Re: Installing new Components in an old Computer
RayLopez99
>
> > Yes but my question was whether journaling is done automatically by
> > NTFS file system Operating Systems or whether you have to instruct
> > them to.
>
> > RL
>
> As far as I know, it's automatic. I couldn't find an article
> with the necessary information.
>
> It can be fouled up though.
>
> For example, if you do a "dirty shutdown" on an NTFS computer,
> just turn the power off in the middle of a session. Then,
> turn the power on and boot a Linux LiveCD. When Linux touches
> the NTFS volume, in can invalidate the transaction log. Then,
> if you boot Windows five minutes later, CHKDSK will notice the
> transaction log isn't consistent with the state of the volume
> and throw it away (at the cost of perhaps preventing a nice
> neat recovery of recently written files). So I've heard, that
> being careless with NTFS can disable the journal. But
> otherwise, if you had a Windows machine, and did critical accesses
> to the file system with Windows, you should get the maximum
> benefit from any log kept. So if you were running Windows,
> turned off the power in mid-session, you'd be best advised
> to boot into Windows next, to give the file system driver
> a chance to clean up, one way or another.
>
> I'm also not certain, exactly what Linux does with the journal.
> Whether it journals the writes it's doing (so Windows could
> read the journal on the next boot). Or whether Linux has
> the ability to do any repairs. Since Linux seems not to have
> "CHKDSK capability", i.e. can't do repairs, that would suggest
> it won't look at the transaction log when the file system is
> started. So just a guess would be, perhaps Linux doesn't
> do things quite the way Windows does. While the Linux NTFS driver
> is pretty good (no complaints here), there might still be
> some corner conditions not handled as well as in Windows.
>
> As far as I know, the only contribution towards CHHDSK that
> Linux can make, is Linux can set the "dirty" bit, forcing
> a CHKDSK to run the next time Windows boots. But as for
> repair capabilities, I don't think it has any of significance.
>
> The feature set of NTFS, has changed with the more recent
> versions of Windows, but as far as I know, the new features
> are "layered on top" of the existing infrastructure. So the
> engine at the bottom remains the same. Doing it that way,
> might mean less chance of damage, if you alternated between
> booting Win2K and Windows 7.
>
> Paul
Thanks Paul--I had exactly what you describe above happen when I tried
a "LiveCD" distro of Linux. I ended up having to run Chkdsk
repeatedly before Windows XP would boot. It was scary--I thought for
a while I'd have to reinstal Windows--because Windows would not even
boot in Safe Mode (it would keep resetting). I ended up using a Bart
PE type util (I think it was Bart) to do the Chkdsk, and that solved
the 'corrupted by Linux' HD.
RL
Alan Mackenzie
>> > RL
>> ? ? Paul
> Thanks Paul--I had exactly what you describe above happen when I tried
> a "LiveCD" distro of Linux.
Which distribution would that be, and how old was it? Also, what were
you doing deliberately powering off your PC without shutting it down?
And with your cynicism, why did you not reboot into Windows first, as
Paul suggested?
> I ended up having to run Chkdsk repeatedly before Windows XP would
> boot.
That doesn't say much for the quality of Chkdsk. You'd think it'd either
work, or the filesystem would be beyond saving, somthing which doesn't
happen with Linux filesystems.
Anyway, why didn't you use a "LiveCD" to boot into Windows?
> It was scary--I thought for a while I'd have to reinstal Windows ...
Surely Windows users are used to this. As an experienced Windowser, you
will surely have your OS in its own partition, so that you can reinstall
without losing your data, and without having to reload the data from the
backup you haven't made.
> ... --because Windows would not even boot in Safe Mode (it would
> keep resetting).
You should be raising this in a Windows group, not a Linux one.
> I ended up using a Bart PE type util (I think it was
> Bart) to do the Chkdsk, and that solved the 'corrupted by Linux' HD.
Whatever that is. But are you saying that the standard Windows Chkdsk is
inferior to a third party product?
Anyhow, your account of your experience becomes inconsistent here. You
either recovered after running Chkdsk repeatedly or you needed Bart.
Which one was it?
To be honest, I've some doubt about the veracity of the entire story.
> RL
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Norman Peelman
Because it never happened.
>> I ended up having to run Chkdsk repeatedly before Windows XP would
>> boot.
>
> That doesn't say much for the quality of Chkdsk. You'd think it'd either
> work, or the filesystem would be beyond saving, somthing which doesn't
> happen with Linux filesystems.
>
> Anyway, why didn't you use a "LiveCD" to boot into Windows?
>
Because it never happened.
>> It was scary--I thought for a while I'd have to reinstal Windows ...
>
> Surely Windows users are used to this. As an experienced Windowser, you
> will surely have your OS in its own partition, so that you can reinstall
> without losing your data, and without having to reload the data from the
> backup you haven't made.
>
>> ... --because Windows would not even boot in Safe Mode (it would
>> keep resetting).
>
> You should be raising this in a Windows group, not a Linux one.
>
>> I ended up using a Bart PE type util (I think it was
>> Bart) to do the Chkdsk, and that solved the 'corrupted by Linux' HD.
>
Itś an illegal Windows ¨LiveCD¨ of sorts.
> Whatever that is. But are you saying that the standard Windows Chkdsk is
> inferior to a third party product?
>
> Anyhow, your account of your experience becomes inconsistent here. You
> either recovered after running Chkdsk repeatedly or you needed Bart.
> Which one was it?
>
> To be honest, I've some doubt about the veracity of the entire story.
>
Because there´s nothing honest about it.
--
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
AMD64X2 6400+ Ubuntu 8.04 64bit
RayLopez99
>
> > To be honest, I've some doubt about the veracity of the entire story.
>
> Because there´s nothing honest about it.
>
> --
Liar. Have to resort to lies to make your case eh Norm Pee-man?
It was Windows XP, and the Live CD was I believe Mint. And yes it
happened--twice in fact. I figured out it was Linux only after the
second time.
RL
Bobbie Sellers
Indeed you should doubt a troll so notorious that even I
have kill-filled him. Especially when the x posting includes
an advocacy newsgroup.
later
bliss
Norman Peelman
It was -you- not shutting down your system properly.
RayLopez99
> On 07/03/2011 06:39 AM, RayLopez99 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 1:26 pm, Norman Peelman<npeel...@cfl.rr.com> wrote
>
> >>> To be honest, I've some doubt about the veracity of the entire story.
>
> >> Because there s nothing honest about it.
>
> >> --
>
> > Liar. Have to resort to lies to make your case eh Norm Pee-man?
>
> > It was Windows XP, and the Live CD was I believe Mint. And yes it
> > happened--twice in fact. I figured out it was Linux only after the
> > second time.
>
> > RL
>
> It was -you- not shutting down your system properly.
>
That's correct: I did do a 'hard reboot' by turning off the power.
But it's the fault of the Linux CD to corrupt my XP HD such that it
failed in the way it did. Linux is very temperamental when it comes
to recovering after a hard reboot, as evidenced by the above.
RL
Alan Mackenzie
>> On 07/03/2011 06:39 AM, RayLopez99 wrote:
>> >>> To be honest, I've some doubt about the veracity of the entire
>> >>> story.
>> > It was Windows XP, and the Live CD was I believe Mint. ?And yes it
>> > happened--twice in fact. ?I figured out it was Linux only after the
>> > second time.
Not sure how you work out that it's Linux. Just because Windows can't
recover from a deliberately induced error condition? I suggest you try
the same thing with a Live CD from a non-Linux OS. ;-)
>> > RL
>> ? ?It was -you- not shutting down your system properly.
> That's correct: I did do a 'hard reboot' by turning off the power.
> But it's the fault of the Linux CD to corrupt my XP HD such that it
> failed in the way it did.
o - Linux booted from a live CD doesn't know which HDD partition is /.
o - Therefore this Linux cannot find /etc/fstab.
o - Therefore the Linux could only mount filesystems, (including the NTFS
ones), at random mount points, something it definitely won't be doing.
o - Therefore the Linux cannot write to a HDD partition.
o - In particular, the Linux can't alter the Journal on an NTFS partition.
The only exception to the above would be a malicious CD. Are you
suggesting your Mint CD was malicious?
> Linux is very temperamental when it comes to recovering after a hard
> reboot, as evidenced by the above.
As proven by me above, the Linux Live CD isn't the problem. The OP, Paul,
must have been mistaken about the cause of his corruption.
My Linux boxes have never had a corrupt filesystem after an inopportune
hard reboot, at least, not one which wasn't trivially fixable.
RayLopez99
You misread my post, you dumb Nazi kraut.
I was using a Windows XP OS pc, not a Linux, and with this Windows PC
was using a LiveCD, I think Mint. Then I did a hard reboot (turned
off the power--if memory serves I was trying to kill the KDE but could
not). Then, without the Linux CD, my Windows XP refused to load until
I used chkdsk from an external CD to fix the corrupted HD--corrupted
by Linux.
GOT IT NOW?
RL
Paul
I don't think the conversation which Lopez99 decided to cross-post,
talked about corruption.
There is some detail about journal handling, and moving between
Windows and Linux and back again. I'm not going to look up the
details now, but if you shut down Windows "dirty", then boot
Linux, it is possible when next Windows is booted, the
journal will not be available for repair purposes.
That's not a corruption as such. It's a common sense issue,
as participants have noted.
I'm not 100% positive about what percentage of NTFS features
are in the NTFS driver. I've heard there is no equivalent
of CHKDSK in the Linux NTFS driver, and a corollary to that,
is the journal may not be used.
So it's really a detailed question of how Linux handles the
NTFS journal, and whether moving back and forth between
OSes is perfectly transparent. Under normal circumstances,
as tested here, it works well. But I haven't gone out of
my way to test corner conditions (such as shoving a "dirty"
file system into a Linux system).
Now, if I was stupid enough to turn off the power on my
Windows PC, my next move would not be booting a Linux LiveCD.
I would reboot into Windows and make sure everything was
clean, before doing anything else. I have enough questions
about journal handling, not to do that. The only time I'm
going to be booting a Linux LiveCD, is when Windows has shut
down cleanly.
I understood Linux can set the "dirty bit", in the same way
fsutil can, so the next time Windows starts, CHKDSK will run.
But that is for the purpose of encouraging Windows to repair
the file system.
There is apparently one commercial product available for Linux,
which has additional capabilities over and above what the
free Linux software provides. But it's not like I'm going to
run out and waste money on that, when simply avoiding any
corner conditions is sufficient for most normal usage. I
don't think I've ever seen or demonstrated any NTFS damage,
even when using marginal versions of Knoppix (where the
NTFS driver had just become available). So I have nothing
to complain about here. It's all a matter of common sense...
I've also not experienced any issues with FAT32, and
since that is not a journaled file system, it is even
more exposed than NTFS. And again, I wouldn't purposely
create a "dirty" shutdown, by powering off the Windows
PC in mid-session, and then booting Linux to look at the
FAT32 partition afterwards. I'd boot Windows first, make
sure everything is clean, reboot, and use my Linux LiveCD.
Even Windows is not guaranteed to recover FAT32, if
you go around powering off the PC in mid-session.
Eventually, you'll have a problem, sooner or later.
FAT32 is not bulletproof.
Paul
Peter Köhlmann
Idiot
With an apology to all the "real idiots" out there, to be compared to suchg
a braindead cretin like RayLopez.
You are doing a fine job of painting the windows users out there as dumb and
totally worthless crack addicts, RayLopez
High Plains Thumper
> RayLopez99 wrote:
>
>> I was using a Windows XP OS pc, not a Linux, and with this Windows
>> PC was using a LiveCD, I think Mint. Then I did a hard reboot
>> (turned off the power--if memory serves I was trying to kill the
>> KDE but could not). Then, without the Linux CD, my Windows XP
>> refused to load until I used chkdsk from an external CD to fix the
>> corrupted HD--corrupted by Linux.
>>
>> GOT IT NOW?
>
> Idiot
>
> With an apology to all the "real idiots" out there, to be compared to
> suchg a braindead cretin like RayLopez.
>
> You are doing a fine job of painting the windows users out there as
> dumb and totally worthless crack addicts, RayLopez
Especially since using a Linux Live CD is becoming moreover a standard
practise on Windows PC, to do banking. Boot Live CD, handle financial
transactions in Linux, without altering the PC.
The idiot is either blowing smoke (which is most likely the case) or
selected the install option, next option wipe disk. These have double
check questions, so as to prevent accidental installs.
--
HPT
Alan Mackenzie
Hi, Paul.
Good to see you in the thread at comp.os.linux.setup. :-)
In comp.os.linux.setup Paul <nos...@needed.com> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.setup RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 3, 5:33?pm, Norman Peelman <npeel...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On 07/03/2011 06:39 AM, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>>>>>> To be honest, I've some doubt about the veracity of the entire
>>>>>>> story.
> I don't think the conversation which Lopez99 decided to cross-post,
> talked about corruption.
> There is some detail about journal handling, and moving between
> Windows and Linux and back again. I'm not going to look up the
> details now, but if you shut down Windows "dirty", then boot
> Linux, it is possible when next Windows is booted, the
> journal will not be available for repair purposes.
OK. What RayLopez99 missed out was the fact you were _using_ the NTFS
filesystem on Linux. That makes things very different. :-)
> That's not a corruption as such. It's a common sense issue,
> as participants have noted.
> I'm not 100% positive about what percentage of NTFS features
> are in the NTFS driver. I've heard there is no equivalent
> of CHKDSK in the Linux NTFS driver, and a corollary to that,
> is the journal may not be used.
NTFS is more than read-only on Linux, but doesn't have full write
capability. Quoting from the NTFS documentation from a recent Linux
kernel:
The biggest limitation at present is that files/directories
cannot be created or deleted.
....
The driver currently supports read-only mode (with no
fault-tolerance, encryption or journalling) and very limited,
but safe, write support.
This is a bit vague on what write operations do with journalling. I
would guess that if the journal isn't being read, it's not written
either. If the journal is "dirty" when the NTFS is mounted on Linux, and
Linux writes to it, the journal will no longer match the state the files
are in. Maybe. But you probably know all about these things anyway.
Full details are meant to be at http://www.linux-ntfs.org/, but that site
seems to have been purloined by a company.
> So it's really a detailed question of how Linux handles the
> NTFS journal, and whether moving back and forth between
> OSes is perfectly transparent. Under normal circumstances,
> as tested here, it works well. But I haven't gone out of
> my way to test corner conditions (such as shoving a "dirty"
> file system into a Linux system).
We can safely leave that to RayLopez99.
> Now, if I was stupid enough to turn off the power on my
> Windows PC, my next move would not be booting a Linux LiveCD.
> I would reboot into Windows and make sure everything was
> clean, before doing anything else. I have enough questions
> about journal handling, not to do that. The only time I'm
> going to be booting a Linux LiveCD, is when Windows has shut
> down cleanly.
I would certainly do that, too, if I were moving between Windows and
Linux.
[....]
> I've also not experienced any issues with FAT32, and
> since that is not a journaled file system, it is even
> more exposed than NTFS.
FAT32 is fully supported by Linux (it's called "vfat" here). I've
recovered FAT32 systems on USB-sticks after accidentally pulling them out
in the middle of a write operation. :-(
> And again, I wouldn't purposely create a "dirty" shutdown, by powering
> off the Windows PC in mid-session, and then booting Linux to look at
> the FAT32 partition afterwards. I'd boot Windows first, make sure
> everything is clean, reboot, and use my Linux LiveCD. Even Windows is
> not guaranteed to recover FAT32, if you go around powering off the PC
> in mid-session. Eventually, you'll have a problem, sooner or later.
> FAT32 is not bulletproof.
No, indeed not.
> Paul
Alan Mackenzie
>> In comp.os.linux.setup RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Jul 3, 5:33?pm, Norman Peelman <npeel...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> On 07/03/2011 06:39 AM, RayLopez99 wrote:
>> >> >>> To be honest, I've some doubt about the veracity of the entire
>> >> >>> story.
>> >> > It was Windows XP, and the Live CD was I believe Mint. ?And yes it
>> >> > happened--twice in fact. ?I figured out it was Linux only after the
>> >> > second time.
>> Not sure how you work out that it's Linux. ?Just because Windows can't
>> recover from a deliberately induced error condition? ?I suggest you try
>> the same thing with a Live CD from a non-Linux OS. ?;-)
>> >> > RL
>> >> ? ?It was -you- not shutting down your system properly.
>> > That's correct: ?I did do a 'hard reboot' by turning off the power.
>> > But it's the fault of the Linux CD to corrupt my XP HD such that it
>> > failed in the way it did.
>> o - Linux booted from a live CD doesn't know which HDD partition is /.
>> o - Therefore this Linux cannot find /etc/fstab.
>> o - Therefore the Linux could only mount filesystems, (including the NTFS
>> ? ones), at random mount points, something it definitely won't be doing.
>> o - Therefore the Linux cannot write to a HDD partition.
>> o - In particular, the Linux can't alter the Journal on an NTFS partition.
>> The only exception to the above would be a malicious CD. ?Are you
>> suggesting your Mint CD was malicious?
>> > Linux is very temperamental when it comes to recovering after a hard
>> > reboot, as evidenced by the above.
>> As proven by me above, the Linux Live CD isn't the problem.
>> My Linux boxes have never had a corrupt filesystem after an inopportune
>> hard reboot, at least, not one which wasn't trivially fixable.
> I was using a Windows XP OS pc, not a Linux, and with this Windows PC
> was using a LiveCD, I think Mint. Then I did a hard reboot (turned
> off the power--if memory serves I was trying to kill the KDE but could
> not). Then, without the Linux CD, my Windows XP refused to load until
> I used chkdsk from an external CD to fix the corrupted HD--corrupted
> by Linux.
> GOT IT NOW?
Yes, I got it right at the start. Quite frankly, I just don't believe
you. If it was just once, well coincidences happen. But twice? Sorry,
but no.
JeffM
Paul wrote:
>[...]Even Windows is not guaranteed to recover[...]
>
Windoze isn't guaranteed by its vendor to do *anything*.
Read the EULA: A list of preemptive excuses for its failure.
>I'm not 100% positive about
>what percentage of NTFS features are in [Linux's] NTFS driver.
>
No one is; M$ won't publish specifications for their junk.
(For them it would be an embarrassing read, I'm quite sure.)
>FAT32 is not bulletproof.
>
Name *anything* that M$ makes that even comes close.
Aragorn
enlightened humanity with the following words...:
> Hi, Paul.
>
> Good to see you in the thread at comp.os.linux.setup. :-)
>
> In comp.os.linux.setup Paul <nos...@needed.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not 100% positive about what percentage of NTFS features
>> are in the NTFS driver. I've heard there is no equivalent
>> of CHKDSK in the Linux NTFS driver, and a corollary to that,
>> is the journal may not be used.
>
> NTFS is more than read-only on Linux, but doesn't have full write
> capability. Quoting from the NTFS documentation from a recent Linux
> kernel:
>
> The biggest limitation at present is that files/directories
> cannot be created or deleted.
>
> ....
>
> The driver currently supports read-only mode (with no
> fault-tolerance, encryption or journalling) and very limited,
> but safe, write support.
These days, most distributions ship with FUSE - because it allows for
much more than just access to Windows filesystems - /and/ also with the
ntfs-3g driver, to be used with FUSE.
Disclaimer: I don't do Windows, nor any of its filesystems if I can help
it. Therefore, I also do not know whether ntfs-3g supports journalling
or encryption, but I presume that it does. For this particular
occasion, Google is probably your friend. Or Wikipedia for that matter.
If I were really interested in the matter, then I probably would have
looked up on it myself. Given however that this is a troll thread
originating from the mother of all sewers - i.e. comp.os.linux.advocacy
- and by a notorious, mentally ill and self-admitted troll with an
irrational urge to pester GNU/Linux users with his drivel over and over
and over again - i.e. RayLopez99 - I don't care much for looking up on
any technical information or documentation with regard to stuff I don't
even use, as there is simply no point to it.
Whatever arguments are brought up to the RayLopez99 troll and his ilk
from C.O.L.A. is all just casting pearls before the swine - and by this
statement, I am actually insulting the swine. The C.O.L.A. trolls don't
listen to reason, dismiss all documented evidence and repeatingly tout
the same retarded and outdated statistics about GNU/Linux adoption;
statistics which have also already been proven wrong anyway - insofar
any statistics would actually be truthful to begin with, but that's
another matter.
"Statistics are commonly used like a drunken man uses a lamp
post, i.e. for support, rather than illumination."
-- unknown
These guys are not here to make a case against GNU/Linux, because
technically, there isn't one. They are Windows and (to a lesser degree)
MacIntosh zealots who fear that GNU/Linux might one day become so
popular that they could be forced to use it themselves, thereby
confronting them with their own incompetence. And that in itself is
already evidential of stupidity, because GNU/Linux and all other Free &
Open Source Software are about "freedom", not about "free beer". One is
free to use it or to not use it, unlike with Microsoft Windows, which
gets shoved down the throats of all unsuspecting new computer buyers
because the license is included in the price of the computer and the
machine comes preinstalled with that junk.
And when it comes to incompetence, RayLopez99 is the leader of the pack.
The self-proclaimed multi-millionaire [1] with an even so self-
proclaimed IQ of 150 [2] who buys pirated Windows CDs at 5 cents USD and
then probably has other people install them since he's clearly too thick
to pour water out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel.
Trust me, we've all tried to help him in his "honest endeavor" to
install GNU/Linux. I ended up killfiling him.
The guy is a walking disaster, not to mention a proven and self-admitted
liar. About a year ago or so, he allegedly wanted to try out Ubuntu, a
distribution so dumbed down that even a foetus could install (and use)
it without any problems, but of course, RayLopez99 wouldn't be who he is
if he didn't run into any problems. We had to babytalk him through it,
and then he still kept on failing miserably, not to mention that he also
kept on moving the goalposts. Eventually, the machine he was going to
install it on turned out to be a 12-year old Pentium II with 32 MB of
RAM or something - I don't remember the details anymore, but it was
something to that effect.
There is nothing to gain from engaging in any advocacy debate with any
of the Microsoft fanboys in comp.os.linux.advocacy. They're not even
interested in advocacy. They're just mentally ill bullies, that's all.
My advice to you is to killfile the idiot(s) and get on with your life.
[1] I wonder in what currency. There are countries out in the world
where owning 100 Euro (or about 145 US Dollar by today's exchange
rate) already makes one a multi-millionaire.
[2] I wonder by what official rating that may have been. He has also
already said that it was 130 (and 135), which is far more plausible,
if it is a US American IQ score - and RayLopez99 /is/ a US American
- because in order to derive the European WAIS IQ score from that,
you have to subtract about 15 points. So that makes his IQ by
the internationally acknowledged European WAIS standards about 115.
If he really /is/ that smart. His claim that "Serious Work" (tm)
can only be conducted in Microsoft Office certainly doesn't sound
like a statement coming from someone with an IQ comprised of three
digits. Not even in US American IQ score. And his use of language
fully agrees with that.
[Follow-up header set to comp.os.linux.setup.]
--
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
Aragorn
> In a thread massively cross-posted by a WinTroll,
The day Microsoft comes up with something that doesn't suck is the day
they start making vacuum cleaners. ;-)
Alan Mackenzie
>>FAT32 is not bulletproof.
> Name *anything* that M$ makes that even comes close.
Minesweeper?
Hadron
> "Statistics are commonly used like a drunken man uses a lamp
> post, i.e. for support, rather than illumination."
> -- unknown
What a ridiculous statement. But typical of you you and your big
head. No one else can use stats eh?
Of course some idiots cant. Willy Poaster or Telnet Porterfor example who claim
ridiculous Linux penetration based on visits to a Linux only resource
web site.
>
> These guys are not here to make a case against GNU/Linux, because
> technically, there isn't one.
Yes there IS. And if you stopped waffling on and boring the hole of
everyone you might realise it.
The technical reasons are:
Not comaptible enough with modern HW for many.
Too many distros confuse the potential adopter.
Releases frequently shoddy and unsupported.
Doesn't run the SOFTWARE people have invested in already (Windows lock
in if you like).
Doesnt run any decent audio apps.
Doesnt support things like Rosetta Stone
Not good for games
Frequently have to go to the command line (many people wont).
Doesnt support iTunes
Doesnt support smart phone sync programs (not even android)
Doesnt have plugins for development IDEs such as the Blackberry noe for
eclipse.
There are many plusses for Linux of course.
Not I purposely didnt mention Windows above. These are reasons WHY
people dont want Linux. Address them and its usage MIGHT increase.
RayLopez99
> Aragorn <stry...@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
>
> > These guys are not here to make a case against GNU/Linux, because
> > technically, there isn't one.
>
> Yes there IS. And if you stopped waffling on and boring the hole of
> everyone you might realise it.
>
> The technical reasons are:
>
> Not comaptible enough with modern HW for many.
> Too many distros confuse the potential adopter.
> Releases frequently shoddy and unsupported.
> Doesn't run the SOFTWARE people have invested in already (Windows lock
> in if you like).
> Doesnt run any decent audio apps.
> Doesnt support things like Rosetta Stone
> Not good for games
> Frequently have to go to the command line (many people wont).
> Doesnt support iTunes
> Doesnt support smart phone sync programs (not even android)
> Doesnt have plugins for development IDEs such as the Blackberry noe for
> eclipse.
>
> There are many plusses for Linux of course.
>
> Not I purposely didnt mention Windows above. These are reasons WHY
> people dont want Linux. Address them and its usage MIGHT increase.
Bravo Hadron. You are the one and only honest Linux user that I know
of.
RL
RayLopez99
> If I were really interested in the matter, then I probably would have
> looked up on it myself. Given however that this is a troll thread
> originating from the mother of all sewers - i.e. comp.os.linux.advocacy
> - and by a notorious, mentally ill and self-admitted troll with an
> irrational urge to pester GNU/Linux users with his drivel over and over
> and over again - i.e. RayLopez99 - I don't care much for looking up on
> any technical information or documentation with regard to stuff I don't
> even use, as there is simply no point to it.
Look who is talking--a self confessed mentally ill person who has,
among other maladies, a disorder known as autism.
>
> Whatever arguments are brought up to the RayLopez99 troll and his ilk
> from C.O.L.A. is all just casting pearls before the swine - and by this
> statement, I am actually insulting the swine. The C.O.L.A. trolls don't
> listen to reason, dismiss all documented evidence and repeatingly tout
> the same retarded and outdated statistics about GNU/Linux adoption;
> statistics which have also already been proven wrong anyway - insofar
> any statistics would actually be truthful to begin with, but that's
> another matter.
What's another matter? Linux's 1% market share? That's the ENTIRE
matter, retard!
>
> "Statistics are commonly used like a drunken man uses a lamp
> post, i.e. for support, rather than illumination."
> -- unknown
>
> These guys are not here to make a case against GNU/Linux, because
> technically, there isn't one. They are Windows and (to a lesser degree)
> MacIntosh zealots who fear that GNU/Linux might one day become so
> popular that they could be forced to use it themselves, thereby
> confronting them with their own incompetence. And that in itself is
> already evidential of stupidity, because GNU/Linux and all other Free &
> Open Source Software are about "freedom", not about "free beer". One is
> free to use it or to not use it, unlike with Microsoft Windows, which
> gets shoved down the throats of all unsuspecting new computer buyers
> because the license is included in the price of the computer and the
> machine comes preinstalled with that junk.
This thread belongs in COLA not COLS, shiitehead! You are now
advocating way beyond the topic of this thread.
>
> And when it comes to incompetence, RayLopez99 is the leader of the pack.
> The self-proclaimed multi-millionaire [1] with an even so self-
> proclaimed IQ of 150 [2] who buys pirated Windows CDs at 5 cents USD and
> then probably has other people install them since he's clearly too thick
> to pour water out of a boot with the instructions printed on the heel.
> Trust me, we've all tried to help him in his "honest endeavor" to
> install GNU/Linux. I ended up killfiling him.
Who cares. My IQ is 150+, never 130 as yours is, retard. And my
millions are in dollars, not the sinking euro, Eurofag.
>
> The guy is a walking disaster, not to mention a proven and self-admitted
> liar. About a year ago or so, he allegedly wanted to try out Ubuntu, a
> distribution so dumbed down that even a foetus could install (and use)
> it without any problems, but of course, RayLopez99 wouldn't be who he is
> if he didn't run into any problems. We had to babytalk him through it,
> and then he still kept on failing miserably, not to mention that he also
> kept on moving the goalposts. Eventually, the machine he was going to
> install it on turned out to be a 12-year old Pentium II with 32 MB of
> RAM or something - I don't remember the details anymore, but it was
> something to that effect.
Right. And the point was this old machine--which I recently tossed--
ran Windows 2000 fine but NOT ONE DISTRO SAVE DSL and (I think it was)
Mint ran on it--finally I got Linux loaded on it, after the third or
fourth try, and even posted a message from inside Linux using
Firefox. But I had to practically pull my hair out to get Linux to
work on it, unlike with Windows 2000.
> [Follow-up header set to comp.os.linux.setup.]
Why? this is a COLA topic, retard
>
> --
> Araporn
> (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
Got that right, Araporn.
RL
Big Steel
<snipped>
<yawn>
You are a joke Jeff Maniac.
David Brown
>
> Who cares. My IQ is 150+, never 130 as yours is, retard. And my
> millions are in dollars, not the sinking euro, Eurofag.
>
Ray, you will /never/ convince people you have a three-digit IQ, or a
four-digit bank balance, with statements like this. Don't you realise
that a Euro is worth more than an USD - nearly 50% more? A dollar
million is currently only worth about �690K. And while the economy in
the EU has its challenges (such as Greece, at the moment), the USD is
sinking faster and has been for longer. It's not hard to look up the rates:
Peter Köhlmann
> On 04/07/2011 00:37, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>
>> Who cares. My IQ is 150+, never 130 as yours is, retard. And my
>> millions are in dollars, not the sinking euro, Eurofag.
>>
>
> Ray, you will /never/ convince people you have a three-digit IQ,
He will never convince anyone of a room-temperature IQ (measured in Celsius,
naturally)
> or a four-digit bank balance,
He is a broke parking lot sweeper, who lost his job due to total
incompetence
RayLopez99
wrote:
> On 04/07/2011 00:37, RayLopez99 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Who cares. My IQ is 150+, never 130 as yours is, retard. And my
> > millions are in dollars, not the sinking euro, Eurofag.
>
> Ray, you will /never/ convince people you have a three-digit IQ, or a
> four-digit bank balance, with statements like this. Don't you realise
> that a Euro is worth more than an USD - nearly 50% more? A dollar
> the EU has its challenges (such as Greece, at the moment), the USD is
> sinking faster and has been for longer. It's not hard to look up the rates:
>
> <http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=EUR&view=1Y>
I said "sinking" euro, fag. The euro will soon see parity IMO and
then less than parity to the dollar.
Happy Fourth of July to you too, Brit.
RL
David Brown
> On Jul 4, 10:54 am, David Brown<da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
> wrote:
>> On 04/07/2011 00:37, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Who cares. My IQ is 150+, never 130 as yours is, retard. And my
>>> millions are in dollars, not the sinking euro, Eurofag.
>>
>> Ray, you will /never/ convince people you have a three-digit IQ, or a
>> four-digit bank balance, with statements like this. Don't you realise
>> that a Euro is worth more than an USD - nearly 50% more? A dollar
>> the EU has its challenges (such as Greece, at the moment), the USD is
>> sinking faster and has been for longer. It's not hard to look up the rates:
>>
>> <http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=USD&to=EUR&view=1Y>
>
> I said "sinking" euro, fag. The euro will soon see parity IMO and
> then less than parity to the dollar.
>
You will forgive us if we don't base our economic investments on your
"humble" opinion. If you were to predict that the sun would rise
tomorrow, I'd be sceptical.
Oh, and why do keep calling people cigarettes? I suppose there are
other interpretations of "fag", but none that I know of make any more
sense when you misuse the word.
> Happy Fourth of July to you too, Brit.
>
Enjoy your fireworks. And take the opportunity to think about what your
county's founders stood for, and the original principles behind the USA.
If the US could take a few steps back in that direction, it would be a
happy 4th of July for many people.
Homer
> On 04/07/2011 12:50, RayLopez99 wrote:
>> I said "sinking" euro, fag. The euro will soon see parity IMO and
>> then less than parity to the dollar.
>
> You will forgive us if we don't base our economic investments on your
> "humble" opinion. If you were to predict that the sun would rise
> tomorrow, I'd be sceptical.
>
> Oh, and why do keep calling people cigarettes? I suppose there are
> other interpretations of "fag", but none that I know of make any more
> sense when you misuse the word.
Well he could be talking about a bundle of sticks, I suppose, or a (sort
of) British meatball in a rich onion gravy, but usually they don't post
to Usenet very often. Neither do cigarettes, for that matter, so that
just leaves a junior public schoolboy who acts as a message boy or
servant for a senior (which is possibly the origin of the American
idiom, as in to be somebody's bitch). This was subsequently interpreted
as effeminate or homosexual, as an insult used by homophobes, bigots in
general, and those who lack the intelligence to defend their arguments
with reasoned discourse, such as the "self-made millionaire" who can't
do simple maths, Ray Lopez.
--
K. | "The poor have flat-screen TVs."
http://slated.org | ~ Libertarian propagandist Keith
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | Curtis, explaining why he thinks
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 42 days | we shouldn't tax the rich.
David Brown
> Verily I say unto thee, that David Brown spake thusly:
>> On 04/07/2011 12:50, RayLopez99 wrote:
>
>>> I said "sinking" euro, fag. The euro will soon see parity IMO and
>>> then less than parity to the dollar.
>>
>> You will forgive us if we don't base our economic investments on your
>> "humble" opinion. If you were to predict that the sun would rise
>> tomorrow, I'd be sceptical.
>>
>> Oh, and why do keep calling people cigarettes? I suppose there are
>> other interpretations of "fag", but none that I know of make any more
>> sense when you misuse the word.
>
> Well he could be talking about a bundle of sticks, I suppose, or a (sort
> of) British meatball in a rich onion gravy, but usually they don't post
> to Usenet very often. Neither do cigarettes, for that matter, so that
> just leaves a junior public schoolboy who acts as a message boy or
> servant for a senior (which is possibly the origin of the American
> idiom, as in to be somebody's bitch). This was subsequently interpreted
> as effeminate or homosexual, as an insult used by homophobes, bigots in
> general, and those who lack the intelligence to defend their arguments
> with reasoned discourse, such as the "self-made millionaire" who can't
> do simple maths, Ray Lopez.
>
I suspect it's the later use he is meaning. Of course, it's no more
appropriate than any other uses - it is a total non-sequitor, and I
can't understand how it could interpreted as an insult.
Ray, stick to calling people "retard". It's usually wrong, but at least
it makes sense of sorts.
Norman Peelman
Running a LiveCD does not constitute 'recovering after a hard reboot'.
RayLopez99
wrote:
>
> I suspect it's the later use he is meaning. Of course, it's no more
> appropriate than any other uses - it is a total non-sequitor, and I
> can't understand how it could interpreted as an insult.
>
> Ray, stick to calling people "retard". It's usually wrong, but at least
> it makes sense of sorts.
That's strange: insulting somebody's intelligence 'makes sense' to
you, a putative libertarian with high morals, yet insulting somebody's
sexual orientation does not.
I think you fucking queer, that's what I think. Something wrong with
your hypothalamus, it's not well developed. Explains your Linux use
too.
RL
RayLopez99
>
> >> It was -you- not shutting down your system properly.
>
> > That's correct: I did do a 'hard reboot' by turning off the power.
> > But it's the fault of the Linux CD to corrupt my XP HD such that it
> > failed in the way it did. Linux is very temperamental when it comes
> > to recovering after a hard reboot, as evidenced by the above.
>
> > RL
>
> Running a LiveCD does not constitute 'recovering after a hard reboot'.
>
>
You still don't get it. I'll try once more: No problems with XP.
Then run Linux LiveCD. Then exit LiveCD improperly, by shutting off
power. Then on reboot, without LInuxCD, XP will not load. So I had
to use Bart PE (built supposedly on Linux LiveCD, from what I recall)
to do 'chkdsk' and fix the XP NT HD. Get it now?
RL
Mike Easter
RayLopez99 wrote:
> You still don't get it. I'll try once more:
However many times you try, you are mistaken in your analysis of some
problem you had.
> No problems with XP. Then run Linux LiveCD. Then exit LiveCD
> improperly, by shutting off power.
Running a linux live CD and shutting off power does not alter anything
about the hdd.
> Then on reboot, without LInuxCD, XP will not load.
Whatever problem you had was not caused by using a live CD as a live CD.
Perhaps you made a mistake and started an installation before you shut down.
> So I had to use Bart PE (built supposedly on Linux LiveCD, from what
> I recall) to do 'chkdsk' and fix the XP NT HD. Get it now?
If you did something wrong that interfered with booting XP, it wasn't
because of using a live CD as a live CD.
--
Mike Easter
Norman Peelman
The LiveCD doesn't mount your physical hd unless you tell it to do
so, ie: Clicking on the hd icon and fooling around with the hd filesystem.
William Poaster
When are people gonna realise Dopez99 is a troll, & start ignoring the bum.
--
"!sgub evah t'nseod CP sihT ?sgub naem ayaddahW"
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves.
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods."
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --
Grinder
> ... So I had to use Bart PE (built supposedly on
> Linux LiveCD, from what I recall)
I suspect this is not the case. BartPE models the WindowPE, and in fact
needs a Windows installation CD to create its bootable volume. I
suppose it's possible that some of the boot sector stuff is of linux
origin, but that's short of being "built supposedly on a Linux LiveCD."
JeffM
>>Bart PE (built supposedly on Linux LiveCD
>>
Grinder wrote:
>BartPE[...]needs a Windows installation CD
>to create its bootable volume.
>
...and if it was built from Linux,
you could move the CD from machine to machine
and **not** have it FAIL.
Trying to compare the two
is like trying to equate a kid's tricycle to a Formula 1 car.
Windoze / Windoze installs were **purposely** broken by M$
so that you couldn't pirate their 4th-rate crap.
...and screw you and your computing experience.
David Brown
> On Jul 4, 8:50 pm, David Brown<david.br...@removethis.hesbynett.no>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I suspect it's the later use he is meaning. Of course, it's no more
>> appropriate than any other uses - it is a total non-sequitor, and I
>> can't understand how it could interpreted as an insult.
>>
>> Ray, stick to calling people "retard". It's usually wrong, but at least
>> it makes sense of sorts.
>
> That's strange: insulting somebody's intelligence 'makes sense' to
> you, a putative libertarian with high morals, yet insulting somebody's
> sexual orientation does not.
No - again, you fail to understand. Making comments about someone's
intelligence, or lack thereof, makes sense when they are apparently
doing or saying something stupid. That /can/ be appropriate or
justified in a discussion like this - people do say stupid things here.
But this is not a discussion about personal sexual orientation - no one
here has any way to judge or guess about other people. It would be like
my calling you "big nose" - how appropriate would that be? Clearly I
have no idea if your nose is big, small or indifferent - nor whether you
would feel insulted by my calling you "big nose". It simply wouldn't
make sense. And the same applies to any other personal characteristics.
>
> I think you fucking queer, that's what I think. Something wrong with
> your hypothalamus, it's not well developed. Explains your Linux use
> too.
>
By "queer", I assume you mean "odd" or "unusual", since you have good
grounds for suggesting that. I'm not sure what sort of bizarre twisted
"logic" would make you think you know about my sexual preferences, and I
have even less idea of why you would think it mattered here, or that I
would feel insulted by your comments. But if you are really going to
claim "only gays use Linux", then I think that says a great deal about
/you/.
The Natural Philosopher
I tell you what. Ever since I sold a truly awful book on ebay for a
ridiculous sum of money, by saying 'This book is really extremely bad,
made worse by the forced homosexual relationship of it's main
protagonist, only buy this if you are the only gay in the village' I
have realised that probaly on account of their childless state, there
are a lot of gay people out there with far too much money and almost no
sense.
To the point where a 'gay Linux' distro could probably be SOLD for
serious money.
Give the whole thing a studs and leather theme, with options for deep
purple and breathless banana styles, rename the apps to something
suggestive..su becomes FU, and home becomes a 'cottage' icon wise..
RayLopez99
wrote:
>
> To the point where a 'gay Linux' distro could probably be SOLD for
> serious money.
LMAO! This is the funniest thing I've read today. You really think a
"Gay Only" Linux would sell and make "serious money", when Linux has
less than 1% market share?
Good thing you killfiled me, since you won't be hearing the laughter
unless somebody responds to this.
I'll post as a new thread to make sure you see it
RL
David Brown
Lots of stuff gets sold on eBay for high prices because it is described
as being bad - people bid for them to see /how/ bad they really are. I
don't think there is any reason to suppose the buyer (or other bidders)
actually were gay (or any reason to suppose that they were /not/ gay).
If you had added "there are some pornographic doodles by a previous
owner" to the description, drawing the doodles yourself, you'd probably
have doubled the price.
> To the point where a 'gay Linux' distro could probably be SOLD for
> serious money.
>
> Give the whole thing a studs and leather theme, with options for deep
> purple and breathless banana styles, rename the apps to something
> suggestive..su becomes FU, and home becomes a 'cottage' icon wise..
>
I don't know you'd make "serious money" (unless you mean "serious money"
in the same way Ray interprets "serious work"...). But I'm sure you get
your followers - just like the Christian and Satanic themed versions of
Ubuntu.
chrisv
>By "queer", I assume you mean "odd" or "unusual",
Why the hell bother with the fscking mental midget RayDopez? Sheesh.