Open Source once again proves its superiority
rapskat
discovered (again). Well, the maintainers have yet to release an
"official" fix for this, so does that mean that we all must be vulnerable
and exposed with this very common library?
Nope. This is Open Source, remember? Distros have fixed and released
their own patches to the library in a matter of days, so so long as your
system(s) are regularly updated, you are free of this issue.
Think about it, if this were a vulnerability in Windows
or any other commercial closed source product, then we would all be
sitting ducks until the developers finally got up off their butts and
fixed it. But, because this is Open Source Software, anyone can develop
and release a patch for any problem, even before the developers do
themselves!
Man, OSS Rocks!
--
rapskat - 16:00:39 up 1 day, 15:32, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; give him a
freshly-charged electric eel and chances are he won't bother you for
anything ever again."
Snit
pan.2005.07.10....@rapskat.com on 7/10/05 1:07 PM:
> You all probably know about the zlib vulnerability that was recently
> discovered (again). Well, the maintainers have yet to release an
> "official" fix for this, so does that mean that we all must be vulnerable
> and exposed with this very common library?
>
> Nope. This is Open Source, remember? Distros have fixed and released
> their own patches to the library in a matter of days, so so long as your
> system(s) are regularly updated, you are free of this issue.
>
> Think about it, if this were a vulnerability in Windows
> or any other commercial closed source product, then we would all be
> sitting ducks until the developers finally got up off their butts and
> fixed it. But, because this is Open Source Software, anyone can develop
> and release a patch for any problem, even before the developers do
> themselves!
>
> Man, OSS Rocks!
You do realize, of course, that third parties often provide temporary fixes
until Apple fixes a hole... right?
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
rapskat
>> Man, OSS Rocks!
>
> You do realize, of course, that third parties often provide temporary fixes
> until Apple fixes a hole... right?
Care to provide an example of this?
--
rapskat - 17:28:27 up 1 day, 17:00, 4 users, load average: 0.51, 0.52, 0.48
Daphne: At least someone appreciates my mother tongue.
Niles: Yes, I've always had an ear for your tongue.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:27:13 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>> Man, OSS Rocks!
>>
>> You do realize, of course, that third parties often provide temporary
>> fixes until Apple fixes a hole... right?
>
> Care to provide an example of this?
>
Better make that 12 examples,as he claims it is "often that way"
It would be good of those examples included some patches for the base OS
(Darwin) as well as for the GUI (Aqua)
I suspect nothing will come forward, as this is just Snot snotting around
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Simplicity made complex.
Snit
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:27:13 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>> Man, OSS Rocks!
>>
>> You do realize, of course, that third parties often provide temporary fixes
>> until Apple fixes a hole... right?
>
> Care to provide an example of this?
Sure. In regards to the recent problems Apple had with the dashboard
vulnerabilities, there were 3rd party folks who created fixes - programs
that helped minimize the risk. Same thing when Safari was found to be
vulnerable to phishing attempts - now Safari warns you of "odd" URL's, but
before Apple came out with a fix others did.
In both cases Apple was pretty quick to get a fix out - but others were
faster.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Peter Köhlmann
> "rapskat" <rap...@gmail.com> stated in post
> pan.2005.07.10....@rapskat.com on 7/10/05 2:28 PM:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:27:13 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>>> Man, OSS Rocks!
>>>
>>> You do realize, of course, that third parties often provide temporary
>>> fixes until Apple fixes a hole... right?
>>
>> Care to provide an example of this?
>
> Sure. In regards to the recent problems Apple had with the dashboard
> vulnerabilities, there were 3rd party folks who created fixes - programs
> that helped minimize the risk. Same thing when Safari was found to be
> vulnerable to phishing attempts - now Safari warns you of "odd" URL's, but
> before Apple came out with a fix others did.
>
> In both cases Apple was pretty quick to get a fix out - but others were
> faster.
>
>
So your defintion of "often" is "two"
--
The easiest way to figure the cost of living is to take your income
and add ten percent.
Snit
das4bt$6vb$02$1...@news.t-online.com on 7/10/05 2:35 PM:
> begin virus.txt.scr rapskat wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:27:13 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>>> Man, OSS Rocks!
>>>
>>> You do realize, of course, that third parties often provide temporary
>>> fixes until Apple fixes a hole... right?
>>
>> Care to provide an example of this?
>>
>
> Better make that 12 examples,as he claims it is "often that way"
> It would be good of those examples included some patches for the base OS
> (Darwin) as well as for the GUI (Aqua)
>
> I suspect nothing will come forward, as this is just Snot snotting around
Already gave two examples, both relatively recent... I'll let you track down
the other 10. :)
Snit
You definition of "an example" is more than two examples?
I gave twice the requested amount. I'll let you work out the math.
--
BU__SH__
Wallace Corpus
rapskat wrote:
> Think about it, if this were a vulnerability in Windows
> or any other commercial closed source product, then we would all be
> sitting ducks until the developers finally got up off their butts and
> fixed it. But, because this is Open Source Software, anyone can develop
> and release a patch for any problem, even before the developers do
> themselves!
You're dreaming again ratskink.
> Man, OSS Rocks!
Yea.
OSS is a pile of rocks.
dfs
> You all probably know about the zlib vulnerability that was recently
> discovered (again). Well, the maintainers have yet to release an
> "official" fix for this, so does that mean that we all must be vulnerable
> and exposed with this very common library?
>
> Nope. This is Open Source, remember? Distros have fixed and released
> their own patches to the library in a matter of days, so so long as your
> system(s) are regularly updated, you are free of this issue.
>
> Think about it, if this were a vulnerability in Windows
> or any other commercial closed source product, then we would all be
> sitting ducks until the developers finally got up off their butts and
> fixed it.
It's not a security issue, but on 7/27/04 (right here on cola), I asked the
Gnumeric maintainer himself to fix Gnumeric so it selects the range to be
summed when you click the sigma icon.
Six months later - as of mid-Jan 2005 - in the stable version 1.4.2 series:
no can do.
Linux: we're too busy developing.
Speaking of which:
developing, developing, developing
developing, developing, developing
developing, developing, developing
developing, developing, developing
developing, developing, developing
developing, developing, developing
developing, developing, developing
developing, developing, developing
developing, developing, developing
developing, developing, developing
developing, developing, developing
http://msmvps.com/coad/archive/2005/03/19/38999.aspx
> But, because this is Open Source Software, anyone can develop
> and release a patch for any problem, even before the developers do
> themselves!
>
> Man, OSS Rocks!
It's really not that exciting. Seriously.
John Bailo
> It's not a security issue, but on 7/27/04 (right here on cola), I asked
> the Gnumeric maintainer himself to fix Gnumeric so it selects the range to
> be summed when you click the sigma icon.
He probably set up a spam folder that parses for weirdoes and your mail
ended up there.
--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://www.texeme.com
rapskat
> "rapskat" <rap...@gmail.com> stated in post
> pan.2005.07.10....@rapskat.com on 7/10/05 2:28 PM:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:27:13 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>>> Man, OSS Rocks!
>>>
>>> You do realize, of course, that third parties often provide temporary fixes
>>> until Apple fixes a hole... right?
>>
>> Care to provide an example of this?
>
> Sure. In regards to the recent problems Apple had with the dashboard
> vulnerabilities, there were 3rd party folks who created fixes - programs
> that helped minimize the risk. Same thing when Safari was found to be
> vulnerable to phishing attempts - now Safari warns you of "odd" URL's, but
> before Apple came out with a fix others did.
>
> In both cases Apple was pretty quick to get a fix out - but others were
> faster.
What you fail to realize is that these were not true "fixes". They were
no more than band aids applied over the problem, but the underlying issue
was still there. Workarounds if you would.
This is the most that a 3rd party that doesn't have access to the source
code for another product can do, workarounds and bandaids. They can't
actually *fix* the issue itself because they don't have access to the code
to do so.
With OSS, they do, therefore they can. Get it?
--
rapskat - 19:21:54 up 1 day, 18:54, 1 user, load average: 0.04, 0.46, 0.55
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist- "
-- Last words of Union General John Sedgwick, Battle of
Spotsylvania Court House, U.S. Civil War
Snit
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:42:25 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "rapskat" <rap...@gmail.com> stated in post
>> pan.2005.07.10....@rapskat.com on 7/10/05 2:28 PM:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:27:13 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Man, OSS Rocks!
>>>>
>>>> You do realize, of course, that third parties often provide temporary fixes
>>>> until Apple fixes a hole... right?
>>>
>>> Care to provide an example of this?
>>
>> Sure. In regards to the recent problems Apple had with the dashboard
>> vulnerabilities, there were 3rd party folks who created fixes - programs
>> that helped minimize the risk. Same thing when Safari was found to be
>> vulnerable to phishing attempts - now Safari warns you of "odd" URL's, but
>> before Apple came out with a fix others did.
>>
>> In both cases Apple was pretty quick to get a fix out - but others were
>> faster.
>
> What you fail to realize is that these were not true "fixes". They were
> no more than band aids applied over the problem, but the underlying issue
> was still there. Workarounds if you would.
Well, um, yeah. That is what they were designed to be - solutions for the
problem until Apple put out a real "fix"... and they worked great.
>
> This is the most that a 3rd party that doesn't have access to the source
> code for another product can do, workarounds and bandaids. They can't
> actually *fix* the issue itself because they don't have access to the code
> to do so.
>
> With OSS, they do, therefore they can. Get it?
Sure - but the "official" code base still has to be updated. Get it?
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
rapskat
>> What you fail to realize is that these were not true "fixes". They
>> were no more than band aids applied over the problem, but the
>> underlying issue was still there. Workarounds if you would.
>
> Well, um, yeah. That is what they were designed to be - solutions for
> the problem until Apple put out a real "fix"... and they worked great.
They are not "solutions". Solutions are final, they were at best
workarounds. The problem itself wasn't fixed.
With OSS, the problem is *fixed* in the actual code, not just issued a
"workaround" patch.
>> This is the most that a 3rd party that doesn't have access to the
>> source code for another product can do, workarounds and bandaids. They
>> can't actually *fix* the issue itself because they don't have access to
>> the code to do so.
>>
>> With OSS, they do, therefore they can. Get it?
>
> Sure - but the "official" code base still has to be updated. Get it?
Obviously you don't. The fix is in the code that is available on the
mirrors. Totally seamless to the user, no 3rd party hack-ons to install
and/or setup. You update your system, and it's fixed, from your
distribution.
Who cares if the "Official" project sources still need fixing? This is
irrelevant to the end user, because they are already fixed up.
--
rapskat - 19:43:22 up 1 day, 19:15, 1 user, load average: 0.25, 0.17, 0.24
Jeff Dike: bill is a bad boy
William Stearns: He is?
***William Stearns ducks
Jeff Dike: forcing me to speed up UML by deviously giving me one and
being impatient with it
Snit
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:38:47 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>> What you fail to realize is that these were not true "fixes". They
>>> were no more than band aids applied over the problem, but the
>>> underlying issue was still there. Workarounds if you would.
>>
>> Well, um, yeah. That is what they were designed to be - solutions for
>> the problem until Apple put out a real "fix"... and they worked great.
>
> They are not "solutions". Solutions are final, they were at best
> workarounds. The problem itself wasn't fixed.
>
> With OSS, the problem is *fixed* in the actual code, not just issued a
> "workaround" patch.
So you get patches from non-official sources - same as with the fixes I
describe... except the ones with OS X were not as "deep", so if they causes
problems they were easy to remove.
>
>>> This is the most that a 3rd party that doesn't have access to the
>>> source code for another product can do, workarounds and bandaids. They
>>> can't actually *fix* the issue itself because they don't have access to
>>> the code to do so.
>>>
>>> With OSS, they do, therefore they can. Get it?
>>
>> Sure - but the "official" code base still has to be updated. Get it?
>
> Obviously you don't. The fix is in the code that is available on the
> mirrors. Totally seamless to the user, no 3rd party hack-ons to install
> and/or setup. You update your system, and it's fixed, from your
> distribution.
>
> Who cares if the "Official" project sources still need fixing? This is
> irrelevant to the end user, because they are already fixed up.
I prefer one code base where bugs and incompatibilities can be better
tracked. Hmmm, are you saying Linux does not have that advantage?
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <pan.2005.07.10....@rapskat.com>):
> You all probably know about the zlib vulnerability that was recently
> discovered (again). Well, the maintainers have yet to release an
> "official" fix for this, so does that mean that we all must be vulnerable
> and exposed with this very common library?
>
> Nope. This is Open Source, remember? Distros have fixed and released
> their own patches to the library in a matter of days, so so long as your
> system(s) are regularly updated, you are free of this issue.
If, and only if, all distro patches are good ones, and resolve
existing security issue(s) without introducing any new ones.
rapskat
>>> Well, um, yeah. That is what they were designed to be - solutions for
>>> the problem until Apple put out a real "fix"... and they worked great.
>>
>> They are not "solutions". Solutions are final, they were at best
>> workarounds. The problem itself wasn't fixed.
>>
>> With OSS, the problem is *fixed* in the actual code, not just issued a
>> "workaround" patch.
>
> So you get patches from non-official sources
"non-official sources"?!? Erm...what exactly is more "official" than the
distro maintainers themselves?
You are only dealing with a single faction, not several scattered all over
the place to get your "fix".
> - same as with the fixes I describe...
The problem is that they were not "fixes", they where simply workarounds.
Do you comprehend the difference? Let me illustrate...
Wrapping duct tape around a leaky pipe is not "fixing" it, it is working
around the actual issue.
Replacing the faulty gasket/broken pipe/loose bolt/whatever so that the
problem no longer exists is *fixing* the issue.
Do you see? Probably not.
> except the ones with OS X were not as "deep", so if they causes
> problems they were easy to remove.
We test too, you know.
>> Who cares if the "Official" project sources still need fixing? This is
>> irrelevant to the end user, because they are already fixed up.
>
> I prefer one code base where bugs and incompatibilities can be better
> tracked. Hmmm, are you saying Linux does not have that advantage?
Now you are contradicting yourself.
--
rapskat - 21:05:19 up 1 day, 20:37, 1 user, load average: 0.28, 0.31, 0.45
Snit
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:00:23 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>>> Well, um, yeah. That is what they were designed to be - solutions for
>>>> the problem until Apple put out a real "fix"... and they worked great.
>>>
>>> They are not "solutions". Solutions are final, they were at best
>>> workarounds. The problem itself wasn't fixed.
>>>
>>> With OSS, the problem is *fixed* in the actual code, not just issued a
>>> "workaround" patch.
>>
>> So you get patches from non-official sources
>
> "non-official sources"?!? Erm...what exactly is more "official" than the
> distro maintainers themselves?
Oh - so when I get patches from the OS X maintainers, Apple, how is that any
different? I was talking about getting a fix *before* then.
>
> You are only dealing with a single faction, not several scattered all over
> the place to get your "fix".
Oh, just like OS X - though there are often folks who will supply short term
fixes before then.
>
>> - same as with the fixes I describe...
>
> The problem is that they were not "fixes", they where simply workarounds.
> Do you comprehend the difference? Let me illustrate...
>
> Wrapping duct tape around a leaky pipe is not "fixing" it, it is working
> around the actual issue.
>
> Replacing the faulty gasket/broken pipe/loose bolt/whatever so that the
> problem no longer exists is *fixing* the issue.
>
> Do you see? Probably not.
Now apply your silly analogy to the examples I used. Should be fun to watch
you squirm. :)
You see, the problem with your analogy is that often Linux is more like the
duct tape situation, many non-professionals working on things in
non-professional ways. Sure, there are *also* professionals working on
Linix, but even then there are different professional philosophies. Apple
does not suffer, much, from that problem. It is one reason why Apple can
produce so much integration within suites and even outside of them... some
examples:
Does your mail client tell you if the person you are writing to is
currently online in case you want to chat?
Does your image camera software give you access to your musical
play lists for slide shows?
Does your presentation software allow you to easily save in a
format that can be edited by your movie maker?
Does your movie maker allow you to add DVD chaptering and then,
in one click, send your movie to a DVD authoring program?
Does your DVD authoring program also allow you access to your
music play lists - and your image albums?
Does your mail program have media manipulation so well connected
it offers slide shows of images you are sent?
Is your lowest end text editor integrated with text services so it has
a dictionary and thesaurus? How about full ligature support?
On a Mac all of this is a a given... that and a lot more. Programs work
together more than I have seen in Linux and certainly more than Windows.
>
>> except the ones with OS X were not as "deep", so if they causes
>> problems they were easy to remove.
>
> We test too, you know.
Did anyone say Linux folks do not? Why do you even bring up something that
is not in contention?
>
>>> Who cares if the "Official" project sources still need fixing? This is
>>> irrelevant to the end user, because they are already fixed up.
>>
>> I prefer one code base where bugs and incompatibilities can be better
>> tracked. Hmmm, are you saying Linux does not have that advantage?
>
> Now you are contradicting yourself.
There are third party folks who offer "non-embedded" fixes. The only
"embedded" fixes are offered by one source. You are not against third party
software, are you? I know I am not!
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
Tim Smith
rapskat <rap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So you get patches from non-official sources
>
> "non-official sources"?!? Erm...what exactly is more "official" than the
> distro maintainers themselves?
How about the source from the people that wrote and maintain the code?
These guys:
--
--Tim Smith
rapskat
>> Do you see? Probably not.
>
> Now apply your silly analogy to the examples I used. Should be fun to watch
> you squirm. :)
Like you squirmed in response to my previous post?
> You see, the problem with your analogy is that often Linux is more like the
> duct tape situation, many non-professionals working on things in
> non-professional ways. Sure, there are *also* professionals working on
> Linix, but even then there are different professional philosophies.
Ok, I see. So now Linux is unprofessional, right? Nah, you're not biased
at all.
> Apple does not suffer, much, from that problem. It is one reason why Apple can
> produce so much integration within suites and even outside of them... some
> examples:
>
> Does your mail client tell you if the person you are writing to is
> currently online in case you want to chat?
No. Why? Because a mail client is a mail client. An instant messaging
program is an instant messaging program. Sure, my IM tells me if I have
(online) mail, and can even integrate with my MUA for adding contacts if I
want. But letting me know that a contact is online? No, to be honest, I
really wouldn't want it to. I suspect many others probably feel the same
way or else it would have already been done.
By the way, how much input did you have in having that "feature" added?
What about if you didn't want it, how would you go about getting rid of it
(note, not disabling it, but getting rid of it altogether)?
> Does your image camera software give you access to your musical
> play lists for slide shows?
Again, I don't see the purpose. Image software is for images, if you want
slideshows with accompanying music, there are apps that do that as well on
Linux.
One app to do a task, and do it well.
> Does your presentation software allow you to easily save in a
> format that can be edited by your movie maker?
Does your presentation software allow you to save in any a/v format, or
just one?
> Does your movie maker allow you to add DVD chaptering and then,
> in one click, send your movie to a DVD authoring program?
My DVD authoring program handles creating chapters, not my movie editing
software. Movie editing is for editing movies, not creating DVD's.
> Does your DVD authoring program also allow you access to your
> music play lists - and your image albums?
Of course, why wouldn't it?
> Does your mail program have media manipulation so well connected
> it offers slide shows of images you are sent?
Preview, yes. Slideshows, no.
> Is your lowest end text editor integrated with text services so it has
> a dictionary and thesaurus? How about full ligature support?
A text editor with spell checking and thesaurus?!? OMG!
Nope sorry, there might be, IDK. I usually only use features like those
in a WORD PROCESSOR. I'm not too concerned with looking up
definitions for anything that I have open in a text editor.
> On a Mac all of this is a a given... that and a lot more. Programs work
> together more than I have seen in Linux and certainly more than Windows.
Granted, some of that seems neat. But necessary, or even convenient?
That I don't know. I kind of like my apps to do what they were meant to
do and do them well.
I don't want my CD Burning app to be checking my mail or my Image Editing
application to be able to edit spreadsheets or my calculator to play
multimedia.
That you see these features as value adds is good for you I guess, but you
have to realize that not everyone would. Trust me, if such features were
greatly desired, they would have already been available for Linux (they
might even still be).
One size does not fit all.
--
rapskat - 00:33:11 up 2 days, 5 min, 1 user, load average: 0.02, 0.15, 0.28
Things you Do Not Want To See On IRC: your husband commenting on the
S390 port and in the next comment, announcing that he expects a new toy.
He tells me the two are unrelated. I do hope so.
- Telsa Gwynn, Alan Cox's wife
rapskat
>> > So you get patches from non-official sources
>>
>> "non-official sources"?!? Erm...what exactly is more "official" than the
>> distro maintainers themselves?
>
> How about the source from the people that wrote and maintain the code?
> These guys:
>
> <http://www.zlib.net/>
When someone is using a distro, the point of contact for that person is
the distro maintainers. They more than likely won't be going around
downloading individual updates from every project in their distro.
--
rapskat - 00:59:15 up 2 days, 31 min, 1 user, load average: 0.22, 0.23, 0.26
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it
flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
-- Matt Groening
Snit
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 18:50:44 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>> Do you see? Probably not.
>>
>> Now apply your silly analogy to the examples I used. Should be fun to watch
>> you squirm. :)
>
> Like you squirmed in response to my previous post?
Er? Um, no.
>
>> You see, the problem with your analogy is that often Linux is more like the
>> duct tape situation, many non-professionals working on things in
>> non-professional ways. Sure, there are *also* professionals working on
>> Linix, but even then there are different professional philosophies.
>
> Ok, I see. So now Linux is unprofessional, right? Nah, you're not biased
> at all.
Do you find it amusing to attribute your own ideas to me?
Do you disagree with what I said, and if so, why?
>
>> Apple does not suffer, much, from that problem. It is one reason why Apple
>> can produce so much integration within suites and even outside of them...
>> some examples:
>>
>> Does your mail client tell you if the person you are writing to is
>> currently online in case you want to chat?
>
> No. Why? Because a mail client is a mail client. An instant messaging
> program is an instant messaging program. Sure, my IM tells me if I have
> (online) mail, and can even integrate with my MUA for adding contacts if I
> want. But letting me know that a contact is online? No, to be honest, I
> really wouldn't want it to. I suspect many others probably feel the same
> way or else it would have already been done.
It has been done. My mail client does it. Do you need proof?
>
> By the way, how much input did you have in having that "feature" added?
Personally I did not put in the request. Why do you ask - other than to
change goal posts, that is?
> What about if you didn't want it, how would you go about getting rid of it
> (note, not disabling it, but getting rid of it altogether)?
Um, er? What? If I did not want it I would disable it or use another
program.
Again, other than to change goal posts, what is the point of your question?
>
>> Does your image camera software give you access to your musical
>> play lists for slide shows?
>
> Again, I don't see the purpose.
I do not care if you see the purpose. If you care to know what it does for
me and for other users I will tell you, but if you do not want to know I
will not force it on you. Other than to move goal posts why did you even
tell me this?
> Image software is for images, if you want slideshows with accompanying music,
> there are apps that do that as well on Linux.
Remember I am talking about integration...
Do you feel the same way about FTP and your file browser?
>
> One app to do a task, and do it well.
And when working with images one task I enjoy is making a quick slide show
to look at the images... and then maybe making a movie / DVD out of them.
Integration makes this easier and more efficient... but you are not stuck
with these solutions if you do not want them. Heck, I could likely run the
same software you do - only I would be running it on OS X.
>
>> Does your presentation software allow you to easily save in a
>> format that can be edited by your movie maker?
>
> Does your presentation software allow you to save in any a/v format, or
> just one?
Multiple... though I am not sure I would say *any*. Again, other than to
move goal posts, why do you ask... and why did you not answer the question?
>
>> Does your movie maker allow you to add DVD chaptering and then,
>> in one click, send your movie to a DVD authoring program?
>
> My DVD authoring program handles creating chapters, not my movie editing
> software. Movie editing is for editing movies, not creating DVD's.
If they are well integrated it should help prepare - but I would have no
problem if the feature were elsewhere in a well integrated suite.
Since chaptering, though, is placed at specific areas of a movie, it makes
complete sense to have the chaptering be done in a movie editing software
part of the suite.
>
>> Does your DVD authoring program also allow you access to your
>> music play lists - and your image albums?
>
> Of course, why wouldn't it?
LOL! None of your BS about how DVD authoring software is not music playlist
software? LOL!
>
>> Does your mail program have media manipulation so well connected
>> it offers slide shows of images you are sent?
>
> Preview, yes. Slideshows, no.
Of course not - it is not integrated with your media layer... if Linux even
has one. Does it?
>
>> Is your lowest end text editor integrated with text services so it has
>> a dictionary and thesaurus? How about full ligature support?
>
> A text editor with spell checking and thesaurus?!? OMG!
>
> Nope sorry, there might be, IDK. I usually only use features like those
> in a WORD PROCESSOR. I'm not too concerned with looking up
> definitions for anything that I have open in a text editor.
These things are integrated into the OS... darn near any program has them
available. Integration is a very cool thing.
>
>> On a Mac all of this is a a given... that and a lot more. Programs work
>> together more than I have seen in Linux and certainly more than Windows.
>
> Granted, some of that seems neat.
I am surprised to see you admit to this. Really... after all of your BS
excuses above. What, above, seems "neat" to you?
> But necessary, or even convenient?
Necessary... well, only if you find ease-of-use, convenience, and efficiency
necessary... suppose it depends on your needs.
> That I don't know.
I do.
> I kind of like my apps to do what they were meant to do and do them well.
As opposed to apps that do not do things well... *gasp!*. You do! Amazing!
>
> I don't want my CD Burning app to be checking my mail
What benefit would that bring?
> or my Image Editing application to be able to edit spreadsheets or my
> calculator to play multimedia.
What benefit would that bring? Are you trying to equate those silly things
with the *useful* things I list above? If so, please tell me how your list
would be useful to a reasonable number of people.
See... it is fun watching you squirm. :)
>
> That you see these features as value adds is good for you I guess, but you
> have to realize that not everyone would.
So do not use the feature if you do not want it. Heck, nothing on a Mac
forces you into those programs. I use PhotoShop a lot more than I use
iPhoto... though I do use both.
The Mac gives you choice... do you think choice is a bad thing? Keep in
mind that one size does not fit all. :)
> Trust me, if such features were greatly desired, they would have already been
> available for Linux (they might even still be).
Ahhh, the ol' Linux is better because if something else is better it would
already be on Linux BS line. OK... you punted. So?
>
> One size does not fit all.
Right... that is why I like the Mac... gives me the choice to do the things
I list, above. Linux and Windows, for the most part, do not.
Snit
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 04:29:44 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>>>> So you get patches from non-official sources
>>>
>>> "non-official sources"?!? Erm...what exactly is more "official" than the
>>> distro maintainers themselves?
>>
>> How about the source from the people that wrote and maintain the code?
>> These guys:
>>
>> <http://www.zlib.net/>
>
> When someone is using a distro, the point of contact for that person is
> the distro maintainers. They more than likely won't be going around
> downloading individual updates from every project in their distro.
So there just might be multiple places to check. What a shock!
And what if the folks who officially maintain the code are slow to add the
fix to the code? Do you really believe there no un-official updates?
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
rapskat
>> One size does not fit all.
>
> Right... that is why I like the Mac... gives me the choice to do the
> things I list, above. Linux and Windows, for the most part, do not.
Snit, change one letter in your moniker and you will have a perfect
description of what you are full of.
I was trying to be nice to save you face, but fuck that now. You are a
poser, 100%. Pure troll, nothing but. Everything you post is posed to
be inflammatory and inciting, and if that isn't the definition of a troll,
I don't know what is.
For all of your pedantic postering and wordplay, the fact of the matter is
that in the REAL WORLD, Linux is used more than OS X is desktop and
server, coming from nowhere and kicking its sorry butt right out of it's
seat. Now the penguin has it's eye on the number one chair while OS X
thinks of some more little "tricks" to try and catch the consumers eye.
OS X offers nothing that justifies its considerable costs over Linux and
OSS as a desktop solution. Thesaurus in a text editor indeed. *snort*
--
rapskat - 01:32:35 up 2 days, 1:04, 1 user, load average: 0.02, 0.07, 0.08
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood
on the shoulders of giants".
-- Sir Isaac Newton
Snit
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:23:27 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>> One size does not fit all.
>>
>> Right... that is why I like the Mac... gives me the choice to do the
>> things I list, above. Linux and Windows, for the most part, do not.
>
> Snit, change one letter in your moniker and you will have a perfect
> description of what you are full of.
Ahhh, and here is where you sink to ad hominems. Too bad you were not able
to actually stay on topic and at least try to:
* save your silly analogy that failed you
* explain why you attributed your own ideas to me
* explain why you disagreed with my statement that both
professionals and non-professionals work on Linux
* understand the value of integration
* understand the value of choice
But instead you sink to the following silliness... a sad reflection on you.
> I was trying to be nice to save you face, but fuck that now. You are a
> poser, 100%. Pure troll, nothing but. Everything you post is posed to
> be inflammatory and inciting, and if that isn't the definition of a troll,
> I don't know what is.
>
> For all of your pedantic postering and wordplay, the fact of the matter is
> that in the REAL WORLD, Linux is used more than OS X is desktop and
> server, coming from nowhere and kicking its sorry butt right out of it's
> seat. Now the penguin has it's eye on the number one chair while OS X
> thinks of some more little "tricks" to try and catch the consumers eye.
>
> OS X offers nothing that justifies its considerable costs over Linux and
> OSS as a desktop solution. Thesaurus in a text editor indeed. *snort*
LOL... you spew all that simply because you were not able to accept the
things Mac users take for granted that Linux users simply do not have the
choice to have.
Linux has its advantages - but so does OS X. Is it so hard a pill for you
to swallow?
--
BU__SH__
rapskat
>> OS X offers nothing that justifies its considerable costs over Linux and
>> OSS as a desktop solution. Thesaurus in a text editor indeed. *snort*
>
> LOL... you spew all that simply because you were not able to accept the
> things Mac users take for granted that Linux users simply do not have the
> choice to have.
Do not have the choice?!? You are really stupid, aren't you?
What *functionality* is present in OS X that isn't in Linux, do tell. I
don't mean means to the end, I mean the end itself. This is what really
matters, everything else is just parlor tricks with no real substance.
> Linux has its advantages - but so does OS X. Is it so hard a pill for you
> to swallow?
OS X has no advantages over Linux for desktop use, not for the people that
truly know what it is capable of. You have yet to show anything
compelling otherwise. I can give several real advantages that Linux has
that OS X doesn't even begin to touch, can you? Stuff like cost,
portability, configurability, extendability, etc.
You've no clue. Just keep telling yourself that OS X is better, and maybe
you'll start believing it, cuz I sure don't.
--
rapskat - 02:25:27 up 2 days, 1:57, 1 user, load average: 0.25, 0.29, 0.27
"Bastard Operators from Hell" anagrams to "Shatterproof Armored Balls"
rapskat
> "rapskat" <rap...@gmail.com> stated in post
> pan.2005.07.1...@rapskat.com on 7/10/05 10:00 PM:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 04:29:44 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>>>> So you get patches from non-official sources
>>>>
>>>> "non-official sources"?!? Erm...what exactly is more "official" than the
>>>> distro maintainers themselves?
>>>
>>> How about the source from the people that wrote and maintain the code?
>>> These guys:
>>>
>>> <http://www.zlib.net/>
>>
>> When someone is using a distro, the point of contact for that person is
>> the distro maintainers. They more than likely won't be going around
>> downloading individual updates from every project in their distro.
>
> So there just might be multiple places to check. What a shock!
You can't read either?
> And what if the folks who officially maintain the code are slow to add the
> fix to the code? Do you really believe there no un-official updates?
Keep squirming. Keep finding loops to turn to. I'm sure you have
infinite "what if's" to bring up as each one is shown empty.
One distro, one point of contact. One update process for ALL apps on the
system. I don't know why you are finding this so difficult to comprehend,
perhaps because your own platform doesn't have it?
Don't worry, at least you have a thesaurus for your text editor though.
--
rapskat - 02:34:31 up 2 days, 2:06, 1 user, load average: 0.61, 0.42, 0.32
"When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."
-- Troubleshooters creed.
rapskat
> You've no clue. Just keep telling yourself that OS X is better, and maybe
> you'll start believing it, cuz I sure don't.
Wait, I amend that...OS X is better for persons with physical or mental
disabilities, I'll grant you that one.
For persons like these, OS X is definitely a better choice than Linux and
well worth the cost.
--
rapskat - 02:44:10 up 2 days, 2:16, 1 user, load average: 0.31, 0.35, 0.30
"... It ... could ... work!"
-- Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein
Snit
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:28:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "rapskat" <rap...@gmail.com> stated in post
>> pan.2005.07.1...@rapskat.com on 7/10/05 10:00 PM:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 04:29:44 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> So you get patches from non-official sources
>>>>>
>>>>> "non-official sources"?!? Erm...what exactly is more "official" than the
>>>>> distro maintainers themselves?
>>>>
>>>> How about the source from the people that wrote and maintain the code?
>>>> These guys:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.zlib.net/>
>>>
>>> When someone is using a distro, the point of contact for that person is
>>> the distro maintainers. They more than likely won't be going around
>>> downloading individual updates from every project in their distro.
>>
>> So there just might be multiple places to check. What a shock!
>
> You can't read either?
I can... but interesting use of the word "either". Perhaps you did not mean
to make that admission.
>
>> And what if the folks who officially maintain the code are slow to add the
>> fix to the code? Do you really believe there no un-official updates?
>
> Keep squirming.
Do you believe everyone shares your habits?
> Keep finding loops to turn to. I'm sure you have
> infinite "what if's" to bring up as each one is shown empty.
Yeah - what a strange "what it"... what if the folks who maintain the code
are not the fastest ones in the universe to release a fix. LOL... what were
you saying about squirming? Isn't it about time you sink to your normal ad
hominem attacks?
>
> One distro, one point of contact.
For official updates to the distro - right. Do you think all distros
release updates at precisely the same moment? LOL... oh... your argument
just fell apart. Oh well.
> One update process for ALL apps on the system. I don't know why you are
> finding this so difficult to comprehend, perhaps because your own platform
> doesn't have it?
LOL... neither does yours... there are many distros of Linux, and they come
out with updates at different times. Sorry to burst your little bubble
there...
>
> Don't worry, at least you have a thesaurus for your text editor though.
You are getting close to your standard ad hominems... keep working at it.
Keep in mind, though, this is all because I said such an amazing thing that
the folks who maintain your distro just might not be the fastest people in
the known universe to release an update... maybe, just maybe, they will be
beaten to the punch.
Hard pill for you to swallow, eh?
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Snit
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:05:52 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>> OS X offers nothing that justifies its considerable costs over Linux and
>>> OSS as a desktop solution. Thesaurus in a text editor indeed. *snort*
>>
>> LOL... you spew all that simply because you were not able to accept the
>> things Mac users take for granted that Linux users simply do not have the
>> choice to have.
>
> Do not have the choice?!?
To use different software? Of course I do! Why do you find that a
surprise? And why do you jump to ad hominem attacks when I point out
something so obvious?
> You are really stupid, aren't you?
Um, if so you certainly are not one with the ability to reasonably point it
out. :)
>
> What *functionality* is present in OS X that isn't in Linux, do tell.
Remember that list you ran from claiming you had no such needs... yeah...
that one.
How quickly you forget!
> I don't mean means to the end, I mean the end itself. This is what really
> matters, everything else is just parlor tricks with no real substance.
Well, there you go - if integration, efficiency, and ease-of-use do not
matter to you, then so be it.
They do matter to me. Not saying you are wrong, just pointing out where we
are different.
>
>> Linux has its advantages - but so does OS X. Is it so hard a pill for you
>> to swallow?
>
> OS X has no advantages over Linux for desktop use
Well then, why did you did run from the last ones I pointed out to you? All
you had to do was point to the Linux distro that had those things... even
similar things. You did not. How funny!
> , not for the people that truly know what it is capable of.
Do you really think ease-of-use is unimportant to Linux users?
> You have yet to show anything compelling otherwise.
You mean you have yet to accept anything - but you want me to forget about
the list you ran from. No thanks... but do sink to your ad hominems when
you have no real response - it puts you in the light you earn.
> I can give several real advantages that Linux has that OS X doesn't even begin
> to touch, can you? Stuff like cost, portability, configurability,
> extendability, etc.
Look up. Do you see where I say:
Linux has its advantages - but so does OS X. Is it so hard a pill for
you to swallow?
When you state that Linux has advantages over OS X, do you expect me to
disagree? LOL... yeah, you probably do. :)
>
> You've no clue.
LOL... no clue, even though you just *agreed* with me that Linux has
advantages over OS X. Oops... you made another boo boo...
> Just keep telling yourself that OS X is better, and maybe you'll start
> believing it, cuz I sure don't.
When do you think I said OS X was better in a general sense... again:
Linux has its advantages - but so does OS X. Is it so hard a pill for
you to swallow?
And the answer is clearly: yes. You simply can not swallow that pill.
OK, time for you to sink to name calling. Enjoy!
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Snit
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:34:15 -0400, rapskat wrote:
>
>> You've no clue. Just keep telling yourself that OS X is better, and maybe
>> you'll start believing it, cuz I sure don't.
>
> Wait, I amend that...OS X is better for persons with physical or mental
> disabilities, I'll grant you that one.
>
> For persons like these, OS X is definitely a better choice than Linux and
> well worth the cost.
Well, you are taking baby steps to rationality.
I will grant you that one.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
_________________________________________
Peter Köhlmann
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> stated in post
> das4vu$86q$02$1...@news.t-online.com on 7/10/05 2:46 PM:
>
>> begin virus.txt.scr Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "rapskat" <rap...@gmail.com> stated in post
>>> pan.2005.07.10....@rapskat.com on 7/10/05 2:28 PM:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:27:13 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Man, OSS Rocks!
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize, of course, that third parties often provide temporary
>>>>> fixes until Apple fixes a hole... right?
>>>>
>>>> Care to provide an example of this?
>>>
>>> Sure. In regards to the recent problems Apple had with the dashboard
>>> vulnerabilities, there were 3rd party folks who created fixes - programs
>>> that helped minimize the risk. Same thing when Safari was found to be
>>> vulnerable to phishing attempts - now Safari warns you of "odd" URL's,
>>> but before Apple came out with a fix others did.
>>>
>>> In both cases Apple was pretty quick to get a fix out - but others were
>>> faster.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So your defintion of "often" is "two"
>
> You definition of "an example" is more than two examples?
>
> I gave twice the requested amount. I'll let you work out the math.
>
>
So your definition of "often" is "at least one"
Yup. Figures
--
"Last I checked, it wasn't the power cord for the Clue Generator that
was sticking up your ass." - John Novak, rasfwrj
Snit
BEF765B8.2399E%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 7/10/05 11:54 PM:
> "rapskat" <rap...@gmail.com> stated in post
> pan.2005.07.11....@rapskat.com on 7/10/05 11:34 PM:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 23:05:52 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>>> OS X offers nothing that justifies its considerable costs over Linux and
>>>> OSS as a desktop solution. Thesaurus in a text editor indeed. *snort*
>>>
>>> LOL... you spew all that simply because you were not able to accept the
>>> things Mac users take for granted that Linux users simply do not have the
>>> choice to have.
>>
>> Do not have the choice?!?
My mistake - I read that as "Do you have the choice".
So, to answer your question - no, Linux users do not have the choice, if
they stick with Linux, to get the level of integration and ease-of-use that
I partially described to you and you ran from.
Mac users not only have that as a choice, they have that by default.
Cool, eh?
Oh wait - time for you to change goal posts, spew personal attacks, and
other wise completely fail to acknowledge that OS X has the level of
integration I described to you and, well, Linux does not (at least not on
any distro I know of!)
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Snit
> So your definition of "often" is "at least one"
> Yup. Figures
Wow... you sure can place words in others mouths... or at least try.
Remember, the request to me was:
Care to provide an example of this?
And I provided two examples.
Do you see where I doubled the requested amount? Are you able to figure out
that 2 actually is twice as many as 1? It is not a hard thing, Peter, but
it is something you are clearly struggling with.
Enjoy your learning experience.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
_________________________________________
Peter Köhlmann
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> stated in post
> dat5tc$lg7$03$1...@news.t-online.com on 7/11/05 12:08 AM:
>
>> So your definition of "often" is "at least one"
>> Yup. Figures
>
> Wow... you sure can place words in others mouths... or at least try.
>
> Remember, the request to me was:
>
> Care to provide an example of this?
>
> And I provided two examples.
>
> Do you see where I doubled the requested amount? Are you able to figure
> out
> that 2 actually is twice as many as 1? It is not a hard thing, Peter, but
> it is something you are clearly struggling with.
>
> Enjoy your learning experience.
>
Nope, your claim was
/quote
>>>>>> You do realize, of course, that third parties often provide temporary
>>>>>> fixes until Apple fixes a hole... right?
/unquote
Do you notice the word "often", Snot?
Your attention span seems to be more than exhausted with 2 posts, even if
your own bullshit claim is still quoted
--
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species
Snit
> begin virus.txt.scr Snot snotted:
>
>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> stated in post
>> dat5tc$lg7$03$1...@news.t-online.com on 7/11/05 12:08 AM:
>>
>>> So your definition of "often" is "at least one"
>>> Yup. Figures
>>
>> Wow... you sure can place words in others mouths... or at least try.
>>
>> Remember, the request to me was:
>>
>> Care to provide an example of this?
>>
>> And I provided two examples.
>>
>> Do you see where I doubled the requested amount? Are you able to figure
>> out
>> that 2 actually is twice as many as 1? It is not a hard thing, Peter, but
>> it is something you are clearly struggling with.
>>
>> Enjoy your learning experience.
>>
>
> Nope, your claim was
>
> /quote
>>>>>>> You do realize, of course, that third parties often provide temporary
>>>>>>> fixes until Apple fixes a hole... right?
> /unquote
Very good, Peter! That *was* my comment... and the fact that the above was
my comment is not in question... but see if you can follow a simple
conversation.
The response to my comment was:
Care to provide an example of this?
And I did. In fact, I provided *two* examples.
End of story... or it should have been... but then you made an ass out of
yourself by making really, really stupid claims. Why you did so is your
business... but the fact that you did so, and are continuing to do so, is
easy to see.
And here you are, unable to admit to your mistake, so I get to have some fun
by rubbing your nose into it.
> Do you notice the word "often", Snot?
The fact I said "often" is not in question. What is in question is if I
fulfilled the request to supply "an example". And I did. Two, actually.
Do you see how providing two examples more than meets the request to provide
"an example"? Are you able to comprehend such things? I do hope so.
> Your attention span seems to be more than exhausted with 2 posts, even if
> your own bullshit claim is still quoted
Wow... You fail to follow a *very* simple conversation and then you spew
silly attacks and even make fun of my online name. Not a very good
indication of your mental abilities.
Care to try again?
When someone is asked to show *an* example and they then show *two*, do you
think they have done as they were asked to do (or, actually, gone above and
beyond the request).
You figure it out...
... if you can.
Which is very, very questionable. We shall see by your response if you are
able to answer correctly.
Prediction: you will utterly fail to show you understand how two examples is
more than the requested number when asked for "an example".
Prove me wrong... show you have a brain.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Robert Newson
...
> You do realize, of course, that third parties often provide temporary fixes
> until Apple fixes a hole... right?
And that it happens in the MS world all the time; there is plenty of third
party software out there to temporarily fix problems with the Windows os
(virus scanners, the bugs MS has said it'll never fix, etc) until MS
permanently fixes them...
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
when you say "MS fixes them"
Do you refer to Ms fixing the bugs? or "fixing" the company which had
the temerity to fix the bug first? :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC0jwgd90bcYOAWPYRAsjwAJ91BVlU5bb6oiZNKm1KBTNZcrVDlACcDYUt
gllIxN9it7YnUQJYIgPEzuI=
=ZUDx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
This isn't hell. This is where you get sent when you've been bad in hell.
Snit
42D23717...@bullet3.fsnet.oc.ku on 7/11/05 2:07 AM:
Correct... though in the MS world there are so many viruses and other
threats that the chance of being infected is very high. With both OS X and
Linux the chance is negligible.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
_________________________________________
Arkady Duntov
(<pan.2005.07.11....@rapskat.com>) wrote:
> Now the penguin has it's eye on the number one chair while OS X
> thinks of some more little "tricks" to try and catch the consumers eye.
Never underestimate the selling power of chrome plating and big white
sidewalls on tires.
Arkady Duntov
(<dat5tc$lg7$03$1...@news.t-online.com>) wrote:
> begin virus.txt.scr Snit wrote:
>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:27:13 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You do realize, of course, that third parties often provide temporary
>>>>>> fixes until Apple fixes a hole... right?
>>>>>
>> You definition of "an example" is more than two examples?
>>
>> I gave twice the requested amount. I'll let you work out the math.
>
> So your definition of "often" is "at least one"
Snit doesn't have any definition of anything; he's just spinning out of
control.
Why don't you and the rest of COLA stick him in the killfile? He's
completely worthless and even the Macintosh faithful don't like him.
Peter Köhlmann
He serves really well as example of the retardedness of Mac users (along
with Oxford)
--
If you're right 90% of the time, why quibble about the remaining 3%?
Snit
1355611.q...@knode.kde on 7/11/05 1:08 AM:
LOL! Wow... so you support Peter in his whining that my two examples do not
meet the request to show "an example".
Really... do you really want to support that?
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
_________________________________________
Peter Köhlmann
> "Arkady Duntov" <arkady...@brotherhood.ua> stated in post
> 1355611.q...@knode.kde on 7/11/05 1:08 AM:
>
>> On Monday 11 July 2005 01:08, Peter Köhlmann
>> <peter.k...@t-online.de> (<dat5tc$lg7$03$1...@news.t-online.com>)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> begin virus.txt.scr Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:27:13 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You do realize, of course, that third parties often provide
>>>>>>>> temporary fixes until Apple fixes a hole... right?
>>>>>>>
>>>> You definition of "an example" is more than two examples?
>>>>
>>>> I gave twice the requested amount. I'll let you work out the math.
>>>
>>> So your definition of "often" is "at least one"
>>
>> Snit doesn't have any definition of anything; he's just spinning out of
>> control.
>>
>> Why don't you and the rest of COLA stick him in the killfile? He's
>> completely worthless and even the Macintosh faithful don't like him.
>
> LOL! Wow... so you support Peter in his whining that my two examples do
> not meet the request to show "an example".
>
> Really... do you really want to support that?
>
They don't meet your own claim of "often"
No matter how much you want to ignore that littlw fact, *you* claimed
"often". Two examples is not "often"
--
Your conscience never stops you from doing anything. It just stops you
from enjoying it.
Snit
>> LOL! Wow... so you support Peter in his whining that my two examples do
>> not meet the request to show "an example".
>>
>> Really... do you really want to support that?
>
> They don't meet your own claim of "often"
I was asked to offer "an example". I did. Yes, I use the word "often".
Had you been a reasonable and intelligent person you could have jumped in
and asked me to support the idea that it is "often" - if you felt that two
recent examples were not sufficient to support that claim.
You did not.
You were neither reasonable nor intelligent. You merely pretended that my
*two* examples did not meet the request to provide *an* example. You showed
you are non-too-bright, not just by making that error (we all make mistakes)
but by repeatedly trying to defend your non-too-bright mistake.
You can keep whining all you want, but it comes down to:
* I commented about something that often happens
* I was asked to provide *an* example
* I provided *two* examples
* You jumped in to say I did something wrong
No matter how much hand waving and whining and lying and revisionist BS
history you try to create, you simply cannot and will not be able to change
those facts.
By all means keep posting on this issue... I enjoy watching you make a
bigger ass out of yourself than is even your norm.
> No matter how much you want to ignore that littlw fact, *you* claimed
> "often". Two examples is not "often"
Nor, of course, have I said it was. I was fulfilling a request... and I did
so very well, providing (get this) twice as many examples as requested.
Oh. Wait. You will not "get this". It goes way over your non-too-bright
head.
Up 'till now I figured you might be a somewhat bright fellow who just is
arrogant, abrasive, and close minded. You have proven that first part wrong
- you have shown you deserve your oft used signature. By all means, keep
whining that my two examples were not sufficient. Have fun!
--
BU__SH__
Arkady Duntov
(<daubdh$odh$00$1...@news.t-online.com>) wrote:
> begin virus.txt.scr Snit wrote:
>
>> "Arkady Duntov" <arkady...@brotherhood.ua> stated in post
>> 1355611.q...@knode.kde on 7/11/05 1:08 AM:
>>
>>> Snit doesn't have any definition of anything; he's just spinning out of
>>> control.
>>>
>> LOL! Wow... so you support Peter in his whining that my two examples do
>> not meet the request to show "an example".
LOL! Wow... so Snit supports its exaggeration (or deceit) by whining that
twice means two times often or that "often" means twice.
>> Really... do you really want to support that?
Really... does Snit really want to continue behaving like an idiot?
Arkady Duntov
(<dau96s$h30$05$1...@news.t-online.com>) wrote:
> begin virus.txt.scr Arkady Duntov wrote:
>
>> Snit doesn't have any definition of anything; he's just spinning out of
>> control.
>>
> He serves really well as example of the retardedness of Mac users (along
> with Oxford)
He definitely does. He serves as a prime example of decerebrate idiocy
without the need engaging him in the imitation discussion he uses.
Peter Köhlmann
< Snot snip >
Idiot
--
Tact, n.:
The unsaid part of what you're thinking.
Snit
You can keep whining all you want, but it comes down to:
* I commented about something that often happens
* I was asked to provide *an* example
* I provided *two* examples
* Peter jumped in to say I did something wrong
No matter how much hand waving and whining and lying and revisionist BS
history you try to create, you simply cannot and will not be able to change
those facts.
By all means keep posting on this issue...
Snit
You can keep whining all you want, but it comes down to:
* I commented about something that often happens
* I was asked to provide *an* example
* I provided *two* examples
* Peter jumped in to say I did something wrong
No matter how much hand waving and whining and lying and revisionist BS
history you try to create, you simply cannot and will not be able to change
those facts.
By all means keep posting on this issue...
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
_________________________________________
William Poaster
Duntov wrote:
Does he know any other way *to* behave?
--
Jumping into Windows is like giving yourself
a self-inflicted gunshot wound."
-- Dustin Sauter, enterprise
systems engineer at Wells Fargo.
Linønut
> You can keep whining all you want, but it comes down to:
>
> * I commented about something that often happens
> * I was asked to provide *an* example
> * I provided *two* examples
> * Peter jumped in to say I did something wrong
>
> No matter how much hand waving and whining and lying and revisionist BS
> history you try to create, you simply cannot and will not be able to change
> those facts.
>
> By all means keep posting on this issue...
Here's my take. In the real world, you and Peter would take it out
back, and one of you would blacken the eyes and puff up the lips of the
other. Or maybe do a mutual natural make-up session.
--
Tux rox!
Peter Köhlmann
One thing's quite certain: I would not have a black eye. And my lips would
be in pristine condition
--
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
TuxSux
> One thing's quite certain: I would not have a black eye. And my lips
The result of being the "guest" at countless bukakes.
Ku Karlovsky
in message <<db041s...@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH>>:
> The result of being the "guest" at countless bukakes.
Is that the programming language you're using to interface COM to
Outlook Express? It sucks to be a slimy Windows user.
Ku Karlovsky
wrote in message <<BEF8018B.23A81%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>>:
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> stated in post
> daubdh$odh$00$1...@news.t-online.com on 7/11/05 10:48 AM:
>
>
> > They don't meet your own claim of "often"
>
> I was asked to offer "an example". I did. Yes, I use the word "often".
> Had you been a reasonable and intelligent person you could have jumped in
> and asked me to support the idea that it is "often"
Had you had more than marginal reading comprehension, you would have
read that Peter jumped in and asked you support the idea that it is
"often" by providing 12 examples.
> You did not.
You certainly didn't.
Ku Karlovsky
wrote in message <<BEF83FED.23B18%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>>:
> You can keep whining all you want, but it comes down to:
You keep spinning, Snit, because you're caught in your own whirlpool
of deceptive marketing.
> * I commented about something that often happens
> * I was asked to provide *an* example
> * I provided *two* examples
> * Peter jumped in to say I did something wrong
Fair enough. Now you may provide your proof that third-party
developers "often" provide fixes for Apple's software defects: Proof,
Snit. Or you may admit you lied. Or you may STFU.
> No matter how much hand waving and whining and lying and revisionist BS
You're still a complete hypocrite. You wave your hands and whine and
lie about third-party developers often fixing defects in Apple's
software. Spin on, Snit.
> By all means keep posting on this issue...
By all means keep dodging the issue of your lies...
Linønut
> begin virus.txt.scr Linųnut wrote:
>
>> Here's my take. In the real world, you and Peter would take it out
>> back, and one of you would blacken the eyes and puff up the lips of the
>> other. Or maybe do a mutual natural make-up session.
>
> One thing's quite certain: I would not have a black eye. And my lips would
> be in pristine condition
That would be my guess, though of course I'm judging only by text
messages, since I haven't seen the physique of anyone here (except for
Terry Porter, ages ago.).
And, of course, you do realize that by "make-up", I mean various
face-colorings, and not any rapprochement.
This might be a relevant link, ignoring that it's a Windoze guy:
http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/502.html
--
Tux rox!
Arkady Duntov
(<pan.2005.07.11....@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx>) wrote:
> begin trojan.vbs It was on Mon, 11 Jul 2005 12:37:18 -0600, that Arkady
> Duntov wrote:
>
>> Really... does Snit really want to continue behaving like an idiot?
>
> Does he know any other way *to* behave?
Not to my knowledge, but I'm not going to spend any time investigating
the matter. Based on cross-posted criticism from his fan club in CSMA,
he seems to be as idiotic as The Flatfish -- but less idiotic than (say)
Alan Connor.
Snit
pan.2005.07.11....@jvyycbnfg.zr.hx on 7/11/05 3:34 PM:
>>>>> Snit doesn't have any definition of anything; he's just spinning out of
>>>>> control.
>>>>>
>>>> LOL! Wow... so you support Peter in his whining that my two examples do
>>>> not meet the request to show "an example".
>>
>> LOL! Wow... so Snit supports its exaggeration (or deceit) by whining that
>> twice means two times often or that "often" means twice.
>>
>>>> Really... do you really want to support that?
>>
>> Really... does Snit really want to continue behaving like an idiot?
>
> Does he know any other way *to* behave?
LOL... yeah, I am behaving so poorly:
* I commented about something that often happens
* I was asked to provide *an* example
* I provided *two* examples
* Peter jumped in to say I did something wrong
Of course, I *am* rubbing it in his face, so I suppose I am behaving badly
there. Let's see who condemns me but gives Peter a pass. :)
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Snit
grSdnboqt7e...@comcast.com on 7/11/05 4:00 PM:
In the real world Peter, like most bullies, would run as soon as he saw his
"target" was not even a little scared of him. There would be no physical
blows.
On Usenet things take longer. Look at CSMA - it took about a year for the
"CSMA Peter" Steve Carroll to break. He was playing all sorts of stupid
games and then had a very public break down where he admitted to his
dishonest games, sock puppetry, ID theft, etc.
He has just not been the same since...
With Peter I simply do not have the time and interest to really break him,
but I do enjoy pointing out his silly errors, like the one I talk about
above. Peter likely is not so stupid as to not be able to see his error,
but his ego will not let him admit to it. He feels compelled to respond
every time I point out his error.
If he just admitted it he would be a happier man. :)
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Snit
> begin virus.txt.scr Linųnut wrote:
>
>> Snit poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>
>>> You can keep whining all you want, but it comes down to:
>>>
>>> * I commented about something that often happens
>>> * I was asked to provide *an* example
>>> * I provided *two* examples
>>> * Peter jumped in to say I did something wrong
>>>
>>> No matter how much hand waving and whining and lying and revisionist BS
>>> history you try to create, you simply cannot and will not be able to
>>> change those facts.
>>>
>>> By all means keep posting on this issue...
>>
>> Here's my take. In the real world, you and Peter would take it out
>> back, and one of you would blacken the eyes and puff up the lips of the
>> other. Or maybe do a mutual natural make-up session.
>>
>
> One thing's quite certain: I would not have a black eye. And my lips would
> be in pristine condition
Correct: there would be no fight. Folks like you run when they see their
opponent is simply not afraid. Do you think you are the first bully I have
ever met?
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
Snit
> begin virus.txt.scr Snot snotted:
>
> < Snot snip >
>
> Idiot
What Peter ran from - and for obvious reasons - he is 100% wrong... and not
too bright, either.
------
You did not.
-----
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Peter Köhlmann
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> stated in post
> dauk93$d7m$00$1...@news.t-online.com on 7/11/05 1:19 PM:
>
>> begin virus.txt.scr Snot snotted:
>>
>> < Snot snip >
>>
>> Idiot
>
> What Peter ran from - and for obvious reasons - he is 100% wrong... and
> not too bright, either.
>
< snip Snot idiocy >
Idiot
--
The National Short-Sleeved Shirt Association says:
Support your right to bare arms!
pcbutts1
of the following.
Ad-Aware
http://www.lavasoftusa.com/software/adaware/
Spybot search and destroy
http://www.safer-networking.org/en/download/
Microsoft Windows AntiSpyware (Beta)
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/default.mspx
If none of the above fixes the issue then download Hijack this, run it, save
a copy of the log file and cut and paste it back here to the group so that
it can be analyzed.
HijackThis
http://www.spywareinfo.com/~merijn/downloads.html
--
"Instead of trying to bash me you should try to learn from me and
archive my posts so you can better help people in the future. If you don't
understand something I post then ask me my email is valid."
- pcbu...@thisoldtreehouse.com
- pcbu...@seedsv.com
--
Snit
> begin virus.txt.scr Snot snotted:
>
>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> stated in post
>> dauk93$d7m$00$1...@news.t-online.com on 7/11/05 1:19 PM:
>>
>>> begin virus.txt.scr Snot snotted:
>>>
>>> < Snot snip >
>>>
>>> Idiot
>>
>> What Peter ran from - and for obvious reasons - he is 100% wrong... and
>> not too bright, either.
>>
>
> < snip Snot idiocy >
>
> Idiot
What Peter is repeatedly running from - and for obvious reasons - he is 100%
wrong... and not
too bright, either.
------
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> stated in post
You did not.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.