[News] Vista 7 won't support USB3
Terry Porter
We've learned about some of its specifications, and had a first look, but
it looks like USB 3.0 is going to get a proper unveiling next monday with
an announcement of its final protocol specifications at the first
SuperSpeed USB Developer Conference. But at WinHEC last week there also
emerged a rumour that Windows 7 won't support version 3.0 natively, due
to the time constraints involved...unless the OS suffers delays perhaps.
end{quote}
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/11/
superspeed_usb_30_formal_unveiling_next_week_windows_7_wont_support_natively-2.html
Ok, I know the Wintrolls will soon be here screaming that 'the USB 3.0
spec isn't finished yet", and whilst that's true, Linux with its *daily*
releases will be able to provide USB 3.0 support overnight, once the spec
is finished.
Microsoft Vista 7 How much longer will people pay more, for less ?
--
If we wish to reduce our ignorance, there are people we will
indeed listen to. Trolls are not among those people, as trolls, more or
less by definition, *promote* ignorance.
Kelsey Bjarnason, C.O.L.A. 2008
Erik Funkenbusch
> Ok, I know the Wintrolls will soon be here screaming that 'the USB 3.0
> spec isn't finished yet", and whilst that's true, Linux with its *daily*
> releases will be able to provide USB 3.0 support overnight, once the spec
> is finished.
Overnight? Really? Would you like to place a wager? If a USB driver is
not released the day after the spec is finalized, you shut the fuck up,
i'll do the same. Agreed?
Didn't think so.
> Microsoft Vista 7 How much longer will people pay more, for less ?
You can be certain that Microsoft will hvae support for USB3 when real USB3
devices are available. I wouldn't expect Linux to support it until such
device are available either.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:01:11 -0600, Terry Porter wrote:
>
>> Ok, I know the Wintrolls will soon be here screaming that 'the USB 3.0
>> spec isn't finished yet", and whilst that's true, Linux with its *daily*
>> releases will be able to provide USB 3.0 support overnight, once the spec
>> is finished.
>
> Overnight? Really? Would you like to place a wager? If a USB driver is
> not released the day after the spec is finalized, you shut the fuck up,
> i'll do the same. Agreed?
>
> Didn't think so.
How about support for the AMD64 chip, Erik Funkenbusch?
Linux ran on it, fully supported, *before* the first chip ever left the fab
It ran on it before the first sample was ever ready
>> Microsoft Vista 7 How much longer will people pay more, for less ?
>
> You can be certain that Microsoft will hvae support for USB3 when real
> USB3 devices are available.
In start contrast to "unreal USB3" devices, I guess. Just like the "true
linux advocates" RE "linux advocates"
> I wouldn't expect Linux to support it until such
> device are available either.
What you expect is irrelevant, astroturfer Erik F
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer
Hadron
> begin{quote}
> We've learned about some of its specifications, and had a first look, but
> it looks like USB 3.0 is going to get a proper unveiling next monday with
> an announcement of its final protocol specifications at the first
> SuperSpeed USB Developer Conference. But at WinHEC last week there also
> emerged a rumour that Windows 7 won't support version 3.0 natively, due
> to the time constraints involved...unless the OS suffers delays perhaps.
> end{quote}
>
> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/11/
> superspeed_usb_30_formal_unveiling_next_week_windows_7_wont_support_natively-2.html
>
>
>
> Ok, I know the Wintrolls will soon be here screaming that 'the USB 3.0
> spec isn't finished yet", and whilst that's true, Linux with its *daily*
> releases will be able to provide USB 3.0 support overnight, once the spec
> is finished.
>
> Microsoft Vista 7 How much longer will people pay more, for less ?
You stupid arse.
1) USB 3.0 is NOT finished yet.
2) It was a rumour
3) There is no way to know.
Windows gets updates too. In the same way Linux does.
You appear more ludicrous with every post you make.
Peter Köhlmann
> Terry Porter <lin...@netspace.net.au> writes:
>
>> begin{quote}
>> We've learned about some of its specifications, and had a first look, but
>> it looks like USB 3.0 is going to get a proper unveiling next monday with
>> an announcement of its final protocol specifications at the first
>> SuperSpeed USB Developer Conference. But at WinHEC last week there also
>> emerged a rumour that Windows 7 won't support version 3.0 natively, due
>> to the time constraints involved...unless the OS suffers delays perhaps.
>> end{quote}
>>
>> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/11/
>>
superspeed_usb_30_formal_unveiling_next_week_windows_7_wont_support_natively-2.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, I know the Wintrolls will soon be here screaming that 'the USB 3.0
>> spec isn't finished yet", and whilst that's true, Linux with its *daily*
>> releases will be able to provide USB 3.0 support overnight, once the spec
>> is finished.
>>
>> Microsoft Vista 7 How much longer will people pay more, for less ?
>
> You stupid arse.
Typical Hadron Quark start. Insulting people for posts which essentially say
the things he "puts right" or "corrects"
> 1) USB 3.0 is NOT finished yet.
So what? It was *exactly* what he posted. Yet you felt the need to start
with insulting him. A real "true linux advocate" you are, Hadron Quark
> 2) It was a rumour
So what?
> 3) There is no way to know.
Right, sort of
> Windows gets updates too. In the same way Linux does.
Really? Like the AMD64 option? Which linux had *years* ahead of windows?
> You appear more ludicrous with every post you make.
Look into the mirror sometime. You will not like what you see
--
The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> You appear more ludicrous with every post you make.
>
> Look into the mirror sometime. You will not like what you see
Unfortunately, Peter, he /likes/ what he sees in the mirror.
--
In this world, nothing is certain but death and taxes.
-- Benjamin Franklin
Tony Manco
> begin{quote}
> We've learned about some of its specifications, and had a first look, but
> it looks like USB 3.0 is going to get a proper unveiling next monday with
> an announcement of its final protocol specifications at the first
> SuperSpeed USB Developer Conference. But at WinHEC last week there also
> emerged a rumour that Windows 7 won't support version 3.0 natively, due
> to the time constraints involved...unless the OS suffers delays perhaps.
> end{quote}
>
> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/11/
> superspeed_usb_30_formal_unveiling_next_week_windows_7_wont_support_natively-2.html
>
>
>
> Ok, I know the Wintrolls will soon be here screaming that 'the USB 3.0
> spec isn't finished yet", and whilst that's true, Linux with its *daily*
> releases will be able to provide USB 3.0 support overnight, once the spec
> is finished.
>
> Microsoft Vista 7 How much longer will people pay more, for less ?
Windows users are use to this, remember Vista's SSD incompatibility a
couple of months ago? :-P
--
Firefox 3.0.3 .::. Thunderbird: 2.0.0.17.::. Ubuntu 8.10
OK
>begin{quote}
>We've learned about some of its specifications, and had a first look, but
>it looks like USB 3.0 is going to get a proper unveiling next monday with
>an announcement of its final protocol specifications at the first
>SuperSpeed USB Developer Conference. But at WinHEC last week there also
>emerged a rumour that Windows 7 won't support version 3.0 natively, due
>to the time constraints involved...unless the OS suffers delays perhaps.
>end{quote}
>
>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/11/
>superspeed_usb_30_formal_unveiling_next_week_windows_7_wont_support_natively-2.html
>
>
>
>Ok, I know the Wintrolls will soon be here screaming that 'the USB 3.0
>spec isn't finished yet", and whilst that's true, Linux with its *daily*
>releases will be able to provide USB 3.0 support overnight, once the spec
>is finished.
Yeah right, KEEP DREAMING. Plug and play is still not working in Linux
after 15 years, and you believe that somehow things will change
because USB got an update? Bwahahahahaha.....
Gregory Shearman
> Yeah right, KEEP DREAMING. Plug and play is still not working in Linux
> after 15 years, and you believe that somehow things will change
> because USB got an update? Bwahahahahaha.....
Plug and Play?
Who cares?
BTW, do you still have to plug things into a Windows box IN THE CORRECT
ORDER... otherwise you fuck up the hardware install?
Plug and play.... pfffffffffffffffft!
I still remember the nightmare of setting up my Dad's Hewlett-Packard
Box, when I plugged the scanner in, before the software was loaded...
what a disaster!
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Ezekiel
"Terry Porter" <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
news:zdOdnZnSfr_K4YbU...@netspace.net.au...
> begin{quote}
> We've learned about some of its specifications, and had a first look, but
> it looks like USB 3.0 is going to get a proper unveiling next monday with
> an announcement of its final protocol specifications at the first
> SuperSpeed USB Developer Conference. But at WinHEC last week there also
> emerged a rumour that Windows 7 won't support version 3.0 natively, due
> to the time constraints involved...unless the OS suffers delays perhaps.
> end{quote}
>
> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/11/
> superspeed_usb_30_formal_unveiling_next_week_windows_7_wont_support_natively-2.html
What a moronic analysis. Like it's going to be impossible for anyone to ship
a driver to support USB 3.
Somehow Windows (like XP for example) is able to support all of the video,
network, RAID, etc cards that have been released in the last 8 years. This
is done by installing a device driver. But for some reasons people believe
that supporting USB 3 can't be done.
Peter Köhlmann
Your reading comprehension is nearly as bad as that of Hadron Quark
--
Microsoft software doesn't get released - it escapes, leaving
a trail of destruction behind it.
OK
<ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
Oh yeah? What "disaster"? You got a message about a missing driver,
you inserted the CD, it installed automatically and voila?
What a nightmare indeed, I guess your conception of a dream is no
support at all for your scanner, like in Linux. No driver, no
problems, uh?
Gregory Shearman
> On 15 Nov 2008 21:16:03 GMT, Gregory Shearman
><ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>On 2008-11-15, OK <ot...@kaiser.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah right, KEEP DREAMING. Plug and play is still not working in Linux
>>> after 15 years, and you believe that somehow things will change
>>> because USB got an update? Bwahahahahaha.....
>>
>>Plug and Play?
>>
>>Who cares?
>>
>>BTW, do you still have to plug things into a Windows box IN THE CORRECT
>>ORDER... otherwise you fuck up the hardware install?
>>
>>Plug and play.... pfffffffffffffffft!
>>
>>I still remember the nightmare of setting up my Dad's Hewlett-Packard
>>Box, when I plugged the scanner in, before the software was loaded...
>>what a disaster!
>
> Oh yeah? What "disaster"? You got a message about a missing driver,
> you inserted the CD, it installed automatically and voila?
No. I plugged the scanner in at the wrong moment. Apparently it all had
to be done in a CERTAIN ORDER or else all the software had to be
uninstalled and redone.
> What a nightmare indeed, I guess your conception of a dream is no
> support at all for your scanner, like in Linux. No driver, no
> problems, uh?
I've got a Diamond scanner. Uses the snapscan driver which comes with
SANE. You plug your scanner in and SANE finds it for you.
Scanner Access Now Easy.
It must have been a long time since you used Linux.
Ezekiel
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:491f5fd8$0$31870$9b4e...@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
My reading comprehension is far better than you and your fellow idiots who
claim that "Vista 7 won't support USB3."
If you actually bother to read the article you'll find that nowhere does it
say that "Vista 7 won't support USB3." What it does say is that it won't be
supported "natively" meaning that it'll require a device driver in order to
work.
Yes.... you and Terry are either morons or liars. Which is it?
Terry Porter
<snip>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@arcor.de> wrote in message
<snip>
>> Your reading comprehension is nearly as bad as that of Hadron Quark
Peter is right.
>
> My reading comprehension is far better than you and your fellow idiots
> who claim that "Vista 7 won't support USB3."
No Wintroll, that's just your spin. Go back to my article at the top of
this thread where it clearly says "Windows 7 won't support version 3.0
natively" ?
Get the picture now ? Next time pay attention.
>
> If you actually bother to read the article you'll find that nowhere does
> it say that "Vista 7 won't support USB3." What it does say is that it
> won't be supported "natively" meaning that it'll require a device driver
> in order to work.
Which is what my article claimed, being a direct quote.
Hadron
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:42:45 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@arcor.de> wrote in message
> <snip>
>
>>> Your reading comprehension is nearly as bad as that of Hadron Quark
>
> Peter is right.
>
>>
>> My reading comprehension is far better than you and your fellow idiots
>> who claim that "Vista 7 won't support USB3."
>
> No Wintroll, that's just your spin. Go back to my article at the top of
> this thread where it clearly says "Windows 7 won't support version 3.0
> natively" ?
>
> Get the picture now ? Next time pay attention.
What makes it funny is that you don't realise what a prime prick you
make of yourself with every post. People know you snip and tell
fibs. It's hilarious.
>>
>> If you actually bother to read the article you'll find that nowhere does
>> it say that "Vista 7 won't support USB3." What it does say is that it
>> won't be supported "natively" meaning that it'll require a device driver
>> in order to work.
>
> Which is what my article claimed, being a direct quote.
So your point is what exactly?
As usual you have none.
DFS
> Which is what my article claimed, being a direct quote.
The article - which you didn't write - claims there was a rumor that Windows
7 won't support USB3 natively.
The thread title - which you did write - claims Windows 7 won't support USB3
at all, period.
You're a lying idiot, Porter.
Peter Köhlmann
> Terry Porter <lin...@netspace.net.au> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:42:45 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@arcor.de> wrote in message
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Your reading comprehension is nearly as bad as that of Hadron Quark
>>
>> Peter is right.
>>
>>>
>>> My reading comprehension is far better than you and your fellow idiots
>>> who claim that "Vista 7 won't support USB3."
>>
>> No Wintroll, that's just your spin. Go back to my article at the top of
>> this thread where it clearly says "Windows 7 won't support version 3.0
>> natively" ?
>>
>> Get the picture now ? Next time pay attention.
>
> What makes it funny is that you don't realise what a prime prick you
> make of yourself with every post. People know you snip and tell
> fibs. It's hilarious.
What makes it funny is that Terry claimed exactly what isn't disputed by you
wintrolls: That Windows7 will not support USB3 Out-of-the-Box.
>>>
>>> If you actually bother to read the article you'll find that nowhere does
>>> it say that "Vista 7 won't support USB3." What it does say is that it
>>> won't be supported "natively" meaning that it'll require a device driver
>>> in order to work.
>>
>> Which is what my article claimed, being a direct quote.
>
> So your point is what exactly?
>
> As usual you have none.
Oh, he had one. You guys have so bad reading comprehension that you miss it
9 out of 10 times
--
I just found out that the brain is like a computer.
If that's true, then there really aren't any stupid people.
Just people running Windows.
Peter Köhlmann
> Terry Porter wrote:
>
>
>> Which is what my article claimed, being a direct quote.
>
> The article - which you didn't write - claims there was a rumor that
> Windows 7 won't support USB3 natively.
>
> The thread title - which you did write - claims Windows 7 won't support
> USB3 at all, period.
>
Well, when it comes out, will it support USB3? A simple "No" will suffice,
DumbFullShit
> You're a lying idiot, Porter.
Well, where exactly did he lie? Are you telling us that Win7 will have USB3
support out of the box (and Terry knows that)? Care to provide any links
for that, liar?
--
Windows was created to keep stupid people away from UNIX."
-- Tom Christiansen
Hadron
It really is quite unbelievable. He uses Linux ONLY to make money off
it, gives NOTHING back to the OSS community AND tells lies to make
himself appear some sort of group luminary. Who does he think is is
kidding? Does he think our newsreaders do not maintain threads? Like
Liarnut does he think he can rewrite history?
Tim Smith
Terry Porter <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> Ok, I know the Wintrolls will soon be here screaming that 'the USB 3.0
> spec isn't finished yet", and whilst that's true, Linux with its *daily*
> releases will be able to provide USB 3.0 support overnight, once the spec
> is finished.
On what basis do you claim Linux will get support overnight, once the
spec is finished? It took Linux years longer than Windows to get UDF
2.5 support after that spec was finished. How do you know USB 3 won't
be the same?
--
--Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann
Linux supported the AMD64 processor month *before* the first chip left the
fab. *Years* before windows did. How do you know USB3 won't be the same?
--
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
DFS
You didn't answer Tim, dumbkopf. Why not?
Tim Smith
It could be. So what? Sometimes Linux gets support for a given
technology ahead of Windows, and sometimes Windows gets it ahead of
Linux. Terry asserts USB 3 will be the former, not the latter--I want
to know how he knows this.
--
--Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann
I did answer him. With an example of a new technology which was available
for linux before that technology even hit the market. And years before MS
had (a inferior) implementation of it
--
Avoid reality at all costs.
Peter Köhlmann
> In article <4920ad6a$0$31336$9b4e...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>,
> Peter Kohlmann <peter.k...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>> > In article <zdOdnZnSfr_K4YbU...@netspace.net.au>,
>> > Terry Porter <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>> >> Ok, I know the Wintrolls will soon be here screaming that 'the USB 3.0
>> >> spec isn't finished yet", and whilst that's true, Linux with its
>> >> *daily* releases will be able to provide USB 3.0 support overnight,
>> >> once the spec is finished.
>> >
>> > On what basis do you claim Linux will get support overnight, once the
>> > spec is finished? It took Linux years longer than Windows to get UDF
>> > 2.5 support after that spec was finished. How do you know USB 3 won't
>> > be the same?
>> >
>>
>> Linux supported the AMD64 processor month *before* the first chip left
>> the fab. *Years* before windows did. How do you know USB3 won't be the
>> same?
>
> It could be. So what? Sometimes Linux gets support for a given
> technology ahead of Windows, and sometimes Windows gets it ahead of
> Linux. Terry asserts USB 3 will be the former, not the latter--I want
> to know how he knows this.
>
He has not asserted it. He said "linux will be able to..."
That is not "linux will have USB3 before..."
If you really want to go the nitpicking route, then you have to stay to the
exact wording, and not the one Hadron Quark would read
--
99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
DFS
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> It could be. So what? Sometimes Linux gets support for a given
>> technology ahead of Windows, and sometimes Windows gets it ahead of
>> Linux. Terry asserts USB 3 will be the former, not the latter--I
>> want to know how he knows this.
>>
>
> He has not asserted it. He said "linux will be able to..."
What kind of bullshit statement is that? Oh, it's the kind weasely Linux
"advocates*" often make.
> That is not "linux will have USB3 before..."
He strongly implies Linux will have USB 3 support the day after the spec is
finished.
He also claims Windows 7 will never have USB 3 support.
He's a lying fool, and you know it, and you're a moron for defending
anything he says.
Peter Köhlmann
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>
>>> It could be. So what? Sometimes Linux gets support for a given
>>> technology ahead of Windows, and sometimes Windows gets it ahead of
>>> Linux. Terry asserts USB 3 will be the former, not the latter--I
>>> want to know how he knows this.
>>>
>>
>> He has not asserted it. He said "linux will be able to..."
>
> What kind of bullshit statement is that? Oh, it's the kind weasely Linux
> "advocates*" often make.
>
Has nothing to do with "weasel wording". That would be Erik Funkenbusch
It is a factual statement. Nothing wrong with it
>
>> That is not "linux will have USB3 before..."
>
> He strongly implies Linux will have USB 3 support the day after the spec
> is finished.
It strongly implies that it is possible. Which it is
> He also claims Windows 7 will never have USB 3 support.
No, he did not. He claimed that it seems that Win7 will not have that
support out of the box. Yet another setup CD you better not misplace
> He's a lying fool, and you know it, and you're a moron for defending
> anything he says.
I am not defending anything he says. For that I need to read all he posts
(which I don't) and then start to read the answers of the wintendo cretins
attacking him, which I am not inclined to do. It is sufficient to read your
drivel to feel like needing to barf
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
DFS
> DFS wrote:
>
>> Peter Khlmann wrote:
>>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>>> It could be. So what? Sometimes Linux gets support for a given
>>>> technology ahead of Windows, and sometimes Windows gets it ahead of
>>>> Linux. Terry asserts USB 3 will be the former, not the latter--I
>>>> want to know how he knows this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He has not asserted it. He said "linux will be able to..."
>>
>> What kind of bullshit statement is that? Oh, it's the kind weasely
>> Linux "advocates*" often make.
>>
>
> Has nothing to do with "weasel wording". That would be Erik
> Funkenbusch
> It is a factual statement. Nothing wrong with it
It's not a fact of any kind. It's an assumption. The weasel doesn't know
that Linux will be able to support USB 3 the day after the spec is finished.
>>> That is not "linux will have USB3 before..."
>>
>> He strongly implies Linux will have USB 3 support the day after the
>> spec is finished.
>
> It strongly implies that it is possible. Which it is
It's also possible for Windows Vista/7 to have USB 3 support the day after
the spec is finished.
>> He also claims Windows 7 will never have USB 3 support.
>
> No, he did not.
Yes, he did. There is no qualifier at all in his claim, therefore the bozo
is saying Windows 7 will never support USB.
> He claimed that it seems that Win7 will not have that
> support out of the box.
No, he didn't claim that. He claimed Windows 7 will not support USB. It's
right there in the liar's thread title. He didn't say 'initially' or
'natively' or 'for 6 months' or make any kind of qualification at all.
You're lying again while supporting the lying moron.
>> He's a lying fool, and you know it, and you're a moron for defending
>> anything he says.
>
> I am not defending anything he says.
That's exactly what you just did... and you lied while defending his lies.
Peter Köhlmann
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
< snip DumbFullShit droppings >
>>> He's a lying fool, and you know it, and you're a moron for defending
>>> anything he says.
>>
>> I am not defending anything he says.
>
> That's exactly what you just did... and you lied while defending his lies.
Idiot. And you can stuff your "Hadron Quark snipping method" where the suns
don't shine
--
Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course
Hadron
It's shocking. One would think a semi-sane "advocate" like Koehlmann
would distance himself from a complete idiot like Port but no, he just
cant help riding in to defence Terry. And, as a result, highlights to
the rest of the world Terry's stupidity and lies eve more.
High Plains Thumper
> DFS writes:
>> Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>>> begin{quote} We've learned about some of its
>>> specifications, and had a first look, but it looks like
>>> USB 3.0 is going to get a proper unveiling next monday
>>> with an announcement of its final protocol specifications
>>> at the first SuperSpeed USB Developer Conference. But at
>>> 7 won't support version 3.0 natively, due to the time
>>> constraints involved...unless the OS suffers delays
>>> perhaps. end{quote}
>>>
>>> http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/11/superspeed_usb_30_formal_unveiling_next_week_windows_7_wont_support_natively-2.html
>>>
>>> 'the USB 3.0 spec isn't finished yet", and whilst that's
>>> true, Linux with its *daily* releases will be able to
>>> provide USB 3.0 support overnight, once the spec is
>>> finished.
>>>
>>> for less ?
>>
It seems that the illiteracy among our Wintrolls abound. Both
these posters show that they are providing ad hominem attacks,
attacking the poster rather than participating in the discussion.
http://tantek.pbwiki.com/TrollTaxonomy
[quote]
Ad hominem troll [...]
However, often ad hominem troll will start its discourse with
seemingly reasonable commentary, perhaps an analogy etc. Using
rational tone, they may lull you into thinking that they are
rational in general and thus their entire message should be
considered rational. Once they have established such an
impression, then they will then descend into personal attacks
which may even sound reasonably worded, until you recognize them
for what they are, nothing more than personal attacks.
Example: thacker. thacker starts by ignoring the previous comment
(which itself was a rational challenge to thacker's earlier
statements), repeating himself (see the section below on
Repeating themselves), then moves onto an analogy. Afterwards he
continues with personal attacks, starting subtly worded, then
increasingly harsh:
* "some here, yourself included, will not see nor understand
the parallels"
* "Your noses are simply buried too deeply into the
proverbial bark."
* "Or you lack the courage, will, ability to step away and
ask the truly difficult questions. That is a shame."
[/quote]
Use of the insulting term "Liarnut", instead of the proper
spelling of the nym "Linonut", is an example of:
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm
[quote]
Subject: 3.4 The nasty Troll
If anyone does anything which will interfere with the
troll's ability to cause mayhem, they can become very
nasty, posting from obviously incorrect variations of the
name etc. insults, call them netcops, netnannies,
homosexuals.
[/quote]
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hadron wrote:
>>
>> It really is quite unbelievable. He uses Linux ONLY to make
>> money off it, gives NOTHING back to the OSS community AND
>> tells lies to make himself appear some sort of group luminary.
>> Who does he think is is kidding? Does he think our newsreaders
>> do not maintain threads? Like Liarnut does he think he can
>> rewrite history?
>
> It seems that the illiteracy among our Wintrolls abound. Both
> these posters show that they are providing ad hominem attacks,
> attacking the poster rather than participating in the discussion.
Indeed. I like the ballsy hypocrisy of it all, really -- whine and claim
history rewrites while doing the very same oneself.
> http://tantek.pbwiki.com/TrollTaxonomy
>
> [quote]
> Ad hominem troll [...]
>
> However, often ad hominem troll will start its discourse with
> seemingly reasonable commentary, perhaps an analogy etc. Using
> rational tone, ...
Uh, when's the last time we've gotten a rational tone from DFS and Hadron?
> Use of the insulting term "Liarnut", instead of the proper
> spelling of the nym "Linonut", is an example of:
>
> http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm
>
> [quote]
> Subject: 3.4 The nasty Troll
It's also self-nuking, really.
Hadron has the ethics of a third-grade playground denizen.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
JEDIDIAH
><lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>
>>begin{quote}
>>We've learned about some of its specifications, and had a first look, but
>>it looks like USB 3.0 is going to get a proper unveiling next monday with
>>an announcement of its final protocol specifications at the first
>>SuperSpeed USB Developer Conference. But at WinHEC last week there also
>>emerged a rumour that Windows 7 won't support version 3.0 natively, due
>>to the time constraints involved...unless the OS suffers delays perhaps.
>>end{quote}
>>
>>http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/11/
>>superspeed_usb_30_formal_unveiling_next_week_windows_7_wont_support_natively-2.html
>>
>>
>>
>>Ok, I know the Wintrolls will soon be here screaming that 'the USB 3.0
>>spec isn't finished yet", and whilst that's true, Linux with its *daily*
>>releases will be able to provide USB 3.0 support overnight, once the spec
>>is finished.
>
> after 15 years, and you believe that somehow things will change
Call it what you like.
My version of "not working" is a lot more useful than your version
of "working". Infact, I route Windows machines through Linux print servers
because of this.
[deletia]
--
Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's |||
continued popularity as does an attempt to do some / | \
simple date manipulations in postgres.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
JEDIDIAH
USB3 like USB1 before it is the classic example of something that
sleazseballs like Microsoft might use to force a major version upgrade.
JEDIDIAH
It all depends on motivation. If there is some kid in Germany that's
hankering for USB3 support then it will quickly come along. If everyone
else would rather just use firewire, then there could be a problem.
JEDIDIAH
><ZekeG...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>On 2008-11-15, OK <ot...@kaiser.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah right, KEEP DREAMING. Plug and play is still not working in Linux
>>> after 15 years, and you believe that somehow things will change
>>> because USB got an update? Bwahahahahaha.....
>>
>>Plug and Play?
>>
>>Who cares?
>>
>>BTW, do you still have to plug things into a Windows box IN THE CORRECT
>>ORDER... otherwise you fuck up the hardware install?
>>
>>Plug and play.... pfffffffffffffffft!
>>
>>I still remember the nightmare of setting up my Dad's Hewlett-Packard
>>Box, when I plugged the scanner in, before the software was loaded...
>>what a disaster!
>
> Oh yeah? What "disaster"? You got a message about a missing driver,
> you inserted the CD, it installed automatically and voila?
What CD?
[deletia]
Ok, so you got the CD. Now it says it found more than one driver.
Which one do you pick?
Then mebbe it bombs and you still don't have your driver installed.
Or perhaps you need to flash the firmware. Except it just gives you a
BSOD when you try that.
Vista actually took a couple of step backwards wrt plug-n-pray.
Ezekiel
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrngi321...@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2008-11-17, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>>> It could be. So what? Sometimes Linux gets support for a given
>>>> technology ahead of Windows, and sometimes Windows gets it ahead of
>>>> Linux. Terry asserts USB 3 will be the former, not the latter--I
>>>> want to know how he knows this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He has not asserted it. He said "linux will be able to..."
>>
>> What kind of bullshit statement is that? Oh, it's the kind weasely
>> Linux
>> "advocates*" often make.
>>
>>
>>
>>> That is not "linux will have USB3 before..."
>>
>> He strongly implies Linux will have USB 3 support the day after the spec
>> is
>> finished.
>>
>> He also claims Windows 7 will never have USB 3 support.
>>
>> He's a lying fool, and you know it, and you're a moron for defending
>> anything he says.
>
> USB3 like USB1 before it is the classic example of something that
> sleazseballs like Microsoft might use to force a major version upgrade.
>
Do backup this lie of yours of how Microsoft used USB1 to "force a major
version upgrade." But of course you'll do your cowardly slink and run
because it's nothing but more bullshit from you.
Hadron
> On 2008-11-16, Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> In article <zdOdnZnSfr_K4YbU...@netspace.net.au>,
>> Terry Porter <lin...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>>> Ok, I know the Wintrolls will soon be here screaming that 'the USB 3.0
>>> spec isn't finished yet", and whilst that's true, Linux with its *daily*
>>> releases will be able to provide USB 3.0 support overnight, once the spec
>>> is finished.
>>
>> On what basis do you claim Linux will get support overnight, once the
>> spec is finished? It took Linux years longer than Windows to get UDF
>> 2.5 support after that spec was finished. How do you know USB 3 won't
>> be the same?
>
> It all depends on motivation. If there is some kid in Germany that's
> hankering for USB3 support then it will quickly come along. If everyone
> else would rather just use firewire, then there could be a problem.
What a totally nonsensical reply.
basically you say "if someone does it we will have it". Err,
yeah. Right. In the same way the MS will provide USB 3 in a timely
manner if and when the spec is released AND there is a need.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On 2008-11-15, OK <ot...@kaiser.de> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah right, KEEP DREAMING. Plug and play is still not working in Linux
>> after 15 years, and you believe that somehow things will change
>
> Call it what you like.
>
> My version of "not working" is a lot more useful than your version
> of "working". Infact, I route Windows machines through Linux print servers
> because of this.
OK's a pretty thick plank, isn't he?
--
No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of
absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream.
Hill House, not sane, stood by itself against its hills, holding darkness
within; it had stood so for eighty years and might stand for eighty more.
Within, walls continued upright, bricks met neatly, floors were firm, and
doors were sensibly shut; silence lay steadily against the wood and stone
of Hill House, and whatever walked there, walked alone.
-- Shirley Jackson, "The Haunting of Hill House"
Hadron
> On 2008-11-17, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>>> It could be. So what? Sometimes Linux gets support for a given
>>>> technology ahead of Windows, and sometimes Windows gets it ahead of
>>>> Linux. Terry asserts USB 3 will be the former, not the latter--I
>>>> want to know how he knows this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He has not asserted it. He said "linux will be able to..."
>>
>> What kind of bullshit statement is that? Oh, it's the kind weasely Linux
>> "advocates*" often make.
>>
>>
>>
>>> That is not "linux will have USB3 before..."
>>
>> He strongly implies Linux will have USB 3 support the day after the spec is
>> finished.
>>
>> He also claims Windows 7 will never have USB 3 support.
>>
>> He's a lying fool, and you know it, and you're a moron for defending
>> anything he says.
>
> USB3 like USB1 before it is the classic example of something that
> sleazseballs like Microsoft might use to force a major version
> upgrade.
What total and utter nonsense.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> On 2008-11-15, OK <ot...@kaiser.de> wrote:
>
>> Yeah right, KEEP DREAMING. Plug and play is still not working in Linux
>> after 15 years, and you believe that somehow things will change
>> because USB got an update? Bwahahahahaha.....
>
> Plug and Play?
>
> Who cares?
>
> BTW, do you still have to plug things into a Windows box IN THE CORRECT
> ORDER... otherwise you fuck up the hardware install?
Apparently. The new Kodak digital cam and docking station/photo printer
came with install discs which expressly warn you to install the software
*before* the hardware.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Apparently. The new Kodak digital cam and docking station/photo printer
> came with install discs which expressly warn you to install the software
> *before* the hardware.
While that's true, there's a simple reason for it.
Windows will automatically recognize your Kodak camera when you plug it in,
installing the Windows driver for it. Kodak wants you to use it's own
custom driver, so they want to install their driver first before Windows
has a chance to assign it to the Windows default driver.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:24:50 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
Do you still end up with two ways to manage the device though? I've seen
that with wireless and with video, where either the Windows native GUI or
the vendor's GUI can be used.
--
You dialed 5483.
Erik Funkenbusch
Yes, because even the vendors driver still has to work with the built-in
subsystem.
Homer
>> On 15 Nov 2008 21:16:03 GMT, Gregory Shearman
>>>> Yeah right, KEEP DREAMING. Plug and play is still not working
>>>> in Linux after 15 years, and you believe that somehow things
>>>> will change because USB got an update? Bwahahahahaha.....
>>>
>>> Plug and Play?
Apparently Otto has never heard of UDEV; HAL and D-BUS, nor the fact
that the Linux kernel seems to support /more/ hardware natively than
Windows, and even third party driver support in the Vole's latest OS
is rather lacking.
> It must have been a long time since you used Linux.
It must have been a long time since he used /Windows/ too, otherwise
he'd remember how retarded it is at device enumeration, even when it
/does/ actually manage to find a working driver for that device.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
23:18:15 up 13 days, 7:01, 4 users, load average: 0.01, 0.08, 0.07
Homer
It's the same with the HP 6940 printer under Windows.
Under Linux, you just plug it in and print, unless you connect it via
Ethernet instead of USB in which case it's three clicks in a dialogue
box (IIRC) ... and /no/ software to install (CUPS comes preinstalled).
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
23:24:08 up 13 days, 7:06, 4 users, load average: 0.06, 0.09, 0.08
Kelsey Bjarnason
Er... why not simply _replace_ the presumably less functional driver with
the newer one? Surely Kodak knows which default drivers need to be
removed and replaced - just do it as part of the install.
Must be yet another way Windows makes things difficult, this time for
driver installers.
Erik Funkenbusch
And then non-kodak camera's won't work. Did you even think about that?
> Must be yet another way Windows makes things difficult, this time for
> driver installers.
Actually, Kodak really should just use the windows driver, but for some
reason chooses to write their own.
Terry Porter
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:24:50 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>> Apparently. The new Kodak digital cam and docking station/photo
>> printer came with install discs which expressly warn you to install the
>> software *before* the hardware.
>
> While that's true, there's a simple reason for it.
Nothing is simple, accurate or truthful when it comes from a Wintroll
like you.
>
> Windows will automatically recognize your Kodak camera when you plug it
> in, installing the Windows driver for it. Kodak wants you to use it's
> own custom driver, so they want to install their driver first before
> Windows has a chance to assign it to the Windows default driver.
Perhaps Kodak don't want Microsoft screwing with the performance of their
product ?
Perhaps Kodak went to the trouble to write their own drivers for a very
good and not simple reason ?
--
If we wish to reduce our ignorance, there are people we will
indeed listen to. Trolls are not among those people, as trolls, more or
less by definition, *promote* ignorance.
Kelsey Bjarnason, C.O.L.A. 2008
Moshe Goldfarb.
> Perhaps Kodak went to the trouble to write their own drivers for a very
> good and not simple reason ?
Yea.
They wanted the 99 percent of the people using Windows or Mac to be able to
get ALL THE FEATURES out of their products.
Unlike Linux where you have to figure out how to make common hardware work.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
chrisv
>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:05:30 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:59:10 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>>> Windows will automatically recognize your Kodak camera when you plug it
>>> in, installing the Windows driver for it. Kodak wants you to use it's
>>> own custom driver, so they want to install their driver first before
>>> Windows has a chance to assign it to the Windows default driver.
>>
>> Er... why not simply _replace_ the presumably less functional driver with
>> the newer one? Surely Kodak knows which default drivers need to be
>> removed and replaced - just do it as part of the install.
>
>And then non-kodak camera's won't work. Did you even think about that?
Why would owners of non-Kodak cameras even posess, much less install,
Kodak driver software? Did you ever think about that?
Hadron
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:59:10 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:24:50 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently. The new Kodak digital cam and docking station/photo
>>> printer came with install discs which expressly warn you to install the
>>> software *before* the hardware.
>>
>> While that's true, there's a simple reason for it.
>
> Nothing is simple, accurate or truthful when it comes from a Wintroll
> like you.
>
>>
>> Windows will automatically recognize your Kodak camera when you plug it
>> in, installing the Windows driver for it. Kodak wants you to use it's
>> own custom driver, so they want to install their driver first before
>> Windows has a chance to assign it to the Windows default driver.
>
> Perhaps Kodak don't want Microsoft screwing with the performance of their
> product ?
>
> Perhaps Kodak went to the trouble to write their own drivers for a very
> good and not simple reason ?
And things can not be good or simple? Not in Terry "Bighead" Porter
world I think.
God, you take COLA down to a whole new level of ignorance and
stupidity. Your hatred for MS is palpable. Did they refuse you a
position too?
Mart van de Wege
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:05:30 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:59:10 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:24:50 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apparently. The new Kodak digital cam and docking station/photo
>>>> printer came with install discs which expressly warn you to install the
>>>> software *before* the hardware.
>>>
>>> While that's true, there's a simple reason for it.
>>>
>>> Windows will automatically recognize your Kodak camera when you plug it
>>> in, installing the Windows driver for it. Kodak wants you to use it's
>>> own custom driver, so they want to install their driver first before
>>> Windows has a chance to assign it to the Windows default driver.
>>
>> Er... why not simply _replace_ the presumably less functional driver with
>> the newer one? Surely Kodak knows which default drivers need to be
>> removed and replaced - just do it as part of the install.
>
> And then non-kodak camera's won't work. Did you even think about that?
Are you *REALLY* this stupid?
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:22:12 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> Windows will automatically recognize your Kodak camera when you plug
>>> it in, installing the Windows driver for it. Kodak wants you to use
>>> it's own custom driver, so they want to install their driver first
>>> before Windows has a chance to assign it to the Windows default
>>> driver.
>>
>> Er... why not simply _replace_ the presumably less functional driver
>> with the newer one? Surely Kodak knows which default drivers need to
>> be removed and replaced - just do it as part of the install.
>
> And then non-kodak camera's won't work. Did you even think about that?
Then the bullshit about "Kodak wants you to use its own driver" is
irrelevant in this context, as they could do that *anyway*.
Yes, okay, now that you've shot down that little excuse for the whole
Windows hardware install process being broken, what's next?
Erik Funkenbusch
> [snips]
>
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:22:12 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>>>> Windows will automatically recognize your Kodak camera when you plug
>>>> it in, installing the Windows driver for it. Kodak wants you to use
>>>> it's own custom driver, so they want to install their driver first
>>>> before Windows has a chance to assign it to the Windows default
>>>> driver.
>>>
>>> Er... why not simply _replace_ the presumably less functional driver
>>> with the newer one? Surely Kodak knows which default drivers need to
>>> be removed and replaced - just do it as part of the install.
>>
>> And then non-kodak camera's won't work. Did you even think about that?
>
> Then the bullshit about "Kodak wants you to use its own driver" is
> irrelevant in this context, as they could do that *anyway*.
No. You seem to be under some kind of misconception. Kodak doesn't remove
or replace drivers. They install their driver in addition to the normal
windows driver. That's why they want it installed first, otherwise Windows
will assign the generic driver to the camera.
I was responding to your idiotic idea of replacing the Windows driver.
That's the kind of crap Novell used to pull.
> Yes, okay, now that you've shot down that little excuse for the whole
> Windows hardware install process being broken, what's next?
The hardware install process is not broken, it's just that Kodak and others
are too lazy to take the extra steps, they want people to install the
driver first so that extra steps are unnecessary.
Hadron
And its been that way for years for all sorts of HW including video
cards.
Peter Köhlmann
So much for plug and play
So, what you guys are saying is that linux is way easier and much more
foolproof than windows.
I agree with that notion
--
Avoid reality at all costs.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:18:19 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>> Windows will automatically recognize your Kodak camera when you plug
>>>>> it in, installing the Windows driver for it. Kodak wants you to use
>>>>> it's own custom driver, so they want to install their driver first
>>>>> before Windows has a chance to assign it to the Windows default
>>>>> driver.
>>>>
>>>> Er... why not simply _replace_ the presumably less functional driver
>>>> with the newer one? Surely Kodak knows which default drivers need to
>>>> be removed and replaced - just do it as part of the install.
>>>
>>> And then non-kodak camera's won't work. Did you even think about
>>> that?
>>
>> Then the bullshit about "Kodak wants you to use its own driver" is
>> irrelevant in this context, as they could do that *anyway*.
>
> No. You seem to be under some kind of misconception. Kodak doesn't
> remove or replace drivers. They install their driver in addition to the
> normal windows driver. That's why they want it installed first
You just said that *both* drivers can co-exist, so there's absolutely
nothing stopping them installing their own custom driver _later_. Six
seconds later or six weeks later, makes no difference. Therefore this
nonsense about how they want their driver installed before the hardware
so they get to use their customer driver is precisely that - nonsense.
Yet, despite it being nonsense, by your own admission the drivers can
coexist, the warning still remains: install the driver first, then the
device.
So, as a reason for the warning, this argument simply doesn't work. Very
well, what's left? If it's not Kodak, not a Kodak driver problem, not a
problem with drivers which can't co-exist, what's left? All that's left
is Windows fucking things up.
So which is it? Is this a Windows problem, because Windows is too
freaking retarded to do the right thing, or is it not a Windows problem,
in which case there's simply no reason for any such warning, it all works?
Erik Funkenbusch
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:18:19 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>>>>>> Windows will automatically recognize your Kodak camera when you plug
>>>>>> it in, installing the Windows driver for it. Kodak wants you to use
>>>>>> it's own custom driver, so they want to install their driver first
>>>>>> before Windows has a chance to assign it to the Windows default
>>>>>> driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> Er... why not simply _replace_ the presumably less functional driver
>>>>> with the newer one? Surely Kodak knows which default drivers need to
>>>>> be removed and replaced - just do it as part of the install.
>>>>
>>>> And then non-kodak camera's won't work. Did you even think about
>>>> that?
>>>
>>> Then the bullshit about "Kodak wants you to use its own driver" is
>>> irrelevant in this context, as they could do that *anyway*.
>>
>> No. You seem to be under some kind of misconception. Kodak doesn't
>> remove or replace drivers. They install their driver in addition to the
>> normal windows driver. That's why they want it installed first
>
> You just said that *both* drivers can co-exist, so there's absolutely
> nothing stopping them installing their own custom driver _later_.
Correct. If that was what you meant, then you sorely misphrased your
original statement.
> Six
> seconds later or six weeks later, makes no difference. Therefore this
> nonsense about how they want their driver installed before the hardware
> so they get to use their customer driver is precisely that - nonsense.
No, it's not. You're confusing several things, as usual. Windows only
installs the driver once. When you susequently plug the hardware in after
the driver has been installed, it uses the same driver as it used earlier.
Simply installing a new driver will not cause the hardware to use the new
driver if an existing driver has already been assigned to it.
> Yet, despite it being nonsense, by your own admission the drivers can
> coexist, the warning still remains: install the driver first, then the
> device.
Because the hardware needs to install the driver when it's first plugged
in.
> So, as a reason for the warning, this argument simply doesn't work. Very
> well, what's left? If it's not Kodak, not a Kodak driver problem, not a
> problem with drivers which can't co-exist, what's left? All that's left
> is Windows fucking things up.
It is in fact a kodak problem, or more precisely, their installers problem.
> So which is it? Is this a Windows problem, because Windows is too
> freaking retarded to do the right thing, or is it not a Windows problem,
> in which case there's simply no reason for any such warning, it all works?
Windows *IS* doing the right thing by not randomly replacing a driver.
Kodak is not.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:07:06 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> Six
>> seconds later or six weeks later, makes no difference. Therefore this
>> nonsense about how they want their driver installed before the hardware
>> so they get to use their customer driver is precisely that - nonsense.
>
> No, it's not. You're confusing several things, as usual. Windows only
> installs the driver once.
"The" driver? A minute ago you were talking about *two* drivers -
whatever crappy one Windows already has, and the sexy new one on the
Kodak CD.
Apparently, keeping track of two things is a little too complicated for
you.
Care to try again, but this time with something which at least bears a
passing semblance to sanity?
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:55:50 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> And its been that way for years for all sorts of HW including video
>> cards.
>
> So much for plug and play
>
> So, what you guys are saying is that linux is way easier and much more
> foolproof than windows.
> I agree with that notion
One wonders how you install the driver for a video card before you
install the video card, since you won't be able to see all the license
agreements and wizard pages and other nonsense you have to read and click
to make the install work.
Windows: the only OS which *requires* the users to be psychic.
Either that, or Hardon's just being an idiot again.
Erik Funkenbusch
You're now being deliberately obtuse, Kelsey.
Yes, *THE* driver. There can only ever be one driver assigned to any piece
of hardware at a time. You know that.
Regardless of how many drivers are installed on the computer, only one can
be assigned to a piece of hardware at once. Stop being a fucking retard.
Mart van de Wege
Stop being fucking obtuse.
Why can't Windows reassign the driver on a subsequent install? It's
not as if there is no way to identify a certain piece of USB kit, now
is there?
In fact, Windows is very good at detecting pointless differences in
USB devices and acting on them[1], so whose fault is it that it can't
reassign a driver? Windows USB support is a mess.
Mart
[1] Windows can't partition flash media, or handle anything but the
first partition on already partitioned media, because it registers it
as a *different* class of USB Mass Storage device as compared to
external USB hard disks.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> [1] Windows can't partition flash media, ...
Is that /really/ true?
> or handle anything but the
> first partition on already partitioned media, because it registers it
> as a *different* class of USB Mass Storage device as compared to
> external USB hard disks.
I wonder how many people know you can put more than one partition on a
dongle...? Er, I mean, a USB thumb drive.
--
The best book on programming for the layman is "Alice in Wonderland";
but that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.
JEDIDIAH
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:24:10 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>
>>> [snips]
>>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:07:06 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Stop being fucking obtuse.
>
> Why can't Windows reassign the driver on a subsequent install? It's
> not as if there is no way to identify a certain piece of USB kit, now
> is there?
>
> In fact, Windows is very good at detecting pointless differences in
> USB devices and acting on them[1], so whose fault is it that it can't
> reassign a driver? Windows USB support is a mess.
>
> Mart
>
> [1] Windows can't partition flash media, or handle anything but the
> first partition on already partitioned media, because it registers it
> as a *different* class of USB Mass Storage device as compared to
> external USB hard disks.
Yes, this is rather annoying.
I have a flash drive that's built for getting Linux installed onto
an AppleTV. It's mostly empty as the relevant bootstrap stuff is pretty
puny. The rest of the drive is perfectly functional under Linux but is
useless in Windows. It can't see the extra non-apple partitions and
wants to format the first apple one.
--
Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
events not in their control.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Sinister Midget
I think what you might need to do is look at it from a Windummy
perspective.
Windwoes assigns a driver. OK so far.
Five minutes later you tell it, "No. I don't like that driver. Use this
one."
Winders says, "duh.....der.....umm....driver.....*BARF."
Now, as a well-versed Windope, you would know exactly what the next
step should be: delete the device and reboot to make it work right.
If/when that fails, ask a lot of questions in online forums and get a
lot of awful advice, some of which guarantees that not only will that
device stop working, but many others are likely to take a hike along
with it.
Finally, reinstall everything, making sure this time to always install
drivers for all hardware you ever want to use or you won't be able to
use the manufaturer's driver without going through it all again.
See? Doesn't it make perfect sense now?
Of course, neither my explanation nor Erik's excuse for a crappy OS
design explains how Windoze can run the system up with low-level VGA
driver, and somehow, magically, change over to NVidia or ATI drivers
after the fact.
Because remember: once a driver is assigned to a piece of hardware
under WinDOS, it will _always_ use that driver. Alwyas. /ALWAYS/, for
ever and ever.
Right Erik?
--
The computer can't tell you the emotional story. It can give you the
exact mathematical design, but what's missing is the eyebrows.
-- Frank Zappa
Mart van de Wege
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Mart van de Wege belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> [1] Windows can't partition flash media, ...
>
> Is that /really/ true?
>
I know my way around a Windows desktop, but so far I haven't seen any
way to access more than one partition on a USB flash dongle, nor even
create one.
>> or handle anything but the first partition on already partitioned
>> media, because it registers it as a *different* class of USB Mass
>> Storage device as compared to external USB hard disks.
>
> I wonder how many people know you can put more than one partition on a
> dongle...? Er, I mean, a USB thumb drive.
Cue Hadron and/or Erik telling us why we wouldn't need such a feature
anyway.
Mart
Hadron
> Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Mart van de Wege belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> [1] Windows can't partition flash media, ...
>>
>> Is that /really/ true?
>>
> I know my way around a Windows desktop, but so far I haven't seen any
> way to access more than one partition on a USB flash dongle, nor even
> create one.
>
>>> or handle anything but the first partition on already partitioned
>>> media, because it registers it as a *different* class of USB Mass
>>> Storage device as compared to external USB hard disks.
>>
>> I wonder how many people know you can put more than one partition on a
>> dongle...? Er, I mean, a USB thumb drive.
>
> Cue Hadron and/or Erik telling us why we wouldn't need such a feature
> anyway.
>
> Mart
What are you talking about? I have a multipartition 16 gig stick. Very
handy.
Mart van de Wege
Well, explain to me how to get it to work then. Neither my XP gaming
machine, nor the Vista machine of a friend of mine recognises a two
partition dongle. Only the first partition shows up.
Or are you lying?
Peter Köhlmann
Hadron Quark does not use windows anymore. So he is telling us.
Hence his question "What are you talking about?"
So, once again he chimes in being ignorant. Or he has again lied about his
not using windows.
--
Computers are like air conditioners -
they stop working properly when you open Windows
Hadron
If you use Windows you'll know better than me. I used GParted.
DFS
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Mart van de Wege belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> [1] Windows can't partition flash media, ...
>>
>> Is that /really/ true?
>>
> I know my way around a Windows desktop, but so far I haven't seen any
> way to access more than one partition on a USB flash dongle, nor even
> create one.
>
>>> or handle anything but the first partition on already partitioned
>>> media, because it registers it as a *different* class of USB Mass
>>> Storage device as compared to external USB hard disks.
>>
>> I wonder how many people know you can put more than one partition on
>> a dongle...? Er, I mean, a USB thumb drive.
>
> Cue Hadron and/or Erik telling us why we wouldn't need such a feature
> anyway.
You don't need such a feature, of course. Linux has the "advantage" here,
and is much more flexible in handling partitions and filesystems (and in
many other ways).
I can't create 2 partitions on my 2gb thumb drive using Windows, but you can
barely find 2 decent apps and games for your Linux crapware.
You lose. Big time.
Ezekiel
"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message
news:W8eVk.64570$bx1....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Let's get one thing straight. You *can* create 2 (or more) partitions on a
thumb drive with Windows but you need to take an extra step. For whatever
reason somebody took the time to code a 'feature' where Windows limits any
drive that's marked as 'Removable' to one partition. There are utilities you
can run that mask out the 'Removable' flag and then you can create all the
partitions you want.
I can't imagine the 'logic' of why someone would bother adding a feature
like this. But for whatever reason that they (MS) added it, it isn't all
that difficult to get around if someone wants to.
> You lose. Big time.
>
>
>
>
DFS
> Let's get one thing straight. You *can* create 2 (or more) partitions
> on a thumb drive with Windows but you need to take an extra step. For
> whatever reason somebody took the time to code a 'feature' where
> Windows limits any drive that's marked as 'Removable' to one
> partition. There are utilities you can run that mask out the
> 'Removable' flag and then you can create all the partitions you want.
Cool. On native Win2003 the Computer Mgmt tool won't let you.
Mart van de Wege
Hadron
Using Linux and GParted makes me stupid?
Please elaborate.
--
"I've heard "Linux is the future!" for, let me see now, must about 17 years. For how long do I need to listen to that clap trap?"
-- Ruby Murray <Vind...@curryhouse.co.uk> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Mart van de Wege
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:17:06 -0600, Sinister Midget wrote:
> Of course, neither my explanation nor Erik's excuse for a crappy OS
> design explains how Windoze can run the system up with low-level VGA
> driver, and somehow, magically, change over to NVidia or ATI drivers
> after the fact.
>
> Because remember: once a driver is assigned to a piece of hardware under
> WinDOS, it will _always_ use that driver. Alwyas. /ALWAYS/, for ever and
> ever.
It's kind of funny watching him flop around on this one. The context
was, _why_ do we need to install the driver before the hardware?
The offered response, namely that this allows the hardware to use its own
sexy driver sorta makes sense... except that the reason for doing it this
way is that there may already be a driver installed, which would
interfere with using the sexy new driver.
Obvious solution? Nuke the existing driver, as we're trying to use the
new one anyhow.
Oh, but we can't do that - someone else might be using the driver.
Ah, well, easily solved, just have the new driver, whenever it gets
installed - six weeks from now, say - note that the device which is the
very reason for the driver's existence happens to be installed, and have
it (either automagically, or, better, as part of its install) take over
handling the device.
But no, can't have that, that would make sense. In fact, _no_ part of
this process makes sense, which, of course, leads him into fits of
incoherency where he becomes unable to differentiate between multiple
drivers and a singular driver.
Let's not even get into the question of replacing drivers without reboots.
Windows: causing more madness than syphilis since 1982. :)
Homer
> Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Using Linux and GParted makes me stupid?
>>
>> Please elaborate.
>
> You can't read.
Hardon's lack of reading comprehension is legendary.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
18:38:15 up 15 days, 2:21, 3 users, load average: 0.04, 0.13, 0.15
Erik Funkenbusch
> It's kind of funny watching him flop around on this one. The context
> was, _why_ do we need to install the driver before the hardware?
No, that's not the context. The context is "Why does kodak want you to
install the driver before the hardware".
Note the word "want". Not "need".
The answer to the question of why Kodak *wants* you to, is that it reduces
the complexity of the installation process. And, in fact, Sinister Midget
himself just proved that it's not necessary to do so.
Kodak is simply taking the easy route. That's it.
chrisv
>>
>> Using Linux and GParted makes me stupid?
Well, *something* did...
>> Please elaborate.
OK. You're a dickhead, as well.
JEDIDIAH
What "2 decent apps" am I missing exactly?
I've got an XP MCE VM all alone and empty and waiting for some friends
to come join it.
--
It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate.
They brought us the email virus.
In my Atari days, such a notion would have |||
been considered a complete absurdity. / | \
Kelsey Bjarnason
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:27:14 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>> It's kind of funny watching him flop around on this one. The context
>> was, _why_ do we need to install the driver before the hardware?
>
> No, that's not the context. The context is "Why does kodak want you to
> install the driver before the hardware".
>
> Note the word "want". Not "need".
>
> The answer to the question of why Kodak *wants* you to, is that it
> reduces the complexity of the installation process.
Really? How odd. Same registry settings, same files being copied, same
stupid, pointless, silly-ass wizard pages being displayed. Looks like
the same freaking process, start to end.
Unless, of course, Windows has done something retarded and is interfering
with the process.
Hmm... you just said that doing it one way reduces complexity, which
means doing it the other way *increases* complexity... but that way is
allowing Windows to make decisions on what to do. Thus, you have just
admitted that yes, this is *entirely* about Windows being retarded and
making things worse.
No news there; this is what we expect from Windows.
Meanwhile, removing the extant nVidia module and dropping in a new one,
while the device is installed, is pretty trivial here, though it does
require restarting the GUI to make the changes take effect. Just the
GUI, though, the web and DB servers I'm running, for example, are still
up.
Must be Kodak's fault, though, really, because after all, it was Kodak
who defined the driver model and attendant requirements for Windows.
<snicker>
Erik Funkenbusch
> Really? How odd. Same registry settings, same files being copied, same
> stupid, pointless, silly-ass wizard pages being displayed. Looks like
> the same freaking process, start to end.
There are no registry settings in the way kodak does it. It leaves all
that up to the hardware detection wizard in Windows. It just installs the
inf file and copies the files to the driver directory.
Kelsey Bjarnason
Not even registry settings? So how, exactly, does Windows manage to fuck
it up so badly it can't do the right thing if you manage to install the
hardware before the driver?
Erik Funkenbusch
It doesn't. Why can't you get it through your head. It's doing exactly
what it's supposed to do.
If you install the hardware first, then the generic windows driver is
installed for the hardware. This is *supposed* to happen. Furthermore,
simply installing the driver files (like the kodak install does) does not
automatically assign the driver to the hardware because there's already a
driver assigned to that hardware. Again, this is the way it's SUPPOSED to
work, otherwise people would get pissed that Windows was randomly assigning
new drivers without their permission.
What the kodak install does *NOT* do (though it could if they wanted to) is
remove the generic driver and assign the kodak one, because it's simply
easier to ask the user to install the driver before they install their
hardware. There's no mystery to it.
Homer
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:54:09 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:52:08 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>> Really? How odd. Same registry settings, same files being
>>> copied, same stupid, pointless, silly-ass wizard pages being
>>> displayed. Looks like the same freaking process, start to end.
>>
>> There are no registry settings in the way kodak does it.
That's very; very doubtful Erik.
At the very least there'll be entries under HKLM\ENUM\... and
HKLM\SOFTWARE\Kodak and, given the nature if this particular software,
most likely HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run too. I'd
be very surprised if the LOCAL_USER and CURRENT_USER branches weren't
subsequently littered with junk as well.
>> It leaves all that up to the hardware detection wizard in Windows.
>> It just installs the inf file and copies the files to the driver
>> directory.
The root of the problem isn't so much about the drivers, which can be
changed later, but the other components which are activated to support
this new hardware. Third party drivers usually also install their own
support components too (e.g. services), and it's /these/ components that
conflict with Windows native components, and make installing the
third-party software /first/ so important. And no, it is not absolutely
necessary, but if things are not done in the correct order then undoing
those changes may be a non-trivial matter, unsuitable for the kind of
people only capable of pointing and clicking - hence the recommendation.
Under Linux, generally speaking there is /only/ a driver module. The
accompanying support services are usually not hardware specific, so
switching hardware and drivers from one to another does not require
uninstalling old drivers then reinstalling new ones, or even manually
reconfiguring services (not that "installing" drivers is that common
under Linux anyway - with the exception of those who want proprietary
graphics and/or WiFi drivers). Bugs aside (which is something equally
applicable to both Windows and Linux), in /this/ sense Linux "just
works" far more readily than Windows.
> Not even registry settings? So how, exactly, does Windows manage to
> fuck it up so badly it can't do the right thing if you manage to
> install the hardware before the driver?
Windows makes too many poor assumptions, and misconfigures the system as
a result, leading to conflicts that must be resolved manually, assuming
the user is capable of doing so.
This is the problem with an OS that attempts to make things too easy.
It's great if it works, but it's a nightmare when it doesn't, and the
obfuscation (in the name of "simplicity") of /how/ things really work,
makes manual correction by the user extremely difficult.
Computers have a long way to go before they reach the point of
simplicity attained by consumer electronic devices (not that many of
even /those/ are always that intuitive). Given the exponential increase
in complexity Microsoft continues to shovel into their products, frankly
I think it's unlikely that using Windows will /ever/ be simple. At least
with Linux it's clear from the outset that /some/ knowledge and skills
are required, and users actually have the means to acquire that
knowledge and skills, and indeed are encouraged to do so, thanks to the
transparent nature of the whole FOSS infrastructure.
"Simplicity" is a perfectly reasonable goal, but with proprietary
software that simplicity precludes transparency, by completely
obfuscating the underlying system and making erroneous assumptions,
which subsequently require the users to undo those assumptions by
penetrating that obfuscation.
This completely defeats the goal of simplicity, since things are still
difficult but in an entirely different way. Frankly I think it's better
to just be open and transparent; stop making erroneous (and indeed
sometimes /arrogant/) assumptions; stop pretending that computers are
toasters; and encourage users to /learn/ ... for a change.
With Linux you can do that. OTOH Microsoft positively discourages it,
not least of which because their software is one big mystery ... to
/them/ just as much as their customers.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
21:38:21 up 18 days, 5:21, 4 users, load average: 0.11, 0.16, 0.16
Erik Funkenbusch
> Verily I say unto thee, that Kelsey Bjarnason spake thusly:
>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:54:09 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:52:08 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>>>> Really? How odd. Same registry settings, same files being
>>>> copied, same stupid, pointless, silly-ass wizard pages being
>>>> displayed. Looks like the same freaking process, start to end.
>>>
>>> There are no registry settings in the way kodak does it.
>
> That's very; very doubtful Erik.
>
> At the very least there'll be entries under HKLM\ENUM\... and
> HKLM\SOFTWARE\Kodak and, given the nature if this particular software,
> most likely HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run too. I'd
> be very surprised if the LOCAL_USER and CURRENT_USER branches weren't
> subsequently littered with junk as well.
Yes, you would be very surprised because you simply have no idea how it
works.
Certainly the various crap apps that Kodak and HP and other hardware
vendors love to ship with their hardware installs will likely have registry
entries, but there are *ZERO* registry entries added for the driver,
because it's entirely done by windows during hardware detection.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:05:44 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> At the very least there'll be entries under HKLM\ENUM\... and
>> HKLM\SOFTWARE\Kodak and, given the nature if this particular software,
>> most likely HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run too. I'd
>> be very surprised if the LOCAL_USER and CURRENT_USER branches weren't
>> subsequently littered with junk as well.
>
> Yes, you would be very surprised because you simply have no idea how it
> works.
>
> Certainly the various crap apps that Kodak and HP and other hardware
> vendors love to ship with their hardware installs will likely have
> registry entries, but there are *ZERO* registry entries added for the
> driver, because it's entirely done by windows during hardware detection.
Then there is nothing for Windows to fuck up, so it doesn't matter what
order you install the hardware and software in, as it *cannot* fuck it
up. Yet the warning is there. Why? Oh, yes, we already determined that
- because if you do it in the wrong order, Windows will fuck it up.
Amazing, Windows can fuck things up even when there's nothing *to* fuck
up.
I'm quite certain this is not what you're *trying* to say, Erik, but it
is most certainly what you're ending up saying.
Hadron
Why don't you try reading and understanding what is going on instead of
talking nonsense?
Nothing is being "fucked up".
Stop. Read. Think. Read again. Understand.
--
"True. Due to a lack of competition, there essentially have been no
improvements to Microsoft's operating system and office software. It
just works."
-- High Plains Thumper <highplai...@invalid.invalid> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:24:50 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> What the kodak install does *NOT* do (though it could if they wanted to)
> is remove the generic driver and assign the kodak one, because
Elsewhere, we read that it should *not* remove the generic driver,
because some other device might be using it. Now, all of a sudden, the
*undesirable* solution becomes the *preferred* solution.
Ah, yes, all so clear now.
Erik Funkenbusch
Remove the generic driver assignment, not the driver itself. That should
be clear by the use of "assign" in the second part of the statement, but in
case you can't get your head around that, that's what it means.
High Plains Thumper
> Kelsey Bjarnason <kel...@lgisp.net> writes:
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> Certainly the various crap apps that Kodak and HP and
>>> other hardware vendors love to ship with their hardware
>>> installs will likely have registry entries, but there are
>>> *ZERO* registry entries added for the driver, because it's
>>> entirely done by windows during hardware detection.
>>
>> Then there is nothing for Windows to fuck up, so it doesn't
>> matter what order you install the hardware and software in,
>> as it *cannot* fuck it up. Yet the warning is there. Why?
>> Oh, yes, we already determined that - because if you do it
>> in the wrong order, Windows will fuck it up.
>>
>> Amazing, Windows can fuck things up even when there's
>> nothing *to* fuck up.
>>
>> I'm quite certain this is not what you're *trying* to say,
>> Erik, but it is most certainly what you're ending up saying.
>
> Why don't you try reading and understanding what is going on
> instead of talking nonsense?
>
> Nothing is being "fucked up".
>
> Stop. Read. Think. Read again. Understand.
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 03:18:21 -0600
Subject: Re: [linux-equivalents] TuxGuitar
TomB wrote:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Java in debian is f*cked up. I suspect the debian tuxguitar
>> installer has broken something.
>>
>> But were you using the debian install or the downloaded
>> version? Be clear now.
>
> Ah, the Debian one over here.
Synaptic:
[quote]
Mark additional changes?
v To be installed
libtext-java
libswt3.2-gtk-java
libswt3.2-gtk-jni
[X Cancel] [V Mark]
[/quote]
Tuxguitar installed and runs fine, no crashes, no error messages.
Perhaps if our diminutive atomic sub particle had properly
installed it per directions, it would have worked without error.
[/quote]
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
Homer
>
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:05:44 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>>> At the very least there'll be entries under HKLM\ENUM\... and
>>> HKLM\SOFTWARE\Kodak and, given the nature if this particular
>>> software, most likely
>>> HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run too. I'd be
>>> very surprised if the LOCAL_USER and CURRENT_USER branches
>>> weren't subsequently littered with junk as well.
>>
>> Yes, you would be very surprised because you simply have no idea
>> how it works.
For someone who pretends to be a Windows guru, you don't seem to know
much about it. Try actually having a look in the Registry some time.
>> Certainly the various crap apps that Kodak and HP and other
>> hardware vendors love to ship with their hardware installs will
>> likely have registry entries, but there are *ZERO* registry entries
>> added for the driver, because it's entirely done by windows during
>> hardware detection.
Would you like me to post my Regmon logs, to prove that you know as
little about Windows as you've already proved you know about Linux?
Give up Erik, before you embarrass yourself again.
> Then there is nothing for Windows to fuck up, so it doesn't matter
> what order you install the hardware and software in, as it *cannot*
> fuck it up. Yet the warning is there. Why? Oh, yes, we already
> determined that - because if you do it in the wrong order, Windows
> will fuck it up.
Yes, and I have the detailed logs to prove it.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
05:55:38 up 18 days, 13:38, 3 users, load average: 3.29, 4.00, 4.19
Mart van de Wege
What is so hard about (pseudo code):
If (VendorID and ProductID already assigned)
Reassign to Kodak driver
Else
Assign to Kodak driver
Or is Windows so stupid it can't assign a driver basede on Vendor and
Product ID?
Hadron
I have to ask : are you purposely so dumb or are you doing this for a
laugh? I KNOW how this stuff works. When I was trying it the
dependencies were wrong. There were issues with Java. I have posted the
links numerous times and am not going to do it again.
You constantly posting your "works for me" garbage does not change that.
Anyone interested can Google up "tuxguitar install issues java debian".
--
"Nice to know I live in your head, bitch."
-- Tattoo Vampire <sit...@this.computer> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Kelsey Bjarnason
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:02:37 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 15:24:50 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> What the kodak install does *NOT* do (though it could if they wanted
>>> to) is remove the generic driver and assign the kodak one, because
>>
>> Elsewhere, we read that it should *not* remove the generic driver,
>> because some other device might be using it. Now, all of a sudden, the
>> *undesirable* solution becomes the *preferred* solution.
>>
>> Ah, yes, all so clear now.
>
> Remove the generic driver assignment, not the driver itself.
"What the koak install does *NOT* do (though it could if they wanted to)
is remove the generic driver"
Remove the driver.
Not the assignment.
Not my fault you're too stupid to tell the difference.
Erik Funkenbusch
Now you're snipping context and pretending it doesn't exist.
In other words, Kelsey, you've lost, and the only way you can save face is
to manipulate things.
The part you snipped said this:
"That should be clear by the use of "assign" in the second part of the
statement"
Yet you decided to snip that and pretend I didn't say it. Loser tactic
Kelsey.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:04:29 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> "What the koak install does *NOT* do (though it could if they wanted
>> to) is remove the generic driver"
>>
>> Remove the driver.
>>
>> Not the assignment.
>>
>> Not my fault you're too stupid to tell the difference.
>
> Now you're snipping context and pretending it doesn't exist.
Not in the least. Someone - who was it again? I don't recall, you'll
have to look it up if you care - said that removing the generic driver
was a possible solution, and it was offered in such a soft-pedalled
manner as to be a trivial, or commonplace, even correct solution. Had
the statement been something along the lines of "While they *could* have
resorted to the drastic measure of removing the generic driver" there
would have been reason to treat this as a significantly undesirable
action; instead, the phrasing suggests this is just business as usual.
To this, some bonehead followed-up along the lines of "No, don't remove
the driver, remove the assignment" which is obviously not what was meant,
nor was the original phrasing such that there'd be any reason to expect
*any* action other than removing the driver... so where this nonsense
about "remove the mapping" came from isn't clear, as it has nothing to do
with the subject matter.
Someone says "remove the driver", it generally means "remove the
driver". If they wanted us to read it as "no, don't touch the driver at
all, leave it alone, whatever you do do NOT remove the driver, just
change some other setting, leave the driver where it is", they wouldn't
have said "remove the driver".
See how that works? I really shouldn't have to explain this to you, you
know.