Finally moved back to debian testing - and 64 bit.

[Hadron]

For ages now I've been using debian stable (squeeze) which was in fact
once testing - but as testing went to stable I kept it at that. Anyway,
with more and more issues cropping up in stable while using pinning and
backports I decided to move to wheezy *and* at the same time update to
64 bit.

Conclusion :

BAD:
the new gnome sucks. Not a problem. Configurable.

GOOD: Performance is excellent. And, erm, "it all just works". Initially
I had the nouveau driver which was ok (supported both screens fine) but
then installed nvidia stuff from the non free repos and that actually
got to work just fine with dkms - a first on my machine. Luckily I still
had my old xorg.conf for nvidia and dual head. Unlike the lies told by
Creepy Chris Ahlstrom (he once claimed to have been xorg-less for ages
and shortly afterwards posted his xorg.conf having forgottne his
previous boasts) it does not work on this HW without a compatible
xorg.conf.

I also moved up to ext4. System does seem zippier but I cant put that
down to any particular system improvments or whether my old install was
more sluggish as a result of wear and tear.

Obviously my wireless card didnt work but by installing the non-free
realtek firmware that then just worked too after a reboot. And yes,
certainly easier than the same install in Windows.

We often joke/joust/criticise about Flash. But it seems the debian devs
finally have it working "out of the box".

I expected more issues and have been very pleasently
surprised. Certainly MUCH better than a few years ago when I reported 64
bit issues and was told by liars like Creepy and Dumb Willy that "it all
just worked" - it didnt. It seems to now.

The ONLY real and hair tugging issue I had was reconfiguring my startup
files for xmonad integration.

Highly recommended.

(just taking a snapshot of the fresh install now which I'll then augment
with rsnapshot chunks over the coming months/years).

--
A certain COLA "advocate" faking his user-agent in order to pretend to be a Linux
user: User-Agent: Outlook 5.5 (WinNT 5.0), User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0
(Linux), Message-ID: <wPGdnd3NnOM...@comcast.com>

[philo]

On 11/18/2012 03:24 AM, Hadron wrote:
>
> For ages now I've been using debian stable (squeeze) which was in fact
> once testing - but as testing went to stable I kept it at that. Anyway,
> with more and more issues cropping up in stable while using pinning and
> backports I decided to move to wheezy *and* at the same time update to
> 64 bit.
>
> Conclusion :
>
> BAD:
> the new gnome sucks. Not a problem. Configurable.
>
> GOOD: Performance is excellent. And, erm, "it all just works". Initially
> I had the nouveau driver which was ok (supported both screens fine) but
> then installed nvidia stuff from the non free repos and that actually
> got to work just fine with dkms - a first on my machine. Luckily I still
> had my old xorg.conf for nvidia and dual head.

<snip>

Though I probably should have gone with straight Debian right from the
start I've been using Ubuntu since 9.04 and have very had few problems.
After a few days of fine-tuning I finally have 12.04 configured to be
set up almost exactly the way my 10.04 installation was.

The only issue I had with using the proprietary nVidia drivers.
All videos had a blue tint to them so I decided the nouveau driver is
just fine. I don't generally do much with video other than watch
and occasional Youtube.


I understand that nVidia wants to keep control of their own product...
but they don't seem to be handling things too well

[Hadron]

Thats easily fixed without needing to lose the nvidia driver.

>
> I understand that nVidia wants to keep control of their own product...
> but they don't seem to be handling things too well
>

Nvidia drivers are excellent here and are far and away the best
supported on Linux comapred to ati/intel etc.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Hadron belched this bit o' wisdom:

> For ages now I've been using debian stable (squeeze) which was in fact
> once testing - but as testing went to stable I kept it at that. Anyway,
> with more and more issues cropping up in stable while using pinning and
> backports I decided to move to wheezy *and* at the same time update to
> 64 bit.

It's about time, O True Linux Advocate. What took you so fricking long?

We've been enjoying 64-bit Linux goodness for years, while you've been
stuck on an old 2-Gig system, lying and whining about various Linux
topics where we've shown you to be *wrong* *wrong* *wrong*.

> Luckily I still
> had my old xorg.conf for nvidia and dual head. Unlike the lies told by
> Creepy Chris Ahlstrom (he once claimed to have been xorg-less for ages
> and shortly afterwards posted his xorg.conf having forgottne his
> previous boasts) it does not work on this HW without a compatible
> xorg.conf.

You lying insulting son of a bitch.

My two Debian laptops have no xorg.conf; this Gentoo box has one, but,
as I use xrandr to configure the dual monitors, I could probably get rid
of it. But who cares? Only whining bastards like "Hadron" make a
tempest out of this trivial issue.

> I also moved up to ext4. System does seem zippier but I cant put that
> down to any particular system improvments or whether my old install was
> more sluggish as a result of wear and tear.

"Hadron" is apparently thinking of bit-rot, which afflicts Windows
systems.

> Obviously my wireless card didnt work but by installing the non-free
> realtek firmware that then just worked too after a reboot. And yes,
> certainly easier than the same install in Windows.

Heh. I did a complete reinstall of the Net-Install version of Debian
Wheezy at my daughter's house not too long ago, for a desktop unit that
uses a wireless card (too difficult run cable) and guess what? The
*installer* found, configured, and used the wireless card to download
the packages and install them.

> We often joke/joust/criticise about Flash. But it seems the debian devs
> finally have it working "out of the box".

How long then, till the Ubuntu devs "leech" it from Debian? :-D

> I expected more issues and have been very pleasently
> surprised. Certainly MUCH better than a few years ago when I reported 64
> bit issues and was told by liars like Creepy and Dumb Willy that "it all
> just worked" - it didnt. It seems to now.

It's been working for us for a few years now, Rip Van "Hadron".

By the way, on my two laptops I've moved up to Debian *unstable*.

--
Except that Roy does not post interesting articles. Looking at the ten
busiest articles (threads) from last week we get: . . . Not a single one of
these threads was started by Roy. Not one. If you take his shill Mark Kent
out of the stats, on average Roy's posts average less than one response per
post. How is that intersting? (Unless of course you personally find lies
and misleading articles interesting.) This is clearly Roy's job and
wjbell shouldn't try to take over his monopoly. He spent the last year of
his life wandering COLA with the sandwich board around his neck telling
everyone that Microsoft is collapsing and that the "End is Near" for them.
Given that every quarter MSFT makes more Billions than the previous quarter,
Roy is about as credible as that dishevelled guy wandering around.
-- Larry Qualig, http://help.lockergnome.com/linux/wjbellftopic-385547-days0-orderasc-20.html

[philo]

Though I can't imagine I'd need to use nVidia drivers could you kindly
elaborate on how to fix the stated problem?
The color is absolutely fine on all but videos.

>> I understand that nVidia wants to keep control of their own product...
>> but they don't seem to be handling things too well
>>
>
> Nvidia drivers are excellent here and are far and away the best
> supported on Linux comapred to ati/intel etc.
>
>
>


--

https://www.createspace.com/3707686

[William Poaster]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> After swilling some grog, Hadron belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> For ages now I've been using debian stable (squeeze) which was in fact
>> once testing - but as testing went to stable I kept it at that. Anyway,
>> with more and more issues cropping up in stable while using pinning and
>> backports I decided to move to wheezy *and* at the same time update to
>> 64 bit.
>
> It's about time, O True Linux Advocate. What took you so fricking long?

LOL! And how about this, from 2010:

" I have done some more reading and agree that 64 bit is probably good
enough now."
Hadron - alt.os.linux.ubuntu
Sat, 23 Oct 2010
Message-ID: <i9ugd4$m1b$1...@news.eternal-september.org>

> We've been enjoying 64-bit Linux goodness for years, while you've been
> stuck on an old 2-Gig system, lying and whining about various Linux
> topics where we've shown you to be *wrong* *wrong* *wrong*.

"I know he uses GNU/Linux (saw a screenshot of his desktop on which he
was composing a COLA posting), but he's not the expert he claims to
be." TomB about Hadron - comp.os.linux.advocacy

We *know*, Tom, we know!

>> Luckily I still
>> had my old xorg.conf for nvidia and dual head. Unlike the lies told by
>> Creepy Chris Ahlstrom (he once claimed to have been xorg-less for ages
>> and shortly afterwards posted his xorg.conf having forgottne his
>> previous boasts) it does not work on this HW without a compatible
>> xorg.conf.
>
> You lying insulting son of a bitch.

It's all he does.

"......he's simply an ill-mannered, ill-educated, arrogant and
shamelessly lying character. I see him being cocky and abusive to other
people as well in what they quote from his posts, so I'm apparently not
the only one who doesn't like Hadron.
He has already quite abundantly expressed his frustration with his being
killfiled...."
alt.os.linux.ubuntu
Message-ID: <id18t3$k1i$1...@news.eternal-september.org>

> My two Debian laptops have no xorg.conf; this Gentoo box has one, but,
> as I use xrandr to configure the dual monitors, I could probably get rid
> of it. But who cares? Only whining bastards like "Hadron" make a
> tempest out of this trivial issue.

My machines have nvidia cards, & *none* of the distros I'm using have
"xorg.conf" & they haven't had it for some time now.

>> I also moved up to ext4. System does seem zippier but I cant put that
>> down to any particular system improvments or whether my old install was
>> more sluggish as a result of wear and tear.
>
> "Hadron" is apparently thinking of bit-rot, which afflicts Windows
> systems.

Not to mention his brain.

>> Obviously my wireless card didnt work but by installing the non-free
>> realtek firmware that then just worked too after a reboot. And yes,
>> certainly easier than the same install in Windows.
>
> Heh. I did a complete reinstall of the Net-Install version of Debian
> Wheezy at my daughter's house not too long ago, for a desktop unit that
> uses a wireless card (too difficult run cable) and guess what? The
> *installer* found, configured, and used the wireless card to download
> the packages and install them.
>
>> We often joke/joust/criticise about Flash. But it seems the debian devs
>> finally have it working "out of the box".
>
> How long then, till the Ubuntu devs "leech" it from Debian? :-D

LOL!

>> I expected more issues and have been very pleasently
>> surprised. Certainly MUCH better than a few years ago when I reported 64
>> bit issues and was told by liars like Creepy and Dumb Willy that "it all
>> just worked" - it didnt. It seems to now.
>
> It's been working for us for a few years now, Rip Van "Hadron".

Of course it has, & just because the moronic Hadron troll claimed it
didn't work for him on what ever distro he pretended to use, does *not*
mean to say that 64-bit didn't work ok on other distros.
Yes, he *really* is that stupid.

> By the way, on my two laptops I've moved up to Debian *unstable*.
>

--

This is Linux country. On a quiet night, you can hear NT re-boot.


Scientific-Linux 6.3 64-bit.

[Norman Peelman]

Dealt with this on my system too, just can't recall what I did. Think
I did something in the nvida control panel ('nvidia-settings') program.


--
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
AMD64X2 6400+ Ubuntu 10.04 64bit

[Crabbit Bampot]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 07:36:28 -0600, philo wrote:

> On 11/18/2012 03:53 AM, Hadron wrote:
>
> Though I can't imagine I'd need to use nVidia drivers could you
> kindly elaborate on how to fix the stated problem? The color is
> absolutely fine on all but videos.

It is very simple. Start a youtube video, right click in the video
window, select settings and uncheck the 'Enable hardware acceleration'
box. Restart the video and the blue tinge is gone forever. :-)

--
The god excuse, the last refuge of a man with no answers and no
argument.
-George Carlin

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Crabbit Bampot belched this bit o' wisdom:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 07:36:28 -0600, philo wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/2012 03:53 AM, Hadron wrote:

Actually, it was philo who wrote this:

>> Though I can't imagine I'd need to use nVidia drivers could you
>> kindly elaborate on how to fix the stated problem? The color is
>> absolutely fine on all but videos.
>
> It is very simple. Start a youtube video, right click in the video
> window, select settings and uncheck the 'Enable hardware acceleration'
> box. Restart the video and the blue tinge is gone forever. :-)

I note that all "Hadron" had to say about this issue was that it was
easily fixed, and that there was no need to lose the nvidia drive, and
that it was better-supported than ATI/Intel graphics.

"Hadron" did not even try to offer a solution. He tried to keep philo
on the proprietary driver.

By the way, I'm using nouveau on my work laptop and am quite happy with
it.

--
You sure talk a lot for someone who shows disdain for other people
having opinions. But lets see : you have the tendency not to like people
who put you down, you have a potty mouth. Yup. Halliwell or Kier I
reckon. I don't think you're HPT as you're too literate. But who knows?
He is such a practised nym shifter who can tell these days? And who is
Gary?
-- "Hadron", http://www.archivum.info/comp.os.linux.advocacy/2008-04/00154/Re-NEWS--Hans-Reiser-Found-GUILTY-of-first-degree-murder.-Open-Source-fallout-begins.html

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>I note that all "Hadron" had to say about this issue was that it was
>easily fixed, and that there was no need to lose the nvidia drive, and
>that it was better-supported than ATI/Intel graphics.
>
>"Hadron" did not even try to offer a solution. He tried to keep philo
>on the proprietary driver.

"Hadron" hates Free software. He thinks it's unfair competition for
his beloved Micro$oft. He thinks Micro$oft has not done anything
unethical, and that they are unfairly persecuted.

--
"I jump on COLA "advocates" talking nonsense about MS. I NEVER jump on
them for talking (honestly) about Linux." - Hadron Quark, lying
shamelessly

[philo]

On 11/21/2012 05:19 AM, Norman Peelman wrote:

>>
>> Though I can't imagine I'd need to use nVidia drivers could you kindly
>> elaborate on how to fix the stated problem?
>> The color is absolutely fine on all but videos.
>>
>>
>
> Dealt with this on my system too, just can't recall what I did. Think
> I did something in the nvida control panel ('nvidia-settings') program.
>
>

Prior to me uninstalling the nVidia driver I did try the method that you
described however there was a problem. As soon as I opened the control
panel (and before I made *any* adjustments) the brightness increased
considerably. Though I could make adjustments in the panel which would
stick for that session, upon reboot I'd have to re-adjust for the
increased brightness that occurred during the period of adjustment.

I got sick of the "infinite-step" method and uninstalled the nVidia
driver. My system works perfectly without it so I have decided not to
spend anymore time trying to adjust something I do not even need.
--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

[philo]

On 11/21/2012 06:23 AM, Crabbit Bampot wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 07:36:28 -0600, philo wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/2012 03:53 AM, Hadron wrote:
>>
>> Though I can't imagine I'd need to use nVidia drivers could you
>> kindly elaborate on how to fix the stated problem? The color is
>> absolutely fine on all but videos.
>
> It is very simple. Start a youtube video, right click in the video
> window, select settings and uncheck the 'Enable hardware acceleration'
> box. Restart the video and the blue tinge is gone forever. :-)
>

Thank you very much. IIRC I had tried that and it lead to an Adobe Flash
dialog box which did have the option to turn off H/W
acceleration...unfortunately none of the options were actually able to
be toggled...probably some problem with "flash"

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

[Hadron]

Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:

> After swilling some grog, Hadron belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> For ages now I've been using debian stable (squeeze) which was in fact
>> once testing - but as testing went to stable I kept it at that. Anyway,
>> with more and more issues cropping up in stable while using pinning and
>> backports I decided to move to wheezy *and* at the same time update to
>> 64 bit.
>
> It's about time, O True Linux Advocate. What took you so fricking
> long?

That I used stable and 64 bit used to suck? Youre a fucking idiot.

>
> We've been enjoying 64-bit Linux goodness for years, while you've been
> stuck on an old 2-Gig system, lying and whining about various Linux
> topics where we've shown you to be *wrong* *wrong* *wrong*.

So you wont mind posting links Creepy?

>
>> Luckily I still
>> had my old xorg.conf for nvidia and dual head. Unlike the lies told by
>> Creepy Chris Ahlstrom (he once claimed to have been xorg-less for ages
>> and shortly afterwards posted his xorg.conf having forgottne his
>> previous boasts) it does not work on this HW without a compatible
>> xorg.conf.
>
> You lying insulting son of a bitch.

Im not a liar. Would you like links?

>
> My two Debian laptops have no xorg.conf; this Gentoo box has one, but,
> as I use xrandr to configure the dual monitors, I could probably get rid
> of it. But who cares? Only whining bastards like "Hadron" make a
> tempest out of this trivial issue.

Trivial? Google nvidia problems with new kernels you little weenie.

>
>> I also moved up to ext4. System does seem zippier but I cant put that
>> down to any particular system improvments or whether my old install was
>> more sluggish as a result of wear and tear.
>
> "Hadron" is apparently thinking of bit-rot, which afflicts Windows
> systems.

Huh? It also affects Linux you puffed up little suck up. Los of things
change between distros and in developing things like testing. Especially
between stable and testing.

>
>> Obviously my wireless card didnt work but by installing the non-free
>> realtek firmware that then just worked too after a reboot. And yes,
>> certainly easier than the same install in Windows.
>
> Heh. I did a complete reinstall of the Net-Install version of Debian
> Wheezy at my daughter's house not too long ago, for a desktop unit that
> uses a wireless card (too difficult run cable) and guess what? The
> *installer* found, configured, and used the wireless card to download
> the packages and install them.
>
>> We often joke/joust/criticise about Flash. But it seems the debian devs
>> finally have it working "out of the box".
>
> How long then, till the Ubuntu devs "leech" it from Debian? :-D

Huh?

>
>> I expected more issues and have been very pleasently
>> surprised. Certainly MUCH better than a few years ago when I reported 64
>> bit issues and was told by liars like Creepy and Dumb Willy that "it all
>> just worked" - it didnt. It seems to now.
>
> It's been working for us for a few years now, Rip Van "Hadron".

No moron : "its been working for ever" according to wankers like you and
Dumb Willy. It hasn't. What it *does* do now is pretty much work out of
the box.

>
> By the way, on my two laptops I've moved up to Debian *unstable*.

Obviously since you dont need yours for real work. I do.

[TomB]

On 2012-11-23, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:

> Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:
>> After swilling some grog, Hadron belched this bit o' wisdom:

8<

>>> I also moved up to ext4. System does seem zippier but I cant put
>>> that down to any particular system improvments or whether my old
>>> install was more sluggish as a result of wear and tear.
>>
>> "Hadron" is apparently thinking of bit-rot, which afflicts Windows
>> systems.
>
> Huh? It also affects Linux you puffed up little suck up. Los of
> things change between distros and in developing things like testing.
> Especially between stable and testing.

Bollocks. Debian in particular does a very nice job in not keeping
cruft around. I'm using a Debian install that survived a couple of
hard drives and two physical machines, and it still runs as smooth as
the day I installed it. Not a single bit of cruft on that system.

But feel free to tell us exactly what caused this "wear and tear".

--
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
~ Groucho Marx

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Hadron belched this bit o' wisdom:

> Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:
>
> <loads of continued insult and lying snipped>

>
>> By the way, on my two laptops I've moved up to Debian *unstable*.
>
> Obviously since you dont need yours for real work. I do.

So do I, Mr. "Linux has bitrot just like Windows". I use a Debian unstable
laptop every day, all day, at work, for editing documents, building and
testing code, source-code control, email and browsing (both secured with
a smart card), accessing Billy-boxes over Remote Desktop or through a
virtual machine.

And I've been doing it with a 64-bit Linux system for at least two
years.

You *still* think that the "unstable" in "Debian unstable" means your
system will break often. No, it will not. It simply means you get a
lot more updates than you do with "stable".

I'm quite in agreement with TomB on this one.

Go find a LUG meeting to disrupt.

--
The Internet is becoming the town square for the global village of tomorrow.
-- Bill Gates
"Hadron" is becoming the village idiot for the global village.
-- Chris Ahlstrom

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:

Easy. "Hadron", being a heavy Windows user, has come to expect this
"wear and tear", and projects it onto his brand spankin' new "64-bit"
Linux install.

I will aver that my Debian "unstable" 64-bit installs work very well
for me, and I enjoy seeing the updates coming in daily, with no
regressions that I can detect. I rely *heavily* on the "unstable"
version of Debian Linux at work.

--
: - cut in regexps

I don't think we reached consensus on that. We're still backtracking...
-- Larry Wall in <1997102919...@wall.org>

[William Poaster]

TomB wrote:

> On 2012-11-23, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:
>>> After swilling some grog, Hadron belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
> 8<
>
>>>> I also moved up to ext4. System does seem zippier but I cant put
>>>> that down to any particular system improvments or whether my old
>>>> install was more sluggish as a result of wear and tear.
>>>
>>> "Hadron" is apparently thinking of bit-rot, which afflicts Windows
>>> systems.
>>
>> Huh? It also affects Linux you puffed up little suck up. Los of
>> things change between distros and in developing things like testing.
>> Especially between stable and testing.
>
> Bollocks. Debian in particular does a very nice job in not keeping
> cruft around. I'm using a Debian install that survived a couple of
> hard drives and two physical machines, and it still runs as smooth as
> the day I installed it. Not a single bit of cruft on that system.

My distros remove any obsolete stuff when I tell them to update.
And *even* the Betas (which I try out) do it when they're told to
update or upgrade.

> But feel free to tell us exactly what caused this "wear and tear".

Well it can't be the same thing that affects Winders which needs
defragging. If the fuckwitted Hadron *does* have problems with
fragmentation with GNU/Linux, he probably needs to use a larger hard
disk.
But I'm sure the "know-it-all Hadron" troll knows how to measure the
fragmentation of a Linux file system, & what to look for. ;-)

--
The Internet: where men are men, women are men, and children are FBI
agents.


Scientific-Linux 6.3 64-bit.

[TomB]

On 2012-11-23, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:

> After swilling some grog, Hadron belched this bit o' wisdom:
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:
>>
>> <loads of continued insult and lying snipped>
>>
>>> By the way, on my two laptops I've moved up to Debian *unstable*.
>>
>> Obviously since you dont need yours for real work. I do.
>
> So do I, Mr. "Linux has bitrot just like Windows". I use a Debian
> unstable laptop every day, all day, at work, for editing documents,
> building and testing code, source-code control, email and browsing
> (both secured with a smart card), accessing Billy-boxes over Remote
> Desktop or through a virtual machine.
>
> And I've been doing it with a 64-bit Linux system for at least two
> years.

I've been using 64-bit GNU/Linux since I got my first 64-bit machine
back in May 2007. First Ubuntu, then Debian, and now Gentoo. The only
64-bit related issue I ever had was with Adobe not providing a 64-bit
flashplayer. And even that was easily resolved by using
nspluginwrapper.

> You *still* think that the "unstable" in "Debian unstable" means
> your system will break often. No, it will not. It simply means you
> get a lot more updates than you do with "stable".

Exactly. It also means that packages may be upgraded from one major
verion to the next, eg. from tomcat6 to tomcat7. Minor breakage may
occur once in a while, but that's to be expected from a release that's
named after a kid that likes to blow up stuff ;-)

> I'm quite in agreement with TomB on this one.
>
> Go find a LUG meeting to disrupt.

And make sure to tell your bitrot story!

--
Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place.
~ Billy Crystal

[Marti Van Lin]

On 23-11-12 14:05, William Poaster wrote:

> TomB wrote:
>
>> On 2012-11-23, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>> Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:
>>>> After swilling some grog, Hadron belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>> 8<
>>
>>>>> I also moved up to ext4. System does seem zippier but I cant put
>>>>> that down to any particular system improvments or whether my old
>>>>> install was more sluggish as a result of wear and tear.
>>>>
>>>> "Hadron" is apparently thinking of bit-rot, which afflicts Windows
>>>> systems.
>>>
>>> Huh? It also affects Linux you puffed up little suck up. Los of
>>> things change between distros and in developing things like testing.
>>> Especially between stable and testing.
>>
>> Bollocks. Debian in particular does a very nice job in not keeping
>> cruft around. I'm using a Debian install that survived a couple of
>> hard drives and two physical machines, and it still runs as smooth as
>> the day I installed it. Not a single bit of cruft on that system.
>
> My distros remove any obsolete stuff when I tell them to update.
> And *even* the Betas (which I try out) do it when they're told to
> update or upgrade.

Same here.

Me thinks TomB was merely exposing "Hadron"'s idiocy, so all of us who
have the phuckwith shit-canned can have a good laugh (mission
accomplished) :-)

>> But feel free to tell us exactly what caused this "wear and tear".
>
> Well it can't be the same thing that affects Winders which needs
> defragging. If the fuckwitted Hadron *does* have problems with
> fragmentation with GNU/Linux, he probably needs to use a larger hard
> disk.
> But I'm sure the "know-it-all Hadron" troll knows how to measure the
> fragmentation of a Linux file system, & what to look for. ;-)

IMHO "Hadron" has Debian GNU/Linux installed as a VM with VirtualBox or
its ilk at best.

I wouldn't trust "Hadron" if he told me the sky was blue.

This is probably the most pathetic and laughable statement the M$ Fanboi
ever made. Hilarious!

--
|_|0|_| Marti T. Van Lin, alias ML2MST
|_|_|0| https://linuxcounter.net/user/513040.html
|0|0|0| http://osg33x.blogspot.com

[Snit]

On 11/23/12 4:27 AM, in article 201211231...@usenet.drumscum.be,

What is it with Windows? My installation of Windows 7 has never had to be
re-installed or any other stuff people in COLA say I should expect. Neither
have my installs of Ubuntu, OS X, or any other OS.


--
"I have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Nobody]

On 11/23/2012 6:51 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, Hadron belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:
>>

[...]

> You *still* think that the "unstable" in "Debian unstable" means your
> system will break often. No, it will not. It simply means you get a
> lot more updates than you do with "stable".

If "unstable" doesn't mean you should expect your system to break, why
use the terms "stable" and "unstable?" What does "stability" mean to
Linux developers?

[Snit]

On 11/23/12 9:11 AM, in article k8o78f$7ce$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"

Stable, unstable, free, etc... all terms bastardized by the open source
community.


--
"90% of computers use Microsoft's Windows ... Macs account for 9% of the
market while the open source system Linux accounts for 0.8%."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Steve]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:11:41 -0600, Nobody wrote:

> What does "stability" mean to
> Linux developers?

To a Linux developer "stability" means it manages to be able to
boot/load. After that, the poor slob user is on his own to fix it so
he can actually accomplish some work.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Nobody belched this bit o' wisdom:

Already told you. See my statement above.

To be clear, it simply means that your "configuration" is unstable.
That is, a new version audit is needed frequently on a Debian "unstable"
system. And, you do take a more frequent risk of breakage (though in
practise break of any kind is rare).

http://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable

What is unstable?

Unstable is where packages go after they've been uploaded by the
maintainer, and cleared for release by the FTP master. If you use an
unstable package, the only thing you can say with any certainty is
that it compiled on the developer's system. It may contain horrible
bugs.

When packages have met certain criteria, they are automatically moved
from unstable to the current "testing" branch. For more information
about testing, see also the testing announcement.

--
there are people in there who actually believe that Linux has 90% of
the Corporate desktop. I kid you not.
-- Hadron Quark, lying shamelessly

[Nobody]

On 11/23/2012 10:53 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, Nobody belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 11/23/2012 6:51 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> After swilling some grog, Hadron belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:
>>>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> You *still* think that the "unstable" in "Debian unstable" means your
>>> system will break often. No, it will not. It simply means you get a
>>> lot more updates than you do with "stable".
>>
>> If "unstable" doesn't mean you should expect your system to break, why
>> use the terms "stable" and "unstable?" What does "stability" mean to
>> Linux developers?
>
> Already told you. See my statement above.

Your statement above contradicts the definition of stability. It makes
it seem like updates are just for grins.

> To be clear, it simply means that your "configuration" is unstable.
> That is, a new version audit is needed frequently on a Debian "unstable"
> system. And, you do take a more frequent risk of breakage (though in
> practise break of any kind is rare).

Doesn't that opinion negate the need of defining it as either "stable"
or "unstable?"

> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable
>
> What is unstable?
>
> Unstable is where packages go after they've been uploaded by the
> maintainer, and cleared for release by the FTP master. If you use an
> unstable package, the only thing you can say with any certainty is
> that it compiled on the developer's system. It may contain horrible
> bugs.

Seems to me they're saying you should expect your system to break.

> When packages have met certain criteria, they are automatically moved
> from unstable to the current "testing" branch. For more information
> about testing, see also the testing announcement.

It's why I stick to stable distributions.

[Steve]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:09:30 -0600, Nobody wrote:

> On 11/23/2012 10:53 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> After swilling some grog, Nobody belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> On 11/23/2012 6:51 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> After swilling some grog, Hadron belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>> Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> You *still* think that the "unstable" in "Debian unstable" means your
>>>> system will break often. No, it will not. It simply means you get a
>>>> lot more updates than you do with "stable".
>>>
>>> If "unstable" doesn't mean you should expect your system to break, why
>>> use the terms "stable" and "unstable?" What does "stability" mean to
>>> Linux developers?
>>
>> Already told you. See my statement above.
>
> Your statement above contradicts the definition of stability. It makes
> it seem like updates are just for grins.

The poor Linux users sure don't think so.
Linux updates have a tendency to break working systems, and badly.
So by the time the bugs are fixed, another update rolls along and
other things get broken.
Rinse and repeat.

>> To be clear, it simply means that your "configuration" is unstable.
>> That is, a new version audit is needed frequently on a Debian "unstable"
>> system. And, you do take a more frequent risk of breakage (though in
>> practise break of any kind is rare).
>
> Doesn't that opinion negate the need of defining it as either "stable"
> or "unstable?"

Getting a Linux advocate to commit one way or the other is almost
impossible.

>> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable
>>
>> What is unstable?
>>
>> Unstable is where packages go after they've been uploaded by the
>> maintainer, and cleared for release by the FTP master. If you use an
>> unstable package, the only thing you can say with any certainty is
>> that it compiled on the developer's system. It may contain horrible
>> bugs.
>
> Seems to me they're saying you should expect your system to break.

Of course, it's Linux after all.
Linux is defective from the get go.
That's the reason why there are 100's of different varieties of
Linux.
Each one is trying to fix the bugs the others are riddled with.

>> When packages have met certain criteria, they are automatically moved
>> from unstable to the current "testing" branch. For more information
>> about testing, see also the testing announcement.
>
> It's why I stick to stable distributions.

There is no such thing unless you spend all your time at the command
line.
Try OSX to see a stable *nix variant.

[Snit]

On 11/23/12 10:46 AM, in article
15rc35tyq4pna$.1cm76jtctu5vv$.d...@40tude.net, "Steve"

<steve....@rocketmail.com> wrote:

>>> When packages have met certain criteria, they are automatically moved
>>> from unstable to the current "testing" branch. For more information
>>> about testing, see also the testing announcement.
>>
>> It's why I stick to stable distributions.
>
> There is no such thing unless you spend all your time at the command
> line.
> Try OSX to see a stable *nix variant.

I have fewer lockups with OS X than I do with Ubuntu at this point - OS X
has gotten better and Ubuntu has gotten worse in my experience. OS X,
though, still sometimes has bizarre errors which are most easily dealt with
by logging out and back in - esp. if you do not have much memory. You can
deal with it without doing so but for most users just logging out and back
in, or rebooting, is a quick "fix". I see similar things on Windows as well
from time to time.

Really, though, all three are pretty darn solid and rarely require a reboot
or logging out and back in... but it does happen with each.


--
"Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Nobody belched this bit o' wisdom:

> On 11/23/2012 10:53 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> After swilling some grog, Nobody belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>

>>> If "unstable" doesn't mean you should expect your system to break, why
>>> use the terms "stable" and "unstable?" What does "stability" mean to
>>> Linux developers?
>>
>> Already told you. See my statement above.
>
> Your statement above contradicts the definition of stability. It makes
> it seem like updates are just for grins.
>
>> To be clear, it simply means that your "configuration" is unstable.
>> That is, a new version audit is needed frequently on a Debian "unstable"
>> system. And, you do take a more frequent risk of breakage (though in
>> practise break of any kind is rare).
>
> Doesn't that opinion negate the need of defining it as either "stable"
> or "unstable?"

For better or worse, "stable/unstable" have to be applied to specific
characteristics. For instance, an "operating system" (for the purposes
of this discussion, the kernel, system, and userland code)
could lend itself to a number of "definitions" of "stable":

1. The operating system runs the same way under the same order of
user operation.
2. The operating system doesn't experience major bugs, crashes, or
hanging.
3. The code of the operating system doesn't change (due to updates).

Take Windows (please!). It doesn't always adhere to 1. That's why a
common fix for Windows is to "reboot". It's gotten a lot better at 2,
but I still hear about plenty of people in our location experiencing 2.
Windows doesn't adhere to 3, either, but that doesn't lead to 2 as much
as it used to.

For Debian unstable, on 3 applies, in my experience. Your kilometerage
may vary.

>> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable
>>
>> What is unstable?
>>
>> Unstable is where packages go after they've been uploaded by the
>> maintainer, and cleared for release by the FTP master. If you use an
>> unstable package, the only thing you can say with any certainty is
>> that it compiled on the developer's system. It may contain horrible
>> bugs.
>
> Seems to me they're saying you should expect your system to break.

Yes. Though, practically, it is more of a "cover your ass" thing.

>> When packages have met certain criteria, they are automatically moved
>> from unstable to the current "testing" branch. For more information
>> about testing, see also the testing announcement.
>
> It's why I stick to stable distributions.

I stick to unstable distributions because I want the latest software
possible without needing to download and build the source-code myself
(this is a significant burden in an environment where they expect you to
upgrade *immediately* in order to fix vulnerabilities -- even in Debian
unstable there have been a couple packages that lag behind the mandated
versions).

And the changes in versions have not provided enough instability (per
definition 2) for me to change my decision to use Debian unstable.

It rocks!

--
As I recall he claimed his "nym" was, rotflm, bequeathed to
him for his beardy knowledge... *lol*
-- "Hadron" <3yzkh1n...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Snit]

On 11/23/12 10:54 AM, in article k8od7n$bli$1...@dont-email.me, "Chris

Also works with Ubuntu and other Linux distros. Do not kid yourself that
this is unique to Windows.

> It's gotten a lot better at 2,
> but I still hear about plenty of people in our location experiencing 2.

And I see it with Ubuntu. Not often - but about the same as I do with
Windows.
...

[TomB]

On 2012-11-23, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:

To be fair, one of the main causes of this so-called "bitrot" is
"careless use". I put this between quotes because the Windows
ecosystem is extremely hostile when it comes down to installing and
maintaining software. Often installers come bundled with various
toolbars and other add-on stuff that's 'ticked on' by default, which
causes cruft to cumulate over time. Also a lot of programs install
additional 'services', which not only slow down boot time, but also
normal operation of the OS. When I'm cleaning up systems from users at
work, I'm often amazed how many crap those systems have running in the
background, and how many totally useless 'tools' are installed. I
often just put a clean back-up image back rather than speding
literally hours to get a jammed system back running smooth.

Absolutely no such thing with GNU/Linux distributions.

--
An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.
~ Benjamin Franklin

[Snit]

On 11/23/12 1:11 PM, in article 201211232...@usenet.drumscum.be,
"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

>>> Bollocks. Debian in particular does a very nice job in not keeping
>>> cruft around. I'm using a Debian install that survived a couple of
>>> hard drives and two physical machines, and it still runs as smooth
>>> as the day I installed it. Not a single bit of cruft on that
>>> system.
>>>
>>> But feel free to tell us exactly what caused this "wear and tear".
>>
>> What is it with Windows? My installation of Windows 7 has never had
>> to be re-installed or any other stuff people in COLA say I should
>> expect. Neither have my installs of Ubuntu, OS X, or any other OS.
>
> To be fair, one of the main causes of this so-called "bitrot" is
> "careless use". I put this between quotes because the Windows
> ecosystem is extremely hostile when it comes down to installing and
> maintaining software.

I will say Windows handles installed / removing large amounts of software
poorly. OS X handles it much better. Linux seems to but I do not install as
much there - and I have seen dependencies get fried on Linux.

> Often installers come bundled with various toolbars and other add-on stuff
> that's 'ticked on' by default, which causes cruft to cumulate over time.

This I think is a completely fair criticism of Windows. While there are
built in tools to deal with it I use Glary Utilities and have taught many
others to as well. I did not think of this in my above - so, yes, Windows
takes more maintenance.

> Also a lot of programs install additional 'services', which not only slow down
> boot time, but also normal operation of the OS.

This I do not see much of - other than things like VNC servers and the like
where it makes sense.

> When I'm cleaning up systems from users at work, I'm often amazed how many
> crap those systems have running in the background, and how many totally
> useless 'tools' are installed. I often just put a clean back-up image back
> rather than speding literally hours to get a jammed system back running
> smooth.

Use Glary Utilities - you can easily select what launches at boot / login.

> Absolutely no such thing with GNU/Linux distributions.

Fair enough - I will agree I have not seen the same type BS. Yes, Windows is
an utter mess here... I am just so used to dealing with it I did not think
of it as I was posting, above. Still, dealing with it is not that big of a
deal.

On OS X I also find it good to occasionally run YASU... but that is much
more automated than what you need to do with Windows (and is needed less
often, too).

--
"I started Linux as a desktop operating system. And it's the only area
where Linux hasn't completely taken over. That just annoys the hell out
of me." -- Linus Torvalds

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:

> On 2012-11-23, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
>>

>> What is it with Windows? My installation of Windows 7 has never had
>> to be re-installed or any other stuff people in COLA say I should
>> expect. Neither have my installs of Ubuntu, OS X, or any other OS.
>
> To be fair, one of the main causes of this so-called "bitrot" is
> "careless use". I put this between quotes because the Windows
> ecosystem is extremely hostile when it comes down to installing and
> maintaining software. Often installers come bundled with various
> toolbars and other add-on stuff that's 'ticked on' by default, which
> causes cruft to cumulate over time. Also a lot of programs install
> additional 'services', which not only slow down boot time, but also
> normal operation of the OS. When I'm cleaning up systems from users at
> work, I'm often amazed how many crap those systems have running in the
> background, and how many totally useless 'tools' are installed. I
> often just put a clean back-up image back rather than speding
> literally hours to get a jammed system back running smooth.
>
> Absolutely no such thing with GNU/Linux distributions.

We've had a couple of Windows 7 systems at work that had some updates
pushed to them by IT, and they bluescreened. One guy was smart enough
to roll his system back. The other person had to get help from IT, and
was down for a couple days.

--
The Linux community is too divided and there is not a clear leader or
example of Linux which convinces people to come over to Linux land.
-- "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

[GreyCloud]

On 11/23/12 14:25, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2012-11-23, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
>>>
>>> What is it with Windows? My installation of Windows 7 has never had
>>> to be re-installed or any other stuff people in COLA say I should
>>> expect. Neither have my installs of Ubuntu, OS X, or any other OS.
>>
>> To be fair, one of the main causes of this so-called "bitrot" is
>> "careless use". I put this between quotes because the Windows
>> ecosystem is extremely hostile when it comes down to installing and
>> maintaining software. Often installers come bundled with various
>> toolbars and other add-on stuff that's 'ticked on' by default, which
>> causes cruft to cumulate over time. Also a lot of programs install
>> additional 'services', which not only slow down boot time, but also
>> normal operation of the OS. When I'm cleaning up systems from users at
>> work, I'm often amazed how many crap those systems have running in the
>> background, and how many totally useless 'tools' are installed. I
>> often just put a clean back-up image back rather than speding
>> literally hours to get a jammed system back running smooth.
>>
>> Absolutely no such thing with GNU/Linux distributions.
>
> We've had a couple of Windows 7 systems at work that had some updates
> pushed to them by IT, and they bluescreened. One guy was smart enough
> to roll his system back. The other person had to get help from IT, and
> was down for a couple days.
>

You made that up.

[DFS]

On 11/23/2012 4:25 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2012-11-23, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
>>>
>>> What is it with Windows? My installation of Windows 7 has never had
>>> to be re-installed or any other stuff people in COLA say I should
>>> expect. Neither have my installs of Ubuntu, OS X, or any other OS.
>>
>> To be fair, one of the main causes of this so-called "bitrot" is
>> "careless use". I put this between quotes because the Windows
>> ecosystem is extremely hostile when it comes down to installing and
>> maintaining software. Often installers come bundled with various
>> toolbars and other add-on stuff that's 'ticked on' by default, which
>> causes cruft to cumulate over time. Also a lot of programs install
>> additional 'services', which not only slow down boot time, but also
>> normal operation of the OS. When I'm cleaning up systems from users at
>> work, I'm often amazed how many crap those systems have running in the
>> background, and how many totally useless 'tools' are installed. I
>> often just put a clean back-up image back rather than speding
>> literally hours to get a jammed system back running smooth.
>>
>> Absolutely no such thing with GNU/Linux distributions.
>
> We've had a couple of Windows 7 systems at work that had some updates
> pushed to them by IT, and they bluescreened. One guy was smart enough
> to roll his system back. The other person had to get help from IT, and
> was down for a couple days.

Exactly which updates?

[DFS]

A day or so of uptime. The shitware victims are literally ecstatic if
they can go a week without a forced reboot.

Some Linux hobbyware victims deal with 5 or more crashes a day -
sometimes even hourly. Hell, sometimes it's less than 2 minutes before
the ridiculous crapware locks up hard.


Linux just works.
MS is doomed.

[William Poaster]

Yeah, riiiight:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026
Thunderbird/16.0.2

--
The Mac user really puts the 'stupid' in 'Keep It Simple, Stupid


Scientific-Linux 6.3 64-bit.

[William Poaster]

Well I did have a chuckle about it.
I laughed at the "Go find a LUG meeting to disrupt." "And make sure to
tell your bitrot story!" comments from CA & TomB.

>>> But feel free to tell us exactly what caused this "wear and tear".
>>
>> Well it can't be the same thing that affects Winders which needs
>> defragging. If the fuckwitted Hadron *does* have problems with
>> fragmentation with GNU/Linux, he probably needs to use a larger hard
>> disk.
>> But I'm sure the "know-it-all Hadron" troll knows how to measure the
>> fragmentation of a Linux file system, & what to look for. ;-)
>
> IMHO "Hadron" has Debian GNU/Linux installed as a VM with VirtualBox or
> its ilk at best.

I would not be at all surprised if he's running it in a VM in his
beloved M$ OS.

> I wouldn't trust "Hadron" if he told me the sky was blue.
>
> This is probably the most pathetic and laughable statement the M$ Fanboi
> ever made. Hilarious!

Yes, very funny!

[chrisv]

>> Hadron quacked:

>>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> "Hadron" is apparently thinking of bit-rot, which afflicts Windows
>>>> systems.
>>>
>>> Huh? It also affects Linux

Bwa. Good one, Larry!

>>> you puffed up little suck up.

You Linux-hating liar.

--
"Despite oodles of evidence to the contrary you refuse to see the
faults in Linux" - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

[Nobody]

Steve wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:09:30 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>
>> On 11/23/2012 10:53 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

[...]

> Linux updates have a tendency to break working systems, and badly.

I've installed my share of Linux updates without any of them ever
breaking my system. Not even a minor glich.

[...]

[William Poaster]

Updates haven't broken any of my systems either.

The "40tude.net" troll should try harder.

--
Windows isn't a virus, viruses actually *do* something!

Scientific-Linux 6.3 64-bit.
KDE 4.9.3

[DFS]

Liar.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Nobody belched this bit o' wisdom:

Pretty true. "Steve" is full of shit.

--
Emacs outshines all other editing software in approximately the same way
that the noonday sun does the stars. It is not just bigger and brighter;
it simply makes everything else vanish - Neal Stephenson
-- The "sig" of "Hadron"'s posts, 2011

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, William Poaster belched this bit o' wisdom:

> Nobody wrote:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:09:30 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/23/2012 10:53 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> Linux updates have a tendency to break working systems, and badly.
>>
>> I've installed my share of Linux updates without any of them ever
>> breaking my system. Not even a minor glich.
>
> Updates haven't broken any of my systems either.
>
> The "40tude.net" troll should try harder.

Wouldn't matter. All that "Steve" has for material is shit.

--
Life is not fair; get used to it.
-- Bill Gates

[Steve]

http://tinyurl.com/cgx4duz
http://tinyurl.com/cnljfle

Feel free to run away and hide like you usually do when your
mistakes are pointed out, Chris Ahlstrom. What amazes me is how
Linux just seems to work perfectly or almost perfectly in
comp.os.linux.advocacy yet elsewhere, including the various Linux
forums, people are having massive problems with the very same items
that just seem to work for Linux users in comp.os.linux.advocacy.

I find that quite interesting.

[onion knight]

On Dec 1, 1:49 pm, Steve <steve.mac...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 13:43:57 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > After swilling some grog, William Poaster belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
> >> Nobody wrote:
>
> >>> Steve wrote:
>
> >>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:09:30 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 11/23/2012 10:53 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >>> [...]
>
> >>>> Linux updates have a tendency to break working systems, and badly.
>
> >>> I've installed my share of Linux updates without any of them ever
> >>> breaking my system.  Not even a minor glich.
>
> >> Updates haven't broken any of my systems either.
>
> >> The "40tude.net" troll should try harder.
>
> > Wouldn't matter.  All that "Steve" has for material is shit.
>

> http://tinyurl.com/cgx4duzhttp://tinyurl.com/cnljfle

>
> Feel free to run away and hide like you usually do when your
> mistakes are pointed out, Chris Ahlstrom. What amazes me is how
> Linux just seems to work perfectly or almost perfectly in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy yet elsewhere, including the various Linux
> forums, people are having massive problems with the very same items
> that just seem to work for Linux users in comp.os.linux.advocacy.
>
> I find that quite interesting.

The herd will never admit the problems that Linux suffers from. The
liars in COLA know that their fellow herd members will pat them on the
back when they lie so it's trivial to just make things up. In
legitimate Linux help groups however these herd members get laughed at
because users experiencing these very same problems with Linux know
that the problems are real. That's one reason why COLA is looked upon
as a joke when it comes to Linux advocacy. People lying about Linux is
not Linux advocacy.

[Nobody]

On 11/23/2012 04:58 PM, William Poaster wrote:
> Nobody wrote:
>
>> On 11/23/2012 10:53 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> After swilling some grog, Nobody belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> On 11/23/2012 6:51 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> After swilling some grog, Hadron belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>

[...]

>>
>> It's why I stick to stable distributions.
>
> Yeah, riiiight:
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026
> Thunderbird/16.0.2

I stick to stable distributions when I have that choice to make.

Microsoft doesn't seem to offer such an option.

[William Poaster]

That's because he's full of it.

--
Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips.

[Steve]

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 23:09:42 +0000, William Poaster wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After swilling some grog, William Poaster belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Nobody wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:09:30 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/23/2012 10:53 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> Linux updates have a tendency to break working systems, and badly.
>>>>
>>>> I've installed my share of Linux updates without any of them ever
>>>> breaking my system. Not even a minor glich.
>>>
>>> Updates haven't broken any of my systems either.
>>>
>>> The "40tude.net" troll should try harder.
>>
>> Wouldn't matter. All that "Steve" has for material is shit.
>
> That's because he's full of it.

Don't let the facts get in your way Willy.

http://tinyurl.com/cgx4duz

[Gregory Shearman]

On 2012-12-01, Steve <steve....@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Linux updates have a tendency to break working systems, and badly.
>>>>
>>>> I've installed my share of Linux updates without any of them ever
>>>> breaking my system. Not even a minor glich.
>>>
>>> Updates haven't broken any of my systems either.
>>>
>>> The "40tude.net" troll should try harder.
>>
>> Wouldn't matter. All that "Steve" has for material is shit.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cgx4duz
> http://tinyurl.com/cnljfle

A couple of references to a specific Ubuntu update causing problems for
a few people. Shouldn't you have said "Ubuntu" instead of Linux?
Shouldn't you have stated the actual upgrade versions?

> Feel free to run away and hide like you usually do when your
> mistakes are pointed out, Chris Ahlstrom. What amazes me is how
> Linux just seems to work perfectly or almost perfectly in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy yet elsewhere, including the various Linux
> forums, people are having massive problems with the very same items
> that just seem to work for Linux users in comp.os.linux.advocacy.

Well, if you check in the forums then what else are you going to find
but people with problems and others helping them out. That's what forums
are for.

> I find that quite interesting.

I find that quite normal.

I have a number of Gentoo machines here. Some of them have been running
for more than 2 years. They are updated *every* week. No problems here.
Every now and then there's extra things to do but that's Gentoo which is
*not* a beginner's distribution.

I suggest you stop trying to make up silly stories and to frighten away
any poor newbie straying into this area by your made up *scary* stories.

--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

[William Poaster]

Gregory Shearman wrote:

> On 2012-12-01, Steve <steve....@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux updates have a tendency to break working systems, and badly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've installed my share of Linux updates without any of them ever
>>>>> breaking my system. Not even a minor glich.
>>>>
>>>> Updates haven't broken any of my systems either.
>>>>
>>>> The "40tude.net" troll should try harder.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't matter. All that "Steve" has for material is shit.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/cgx4duz
>> http://tinyurl.com/cnljfle
>
> A couple of references to a specific Ubuntu update causing problems for
> a few people. Shouldn't you have said "Ubuntu" instead of Linux?
> Shouldn't you have stated the actual upgrade versions?

The trolling idiot seems to think that just because a specific Ubuntu
update causes some problems for a few people, it affects all Linux
distros, which it *doesn't*.

>> Feel free to run away and hide like you usually do when your
>> mistakes are pointed out, Chris Ahlstrom. What amazes me is how
>> Linux just seems to work perfectly or almost perfectly in
>> comp.os.linux.advocacy yet elsewhere, including the various Linux
>> forums, people are having massive problems with the very same items
>> that just seem to work for Linux users in comp.os.linux.advocacy.

More idiotic drivel from the "40tude.net" trolling fuckwit.

> Well, if you check in the forums then what else are you going to find
> but people with problems and others helping them out. That's what forums
> are for.
>
>> I find that quite interesting.
>
> I find that quite normal.
>
> I have a number of Gentoo machines here. Some of them have been running
> for more than 2 years. They are updated *every* week. No problems here.
> Every now and then there's extra things to do but that's Gentoo which is
> *not* a beginner's distribution.
>
> I suggest you stop trying to make up silly stories and to frighten away
> any poor newbie straying into this area by your made up *scary* stories.

I suggest the "40tude.net" troll FOAD.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Gregory Shearman belched this bit o' wisdom:

> On 2012-12-01, Steve <steve....@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux updates have a tendency to break working systems, and badly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've installed my share of Linux updates without any of them ever
>>>>> breaking my system. Not even a minor glich.
>>>>
>>>> Updates haven't broken any of my systems either.
>>>>
>>>> The "40tude.net" troll should try harder.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't matter. All that "Steve" has for material is shit.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/cgx4duz
>> http://tinyurl.com/cnljfle
>
> A couple of references to a specific Ubuntu update causing problems for
> a few people. Shouldn't you have said "Ubuntu" instead of Linux?
> Shouldn't you have stated the actual upgrade versions?
>
>> Feel free to run away and hide like you usually do when your
>> mistakes are pointed out, Chris Ahlstrom. What amazes me is how
>> Linux just seems to work perfectly or almost perfectly in
>> comp.os.linux.advocacy yet elsewhere, including the various Linux
>> forums, people are having massive problems with the very same items
>> that just seem to work for Linux users in comp.os.linux.advocacy.

Note that "Steve" *still* hasn't uncovered "massive" problems (although
he himself is a "massive" [1] problem).

And he certainly hasn't shown what *percentage* of updates caused
issues.

And if he thinks "Linux update problems" are "massive", what would he
make of "Windows update problems", which are pretty common given that
the Windows ecosystem is *far* more *constricted* than that of Linux.

> Well, if you check in the forums then what else are you going to find
> but people with problems and others helping them out. That's what forums
> are for.
>
>> I find that quite interesting.

"Steve" is a liar (of course).

I, for example, am quite upfront about Linux issues I have had, the most
recent being some nagging issues with Rosegarden.

> I find that quite normal.
>
> I have a number of Gentoo machines here. Some of them have been running
> for more than 2 years. They are updated *every* week. No problems here.
> Every now and then there's extra things to do but that's Gentoo which is
> *not* a beginner's distribution.
>
> I suggest you stop trying to make up silly stories and to frighten away
> any poor newbie straying into this area by your made up *scary* stories.

"Steve" is just another anonymous coward usenet troll wackjob with a
small mind and a small conscience.

[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=massive&page=2
Definition 11, unfortunately not attributed to its source,
Doug "The Greaseman" Tracht.

--
Hey Gordon, why not read the source code and fix it? It IS OSS you know
and wasn't it you that said having the source would be invaluable in not
being locked into legacy garbage ....
-- "Hadron" <hbkavj$nbg$7...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, William Poaster belched this bit o' wisdom:

> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> I suggest you stop trying to make up silly stories and to frighten away
>> any poor newbie straying into this area by your made up *scary* stories.
>
> I suggest the "40tude.net" troll FOAD.

FROAD would be more like it.

--
You prove you idiocy with each and every post.
You're both clueless morons.
Quit and Exit or Close and Quit etc are/can be totally different
things. And using the wrong one at the wrong time because of UI
inconsistency can and does become a real PITA.
People use keyboards. And they like the same common command keys to do the same
common tasks. Its not rocket science.
The obvious example is running two imaginary apps side by side.
One is called "WronG is an idiot" and the other is called "Dumb Willy is
a moron". On one, both are multi tab GUI apps, C-w close the current
tab. On the other C-w formats the hard drive with no prompts.
lets throw in a thirs where there is NO close window binding. A real
PITA if its run in a tiling window manager where you have no mouse for
example.
I realise my analogy/example is extreme but it seems thats the only way
to get through to you clueless idiots.
There ARE REASONS guidelines and standards exist. Try and embrace that
with your "advocate" pin heads please.
Stop giving a free pass to sloppy, clueless development.
-- "Hadron" <ihs4vi$16i$2...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Hadron]

Liar.


--
A certain COLA "advocate" faking his user-agent in order to pretend to be a Linux
user: User-Agent: Outlook 5.5 (WinNT 5.0), User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0
(Linux), Message-ID: <wPGdnd3NnOM...@comcast.com>

[Steve]

On 2 Dec 2012 04:45:00 GMT, Gregory Shearman wrote:

> On 2012-12-01, Steve <steve....@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux updates have a tendency to break working systems, and badly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've installed my share of Linux updates without any of them ever
>>>>> breaking my system. Not even a minor glich.
>>>>
>>>> Updates haven't broken any of my systems either.
>>>>
>>>> The "40tude.net" troll should try harder.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't matter. All that "Steve" has for material is shit.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/cgx4duz
>> http://tinyurl.com/cnljfle
>
> A couple of references to a specific Ubuntu update causing problems for
> a few people. Shouldn't you have said "Ubuntu" instead of Linux?
> Shouldn't you have stated the actual upgrade versions?

Ubuntu and it's derivatives (Mint) are the top distributions and
those that are likely to attract unsuspecting new users.

However, you can substitute just about any major distribution into
that search and come up with the same kind of data. Hell, you can
substitute Windows into it as well and find that people who do
upgrades have far more problems than people doing fresh installs.

But I'm not the one claiming Windows (Linux) works for me and I've
never had a problem upgrading. I leave that to the Linux users to
make those ludicrous claims.

Better yet, go to any Linux forum after a new version of that
particular Linux is released and see what you find. The forum is
flooded with people asking for help in bringing their dead system
back to life.

>> Feel free to run away and hide like you usually do when your
>> mistakes are pointed out, Chris Ahlstrom. What amazes me is how
>> Linux just seems to work perfectly or almost perfectly in
>> comp.os.linux.advocacy yet elsewhere, including the various Linux
>> forums, people are having massive problems with the very same items
>> that just seem to work for Linux users in comp.os.linux.advocacy.
>
> Well, if you check in the forums then what else are you going to find
> but people with problems and others helping them out. That's what forums
> are for.

It's everywhere and it's a known fact.

>> I find that quite interesting.
>
> I find that quite normal.

People lying in COLA order to bolster Linux's reputation is
unfortunately quite normal.

> I have a number of Gentoo machines here. Some of them have been running
> for more than 2 years. They are updated *every* week. No problems here.
> Every now and then there's extra things to do but that's Gentoo which is
> *not* a beginner's distribution.

And that's the problem, those "extra things" could be a hosed grub,
a screwed xserver dumping the person to the cli. For an experienced
user that's usually trivial. For an average user the perception is
his system is hosed.

> I suggest you stop trying to make up silly stories and to frighten away
> any poor newbie straying into this area by your made up *scary* stories.

I suggest the COLA minions stop lying about Linux because the truth
is out and people know. You guys just look silly.

[Steve]

On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 14:05:51 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> Nobody <inv...@invalid.com> writes:
>
>> Steve wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:09:30 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/23/2012 10:53 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> Linux updates have a tendency to break working systems, and badly.
>>
>> I've installed my share of Linux updates without any of them ever
>> breaking my system. Not even a minor glich.
>>
>> [...]
>
> Liar.

It would be quite interesting to see these same people trumpeting
that works for me routine outside of COLA. They would be run out of
the group or accused as being trolls. What puzzles me is why the
need to tell these lies? What is the benefit in this? Windows users
don't do this. Ask a Windows user about updates and I doubt you will
be able to find one who has never had a problem. Yet magically,
everything Linux just seems to work fine in COLA. A quick Google
exposes the lies rather quickly though.

[chrisv]

Gregory Shearman wrote:

> troll wrote:
>>
>> yet elsewhere, including the various Linux forums,
>

>Well, if you check in the forums then what else are you going to find
>but people with problems and others helping them out. That's what forums
>are for.

Gee, I wonder if one could go to Windows help forums and find people
having problems?

Does that make those who say it's working well for them "liars"?

--
'About 99% of home users use XP/Vista/98. They do not have all this
"hassle and trouble" to which you refer.' - "True Linux advocate"
Hadron Quark

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-12-02, Steve <steve....@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 Dec 2012 04:45:00 GMT, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> On 2012-12-01, Steve <steve....@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linux updates have a tendency to break working systems, and badly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've installed my share of Linux updates without any of them ever
>>>>>> breaking my system. Not even a minor glich.
>>>>>
>>>>> Updates haven't broken any of my systems either.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "40tude.net" troll should try harder.
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't matter. All that "Steve" has for material is shit.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/cgx4duz
>>> http://tinyurl.com/cnljfle
>>
>> A couple of references to a specific Ubuntu update causing problems for
>> a few people. Shouldn't you have said "Ubuntu" instead of Linux?
>> Shouldn't you have stated the actual upgrade versions?
>
> Ubuntu and it's derivatives (Mint) are the top distributions and
> those that are likely to attract unsuspecting new users.
>
> However, you can substitute just about any major distribution into
> that search and come up with the same kind of data. Hell, you can
> substitute Windows into it as well and find that people who do
> upgrades have far more problems than people doing fresh installs.
>
> But I'm not the one claiming Windows (Linux) works for me and I've
> never had a problem upgrading. I leave that to the Linux users to
> make those ludicrous claims.

This is just Lemming spin.

It's needed to address the problem that Windows users are CONSTANTLY
upgrading. They have to CONSTANTLY upgrade in order to protect themselves
from viruses.

A Windows machine is in a constant state of chaos because it needs to
be. THAT is not a requirement for any other platform. Serious corporate
systems actively avoid that king of churn because ANY change could have
potentially negative side effects and the potential costs of a churn
induced bug could be millions or possibly even billions.

[deletia]

Being in a state of constant upgrading is a Windows-ism.

--
Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
who has pirated their music / | \

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-12-02, Steve <steve....@rocketmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 14:05:51 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Nobody <inv...@invalid.com> writes:
>>
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:09:30 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/23/2012 10:53 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Linux updates have a tendency to break working systems, and badly.
>>>
>>> I've installed my share of Linux updates without any of them ever
>>> breaking my system. Not even a minor glich.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Liar.
>
> It would be quite interesting to see these same people trumpeting
> that works for me routine outside of COLA. They would be run out of

Outside of COLA I would say the same thing that I do here.

This is a manufactured problem that is a result of the Windows
mentality. It is driven by the virus problem that continues to plague
Microsoft products despite decades of collateral damage.

If it's not broken, don't treat it like it's a Windows box and it's
patch Tuesday. It's not Windows. It's Unix.

[Gregory Shearman]

On 2012-12-04, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
> A Windows machine is in a constant state of chaos because it needs to
> be. THAT is not a requirement for any other platform. Serious corporate
> systems actively avoid that king of churn because ANY change could have

^^^^

> potentially negative side effects and the potential costs of a churn
> induced bug could be millions or possibly even billions.

I always love a relevant typo:

Windows - The KING of churn!

[Gregory Shearman]

On 2012-12-03, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>
>>Well, if you check in the forums then what else are you going to find
>>but people with problems and others helping them out. That's what forums
>>are for.
>
> Gee, I wonder if one could go to Windows help forums and find people
> having problems?
>
> Does that make those who say it's working well for them "liars"?

Of course it does! We're all having MASSIVE problems with Linux...
didn't you know?

[William Poaster]

JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2012-12-02, Steve <steve....@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 14:05:51 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody <inv...@invalid.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:09:30 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/23/2012 10:53 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> Linux updates have a tendency to break working systems, and badly.
>>>>
>>>> I've installed my share of Linux updates without any of them ever
>>>> breaking my system. Not even a minor glich.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Liar.

The usual intelligent reply from the trolling Hadron fuckwit.

>> It would be quite interesting to see these same people trumpeting
>> that works for me routine outside of COLA. They would be run out of
>
> Outside of COLA I would say the same thing that I do here.

So would I.

> This is a manufactured problem that is a result of the Windows
> mentality. It is driven by the virus problem that continues to plague
> Microsoft products despite decades of collateral damage.
>
> If it's not broken, don't treat it like it's a Windows box and it's
> patch Tuesday. It's not Windows. It's Unix.

Quite.

--
This is Linux country. On a quiet night, you can hear NT re-boot.

[Gregory Shearman]

On 2012-12-02, Steve <steve....@rocketmail.com> wrote:

I update my Gentoo machines once a week. Where are all these so-called
problems? Every now and then there's something that needs to be attended
to, but usually these updates go through without a hitch.

Perhaps you can document those linux advocates who are saying that they
NEVER have a problem with an update.

I'll leave you some space:

[Steve]

Did I say NEVER?
I don't think so.
Those are your words.

[William Poaster]

We are? Wow!
Well I must have been *extremely* lucky for the last 12+ years of
installing Linux distros on my machines.
Or could it be that I know exactly wtf I'm doing. 8-D

--
Windows supports real multitasking - it can boot and crash
simultaneously.

[Steve]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 23:01:06 +0000, William Poaster wrote:

> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> On 2012-12-03, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Well, if you check in the forums then what else are you going to find
>>>>but people with problems and others helping them out. That's what forums
>>>>are for.
>>>
>>> Gee, I wonder if one could go to Windows help forums and find people
>>> having problems?
>>>
>>> Does that make those who say it's working well for them "liars"?
>>
>> Of course it does! We're all having MASSIVE problems with Linux...
>> didn't you know?
>
> We are? Wow!
> Well I must have been *extremely* lucky for the last 12+ years of
> installing Linux distros on my machines.
> Or could it be that I know exactly wtf I'm doing. 8-D

If you are claiming you have not had problems in the last 12+ years
of installing Linux you are a complete liar.
Thanks for proving my point about Linux users lying about their
experiences with Linux.

[GreyCloud]

Guffaw!!! More lies, eh?
I constantly get a ton of upgrades to linux too... and they are for
security reasons as well.

[GreyCloud]

They are all liars. I've had many issues with linux in just this year
alone. And I'm just about ready to toss out the junk off of my
computer. All it is is hobbyware.
These loons spend most of their time recompiling their kernel or some
other program. And if it isn't that they are trying to go on a sleuth
hunt to try and figure out why the program isn't working right.

[GreyCloud]

They don't want to respond because it is a troll game they play in here.
Their mythical killfiles don't exist. They cherry pick what they want
to respond to and later claim to have read it indirectly or respond 3rd
party... so he won't respond. The only way one can get a response is if
you suck-up real hard about linux being #1.
:-))

[Steve]

That seems to be the case. What I find unusual is the cast of
characters that all of a sudden came out from the underground the
second I mentioned that "intellectual property" statement. And all
from the UK. Interesting. Very interesting.

I sure wish I could remember who said that.. LMAO!

lol!

[Gregory Shearman]

On 2012-12-04, Steve <steve....@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2012 22:57:54 GMT, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> On 2012-12-02, Steve <steve....@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2012 14:05:51 +0100, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody <inv...@invalid.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:09:30 -0600, Nobody wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/23/2012 10:53 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux updates have a tendency to break working systems, and badly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've installed my share of Linux updates without any of them ever
>>>>> breaking my system. Not even a minor glich.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Liar.
>>>
>>> It would be quite interesting to see these same people trumpeting
>>> that works for me routine outside of COLA. They would be run out of

^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>> the group or accused as being trolls. What puzzles me is why the
>>> need to tell these lies? What is the benefit in this? Windows users
>>> don't do this. Ask a Windows user about updates and I doubt you will
>>> be able to find one who has never had a problem. Yet magically,
>>> everything Linux just seems to work fine in COLA. A quick Google
>>> exposes the lies rather quickly though.
>>
>> I update my Gentoo machines once a week. Where are all these so-called
>> problems? Every now and then there's something that needs to be attended
>> to, but usually these updates go through without a hitch.
>>
>> Perhaps you can document those linux advocates who are saying that they
>> NEVER have a problem with an update.
>>
>> I'll leave you some space:
>
> Did I say NEVER?

What else is a "works for me routine" supposed to mean other than never
having problems with Linux?

> I don't think so.
> Those are your words.

So you're now admitting that we don't have much problems at all running
Linux?

[Steve]

Those same people probably have admitted to problems at some time or
another.

Except William Poaster of course who claims to have not had a
problem with Linux in 12+ years.

I believe a person named Terry Porter said something similar but
alas now I am dating myself.

>> I don't think so.
>> Those are your words.
>
> So you're now admitting that we don't have much problems at all running
> Linux?

No.
I'm saying your knee jerk reaction is "works for me" however when
this gets exposed, sometimes years later, you all of a sudden admit
that Linux has now improved in xxxyyyzzz area and it's much better.
Gee but way back then it just worked?
How can that be?

[GreyCloud]

hehehe... it really doesn't matter when you take a specific point of
view... the marxist view or communal property aspects of communism.

[GreyCloud]

Of course you are making this up.
Most of you linux vermin just love to do program sleuthing to figure out
what went wrong or why it won't work right. And to say "It just works"
is a large pant load.

[GreyCloud]

Heh... I remember when the big deal was about how crappy looking the
linux fonts were rendered... and Kohlmann said he liked it looking that
way and told (I believe flatfish) to leave the linux users alone.
Now the fonts are pretty good, so we can't pick on them on that issue
anymore. :-))
Now point him to a real linux support forum and show him the real world
problems people are having with linux.

[Hadron]

Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:

> On 2012-12-04, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>
>> A Windows machine is in a constant state of chaos because it needs to
>> be. THAT is not a requirement for any other platform. Serious corporate
>> systems actively avoid that king of churn because ANY change could have
> ^^^^
>> potentially negative side effects and the potential costs of a churn
>> induced bug could be millions or possibly even billions.
>
> I always love a relevant typo:
>
> Windows - The KING of churn!

You two really are fucking idiots. Linux/Gnu is constantly evolving too.

The facts are that companies do use Windows.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-12-05, Steve <steve....@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:46:24 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>
>> On 12/04/12 16:09, Steve wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 23:01:06 +0000, William Poaster wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2012-12-03, chrisv<chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, if you check in the forums then what else are you going to find
>>>>>>> but people with problems and others helping them out. That's what forums
>>>>>>> are for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gee, I wonder if one could go to Windows help forums and find people
>>>>>> having problems?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that make those who say it's working well for them "liars"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it does! We're all having MASSIVE problems with Linux...
>>>>> didn't you know?
>>>>
>>>> We are? Wow!
>>>> Well I must have been *extremely* lucky for the last 12+ years of
>>>> installing Linux distros on my machines.
>>>> Or could it be that I know exactly wtf I'm doing. 8-D
>>>
>>> If you are claiming you have not had problems in the last 12+ years
>>> of installing Linux you are a complete liar.
>>> Thanks for proving my point about Linux users lying about their
>>> experiences with Linux.
>>>
>>
>> They are all liars. I've had many issues with linux in just this year

My approach to PCs has always been to be cheap while also avoiding the
dregs. Being too cheap always ends up being a problem. It doesn't matter
what you are running. And wasting money is just wasting money.

Even in the 90s I found this to be a very beneficial approach to take
as it relates to Linux.

This basic rule of thumb automatically avoids things like WinModems
and WinPrinters.

[deletia]

>> These loons spend most of their time recompiling their kernel or some

The 90s called. They want their FUD back.


[deletia]

--
|||
In a free market, the herd should be irrelevant. / | \

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-12-05, Steve <steve....@rocketmail.com> wrote:

I once ran a video capture card that was a little too new. I found the
relevant product documentation and patched the driver and sent a bug report
to the maintainer.

That was about 1998.

[deletia]

When I did my last capture card upgrade cycle I expected similar problems
because I pre-ordered the device before it was released. It actually turned
out that my Linux solution supported that hardware before Microsoft's own did.

[chrisv]

JEDIDIAH wrote:

>> some piece of shit that calls itself "GreyCloud" wrote:
>>>
>>> They are all liars.

Claims the rampant, unrepentant liar.

>>> I've had many issues with linux in just this year

Claims the shameless fscking idiot.

>>> These loons spend most of their time recompiling their kernel or some
>
> The 90s called. They want their FUD back.

Of course everyone has seen "issues", but, again, the advocates "works
for me" is twisted into "perfection" by filthy lying trolls.

--
"In COLA they don't see the need for a help group like this because
they actually believe Linux is perfect. Really." - Hadron Quark,
lying shamelessly

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, GreyCloud belched this bit o' wisdom:

> They are all liars. I've had many issues with linux in just this year
> alone. And I'm just about ready to toss out the junk off of my
> computer. All it is is hobbyware.
> These loons spend most of their time recompiling their kernel or some
> other program. And if it isn't that they are trying to go on a sleuth
> hunt to try and figure out why the program isn't working right.

Sounds a lot like Flounder

--
.... Marti duly fell to his kneed in front of his Master Roy (narrowly
missing Chris) and thanked him profusely for his wise words. It was
cringe worthy.
-- "Hadron", http://compgroups.net/comp.os.linux.advocacy/Introducing-Windows-users-to-GNU-Linux-during-the-holidays

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> some piece of shit wrote:
>>
>> They are all liars. I've had many issues with linux in just this year
>> alone. And I'm just about ready to toss out the junk off of my
>> computer. All it is is hobbyware.
>> These loons spend most of their time recompiling their kernel or some
>> other program. And if it isn't that they are trying to go on a sleuth
>> hunt to try and figure out why the program isn't working right.
>
>Sounds a lot like Flounder

It's a worthless fscking liar, in any case.

"All it is is hobbyware." Guffaw.

One can only wonder what "entertainment" value some old piece of shit
gets by spewing such idiocy and lies.

[Hadron]

Chris Ahlstrom <ad...@cyberbully.com> writes:

> After swilling some grog, GreyCloud belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> They are all liars. I've had many issues with linux in just this year
>> alone. And I'm just about ready to toss out the junk off of my
>> computer. All it is is hobbyware.
>> These loons spend most of their time recompiling their kernel or some
>> other program. And if it isn't that they are trying to go on a sleuth
>> hunt to try and figure out why the program isn't working right.
>
> Sounds a lot like Flounder

Yes. He does. As I've said for ages.

[William Poaster]

JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2012-12-05, Steve <steve....@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:46:24 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/04/12 16:09, Steve wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 23:01:06 +0000, William Poaster wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2012-12-03, chrisv<chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, if you check in the forums then what else are you going to find
>>>>>>>> but people with problems and others helping them out. That's what forums
>>>>>>>> are for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gee, I wonder if one could go to Windows help forums and find people
>>>>>>> having problems?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does that make those who say it's working well for them "liars"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it does! We're all having MASSIVE problems with Linux...
>>>>>> didn't you know?
>>>>>
>>>>> We are? Wow!
>>>>> Well I must have been *extremely* lucky for the last 12+ years of
>>>>> installing Linux distros on my machines.
>>>>> Or could it be that I know exactly wtf I'm doing. 8-D
>>>>
>>>> If you are claiming you have not had problems in the last 12+ years
>>>> of installing Linux you are a complete liar.
>>>> Thanks for proving my point about Linux users lying about their
>>>> experiences with Linux.

The one lying here is *you*, troll.

>>> They are all liars. I've had many issues with linux in just this year

The one's lying are these two wintrolls.

> My approach to PCs has always been to be cheap while also avoiding the
> dregs. Being too cheap always ends up being a problem. It doesn't matter
> what you are running. And wasting money is just wasting money.
>
> Even in the 90s I found this to be a very beneficial approach to take
> as it relates to Linux.
>
> This basic rule of thumb automatically avoids things like WinModems
> and WinPrinters.
>
> [deletia]
>>> These loons spend most of their time recompiling their kernel or some
>
> The 90s called. They want their FUD back.

Indeed.

--
XPN :: http://xpn.altervista.org

[William Poaster]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> After swilling some grog, GreyCloud belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> They are all liars. I've had many issues with linux in just this year
>> alone. And I'm just about ready to toss out the junk off of my
>> computer. All it is is hobbyware.
>> These loons spend most of their time recompiling their kernel or some
>> other program. And if it isn't that they are trying to go on a sleuth
>> hunt to try and figure out why the program isn't working right.
>
> Sounds a lot like Flounder

Yes, it's all bullshit.

--
This is Linux country. On a quiet night, you can hear NT re-boot.

[GreyCloud]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> After swilling some grog, GreyCloud belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> They are all liars. I've had many issues with linux in just this year
>> alone. And I'm just about ready to toss out the junk off of my
>> computer. All it is is hobbyware.
>> These loons spend most of their time recompiling their kernel or some
>> other program. And if it isn't that they are trying to go on a sleuth
>> hunt to try and figure out why the program isn't working right.
>
> Sounds a lot like Flounder
>

As usual, you don't have the mental acumen to figure out whos who without a
program.

[GreyCloud]

William Poaster wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After swilling some grog, GreyCloud belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> They are all liars. I've had many issues with linux in just this year
>>> alone. And I'm just about ready to toss out the junk off of my
>>> computer. All it is is hobbyware.
>>> These loons spend most of their time recompiling their kernel or some
>>> other program. And if it isn't that they are trying to go on a sleuth
>>> hunt to try and figure out why the program isn't working right.
>>
>> Sounds a lot like Flounder
>
> Yes, it's all bullshit.
>

Ah,yes,... the infamous billy boaster claims to know bullshit...
Well, folks, he also purchased a bridge he is trying to sell.
Yep, he is an expert in bullshit.

[GreyCloud]

And folks, here we have another linux loon with alzheimers disease...
along with tourettes syndrome... a very rare combination that makes them
want to eat feces.

[GreyCloud]

Ah yes folks, another post editor in the works... a bit rough around the
edges here, but he is working his way up the ladder with a chainsaw.

[GreyCloud]

Again, we have the infamous Billy Boaster, cousin to Billy-Butt Crust.
Spends all his time compiling his kernel rather than download updates.
Lives in a moldy trailer home with ... you guessed it... moldy cheeze-its
lying around his moldy couch.

[GreyCloud]

chrisv wrote:

> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>>> some piece of shit that calls itself "GreyCloud" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> They are all liars.
>
> Claims the rampant, unrepentant liar.
>
>>>> I've had many issues with linux in just this year
>
> Claims the shameless fscking idiot.
>
>>>> These loons spend most of their time recompiling their kernel or some
>>
>> The 90s called. They want their FUD back.
>
> Of course everyone has seen "issues", but, again, the advocates "works
> for me" is twisted into "perfection" by filthy lying trolls.
>

Says the chicken-shit hit-n-run troll with tourettes syndrome.

Another liar and shameful communist living in his mothers home.
He believes in communal property rights. What yours is his too.

[GreyCloud]

Gregory Shearman wrote:

> On 2012-12-04, JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>
>> A Windows machine is in a constant state of chaos because it needs to
>> be. THAT is not a requirement for any other platform. Serious corporate
>> systems actively avoid that king of churn because ANY change could have
> ^^^^
>> potentially negative side effects and the potential costs of a churn
>> induced bug could be millions or possibly even billions.
>
> I always love a relevant typo:
>
> Windows - The KING of churn!
>

While Linux dvds and cds are burnt at the land fills.
The KING of BURN!!

[Bjørn Steensrud]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> After swilling some grog, GreyCloud belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> They are all liars. I've had many issues with linux in just this year
>> alone. And I'm just about ready to toss out the junk off of my
>> computer. All it is is hobbyware.
>> These loons spend most of their time recompiling their kernel or some
>> other program. And if it isn't that they are trying to go on a sleuth
>> hunt to try and figure out why the program isn't working right.
>
> Sounds a lot like Flounder
>

Well - apart from the incredible idiocy of the post, it does seem that he's
Floundering. The "hobbyware" allegation has beed refuted so many times I get
tired of it. Hint: Red Hat turnover, Oracle basis OS.

Recompiling kernels - it must be at least 7 years since I last did that,
more like a benchmark than anything else. At the time it took about 20
minutes, if I remember correctly. (Back in 1994 it took 24 hours on a 386SX
at 25 MHz clock speed, for a much, much smaller kernel.) GreyClout should
get off my lawn. Oh wait- he's filtered.

[GreyCloud]

That's all I see in here are hobbyists. So typical of liars lieing for
lienux.

[William Poaster]

Bjørn Steensrud wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After swilling some grog, GreyCloud belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> They are all liars. I've had many issues with linux in just this year
>>> alone. And I'm just about ready to toss out the junk off of my
>>> computer. All it is is hobbyware.
>>> These loons spend most of their time recompiling their kernel or some
>>> other program. And if it isn't that they are trying to go on a sleuth
>>> hunt to try and figure out why the program isn't working right.
>>
>> Sounds a lot like Flounder
>>
>
> Well - apart from the incredible idiocy of the post, it does seem that he's
> Floundering. The "hobbyware" allegation has beed refuted so many times I get
> tired of it. Hint: Red Hat turnover, Oracle basis OS.

The wintrolls just keep trotting out the same old discredited FUD.
A boring bunch of idiots.

> Recompiling kernels - it must be at least 7 years since I last did that,
> more like a benchmark than anything else.

About 9 or 10 years since I bothered to compile kernels.

> At the time it took about 20 minutes, if I remember correctly.
> (Back in 1994 it took 24 hours on a 386SX
> at 25 MHz clock speed, for a much, much smaller kernel.) GreyClout should
> get off my lawn. Oh wait- he's filtered.

Has been for a long time, here. He's a moron.

--
Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips.

[-hh]

On Dec 6, 5:57 pm, William Poaster <w...@induh-vidual.net> wrote:
> Bj rn Steensrud wrote:
> > ... GreyClout should

> > get off my lawn. Oh wait- he's filtered.
>
> Has been for a long time, here. He's a moron.

As the amended subject line now reads, it is always fun to see social
outcasts trying to use 'Peer Pressure'.



-hh

[Steve Carroll]

Snit is a weak minded idiot. We can use peer pressure to break him.

[chrisv]

Soupe wrote:

> Bjørn Steensrud wrote:
>>
>>Well - apart from the incredible idiocy of the post, it does seem that he's
>>Floundering. The "hobbyware" allegation has beed refuted so many times I get
>>tired of it. Hint: Red Hat turnover, Oracle basis OS.
>

>To me at least, hobbyware is high praise. It means something that you
>work on out of love, not because you have to be paid to work on it.

Well, it's true that Free software attracts many of the best
programmers, because, as you say, they enjoy creating and sharing
software, and people who really enjoy doing something are usually the
best at it.

However, I would still say that the word "hobbyware" is derogatory,
and Linux wouldn't be so widely used, if it were not professional
quality.

--
"Has the definition of open/free become 'you can customize/modify the
open and free product however you want as long as one company approves
of your changes'?" - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel", claiming that
there's something "not open/free" about Google controlling Android,
Canonical controlling Ubuntu, RedHat controlling RedHat, etc.

[Steve]

On Fri, 07 Dec 2012 09:26:13 -0600, chrisv wrote:


> Well, it's true that Free software attracts many of the best
> programmers, because, as you say, they enjoy creating and sharing
> software, and people who really enjoy doing something are usually the
> best at it.

So why does desktop Linux suck so much then?
Why is Android a virus magnet?

[onion knight]

On Dec 7, 12:21 pm, Soupe <soupeduj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:58:20 -0800 (PST), Steve Carroll

>
> <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Snit is a weak minded idiot. We can use peer pressure to break him.
>

> The only way to break him is to simply stop replying to his posts. I'm
> sure he just loves the attention that you pay him. (Given that I've
> never seen a post of yours that didn't mention snit.)

Why do you crave my attention?

--
"But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I don't even want
to; it's not what I'm interested in. I'm more of a desktop guy."
-- Linus Torvalds