Windows: 80% of Mobile Malware

[ronb]

Looks like Windows Phones lead at something ...

~~
Why Windows Devices Are Topping Mobile Malware Infection Rates at 80
Percent

Mobile networks are increasingly becoming an express lane for malware,
and Windows devices now represent 80 percent of the hardware that gets
infected, recent research revealed.

As part of its regular series of Motive Security Lab reports, Alcatel-
Lucent showed that gear running Microsoft’s mobile operating system (OS)
accounted for the vast majority of malware spotted this past June. This
puts Windows well ahead of Android as a mobile security risk: In fact,
devices running the Google-created OS saw a drop in infections during the
same period.

Computerworld explained why Microsoft, which has been struggling to gain
market share for its Windows Phone and other mobile products, could wind
up being a malware magnet. Though iOS and Android devices dominate the
market, many people still use Windows-based PCs, connecting to mobile
networks either via Wi-Fi or by tethering to cellular equipment or using
a dongle. In that sense, Microsoft’s platform still represents one of the
biggest targets for cybercriminal activity.
...
~~
http://tinyurl.com/qgtf3e2

Well, well, well ... Funny the lemon suckers weren't able to find this in
their Google searches. (Wonder where iOS would have ranked if their App
Store infestation had happened early enough for this study.)

--
Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists

[Lloyd Parsons]

Yet in the forums that discuss Windows Phones, malware is seldom the topic
of conversation. Makes you wonder why.



--
Lloyd

[Peter Köhlmann]

It isn't in most windows forums either. The dumbest of those idiots even
claim that you will not get infected if you use some common sense

It is a claim also often seen in COLA. By windows using dimbulbs

[Lloyd Parsons]

You are completely full of shit!



--
Lloyd

[William Poaster]

It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted:

IMO why "malware is seldom the topic of conversation" in windoze forums is
because windoze users accept malware as being the *norm*. They do *not*
know any different.

--
openSUSE 13.2 64-bit
KDE 4.14.9
Kernel: 4.2.0-3.g2219279-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT
Mon Sep 7 08:57:09 UTC 2015 (2219279) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

This message is virus free, as absolutely
NO Micro$oft products were used in its preparation.

"If you do want to clean your computer of malware, the first software to
delete is Windows."
http://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html

[Peter Köhlmann]

So reading is just another thing you know absolutely nothing about

[Lloyd Parsons]

LOL! And along comes wide-load porkster to agree with Peter's inane
post. Malware has been discussed in most every Windows forum that I've had
anything to do with. It just isn't as big a topic as you linux loonies
hope it would be.

That's because keeping it away isn't all that hard to do. Porkster, you
and Petey will be in deep shit with the first Linux malware to get out
there.




--
Lloyd

[scooz]

It already has.
It's called Ubuntu.

[Peter Köhlmann]

And along comes a widiot and proves me right. He even uses the "common
sense" approach I mentioned.
You see, that "Lloyd Parsons" cretin has psychic powers like all of those
brainless windows "common sense" dimbulbs. He knows in advance what Site
*not* to visit, because it is serving malware. He even knows it when it is
serving malware by ads.
Why he still is on usenet permeating it with his snittish stink remains a
mystery. People with his psychic powers would tend to win next weeks
lottery, for several weeks in a row

> Porkster, you
> and Petey will be in deep shit with the first Linux malware to get out
> there.
>

Really? The probability of infecting linux is not zero. But it is a lot less
than on windows, where it is extremely high
>
>

[Lloyd Parsons]

Yet in all the years I've been using Windows, starting with version 1,
I've gotten exactly one virus. And that one was so long ago I couldn't
tell you much about it.
Of course I'm smart enough not to go to those places that specialize in
hosting the crap, which certainly helps. But right now Defender and
MalwareBytes is good enough to keep any other malware away.



--
Lloyd

[ronb]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 23:30:36 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

Malware is not a big topic on the Android forums either -- yet the lemon
suckers at the Bitter Old Biddy Committee drone on and on about it in a
Linux advocacy newsgroup. Odd, huh?

[Snit]

On 9/23/15, 4:35 PM, in article d6gr9q...@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd

Parsons" <lloy...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Really? The probability of infecting linux is not zero. But it is a lot
>> less than on windows, where it is extremely high
>>>
>>>
>
> Yet in all the years I've been using Windows, starting with version 1,
> I've gotten exactly one virus. And that one was so long ago I couldn't
> tell you much about it.
> Of course I'm smart enough not to go to those places that specialize in
> hosting the crap, which certainly helps. But right now Defender and
> MalwareBytes is good enough to keep any other malware away.

What type sites do you think lead to you being more likely to get malware.
They are NOT the sites most people think.


--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[William Poaster]

It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted:

I've often seen wintrolls here & in other groups, claim the same thing.

>> You are completely full of shit!
>>
> So reading is just another thing you know absolutely nothing about

The one "completely full of shit" here, is the Macdroid Parsons.

--
openSUSE 13.2 64-bit
KDE 4.14.9

Kernel: 4.2.0-7.g2d05727-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT
Wed Sep 16 14:40:13 UTC 2015 (2d05727) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

[William Poaster]

<Yawn>
I've been hearing this kind of shit from wintrolls & macdroids for years.
Yet another lame assed reply from a winjerk.
I wonder why it is that as more than 65% of the net runs on *Linux*
servers, that they aren't as heavily attacked with malware as the fewer
windoze servers are.

> Really? The probability of infecting linux is not zero. But it is a lot less
> than on windows, where it is extremely high

Exactly.

And still dumbass Pah-sons replies to my posts, it seems, in spite of me
having binned the moron for ages . If anyone is in doubt that he's a troll,
that should dispell it.

--
openSUSE 13.2 64-bit
KDE 4.14.9

Kernel: 4.2.0-7.g2d05727-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT

Wed Sep 16 14:40:13 UTC 2015 (2d05727) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

[Chris Ahlstrom]

ronb wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Looks like Windows Phones lead at something ...
>
> ~~
> Why Windows Devices Are Topping Mobile Malware Infection Rates at 80
> Percent

> ~~
> http://tinyurl.com/qgtf3e2
>
> Well, well, well ... Funny the lemon suckers weren't able to find this in
> their Google searches.

Selective blindness/deafness would be my guess.

> (Wonder where iOS would have ranked if their App
> Store infestation had happened early enough for this study.)


--

Tuesday After Lunch is the cosmic time of the week.

[GreyCloud]

More like Linux using turds like you, eh koldturd?


--
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."

[GreyCloud]

And your linux sux too.

[GreyCloud]

More FUD as usual, eh Koldturd?

[Nobody]

On 09/23/2015 05:15 PM, William Poaster wrote:
> It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted:
>

[...]

> IMO why "malware is seldom the topic of conversation" in windoze forums is
> because windoze users accept malware as being the *norm*. They do *not*
> know any different.

Look at how this is reflected in popular culture in films like
"Independence Day" or "Terminator."

People have been so led to believe malware is part of computing that
they think even advanced computers of humans and aliens alike can fall
victim to them.

[Lloyd Parsons]

Sure, and when dimwits like you start giving some credence to fictional
movies it just keeps the bullshit going. You know 'led to believe'
doesn't mean the truth was told.

--
Lloyd

[Snit]

On 9/27/15, 2:40 PM, in article mu9npc$b3$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"

Users of desktop Linux, Windows, OS X, Android, iOS, and others can end up
with malware. Anyone CAN fall victim to it... though Windows and Android
users are the only ones at significant risk.

[Peter Köhlmann]

Snit wrote:

> On 9/27/15, 2:40 PM, in article mu9npc$b3$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
> <nob...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09/23/2015 05:15 PM, William Poaster wrote:
>>> It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted:
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> IMO why "malware is seldom the topic of conversation" in windoze forums
>>> is because windoze users accept malware as being the *norm*. They do
>>> *not* know any different.
>>
>> Look at how this is reflected in popular culture in films like
>> "Independence Day" or "Terminator."
>>
>> People have been so led to believe malware is part of computing that
>> they think even advanced computers of humans and aliens alike can fall
>> victim to them.
>>
> Users of desktop Linux, Windows, OS X, Android, iOS, and others can end up
> with malware. Anyone CAN fall victim to it... though Windows and Android
> users are the only ones at significant risk.
>

You can repeat that lie as often as you want

Windows users *will* be victims of malware. There is no question *if* they
will be, only *when* it will happen.
Android users will be victims only if they are as stupid as a typical
windows loser

And OSX / iOS users will be victims because apple routinely fails to provide
updates of vulnerable software

[Lloyd Parsons]

On 28 Sep 2015 01:46, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> On 9/27/15, 2:40 PM, in article mu9npc$b3$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>> <nob...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/23/2015 05:15 PM, William Poaster wrote:
>>>> It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted:
>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> IMO why "malware is seldom the topic of conversation" in windoze forums
>>>> is because windoze users accept malware as being the *norm*. They do
>>>> *not* know any different.
>>>
>>> Look at how this is reflected in popular culture in films like
>>> "Independence Day" or "Terminator."
>>>
>>> People have been so led to believe malware is part of computing that
>>> they think even advanced computers of humans and aliens alike can fall
>>> victim to them.
>>>
>> Users of desktop Linux, Windows, OS X, Android, iOS, and others can end up
>> with malware. Anyone CAN fall victim to it... though Windows and Android
>> users are the only ones at significant risk.
>>
>
> You can repeat that lie as often as you want
>
> Windows users *will* be victims of malware. There is no question *if* they
> will be, only *when* it will happen.

I'm ten years and counting with none so far.

> Android users will be victims only if they are as stupid as a typical
> windows loser
>

Like get a message?? Yeah, who would do that on a phone.

> And OSX / iOS users will be victims because apple routinely fails to provide
> updates of vulnerable software
>
>
>

As shown by just how many have been infected so far, huh?

Dumb post Petey!


--
Lloyd

[Snit]

On 9/27/15, 5:48 PM, in article d6rh25...@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd

Notice how even Peter notes it is the same behavior to get malware on both.
OK.

>> And OSX / iOS users will be victims because apple routinely fails to provide
>> updates of vulnerable software
>>
>>
>>
> As shown by just how many have been infected so far, huh?
>
> Dumb post Petey!
>



--

[Snit]

On 9/27/15, 4:46 PM, in article mu9v1a$khl$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"

<peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:

> Snit wrote:
>
>> On 9/27/15, 2:40 PM, in article mu9npc$b3$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>> <nob...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/23/2015 05:15 PM, William Poaster wrote:
>>>> It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted:
>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> IMO why "malware is seldom the topic of conversation" in windoze forums
>>>> is because windoze users accept malware as being the *norm*. They do
>>>> *not* know any different.
>>>
>>> Look at how this is reflected in popular culture in films like
>>> "Independence Day" or "Terminator."
>>>
>>> People have been so led to believe malware is part of computing that
>>> they think even advanced computers of humans and aliens alike can fall
>>> victim to them.
>>>
>> Users of desktop Linux, Windows, OS X, Android, iOS, and others can end up
>> with malware. Anyone CAN fall victim to it... though Windows and Android
>> users are the only ones at significant risk.
>
> You can repeat that lie as often as you want

Wait: which of my unquotable lies are you referencing (keeping in mind the
content you are replying to is true).

> Windows users *will* be victims of malware.

Might be. The idea they WILL be is a fiction.

> There is no question *if* they will be, only *when* it will happen.

Yet it was only Linux users who were terrified of going to an unknown site.
Your actions show not even you believe your claim.

> Android users will be victims only if they are as stupid as a typical
> windows loser

In other words if they engage in similar behavior: reading email, surfing
the web, installing software, etc.

> And OSX / iOS users will be victims because apple routinely fails to provide
> updates of vulnerable software

A fictional view of the world you will never support. OK.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

 
Replying to Peter Köhlmann, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > Windows users *will* be victims of malware. 
> > There is no question *if* they will be, only *when* it will happen.
> 
> I'm ten years and counting with none so far.

Peter Köhlmann's inablity to operate a PC is well documented.

For me, Lloyd, and many others, malware is not an issue.

Only PC-illiterates have such problems.

[A.M]

On 2015-09-27 7:46 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
>> On 9/27/15, 2:40 PM, in article mu9npc$b3$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"
>> <nob...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/23/2015 05:15 PM, William Poaster wrote:
>>>> It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted:
>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> IMO why "malware is seldom the topic of conversation" in windoze forums
>>>> is because windoze users accept malware as being the *norm*. They do
>>>> *not* know any different.
>>>
>>> Look at how this is reflected in popular culture in films like
>>> "Independence Day" or "Terminator."
>>>
>>> People have been so led to believe malware is part of computing that
>>> they think even advanced computers of humans and aliens alike can fall
>>> victim to them.
>>>
>> Users of desktop Linux, Windows, OS X, Android, iOS, and others can end up
>> with malware. Anyone CAN fall victim to it... though Windows and Android
>> users are the only ones at significant risk.
>>
>
> You can repeat that lie as often as you want
>
> Windows users *will* be victims of malware. There is no question *if* they
> will be, only *when* it will happen.

I will be the first one to admit that if they are not perpetually
cautious, they are very likely to become victims of malware. My
co-worker is a pretty smart woman but that didn't stop her from
unintentionally installing malware which I had to fix for her, same for
another co-worker who admits that she's not technologically-savvy.
Another teacher at the other part of my high school was also tasked with
repairing a malware problem on Friday and had no idea how to get rid of
it (since he's used to using Linux) at which point I had to assist him.
It really is unacceptable that Windows users have to be so cautious all
the time but, admittedly, these problems would never have happened had
the machines in question had an up-to-date anti-virus loaded onto them.

> Android users will be victims only if they are as stupid as a typical
> windows loser

Apparently not since the malware existed on the Google Play store
directly. SOME malware is installed through a third-party site but a lot
of it comes from the main repository. Let's not forget that there are a
number of security issues with Android as well which don't even require
the installation of malware: 1) the reported text message bug which
remains unpatched for most devices wherein the device automatically
loads media and consequently gives root access to an imposter and 2) the
password-protection bug wherein a user gains entry to a device by
inputting a ridiculously-large and incorrect password.

> And OSX / iOS users will be victims because apple routinely fails to provide
> updates of vulnerable software

It seems to be the same problem as Android where a user needs to install
something from the store.


--
A.M

[Snit]

On 9/28/15, 7:49 AM, in article mubjtt$t15$1...@dont-email.me, "A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
wrote:

>>> Users of desktop Linux, Windows, OS X, Android, iOS, and others can end up
>>> with malware. Anyone CAN fall victim to it... though Windows and Android
>>> users are the only ones at significant risk.
>>>
>>
>> You can repeat that lie as often as you want
>>
>> Windows users *will* be victims of malware. There is no question *if* they
>> will be, only *when* it will happen.
>
> I will be the first one to admit that if they are not perpetually
> cautious, they are very likely to become victims of malware. My
> co-worker is a pretty smart woman but that didn't stop her from
> unintentionally installing malware which I had to fix for her, same for
> another co-worker who admits that she's not technologically-savvy.
> Another teacher at the other part of my high school was also tasked with
> repairing a malware problem on Friday and had no idea how to get rid of
> it (since he's used to using Linux) at which point I had to assist him.
> It really is unacceptable that Windows users have to be so cautious all
> the time but, admittedly, these problems would never have happened had
> the machines in question had an up-to-date anti-virus loaded onto them.

I would agree with Windows (and Android) you are at more risk and have to be
more careful. Peter's claim, though, that you WILL be hit with malware on
Windows is simply a lie. And he makes it worse by excusing Android but then
also saying you get malware on Android only if you act like a Windows user.

His own words indicate he thinks there is comparable risk... but he excuses
Android because it is based on Linux.

>> Android users will be victims only if they are as stupid as a typical
>> windows loser
>
> Apparently not since the malware existed on the Google Play store
> directly. SOME malware is installed through a third-party site but a lot
> of it comes from the main repository. Let's not forget that there are a
> number of security issues with Android as well which don't even require
> the installation of malware: 1) the reported text message bug which
> remains unpatched for most devices wherein the device automatically
> loads media and consequently gives root access to an imposter and 2) the
> password-protection bug wherein a user gains entry to a device by
> inputting a ridiculously-large and incorrect password.
>
>> And OSX / iOS users will be victims because apple routinely fails to provide
>> updates of vulnerable software
>
> It seems to be the same problem as Android where a user needs to install
> something from the store.
>



--

[GreyCloud]

Still believing in your own bull shit, eh, Koldtard?

[Nobody]

On 9/23/2015 7:10 PM, ronb wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 23:30:36 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:35:57 +0000, ronb wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looks like Windows Phones lead at something ...
>>>>

[...]

>>> Yet in the forums that discuss Windows Phones, malware is seldom the
>>> topic of conversation. Makes you wonder why.
>>
>> It isn't in most windows forums either. The dumbest of those idiots even
>> claim that you will not get infected if you use some common sense
>>
>> It is a claim also often seen in COLA. By windows using dimbulbs
>
> Malware is not a big topic on the Android forums either -- yet the lemon
> suckers at the Bitter Old Biddy Committee drone on and on about it in a
> Linux advocacy newsgroup. Odd, huh?

Isn't it funny how they insisted Android isn't Linux, until they saw
what they perceived as a problem with Android? Then it becomes Linux!

[Lloyd Parsons]

Nice try. It is you Linux loonies that have always claimed Android was
Linux until problems showed up. In fact, it is a very limited Linux
distro. A distro btw, that has been pretty much a malware magnet for
quite awhile.


--
Lloyd

[Snit]

On 9/28/15, 5:58 PM, in article mucnoh$5r4$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"

Who is "they"? Can you quote "them" - or is it like my "unquotable lies"?

[ronb]

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:58:57 -0500, Nobody wrote:

> Isn't it funny how they insisted Android isn't Linux, until they saw
> what they perceived as a problem with Android? Then it becomes Linux!

Yeah, I noticed that. In the upside-down world of lying iCultists and
WinDrones, hypocrisy is a "virtue."

[Nobody]

Quote any Linux Advocate denying Android is Linux. You can't. You're
a liar.

[ronb]

They just want it both ways. Lying hypocrites. Android IS Linux. Android
-- unlike Windows -- is NOT a malware magnet.

Clear enough for you, "Lloyd" -- you lemon sucking bitter old biddy?

[-hh]

So...since Android *is* linux, and since in 2013, a mere 97% of all mobile
malware was on Android....

Oh, right! The cite for that statistic....here it is:

<http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2014/03/24/report-97-of-mobile-malware-is-on-android-this-is-the-easy-way-you-stay-safe/>

...just what does this say about the security of Linux? Perhaps it is that the
Linux desktop simply isn't a target because there's no money to be made from
fat old guys wearing hair shirts?

As the old saying goes, can't get blood from a stone...

-hh

[William Poaster]

It was reported that ronb posted:

> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:58:57 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>
>> Isn't it funny how they insisted Android isn't Linux, until they saw
>> what they perceived as a problem with Android? Then it becomes Linux!
>
> Yeah, I noticed that. In the upside-down world of lying iCultists and
> WinDrones, hypocrisy is a "virtue."

Android uses a Linux kernel, & that's ALL.
It has nothing else in common with UNIX/POSIX.

--
openSUSE 13.2 64-bit
KDE 4.14.9

Kernel: 4.2.1-2.g6996a42-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT
Fri Sep 25 08:21:54 UTC 2015 (6996a42) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

[Peter Köhlmann]

William Poaster wrote:

> It was reported that ronb posted:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:58:57 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't it funny how they insisted Android isn't Linux, until they saw
>>> what they perceived as a problem with Android? Then it becomes Linux!
>>
>> Yeah, I noticed that. In the upside-down world of lying iCultists and
>> WinDrones, hypocrisy is a "virtue."
>
> Android uses a Linux kernel, & that's ALL.
> It has nothing else in common with UNIX/POSIX.
>

That is not quite true. It also uses stuff from the surrounding ecosystem.
Think about things like SSL.
Android is basically a linux with a radically different GUI.

[ronb]

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:05:15 +0100, William Poaster wrote:

> It was reported that ronb posted:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:58:57 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't it funny how they insisted Android isn't Linux, until they saw
>>> what they perceived as a problem with Android? Then it becomes
>>> Linux!
>>
>> Yeah, I noticed that. In the upside-down world of lying iCultists and
>> WinDrones, hypocrisy is a "virtue."
>
> Android uses a Linux kernel, & that's ALL.
> It has nothing else in common with UNIX/POSIX.

I'll disagree, but I know there's a lot of debate about this and a link
to someone (at Android Central) who thinks Android is Linux.

http://www.androidcentral.com/ask-ac-android-linux

[chrisv]

Nobody wrote:

> Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>
>> It is you Linux loonies that have always claimed Android was
>> Linux until problems showed up. In fact, it is a very limited Linux
>> distro. A distro btw, that has been pretty much a malware magnet for
>> quite awhile.
>
>Quote any Linux Advocate denying Android is Linux. You can't. You're
>a liar.

I see that Lying Lloyd is still living-up to his name. I hope that I
find better things to do in my retirement than to troll a public forum
with idiocy and lies.

--
"There is less need (for Linux users to pirate) if and only if there
are more & better software tools for Linux OS than for alternate OSs."
- lying asshole "-hh"

[-hh]

Chrisv writes:
>
> I see that Lying Lloyd is still living-up to his name.

Too bad you attacked the person, rather than to disprove the claim.

> I hope that I find better things to do in my retirement
> than to troll a public forum with idiocy and lies.

As if you're not already doing that now, decades before retirement...

> "There is less need (for Linux users to pirate) if and only if there
> are more & better software tools for Linux OS than for alternate OSs."
> - lying asshole "-hh"

Still a quite true observation: there's still no 'Killer App' that
lrequires Linux OS to motivate its adoption...even in mobile space.

Which is also why calls for Advocates to name examples of even
mere equivalency come up 95% empty.

-hh

[Peter Köhlmann]

The reason is simple: Nobody is stupid enough to cater for the whishes of
terminally stupids and lying imbeciles

[chrisv]

> lying asshole "-hh" wrote:
>>
>>> "There is less need (for Linux users to pirate) if and only if there
>>> are more & better software tools for Linux OS than for alternate OSs."
>>> - lying asshole "-hh"
>>
>> Still a quite true observation:

Nope. Still a bald-faced lie, asshole.

>> there's still no 'Killer App' that
>> lrequires Linux OS to motivate its adoption...even in mobile space.

Irrelevant to your *lie* about the relative "need" for piracy, idiot.

--
"What's more unfortunate is the sheer close-mindedness that goes into
their irrational hate of an inanimate object." - asshole "-hh",
lying shamelessly

[chrisv]

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> lying asshole "-hh" wrote:
>>
>> Which is also why

Liar. That's not "why" at all, and you know it.

>> calls for Advocates to name examples of even
>> mere equivalency come up 95% empty.
>
>The reason is simple: Nobody is stupid enough to cater for the whishes of
>terminally stupids and lying imbeciles

Only a very *stupid* asshole, like -highhorse, would think that there
is any reason to bicker with shitty trolls about what constitutes
"equivalency".

Some of these fscktarded assholes have claimed that "serious work"
cannot be done on GNU/Linux because it does not natively run MSO. One
particularly filthy liar claimed that there is no "decent" word
processor for GNU/Linux.

There can be no reasoned debate with shitty trolls.

--
"Windows 3.1 in 1992 had a decent word processor. GNU/Linux in 2014
still doesn't." - "Slimer"

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

+1

That categorization (terminally stupids and lying imbeciles)
includes clowns like -highhorse.

Why do people like him expose their idiocy in public?

--
Executive ability is prominent in your make-up.

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>That categorization (terminally stupids and lying imbeciles)
>includes clowns like -highhorse.
>
>Why do people like him expose their idiocy in public?

Indeed, *every* sentence of -highhorse's post oozed with idiocy,
dishonesty, and assholery.

Take the statement about the lack of a "killer app" for Linux, as if a
choice isn't needed unless there is some "killer app" associated with
it.

The corporate propagandist wants people to forget is that, in a
*healthy, competitive* market, "killer apps" are not needed to compete
and be successful in a market. All that is needed is to be a better
overall value or design, for some of the buyers.

--
"Well then by your own metric, Microsoft Windows is the best OS, Mac
OS X is the second best OS ... and all of Linux sucks." - asshole
"-hh", lying shamelessly

[DFS]

On 9/30/2015 11:32 AM, shitv wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> lying asshole "-hh" wrote:
>>>
>>> Which is also why
>
> Liar. That's not "why" at all, and you know it.
>
>>> calls for Advocates to name examples of even
>>> mere equivalency come up 95% empty.
>>
>> The reason is simple: Nobody is stupid enough to cater for the whishes of
>> terminally stupids and lying imbeciles
>
> Only a very *stupid* asshole, like -highhorse, would think that there
> is any reason to bicker with shitty trolls about what constitutes
> "equivalency".
>
> Some of these fscktarded assholes have claimed that "serious work"
> cannot be done on GNU/Linux because it does not natively run MSO. One
> particularly filthy liar claimed that there is no "decent" word
> processor for GNU/Linux.
>
> There can be no reasoned debate with shitty trolls.

Nor can there be 'reasoned debate' with shitty liars and idiots like
you, turd:


* "DFS endorses the pirating of Windows software." (Aug 2015)

* "I would gladly show anyone what I do in here [cola]." (Jun 2015)

* "People just don't know about Linux." (Apr 2015)

* says "the free market knows best" then says the "free market got
sucked into Windows"


* "Vista needs 4G and 2 fast CPU's to run acceptably well."


* "Windows fits only one situation: a single-user desktop PC"


* "DFS claims you can get permanent eye damage from installing
Linux improperly"

* "Dumfsck (DFS) is making an absolute public jackass of himself
(Jul 2010)

This is you screaming because you were embarrassed by the incompetence
of Puppy Linux, whose 'official package list' was invalid.


* "cola Linux advocates are good people"


* "There is no advocate on cola who deserves to be called a
stupid piece of shit"

Even the stupid piece of shit named chrisv?


* "Best Buy had multiple aisles lined with AV software."


* "new Win7 machines cost 3x as much for the same performance as
refurbished XP machines with P4 or Core2Duo chips"


* "7 has never made as much of a jackass of himself as Zeke"

* "Hadron *hates* Linux with every fiber of his being."

* "I don't ask if anyone's mother knows they are a piece of shit."


* "no cola advocate ever said anything about the iPad failing"


* "I thought all-along the iPad would be a success."


* "To get programmable function keys in Windows you have to pay
around $120 for software"


* "NO ONE doubted the inevitable "success" (if "success" is defined in
terms of market share) of XP" (Oct 2009)


* "malware is a natural and healthy phenomena" (Mar 2012)


* "Linux is *never* seen in *any* mainstream store!" (Mar 2012)


* "I honestly believe Hadron is Ezekiel"

There's nothing honest about you, shitbag.


* "Microsoft is an undeniably shitty and corrupt organization."

Out of the other side of your piehole: "Windows is the right choice for
my daughter."


* "Microsoft products put larger OEMs at a real disadvantage"



* "cola Linux advocates are generally honest"


* "Only Microsoft can make money selling word processing software"


* "users no longer need Windows." followed later by "I need to run a
variety of Windoze software here [at work]."


* "M$ has *never* won a fair contest."


* "No Linux users say 'Linux is perfect.'"


* "I refuse to go through the *significant* effort of documenting
the thought process and research involved in making all the
choices required to build a PC from components." (Jun 2012)


* "Free software is kicking-ass on the narrow range of overpriced
products coming from the likes of Apple." (Nov 2011)

* "I am on the record, many times, as defending the Apple
products as not being "overpriced", as evidenced by their
popularity." (Feb 2013)

A lying turd can't keep his lies straight.



* "Apple artificially distorted the market with frivolous
lawsuits leading to excessive profits" (Jan 2012)

* "[Apple's huge profits] were market-correct" (Apr 2012)

A liar can't keep his lies and idiocy straight for a few months.


* "You are a liar, "Ezekiel". I've seen no advocate display the
dishonesty and hypocrisy of you and your ilk."

You forgot to look in the mirror at yourself, and at Rex Ballard and
Chris Ahlstrom and Fraud 7 and Homer, et al.


* self-nuking idiot: "Ezekiel is so *desperate* to attack. What a
piece of shit."


* "DFS and Flatfish show their true shitty selves in cola, where they
are anonymous."

Does a hypocrite shitbag sign his name in real life as 'chrisv'?
Does a hypocrite shitbag post with his full name? Of course not.


* "snipped, unread" (then the lying turd goes on to explain what was
in the Zeke post he snipped, unread) (Jan 2013)

* "it is impossible to become a billionaire while competing
fairly with others. No one is that fscking great. Some unfair
advantage(s) must be obtained." (Feb 2013)

You're so bitter and jealous and dishonest and unsuccessful you can't
believe truly successful people might actually be honest


* cursing found in two posts to Hadron: "shitty little freedom-hating
dictator wannabee, fscking idiot, piece of shit, stupid, ignorant,
shameless asshole. asshole imbecile, stupid piece of shit, lying,
insulting freedom-hating pricks, stupid lying asshole, shithead,
jackass

* cursing found in six posts to Ezekiel: "disgusting scumbag, vile
filthy mean, fuckwit, filthy fucking liar, trolling fuckwit, filthy
fuckwit, you shit, vile bastard, filthy fuck, mentally-defective
bigot, disgusting freak, piece of shit, filthy lying bigot, trolling
fuckwit and shit, fuckwit piece of shit, disgusting freak"
(Jun 29 2012)

Now if that doesn't prove you're "morally and intellectually superior" I
don't know what...


You're also a deluded freak:

* "I have honor"
* "I've never lied in cola"
* "I'm honest and fair, as always."
* "I don't lie"
* "I am 100% honest."
* "I was completely honest, as always."
* "I'm decent and honest"
* "we cola advocates are morally and intellectual superior"
* "[the advocates are] a group of decent, honest, reasonable,
intelligent, informed people"
* "All of my claims are honest and correct, to the best of my
knowledge."
* "In the cola advocates they see a group of decent, educated,
reasonable people. They feel bad about themselves, because they are
morally and intellectually inferior to us."


Over 17 days of posts in June 2012 you included these curses directed at
non-advocates:

"morons and assholes, fucking moron, true stupidity, puerile assholery,
worthless POS, evil bastards, trolling assholes, jackass, dumb bastard,
Wintroll circle-jerk, trolls are filthy, lying piece of shit, piece of
shit, POS, POS, what an *asshole*, fucking *assholes*, shitty and
dishonest Linux-haters, prick shit-canned, filthy lying *asshole*,
shit-brained arsehole, *stupidity* of epic proportions, stupid* pile of
shit, *jackass*, too God-damned *stupid*, trolling shitwits, *stupid*,
assholery, brain-damaged fucktard, piece of shit, drooling retard/liar,
drooling retard/liar, stupid piece of shit wannabe dictators, jackass,
clueless and lying idiot, ignorant ass, Stupid fuckwit!, You stepped in
your own shit, fuckwitted asshole, extremely shitty, lying asshole,
trolling fuckwit, you *stupid* asshole, POS, asshole, shitty dishonesty,
piece of shit, asshole, fuckwit, fuckwit, lying fuckwit, you POS, you
stupid piece of shit, couple of dishonest little shits, a disease
infesting the planet, POS and liar, fucktard trolls, Windows-loving
asshole, shitty, filthy Wintroll, bald-faced liar, you piece of shit
liar, shitty, useless Linux-haters, you stupid piece of shit, piece of
shit, Utterly worthless liar, filthy Win troll, lying pieces of shit,
fricken jackass, worthless lying POS jackass, shamelessly lying POS,
worthless, shit-brained asshole, POS liar, the filthy liar, evil selfish
bastards, fucking idiot, fucking *stupid*, ignorant, spews garbage,
jackass, idiot asshole, piece of shit, stupid POS, trolling fuckwit,
POS, lies his ass off, vile thing, shitty, liar, ignorant lying piece of
shit, vile bastard asshole liar, fucking *liar*, worthless, shameless
jackass, shitty, piece of shit liar, shameless jackass, filthy lying
assholes, jackass, cram it up your ass, asshole, POS, filthy, immoral,
dogshit brains, shitty little freedom-hating dictator wannabee, fucking
idiot, piece of shit, stupid, ignorant, shameless asshole. Linux-hating
pieces of shit, fucking, shit, shitty, shitty, shitty, selfish assholes,
shamelessly dishonest POS, vile lying bastards, filthy liar, filthy
fucks, fucking *assholes*, disgusting scumbag, vile filthy mean,
fuckwit, filthy fucking, liar, trolling fuckwit, POS, filthy fuckwit,
vile pukes, you shit, vile bastards, filthy fuck, mentally-defective
bigots disgusting freaks, piece of shit, filthy lying bigot, shitty,
filthy bigots, trolling fuckwit and shit, vile bigot, fuckwit piece of
shit disgusting freak"




You suck, turd.

[DFS]

On 9/30/2015 9:37 AM, -hh wrote:
> Chrisv writes:
>>
>> I see that Lying Lloyd is still living-up to his name.
>
> Too bad you attacked the person, rather than to disprove the claim.
>
>> I hope that I find better things to do in my retirement
>> than to troll a public forum with idiocy and lies.
>
> As if you're not already doing that now, decades before retirement...
>
>> "There is less need (for Linux users to pirate) if and only if there
>> are more & better software tools for Linux OS than for alternate OSs."
>> - lying asshole "-hh"
>
> Still a quite true observation: there's still no 'Killer App' that
> lrequires Linux OS to motivate its adoption...even in mobile space.

For Apple it was Visicalc, then desktop publishing.

For PC/DOS it was Lotus 1-2-3, then Wordstar.

Many video games spurred sales of various gaming platforms.

And you're right: to this day there is no killer Linux app. And there
never will be; the tiny Linux user base coupled with the ridiculous GPL
guarantees that.

A 2007 list of 'killer apps' from eWeek was:

1976: Electric Pencil
1978: WordStar
1979: VisiCalc
1981: dBase II
1982: AutoCAD
1983: Lotus 1-2-3
1983: Turbo Pascal
1984: MacWrite/MacPaint
1984: MultiMate
1985: Excel for Macintosh
1985: Aldus PageMaker
1986: Cross-network E-mail
1987: Excel for Windows
1987: dBase Mac
1988: Mathematica 1.0
1989: Word for Windows
1990: Windows 3.0
1990: Adobe Photoshop
1991: Microsoft Visual Basic
1994: Netscape Navigator 1.0
1995: Internet Explorer 1.0
1996: Palm HotSync
2001: Mac OS X
2001: Apple iTunes
2004: Mozilla Firefox 1.0

> Which is also why calls for Advocates to name examples of even
> mere equivalency come up 95% empty.

'Equivalency' in software is extremely, extremely subjective. For some
people, even one missing feature means the app fails the equivalency test.

[Snit]

On 9/30/15, 9:02 AM, in article g71o0b5n6ftc90fk7...@4ax.com,

"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> That categorization (terminally stupids and lying imbeciles)
>> includes clowns like -highhorse.
>>
>> Why do people like him expose their idiocy in public?
>
> Indeed, *every* sentence of -highhorse's post oozed with idiocy,
> dishonesty, and assholery.
>
> Take the statement about the lack of a "killer app" for Linux, as if a
> choice isn't needed unless there is some "killer app" associated with
> it.

It is nice to have, but if you cannot show what it does better than the
competition it is not needed.

Of course, it does do something better than the competition: be no cost.

That is the big advantage of desktop Linux. Not usability. Not productivity.
Price.

And that is OK.

> The corporate propagandist wants people to forget is that, in a
> *healthy, competitive* market, "killer apps" are not needed to compete
> and be successful in a market. All that is needed is to be a better
> overall value or design, for some of the buyers.

Sadly Linux lacks that better overall design... but being no cost it can
offer a great value.

[ronb]

According to the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddy "Lloyd," Linux offers
nothing (and is no threat), and yet, here he is, drooling 24/7 in a Linux
advocacy newsgroup about this non-threat.

His actions speak louder than his lying words.

As for "killer apps," what exactly -- as a Linux user -- am I supposed to
be waiting for? Linux does everything I need it to do -- and has been
doing so -- exclusively -- for me for over seven years. What am I
supposedly missing?

[ronb]

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:21:36 -0500, chrisv wrote:

>> lying asshole "-hh" wrote:
>>>
>>>> "There is less need (for Linux users to pirate) if and only if there
>>>> are more & better software tools for Linux OS than for alternate
>>>> OSs."
>>>> - lying asshole "-hh"
>>>
>>> Still a quite true observation:
>
> Nope. Still a bald-faced lie, asshole.
>
>>> there's still no 'Killer App' that lrequires Linux OS to motivate its
>>> adoption...even in mobile space.
>
> Irrelevant to your *lie* about the relative "need" for piracy, idiot.

And another of the gaggle of lemon-sucking bitter old biddies shows up
(take a bow "-hh") -- ignoring the fact that Windows Phones have 80% of
mobile malware, even though almost no one uses these pathetic devices.

[ronb]

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:32:45 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> Only a very *stupid* asshole, like -highhorse, would think that there is
> any reason to bicker with shitty trolls about what constitutes
> "equivalency".

Amazing how much all the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddies sound like
"Snit," isn't it?

[Lloyd E Parsons]

Feel free to back up that wild ass assertion. I think you are as usual
pulling 'facts' out of thin air.


--
Lloyd

[Snit]

On 9/30/15, 10:35 AM, in article muh6hm$iv5$3...@dont-email.me, "ronb"

<ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:32:45 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Only a very *stupid* asshole, like -highhorse, would think that there is
>> any reason to bicker with shitty trolls about what constitutes
>> "equivalency".
>
> Amazing how much all the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddies sound like
> "Snit," isn't it?

A perfect example of herd humping!

[Lloyd E Parsons]

On 2015-09-30 17:34:40 +0000, ronb said:

BTW, a quick google search shows that you are full of shit as I suspected.

Here's a discussion about that :
https://www.reddit.com/r/windowsphone/comments/27yjwa/is_windows_phone_more_secure_against_malware_than/


Here's another about the lack of a real anti-virus app, or should I say
lack of:
http://www.tomsguide.com/forum/id-2175695/windows-phone-find-real-antivirus-anti-malware-app.html


--
Lloyd

[Lloyd E Parsons]

I don't know, why do you linux loonies do it with nearly every post?
--
Lloyd

[Lloyd E Parsons]

On 2015-09-30 17:32:50 +0000, ronb said:

> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:50:03 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> -hh wrote:
>>
>>> Chrisv writes:
>>>>
>>>> I see that Lying Lloyd is still living-up to his name.
>>>
>>> Too bad you attacked the person, rather than to disprove the claim.
>>>
>>>> I hope that I find better things to do in my retirement
>>>> than to troll a public forum with idiocy and lies.
>>>
>>> As if you're not already doing that now, decades before retirement...
>>>
>>>> "There is less need (for Linux users to pirate) if and only if there
>>>> are more & better software tools for Linux OS than for alternate OSs."
>>>> - lying asshole "-hh"
>>>
>>> Still a quite true observation: there's still no 'Killer App' that
>>> lrequires Linux OS to motivate its adoption...even in mobile space.
>>>
>>> Which is also why calls for Advocates to name examples of even mere
>>> equivalency come up 95% empty.
>>>
>>>
>> The reason is simple: Nobody is stupid enough to cater for the whishes
>> of terminally stupids and lying imbeciles
>
> According to the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddy "Lloyd," Linux offers
> nothing (and is no threat), and yet, here he is, drooling 24/7 in a Linux
> advocacy newsgroup about this non-threat.

Since I'm here way less than that you assertion is therefore incorrect.

And at this moment in time Linux desktop is still around the 1.5% of
users worldwide with no one making any actual money from it. Alone of
the Linux variants, the desktop has been an abject failure.

Google figured out how to sell Linux. First thing is to hide that you
are using it.
Android found an excellent market on tablets and phones.
Chromebooks are competing quite well in the education market with some
consumer/business sales too.
Embedded Linux in all kinds of devices is widely accepted.
Linux as a server is excellent for many roles.

>
> His actions speak louder than his lying words.

My 'actions' don't include sniping via others posts. Which points out
the chicken shit attitudes of the linux loonies. Too afraid to have an
actual discussion since most of the discussions end with them getting
their asses handed to them.

>
> As for "killer apps," what exactly -- as a Linux user -- am I supposed to
> be waiting for? Linux does everything I need it to do -- and has been
> doing so -- exclusively -- for me for over seven years. What am I
> supposedly missing?

A market?

--
Lloyd

[chrisv]

ronb wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> Only a very *stupid* asshole, like -highhorse, would think that there is
>> any reason to bicker with shitty trolls about what constitutes
>> "equivalency".
>
>Amazing how much all the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddies sound like
>"Snit," isn't it?

-highhorse packed a remarkable number of lies into his short post.
For example, his "95% empty" lie.

We have given examples of equivalency many times, only to have them
denied as not being good-enough. GIMP is a classic example. It's
plenty-good for the vast majority of users (and free!), but it's not
the best, not "the standard", so gets denied.

Then, unable to honestly defend against our correct, common-sense
arguments, the shitty bastards inevitably resort to *lies* to attack
us as "unreasonable" or whatever (see sig).

--
"Specifically, (advocates) whine about how Photoshop costs 600 and is
a waste, while claiming that the same capabilities can be accomplished
for free." - asshole "-hh", lying shamelessly

[Lloyd E Parsons]

On 2015-09-30 18:10:07 +0000, chrisv said:

> ronb wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Only a very *stupid* asshole, like -highhorse, would think that there is
>>> any reason to bicker with shitty trolls about what constitutes
>>> "equivalency".
>>
>> Amazing how much all the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddies sound like
>> "Snit," isn't it?
>
> -highhorse packed a remarkable number of lies into his short post.
> For example, his "95% empty" lie.
>
> We have given examples of equivalency many times, only to have them
> denied as not being good-enough. GIMP is a classic example. It's
> plenty-good for the vast majority of users (and free!), but it's not
> the best, not "the standard", so gets denied.
>
> Then, unable to honestly defend against our correct, common-sense
> arguments, the shitty bastards inevitably resort to *lies* to attack
> us as "unreasonable" or whatever (see sig).

Gimp is an excellent program. And for many it is fine, but it doesn't
compare well to professional level software at all. IOW, not a
'killer' app especially considering that it doesn't need Linux at all.

--
Lloyd

[Snit]

On 9/30/15, 11:10 AM, in article ft8o0bpkfr3tg3qo2...@4ax.com,

"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> ronb wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Only a very *stupid* asshole, like -highhorse, would think that there is
>>> any reason to bicker with shitty trolls about what constitutes
>>> "equivalency".
>>
>> Amazing how much all the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddies sound like
>> "Snit," isn't it?
>
> -highhorse packed a remarkable number of lies into his short post.
> For example, his "95% empty" lie.
>
> We have given examples of equivalency many times, only to have them
> denied as not being good-enough. GIMP is a classic example. It's
> plenty-good for the vast majority of users (and free!), but it's not
> the best, not "the standard", so gets denied.

It is good enough... but not good enough where many people would pay for it.
People instead tend to pay for things like Photoshop Elements instead of
using GIMP for free.

Still, it is not a bad program... though it does not fit in well with the
environments it runs on. That makes it a less capable program.

> Then, unable to honestly defend against our correct, common-sense
> arguments, the shitty bastards inevitably resort to *lies* to attack
> us as "unreasonable" or whatever (see sig).



--

[Snit]

On 9/30/15, 11:14 AM, in article d72n4g...@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd E

Parsons" <lloy...@live.com> wrote:

> On 2015-09-30 18:10:07 +0000, chrisv said:
>
>> ronb wrote:
>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Only a very *stupid* asshole, like -highhorse, would think that there is
>>>> any reason to bicker with shitty trolls about what constitutes
>>>> "equivalency".
>>>
>>> Amazing how much all the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddies sound like
>>> "Snit," isn't it?
>>
>> -highhorse packed a remarkable number of lies into his short post.
>> For example, his "95% empty" lie.
>>
>> We have given examples of equivalency many times, only to have them
>> denied as not being good-enough. GIMP is a classic example. It's
>> plenty-good for the vast majority of users (and free!), but it's not
>> the best, not "the standard", so gets denied.
>>
>> Then, unable to honestly defend against our correct, common-sense
>> arguments, the shitty bastards inevitably resort to *lies* to attack
>> us as "unreasonable" or whatever (see sig).
>
> Gimp is an excellent program.

For free... sure. But in the open market, on OS X, it would not do well. I
does not use the built in color selector or many of the other standard OS X
tools.

> And for many it is fine, but it doesn't compare well to professional level
> software at all. IOW, not a 'killer' app especially considering that it
> doesn't need Linux at all.

Right... it works on OS X and Windows where people TEND to prefer software
they have to pay for vs. GIMP for free. Does not mean GIMP is useless or
horrid or has no places where it shines (it handles favicons quite well, for
example) but it is not a great program overall.

[ronb]

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:10:07 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> ronb wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Only a very *stupid* asshole, like -highhorse, would think that there
>>> is any reason to bicker with shitty trolls about what constitutes
>>> "equivalency".
>>
>>Amazing how much all the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddies sound like
>>"Snit," isn't it?
>
> -highhorse packed a remarkable number of lies into his short post. For
> example, his "95% empty" lie.
>
> We have given examples of equivalency many times, only to have them
> denied as not being good-enough. GIMP is a classic example. It's
> plenty-good for the vast majority of users (and free!), but it's not the
> best, not "the standard", so gets denied.
>
> Then, unable to honestly defend against our correct, common-sense
> arguments, the shitty bastards inevitably resort to *lies* to attack us
> as "unreasonable" or whatever (see sig).

By "equivalent" the WinDrones and iCultists mean the EXACT, same,
specific application they use. It never occurs to them that folks (like
me) never used M$ Office (unless forced to at work) and that I
(personally) see the product as inferior to just about everything else
out there -- for reasons I've detailed in the past. So their "killer app"
is my "piece of shit." But, in "Snit's" case specifically, it's all they
know -- so another application has "got to be inferior" if it doesn't
work exactly like M$ Office.

The last time I really used M$ Office was when I was compiling mailing
lists for customers. More often than not they brought their mailing lists
in Excel format and the first thing I would do is transfer it to dBASE.
The owner's son (who was in charge of technology) decided that he
wouldn't buy any more M$ Office licenses, so when he upgraded my computer
he put Open Office on it instead of M$ Office (he did this for most of
the staff). I was able to use it without issue for what I had been using
Excel to do. Writer worked fine for me also. That's basically all I used
in Open Office. The bookkeeper, on the other hand, used specific Excel
macros supplied by our accountants -- so it made sense that she kept a M$
Office license.

The problem with WinTrolls and iCultists is that they think one size fits
all. It never occurs to them that not everyone uses their computer in the
same way they do. I think it's because they really don't understand the
software they're using -- they've learned step 1, step 2, step 3 -- and
anything that diverges from these same series of steps is "difficult" and
"not equivalent" for them. About the only thing they really understand is
rote learning (they lack normal logic skills) -- anything different is a
threat to their myopic, control freak ways.

[Lloyd E Parsons]

On 2015-09-30 18:48:21 +0000, ronb said:
>
> The problem with WinTrolls and iCultists is that they think one size fits
> all. It never occurs to them that not everyone uses their computer in the
> same way they do. I think it's because they really don't understand the
> software they're using -- they've learned step 1, step 2, step 3 -- and
> anything that diverges from these same series of steps is "difficult" and
> "not equivalent" for them. About the only thing they really understand is
> rote learning (they lack normal logic skills) -- anything different is a
> threat to their myopic, control freak ways.

Utter horseshit wRonG! But fully expected.

Most of the user world has found that desktop Linux and the apps that
go with it are worth exactly what they paid for them. ZERO!

While many of the apps are fine they are at best 2nd best and most
often not even that. But if they fit the user does anyone actually
care? Well other than as troll baiting of course.

Commercial apps do very well as evidenced by the sales and profits they
generate. If they weren't better than the FOSS apps then that wouldn't
be the case.

Let's take MS Office these days. Office365 is the big news there! For
about $70-$100/year, depending on which subscription you buy, you get
1Tb of cloud storage, 60 minutes of Skype phone calls and the full
Office suite. Unless the cloud storage has no value to you, that is an
incredible bargain not offered by anyone else! You cannot even come
close to that deal in the Linux world no matter where you look. That
said, for those prices, that is damned cheap for just the cloud storage.

Mine is even better. I am grandfathered with unlimited (shows 10Tb)
cloud storage and the full office suite on 5 computers with the 60
Skype minutes for $70/year.

--
Lloyd

[Snit]

On 9/30/15, 11:48 AM, in article muhapl$21d$1...@dont-email.me, "ronb"

<ronb02...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:10:07 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> ronb wrote:
>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Only a very *stupid* asshole, like -highhorse, would think that there
>>>> is any reason to bicker with shitty trolls about what constitutes
>>>> "equivalency".
>>>
>>> Amazing how much all the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddies sound like
>>> "Snit," isn't it?
>>
>> -highhorse packed a remarkable number of lies into his short post. For
>> example, his "95% empty" lie.
>>
>> We have given examples of equivalency many times, only to have them
>> denied as not being good-enough. GIMP is a classic example. It's
>> plenty-good for the vast majority of users (and free!), but it's not the
>> best, not "the standard", so gets denied.
>>
>> Then, unable to honestly defend against our correct, common-sense
>> arguments, the shitty bastards inevitably resort to *lies* to attack us
>> as "unreasonable" or whatever (see sig).
>
> By "equivalent" the WinDrones and iCultists mean the EXACT, same,
> specific application they use.

What your imaginary friends mean is of no consequence.

> It never occurs to them that folks (like me) never used M$ Office (unless
> forced to at work) and that I (personally) see the product as inferior to just
> about everything else out there -- for reasons I've detailed in the past.

It does not matter that your imaginary friends think everyone uses MS
Office. Few actual PEOPLE think that.

> So their "killer app" is my "piece of shit." But, in "Snit's" case
> specifically, it's all they know -- so another application has "got to be
> inferior" if it doesn't work exactly like M$ Office.

And now you mention me: but I speak of MS Office, LibreOffice, iWork, and
other products. So in that you are just making things up. You are lying.

But your herd will approve of your lies.

> The last time I really used M$ Office was when I was compiling mailing lists
> for customers. More often than not they brought their mailing lists in Excel
> format and the first thing I would do is transfer it to dBASE. The owner's son
> (who was in charge of technology) decided that he wouldn't buy any more M$
> Office licenses, so when he upgraded my computer he put Open Office on it
> instead of M$ Office (he did this for most of the staff). I was able to use it
> without issue for what I had been using Excel to do. Writer worked fine for me
> also. That's basically all I used in Open Office. The bookkeeper, on the other
> hand, used specific Excel macros supplied by our accountants -- so it made
> sense that she kept a M$ Office license.

I have no problem with that. Use what you like.

> The problem with WinTrolls and iCultists is that they think one size fits all.

What your imaginary friends think is not relevant. But you did bring up
ME... and I say use what you like.

> It never occurs to them that not everyone uses their computer in the same way
> they do. I think it's because they really don't understand the software
> they're using -- they've learned step 1, step 2, step 3 -- and anything that
> diverges from these same series of steps is "difficult" and "not equivalent"
> for them.

Again: what your imaginary friends do is of no relevance.

> About the only thing they really understand is rote learning (they
> lack normal logic skills) -- anything different is a threat to their myopic,
> control freak ways.

So teach your imaginary friends better! LOL!

Or go get professional help to stop focusing on them so much.

[A.M]

On 2015-09-29 9:36 PM, -hh wrote:
> So...since Android *is* linux, and since in 2013, a mere 97% of all mobile
> malware was on Android....
>
> Oh, right! The cite for that statistic....here it is:
>
> <http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2014/03/24/report-97-of-mobile-malware-is-on-android-this-is-the-easy-way-you-stay-safe/>
>
> ...just what does this say about the security of Linux? Perhaps it is that the
> Linux desktop simply isn't a target because there's no money to be made from
> fat old guys wearing hair shirts?
>
> As the old saying goes, can't get blood from a stone...

I wouldn't buy an Android device myself, but it has more to do with the
fact that I hate the support the devices get from their manufacturers
and the fact that the system doesn't impress me than security. I'm well
served by the Windows phone, especially by the software it offers to
sync. In fact, I rather like the Groove Music Store as well. All of it
is much worse than what Apple and Google offer, but good enough and so
far, there have been no reports of security problems.


--
A.M

[A.M]

And yet we all still talk to the most terminally-stupid lying imbecile
here: you.

I "whish" you a good day.

--
A.M

[A.M]

On 2015-09-30 12:22 PM, DFS wrote:
> On 9/30/2015 9:37 AM, -hh wrote:
>> Chrisv writes:
>>>
>>> I see that Lying Lloyd is still living-up to his name.
>>
>> Too bad you attacked the person, rather than to disprove the claim.
>>
>>> I hope that I find better things to do in my retirement
>>> than to troll a public forum with idiocy and lies.
>>
>> As if you're not already doing that now, decades before retirement...
>>
>>> "There is less need (for Linux users to pirate) if and only if there
>>> are more & better software tools for Linux OS than for alternate OSs."
>>> - lying asshole "-hh"
>>
>> Still a quite true observation: there's still no 'Killer App' that
>> lrequires Linux OS to motivate its adoption...even in mobile space.
>
>
> For Apple it was Visicalc, then desktop publishing.
>
> For PC/DOS it was Lotus 1-2-3, then Wordstar.
>
> Many video games spurred sales of various gaming platforms.
>
> And you're right: to this day there is no killer Linux app. And there
> never will be; the tiny Linux user base coupled with the ridiculous GPL
> guarantees that.
>
> A 2007 list of 'killer apps' from eWeek was:
>
> 1976: Electric Pencil
> 1978: WordStar

George R. R. Martin, arguably the best author from the United States,
still uses this to this day.

> 1979: VisiCalc
> 1981: dBase II
> 1982: AutoCAD
> 1983: Lotus 1-2-3
> 1983: Turbo Pascal
> 1984: MacWrite/MacPaint
> 1984: MultiMate
> 1985: Excel for Macintosh
> 1985: Aldus PageMaker
> 1986: Cross-network E-mail
> 1987: Excel for Windows
> 1987: dBase Mac
> 1988: Mathematica 1.0
> 1989: Word for Windows
> 1990: Windows 3.0

People who weren't around when it came out don't see how this was a
significant piece of software but it was the first _decent_ GUI
available for the PC which also had excellent third-party support. It
also showed gave the world a good indication of what kind of interfaces
were going to be available to PC users if they chose to remain on the
platform. It was what made the Mac look a lot less interesting to a lot
of people.

< snip >

--
A.M

[codes...@gmail.com]

No Windows Phone does not.

It's 80% of mobile malware from windows devices. Almost all (if not all) of that is from Windows proper connected to mobile networks through dongles, mobile hotspots, or tethering to a mobile phone.

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2984444/mobile-security/windows-devices-account-for-80-of-malware-infections-transmitted-via-mobile-networks.html

[chrisv]

ronb wrote:

>And another of the gaggle of lemon-sucking bitter old biddies shows up
>(take a bow "-hh") -- ignoring the fact that Windows Phones have 80% of
>mobile malware, even though almost no one uses these pathetic devices.

Someone named "codeslave01" replied to your message, but I
"accidentally" deleted it, without reading it. :-D

--
'It doesn't matter that Linux's share was unchanged and logically not
hurt: the logic here is that Apple's gain in share "morally" belonged
to Linux.' - lying asshole "-hh"

[codes...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 2:22:14 PM UTC-6, chrisv wrote:
> ronb wrote:
>
> >And another of the gaggle of lemon-sucking bitter old biddies shows up
> >(take a bow "-hh") -- ignoring the fact that Windows Phones have 80% of
> >mobile malware, even though almost no one uses these pathetic devices.
>
> Someone named "codeslave01" replied to your message, but I
> "accidentally" deleted it, without reading it. :-D
>

So, do you have a problem with the truth?

[Lloyd Parsons]

Just did a little more research, every single story that makes this claim
is relying on a single source. I'm not saying they are wrong, but if it
is a fact based claim then there should be more sources.

Somehow I think this will turn out to be some hyperbole.


--
Lloyd

[A.M]

Wow, did ronb really suggest that Windows Phone was the biggest target
for mobile malware? The guy really is a moron, isn't he?


--
A.M

[Lloyd Parsons]

Hmm... Looks like a bit of redefining 'malware' was done for the article.
Quote:Most of the infections Alcatel-Lucent detected on Windows devices
was adware bundled with games and free software


--
Lloyd

[Lloyd Parsons]

And the article that makes the claim about 80% says that the majority of
malware was done by redefining 'malware' since it was mostly adware.

--
Lloyd

[A.M]

All I know is that the modest hardware which powers Windows Phone 8 does
it extremely well and it's always fast and responsive. It never crashes,
Cortana understands every one of my commands, I have all of the
applications I need, it allows MicroSD cards up to 128GB (which will
eventually become necessary because I buy a lot of music), it syncs
beautifully and it's sturdy. Am I worried about an infection? Of course
not because I know that any application I download is sandboxed and gets
no access to the rest of the system unless I allow it. Will I need to
replace it? Probably not since the operating system is likely to remain
fast no matter how much it is updated.

In the end, it's the least appealing of the mobile phones and yet the
best choice I've used so far.

--
A.M

[A.M]

On 2015-09-30 5:28 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

I just wanted to add that the ONE thing I wish I had on Windows Phone is
some sort of GnuPG add-on which would allow my e-mail to be sent
encrypted. I am very reluctant to send e-mail nowadays unless I can
encrypt it.


--
A.M

[codes...@gmail.com]

> Just did a little more research, every single story that makes this claim
> is relying on a single source. I'm not saying they are wrong, but if it
> is a fact based claim then there should be more sources.
>
> Somehow I think this will turn out to be some hyperbole.

Just go to the original report - the actual source.

https://www.alcatel-lucent.com/solutions/malware-reports

The reports specifically says Windows PCs account for 80% of the malware detected. The quotes in the article are directly from the report.

Here is another quote:
<quote>
Between 2013 and 2014 the contribution to the infection rates in the mobile network were roughly 50/50 between Android and Windows/PCs. This changed significantly in 2015. At the end of Q2, 80% of infections observed on the mobile network were from Windows/PCs connected via dongles, mobile Wi-Fi hotspots or tethered through phones. Android devices made up 20% of the infections. The other smartphones (iPhone, Blackberry, Windows Mobile, etc.) made up less than 1% of the infections we have observed. The iPhone and Blackberry have a more controlled app distribution environment and are
thus less of a target.
</quote>

[Lloyd Parsons]

It still is a single sourced story. AND they re-defined 'malware' to be
'mostly adware'. Specious story at best.



--
Lloyd

[codes...@gmail.com]

>
> It still is a single sourced story. AND they re-defined 'malware' to be
> 'mostly adware'. Specious story at best.

I just gave you a link to the actual report. You don't need the story, you can read it yourself. See the actual conclusions and data.

And, of course, the point of this is not whether or not the report is accurate or we do or do not agree with the results. The point is that ronb is wrong in his assertions about the malware coming from windows phones. It's coming from Windows PCs (80%)and Android devices (20%). That is pretty much 100% of all malware on the networks that were monitored in this report.

[A.M]

Notice Windows Mobile in there.

--
A.M

[-hh]

Lloyd Parsons wrote a follow-up:

> On 2015-09-30 17:34:40 +0000, ronb said:
> > On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:21:36 -0500, chrisv wrote:
> >>> lying asshole "-hh" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "There is less need (for Linux users to pirate) if and only if there
> >>>>> are more & better software tools for Linux OS than for alternate
> >>>>> OSs."
> >>>>> - lying asshole "-hh"
> >>>>
> >>>> Still a quite true observation:
> >>
> >> Nope. Still a bald-faced lie, asshole.
> >>
> >>>> there's still no 'Killer App' that lrequires Linux OS to motivate its
> >>>> adoption...even in mobile space.
> >>
> >> Irrelevant to your *lie* about the relative "need" for piracy, idiot.
> >
> > And another of the gaggle of lemon-sucking bitter old biddies shows up
> > (take a bow "-hh") -- ignoring the fact that Windows Phones have 80% of
> > mobile malware, even though almost no one uses these pathetic devices.
>
> BTW, a quick google search shows that you are full of shit as I suspected.

And they certainly made a heck of a screeching racket, didn't they?
Made for an interesting read after today's flight back from Silicon Valley.

> Here's a discussion about that :
> https://www.reddit.com/r/windowsphone/comments/27yjwa/is_windows_phone_more_secure_against_malware_than/
>
>
> Here's another about the lack of a real anti-virus app, or should I say
> lack of:
> http://www.tomsguide.com/forum/id-2175695/windows-phone-find-real-antivirus-anti-malware-app.html

And as was also pointed out, a redefinition in terminology. And given that we
all know that Google's business model for Android is nothing but essentially
selling eyeballs for advertisements, how this definition is so conveniently able ot
dodge including that in their metric.

And with the lemon drop kids they then tried to stuff some faux straw man to try
to knock down, which was all quite transparently petty and lame.


-hh

[-hh]

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 3:00:53 PM UTC-4, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> On 2015-09-30 18:48:21 +0000, ronb said:
> >
> > The problem with WinTrolls and iCultists is that they think one size fits
> > all. It never occurs to them that not everyone uses their computer in the
> > same way they do. I think it's because they really don't understand the
> > software they're using -- they've learned step 1, step 2, step 3 -- and
> > anything that diverges from these same series of steps is "difficult" and
> > "not equivalent" for them. About the only thing they really understand is
> > rote learning (they lack normal logic skills) -- anything different is a
> > threat to their myopic, control freak ways.
>
> Utter horseshit wRonG! But fully expected.

That claim is one of the faux straw man creations on RonB's part.

> Most of the user world has found that desktop Linux and the apps that
> go with it are worth exactly what they paid for them. ZERO!

Don't forget the hardware, either: we've had several 'advocates' brag about
buying a new PC with Windows because it was cheaper than a Linux box,
even though Microsoft got their payment for Windows OS.

> While many of the apps are fine they are at best 2nd best and most
> often not even that. But if they fit the user does anyone actually
> care? Well other than as troll baiting of course.
>
> Commercial apps do very well as evidenced by the sales and profits they
> generate. If they weren't better than the FOSS apps then that wouldn't
> be the case.

And the marketplace 'barrier to entry' for someone who has zero commercial
business interests is pretty much the cost of a website (under $100/year),
which, unlike a commercial product, is why even the old bad stuff in FOSS
does not ever really die.


-hh

[Nobody]

On 9/30/2015 12:50 PM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> On 2015-09-30 17:34:40 +0000, ronb said:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:21:36 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>>> lying asshole "-hh" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "There is less need (for Linux users to pirate) if and only if there
>>>>>> are more & better software tools for Linux OS than for alternate
>>>>>> OSs."
>>>>>> - lying asshole "-hh"
>>>>>
>>>>> Still a quite true observation:
>>>
>>> Nope. Still a bald-faced lie, asshole.
>>>
>>>>> there's still no 'Killer App' that lrequires Linux OS to motivate its
>>>>> adoption...even in mobile space.
>>>
>>> Irrelevant to your *lie* about the relative "need" for piracy, idiot.
>>
>> And another of the gaggle of lemon-sucking bitter old biddies shows up
>> (take a bow "-hh") -- ignoring the fact that Windows Phones have 80% of
>> mobile malware, even though almost no one uses these pathetic devices.
>

> Feel free to back up that wild ass assertion. I think you are as usual
> pulling 'facts' out of thin air.

Lying Lloyd is living up to his name again. Ronb posted support for his
assertion in the OP he started this thread with.

"Mobile networks are increasingly becoming an express lane for malware,
and Windows devices now represent 80 percent of the hardware that gets
infected, recent research revealed."

https://securityintelligence.com/news/why-windows-devices-are-topping-mobile-malware-infection-rates-at-80-percent/

[Nobody]

On 9/30/2015 3:45 AM, ronb wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:05:15 +0100, William Poaster wrote:
>
>> It was reported that ronb posted:
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:58:57 -0500, Nobody wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't it funny how they insisted Android isn't Linux, until they saw
>>>> what they perceived as a problem with Android? Then it becomes
>>>> Linux!
>>>
>>> Yeah, I noticed that. In the upside-down world of lying iCultists and
>>> WinDrones, hypocrisy is a "virtue."
>>
>> Android uses a Linux kernel, & that's ALL.
>> It has nothing else in common with UNIX/POSIX.
>
> I'll disagree, but I know there's a lot of debate about this and a link
> to someone (at Android Central) who thinks Android is Linux.
>
> http://www.androidcentral.com/ask-ac-android-linux

Didn't the trolls tell us Android is "hidden Linux?"

[A.M]

It should be noticed that they are referring to devices using DESKTOP
Windows operating systems and not the mobile edition whose applications
are sandboxed and whose operating system is the most secure one on the
market at the moment.

I don't think anyone here will claim that Windows users don't get
infected by viruses. However, Windows has improved tremendously in that
area and the combination of high UAC settings, Windows Defender and
caution prevents people from compromising their security. I have yet to
install an anti-virus in Windows 10 and it works marvelously so far.


--
A.M

[A.M]

The Linux advocates here, you included, have routinely claimed that
Android is Linux whenever there is positive news about it. In fact, you
did so two posts ago. However, if the news is bad, as with the four
major security holes exposed in Android THIS YEAR ALONE, you're all too
willing to change your tune and make it sound as though Android isn't
Linux at all.

You guys are liars and there's a reason nobody takes your comments
seriously.


--
A.M

[Lloyd Parsons]

And if you noticed, the definition of 'malware' had to be changed to
include what they actually found, and that was mostly adware. IOW, the
stuff lives and dies on Android for the most part.

And it was interesting to note that the only times that is an issue is if
the phone is being used as a hotspot. Another interesting note is that
there is no real anti-virus, anti-malware app even offered for Windows
Phone 8/8.1

On my Windows 10 boxes at home I use the built in Windows Defender
coupled with Malwarebytes. Nearly bullet proof.




--
Lloyd

[A.M]

I used to use McAfee but I can't stand the way the anti-virus prevents
certain things, like device syncing, from working quickly and corrected.
Without the anti-virus, I can connect my phone to the computer, open the
syncing program and transfer a new album within a minute or two. With
McAfee, I have to instead wait about five minutes before the anti-virus
allows the sync utility to even respond. It's annoying.


--
A.M

[Lloyd Parsons]

That's why I don't use McAfee... :)




--
Lloyd

[A.M]

My ISP provides it for free so I figure that I am not really losing
anything if it doesn't work out. Nevertheless, it's remarkable how
annoying its offering really is once installed.


--
A.M

[Onion Knight]

My ISP provides Macafee free as well. I would go anywhere near it
because they have clearly lost the plot.
Symantec was in a similar position a few years ago with highly
bloated software that had huge performance impact on systems. Unlike
Macafee, Symantec listened to their users and fixed the problems.

Symantec Endpoint is a pretty decent program and is quite unobtrusive
in actual use. The college where I work requires students and staff
to have it installed on their computers and it just seems to work
rather well.
A far cry from the Symantec of just a few years ago.

[GreyCloud]

On 09/28/15 19:03, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> On 28 Sep 2015 19:58, Nobody wrote:
>> On 9/23/2015 7:10 PM, ronb wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 23:30:36 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 20:35:57 +0000, ronb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like Windows Phones lead at something ...
>>>>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Yet in the forums that discuss Windows Phones, malware is seldom the
>>>>> topic of conversation. Makes you wonder why.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't in most windows forums either. The dumbest of those idiots even
>>>> claim that you will not get infected if you use some common sense
>>>>
>>>> It is a claim also often seen in COLA. By windows using dimbulbs
>>>
>>> Malware is not a big topic on the Android forums either -- yet the lemon
>>> suckers at the Bitter Old Biddy Committee drone on and on about it in a
>>> Linux advocacy newsgroup. Odd, huh?

>>
>> Isn't it funny how they insisted Android isn't Linux, until they saw
>> what they perceived as a problem with Android? Then it becomes Linux!
>>

> Nice try. It is you Linux loonies that have always claimed Android was
> Linux until problems showed up. In fact, it is a very limited Linux
> distro. A distro btw, that has been pretty much a malware magnet for
> quite awhile.
>
>
I believe that it was Koldtard that said Android is Linux. Contrary to
what "Nobody" is saying.


--
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."

[GreyCloud]

On 09/30/15 06:24, chrisv wrote:
> Nobody wrote:

>
>> Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>
>>> It is you Linux loonies that have always claimed Android was
>>> Linux until problems showed up. In fact, it is a very limited Linux
>>> distro. A distro btw, that has been pretty much a malware magnet for
>>> quite awhile.
>>

>> Quote any Linux Advocate denying Android is Linux. You can't. You're
>> a liar.
>
> I see that Lying Lloyd is still living-up to his name. I hope that I
> find better things to do in my retirement than to troll a public forum
> with idiocy and lies.
>
Nothing will stop you in your dotage from lieing and trolling cola, Turdv.

[A.M]

Well, you'd think that Intel, which owns McAfee, would have cared what
its customers thought. Oh well. If ever it gets good again, I'll
re-install it. Until then, Windows Defender it is.


--
A.M

[GreyCloud]

On 09/30/15 11:34, ronb wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:21:36 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>>> lying asshole "-hh" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "There is less need (for Linux users to pirate) if and only if there

>>>>> are more& better software tools for Linux OS than for alternate

>>>>> OSs."
>>>>> - lying asshole "-hh"
>>>>
>>>> Still a quite true observation:
>>
>> Nope. Still a bald-faced lie, asshole.
>>
>>>> there's still no 'Killer App' that lrequires Linux OS to motivate its
>>>> adoption...even in mobile space.
>>
>> Irrelevant to your *lie* about the relative "need" for piracy, idiot.
>
> And another of the gaggle of lemon-sucking bitter old biddies shows up
> (take a bow "-hh") -- ignoring the fact that Windows Phones have 80% of
> mobile malware, even though almost no one uses these pathetic devices.
>

[GreyCloud]

On 09/30/15 12:10, chrisv wrote:
> ronb wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Only a very *stupid* asshole, like -highhorse, would think that there is
>>> any reason to bicker with shitty trolls about what constitutes
>>> "equivalency".
>>
>> Amazing how much all the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddies sound like
>> "Snit," isn't it?
>
> -highhorse packed a remarkable number of lies into his short post.
> For example, his "95% empty" lie.
>
> We have given examples of equivalency many times, only to have them
> denied as not being good-enough. GIMP is a classic example. It's
> plenty-good for the vast majority of users (and free!), but it's not
> the best, not "the standard", so gets denied.
>
> Then, unable to honestly defend against our correct, common-sense
> arguments, the shitty bastards inevitably resort to *lies* to attack
> us as "unreasonable" or whatever (see sig).
>

Deleted unread.

***PLONK***

[Snit]

On 10/2/15, 12:41 PM, in article
utGdnVC_MuaUQ5PL...@bresnan.com, "GreyCloud" <cum...@mist.com>
wrote:

> Deleted unread.
>
> ***PLONK***

I did not even read that you did not read the post you did not read.

So there!


--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[ronb]

I don't know. The WinDrones and iCultists spout whatever inane asininity
that comes into their stunted little brains at any given moment.
Consistency and logic never enters into the equation. Just constant,
lemming-like, parroting of brainless FUD attacks on Linux. Their 24/7
obsession with an OS they don't use is pathetic -- the poor little lemon-
sucking bitter old biddies.

[ronb]

Lying "Lloyd" and his lemon-sucking Bitter Old Biddy Committee are
desperately trying to change the subject. Unfortunately for the lemon
suckers, their tactics are well known (as they never vary).

[Lloyd Parsons]

No subject change was done you lying chicken shit.




--
Lloyd