security,
>> among others. This is just q quick mental note that I had to unburden myself
>> of.
>
> I feel the same about Linux on the desktop.
Why are you here then?
Oh, I forgot. to "keep y'all honest" like all of the other trolls.
The above doesn't exactly jibe with this:
Message-ID: <56jo9.268$YJ1.9...@ruti.visi.com>
As I have said many times. I *WANT* to like Linux. I really do. It
just hasn't been cooperating in allowing me to do that.
Or this:
Message-ID: <XPP4b.328615$uu5.67305@sccrnsc04>
I don't hate Linux, I just don't like it as much as I like Windows
or FreeBSD, and I despise the GPL because of it's political agenda.
I *WANT* to like Linux more, and it is slowly getting there. On
several occasions i've remarked about cool new things in Linux that
I like, and I will continue to do so.
(Nevermind the discrepancy between continuing to try liking linux while
despising the GPL it falls under, and my not being able to recall a
single time you noted some "cool new thing" with linux in the 4 or 5
years I've been posting here.)
* $100,000 spent on brand new Dell machines at work, all containing
eX-Pee Pro (ha ha ha ha ha). All patched and up to date. All have a
spontaneous reboot cycle wherein they run up, get logged in, sit for
around 5 minutes and reboot. All except one, which they stopped letting
it reboot in favor of a BSOD so they could look at the gibberish
instead. Is this _all_ hardware? If it isn't all hardware, what else do
they have in common?
--
Ever noticed how fast Windows runs?
Me neither.
Roy Schestowitz
> On 2006-04-21, Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> Anyone who chooses to use Windows for day-to-day use has my
>> commiserations.
>
> A quote from my brother who just took delivery of a new Dell yesterday:
>
> ------
> SO, this box has AOL, Netzero, and Earthlink already installed on it,
> and I cannot find any way to remove them. No way at all - AOL doesn't
> even have "uninstall" in the Help files. And the little bastard tried to
> get on the Internet about five times according to Zonealarm. As fas as
> I'm concerned, it's spyware and I want it gone. Just deleting it will
> still leave little AOL-bots strewn all over the hard drive, right?
>
> Plus I can't get the speakers to work. But it is a nice computer :-)
> ------
>
> Ah, yes, the "superior user experience" of Windows. I'm sending him
> a live CD or two in the next care package (he's several states away).
This reminds me of a story I was told last week. 7 telephone referrals
(actual people) were required for my cousin to be told how to remove a worm
that had found its way to the Registry. Again, other people's time saves the
day and wastes money. That was only the very beginning as far as security
was concerned.
I left my cousins with a Ubuntu dou, but knowing her unwillingness to
explore, it will take many bleeds before the band aid gets replaced.
Sometimes, there is not much that you can do. I cannot afford the time to
teach and then answer questions. Sometimes you can't help your friends and
family until they reach rock bottom (the junkie analogy), which ultimately
they do. Oddly, many people move to Linux because they are fed up with
Windows. Only later do they realise the Linux is also a better operating
system function-wise, poutting aside data integrity and security, which fall
under the 'disasters' categories and therefore urge the initial migration
(learning curve investment).
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux: the most popular, but not most widespread
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:50pm up 44 days 6:33, 12 users, load average: 0.48, 0.52, 0.44
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
JEDIDIAH
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 05:22:55 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Every once in a while, especially while on vacation in foreign houses, I
>> receive a reminder as to why Windows is an _utterly terrible_ environment
>> for work. Among the many perils that I had: O/S comes incomplete and remains
>> incomplete in most households, e.g. no graphical toolkit other than
>> paint.exe, no Web browser with something as fundamental as the notion of the
>> tab. Then come deficiencies such as:
>
> Ahh.. the usual Linux advocate hypocricy in action. If Microsoft were to
> include full featured applications, then they are guilty of bundling and
> abusing their market, but if they don't then it's incomplete.
Not if they did it the Linux way.
3rd parties have been providing such solutions since before
Windows completely displaced DOS from the marketplace.
>
>> -Only a single (virtual) desktop
>
> Fixed with a 30 second download.
...which requires considerable knowledge and effort for the
novice. This is much like expecting everyone to compile their own
wifi drivers.
[deletia]
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Linonut
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Every once in a while, especially while on vacation in foreign
>> houses, I receive a reminder as to why Windows is an _utterly
>> terrible_ environment for work.
>
> Of course it's not. It's not like it's Ubuntu or Fedora.
You really touched a nerve with DFS, Roy. You got him trying to
compare a universe of GNU/Linux software (roughly 3 DVD's worth) with
a half-full CD of Windows yawnware.
--
Kreegah! Bundolo Microsoft bolgani!
Erik Funkenbusch
>> Ahh.. the usual Linux advocate hypocricy in action. If Microsoft were to
>> include full featured applications, then they are guilty of bundling and
>> abusing their market, but if they don't then it's incomplete.
>
> Or they could allow OEMs to put other companies' products with the
> install and/or stop sabotaging said products in the furtherance of
> their own monopolistic aims.
Microsoft has never prevented OEM's from installing other Windows programs
with Windows (including Netscape). They simply don't allow you to REMOVE
their software.
>>> -Only a single (virtual) desktop
>>
>> Fixed with a 30 second download.
>
> Unsupported.
So what? Microsoft doesn't support anyone's third party product.
>>> -No clipboard stack. Copy something and say farewell to whatever else you
>>> help. Forget about being about to copy 3 things and then spew them out.
>>
>> Office includes a clipboard stack by default. There are other ones you can
>> download for free.
>
> Offal doesn't come with Windross.
Your baby speak is getting ridiculous. Why can't you have any kind of
discussion without being so childish?
>>> -Speed is terrible. It makes you re-evaluate the need for so-called
>>> bleeding-edge hardware, which Linux rarely needs.
>>
>> Hand waving.
>
> With truth in hand.
I see no truth in that statement.
> The above doesn't exactly jibe with this:
Yes, it does. Linux has certain improved a great deal since I made those
comments, but it still has this annoying habit of taking 9 steps backwards
for every 10 steps forward.
And I really should ammend what I said, it was really said as a retort.
For a certain subset of needs, Linux does a fine job on the desktop these
days. But it's not anywhere near as ready to meet the needs of serious
Windows or MacOS user, and it can only meet the needs of most casual users
if configured by a knowledgeable expert.
> (Nevermind the discrepancy between continuing to try liking linux while
> despising the GPL it falls under, and my not being able to recall a
> single time you noted some "cool new thing" with linux in the 4 or 5
> years I've been posting here.)
It's true that I haven't said much good lately, but I blame that more on
the increasingly rabid nature of Linux advocates in here.
> * $100,000 spent on brand new Dell machines at work, all containing
> eX-Pee Pro (ha ha ha ha ha). All patched and up to date. All have a
> spontaneous reboot cycle wherein they run up, get logged in, sit for
> around 5 minutes and reboot. All except one, which they stopped letting
> it reboot in favor of a BSOD so they could look at the gibberish
> instead. Is this _all_ hardware? If it isn't all hardware, what else do
> they have in common?
It's more likely drivers. It's all the *same* hardware, and likely the
same drivers.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> Ahh.. the usual Linux advocate hypocricy in action. If Microsoft were to
>> include full featured applications, then they are guilty of bundling and
>> abusing their market, but if they don't then it's incomplete.
>
> Not if they did it the Linux way.
What's that supposed to mean?
> 3rd parties have been providing such solutions since before
> Windows completely displaced DOS from the marketplace.
And third parties are still providing such solutions.
>>> -Only a single (virtual) desktop
>>
>> Fixed with a 30 second download.
>
> ...which requires considerable knowledge and effort for the
> novice. This is much like expecting everyone to compile their own
> wifi drivers.
Uhh.. what? How is clicking a link, then double clicking the downloaded
program "requir[ing] considerable knowledge"?
M
> On 2006-04-21, Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> Anyone who chooses to use Windows for day-to-day use has my
>> commiserations.
>
> A quote from my brother who just took delivery of a new Dell yesterday:
>
> ------
> SO, this box has AOL, Netzero, and Earthlink already installed on it,
> and I cannot find any way to remove them. No way at all - AOL doesn't
> even have "uninstall" in the Help files. And the little bastard tried to
> get on the Internet about five times according to Zonealarm. As fas as
> I'm concerned, it's spyware and I want it gone. Just deleting it will
> still leave little AOL-bots strewn all over the hard drive, right?
>
> Plus I can't get the speakers to work. But it is a nice computer :-)
> ------
>
> Ah, yes, the "superior user experience" of Windows. I'm sending him
> a live CD or two in the next care package (he's several states away).
>
Time for a linux install?
I think what your brother needs a nice local computer supplier who will do
him a good deal, sell him a pc free from AOL-bots, look after when needs
additional Hardware or Software etc.
The beauty of not selling in the shops is that you never have to come face
to face with the customer. The nearest Dell ever come to dealing with a
customer is the phone, and you can always just hang-up if you want to.
flatfish+++
$100,000 on new Dell machines is a decent chunk of change.
I'd have Dell on the phone and threaten to send them all back unless they
provide a fix.
I agree with Erik though, it's most likely a hosed driver and more than
likely the imaging program they use to load the drives is corrupted
somehow.
Could also be a bad batch of hardware as well or a new employee on the
line screwing things up or..........
Bottom line, get Dell on the phone and scream!
Also, chances are good you are not the only one with this problem if it is
that many machines in your company that are hosed.
--
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
Robert Newson
...
> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do Linux installations
> prompt you to make boot and recovery diskettes?
For when you have to reinstall the Windwos duel boot which (possibly
contrary to section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990) overwrites the mbr
/without/ taking note of the other OSs and providing a choice to boot into them.
...
...
> Interesting: you still don't understand the difference between an operating
> system and an application.
MS certainly doesn't.
> There are many free ones available for Windows.
So why aren't they included when Windwos is installed?
> There are only about a dozen free Windows clipboard managers.
ditto
> But one thing confounds me: why do some Linux slopware apps blow away the
> clipboard contents when you close the app? Why do they insult the user and
> his data and his wishes with such rude behavior? This doesn't happen in the
> Windows world. Only OSS.
Why use the clipboard at all? Highlight in one window and paste directly
into another...
...
> Lots of Linux nuts justify their cheap ways with this excuse. But don't
> worry, Windows users will continue to purchase leading edge equipment and
> fund hardware development so the Linux "community" can eventually enjoy 5th
> generation equipment for $39.
So it was Windwos purchasers that funded the IBM development of the Z series
of powerful computers; computers that obviously run Windwos much faster and
easier than Linux...
>>-Crashes. The modern Windows XP computer crashed on me for no reason.
>
> Lie.
Proof?
...
> You use Linux. You're used to reduced productivity: slow boot,
Why worry about a slow boot when Linux stays up for days? slow boot is only
be of importance if the boot procedure has to be done regularly. If it's
important to Windwos users, then ergo Windwos has to boot fast, ergo Windwos
/HAS/ to be [re]booted often.
...
> That would be at least 94% of the computer-using world. That would be the
> vast majority of employees at EVERY Fortune 500 company.
Which planes use Windwos as I certainly do *NOT* want to be on one of them.
Windwos forms a small fraction of the computer-using world; of the
/desktop/ computer-using world, Windwos certainly does form a large fraction.
> Executives of GE, Boeing and Morgan Stanley, versus lying Linux lunatics?
> Let me think...
Aha...so Boeing Planes are controlled by Windwos...remind me */NEVER/* to
fly on one of them.
...
> Don't worry - you personally will never have to run a real business with
> Linux. That's a guarantee.
No, but Eddie Ball has; using first Windwos and then Linux.
--
Outgoing mail certified virus free...
It has gone nowhere near a Windwos machine before my ISP.
I am the "ILOVEGNU" signature virus. Just copy me to your
signature. This email was infected under the terms of the GNU
General Public Licence.
JEDIDIAH
>
>>> Ahh.. the usual Linux advocate hypocricy in action. If Microsoft were to
>>> include full featured applications, then they are guilty of bundling and
>>> abusing their market, but if they don't then it's incomplete.
>>
>> Not if they did it the Linux way.
>
> What's that supposed to mean?
>
>> 3rd parties have been providing such solutions since before
>> Windows completely displaced DOS from the marketplace.
>
> And third parties are still providing such solutions.
So all Microsoft has to do to prevent appearing to blatantly
abuse their monopoly is to act in a similar fashion as those 3rd
party packagers. Althought, the fact that Microsoft "owns" the product
brand still means that any 3rd party solution is at best a bandaid.
"Fred's Windows Distro" would be seen as dillution of Microsoft
branding while doing the same thing themselves would not be seen as
advantageous by Microsoft itself since it wouldn't impart Microsoft any
advantage compared to it's competitors. (IOW, if Microsoft can't abuse
it's monopoly, then it doesn't want to bother).
>
>>>> -Only a single (virtual) desktop
>>>
>>> Fixed with a 30 second download.
>>
>> ...which requires considerable knowledge and effort for the
>> novice. This is much like expecting everyone to compile their own
>> wifi drivers.
>
> Uhh.. what? How is clicking a link, then double clicking the downloaded
> program "requir[ing] considerable knowledge"?
What link? There's a link? Whodathunkit?
It's amazing how Lemmings can be more out of touch with the
common Windows user than a someone who stopped using Windows desktops
10 years ago.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Reap...@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku>
wrote
on Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:06:27 GMT
<44494A8...@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku>:
> DFS wrote:
>
> ...
>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do Linux installations
>> prompt you to make boot and recovery diskettes?
>
> For when you have to reinstall the Windwos duel boot which (possibly
> contrary to section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990) overwrites
> the mbr /without/ taking note of the other OSs and providing a
> choice to boot into them.
This would appear to be an Act of the British Queen (or
the Parliament under the pleasure thereof). An
interesting Act:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/Ukpga_19900018_en_2.htm#mdiv3
though since Microsoft is outside of the Queen's jurisdiction (although
Canada might invade! :-) ) there's the little problem of extradition.
It would appear the act is primarily directed against malware writers,
but, like the US RICO statutes, can be shaped to fit...
A quick scan suggests that Title 18, Chapter 47 might be of
some relevance in the US, although that's more along the
lines of fraud *using* computers, as opposed to actions
directed *at* computers.
Disclaimer: IANAL (or a barrister :-) ).
>
> ...
> ...
>
>> Interesting: you still don't understand the difference between an operating
>> system and an application.
>
> MS certainly doesn't.
It's going to get messy. There's a fair number of client-server
solutions that will leverage the standard fat client on one's
machine (the browser) to do various interesting things. No,
it's not malware, though it does complicate a lot of things
from a developer's standpoint -- not to mention customer support.
Personally, I'd take JNLP and SWT and be done with it. :-)
JNLP because that allows for the browser to download and launch
a Java app, and SWT so that the app looks native. There are
still some issues -- ideally, JNLP would allow for an explicit
download as opposed to merely caching the jar files, for example.
Also, I'm not sure if JNLP has the same restrictions as Java
Applets in connecting to only the exact same server that gave
the browser the webpage -- an issue if the jar files are stored
somewhere else.
>
>> There are many free ones available for Windows.
>
> So why aren't they included when Windwos is installed?
We might have to be careful here; in the Linux world bundling,
the inclusion of third party tools, comes with the territory,
and there are a lot of third parties involved. In Windows,
bundling is not done by Microsoft, but by someone else, and
is frowned upon. It's a funny world.
>
>> There are only about a dozen free Windows clipboard managers.
>
> ditto
Oh no! That's way too many! Gosh, there might be more clipboard
managers than Linux has editors!
:-)
>
>> But one thing confounds me: why do some Linux slopware apps blow away the
>> clipboard contents when you close the app? Why do they insult the user and
>> his data and his wishes with such rude behavior? This doesn't happen in the
>> Windows world. Only OSS.
>
> Why use the clipboard at all? Highlight in one window and paste directly
> into another...
Pedant Point:
In X, there is a clipboard which is used as an intermediary. In fact,
there are *10* items which might be construed as clipboards: a primary,
a secondary, and 8 rotating text buffers.
The transference sequence gets a little complicated at the X level.
Briefly:
[1] User highlights an area in tool A.
[2] Tool A transmits an ownership request to the X server.
[3] The server grants the request; A now has exclusive ownership of
the "selection".
[4] User clicks or pastes in tool B.
[5] Tool B transmits a select request.
[6] The server responds to the request and transmits a request to A.
[7] A sends a response back with the clip buffer already highlighted.
[8] B gets the buffer and pastes it in.
I won't even begin to describe the @INCR modification here, but it's
clear that this is a little more complicated underneath than just
dragging mouse button 1 and then pressing mouse button 2. There's
also a conversion involved. Tool A, for instance, might be managing
a very fancy desktop document, whereas B just wants ASCII. Tool
A is required to convert his masterpiece into a form B can understand.
(Tool A can also advertise that he can do so. If he can't, he
won't advertise that capability and B will have to make a
decision as to whether he wants tool A's format.)
Gnome and KDE also implement the Control/X / Control/C / Control/V
convention as well, although I'm not sure of the details. I
suspect a modification of the above.
The cut and paste can include plain ASCII, pictures, and a
few other things -- one of them apparently being formatted
HTML or tables, since Evolution can create tables from
Java Swing table widgets and from webpages.
More good news: a casual app developer doesn't have to worry about the
guts too much of how cut and paste works; the widgets do most of the
gruntwork. Also, there are a few clipboard apps in X as well.
>
> ...
>> Lots of Linux nuts justify their cheap ways with this excuse. But don't
>> worry, Windows users will continue to purchase leading edge equipment and
>> fund hardware development so the Linux "community" can eventually enjoy 5th
>> generation equipment for $39.
>
> So it was Windwos purchasers that funded the IBM development of the Z series
> of powerful computers; computers that obviously run Windwos much faster and
> easier than Linux...
With some caveats.
[1] Linux on the 486 with a 14.4kb dialup line.
[2] Bochs + Linux + zOS on the Z with an OC-384 pipe.
Sure, Windows will run a *lot* faster.
:-)
>
>>>-Crashes. The modern Windows XP computer crashed on me for no reason.
>>
>> Lie.
>
> Proof?
How does one prove a random crash in XP? :-) Especially since the BSOD
is no longer the default; instead, the system just reboots.
Wonderful reproducibility there.
>
> ...
>> You use Linux. You're used to reduced productivity: slow boot,
>
> Why worry about a slow boot when Linux stays up for days? slow boot is only
> be of importance if the boot procedure has to be done regularly. If it's
> important to Windwos users, then ergo Windwos has to boot fast, ergo Windwos
> /HAS/ to be [re]booted often.
>
> ...
>
>> That would be at least 94% of the computer-using world. That would be the
>> vast majority of employees at EVERY Fortune 500 company.
>
> Which planes use Windwos as I certainly do *NOT* want to be on one of them.
Any plane worth its salt would have at least two computer systems
anyway: the first would be the flight control system, probably
with a backup. The second would keep the passengers from bothering
the stewards/stewardesses for more pretzels, drinks, or peanuts. :-)
> Windwos forms a small fraction of the computer-using world; of the
> /desktop/ computer-using world, Windwos certainly does form a large fraction.
The only fraction that counts, if one is stuck behind a desk. ;-)
Fortunately, most people can leave said desk and stick a phone
in their ear. Quick, what's on that mobile handset?
>
>> Executives of GE, Boeing and Morgan Stanley, versus lying Linux lunatics?
>> Let me think...
>
> Aha...so Boeing Planes are controlled by Windwos...remind me */NEVER/* to
> fly on one of them.
Parts of them may be ... the non-critical parts. I'd frankly have
to look.
>
> ...
>> Don't worry - you personally will never have to run a real business with
>> Linux. That's a guarantee.
>
> No, but Eddie Ball has; using first Windwos and then Linux.
And in any event, I for one suspect IBM is quietly
replacing their internal servers with Linux ones running
Apache -- if they still have non-Linux servers running
about, that is, by this point.
While IBM isn't quite as big as MSFT -- $127.99B market
cap as opposed to $280.55B -- it's pretty big.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Robert Newson
...
> though since Microsoft is outside of the Queen's jurisdiction (although
> Canada might invade! :-) ) there's the little problem of extradition.
But not if Micro$oft has UK offices and is UK registered. They would more
than likely be the responsible party for shipping the "malware".
> It would appear the act is primarily directed against malware writers,
> but, like the US RICO statutes, can be shaped to fit...
And the DMCA...
...
...
>>>>-Crashes. The modern Windows XP computer crashed on me for no reason.
>>>>
>>>Lie.
>>>
>>Proof?
>
> How does one prove a random crash in XP? :-) Especially since the BSOD
> is no longer the default; instead, the system just reboots.
I was actually asking DFS to prove that Roy was liing^Wlying^Wlieing^W
telling fibs. (never was good at spelling...) ^_^ For DFS to know it was
false, he/she/it* must have been present at every usage by Roy of XP, or
have tested the machine and he/she/it* proved that it was and is working
perfectly[1].
* delete as appropriate
[1] For a Windwos machine, what is "working perfectly"...
...
> Parts of them may be ... the non-critical parts. I'd frankly have
> to look.
Who defines critical...?
DFS
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 01:58:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> Every once in a while, especially while on vacation in foreign
>>> houses, I receive a reminder as to why Windows is an _utterly
>>> terrible_ environment for work.
>>
>> Of course it's not. It's not like it's Ubuntu or Fedora.
>
> Ubuntu and Fedora work, and work well. It's pretty clear you know
> little about either one.
I've used them both.
>> And on the topic of work, I have to wonder about a few things:
>>
>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do some Linux apps
>> take great pains to blatantly and blanketly tell you they "have been
>> reported to cause data loss"? (KPilot) They don't even qualify the
>> statement as occurring under
>> certain conditions, or with certain settings. It's as if they've
>> resigned their software to losing your data, so use it at your own
>> risk, at work.
>
> Because the developers are honest.
Then someone else (Roy 'The Liar' Schestowitz) isn't, 'cause he says Windows
is a bad work environment, but nobody of any discernment who values their
data would ever trust it to an app that makes such a bogus statement.
>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do Linux
>> installations prompt you to make boot and recovery diskettes?
>
> Because you would be stupid not to do so - howefvfer good an install
> process is, something might go wrong. This goes just the same for
> Windows, and don't pretendit doesn't.
I see. Just in case Linux doesn't live up to the claims of the "advocates"?
>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do so many people
>> have such a hard time installing and configuring it, for work?
>
> What hard time? It's easier than installing Windows from sctratch,
> that's for sure.
Some is, some isn't. Apparently getting an entire business organization up
and running on Linux isn't so easy. In fact, it's downright *rare* to see
it.
>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why does OpenOffice
>> load so slowly that you have to drum your fingers so you don't fall
>> asleep, at work?
>
> It doesn't. Unless you fall asleep in eight seconds, which is how
> long it usually takes to load on my PC.
You don't work in an office where you see how people actually use their
computers. Almost universally, they navigate the filesystem with the
full-screen Windows Explorer, then dbl-click on the document and it loads
the app and the document. This happens almost instantaneously with MS
Office products. But using OpenOffice is like moving back 2 generations in
hardware. I can't imagine anyone used to Windows\Office would accept it.
>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why hasn't the
>> corporate world embraced it, for work?
>
> It has, in many places. The smart ones.
The cheap ones. The slow ones. The unprofitable ones. The charities.
>>> Among the many perils that I had: O/S
>>> comes incomplete and remains incomplete in most households, e.g. no
>>> graphical toolkit other than paint.exe, no Web browser with
>>> something as fundamental as the notion of the tab.
>>
>> Interesting: you still don't understand the difference between an
>> operating system and an application.
>
> Of course he does.
I don't think so. He just said the OS comes and remains incomplete, as if
installing GIMP changes the OS. He's confused.
>>> Then come deficiencies such as:
>>>
>>> -Only a single (virtual) desktop
>>
>> There are many free ones available for Windows.
>
> They aren't included, though. You have to find them.
But they're FREE!
>>> -No clipboard stack. Copy something and say farewell to whatever
>>> else you help. Forget about being about to copy 3 things and then
>>> spew them out.
>>
>> There are only about a dozen free Windows clipboard managers.
>
> Why aren't they included, then?
Don't know. Office has one.
>> But one thing confounds me: why do some Linux slopware apps blow
>> away the clipboard contents when you close the app? Why do they
>> insult the user and his data and his wishes with such rude behavior?
>> This doesn't happen in the Windows world. Only OSS.
>
> You are such a liar.
Jesus H, man, why don't you get a clue and research it for yourself before
calling me a liar?
>>> -Speed is terrible. It makes you re-evaluate the need for so-called
>>> bleeding-edge hardware, which Linux rarely needs.
>>
>> Lots of Linux nuts justify their cheap ways with this excuse. But
>> don't worry, Windows users will continue to purchase leading edge
>> equipment and fund hardware development so the Linux "community" can
>> eventually enjoy 5th generation equipment for $39.
>
> Lying idiot.
hee... this one always gets your goat. Truth hurts.
>>> -Crashes. The modern Windows XP computer crashed on me for no
>>> reason.
>>
>> Lie.
>
> I'd like to see you prove that he lied. I really would. Just calling
> him a liar because you want to believe he is, is meaningless.
Obviously the computer didn't crash for no reason.
>>> It took no less than 5 minutes to
>>> restore and attain the same position.
>>
>> I doubt it. Just like I doubt everything you say.
>
> Why should anyone believe you over him? Why should *you* be considered
> homest, not him?
Who said anything about believing me? I said I don't believe him. And I
don't. He's a typical cola nut "advocate" who can't write a sentence
without spastically insulting MS\Windows. Look at the last sentence in his
post; he could barely wait to "unburden" himself after going a week without
insulting Windows.
>>> By that point, the trail of thought was cut. Where is
>>> productivity? Where has user confidence gone?
>>
>> You use Linux. You're used to reduced productivity: slow boot, slow
>> app launching, slow file navigation, multimedia hassles beyond
>> compare, poorly-interoperable office apps, etc.
>
> Bollocks.
All true.
>>> Anyone who chooses to use Windows for
>>> day-to-day use has my commiserations.
>>
>> That would be at least 94% of the computer-using world. That would
>> be the vast majority of employees at EVERY Fortune 500 company.
>
> Really? YOu checked them all, did you?
Of course.
>> Executives of GE, Boeing and Morgan Stanley, versus lying Linux
>> lunatics? Let me think...
>
> That would make a change, since you so rarely do.
When an efficient, profitable business enterprise has to choose between
desktop systems on which to run their day to day business, they almost
always choose to pay for Windows.
>>> It is sad to think that many people out there are
>>> handling businesses in such a poor environment.
>>
>> Don't worry - you personally will never have to run a real business
>> with Linux. That's a guarantee.
>
> Really? Once again, I'd love to see you prove that, considering how
> little you know about him.
Check back with him in 25 years.
>>> I have not even touched the issue of security, among others.
>>
>> Why? It's not like you'll have anything honest to say about it,
>> either.
>
> And you do? Ahhahahhahahahah!
Of course I do.
>>> This is just q quick mental note
>>> that I had to unburden myself of.
>>
>> Meaning you couldn't help yourself; you HAD to mentally masturbate
>> on cola. Better here than in "foreign houses" I guess...
>
> You're disgusting.
hahahaha... you know, Kier, sometimes you're just too much a weenie for
words. You really need to get more fun out of life.
Kier
> Kier wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 01:58:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> Every once in a while, especially while on vacation in foreign
>>>> houses, I receive a reminder as to why Windows is an _utterly
>>>> terrible_ environment for work.
>>>
>>> Of course it's not. It's not like it's Ubuntu or Fedora.
>>
>> Ubuntu and Fedora work, and work well. It's pretty clear you know
>> little about either one.
>
> I've used them both.
And learned nothing much about either, it seems. How much did you use
them? Did you use them daily, doing all your work? Or just fiddle around,
looking for faults and things to whine about? That's your usual style.
>
>
>
>
>>> And on the topic of work, I have to wonder about a few things:
>>>
>>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do some Linux apps
>>> take great pains to blatantly and blanketly tell you they "have been
>>> reported to cause data loss"? (KPilot) They don't even qualify the
>>> statement as occurring under
>>> certain conditions, or with certain settings. It's as if they've
>>> resigned their software to losing your data, so use it at your own
>>> risk, at work.
>>
>> Because the developers are honest.
>
> Then someone else (Roy 'The Liar' Schestowitz) isn't, 'cause he says Windows
> is a bad work environment, but nobody of any discernment who values their
> data would ever trust it to an app that makes such a bogus statement.
Don't be ridiculous. Do you think that because you say he is a liar we are
going to fall into line and accept your assessment? And how about all the
others not in this group who complain about Windows and how bad it is,
people who use it daily, are they all liars too?
>
>
>
>
>>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do Linux
>>> installations prompt you to make boot and recovery diskettes?
>>
>> Because you would be stupid not to do so - howefvfer good an install
>> process is, something might go wrong. This goes just the same for
>> Windows, and don't pretendit doesn't.
>
> I see. Just in case Linux doesn't live up to the claims of the "advocates"?
No, just in case something untoward happens, or the users makes a mistake.
That can happen with any OS, Windows included.
>
>
>
>
>>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do so many people
>>> have such a hard time installing and configuring it, for work?
>>
>> What hard time? It's easier than installing Windows from sctratch,
>> that's for sure.
>
> Some is, some isn't. Apparently getting an entire business organization up
> and running on Linux isn't so easy. In fact, it's downright *rare* to see
> it.
You were talking about it being hard to install and configure. Which it
mostly isn't. Getting any organisation to change any major part of its
ioperation is likely to be difficult. It would be no easier going from
another system to Windows, than going from Windows to Linux. And the
larger the business, the more difficult the process is likely to be.
>
>
>
>>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why does OpenOffice
>>> load so slowly that you have to drum your fingers so you don't fall
>>> asleep, at work?
>>
>> It doesn't. Unless you fall asleep in eight seconds, which is how
>> long it usually takes to load on my PC.
>
> You don't work in an office where you see how people actually use their
> computers. Almost universally, they navigate the filesystem with the
> full-screen Windows Explorer, then dbl-click on the document and it loads
> the app and the document. This happens almost instantaneously with MS
> Office products. But using OpenOffice is like moving back 2 generations in
> hardware. I can't imagine anyone used to Windows\Office would accept it.
Its lack of speed in loading is being adressed as of this moment. So when
it loads quickly, what will you whine about?
>
>
>
>
>>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why hasn't the
>>> corporate world embraced it, for work?
>>
>> It has, in many places. The smart ones.
>
> The cheap ones. The slow ones. The unprofitable ones. The charities.
You know, you're a real slimeball, DFS. An liar, and a arsehole.
>
>
>
>>>> Among the many perils that I had: O/S
>>>> comes incomplete and remains incomplete in most households, e.g. no
>>>> graphical toolkit other than paint.exe, no Web browser with
>>>> something as fundamental as the notion of the tab.
>>>
>>> Interesting: you still don't understand the difference between an
>>> operating system and an application.
>>
>> Of course he does.
>
> I don't think so. He just said the OS comes and remains incomplete, as if
> installing GIMP changes the OS. He's confused.
No, he isn't.
>
>
>
>>>> Then come deficiencies such as:
>>>>
>>>> -Only a single (virtual) desktop
>>>
>>> There are many free ones available for Windows.
>>
>> They aren't included, though. You have to find them.
>
> But they're FREE!
No, they're just freeware. Not the same thing at all. And they aren't
properly integrated either.
>
>
>
>>>> -No clipboard stack. Copy something and say farewell to whatever
>>>> else you help. Forget about being about to copy 3 things and then
>>>> spew them out.
>>>
>>> There are only about a dozen free Windows clipboard managers.
>>
>> Why aren't they included, then?
>
> Don't know. Office has one.
>
>
>
>>> But one thing confounds me: why do some Linux slopware apps blow
>>> away the clipboard contents when you close the app? Why do they
>>> insult the user and his data and his wishes with such rude behavior?
>>> This doesn't happen in the Windows world. Only OSS.
>>
>> You are such a liar.
>
> Jesus H, man, why don't you get a clue and research it for yourself before
> calling me a liar?
'This doesn't happenin the Windows world?' Come off it. That one specific
thing may indeed happen. But I was referring to your usual lie about
'Linux slopware'.
>
>
>
>>>> -Speed is terrible. It makes you re-evaluate the need for so-called
>>>> bleeding-edge hardware, which Linux rarely needs.
>>>
>>> Lots of Linux nuts justify their cheap ways with this excuse. But
>>> don't worry, Windows users will continue to purchase leading edge
>>> equipment and fund hardware development so the Linux "community" can
>>> eventually enjoy 5th generation equipment for $39.
>>
>> Lying idiot.
>
> hee... this one always gets your goat. Truth hurts.
How can it, when it isn't the truth? You're just proving yourself a
sneering slimeball again. You thnk having less money to spend makes a
person inferior to you? Grow up.
>
>
>
>
>>>> -Crashes. The modern Windows XP computer crashed on me for no
>>>> reason.
>>>
>>> Lie.
>>
>> I'd like to see you prove that he lied. I really would. Just calling
>> him a liar because you want to believe he is, is meaningless.
>
> Obviously the computer didn't crash for no reason.
No reason he could discern, not reason it should have crashed.
>
>
>
>>>> It took no less than 5 minutes to
>>>> restore and attain the same position.
>>>
>>> I doubt it. Just like I doubt everything you say.
>>
>> Why should anyone believe you over him? Why should *you* be considered
>> homest, not him?
>
> Who said anything about believing me? I said I don't believe him. And I
> don't. He's a typical cola nut "advocate" who can't write a sentence
> without spastically insulting MS\Windows. Look at the last sentence in his
> post; he could barely wait to "unburden" himself after going a week without
> insulting Windows.
And that does not prove that he lied, or lies, because *you* happend to
think so. Others think differently. Are they all liars too?
And trolls spend all their time lying about and insulting Linux, yet you
remain silent. Why is that? It's okay to insult Linux, but not okay to
insult Windows, is it? Not in my book.
Personally, I could do with less banging on about Windows, since the
majority of it is just boring.
>
>
>
>>>> By that point, the trail of thought was cut. Where is
>>>> productivity? Where has user confidence gone?
>>>
>>> You use Linux. You're used to reduced productivity: slow boot, slow
>>> app launching, slow file navigation, multimedia hassles beyond
>>> compare, poorly-interoperable office apps, etc.
>>
>> Bollocks.
>
> All true.
No, pal, not all true. Not even half true.
>
>
>
>
>>>> Anyone who chooses to use Windows for
>>>> day-to-day use has my commiserations.
>>>
>>> That would be at least 94% of the computer-using world. That would
>>> be the vast majority of employees at EVERY Fortune 500 company.
>>
>> Really? YOu checked them all, did you?
>
> Of course.
I don't believe you.
>
>
>
>>> Executives of GE, Boeing and Morgan Stanley, versus lying Linux
>>> lunatics? Let me think...
>>
>> That would make a change, since you so rarely do.
>
> When an efficient, profitable business enterprise has to choose between
> desktop systems on which to run their day to day business, they almost
> always choose to pay for Windows.
Since you are not privy to their decision-making process, you cannot say
why, or indeed whether, they do any such thing. Most probably 'choose'
what they're used to. And MS does a lot of hard-sell.
>
>
>
>
>>>> It is sad to think that many people out there are
>>>> handling businesses in such a poor environment.
>>>
>>> Don't worry - you personally will never have to run a real business
>>> with Linux. That's a guarantee.
>>
>> Really? Once again, I'd love to see you prove that, considering how
>> little you know about him.
>
> Check back with him in 25 years.
That isn't proof. You know nothing about Roy, certainly not enough to make
such an insulting statement.
>
>
>
>>>> I have not even touched the issue of security, among others.
>>>
>>> Why? It's not like you'll have anything honest to say about it,
>>> either.
>>
>> And you do? Ahhahahhahahahah!
>
> Of course I do.
No, you don't.
>
>
>
>
>>>> This is just q quick mental note
>>>> that I had to unburden myself of.
>>>
>>> Meaning you couldn't help yourself; you HAD to mentally masturbate
>>> on cola. Better here than in "foreign houses" I guess...
>>
>> You're disgusting.
>
> hahahaha... you know, Kier, sometimes you're just too much a weenie for
> words. You really need to get more fun out of life.
I don't find your kind of sneering rubbish fun, thanks all the same. Keep
your digusting comments for those who appreciate them. I prefer to discuss
Linux. If you spent less time praising Windows and more time discussing
the merits of Linux, you might be less disliked.
Think about this: there are many, many Linux users out there in the wide
world beyond COLA. Are they all cheap, stupid liars who like inferior
software? I very much doubt it.
--
Kier
DFS
?
As a work/productivity/multimedia/gaming/educational platform, MS Windows is
beyond compare.
Kier
Don't be ridiculous, of course it isn't.
--
Kier
Kier
>
> Kier, you obviously haven't tried to copy something in one
> app, say kwrite for example, then close kwrite and try to
> paste the copied text into another app. It's no longer in
> the clipboard. It is deleted when kwrite closes.
> In order to use the clipboard copied text, you must leave
> kwrite open until the text is pasted.
This may well be true, but it's hardly a big deal, is it?
<snip>
>>>> This is just q quick mental note
>>>> that I had to unburden myself of.
>>>
>>> Meaning you couldn't help yourself; you HAD to mentally
>>> masturbate on cola. Better here than in "foreign houses"
>>> I guess...
>>
>> You're disgusting.
>>
>
> The disgusting thing here is your stupidity or ignorance.
Hardly, when I am neither stupid nor ignorant.
> 95% of the items DFS stated are valid in both Linux and
> the BSD's and to many are points that need to be fixed
> or at least addressed as to why they react in that
> particular manner.
>
> With spokesmen like you it's no wonder Linux is considered
> to be the sludge at the bottom of the barrel.
Clearly you're the stupid and ignorant one, since it it not considered
anything of the sort except by trolling idiots. Why you idiots continue to
peddle this tripe, I don't know; I suppose you don't have anything better
to do with your lives.
--
Kier
Linonut
> As a work/productivity/multimedia/gaming/educational platform, MS Windows is
> beyond compare.
No, it isn't.
I use it, nearly every day.
It has its strengths. It has its weaknesses.
It's come a long way in 10 years, but Linux is right there, too.
Linonut
> Kier, you obviously haven't tried to copy something in one
> app, say kwrite for example, then close kwrite and try to
> paste the copied text into another app. It's no longer in
> the clipboard. It is deleted when kwrite closes.
> In order to use the clipboard copied text, you must leave
> kwrite open until the text is pasted.
Or you can use xclipboard.
DFS
The whole world disagrees with you.
Linonut
>>> As a work/productivity/multimedia/gaming/educational platform, MS
>>> Windows is beyond compare.
>>
>> Don't be ridiculous, of course it isn't.
>
> The whole world disagrees with you.
No. The whole world doesn't care. For them, MS == computing.
Rick
Roy Schestowitz
Funny you should mention this. I noticed the same issue. I used to think it
was the result of worms, but I was wrong, evidently.
By the way, I received an E-mail from my cousin yesterday. Last Sunday he was
putting up a vanity show, boasting the many applications he had accumulated
in Windows. He has /really/ nice and expensive hardware too. Here is the
message I received:
,----[ Message body ]
| My pc at home has crashed in a major way ...so may take a few days
| now...piece of crap MS
`----
He was referring to the sending of some videos that he had taken while I
visited. I hope he didn't lose data as well. This comes from a doctor who
typically defends Windows.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:25am up 13:22, 9 users, load average: 1.72, 1.08, 0.83
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
Kier
Of course it doesn't. You should stop being such a fool.
--
Kier
JEDIDIAH
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>>> As a work/productivity/multimedia/gaming/educational platform, MS
>>>> Windows is beyond compare.
>>>
>>> Don't be ridiculous, of course it isn't.
>>
>> The whole world disagrees with you.
>
> No. The whole world doesn't care. For them, MS == computing.
No, PC's == Computing.
They aren't even saavy enough to realize that you can get
alternative software for things like your OS, word processor or
web browser. They just use what Dell sells them.
Many don't even buy any extra software. They could be
snookered by Ubuntu and friends.
I actually did manage to fool the wife with fvmw95 for
awhile back in the day and she's an engineer.
--
Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.
JEDIDIAH
> __/ [ AZ Nomad ] on Friday 21 April 2006 15:14 \__
>
>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 05:22:55 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>> <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> Probably 20% of my time on the windows box is spent waiting for it to quit
>> thrashing. It has "only" 384M of memory. I'm not doing anything memory
>> intensive, but just the combination of windows xp, sp2, and lotus notes
>> takes it to its knees.
>
> Funny you should mention this. I noticed the same issue. I used to think it
> was the result of worms, but I was wrong, evidently.
>
> By the way, I received an E-mail from my cousin yesterday. Last Sunday he was
> putting up a vanity show, boasting the many applications he had accumulated
> in Windows. He has /really/ nice and expensive hardware too. Here is the
> message I received:
>
> ,----[ Message body ]
>| My pc at home has crashed in a major way ...so may take a few days
>| now...piece of crap MS
> `----
>
> He was referring to the sending of some videos that he had taken while I
> visited. I hope he didn't lose data as well. This comes from a doctor who
> typically defends Windows.
....just bought an external disk for the mother-in-law. Her machine
has started to get sluggish and she thinks she needs to buy a new one. She
probably just needs to do some housecleaning. But, I am not interested in
going to that sort of trouble so I will not suggest this. I don't do Windows
anymore.
Anyways, she will get a new and faster machine without really needing
one simply because her old one is not maintainable.
--
If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy
it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing |||
MacOS X on a DELL! / | \
AZ Nomad
> ....just bought an external disk for the mother-in-law. Her machine
>has started to get sluggish and she thinks she needs to buy a new one. She
>probably just needs to do some housecleaning. But, I am not interested in
>going to that sort of trouble so I will not suggest this. I don't do Windows
>anymore.
> Anyways, she will get a new and faster machine without really needing
>one simply because her old one is not maintainable.
That is so incredibly common it's not funny.
Probably more than half of all pc sales are due to windows being unmaintainable.
Choice 1: bring it to the PC shop yet again, pay $150 for cleanup
Choice 2: buy a new PC for $400
After the third time of choosing #1, #2 starts looking very attractive.
Until the new PC needs to be reloaded.
DFS
> On 2006-04-23, Linonut <lin...@bone.com> wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>>>> As a work/productivity/multimedia/gaming/educational platform, MS
>>>>> Windows is beyond compare.
>>>>
>>>> Don't be ridiculous, of course it isn't.
>>>
>>> The whole world disagrees with you.
>>
>> No. The whole world doesn't care. For them, MS == computing.
>
> No, PC's == Computing.
>
> They aren't even saavy enough to realize that you can get
> alternative software for things like your OS, word processor or
> web browser. They just use what Dell sells them.
How do you know what they use? Why is it you cola oddballs think only you
ragtag few are smart enough to compare operating systems?
That's not the case, of course, but you and cola will use it - to the ends
of the Earth - as an excuse for why more people refuse to use Linux.
Linonut
> On 2006-04-23, Linonut <lin...@bone.com> wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>>>> As a work/productivity/multimedia/gaming/educational platform, MS
>>>>> Windows is beyond compare.
>>>>
>>>> Don't be ridiculous, of course it isn't.
>>>
>>> The whole world disagrees with you.
>>
>> No. The whole world doesn't care. For them, MS == computing.
>
> No, PC's == Computing.
>
> They aren't even saavy enough to realize that you can get
> alternative software for things like your OS, word processor or
> web browser. They just use what Dell sells them.
Okay, MS+DELL == Computing.
And, for some real lamers, Word/Excel == Computing
> Many don't even buy any extra software. They could be
> snookered by Ubuntu and friends.
>
> I actually did manage to fool the wife with fvmw95 for
> awhile back in the day and she's an engineer.
Dass funny!
Linonut
>> They aren't even saavy enough to realize that you can get
>> alternative software for things like your OS, word processor or
>> web browser. They just use what Dell sells them.
>
> How do you know what they use? Why is it you cola oddballs think only you
> ragtag few are smart enough to compare operating systems?
>
> That's not the case, of course, but you and cola will use it - to the ends
> of the Earth - as an excuse for why more people refuse to use Linux.
D, my guess is that maybe 10% of the people who don't use Linux or Mac
have even tried either of them. By far, the majority simple take what
comes on their machine.
It's not like cars, microwaves, or DVD players, where you can find many
different brands and compare them.
In the stores, there's only one brand. A tribute to Microsoft's energy
and diligence, and the DOJ and SEC's fecklessness.
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> They aren't even saavy enough to realize that you can get
>>> alternative software for things like your OS, word processor or
>>> web browser. They just use what Dell sells them.
>>
>> How do you know what they use? Why is it you cola oddballs think
>> only you ragtag few are smart enough to compare operating systems?
>>
>> That's not the case, of course, but you and cola will use it - to
>> the ends of the Earth - as an excuse for why more people refuse to
>> use Linux.
>
> D, my guess is that maybe 10% of the people who don't use Linux or Mac
> have even tried either of them.
Maybe so. But supposedly Firefox has gained ~10% market share in a couple
years, meaning a LOT of people (minimum tens of millions of active computer
users, but most likely the large majority of all users) are aware of what
open source software and Linux is.
> By far, the majority simple take what comes on their machine.
Probably so. But they still have the freedom and choice to search for,
compare and use any alternative.
> It's not like cars, microwaves, or DVD players, where you can find
> many different brands and compare them.
OS's are exactly like those items in the sense that they're easily found and
compared in a bullet-for-bullet point list, but very unlike them in that
it's relatively or very difficult to switch between them. Especially with a
computer full of files and documents and emails.
> In the stores, there's only one brand. A tribute to Microsoft's
> energy and diligence, and the DOJ and SEC's fecklessness.
And exactly why should the DOJ or SEC get involved in the business of OEMs
deciding which OS they want to sell with their hardware?
Ruel Smith
say:
> And on the topic of work, I have to wonder about a few things:
>
> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do some Linux apps take
> great pains to blatantly and blanketly tell you they "have been reported
> to
> cause data loss"? (KPilot) They don't even qualify the statement as
> occurring under
> certain conditions, or with certain settings. It's as if they've resigned
> their software to losing your data, so use it at your own risk, at work.
Because the developers are honest and forthcoming? They state it plain and
clearly instead of claiming it's a "feature".
> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do Linux installations
> prompt you to make boot and recovery diskettes?
It promotes good practice. You should do it in any OS, not just Linux, but
many people don't even do necessary basics such as renewing virus scanning
software subscriptions, let alone do necessary things such as backup and
have bootable recovery disks available. Linux just tries to be a good
citizen.
> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do so many people have
> such a hard time installing and configuring it, for work?
What distro are you using? Maybe you should try PCLinuxOS and come back on
that difficulty to install thing at a later date. I think you must be stuck
in a time warp - A.D. 1998.
> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why does OpenOffice load so
> slowly that you have to drum your fingers so you don't fall asleep, at
> work?
Because of Java? It can be reconfigured to load faster.
> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why hasn't the corporate
> world embraced it, for work?
Because of Microsoft screw turning? Because of the lack of Linux experts to
implement it? Because of fear of the unknown? Because of their ignorance?
Who knows? Linux migration is happening everyday, though.
>> Among the many perils that I had: O/S
>> comes incomplete and remains incomplete in most households, e.g. no
>> graphical toolkit other than paint.exe, no Web browser with something
>> as fundamental as the notion of the tab.
>
> Interesting: you still don't understand the difference between an
> operating system and an application.
Neither do the Win fanboys, either, when they talk about the lack of
encrypted DVD playback in Linux. It doesn't come with Windows, either...
However, you spend $100+ on WinXP, several hundred $$$ for Microsoft
Office, several more on Virus/Internet security and other applications you
wish to use like PowerDVD, Photoshop Elements, FrontPage, etc., and you
still have a crashing, difficult to administrate OS that needs constant
attention and $$$ thrown at it to keep it safe. Some system... And people
are willing to spend their hard earned money on this???
>> Then come deficiencies such as:
>>
>> -Only a single (virtual) desktop
>
> There are many free ones available for Windows.
But, they don't come with Windows. He's speaking about what comes with
Windows (very, very little) and no 3rd party stuff installed.
>> -No clipboard stack. Copy something and say farewell to whatever else
>> you help. Forget about being about to copy 3 things and then spew
>> them out.
>
> There are only about a dozen free Windows clipboard managers.
See above...
> Lots of Linux nuts justify their cheap ways with this excuse. But don't
> worry, Windows users will continue to purchase leading edge equipment and
> fund hardware development so the Linux "community" can eventually enjoy
> 5th generation equipment for $39.
Yeah...Windows just blew right past Linux and had a x86-64 version ready
almost as soon as the platform was released, didn't it? Some state of the
art OS...
>> -Crashes. The modern Windows XP computer crashed on me for no reason.
>
> Lie.
Huh? Before calling someone a liar, look closely in the mirror...
>> It took no less than 5 minutes to
>> restore and attain the same position.
>
> I doubt it. Just like I doubt everything you say.
When without a counterpoint, it is often necessary to target the opponent
directly, isn't it?
>> By that point, the trail of thought was cut. Where is
>> productivity? Where has user confidence gone?
>
> You use Linux. You're used to reduced productivity: slow boot, slow app
> launching, slow file navigation, multimedia hassles beyond compare,
> poorly-interoperable office apps, etc.
Funny, my Linux system is on an AMD Athlon XP 2800+ Barton system with a
GeForce 5200 graphics card, 1GB memory, and a single 7200 rpm 8MB cache
SATA drive and it boots up just slightly faster than my Windows XP system
which is an overclocked 2.6 GHz P4 (OC'd to 3.05 GHz) with 1GB memory,
GeForce 6600GT graphics and an onboard RAID setup consisting of (2) 7200
rpm 8MB cache ATA drives. As a matter of fact, though different distros
I've installed on this computer have run at different speeds, my current
installation of PCLinuxOS is blindingly fast and responsive. It blows away
my Windows XP computer.
>> Anyone who chooses to use Windows for
>> day-to-day use has my commiserations.
>
> That would be at least 94% of the computer-using world. That would be the
> vast majority of employees at EVERY Fortune 500 company.
>
> Executives of GE, Boeing and Morgan Stanley, versus lying Linux lunatics?
> Let me think...
IBM, HP, Novell, US Postal Service, US Army, Toyota, Tommy Hilfiger,
Panasonic, Northrop-Grumman, Sony, Daimler-Chrysler, yada, yada, yada... I
guess those are small potatoes, aren't they? BTW, Boeing also uses Linux:
http://mtechit.com/linux-biz/aerospace_industry/boeing.html
Here's a list of a few companies that employ Linux, some more extensively
than others:
>> It is sad to think that many people out there are
>> handling businesses in such a poor environment.
>
> Don't worry - you personally will never have to run a real business with
> Linux. That's a guarantee.
Funny, real businesses are using it successfully everyday. Just a sample:
http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
Where have you been? Under a rock?
>> I have not even touched the issue of security, among others.
>
> Why? It's not like you'll have anything honest to say about it, either.
And you're just the pillar of honesty and integrity, aren't you?
DFS
> DFS once pondered into the vast depths of his mind and came up with
> this to say:
>
>> And on the topic of work, I have to wonder about a few things:
>>
>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do some Linux apps
>> take great pains to blatantly and blanketly tell you they "have been
>> reported to
>> cause data loss"? (KPilot) They don't even qualify the statement as
>> occurring under
>> certain conditions, or with certain settings. It's as if they've
>> resigned their software to losing your data, so use it at your own
>> risk, at work.
>
> Because the developers are honest and forthcoming? They state it
> plain and clearly instead of claiming it's a "feature".
I see you're another Linux "advocate" with more mouth than brains. Show me
a SINGLE Windows app anywhere in the world, produced by MS or anyone else,
that labels data loss a feature. I'll be waiting.
>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do Linux
>> installations prompt you to make boot and recovery diskettes?
>
> It promotes good practice. You should do it in any OS, not just
> Linux, but many people don't even do necessary basics such as
> renewing virus scanning software subscriptions, let alone do
> necessary things such as backup and have bootable recovery disks
> available. Linux just tries to be a good citizen.
OK. But I keep hearing from cola nuts how perfect and crash-proof Linux is.
So why are boot and recovery disks needed?
>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do so many people
>> have such a hard time installing and configuring it, for work?
>
> What distro are you using? Maybe you should try PCLinuxOS and come
> back on that difficulty to install thing at a later date. I think you
> must be stuck in a time warp - A.D. 1998.
If I was stuck in a time warp, I'd be bringing up Linux bugs from 1998 like
"Linux advocates" do with Windows. Some bozo around here was actually
talking the other day about conflicting .dll's on Windows.
>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why does OpenOffice
>> load so slowly that you have to drum your fingers so you don't fall
>> asleep, at work?
>
> Because of Java? It can be reconfigured to load faster.
It requires Java for full functionality, and deselecting the Java options
doesn't make it load faster. I tried it.
And even when/if OO loads up fast, opening even small-to-moderate size files
in the native format is an exercise in 100% CPU usage for [relatively] long
periods. Where's the sizzle?
>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why hasn't the
>> corporate world embraced it, for work?
>
> Because of Microsoft screw turning? Because of the lack of Linux
> experts to implement it? Because of fear of the unknown? Because of
> their ignorance? Who knows? Linux migration is happening everyday,
> though.
But not very much. So either the world's businesses are dumb (as Roy
Schestowitz implies), or they think Linux won't meet their needs.
>>> Among the many perils that I had: O/S
>>> comes incomplete and remains incomplete in most households, e.g. no
>>> graphical toolkit other than paint.exe, no Web browser with
>>> something as fundamental as the notion of the tab.
>>
>> Interesting: you still don't understand the difference between an
>> operating system and an application.
>
> Neither do the Win fanboys, either, when they talk about the lack of
> encrypted DVD playback in Linux. It doesn't come with Windows,
> either... However, you spend $100+ on WinXP, several hundred $$$ for
> Microsoft Office, several more on Virus/Internet security and other
> applications you wish to use like PowerDVD, Photoshop Elements,
> FrontPage, etc., and you still have a crashing, difficult to
> administrate OS that needs constant attention and $$$ thrown at it to
> keep it safe. Some system...
You're going to have to do better than slinging the same, tired "advocate"
lies: the dramatic exaggeration of Windows software costs, the claim of
'constant crashes', etc. It's just not true.
> And people are willing to spend their
> hard earned money on this???
Of course. But what they're not willing to do is pay $59 for a retail Linux
box.
>>> Then come deficiencies such as:
>>>
>>> -Only a single (virtual) desktop
>>
>> There are many free ones available for Windows.
>
> But, they don't come with Windows. He's speaking about what comes with
> Windows (very, very little) and no 3rd party stuff installed.
So? That doesn't make the OS deficient.
>>> -No clipboard stack. Copy something and say farewell to whatever
>>> else you help. Forget about being about to copy 3 things and then
>>> spew them out.
>>
>> There are only about a dozen free Windows clipboard managers.
>
> See above...
See above.
>> Lots of Linux nuts justify their cheap ways with this excuse. But
>> don't worry, Windows users will continue to purchase leading edge
>> equipment and fund hardware development so the Linux "community" can
>> eventually enjoy 5th generation equipment for $39.
>
> Yeah...Windows just blew right past Linux and had a x86-64 version
> ready almost as soon as the platform was released, didn't it? Some
> state of the art OS...
>
>>> -Crashes. The modern Windows XP computer crashed on me for no
>>> reason.
>>
>> Lie.
>
> Huh? Before calling someone a liar, look closely in the mirror...
The system didn't crash for no reason - if it crashed at all. Linux
"advocates" are huge liars, and I don't believe him.
>>> It took no less than 5 minutes to
>>> restore and attain the same position.
>>
>> I doubt it. Just like I doubt everything you say.
>
> When without a counterpoint, it is often necessary to target the
> opponent directly, isn't it?
As I said, I doubt him.
>>> By that point, the trail of thought was cut. Where is
>>> productivity? Where has user confidence gone?
>>
>> You use Linux. You're used to reduced productivity: slow boot, slow
>> app launching, slow file navigation, multimedia hassles beyond
>> compare, poorly-interoperable office apps, etc.
>
> Funny, my Linux system is on an AMD Athlon XP 2800+ Barton system
> with a GeForce 5200 graphics card, 1GB memory, and a single 7200 rpm
> 8MB cache SATA drive and it boots up just slightly faster than my
> Windows XP system which is an overclocked 2.6 GHz P4 (OC'd to 3.05
> GHz) with 1GB memory, GeForce 6600GT graphics and an onboard RAID
> setup consisting of (2) 7200 rpm 8MB cache ATA drives.
OK, so you went to the trouble of making your Windows system boot up as
slowly as your Linux box.
> As a matter of
> fact, though different distros I've installed on this computer have
> run at different speeds, my current installation of PCLinuxOS is
> blindingly fast and responsive. It blows away my Windows XP computer.
I doubt it. For instance, I ran Slax LiveCD using the copy2ram (sic)
option, and even running in memory Slax was slower than my WinServer system
on the same hardware.
But lately I've been hearing a lot of positive cola spin about PCLinuxOS.
If it's quick to run I'll like it.
>>> Anyone who chooses to use Windows for
>>> day-to-day use has my commiserations.
>>
>> That would be at least 94% of the computer-using world. That would
>> be the vast majority of employees at EVERY Fortune 500 company.
>>
>> Executives of GE, Boeing and Morgan Stanley, versus lying Linux
>> lunatics? Let me think...
>
> IBM, HP, Novell, US Postal Service, US Army, Toyota, Tommy Hilfiger,
> Panasonic, Northrop-Grumman, Sony, Daimler-Chrysler, yada, yada,
> yada... I guess those are small potatoes, aren't they? BTW, Boeing
> also uses Linux:
>
> http://mtechit.com/linux-biz/aerospace_industry/boeing.html
>
> Here's a list of a few companies that employ Linux, some more
> extensively than others:
>
> http://mtechit.com/linux-biz/
I didn't say those companies also didn't run Linux (how much of their
business is run on it is a topic for a different thread), but when a smarmy,
lunatic liar like Roy Schestowitz insults Windows for day to day use, but we
see the most successful businesses in the world ALL run Windows on their
desktops, I have to laugh.
>>> It is sad to think that many people out there are
>>> handling businesses in such a poor environment.
>>
>> Don't worry - you personally will never have to run a real business
>> with Linux. That's a guarantee.
>
> Funny, real businesses are using it successfully everyday. Just a
> sample:
>
> http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
>
> Where have you been? Under a rock?
No!!! Not Ernie Ball!!!!
ROFL!
>>> I have not even touched the issue of security, among others.
>>
>> Why? It's not like you'll have anything honest to say about it,
>> either.
>
> And you're just the pillar of honesty and integrity, aren't you?
I am.
Linonut
> I see you're another Linux "advocate" with more mouth than brains. Show me
> a SINGLE Windows app anywhere in the world, produced by MS or anyone else,
> that labels data loss a feature. I'll be waiting.
http://www.hyperdynesoftware.com/hard-drive-cleaner.html
Snitch is a hard drive cleaner tool created to help you locate and
clean up pornographic images and movies, illegal MP3 files, Internet
history caches, cookies and other files from your hard drive. Snitch
searches all files on the hard drive, identifying them and scanning
them for undesirable content. Any files found can then be inspected
and deleted. The ultimate Hard Drive Cleaner!
> OK. But I keep hearing from cola nuts how perfect and crash-proof Linux is.
> So why are boot and recovery disks needed?
To fix b0rken Windows systems! <grin.
arachnid
>OK. But I keep hearing from cola nuts how perfect and crash-proof Linux is.
>So why are boot and recovery disks needed?
I only need mine because Bill of Borg deliberately wipes my boot
sector in a futile attempt to assimilate me.
TheLetterK
I don't make boot disks. Does anyone else? I don't even have a floppy
drive on any of my machines.
>
>
>>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do so many people
>>> have such a hard time installing and configuring it, for work?
>> What distro are you using? Maybe you should try PCLinuxOS and come
>> back on that difficulty to install thing at a later date. I think you
>> must be stuck in a time warp - A.D. 1998.
>
> If I was stuck in a time warp, I'd be bringing up Linux bugs from 1998 like
> "Linux advocates" do with Windows. Some bozo around here was actually
> talking the other day about conflicting .dll's on Windows.
>
>
>
>>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why does OpenOffice
>>> load so slowly that you have to drum your fingers so you don't fall
>>> asleep, at work?
>> Because of Java? It can be reconfigured to load faster.
>
> It requires Java for full functionality, and deselecting the Java options
> doesn't make it load faster. I tried it.
It does here, and it's only needed for the macros.
>
> And even when/if OO loads up fast, opening even small-to-moderate size files
> in the native format is an exercise in 100% CPU usage for [relatively] long
> periods. Where's the sizzle?
I've repeatedly pointed you to places instructing you in how to speed up
OOo's boot time. Apparently, you don't bother reading them.
>
>
>>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why hasn't the
>>> corporate world embraced it, for work?
>> Because of Microsoft screw turning? Because of the lack of Linux
>> experts to implement it? Because of fear of the unknown? Because of
>> their ignorance? Who knows? Linux migration is happening everyday,
>> though.
>
> But not very much. So either the world's businesses are dumb (as Roy
> Schestowitz implies), or they think Linux won't meet their needs.
I'd bet on most businesses being slow to change. The fact that so many
various businesses can and do use Linux indicates that it would meet
their needs.
>
>
>>>> Among the many perils that I had: O/S
>>>> comes incomplete and remains incomplete in most households, e.g. no
>>>> graphical toolkit other than paint.exe, no Web browser with
>>>> something as fundamental as the notion of the tab.
>>> Interesting: you still don't understand the difference between an
>>> operating system and an application.
>> Neither do the Win fanboys, either, when they talk about the lack of
>> encrypted DVD playback in Linux. It doesn't come with Windows,
>> either... However, you spend $100+ on WinXP, several hundred $$$ for
>> Microsoft Office, several more on Virus/Internet security and other
>> applications you wish to use like PowerDVD, Photoshop Elements,
>> FrontPage, etc., and you still have a crashing, difficult to
>> administrate OS that needs constant attention and $$$ thrown at it to
>> keep it safe. Some system...
>
> You're going to have to do better than slinging the same, tired "advocate"
> lies: the dramatic exaggeration of Windows software costs, the claim of
> 'constant crashes', etc. It's just not true.
The software cost claim is.
>
>
>> And people are willing to spend their
>> hard earned money on this???
>
> Of course. But what they're not willing to do is pay $59 for a retail Linux
> box.
Why would they, when something just as good can be had for free? It's
difficult to sell a free product. I mean, if Microsoft was giving away
copies of Windows, but only included WMP and IIS in the retail version,
I'm pretty sure they would have a lot of trouble selling retail copies.
That's why companies selling Linux have shifted to support contracts and
consulting.
>
>
>>>> Then come deficiencies such as:
>>>>
>>>> -Only a single (virtual) desktop
>>> There are many free ones available for Windows.
>> But, they don't come with Windows. He's speaking about what comes with
>> Windows (very, very little) and no 3rd party stuff installed.
>
> So? That doesn't make the OS deficient.
Yes, yes it does.
>
>
>>>> -No clipboard stack. Copy something and say farewell to whatever
>>>> else you help. Forget about being about to copy 3 things and then
>>>> spew them out.
>>> There are only about a dozen free Windows clipboard managers.
>> See above...
>
> See above.
See above.
>
>
>
>>> Lots of Linux nuts justify their cheap ways with this excuse. But
>>> don't worry, Windows users will continue to purchase leading edge
>>> equipment and fund hardware development so the Linux "community" can
>>> eventually enjoy 5th generation equipment for $39.
>> Yeah...Windows just blew right past Linux and had a x86-64 version
>> ready almost as soon as the platform was released, didn't it? Some
>> state of the art OS...
>>
>>>> -Crashes. The modern Windows XP computer crashed on me for no
>>>> reason.
>>> Lie.
>> Huh? Before calling someone a liar, look closely in the mirror...
>
> The system didn't crash for no reason - if it crashed at all. Linux
> "advocates" are huge liars, and I don't believe him.
Just as most of us don't believe you DooFuS.
>
>
>
>>>> It took no less than 5 minutes to
>>>> restore and attain the same position.
>>> I doubt it. Just like I doubt everything you say.
>> When without a counterpoint, it is often necessary to target the
>> opponent directly, isn't it?
>
> As I said, I doubt him.
>
>
>
>>>> By that point, the trail of thought was cut. Where is
>>>> productivity? Where has user confidence gone?
>>> You use Linux. You're used to reduced productivity: slow boot, slow
>>> app launching, slow file navigation, multimedia hassles beyond
>>> compare, poorly-interoperable office apps, etc.
>> Funny, my Linux system is on an AMD Athlon XP 2800+ Barton system
>> with a GeForce 5200 graphics card, 1GB memory, and a single 7200 rpm
>> 8MB cache SATA drive and it boots up just slightly faster than my
>> Windows XP system which is an overclocked 2.6 GHz P4 (OC'd to 3.05
>> GHz) with 1GB memory, GeForce 6600GT graphics and an onboard RAID
>> setup consisting of (2) 7200 rpm 8MB cache ATA drives.
>
> OK, so you went to the trouble of making your Windows system boot up as
> slowly as your Linux box.
Automatically assumed that, hmm?
>
>
>
>> As a matter of
>> fact, though different distros I've installed on this computer have
>> run at different speeds, my current installation of PCLinuxOS is
>> blindingly fast and responsive. It blows away my Windows XP computer.
>
> I doubt it. For instance, I ran Slax LiveCD using the copy2ram (sic)
> option, and even running in memory Slax was slower than my WinServer system
> on the same hardware.
LiveLinux distros are slow. Always have been, always will be. Install
one for a change.
>
> But lately I've been hearing a lot of positive cola spin about PCLinuxOS.
> If it's quick to run I'll like it.
Most distros are--Debian, Gentoo, Ubuntu, etc.
>
>
>
>
>>>> Anyone who chooses to use Windows for
>>>> day-to-day use has my commiserations.
>>> That would be at least 94% of the computer-using world. That would
>>> be the vast majority of employees at EVERY Fortune 500 company.
>>>
>>> Executives of GE, Boeing and Morgan Stanley, versus lying Linux
>>> lunatics? Let me think...
>> IBM, HP, Novell, US Postal Service, US Army, Toyota, Tommy Hilfiger,
>> Panasonic, Northrop-Grumman, Sony, Daimler-Chrysler, yada, yada,
>> yada... I guess those are small potatoes, aren't they? BTW, Boeing
>> also uses Linux:
>>
>> http://mtechit.com/linux-biz/aerospace_industry/boeing.html
>>
>> Here's a list of a few companies that employ Linux, some more
>> extensively than others:
>>
>> http://mtechit.com/linux-biz/
>
> I didn't say those companies also didn't run Linux (how much of their
> business is run on it is a topic for a different thread), but when a smarmy,
> lunatic liar like Roy Schestowitz insults Windows for day to day use, but we
> see the most successful businesses in the world ALL run Windows on their
> desktops, I have to laugh.
And spend a fortune maintaining a downright obese IT department because
of it.
>
>
>
>
>>>> It is sad to think that many people out there are
>>>> handling businesses in such a poor environment.
>>> Don't worry - you personally will never have to run a real business
>>> with Linux. That's a guarantee.
>> Funny, real businesses are using it successfully everyday. Just a
>> sample:
>>
>> http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
>>
>> Where have you been? Under a rock?
>
> No!!! Not Ernie Ball!!!!
>
> ROFL!
>
>
>
>>>> I have not even touched the issue of security, among others.
>>> Why? It's not like you'll have anything honest to say about it,
>>> either.
>> And you're just the pillar of honesty and integrity, aren't you?
>
> I am not.
Corrected.
--
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit
Ruel Smith
say:
>> Because the developers are honest and forthcoming? They state it
>> plain and clearly instead of claiming it's a "feature".
>
> I see you're another Linux "advocate" with more mouth than brains. Show
> me a SINGLE Windows app anywhere in the world, produced by MS or anyone
> else,
> that labels data loss a feature. I'll be waiting.
Unable to detect sarcasm are you? You've been staring at Microsoft
propaganda for too long... You need a break!
>>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do Linux
>>> installations prompt you to make boot and recovery diskettes?
>>
>> It promotes good practice. You should do it in any OS, not just
>> Linux, but many people don't even do necessary basics such as
>> renewing virus scanning software subscriptions, let alone do
>> necessary things such as backup and have bootable recovery disks
>> available. Linux just tries to be a good citizen.
>
> OK. But I keep hearing from cola nuts how perfect and crash-proof Linux
> is. So why are boot and recovery disks needed?
Dude, there is no perfect world. I've never crashed Linux, but I've
certainly locked up my X server. Also, I've hosed my distro more times than
I can count. Things happen. If someone was just a hands-off user and didn't
tinker with the system like I do, and Linux was properly setup in the first
place much in the same way Dell or Gateway have a perfectly tweaked version
of WinXP installed from the factory, I doubt Linux would ever crash or lock
up. What I've caused Linux to do has been entirely MY FAULT. However, WinXP
has went bonkers on me for no reason at all, in the past. Currently, I
can't boot it up without the Windows CD in the drive, as it says "missing
ntldr". It just popped up one day, and I haven't had time to fix it, since
I don't spend much time there anyway.
>>> If Linux is more reliable, and it's for work, why do so many people
>>> have such a hard time installing and configuring it, for work?
>>
>> What distro are you using? Maybe you should try PCLinuxOS and come
>> back on that difficulty to install thing at a later date. I think you
>> must be stuck in a time warp - A.D. 1998.
>
> If I was stuck in a time warp, I'd be bringing up Linux bugs from 1998
> like
> "Linux advocates" do with Windows. Some bozo around here was actually
> talking the other day about conflicting .dll's on Windows.
Well, I can understand that some advocates use the same misinformation as
Windows fan-boys and stoop to their level at times. However, when was the
last time you installed a distro? Difficult to install? It certainly wasn't
Suse or Mandriva, especially the retail versions.
>> Because of Microsoft screw turning? Because of the lack of Linux
>> experts to implement it? Because of fear of the unknown? Because of
>> their ignorance? Who knows? Linux migration is happening everyday,
>> though.
>
> But not very much. So either the world's businesses are dumb (as Roy
> Schestowitz implies), or they think Linux won't meet their needs.
Businesses are by nature conservative. They'll stick with the known before
venturing into the unknown. When the day comes that Linux IT experts are
easily obtainable by most IT departments, and more is know to the general
public on the benefits of Linux, it'll get adopted.
>>> Interesting: you still don't understand the difference between an
>>> operating system and an application.
>>
>> Neither do the Win fanboys, either, when they talk about the lack of
>> encrypted DVD playback in Linux. It doesn't come with Windows,
>> either... However, you spend $100+ on WinXP, several hundred $$$ for
>> Microsoft Office, several more on Virus/Internet security and other
>> applications you wish to use like PowerDVD, Photoshop Elements,
>> FrontPage, etc., and you still have a crashing, difficult to
>> administrate OS that needs constant attention and $$$ thrown at it to
>> keep it safe. Some system...
>
> You're going to have to do better than slinging the same, tired "advocate"
> lies: the dramatic exaggeration of Windows software costs, the claim of
> 'constant crashes', etc. It's just not true.
Dramatic exaggeration? Okay, we'll look at this from the perspective of a
newly home-built PC, since you truly pay for it in the bundled price of a
new PC from HP or Dell or whoever anyway:
Using CompUSA prices, as the general public typically buys their software
from a similar place like Fry's or Best Buy and we'll use a setup where
someone might want to do some photo retouching and maybe edit some home
videos or whatever...
Windows XP Home retail version: $199.99
Microsoft Office Standard Edition: $399
Norton's Internet Security: $69.99
Corel PaintShop Pro: $49.99
Pinnacle Studio 10: $49.99
Nero 7 CD/DVD burning software: $49.99
Okay, we have a grand total of $818.95.
Now...
PCLinuxOS, Mandriva Free, OpenSuse, Kubuntu...: Free
OpenOffice 2.0, KOffice and others: Free
Shorewall firewall, ClamAV, BogoFilter, SpamAssassin: Free
The Gimp, Krita: Free
LiVES, Kino: Free
K3b, XCDRoast, and others: Free
Grand total of $0.
Gee... It looks like I could have about the same functionality and still
have $818.95 in my bank account... :o)
>> And people are willing to spend their
>> hard earned money on this???
>
> Of course. But what they're not willing to do is pay $59 for a retail
> Linux box.
PCLinuxOS, Kubuntu, OpenSuse, Mandriva Free, Ubuntu, and others are
absolutely FREE of charge. You pay for the support...you know...what
Microsoft doesn't really provide you...
>>>> -Only a single (virtual) desktop
>>>
>>> There are many free ones available for Windows.
>>
>> But, they don't come with Windows. He's speaking about what comes with
>> Windows (very, very little) and no 3rd party stuff installed.
>
> So? That doesn't make the OS deficient.
Sure it does...
>>> Lots of Linux nuts justify their cheap ways with this excuse. But
>>> don't worry, Windows users will continue to purchase leading edge
>>> equipment and fund hardware development so the Linux "community" can
>>> eventually enjoy 5th generation equipment for $39.
>>
>> Yeah...Windows just blew right past Linux and had a x86-64 version
>> ready almost as soon as the platform was released, didn't it? Some
>> state of the art OS...
I noticed you never responded to this one...
>> Funny, my Linux system is on an AMD Athlon XP 2800+ Barton system
>> with a GeForce 5200 graphics card, 1GB memory, and a single 7200 rpm
>> 8MB cache SATA drive and it boots up just slightly faster than my
>> Windows XP system which is an overclocked 2.6 GHz P4 (OC'd to 3.05
>> GHz) with 1GB memory, GeForce 6600GT graphics and an onboard RAID
>> setup consisting of (2) 7200 rpm 8MB cache ATA drives.
>
> OK, so you went to the trouble of making your Windows system boot up as
> slowly as your Linux box.
Nope, Linux is just that fast. I timed that with Mandriva 2006, which is a
moderately performing distro. I haven't booted both PCLinuxOS and WinXP up
at the same time. Since PCLOS is noticeably faster than Mandriva, I'm sure
it will smoke it.
> I doubt it. For instance, I ran Slax LiveCD using the copy2ram (sic)
> option, and even running in memory Slax was slower than my WinServer
> system on the same hardware.
Now, I know you're lying...
> But lately I've been hearing a lot of positive cola spin about PCLinuxOS.
> If it's quick to run I'll like it.
Yep, it's fast. Puts all the non-free drivers and software like Java,
FlashPlayer, RealPlayer, etc. on your system during installation, and is
probably one of only just a handful of absolutely free distros that do
that.
> I didn't say those companies also didn't run Linux (how much of their
> business is run on it is a topic for a different thread), but when a
> smarmy, lunatic liar like Roy Schestowitz insults Windows for day to day
> use, but we see the most successful businesses in the world ALL run
> Windows on their desktops, I have to laugh.
You certainly implied it.
>>> Don't worry - you personally will never have to run a real business
>>> with Linux. That's a guarantee.
>>
>> Funny, real businesses are using it successfully everyday. Just a
>> sample:
>>
>> http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
>>
>> Where have you been? Under a rock?
>
> No!!! Not Ernie Ball!!!!
>
> ROFL!
It's not like its the only one...just the most talked about one on the
internet. Ernie Ball is a pretty sizeable company, at that. It's not in the
same league as GE, but it's not tiny by any measure.
>> And you're just the pillar of honesty and integrity, aren't you?
>
> I am.
Stop it! My cheeks are hurting from the laughter...
Roy Schestowitz
I strongly agree with AZ Nomad on this one. I had to forcibly argue with
my mother as she insisted on buying a new PC. Her machine was infested
with worms despite the defences that my sister had set up. It was hopless,
so Windows had to be installed from scratch. Guess what? It was fast and
satisfactory therafter... until a few software installations (Registery
bloats) and inevitable infections.
The computer (as in "hardware") industry must be cashing in on neglected,
thrown out machines, which infected day by day and burn up resources. This
also enables Microsoft to force upgrades and sell more licences for a
reportedly larger number of workstations (something that Apple, for
instance, are unable to do at quite the same level).
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Windows all-in-one: Word, IE (for E-mail) & iTunes
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
3:10am up 1 day 12:07, 12 users, load average: 0.16, 0.38, 0.45
Ruel Smith
this to say:
>> I doubt it. For instance, I ran Slax LiveCD using the copy2ram (sic)
>> option, and even running in memory Slax was slower than my WinServer
>> system on the same hardware.
>
> LiveLinux distros are slow. Always have been, always will be. Install
> one for a change.
I completely missed that one... Wow... He's comparing a LiveCD, some of
which use compression algorithms, to a HDD installed WinXP? Is he really
that stupid, or just twisting the facts?
I've never used Slack, but from what I understand it's a pretty peppy
distro.
Ruel Smith
with this to say:
> I strongly agree with AZ Nomad on this one. I had to forcibly argue with
> my mother as she insisted on buying a new PC. Her machine was infested
> with worms despite the defences that my sister had set up. It was hopless,
> so Windows had to be installed from scratch. Guess what? It was fast and
> satisfactory therafter... until a few software installations (Registery
> bloats) and inevitable infections.
Honestly, I love Linux, but with Norton Internet Security updated and
running, and free versions of SpyBot, SpywareBlaster, and Microsoft
Anti-spyware, as well as a retail version of AdAware running (all kept
up-to-date) I've haven't been infected with a worm/trojan/virus in years
and adware/spyware/malware is kept in check. However, that's a lot of work
running sweeps of my hard drive for all the various apps, and some require
manual updating of the definitions files. With Linux, ClamAV updates itself
(looks for Windows viruses only, since there aren't any Linux viruses), and
SpamAssassin and BogoFilter pretty much maintain themselves, too.
Adware/spyware/malware isn't even a concern, and an occasional purge of my
browser cache and cookies takes care of any concerns there.
> The computer (as in "hardware") industry must be cashing in on neglected,
> thrown out machines, which infected day by day and burn up resources. This
> also enables Microsoft to force upgrades and sell more licences for a
> reportedly larger number of workstations (something that Apple, for
> instance, are unable to do at quite the same level).
Those same people should steer clear of Linux. Hell, they should just stay
away from computers altogether...
AZ Nomad
>Roy Schestowitz once pondered into the vast depths of his mind and came up
>with this to say:
>> I strongly agree with AZ Nomad on this one. I had to forcibly argue with
>> my mother as she insisted on buying a new PC. Her machine was infested
>> with worms despite the defences that my sister had set up. It was hopless,
>> so Windows had to be installed from scratch. Guess what? It was fast and
>> satisfactory therafter... until a few software installations (Registery
>> bloats) and inevitable infections.
>Honestly, I love Linux, but with Norton Internet Security updated and
>running, and free versions of SpyBot, SpywareBlaster, and Microsoft
>Anti-spyware, as well as a retail version of AdAware running (all kept
With all that crap, you'd better have a gig and a half of ram.
NIS alone requires 512M. Put it on a system with any less and you
better have a lot of time to sit around watching the system thrash.
Ruel Smith
this to say:
>>Honestly, I love Linux, but with Norton Internet Security updated and
>>running, and free versions of SpyBot, SpywareBlaster, and Microsoft
>>Anti-spyware, as well as a retail version of AdAware running (all kept
>
> With all that crap, you'd better have a gig and a half of ram.
>
> NIS alone requires 512M. Put it on a system with any less and you
> better have a lot of time to sit around watching the system thrash.
Huh? From www.symantec.com:
Norton Internet Security 2006
System Requirements
Norton Internet Security 2006
Windows® XP Home/Professional Edition
300MHz or higher processor
256 MB of RAM
325 MB of hard disk space
Where did you come up with that? I have 1GB of memory, currently. It doesn't
use any virtual memory, and shows 600MB available with no apps open except
the Task Manager.
--
This post has been brought to you by PCLinuxOS and Knode, part of the KDE
family of products.
Registered Linux User #378193
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> I see you're another Linux "advocate" with more mouth than brains.
>> Show me a SINGLE Windows app anywhere in the world, produced by MS
>> or anyone else, that labels data loss a feature. I'll be waiting.
>
> http://www.hyperdynesoftware.com/hard-drive-cleaner.html
>
> Snitch is a hard drive cleaner tool created to help you locate and
> clean up pornographic images and movies, illegal MP3 files,
> Internet history caches, cookies and other files from your hard
> drive. Snitch searches all files on the hard drive, identifying
> them and scanning them for undesirable content. Any files found
> can then be inspected and deleted. The ultimate Hard Drive Cleaner!
You're hilarious... ;)
>> OK. But I keep hearing from cola nuts how perfect and crash-proof
>> Linux is. So why are boot and recovery disks needed?
>
> To fix b0rken Windows systems! <grin.
yeah yeah yeah
Michael B. Trausch
2006 15:57:
>>
>> D, my guess is that maybe 10% of the people who don't use Linux or Mac
>> have even tried either of them.
>
> Maybe so. But supposedly Firefox has gained ~10% market share in a couple
> years, meaning a LOT of people (minimum tens of millions of active
> computer users, but most likely the large majority of all users) are aware
> of what open source software and Linux is.
>
Firefox is a lot easier to get people to use. Firefox had a huge ad
campaign to get them kicked off, IIRC, with people donating for the ad and
all of that, as well. In addition, when I go to somebody's place and work
on their computer, I generally offer them Firefox and OpenOffice, if
they're currently using IE and no or very old MS Office software. (I'm not
going to offer somebody that has Office 2003 OpenOffice, though I'll talk
about it and install it if they're interested in trying it out; but someone
that has Office '97 and asks me to upgrade them for free, well, that'a a
no-brainer: OpenOffice it is.)
I haven't really got any true "end users" to use Linux yet. Some people who
have heard of it before, I can get to try it, like it, and use it, but so
far, I haven't seen any distribution (save for the latest upcoming in the
Ubuntu line) that I would be willing to give to an end-user. When the
official releases come out, I have my girlfriends who will be my "end user
testbed" for the releases and if they have no problems with it, I will pass
it along to others as I work on their systems, and certainly give it to
people that buy new systems from me, since I don't mess around with
licensing Microsoft software.
- Mike
Tim Smith
"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
> I see you're another Linux "advocate" with more mouth than brains. Show me
> a SINGLE Windows app anywhere in the world, produced by MS or anyone else,
> that labels data loss a feature. I'll be waiting.
<http://www.killdisk.com/> :-)
--
--Tim Smith
DFS
That's a knee-slapper, Tim... hooo haaaa...
Tim Smith
TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
> I don't make boot disks. Does anyone else? I don't even have a floppy
> drive on any of my machines.
I made a GRUB boot floppy, and then used that to make a bootable GRUB
CD-ROM. That way, if I do anything that makes my system unbootable, but
that does not mess up my /boot directory, I can boot from the GRUB CD,
and then use it's command line interface to get my system booted.
Note that this CD just contains GRUB. It does not contain a kernel. If
I mess up something so bad that the kernel is no longer on my hard disk,
or my /boot directory is gone, then its time to boot a live CD and poke
around.
--
--Tim Smith
Robert Newson
What's the problem?
You asked for ``a SINGLE Windows app...that labels data loss a feature'' and
here Tim has given you one which has the feature of specifically losing the
data on a hard disk, making it irretrievable - exactly for which you asked
and you laugh. Obviously you must laugh at Windwos then?
The Ghost In The Machine
<Reap...@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku>
wrote
on Sat, 22 Apr 2006 01:00:01 GMT
<44498141...@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> ...
>> though since Microsoft is outside of the Queen's jurisdiction (although
>> Canada might invade! :-) ) there's the little problem of extradition.
>
> But not if Micro$oft has UK offices and is UK registered. They would more
> than likely be the responsible party for shipping the "malware".
Hm...good point.
>
>> It would appear the act is primarily directed against malware writers,
>> but, like the US RICO statutes, can be shaped to fit...
>
> And the DMCA...
Ah yes, the much-loved DMCA. (Well, OK, maybe by the media owners.)
>
> ...
> ...
>
>
>>>>>-Crashes. The modern Windows XP computer crashed on me for no reason.
>>>>>
>>>>Lie.
>>>>
>>>Proof?
>>
>> How does one prove a random crash in XP? :-) Especially since the BSOD
>> is no longer the default; instead, the system just reboots.
>
> I was actually asking DFS to prove that Roy was liing^Wlying^Wlieing^W
> telling fibs. (never was good at spelling...) ^_^ For DFS to know it was
> false, he/she/it* must have been present at every usage by Roy of XP, or
> have tested the machine and he/she/it* proved that it was and is working
> perfectly[1].
>
> * delete as appropriate
> [1] For a Windwos machine, what is "working perfectly"...
Erm...it doesn't BSOD every 2 hours?
>
> ...
>
>> Parts of them may be ... the non-critical parts. I'd frankly have
>> to look.
>
> Who defines critical...?
>
It's a tradeoff: functionality versus reliability.
Ideally, it wouldn't be, but rebooting a hung office
desktop isn't quite as traumatic as bouncing a database
server and waiting 30 minutes for the process to recover,
or bouncing a financial web server while sessions are
still active thereon trying to buy or sell stock.
Then again, with every reboot one loses a minute or so of work --
assuming one doesn't lose hours worth of work because the tools
aren't working around Windows' foibles by using autosave or something.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
JEDIDIAH
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2006-04-23, Linonut <lin...@bone.com> wrote:
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>>>> As a work/productivity/multimedia/gaming/educational platform, MS
>>>>>> Windows is beyond compare.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't be ridiculous, of course it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> The whole world disagrees with you.
>>>
>>> No. The whole world doesn't care. For them, MS == computing.
>>
>> No, PC's == Computing.
>>
>> They aren't even saavy enough to realize that you can get
>> alternative software for things like your OS, word processor or
>> web browser. They just use what Dell sells them.
>
> How do you know what they use? Why is it you cola oddballs think only you
> ragtag few are smart enough to compare operating systems?
Must be all those Chevys I see on the expressway...
>
> That's not the case, of course, but you and cola will use it - to the ends
> of the Earth - as an excuse for why more people refuse to use Linux.
>
>
>
>
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
JEDIDIAH
> __/ [ AZ Nomad ] on Sunday 23 April 2006 17:13 \__
>
>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 10:26:54 -0500, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>
>>>....just bought an external disk for the mother-in-law. Her machine
>>>has started to get sluggish and she thinks she needs to buy a new one. She
>>>probably just needs to do some housecleaning. But, I am not interested in
>>>going to that sort of trouble so I will not suggest this. I don't do
>>>Windows anymore.
>>
>>>Anyways, she will get a new and faster machine without really needing
>>>one simply because her old one is not maintainable.
>>
>> That is so incredibly common it's not funny.
>> Probably more than half of all pc sales are due to windows being
>> unmaintainable.
>>
>> Choice 1: bring it to the PC shop yet again, pay $150 for cleanup
>> Choice 2: buy a new PC for $400
>>
>> After the third time of choosing #1, #2 starts looking very attractive.
>>
>> Until the new PC needs to be reloaded.
The mother-in-law just got bit by this. The first thing she asked
me was whether or not she could move her old applications to the new machine.
Now aside from the likely security problems on the old machine and the risk
of contaminating the new one, I had to tell her that Windows isn't built
like that.
She was a bit disappointed.
[deletia]
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
Roy Schestowitz
> On 2006-04-24, Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> __/ [ AZ Nomad ] on Sunday 23 April 2006 17:13 \__
>>
>>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 10:26:54 -0500, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>
>>>>....just bought an external disk for the mother-in-law. Her machine
>>>>has started to get sluggish and she thinks she needs to buy a new one.
>>>>She probably just needs to do some housecleaning. But, I am not
>>>>interested in going to that sort of trouble so I will not suggest this. I
>>>>don't do Windows anymore.
>>>
>>>>Anyways, she will get a new and faster machine without really needing
>>>>one simply because her old one is not maintainable.
>>>
>>> That is so incredibly common it's not funny.
>>> Probably more than half of all pc sales are due to windows being
>>> unmaintainable.
>>>
>>> Choice 1: bring it to the PC shop yet again, pay $150 for cleanup
>>> Choice 2: buy a new PC for $400
>>>
>>> After the third time of choosing #1, #2 starts looking very attractive.
>>>
>>> Until the new PC needs to be reloaded.
>
> The mother-in-law just got bit by this. The first thing she asked
> me was whether or not she could move her old applications to the new
> machine. Now aside from the likely security problems on the old machine and
> the risk of contaminating the new one, I had to tell her that Windows isn't
> built like that.
>
> She was a bit disappointed.
>
> [deletia]
Settings are not files, sadly. Registry (ignore several embarrassing typos in
my last post), on the other hand, can probably be copied, yet not
partially. It's all far from trivial, espcially to amateur users. Then come
DLL files, which you can never move with confidence. Version differences
make this impossible. The last time I did this I was using Windows 95 or 98
and I can't recall if the transition between installation was a complete
success.
By the way, it was only yesterday that I needed to restore old settings for
XMMS. Some were plug-in-specific. All I had to do was to copy ~/.xmms over
from backup on one machine to another.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Biophysics
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:00pm up 2 days 1:57, 9 users, load average: 0.50, 0.62, 0.63
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
The Ghost In The Machine
<nospam@dfs_.com>
wrote
on Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:02:08 -0400
<6kt2g.11969$Kn4....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>:
> Linonut wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>>> Every once in a while, especially while on vacation in foreign
>>>> houses, I receive a reminder as to why Windows is an _utterly
>>>> terrible_ environment for work.
>>>
>>> Of course it's not. It's not like it's Ubuntu or Fedora.
>>
>> You really touched a nerve with DFS, Roy. You got him trying to
>> compare a universe of GNU/Linux software (roughly 3 DVD's worth) with
>> a half-full CD of Windows yawnware.
>
> ?
>
> As a work/productivity/multimedia/gaming/educational platform, MS
> Windows is beyond compare.
>
Oh, I quite agree.
It's the worst piece of junk I've ever seen. :-P
Let's review, shall we?
[1] C64. Instant-On, and it's READY[]. Blinking cursor and all.
One can even type in Basic. I've never owned one but a friend
of mine gave me one for a night -- I forget exactly why now.
[2] IBM PC w/o hard drive. Not too bad; it's also ready and one
can type in Basic programs. Dumb but workable.
[3] Amiga. Nice computer, when it didn't GURU in 1.0. (1.1 and 1.2
were acceptable. Later versions got pretty good, compared to
other techs back then.) Not quite instant on although
might have been close, without a hard drive. With a hard drive
it depends on how much junk was on it.
[4] Atari. What little I've seen suggests an Atari TOS which
looks a bit like the Amiga, and was fast-booting as well.
[4] DOS. It started out rather poor and ended up terrible. Its
main problem: it assumed that 640k was enough for everybody,
as opposed to Ami, which went 32-bit very early on (except for
a certain variant of Basic which apparently tried to pack 8
bits in an "unused" address area). DOOM actually commissioned
an underlayer so that it could run in a flat address space. Windows
didn't really take off until it could support enhanced or extended
memory. Was close to instant on, admittedly, once BIOS/POST was
finished.
[5] Windows. 3.1 required one to type in "WIN". Subtle? An
interesting notion; I'm not sure "LOSE" or "DRAW" would have
played quite as well. One could of course do the "Autoexec.bat"
thing, and presumably many did. The GUI was basic but worked
reasonably well, within DOS's many limitations.
[6] VMS. Hardly "instant-on" or even GUI but illustrative of
what a good computer system can do. Had many quirks, but
was also very reliable.
[7] Apollo DomainOS. This one's so old my memory's probably
quirky here but it started up quickly enough. It also had
a nice, if basic, GUI, which I've yet to see duplicated
anywhere else.
[8] Unix. Ditto, and has its quirks, but is also reliable.
Heavily layered with things such as X, sockets, and libraries.
[9] Windows 95. There's one good thing about W95; its stack
removed the necessity of playing "SHIT! WHAT ORDERING DO
THESE DEVICE DRIVERS NEED TO BE IN!!" while setting up a
TCP stack. That's about it, and the stack itself wasn't
that good. There's many bad things about W95, of course:
that horizontal "file selector" scrollbar is probably the
most obvious. Since it sat on top of DOS, although DOS
was slowly being strangled, it inherited most of DOS's
startup issues.
[10] Windows NT. Yeah, there's an effective Unix-killer.
It was about as effective as a pea-shooter trying to
knock out a top-floor window on the Empire State Building,
Chrysler building, Sears tower, or the World Trade Center.
(Obviously al Qaeda didn't consider that particular option.)
Many many bugs in 3.51; some of them were fixed in 4.0;
more were fixed in Win2k and Win2k actually is somewhat
usable. Startup was terrible; on $EMPLOYER's network for
instance if one didn't wait until the light was out one
risked logging in using cached information, which meant
something had timed out internally. That's how bad it was.
Fortunately, it's improved since then. Unfortunately,
I can't say it's improved much.
[11] Internet Explorer. This is an odd entry, I know, but
one of the problems with IE is that it tends to inveigle
itself in very weird spots -- like the main desktop. Therefore
it's part of the startup. (Windows also has Active Desktop.
Who here actually uses Active Desktop? Thought not.)
Also, Win98 is claimed to be Win95+IE4...which makes some sense,
as I installed IE4 twice (once was a beta). Replaced a fair number
of system DLLs.
[12] BeOS. Regrettably, I've never used it. I wonder how well
it started up.
[13] WinCE. This may actually be one of the better variants
of Windows -- mostly because it doesn't have a lot of crap.
But that doesn't make it the best, just better than some other
Windows variants.
[14] Linux. Linux can be good to fair; the really good systems
are probably not PC/x86 based and Linux is gaining traction on
many small hand-held devices. I've yet to see a good
mass-produced Linux-BIOS desktop, but apparently instant-on
isn't that much of an issue to the average workerbee.
Maybe it should be? Of course with Linux one can just leave
the thing on anyway; it doesn't need to be tucked in every
night with its teddy bear.
[15] Win Me. This is probably what Microsoft was trying to
do with this release. It probably lost a few more than it
won over. I'd consider it a maintenance release of sorts.
[16] Windows XP. The shining flagship of Windows, as it
ploughs effortlessly through the ... well, OK, the
ploughs part is meaningful enough. Startup is improved
over NT, but that's not saying too much. The few times
I've used it it seems to love to page -- on a 1 GB RAM
system. Granted, part of this is because it's a fresh startup;
were I to leave it on for any length of time it might work
better. Then again, it might also get infected. Small
wonder I boot Linux when I'm done with XP.
Granted, there's a fair number of issues here, and this is
all opinion.
Robert Newson
...
>>[1] For a Windwos machine, what is "working perfectly"...
>
> Erm...it doesn't BSOD every 2 hours?
Shouldn't that be: it /does/ BSOD every n hours? ^_^
--
Outgoing mail certified virus free...
It has gone nowhere near a Windwos machine before my ISP.
I am the "ILOVEGNU" signature virus. Just copy me to your
signature. This email was infected under the terms of the GNU
General Public Licence.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Reap...@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku>
wrote
<444E8134...@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> ...
>>>[1] For a Windwos machine, what is "working perfectly"...
>>
>> Erm...it doesn't BSOD every 2 hours?
>
> Shouldn't that be: it /does/ BSOD every n hours? ^_^
Heh...as opposed to every 1 hour, I guess. :-) Then again,
I don't keep my Windows side of this dualboot up that long.
(My other box which runs Win2k I just sort of let run, and
it seems to stay up for a week -- and then I have to take it
and my Linux boxes down because of a slightly goofed-up set
of batteries or something in my surge protectors. They chirp
like crickets and I get to take my whole desktop setup down
and reset them. Gaah. But they did do the job the other day;
my stuff stayed up during a power glitch. So it's a wash.)
Mark Kent
Linonut <lin...@bone.com> espoused:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> beyond compare.
>
>
> I use it, nearly every day.
>
> It has its strengths. It has its weaknesses.
>
> It's come a long way in 10 years, but Linux is right there, too.
>
It's a bit like the 3 pigs story. It took quite a long time to get the
foundations ready for Linux, but they were done some time ago. It took
quite a long time to get the structures complete, but there are now.
It's taking some time to do a /really/ good job of the interior design
and decoration, but it's almost finished now.
Unlike some systems, it doesn't fall down every time there's a light
wind.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Courage is your greatest present need.
Roy Schestowitz
> Every once in a while, especially while on vacation in foreign houses, I
> receive a reminder as to why Windows is an _utterly terrible_ environment
> for work. Among the many perils that I had: O/S comes incomplete and
> remains incomplete in most households, e.g. no graphical toolkit other than
> paint.exe, no Web browser with something as fundamental as the notion of
> the tab. Then come deficiencies such as:
>
> -Only a single (virtual) desktop
>
> -No clipboard stack. Copy something and say farewell to whatever else you
> help. Forget about being about to copy 3 things and then spew them out.
>
> -Speed is terrible. It makes you re-evaluate the need for so-called
> bleeding-edge hardware, which Linux rarely needs.
>
> -Crashes. The modern Windows XP computer crashed on me for no reason. It
> took no less than 5 minutes to restore and attain the same position. By
> that point, the trail of thought was cut. Where is productivity? Where has
> user confidence gone?
>
> Anyone who chooses to use Windows for day-to-day use has my commiserations.
> It is sad to think that many people out there are handling businesses in
> such a poor environment. I have not even touched the issue of security,
> among others. This is just q quick mental note that I had to unburden
> myself of.
Some time ago, in the context of this particular thread, I mentioned one of
my cousins losing Windows, which according to him, "crashed in a major way".
I have just received an E-mail from my other cousin (the second among the two
households where I stayed):
,----[ Quote ]
| my computer died...something about an imminent failure ...i'm goingto
| loose all my files...any suggestions?
`----
That's the very modern HP laptop which I was using over there. It runs
Windows XP. So both households had to cope with a major crash/wipe in a
matter of just weeks and less than a fortnight apart. How's that as a Wakeup
Call? I have not lost any files, not have I re-installed the O/S on my
current machine since it had been set up in 2003.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Anonymous posters are more frequently disregarded
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:20pm up 5 days 1:17, 11 users, load average: 0.68, 0.81, 0.71
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
M
Are they doing anything obvious that would be a real windows killer, like
for example constantly installing and removing software?
The only reason I ask is that (touch wood) I seem to be able to keep my
windows box going, when all around me seem to be having problems of one
sort or another.
Are you going to get them to install linux or are they not very keen on that
idea?
--
Regards,
M
Roy Schestowitz
I suspect not. Very mediocre user is the latter (Debbie) while the former
(Scott) is very 'app-savvy'.
> The only reason I ask is that (touch wood) I seem to be able to keep my
> windows box going, when all around me seem to be having problems of one
> sort or another.
I feel for your experience. While at highschool, my best friend kept
reinstalling Windows. This happened _so_ many times per year. It was
unbelievable. The guy was as competent as me when it came to computers.
I had Windows 95 running for years without any obvious quirks. I rarely had
to reinstall 3.11 or 95, if ever. Out of the box is was and out of the box
it remainder. And that, mind you, is when Windows was the best O/S in town.
Mac OS ~7 was merely nowhere and it was only beginning to lag behind.
Meanwhile, Linux was more of a territory for the adventurous; not for a guy
in his mid-teens. I barely even heard about it and I had just one friend who
used it. He now works for SAP, by the way... *cough cough*
http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-6067340.html?part=rss&tag=6067340&subj=news
SAP and Microsoft tune up for Duet
Published: May 2, 2006, 6:28 AM PDT
> Are you going to get them to install linux or are they not very keen on
> that idea?
I *un*intentionally left behind some Ubuntu CD's. I have a stack of these
home. A couple of CD's are in her house, _somewhere_. I suggested that she
finds it and then lets it boot. I can probably SSH to that machine and SCP
all files from her Windows partitions onto my external hard-drive. Then, she
can probably reboot and restore data from my side. I say "probably" because
I'm not sure how fscked up her Windows filesystem actually is. Who knows
what Windows did to the FAT or the partition table (does Windows have this
notion at all?).
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Windows all-in-one: Word, IE (for E-mail) & iTunes
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
7:40pm up 5 days 2:37, 11 users, load average: 0.45, 0.60, 0.28
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
James Godbolt
>
> While at highschool, my best friend kept
> reinstalling Windows. This happened _so_ many times per year. It was
> computers.
I'm sure he was.
>
> Windows filesystem actually is. Who knows what Windows did to the FAT
> or the partition table (does Windows have this notion at all?).
FAT <------------ file system of choice for idiots like our Roi.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Some time ago, in the context of this particular thread, I mentioned one of
> my cousins losing Windows, which according to him, "crashed in a major way".
>
> I have just received an E-mail from my other cousin (the second among the two
> households where I stayed):
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| my computer died...something about an imminent failure ...i'm goingto
>| loose all my files...any suggestions?
> `----
That sounds like a hardware problem. Most likely she started getting popup
notifications about disk write failures. This happens a lot with faulty
cables, or when bad sectors develop on a drive (especially common in
laptops that get a lot of abuse).
> That's the very modern HP laptop which I was using over there. It runs
> Windows XP. So both households had to cope with a major crash/wipe in a
> matter of just weeks and less than a fortnight apart. How's that as a Wakeup
> Call? I have not lost any files, not have I re-installed the O/S on my
> current machine since it had been set up in 2003.
So you're going to blame hardware failur on Windows. Typical. Say
anything, even if it's not true, to support your pet OS.
M
Ahhh but was he a fiddler, the competent one usually are :-) I suppose I
have something of a tendency not to stray too far from default setups.
> I had Windows 95 running for years without any obvious quirks. I rarely
> had to reinstall 3.11 or 95, if ever. Out of the box is was and out of the
> box it remainder. And that, mind you, is when Windows was the best O/S in
> town. Mac OS ~7 was merely nowhere and it was only beginning to lag
> behind. Meanwhile, Linux was more of a territory for the adventurous; not
> for a guy in his mid-teens. I barely even heard about it and I had just
> one friend who used it. He now works for SAP, by the way... *cough cough*
>
A guy came over from the States about 10 years ago and installed linux. Seem
to me that you really had to know what you where doing, wasn't for the
faint hearted. I guess he must have followed the procedure the book
"Running Linux" talks about. Certainly took him considerable longer than 30
minutes to get it all set up. I am pleased to say Linux has come on a long
way from those days, and still seems to be motoring along.
>
http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-6067340.html?part=rss&tag=6067340&subj=news
>
> SAP and Microsoft tune up for Duet
>
> Published: May 2, 2006, 6:28 AM PDT
>
>
Well I did apply the same principals to a Windows 95 box that I generally
apply to my Win XP box to keep it in good shape. However it didn't stop it
collapsing in a big heap one day, and refusing to reboot. So I nuked it and
installed NT version 4 over the top.
>> Are you going to get them to install linux or are they not very keen on
>> that idea?
>
>
> I *un*intentionally left behind some Ubuntu CD's. I have a stack of these
> home. A couple of CD's are in her house, _somewhere_. I suggested that she
> finds it and then lets it boot. I can probably SSH to that machine and SCP
> all files from her Windows partitions onto my external hard-drive. Then,
> she can probably reboot and restore data from my side. I say "probably"
> because I'm not sure how fscked up her Windows filesystem actually is. Who
> knows what Windows did to the FAT or the partition table (does Windows
> have this notion at all?).
>
Personally I would have *un*intentionally left behind some Kubuntu CD's
myself. I could be wrong, but I would have thought coming from a windows
background, they would have been more at home with KDE.
One thing is for sure they are very fortunate to have a linux expert on hand
to help them out. Some of us have to find things the hard way :-).
Will be interesting to see if you convert them, and if you do, how they get
on with it.
DFS
> I had Windows 95 running for years without any obvious quirks. I
> rarely had to reinstall 3.11 or 95, if ever.
Well fsck me gently with a spoon: an "advocate" tells the truth.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
you proceed from claiming that it "sounds like a hardware problem"
straight to chastising Roy for blaming MS-Windows "for a hardware
problem"
Why don't we wait and see if it actually *is* a hardware problem before
we give MS-Windows a bye on this m'kay?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEWBCLd90bcYOAWPYRAn7IAJ9Md5GeGP596vISM7kajwtJZtePeQCg6PPM
g16CuO8r2PR80ZbqGeJu46Q=
=o15L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I never believe anything until it's been officially denied.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> So you're going to blame hardware failur on Windows. Typical. Say
>> anything, even if it's not true, to support your pet OS.
>
> you proceed from claiming that it "sounds like a hardware problem"
> straight to chastising Roy for blaming MS-Windows "for a hardware
> problem"
>
> Why don't we wait and see if it actually *is* a hardware problem before
> we give MS-Windows a bye on this m'kay?
As opposed to instantly blaming it?
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Since you are at least one person more removed from the incident in
question than Roy, I'll listen to him, more than you.
Is it a hardware problem? unknown, could it be? yes, could it be
MS-Windows borking ? yes.
I just note with amusement, your immediate leap into MS-Protect mode.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEWQCqd90bcYOAWPYRAhyKAJ0cPKnllzrALWs1qldw7KKoKP015ACghdML
RIk4zVXwPWlaNkAbKqMD5Q0=
=9f/Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"I think you should defend to the death their right to march,
and then go down and meet them with baseball bats."
-- Woody Allen, on the KKK
Handover Phist
>
> On Tue, 2 May 2006 23:36:56 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 May 2006 19:08:11 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>>>> So you're going to blame hardware failur on Windows. Typical. Say
>>>> anything, even if it's not true, to support your pet OS.
>>>
>>> you proceed from claiming that it "sounds like a hardware problem"
>>> straight to chastising Roy for blaming MS-Windows "for a hardware
>>> problem"
>>>
>>> Why don't we wait and see if it actually *is* a hardware problem before
>>> we give MS-Windows a bye on this m'kay?
>>
>> As opposed to instantly blaming it?
>
>
> Since you are at least one person more removed from the incident in
> question than Roy, I'll listen to him, more than you.
>
> Is it a hardware problem? unknown, could it be? yes, could it be
> MS-Windows borking ? yes.
>
>
> I just note with amusement, your immediate leap into MS-Protect mode.
I hate my position at the moment, but as described it sounds like a
SMART drive complaint, which would be hardware. I've seen Windows break
a million times, but this doesn't sound like a Windows breakage or
filesystem gone south. Sounds like hardware.
--
No one wants war.
-- Kirk, "Errand of Mercy", stardate 3201.7
Sinister Midget
>> As opposed to instantly blaming it?
> Is it a hardware problem? unknown, could it be? yes, could it be
> MS-Windows borking ? yes.
>
>
> I just note with amusement, your immediate leap into MS-Protect mode.
>
Erik not only dances, but he has a note he hums along at the same time:
TIPPETY-TIPPETY-TAP TAP-TIPPETY-TAP
HMMMMMM-HMMMMMM-HMM HMM-HMMMMMM-HMM*
One note, one step. That's the whole show. You can recite the entire
routine in your sleep once you've seen it a couple of times.
* Translation: MICROSOFT-IS-PERFECT DON'T-BLAME-WINDOWS
--
Earth first! We'll take care of the other planets later.