[News] Dreamweaver on Linux and New Linux Dreamweaver Alternative
Roy Schestowitz
http://blog.publicidadpixelada.com/how-to-dreamweaver-8-in-ubuntu-in-10-easy-steps/
Aptana is a robust, JavaScript-focused IDE for building dynamic web
applications.
There's also NVU:
yttrx
Nice, youve posted a link to instructions on how to get windows application to
run under wine. That's so helpful.
Also, in the instructions it is suggested that the user pirate Dreamweaver.
Yeah, youre helping.
-----yttrx
Roy Schestowitz
I mentioned two programs that run natively in Linux as well.
One of them is new, which is the reason it has significance.
There are already tools for Web page creation, courtesy of
Google and others. It all translated to O/$-independence.
Best wishes,
Roy
![[H]omer's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWMQWyYwHeIwxhG3nGUeGWmLQD0R8TeZrvdWDiv5-2S_z3rHg=s40-c)
[H]omer
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> HOW-TO: Dreamweaver running on Ubuntu in 10 EASY Steps!
>>
>>
http://blog.publicidadpixelada.com/how-to-dreamweaver-8-in-ubuntu-in-10-easy-steps/
> Nice, youve posted a link to instructions on how to get windows
> application to run under wine. That's so helpful.
>
>
> Also, in the instructions it is suggested that the user pirate
> Dreamweaver.
>
> Yeah, youre helping.
And *you're* helping to reaffirm that the WinTrolls in this NG are all
dead from the neck up.
Nowhere in that article does it suggest that anyone should *steal* the
software; the words used are "dreamweaver.exe MUST be cracked or
patched", that is *not* the same as using a pirate copy.
I remember often using "cracks" on legitimate software; e.g. to enable
playing games without repeatedly swapping in and out the install disks
(a process that has now been refined using the so-called "mini-ISO"
method).
Presumably Dreamweaver uses some DRM software that cannot be emulated
under Linux, and so running DW under Wine will fail the DRM check,
unless that DRM is bypassed. Bypassing some draconian DRM measure is
*not* the same as "piracy".
--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged
This message has not been photoshopped in any way.
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5
15:05:25 up 40 days, 15:22, 3 users, load average: 0.61, 0.38, 0.45
Jamie Hart
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> HOW-TO: Dreamweaver running on Ubuntu in 10 EASY Steps!
>>
>> http://blog.publicidadpixelada.com/how-to-dreamweaver-8-in-ubuntu-in-10-easy-steps/
>>
>> Aptana is a robust, JavaScript-focused IDE for building dynamic web
>> applications.
>>
>> http://www.aptana.com/
>>
>> There's also NVU:
>>
>> http://www.nvu.com/index.php
>
> Nice, youve posted a link to instructions on how to get windows application to
> run under wine. That's so helpful.
>
> Also, in the instructions it is suggested that the user pirate Dreamweaver.
>
Hmm, that falls into a rather grey area. I've not recently read the
Dreamweaver EULA, is there anything in it that prevents you running your
copy under wine?
True, they do say that you will need to patch your copy to remove the
windows centric protection, but that doesn't necessarily make your copy
illegal.
> Yeah, youre helping.
>
More than you at this point.
Let's have less moaning and more discussion, please.
yttrx
> yttrx wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>> HOW-TO: Dreamweaver running on Ubuntu in 10 EASY Steps!
>>>
>>> http://blog.publicidadpixelada.com/how-to-dreamweaver-8-in-ubuntu-in-10-easy-steps/
>>>
>>> Aptana is a robust, JavaScript-focused IDE for building dynamic web
>>> applications.
>>>
>>> http://www.aptana.com/
>>>
>>> There's also NVU:
>>>
>>> http://www.nvu.com/index.php
>>
>> Nice, youve posted a link to instructions on how to get windows application to
>> run under wine. That's so helpful.
>>
> Sure is, for those who don't already know.
>
>> Also, in the instructions it is suggested that the user pirate Dreamweaver.
>>
> Hmm, that falls into a rather grey area. I've not recently read the
> Dreamweaver EULA, is there anything in it that prevents you running your
> copy under wine?
>
Did you actually follow the link and read the text? Here, let me do it for
you:
"/*IMPORTANT: The dreamweaver.exe MUST be cracked or patched, otherwise it
will not load under linux, try searching in Google for a crack*/"
See?
> True, they do say that you will need to patch your copy to remove the
> windows centric protection, but that doesn't necessarily make your copy
> illegal.
>
What else would you call a "crack"?
>> Yeah, youre helping.
>>
> More than you at this point.
>
> Let's have less moaning and more discussion, please.
>
>
Alright mister 31337 "ath.cx"-i-know-how-to-click-around-dyndns.org, lets
hear it? What's your experience exactly?
-----yttrx
yttrx
> yttrx wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>>> HOW-TO: Dreamweaver running on Ubuntu in 10 EASY Steps!
>>>
>>>
> http://blog.publicidadpixelada.com/how-to-dreamweaver-8-in-ubuntu-in-10-easy-steps/
>
>> Nice, youve posted a link to instructions on how to get windows
>> application to run under wine. That's so helpful.
>>
>>
>> Also, in the instructions it is suggested that the user pirate
>> Dreamweaver.
>>
>> Yeah, youre helping.
>
> And *you're* helping to reaffirm that the WinTrolls in this NG are all
> dead from the neck up.
>
Ummm...
You do realize that I've been running unix and unix clones on every last
one of my desktop machines since a/ux in about 1999, right? How exactly
am I a wintroll?
> Nowhere in that article does it suggest that anyone should *steal* the
> software; the words used are "dreamweaver.exe MUST be cracked or
> patched", that is *not* the same as using a pirate copy.
>
You're a pirate apologist, and you're clearly advocating the pirating
of windows software, I suspect, because you have no regard or respect
for the people who write it.
> I remember often using "cracks" on legitimate software; e.g. to enable
> playing games without repeatedly swapping in and out the install disks
> (a process that has now been refined using the so-called "mini-ISO"
> method).
>
Yes, but thats not necessary with dreaweaver.
> Presumably Dreamweaver uses some DRM software that cannot be emulated
> under Linux, and so running DW under Wine will fail the DRM check,
> unless that DRM is bypassed. Bypassing some draconian DRM measure is
> *not* the same as "piracy".
Wrong. You can either apply a legitimate license key--or you can apply
a cracked license key. Have you ever actually used dreamweaver?
-----yttrx
yttrx
> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>> yttrx wrote:
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> HOW-TO: Dreamweaver running on Ubuntu in 10 EASY Steps!
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://blog.publicidadpixelada.com/how-to-dreamweaver-8-in-ubuntu-in-10-easy-steps/
>>
>>> Nice, youve posted a link to instructions on how to get windows
>>> application to run under wine. That's so helpful.
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, in the instructions it is suggested that the user pirate
>>> Dreamweaver.
>>>
>>> Yeah, youre helping.
>>
>> And *you're* helping to reaffirm that the WinTrolls in this NG are all
>> dead from the neck up.
>>
>
> Ummm...
>
> You do realize that I've been running unix and unix clones on every last
> one of my desktop machines since a/ux in about 1999, right? How exactly
> am I a wintroll?
>
Whoops, I of course meant 1989.
I wish I had a copy of a/ux actually.
-----yttrx
Jamie Hart
> Jamie Hart <use...@jhart.ath.cx> wrote:
>> yttrx wrote:
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>>> HOW-TO: Dreamweaver running on Ubuntu in 10 EASY Steps!
>>>>
>>>> http://blog.publicidadpixelada.com/how-to-dreamweaver-8-in-ubuntu-in-10-easy-steps/
>>>>
>>>> Aptana is a robust, JavaScript-focused IDE for building dynamic web
>>>> applications.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.aptana.com/
>>>>
>>>> There's also NVU:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nvu.com/index.php
>>> Nice, youve posted a link to instructions on how to get windows application to
>>> run under wine. That's so helpful.
>>>
>> Sure is, for those who don't already know.
>>
>>> Also, in the instructions it is suggested that the user pirate Dreamweaver.
>>>
>> Hmm, that falls into a rather grey area. I've not recently read the
>> Dreamweaver EULA, is there anything in it that prevents you running your
>> copy under wine?
>>
>
> Did you actually follow the link and read the text? Here, let me do it for
> you:
>
> "/*IMPORTANT: The dreamweaver.exe MUST be cracked or patched, otherwise it
> will not load under linux, try searching in Google for a crack*/"
>
> See?
Sure, saw it the first time too. Your point?
A crack or patch is not the same as piracy.
>
>> True, they do say that you will need to patch your copy to remove the
>> windows centric protection, but that doesn't necessarily make your copy
>> illegal.
>>
>
> What else would you call a "crack"?
>
A method of changing the functionality of a binary encoded executable.
Again, what's your fucking point?
>>> Yeah, youre helping.
>>>
>> More than you at this point.
>>
>> Let's have less moaning and more discussion, please.
>>
>>
>
> Alright mister 31337 "ath.cx"-i-know-how-to-click-around-dyndns.org, lets
> hear it? What's your experience exactly?
>
Ah, I see. Just a troll, I should have known.
This is the part where you get to say you've won.
Plonk.
yttrx
>
> A crack or patch is not the same as piracy.
>
A crack is not the same thing as a patch. Had you any experience
in the matter at all, you would understand that.
>> What else would you call a "crack"?
>>
> A method of changing the functionality of a binary encoded executable.
>
Wrong, again. A crack is a method of circumventing copy protection
on software, period, case closed, end of story. There's no argument
here---you're simply wrong.
> Again, what's your fucking point?
>
That you're pretending you know things that you don't, and that
posts like this one must make that embarrassing for you.
>
> This is the part where you get to say you've won.
>
> Plonk.
9 out of 10 plonks are lies, so I'm pretty sure you're seeing
this.
Though, 10 out of 10 publically announced plonks are n3wb-lame,
man.
-----yttrx
[H]omer
> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>> yttrx wrote:
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>>> HOW-TO: Dreamweaver running on Ubuntu in 10 EASY Steps!
>>>>
>>>>
http://blog.publicidadpixelada.com/how-to-dreamweaver-8-in-ubuntu-in-10-easy-steps/
>>> Nice, youve posted a link to instructions on how to get windows
>>> application to run under wine. That's so helpful.
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, in the instructions it is suggested that the user pirate
>>> Dreamweaver.
>>>
>>> Yeah, youre helping.
>> And *you're* helping to reaffirm that the WinTrolls in this NG are
>> all dead from the neck up.
> Ummm...
>> Nowhere in that article does it suggest that anyone should *steal*
>> the software; the words used are "dreamweaver.exe MUST be cracked
>> or patched", that is *not* the same as using a pirate copy.
> You're a pirate apologist, and you're clearly advocating the
> pirating of windows software, I suspect, because you have no regard
> or respect for the people who write it.
I suspect that you're an idiot. Explain exactly how I am advocating
piracy by drawing a distinction between hacking and theft.
>> I remember often using "cracks" on legitimate software; e.g. to
>> enable playing games without repeatedly swapping in and out the
>> install disks (a process that has now been refined using the
>> so-called "mini-ISO" method).
> Yes, but thats not necessary with dreaweaver.
Well the author of that article seems to think otherwise.
>> Presumably Dreamweaver uses some DRM software that cannot be
>> emulated under Linux, and so running DW under Wine will fail the
>> DRM check, unless that DRM is bypassed. Bypassing some draconian
>> DRM measure is *not* the same as "piracy".
> Wrong. You can either apply a legitimate license key--or you can
> apply a cracked license key. Have you ever actually used
> dreamweaver?
Have *you* ever actually used Dreamweaver under Wine, without using
the cracked binary? I'm sure the author would welcome your /extensive/
experience.
--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged
This message has not been photoshopped in any way.
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5
16:19:30 up 40 days, 16:36, 3 users, load average: 0.07, 0.22, 0.32
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:06:09 GMT,
yttrx <yt...@yttrx.net> wrote:
> Jamie Hart <use...@jhart.ath.cx> wrote:
>
>>
>> A crack or patch is not the same as piracy.
>>
>
> A crack is not the same thing as a patch. Had you any experience
> in the matter at all, you would understand that.
>
>>> What else would you call a "crack"?
>>>
>> A method of changing the functionality of a binary encoded executable.
>>
>
> Wrong, again. A crack is a method of circumventing copy protection
> on software, period, case closed, end of story. There's no argument
> here---you're simply wrong.
>
you are (deliberately?) missing the point. Piracy, is not merely the
cracking of a program that is piracy, you must make an illegal copy,
and distribute (or receive) it. Cracking your own binary, is not piracy.
Cracking the binary may be neccessary for example, to run some
applications on a system without a CDRom drive, or on an architecture
that the binary wasn't originally compiled for.
>> Again, what's your fucking point?
>>
>
> That you're pretending you know things that you don't, and that
> posts like this one must make that embarrassing for you.
I wonder if your poor attitude follows you "in real life" ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEyi/vd90bcYOAWPYRAhGGAKCsRS6+Eo+F8wraNiX9pA9lynN4LQCg38QM
Jw6eizaoCZLXZZuotwknqt0=
=UVEG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"The way NT mounts filesystems is something I'd expect to find
in a barnyard or on a stock-breeding farm."
--Mike Andrews in the Monastery
yttrx
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:06:09 GMT,
> yttrx <yt...@yttrx.net> wrote:
>> Jamie Hart <use...@jhart.ath.cx> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> A crack or patch is not the same as piracy.
>>>
>>
>> A crack is not the same thing as a patch. Had you any experience
>> in the matter at all, you would understand that.
>>
>>>> What else would you call a "crack"?
>>>>
>>> A method of changing the functionality of a binary encoded executable.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong, again. A crack is a method of circumventing copy protection
>> on software, period, case closed, end of story. There's no argument
>> here---you're simply wrong.
>>
>
>
> you are (deliberately?) missing the point. Piracy, is not merely the
> cracking of a program that is piracy, you must make an illegal copy,
> and distribute (or receive) it. Cracking your own binary, is not piracy.
> Cracking the binary may be neccessary for example, to run some
> applications on a system without a CDRom drive, or on an architecture
> that the binary wasn't originally compiled for.
>
Youre splitting hairs, and you know full well what the author of
the quoted text meant. He meant "get it any way you can".
Its precisely your sort of attitude that makes linux advocates at
large look like a bunch of bratty little children who refuse to
read a book.
>>> Again, what's your fucking point?
>>>
>>
>> That you're pretending you know things that you don't, and that
>> posts like this one must make that embarrassing for you.
>
> I wonder if your poor attitude follows you "in real life" ?
>
Goddamn right it does. I do not suffer idiots in any venue, on
any level, period.
-----yttrx
yttrx
>
>> You're a pirate apologist, and you're clearly advocating the
>> pirating of windows software, I suspect, because you have no regard
>> or respect for the people who write it.
>
> I suspect that you're an idiot. Explain exactly how I am advocating
> piracy by drawing a distinction between hacking and theft.
>
You're attempting to rationalize piracy--you're not talking about
hacking here. Installing a cracked serial number is not hacking.
Sorry charlie, yaint as smert as ya think yar, are ya.
You're rationalizing piracy instead of just having the nuts to come
right out and say YEAH, IM A PIRATE, YARR.
No nuts. That's you.
>>> I remember often using "cracks" on legitimate software; e.g. to
>>> enable playing games without repeatedly swapping in and out the
>>> install disks (a process that has now been refined using the
>>> so-called "mini-ISO" method).
>
>> Yes, but thats not necessary with dreaweaver.
>
> Well the author of that article seems to think otherwise.
>
No, he doesn't. In fact he never mentioned the details that
you did, and now youre just making shit up.
>> Wrong. You can either apply a legitimate license key--or you can
>> apply a cracked license key. Have you ever actually used
>> dreamweaver?
>
> Have *you* ever actually used Dreamweaver under Wine, without using
> the cracked binary? I'm sure the author would welcome your /extensive/
> experience.
>
The author SAYS YOU DONT HAVE TO USE THE CRACKED BINARY, ASSHOLE...
HE SUGGESTS CRACKING IT IF YOU *HAVE* TO, NOT BECAUSE YOU *NEED*
TO.
Get it yet?
And yes, I've used dreamweaver under wine WITHOUT USING A CRACKED
binary, and to be brutally frank, it sucks ass.
-----yttrx
Roy Schestowitz
*Plonk*
yttrx
>
> *Plonk*
>
Do any of these people actually know what 'plonk'
means?
-----yttrx
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:22:52 GMT,
yttrx <yt...@yttrx.net> wrote:
> Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:06:09 GMT,
>> yttrx <yt...@yttrx.net> wrote:
>>> Jamie Hart <use...@jhart.ath.cx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A crack or patch is not the same as piracy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A crack is not the same thing as a patch. Had you any experience
>>> in the matter at all, you would understand that.
>>>
>>>>> What else would you call a "crack"?
>>>>>
>>>> A method of changing the functionality of a binary encoded executable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong, again. A crack is a method of circumventing copy protection
>>> on software, period, case closed, end of story. There's no argument
>>> here---you're simply wrong.
>>>
>>
>>
>> you are (deliberately?) missing the point. Piracy, is not merely the
>> cracking of a program that is piracy, you must make an illegal copy,
>> and distribute (or receive) it. Cracking your own binary, is not piracy.
>> Cracking the binary may be neccessary for example, to run some
>> applications on a system without a CDRom drive, or on an architecture
>> that the binary wasn't originally compiled for.
>>
>
> Youre splitting hairs, and you know full well what the author of
> the quoted text meant. He meant "get it any way you can".
>
no, he meant that you'd have to alter the binary to get it to run
under wine.
> Its precisely your sort of attitude that makes linux advocates at
> large look like a bunch of bratty little children who refuse to
> read a book.
I am getting a chuckle from you referring to someone else as "bratty"
>
>>>> Again, what's your fucking point?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That you're pretending you know things that you don't, and that
>>> posts like this one must make that embarrassing for you.
>>
>> I wonder if your poor attitude follows you "in real life" ?
>>
>
> Goddamn right it does. I do not suffer idiots in any venue, on
> any level, period.
>
get punched in the mouth much?
I don't suffer fools gladly, but I do enjoy watching them make fools of
themselves, thanks for the entertainment.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEymaFd90bcYOAWPYRAr45AJ9I6z5S4apmUFCr4y+404i9bmpklwCcCz/k
ZF7l9yz7CJDJUhN8TteQBUE=
=dxL6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux: The OS people choose without $200,000,000 of persuasion
[H]omer
> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>>> You're a pirate apologist, and you're clearly advocating the
>>> pirating of windows software, I suspect, because you have no regard
>>> or respect for the people who write it.
>> I suspect that you're an idiot. Explain exactly how I am advocating
>> piracy by drawing a distinction between hacking and theft.
> You're attempting to rationalize piracy--you're not talking about
> hacking here. Installing a cracked serial number is not hacking.
At what point did either I or the author write about a "cracked serial
number"? The phrase used was:
"/*IMPORTANT: The dreamweaver.exe MUST be cracked or patched, otherwise
it will not load under linux, try searching in Google for a crack*/
There's nothing on that page about serial numbers at all; you're
inventing something which doesn't exist.
"Cracked or patched" software does not mean pirated or stolen, it means
modified, usually without the benefit of the source. The purpose of
cracking the software *might* also be theft, but in this case the
author has made it clear that it is in order to allow the software to
*function* under Wine, not to *steal* it.
> Sorry charlie, yaint as smert as ya think yar, are ya.
I'm obviously smarter than you, since you don't even understand basic
semantics.
> You're rationalizing piracy instead of just having the nuts to come
> right out and say YEAH, IM A PIRATE, YARR.
Explain to me how someone who only uses GPL FOSS can be a pirate?
> No nuts. That's you.
Whereas you have plenty ... all rolling around inside your otherwise
vacuous skull.
>>>> I remember often using "cracks" on legitimate software; e.g. to
>>>> enable playing games without repeatedly swapping in and out the
>>>> install disks (a process that has now been refined using the
>>>> so-called "mini-ISO" method).
>>> Yes, but thats not necessary with dreaweaver.
>> Well the author of that article seems to think otherwise.
> No, he doesn't. In fact he never mentioned the details that
> you did, and now youre just making shit up.
>>> Wrong. You can either apply a legitimate license key--or you can
>>> apply a cracked license key. Have you ever actually used
>>> dreamweaver?
>> Have *you* ever actually used Dreamweaver under Wine, without using
>> the cracked binary? I'm sure the author would welcome your /extensive/
>> experience.
> The author SAYS YOU DONT HAVE TO USE THE CRACKED BINARY
Looks like it's *you* who's "making shit up". Quote the passage in that
article where the author states that "YOU DONT HAVE TO USE THE CRACKED
BINARY". "IMPORTANT: The dreamweaver.exe MUST be cracked or patched"
looks crystal clear to me.
> ASSHOLE...
Yes you are.
> Get it yet?
Apparently you don't.
> And yes, I've used dreamweaver under wine WITHOUT USING A CRACKED
> binary, and to be brutally frank, it sucks ass.
Well it would, if it didn't work, wouldn't it?
At first I thought you were just a Flatfish nym, but frankly I wouldn't
insult Flatty by comparing him to cabbage as ludicrously thick as you
... and *that's* saying something.
Goodbye.
/PLONK/
--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged
This message has not been photoshopped in any way.
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5
21:05:41 up 40 days, 21:22, 3 users, load average: 0.01, 0.04, 0.11
yttrx
>>
>> Goddamn right it does. I do not suffer idiots in any venue, on
>> any level, period.
>>
>
> get punched in the mouth much?
>
Not ever, not once in my life. And I'm not expecting to either.
Why, are you offering?
> I don't suffer fools gladly, but I do enjoy watching them make fools of
> themselves, thanks for the entertainment.
>
Ouch...:(:(:(
-----yttrx
yttrx
> Goodbye.
>
> /PLONK/
>
Is COLA just crawling with little girls these days? What's
with all the publically announced PLONKs?
It's like you people just discovered usenet a week ago.
-----yttrx
GreyCloud
Too bad they weren't around here a decade ago. Then they'd know what a
real flamewar was all about. I've seen some go on for a few months.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
The Ghost In The Machine
<mi...@cumulus.com>
wrote
on Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:57:56 -0600
<P5WdnecGVPbiFVfZ...@bresnan.com>:
> yttrx wrote:
>
>> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Goodbye.
>>>
>>>/PLONK/
>>>
>>
>>
>> Is COLA just crawling with little girls these days? What's
>> with all the publically announced PLONKs?
>>
>> It's like you people just discovered usenet a week ago.
>>
>
> Too bad they weren't around here a decade ago. Then they'd know what a
> real flamewar was all about. I've seen some go on for a few months.
>
Longer than some software projects. :-/
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 02:33 PM, yt...@yttrx.net (yttrx) said:
>You're a pirate apologist, and you're clearly advocating the pirating
>of windows software, I suspect, because you have no regard or respect
> for the people who write it.
That's a strange conclusion. When I have no regard or respect for the
people who write a program, I don't want their crap on my machine at
all. If he is advocating piracy, that's a sign that he does have
regard and respect for the others, although not for their property
rights.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 03:06 PM, yt...@yttrx.net (yttrx) said:
>Wrong, again. A crack is a method of circumventing copy protection
>on software, period, case closed, end of story.
Hogwash. Copy protection is not the only access control that a crack
might circumvent. You might have a crack for code that circumvents
checking for CPU ids. You might have a crack that circumvents test for
a (boo! hiss!) dongle.
For that matter, there are other reasons for cracks besides piracy.
BTDT,GTS.
>9 out of 10 plonks are lies, so I'm pretty sure you're seeing this.
9 out of 10 statistics are lies.
William Poaster
<snip>
> *Plonk*
I was wondering how long it would take people to catch on to him...
--
WinErr 001
Windows loaded - System in danger
Remove Windows?
(F) - FFS, YES!
yttrx
> begin In <ifpyg.44395$Pa1....@fe66.usenetserver.com>, on 07/28/2006
> at 02:33 PM, yt...@yttrx.net (yttrx) said:
>
>>You're a pirate apologist, and you're clearly advocating the pirating
>>of windows software, I suspect, because you have no regard or respect
>> for the people who write it.
>
> That's a strange conclusion. When I have no regard or respect for the
> people who write a program, I don't want their crap on my machine at
> all. If he is advocating piracy, that's a sign that he does have
> regard and respect for the others, although not for their property
> rights.
>
Actually I was just making a lot of shit up because my coffee was
too strong.
-----yttrx
yttrx
> yttrx wrote:
>
>> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Goodbye.
>>>
>>>/PLONK/
>>>
>>
>>
>> Is COLA just crawling with little girls these days? What's
>> with all the publically announced PLONKs?
>>
>> It's like you people just discovered usenet a week ago.
>>
>
> Too bad they weren't around here a decade ago. Then they'd know what a
> real flamewar was all about. I've seen some go on for a few months.
>
>
Man, I really miss those. Maybe I've just mellowed out, but not
even flatfish gets me excited anymore.
-----yttrx
Mark Kent
William Poaster <w...@suse101oss.eu> espoused:
> It was on Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:42:12 +0100, that Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> *Plonk*
>
> I was wondering how long it would take people to catch on to him...
>
I was suspicious on about the first posting I read. I've not googled
back, but I don't recall the original yttrx being such an objectionable
and ill-informed person as this one.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Hollywood is where if you don't have happiness you send out for it.
-- Rex Reed
Mark Kent
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> espoused:
> yttrx wrote:
>
>> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Goodbye.
>>>
>>>/PLONK/
>>>
>>
>>
>> Is COLA just crawling with little girls these days? What's
>> with all the publically announced PLONKs?
>>
>> It's like you people just discovered usenet a week ago.
>>
>
> Too bad they weren't around here a decade ago. Then they'd know what a
> real flamewar was all about. I've seen some go on for a few months.
>
>
Actually a lot of us have been around on usenet since gopher was cool,
and before the web was invented... Over the years, I've come to
recognise who's worth the time to respond to, and who's best in the
kfile.
yttrx
> begin oe_protect.scr
> GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> espoused:
>> yttrx wrote:
>>
>>> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Goodbye.
>>>>
>>>>/PLONK/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is COLA just crawling with little girls these days? What's
>>> with all the publically announced PLONKs?
>>>
>>> It's like you people just discovered usenet a week ago.
>>>
>>
>> Too bad they weren't around here a decade ago. Then they'd know what a
>> real flamewar was all about. I've seen some go on for a few months.
>>
>>
>
> Actually a lot of us have been around on usenet since gopher was cool,
> and before the web was invented... Over the years, I've come to
> recognise who's worth the time to respond to, and who's best in the
> kfile.
>
You have not been around that long. Yer not a big potato man!
Yer a little potato! Itty bitty!
-----yttrx
yttrx
> begin oe_protect.scr
> William Poaster <w...@suse101oss.eu> espoused:
>> It was on Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:42:12 +0100, that Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> *Plonk*
>>
>> I was wondering how long it would take people to catch on to him...
>>
>
> I was suspicious on about the first posting I read. I've not googled
> back, but I don't recall the original yttrx being such an objectionable
> and ill-informed person as this one.
>
Evidently mister kent still (after all these years) knows jack goddamn
shit about linux.
And still (after all these years) is pretending he does.
Really mister kent, it would have been much easier to spend all this
time LEARNING something, rather than bitching on usenet a lot.
-----yttrx
GreyCloud
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 15:57:56 -0600, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>
>>yttrx wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Goodbye.
>>>>
>>>>/PLONK/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Is COLA just crawling with little girls these days? What's
>>>with all the publically announced PLONKs?
>>>
>>>It's like you people just discovered usenet a week ago.
>>>
>>
>>Too bad they weren't around here a decade ago. Then they'd know what a
>>real flamewar was all about. I've seen some go on for a few months.
>
>
> He was!
> Don't you remember him?
> He used to post as "."
>
Oh, I knew ".", but I'm referring to our newbies that have shown up in
the last two years. I remember some of TMaxs threads going on for
months in nothing but a flame.
GreyCloud
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:54:55 +0000, yttrx wrote:
>
>
>
>>Is COLA just crawling with little girls these days? What's
>>with all the publically announced PLONKs?
>>
>>It's like you people just discovered usenet a week ago.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----yttrx
>
>
> Oh there are people crawling around, on all fours in fact.
> However, you won't find a girl in the bunch.
LOL!
yttrx
I miss dresden black.
-----yttrx
Mark Kent
>
> Oh, I knew ".", but I'm referring to our newbies that have shown up in
> the last two years. I remember some of TMaxs threads going on for
> months in nothing but a flame.
>
I used to ignore them...
Tim Smith
> Actually a lot of us have been around on usenet since gopher was cool, and
> before the web was invented... Over the years, I've come to
Bah. Gopher was invented in 1991. Some of us were usenet old-timers by
then.
Anyone here have an older post than this?
<http://groups.google.com/group/net.unix-wizards/msg/bdd2d3b2889d6c5c>
--
--Tim Smith
Roy Culley
<5vbsp3-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> writes:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> William Poaster <w...@suse101oss.eu> espoused:
>> It was on Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:42:12 +0100, that Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> *Plonk*
>>
>> I was wondering how long it would take people to catch on to him...
>
> I was suspicious on about the first posting I read. I've not
> googled back, but I don't recall the original yttrx being such an
> objectionable and ill-informed person as this one.
yttrx, aka '.', was always an objectionable twat but quite
knowledgeable. That's a major difference between him and flatty.
--
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by rulers as useful." -- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)
yttrx
Nice. I've been looking for my oldest post, but I cannot
remember for the life of me what my moniker was in 1988-89, my
first year at college.
-----yttrx
yttrx
> begin risky.vbs
> <5vbsp3-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> writes:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> William Poaster <w...@suse101oss.eu> espoused:
>>> It was on Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:42:12 +0100, that Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> *Plonk*
>>>
>>> I was wondering how long it would take people to catch on to him...
>>
>> I was suspicious on about the first posting I read. I've not
>> googled back, but I don't recall the original yttrx being such an
>> objectionable and ill-informed person as this one.
>
> yttrx, aka '.', was always an objectionable twat but quite
> knowledgeable. That's a major difference between him and flatty.
>
THANK YOU. Particularly for the "twat" part.
And I'm not posting anything about how I hacked Ubuntu 6.0.6 to run
the brand new lotus notes client (along with about three other hunks
of IBM clientware) natively until EVERYONE APOLOGIZES TO ME PROFUSELY.
Looking forward to your compliance,
-----yttrx
GreyCloud
> begin oe_protect.scr
> GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> espoused:
> <snip>
>
>>Oh, I knew ".", but I'm referring to our newbies that have shown up in
>>the last two years. I remember some of TMaxs threads going on for
>>months in nothing but a flame.
>>
>
>
> I used to ignore them...
>
After recognizing what was going on, I then just used the T key to get
to the next thread.
yttrx
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:25:13 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
>
>
>>
>> yttrx, aka '.', was always an objectionable twat but quite
>> knowledgeable. That's a major difference between him and flatty.
>
> Divide and conquer never works.
>
Divide? There was never a union to begin with.
If you're referring to our recent civil discussions about geography
and sociology, its probably best to remember that I still think
your opinions on pretty much everything are absolute horseshit and
that you're a dick.
That doesnt mean I wont have a conversation though. None of this
is personal.
-----yttrx
Hadron Quark
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> espoused:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Oh, I knew ".", but I'm referring to our newbies that have shown up
>>> in the last two years. I remember some of TMaxs threads going on
>>> for months in nothing but a flame.
>>>
>> I used to ignore them...
>>
>
> After recognizing what was going on, I then just used the T key to get
> to the next thread.
The T key? Wow. How interesting.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:53:06 GMT,
yttrx <yt...@yttrx.net> wrote:
> Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Goddamn right it does. I do not suffer idiots in any venue, on
>>> any level, period.
>>>
>>
>> get punched in the mouth much?
>>
>
> Not ever, not once in my life. And I'm not expecting to either.
>
> Why, are you offering?
>
nah, I don't waste my time with stuff like that, threats are dealt with,
anything else is ignored.
>> I don't suffer fools gladly, but I do enjoy watching them make fools of
>> themselves, thanks for the entertainment.
>>
>
> Ouch...:(:(:(
>
not a problem, all part of the services we gladly offer.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEzV7Hd90bcYOAWPYRAnIPAJ4mnYpp+C4iJ3vH3Zp/BUeh/2YGygCeKSVT
gQYR/J6Oj1WpMcb8SwBR2oE=
=s8Be
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"I worry that the person who thought up Muzak may be thinking up
something else."
--Lily Tomlin
Aquila Deus
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> > HOW-TO: Dreamweaver running on Ubuntu in 10 EASY Steps!
> >
> > http://blog.publicidadpixelada.com/how-to-dreamweaver-8-in-ubuntu-in-10-easy-steps/
> >
> > Aptana is a robust, JavaScript-focused IDE for building dynamic web
> > applications.
> >
> > http://www.aptana.com/
> >
> > There's also NVU:
> >
> > http://www.nvu.com/index.php
>
> Nice, youve posted a link to instructions on how to get windows application to
> run under wine. That's so helpful.
>
> Also, in the instructions it is suggested that the user pirate Dreamweaver.
so what? Those bastards should never be given the right to abuse
customers. People *own* the things they buy no matter what the license
says!
yttrx
Yeah, you're helping linux a lot. Thanks.
-----yttrx
Mark Kent
Roy Culley <r...@nodomain.none> espoused:
> begin risky.vbs
> <5vbsp3-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> writes:
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> William Poaster <w...@suse101oss.eu> espoused:
>>> It was on Fri, 28 Jul 2006 18:42:12 +0100, that Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> *Plonk*
>>>
>>> I was wondering how long it would take people to catch on to him...
>>
>> I was suspicious on about the first posting I read. I've not
>> googled back, but I don't recall the original yttrx being such an
>> objectionable and ill-informed person as this one.
>
> yttrx, aka '.', was always an objectionable twat but quite
> knowledgeable. That's a major difference between him and flatty.
>
I can forgive a degree of objectionableness, but only a degree, and it
/must/ be accompanied by knowledge...
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
You will overcome the attacks of jealous associates.
Hadron Quark
How are they abusing customers? Dreamweaver is written for Windows for
paying customers.
Aquila Deus
Are customers allowed to do reverse-engineering on it? Or make a
modification? Share it with friends?
Hadron Quark
Of course they cant share it with friends. The friends should buy their
own copy.
But the fact is that : this the way it is. Dont like it? Use the linux
equivalent. Dont steal it.
yttrx
No, but how exactly is this abuse? If you don't want to use dreamweaver
then DONT FUCKING USE DREAMWEAVER.
What the hell is the matter with you?
-----yttrx
Aquila Deus
It's not about being free or linux-related. The article says you need a
crack, not a pirated copy. So either yttrx is blind, or he believes
cracking = pirating.
When you buy something, you become the owner of it. Even if you can't
share it with others due to the nature of this product, at least you
should be allowed to know how it works, or to modify it (including
crack, for whatever purpose). I never read about dreamweaver's license,
but I do know some softwares such as windows forbid this - it is WRONG,
as wrong as a contract to exchange a life or freedom with something.
and those who believe it is acceptable, should go to hell.
Aquila Deus
I live here, and those evil live here, too - whether I touch them or
not.
Its existence is an abuse.
yttrx
Please stop advocating linux and go somewhere else. Your inane childishness
isn't helping your case.
-----yttrx
yttrx
I know full well that crack != (that means does not equal) piracy. However,
I also know full well what the author of the original article meant, and
so do you. You're making excuses, you're advocating piracy, and your little
tizzy about Dreamweaver proved it. You're an immature little pinhead and
you want everything for free, because you feel like you have a RIGHT to
it. So why should I not believe for a split second that you're not
advocating piracy by attempting to rationalize the use of the term "crack"
here?
> When you buy something, you become the owner of it. Even if you can't
> share it with others due to the nature of this product, at least you
> should be allowed to know how it works, or to modify it (including
> crack, for whatever purpose). I never read about dreamweaver's license,
> but I do know some softwares such as windows forbid this - it is WRONG,
> as wrong as a contract to exchange a life or freedom with something.
>
> and those who believe it is acceptable, should go to hell.
>
Please, for gods sake, go advocate jesus or something a little more
appropriate to your argument skills.
-----yttrx
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 12:05 AM, yt...@yttrx.net (yttrx) said:
>Man, I really miss those. Maybe I've just mellowed out, but not
>even flatfish gets me excited anymore.
They don't really have flames on Usenet. They think they do, but
that's only because they've never seen the real thing. Back in the old
days, before FIDO, when men were men and sheep were scared, there were
some real flames.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 09:54 PM, yt...@yttrx.net (yttrx) said:
>Is COLA just crawling with little girls these days?
Usenet is as it has always been, including the lame insults.
>What's with all the publically announced PLONKs?
Could it be something you wrote?
yttrx
> begin In <PIvyg.10$Rm...@fe12.usenetserver.com>, on 07/28/2006
> at 09:54 PM, yt...@yttrx.net (yttrx) said:
>
>>Is COLA just crawling with little girls these days?
>
> Usenet is as it has always been, including the lame insults.
>
>>What's with all the publically announced PLONKs?
>
> Could it be something you wrote?
>
*PLONK*
yttrx
> at 12:05 AM, yt...@yttrx.net (yttrx) said:
>
>>Man, I really miss those. Maybe I've just mellowed out, but not
>>even flatfish gets me excited anymore.
>
> They don't really have flames on Usenet. They think they do, but
> that's only because they've never seen the real thing. Back in the old
> days, before FIDO, when men were men and sheep were scared, there were
> some real flames.
>
*PLONK*
Aquila Deus
A child also has freedom. And I'm not here to advocate linux.
Aquila Deus
You can buy it and crack it to make it run on linux, because it
wouldn't run otherwise, thanks to dreamweaver's license server (which
you obviously don't know, even if you may pretend to later).
No you don't understand. In your world, people would steal whenever
they can, and that probably includes yourself.
Next time you will come up with discussions like talking != lying and
"However, ...", and eventually, smart apes like you will take away all
of the freedom from us, for our own fucking sake.
Aquila Deus
Why do you assume I'm here to help linux? Are you stupid??
JEDIDIAH
> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>
>>
>>> You're a pirate apologist, and you're clearly advocating the
>>> pirating of windows software, I suspect, because you have no regard
>>> or respect for the people who write it.
>>
>> I suspect that you're an idiot. Explain exactly how I am advocating
>> piracy by drawing a distinction between hacking and theft.
>>
>
> You're attempting to rationalize piracy--you're not talking about
> hacking here. Installing a cracked serial number is not hacking.
You are simply an idiot. Can't be helped.
[deletia]
--
Sophocles wants his cut. |||
/ | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
yttrx
Then why exactly are you posting to a linux advocacy group?
-----yttrx
yttrx
You wanna see a screenshot?
> No you don't understand. In your world, people would steal whenever
> they can, and that probably includes yourself.
>
Where the hell did you get that from? Now youre just not making any
sense at all. Did you suddenly become psychotic between the last
sentence and this one?
>
> Next time you will come up with discussions like talking != lying and
> "However, ...", and eventually, smart apes like you will take away all
> of the freedom from us, for our own fucking sake.
>
You don't know what freedom is, baby boy.
-----yttrx
yttrx
People like you should be locked up in prison forever. Throw
away the key.
You seem to think that stealing = freedom and that you're allowed
to do whatever you want. You shouldnt be allowed to vote or hold
public office, or have any kind of government job--except maybe the
military. But then only the infantry, and you won't get to handle
a gun or any other expensive piece of equipment--since you obviously
cannot be trusted.
-----yttrx
yttrx
> On 2006-07-28, yttrx <yt...@yttrx.net> wrote:
>> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> You're a pirate apologist, and you're clearly advocating the
>>>> pirating of windows software, I suspect, because you have no regard
>>>> or respect for the people who write it.
>>>
>>> I suspect that you're an idiot. Explain exactly how I am advocating
>>> piracy by drawing a distinction between hacking and theft.
>>>
>>
>> You're attempting to rationalize piracy--you're not talking about
>> hacking here. Installing a cracked serial number is not hacking.
>
> You are simply an idiot. Can't be helped.
>
> [deletia]
>
Ah, jedidipshit. I missed you. And what exactly have you done in
the last six years to advocate linux?
I mean besides posting a lot here.
umm...oh.
Well anyway, do continue to help advocate theft and software piracy.
Bravisse, buttercup.
-----yttrx
Kier
>
> Scotland...........
> Where men wear skirts and sheep are nervous.
I wouldn't try going to Scotland and calling the kilt a skirt, if I were
you ;-)
--
Kier
Kier
That wasn't a *serious* question, was it? ;-)
--
Kier
Aquila Deus
And why are you replying to a post that has nothing to with linux
advocacy here?
Aquila Deus
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:05:06 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
>
> >
> > How are they abusing customers? Dreamweaver is written for Windows for
> > paying customers.
>
> These screwballs think everything should be free.
As in a perfect world.
Aquila Deus
> Aquila Deus <aquil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > yttrx wrote:
> >> Aquila Deus <aquil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > yttrx wrote:
> >> >> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> >> >> > HOW-TO: Dreamweaver running on Ubuntu in 10 EASY Steps!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://blog.publicidadpixelada.com/how-to-dreamweaver-8-in-ubuntu-in-10-easy-steps/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Aptana is a robust, JavaScript-focused IDE for building dynamic web
> >> >> > applications.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://www.aptana.com/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There's also NVU:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://www.nvu.com/index.php
> >> >>
> >> >> Nice, youve posted a link to instructions on how to get windows application to
> >> >> run under wine. That's so helpful.
> >> >>
> >> >> Also, in the instructions it is suggested that the user pirate Dreamweaver.
> >> >
> >> > so what? Those bastards should never be given the right to abuse
> >> > customers. People *own* the things they buy no matter what the license
> >> > says!
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yeah, you're helping linux a lot. Thanks.
> >
> > Why do you assume I'm here to help linux? Are you stupid??
> >
>
> People like you should be locked up in prison forever. Throw
> away the key.
>
> You seem to think that stealing = freedom
How do you conclude that? By my saying that cracking on legally-bought
dreamweaver should be allowed?
You didn't even read the article and never understand what the author
meant.
> and that you're allowed to do whatever you want.
for the same reason people like you are allowed to deprive others of
freedom.
Aquila Deus
A screenshot of what? Cracked dreamweaver running on linux?
>
> > No you don't understand. In your world, people would steal whenever
> > they can, and that probably includes yourself.
> >
>
> Where the hell did you get that from?
Does the source matter for you?
> Now youre just not making any
> sense at all. Did you suddenly become psychotic between the last
> sentence and this one?
>
> >
> > Next time you will come up with discussions like talking != lying and
> > "However, ...", and eventually, smart apes like you will take away all
> > of the freedom from us, for our own fucking sake.
> >
>
> You don't know what freedom is, baby boy.
>
You mean *your* freedom? To earn money at the cost of others' life,
perhaps?
Aquila Deus
And what have you done, by questioning others' efforts to advocate?
Aquila Deus
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 20:25:13 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
>
>
> >
> > yttrx, aka '.', was always an objectionable twat but quite
> > knowledgeable. That's a major difference between him and flatty.
>
> Haha...
> Divide and conquer never works.
You don't read about history I guess?
Amazingly ignorant you are.
Aquila Deus
> >> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> HOW-TO: Dreamweaver running on Ubuntu in 10 EASY Steps!
> >>>
> >>>
> > http://blog.publicidadpixelada.com/how-to-dreamweaver-8-in-ubuntu-in-10-easy-steps/
> >
> >> application to run under wine. That's so helpful.
> >>
> >>
> >> Also, in the instructions it is suggested that the user pirate
> >> Dreamweaver.
> >>
> >
> > And *you're* helping to reaffirm that the WinTrolls in this NG are all
> > dead from the neck up.
> >
>
> Ummm...
>
> You do realize that I've been running unix and unix clones on every last
> one of my desktop machines since a/ux in about 1999, right? How exactly
> am I a wintroll?
By watching what you do rather than you say.
NoNamer
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> HOW-TO: Dreamweaver running on Ubuntu in 10 EASY Steps!
>
> http://blog.publicidadpixelada.com/how-to-dreamweaver-8-in-ubuntu-in-10-easy-steps/
/*IMPORTANT: The dreamweaver.exe MUST be cracked or patched, otherwise
it will not load under linux, try searching in Google for a crack*/
> Aptana is a robust, JavaScript-focused IDE for building dynamic web
> applications.
>
> http://www.aptana.com/
>
> There's also NVU:
>
> http://www.nvu.com/index.php
These are crap compared to DreamWeaver which only legally runs under
Windows as designed.
Nice job promoting pirated software for Linux.
Why don't you use the 'excellent' open source software you are always
talking about here? Oh, it doesn't exist?
You mean to tell me that the best programmers out there like to
actually be paid? OMFG WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO???!?!?!?
lol
Aquila Deus
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > HOW-TO: Dreamweaver running on Ubuntu in 10 EASY Steps!
> >
> > http://blog.publicidadpixelada.com/how-to-dreamweaver-8-in-ubuntu-in-10-easy-steps/
>
> /*IMPORTANT: The dreamweaver.exe MUST be cracked or patched, otherwise
> it will not load under linux, try searching in Google for a crack*/
>
> > Aptana is a robust, JavaScript-focused IDE for building dynamic web
> > applications.
> >
> > http://www.aptana.com/
> >
> > There's also NVU:
> >
> > http://www.nvu.com/index.php
>
> These are crap compared to DreamWeaver which only legally runs under
> Windows as designed.
>
> Nice job promoting pirated software for Linux.
>
> Why don't you use the 'excellent' open source software you are always
> talking about here? Oh, it doesn't exist?
No. Of course not. Even if there are any, they'd have been ported to
windows, so it's very clear that you cannot get any better desktop
applications on linux.
>
> You mean to tell me that the best programmers out there like to
> actually be paid? OMFG WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO???!?!?!?
Do the best artists work for money??
Hadron Quark
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> HOW-TO: Dreamweaver running on Ubuntu in 10 EASY Steps!
>>
>> http://blog.publicidadpixelada.com/how-to-dreamweaver-8-in-ubuntu-in-10-easy-steps/
>
> /*IMPORTANT: The dreamweaver.exe MUST be cracked or patched, otherwise
> it will not load under linux, try searching in Google for a crack*/
>
>> Aptana is a robust, JavaScript-focused IDE for building dynamic web
>> applications.
>>
>> http://www.aptana.com/
>>
>> There's also NVU:
>>
>> http://www.nvu.com/index.php
>
> These are crap compared to DreamWeaver which only legally runs under
> Windows as designed.
Aptana is a beta. AFAIK it has limited wysiwyg page design. "Robust"
sounds somewhat optimistic.
NVU : is plain buggy. Crap handling of CSS. I use it for a small web
site and its ok, but tends to get confused on remote links.
yttrx
I get it, you're about 13 years old and quit school or something
and have nothing better to do than post to COLA and blow up squirrels.
My apologies.
-----yttrx
yttrx
No, a screenshot of a NOT cracked dreamweaver running on Linux,
specifically Ubuntu. What I'm saying is that you have no goddamn
clue what you're talking about.
>>
>> > No you don't understand. In your world, people would steal whenever
>> > they can, and that probably includes yourself.
>> >
>>
>> Where the hell did you get that from?
>
> Does the source matter for you?
>
Not as such, I'm just wondering if you actually went psychotic or if
you just kinda came out that way.
>> Now youre just not making any
>> sense at all. Did you suddenly become psychotic between the last
>> sentence and this one?
>>
>> >
>> > Next time you will come up with discussions like talking != lying and
>> > "However, ...", and eventually, smart apes like you will take away all
>> > of the freedom from us, for our own fucking sake.
>> >
>>
>> You don't know what freedom is, baby boy.
>>
>
> You mean *your* freedom? To earn money at the cost of others' life,
> perhaps?
>
I have no problem with very, very large sacrifices to insure my own
personal gain. Do you have a problem with that?
-----yttrx
yttrx
Can you demonstrate that I've deprived another of any freedom at all?
-----yttrx
chrisv
>Aquila Deus <aquil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Its existence is an abuse.
>
>Please stop advocating linux and go somewhere else.
Are you serious? "Aquila Deus" is nothing but a plonkable troll.
yttrx
Read ALL of my posts, and you'll know what I've done.
There appear to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 of them
under a number of different monikers going back to about 1995 or so,
but "yttrx" and "abraxas" should get you started.
-----yttrx
JEDIDIAH
At no time has cracking a piece of copy protection ever equalled theft.
Sure it can enable it quite a bit. It can also enable fair use of the
product that you paid good money for and had to be put on a waiting list to
get. The fact that some people don't like being shit on and will gladly work
around certain inconveniences does not indicate theft.
It didn't when Gilman Louie spewed this bullshit and it still doesn't.
>>
>
> And what have you done, by questioning others' efforts to advocate?
>
--
Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire,
is genuinely new: culture, like science and |||
technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \
building on the works of those that came before.
Judge Alex Kozinski
US Court of Appeals
9th Circuit
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
JEDIDIAH
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> HOW-TO: Dreamweaver running on Ubuntu in 10 EASY Steps!
>>
>> http://blog.publicidadpixelada.com/how-to-dreamweaver-8-in-ubuntu-in-10-easy-steps/
>
> /*IMPORTANT: The dreamweaver.exe MUST be cracked or patched, otherwise
> it will not load under linux, try searching in Google for a crack*/
>
>> Aptana is a robust, JavaScript-focused IDE for building dynamic web
>> applications.
>>
>> http://www.aptana.com/
>>
>> There's also NVU:
>>
>> http://www.nvu.com/index.php
>
> These are crap compared to DreamWeaver which only legally runs under
> Windows as designed.
>
> Nice job promoting pirated software for Linux.
Cracked != Pirated.
It never has and never will.
[deletia]
Aquila Deus
And so are you, well maybe 7 years old :P
>
> My apologies.
Accepted.
Aquila Deus
All I can see is that you're questioning others' advocacy method.
What are you do you think you are?
Aquila Deus
You're supporting the right for software makers to forbid their
products being modified by those who buy it.
yttrx
And? If you dont like it, use open source software, dipshit.
Not that you'd know what to do with source code if it was on its
knees in front of you, having just put on pink lipstick and unzipped
your jeans.
-----yttrx
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 03:38 AM, yt...@yttrx.net (yttrx) said:
>And?
Google for "fair use", which used to be a meaningful part of US
copyright law before the DMCA (ptui!) came along. Note: I don't know
whether "Aquila Deus" is concerned with fair use or intends piracy,
but the former is a legitimate concern even if it is not his.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
at 04:09 PM, yt...@yttrx.net (yttrx) said:
>*PLONK*
Since she/he/it claims to believe that anybody publicly plonking is an
idiot, I must conclude that s/h/it considers itself to be an idiot.
I'm inclined to agree with the latter, although not, of course with
it's claim about public plonking.