Time To Lower The Boom On Chris Ahlstrom... Hahahahha...
flatfish+++
Linux posts, as if one has to try hard to find them..hahaha...
He posted a new thread entitled :"[Troll] Yet another anti-Linux rant
cherry-picked by Flounder"
Well Chris Ahlstrom, guess where I got the orginal post entitled:
"The Linux desktop experience is killing Linux on the desktop." ????
Hmmmm, Liarmutt?
RIGHT FROM YOUR FORMER MASTER Roy Schestowitz!!!
http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/irc-log-techrights-11062011.html
TRIdentica/#techrights-[noyesk/@noyesk] The Linux desktop experience is
killing #Linux on the desktop http://bit.ly/kuKmbl Jun 11 15:55
TechrightsBot-tr Title: (think) - The Linux desktop experience is
killing Linux on the desktop .::. Size~: 21.04 KB Jun 11 15:55
...All done manually of course :)
Consider yourself Rope-A-Doped!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
I'm beginning to agree with Tom Shelton....
This is just too easy...
--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
Linux's dismal desktop market share:
http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/05/12/the-top-20-strongholds-for-desktop-linux/
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
Desktop Linux on Life Support:
http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/is-linux-on-the-desktop-dead--961508
DFS
> Crybaby Chris Ahlstrom is once again accusing me of cherry picking bad
> Linux posts, as if one has to try hard to find them..hahaha...
>
>
> He posted a new thread entitled :"[Troll] Yet another anti-Linux rant
> cherry-picked by Flounder"
>
> Well Chris Ahlstrom, guess where I got the orginal post entitled:
>
> "The Linux desktop experience is killing Linux on the desktop." ????
>
> Hmmmm, Liarmutt?
>
> RIGHT FROM YOUR FORMER MASTER Roy Schestowitz!!!
>
> http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/irc-log-techrights-11062011.html
>
> TRIdentica/#techrights-[noyesk/@noyesk] The Linux desktop experience is
> killing #Linux on the desktop http://bit.ly/kuKmbl Jun 11 15:55
>
> TechrightsBot-tr Title: (think) - The Linux desktop experience is
> killing Linux on the desktop .::. Size~: 21.04 KB Jun 11 15:55
>
>
> ...All done manually of course :)
>
> Consider yourself Rope-A-Doped!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
>
> I'm beginning to agree with Tom Shelton....
> This is just too easy...
Nice little KO, Flattie!
Fact is, it's harder to cherry-pick GOOD Linux posts than bad ones...
flatfish+++
Thanks!!!
It's easy to cherry pick GOOD Linux posts though.
Now trying to find Good Linux posts where the freetards aren't LIEing
for LIEnux, is almost impossible.....!
It takes hours to sort through "works for me" lies...
hahaha!
Hadron
I feel sorry for Creepy at this stage. He has the memory of a
goldfish. In fact, didnt he deny boasting about his Windows related
income here only to have the link provided? Strangely enough, every post
he makes accusing you or me of lying he has yet to provide a single link
proving that. Sad? You make up your own mind.
Hadron
I would make bet that you would find more pro Linux and OSS posts from
me that can be verified compared to what Creepy has posted.
TomB
>
> I would make bet that you would find more pro Linux and OSS posts from
> me that can be verified compared to what Creepy has posted.
Yes, like when you said that Linus regrets licensing Linux under the
GPL.
Or when you mentioned 'termcap' issues while termcap has been
deprecated for years and replaced with terminfo.
Or when you said that a rogue ls script is bound to wreak havoc
when a user has . on his path.
Or when you said that the Debian folks think that apt-get is crap, and
mixing it with aptitude is guaranteed to cause major breakage - even
in the repositories themselves!
Or when you said that even on GNU/Linux files are executable based on
their extension.
And so on.
Yes, some very good pro Linux and OSS post that can be verified from
you there!
--
http://twitter.com/drumscum | http://drumscum.be
Hasta la vista, baby.
~ T-101
William Poaster
And how about these "pro-linux & OSS posts" from the trolling M$ zealot:
Linux as a desktop OS is pretty much doomed it would appear.
Too little too late.
Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <fnd3jj$or8$2...@registered.motzarella.org>
A lot of OSS is simply crap. And if it were
"for sale" they would soon go out of business.
Hadron Quack - Mon, 07 Jan 2008 alt.os.linux.ubuntu
So you think it's tougher for Free (as in beer) SW to replace MS SW? It
doesn't replace the MS stuff generally because the "free" application SW
is piss poor in relation to the purchased versions.
Hadron
Message-ID: <osbn15-...@news.individual.net>
Anyone who says Open Office is as
good as MS Office is living in denial.
Hadron Quark
Message-ID: <87wsxqr...@gmail.com>
Who the fuck wants to install OO on a new system for home?
Hadron: <gu0bjt$v96$4...@news.motzarella.org>
etc, etc..
--
XPN :: http://xpn.altervista.org
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves.
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods."
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --
Chris Ahlstrom
> And how about these "pro-linux & OSS posts" from the trolling M$ zealot:
>
> Linux as a desktop OS is pretty much doomed it would appear.
> Too little too late.
> Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com>
> Message-ID: <fnd3jj$or8$2...@registered.motzarella.org>
I'm trying to figure out where this "boom" is that is getting lowered on me.
All I'm getting is a tickly feeling at getting so much attention from
a trio of mental dwarves.
Get this: Flounder waits patiently, for who knows how long, to find
someone, at an organization he apparently loaths, saying something that
seems to agree with Flounder's FUD. He finally finds an off-hand (and, I
believe, sorely misplaced) remark and hurriedly brings it here, where
his/her buddies can lap it up.
And it is supposed to make me feel bad?
--
Keep your laws off my body!
Big Steel
>
> And it is supposed to make me feel bad?
>
He is just a MS using hypocrite making his living with MS just running
his mouth. He is just a worthless lip-service dog barking. He is not
even true to the game.
bbgruff
I just don't know!
Perhaps I'm just being dim, but I'm completely lost as to what her OP on
this thread is all about.
I really would be grateful if somebody could explain that first post to me
in simple terms - and if (for the sake of brevity) they could omit all the
usual expletives and obscenities, that would be even better.
TIA
William Poaster
As you said, they're "mental dwarves" & as such aren't worth bothering
about IMO.
--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.
White Spirit
> On 2011-06-13, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> I would make bet that you would find more pro Linux and OSS posts from
>> me that can be verified compared to what Creepy has posted.
> Yes, like when you said that Linus regrets licensing Linux under the
> GPL.
> Or when you mentioned 'termcap' issues while termcap has been
> deprecated for years and replaced with terminfo.
> Or when you said that a rogue ls script is bound to wreak havoc
> when a user has . on his path.
> Or when you said that the Debian folks think that apt-get is crap, and
> mixing it with aptitude is guaranteed to cause major breakage - even
> in the repositories themselves!
> Or when you said that even on GNU/Linux files are executable based on
> their extension.
> And so on.
Let's not forget Hadron thinking that Curses is a type of application,
not a library. There is also his claim of being involved in kernel
development, which it turns out meant that he once submitted a bug
report for something that was not even kernel related IIRC.
Hadron
> On Monday 13 June 2011 11:37 Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> William Poaster wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> And how about these "pro-linux & OSS posts" from the trolling M$ zealot:
>>>
>>> Linux as a desktop OS is pretty much doomed it would appear.
>>> Too little too late.
>>> Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com>
>>> Message-ID: <fnd3jj$or8$2...@registered.motzarella.org>
And your point? Linux desktop share is dropping. This does not in any
way mean I think its unsuitable for certain people. I know it makes you
cry but I use it. Poor Dumb Willy. And it looks like I was correct
because despite the abject failure of Vista and the press time Ubuntu
was getting all that happened was people jumped from DistroNerd to
Ubuntu and many are now leaving that following its buggy, unstable
rushed out of the door releases.
>>
>> I'm trying to figure out where this "boom" is that is getting lowered on
> me.
>> All I'm getting is a tickly feeling at getting so much attention from
>> a trio of mental dwarves.
Because you're a dishonest, two faced hypocrite. That should be
abundantly clear. You suck up to liars and frauds like 7. You tell lies
about your Linux usage at work (your OO usage being one). You claim to
be a godlike C programmer yet was unaware dereferencing a null pointer
in C is a no no. You use words like "fuckheads" and "cunts" and are rude
to established FOSS developers like Schilling and deIcaza. I could go
on. You earn your money from closed source Windows SW yet spout on and
on here about how evil proprietary code is and how evil MS are.
So stop playing the poor put upon Linux "advocate".
Hadron
> On 2011-06-13, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>
>> I would make bet that you would find more pro Linux and OSS posts from
>> me that can be verified compared to what Creepy has posted.
>
> Yes, like when you said that Linus regrets licensing Linux under the
> GPL.
>
> Or when you mentioned 'termcap' issues while termcap has been
> deprecated for years and replaced with terminfo.
You really are a sad little nitpicker :-
http://www.google.de/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=ubuntu+termcap
Do you really think that silly nitpick helps your cause?
>
> Or when you said that a rogue ls script is bound to wreak havoc
> when a user has . on his path.
Context TomB me old mate. You're doing a Creepy.
>
> Or when you said that the Debian folks think that apt-get is crap, and
> mixing it with aptitude is guaranteed to cause major breakage - even
> in the repositories themselves!
No. What I said was that mixing the has been known to break systems. It
did mine and it did others. I even provided you links. YOU made some
silly claims about them being identical. They are not. And by Debian
folks I mentioned #Debian not the debian developers per se. A LOT will
still deny this but the evidence is over whelming. It hasnt happened in
a while and maybe the issues are totally fixed. Time will tell.
>
> Or when you said that even on GNU/Linux files are executable based on
> their extension.
Executed *based* on their file extensions moron. You really dont think I
think adding a file extension suddenly means you can type its name at
the bash cli and it magically runs do you? This type of silly pretence
to get one over shows you to be a lame wanker. Obviously talking about
file managers etc and file association. You really do like making a fool
of yourself.
I also showed how you can "execute" a file WITHOUT it being set - its as
simple as "sh file.sh". Now, stop being such a dumbarse. You're
embarassing yourself and clutching at straws.
Only recently an article was posted which pretty much repeated what *I*
told you ages ago : how to hack a Linux system when the use is a
dumbarse. You dont need root to get info. The uses info is in his $HOME
most of the time and NOT wrapped up a a .gpg or something similar.
>
> And so on.
>
> Yes, some very good pro Linux and OSS post that can be verified from
> you there!
Serious Q : what above do you find "anti Linux"? YOu really are like
your hero Creepy. Try reading and understanding for a change.
You listed some off the ocuff comments that I made to correct the
clueless fanbois. I stand by each and every one above. Yet you didnt
list me waxing lyrical about emacs, gnus, debian, rsync, rsnapshot, ssh,
gnupg, liquorix etc etc. Why is that? Oh yes. You're a dick.
YOU are the one that was claiming to keep a root window open all the
time, you are the one who didnt know the difference between ./configure
and configure. You are the one who downloads and builds as root. You're
an idiot at times. A shame. You could be so much more honest and less of
a fanboi. Why not try it.
Hadron
I know full well what curses is and programmed curses for VTs while you
were still sucking on your dummy. Please find the link of me thinking
curses is an "application". If I *did* I must have been incredibly
drunk, or it was a typo, or the context is wrong. I suspect you're just
telling lies. Again.
Oh hang on. Aren't you the clever "advocate" who thinks Python is not a
real computer language?
William Poaster
> On 13/06/2011 07:27, TomB wrote:
>
>> On 2011-06-13, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>
>>> I would make bet that you would find more pro Linux and OSS posts from
>>> me that can be verified compared to what Creepy has posted.
>
>> Yes, like when you said that Linus regrets licensing Linux under the
>> GPL.
>
>> Or when you mentioned 'termcap' issues while termcap has been
>> deprecated for years and replaced with terminfo.
>
>> Or when you said that a rogue ls script is bound to wreak havoc
>> when a user has . on his path.
>
>> Or when you said that the Debian folks think that apt-get is crap, and
>> mixing it with aptitude is guaranteed to cause major breakage - even
>> in the repositories themselves!
>
>> Or when you said that even on GNU/Linux files are executable based on
>> their extension.
>
>> And so on.
>
> Let's not forget Hadron thinking that Curses is a type of application,
> not a library.
And don't forget the 'fstab' thread, where a few Linux advocates tried to
explain it to the dumbass, but he *still* didn't get it!
> There is also his claim of being involved in kernel
> development, which it turns out meant that he once submitted a bug
> report for something that was not even kernel related IIRC.
Not surprising. The "true linux advocate" & "kernel hacker" hasn't got a
clue about building kernels.
" I HAD to install testing Debian to get my HW to work."
And someone posed the question:
Uh, riiight. But didn't he claim to be a "kernel hacker"? So *why* didn't
the troll get a newer kernel, & use that? What, it didn't occur to him?
Or he doesn't know where to get a new kernel, or maybe he doesn't know
what to do?
Hadron: "I do. But I cant compile a kernel you twit if I cant install
debian in the first place. Are you a total retard or what?"
However, this trolling M$ zealot sometime later claimed (in another thread)
that he had three or four Linux machines (IIRC), & just recently claimed
that "I use Debian as mine simply using dual head nvidia but thats
still controlled from my main development machines" so he couldn't compile
a kernel on on one of those?
Nah, the trolling f#ckwit isn't as clever as he thinks he is.
As someone said to him in aolu "You woudn't know a Linux kernel if it shat
in your mouth"
Huh, these retarded idiots call me "Dumb Willy"! LMAO
--
E Pluribus UNIX.
White Spirit
>> Let's not forget Hadron thinking that Curses is a type of application, not a
>> library. There is also his claim of being involved in kernel development, which
>> it turns out meant that he once submitted a bug report for something that was
>> not even kernel related IIRC.
> I know full well what curses is and programmed curses for VTs while you
> were still sucking on your dummy. Please find the link of me thinking
> curses is an "application". If I *did* I must have been incredibly
> drunk, or it was a typo, or the context is wrong. I suspect you're just
> telling lies. Again.
This is what you said:
'What IS a nightmare is when you start to run different curses type apps
in he terminal types and termcap issues start to crop up'
Here's the original article:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/5e08c5b4fee094ca?hl=en&dmode=source>
I don't believe for one minute that you have used curses of any of its
offshoots. Not only did you not realise that it is a library, not a
type of application, but you are also unaware that Termcap has been
deprecated for some considerable time.
Since you call yourself a kernel developer based on submitting a bug
report, perhaps you think that copying a Hello World app constitutes
having 'programmed curses'. What a joke.
> Oh hang on. Aren't you the clever "advocate" who thinks Python is not a
> real computer language?
No, but you're the nincompoop who is unable to recognise irony when
someone is taking off Ray Lopez.
bbgruff
Now I'm even more confused :-(
Not only do I still not understand the Original Post that started this
thread, but when I ask for an explanation, I find hadron replying to
everything that I did *not* post, while studiously avoiding everything that
I *did* post!
What *is* going on?
Hadron
> On 13/06/2011 13:04, Hadron wrote:
>
>>> Let's not forget Hadron thinking that Curses is a type of application, not a
>>> library. There is also his claim of being involved in kernel development, which
>>> it turns out meant that he once submitted a bug report for something that was
>>> not even kernel related IIRC.
>
>> I know full well what curses is and programmed curses for VTs while you
>> were still sucking on your dummy. Please find the link of me thinking
>> curses is an "application". If I *did* I must have been incredibly
>> drunk, or it was a typo, or the context is wrong. I suspect you're just
>> telling lies. Again.
>
> This is what you said:
>
> 'What IS a nightmare is when you start to run different curses type apps in he
> terminal types and termcap issues start to crop up'
Curses type apps. Yes. And? Quite clear what this means in the
context. Lets see what I said:
,----
| That said I do thnk they should use the same
| default colour mappings. What IS a nightmare is when you start to run
| different curses type apps in he terminal types and termcap issues
| start to crop up.
`----
If you dont understand that then you're a bigger idiot than I thought.
termcap : terminal capability. Common term used all over the place. And
in the context of "terminal types" it is perfectly obvious what was
meant and it IS an issue.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=476228
In Emacs world its VERY common to refer to it. Not all of us change the
general term to the name of the library.
http://www.google.de/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=emacs+termcap
You see, what makes you so sad is you think by petty nitpicking you
somehow win a point. You dont. Dumb Willy Poaster does that a lot too.
>
> Here's the original article:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/5e08c5b4fee094ca?hl=en&dmode=source>
>
> I don't believe for one minute that you have used curses of any of its
> offshoots. Not only did you not realise that it is a library, not a
> type of
What are you talking about?
> application, but you are also unaware that Termcap has been deprecated for some
> considerable time.
LOL! You really are a tit. You googled up and now strut around, AHlstrom
like, as if you "knew it all along".
Everything I said would be common parlance at any LUG. You're an idiot!
You're too dumb to realise you've only succeeded in proving yourself to
be an idiot, but enjoy yourself if you really think you've somehow
proved me wrong.
Context Timothy. Context.
White Spirit
> White Spirit<wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> writes:
>> This is what you said:
>> 'What IS a nightmare is when you start to run different curses type apps in he
>> terminal types and termcap issues start to crop up'
> Curses type apps. Yes. And? Quite clear what this means in the
> context.
It is quite clear that you don't know what you are talking about. No
one who has used the Curses library, or even knows what it is, would use
it to refer to a type of application in any circumstances.
> If you dont understand that then you're a bigger idiot than I thought.
I understand that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I
also understand that prompts you to hurl your customary abuse because
you have absolutely nothing left to fall back on.
> Everything I said would be common parlance at any LUG. You're an idiot!
If you said 'curses type application' at an LUG, you'd be corrected in
short order. That makes you the idiot but continue to stamp your feet
and whine if it makes you feel better.
> You're too dumb to realise you've only succeeded in proving yourself to
> be an idiot, but enjoy yourself if you really think you've somehow
> proved me wrong.
On the contrary, I have used the Curses library whereas you are too
'dumb' to understand the difference between a library and a type of
application.
> Context Timothy. Context.
Claiming context isn't going to help you squirm your way out of it.
Your usage of Curses to mean a type of application is the sort of howler
we have come to expect from someone as clueless as you. Thanks for the
amusement.
TomB
> TomB <tommy.b...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 2011-06-13, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>
>>> I would make bet that you would find more pro Linux and OSS posts
>>> from me that can be verified compared to what Creepy has posted.
>>
>> Yes, like when you said that Linus regrets licensing Linux under
>> the GPL.
>>
>> Or when you mentioned 'termcap' issues while termcap has been
>> deprecated for years and replaced with terminfo.
>
> You really are a sad little nitpicker :-
>
> http://www.google.de/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=ubuntu+termcap
>
> Do you really think that silly nitpick helps your cause?
Whoa, a Google search result link to provide "proof". You are the man!
Here, from the second hit (German translation of the termcap(5)
manpage):
"Die "termcap" - Datei ist eine veraltete Einrichtung zur
Beschreibung der Eigenschaften / Fähigkeiten zeichenbasierter
Terminals und Drucker. Sie wird nur noch aus Gründen der
Kompatibilität mit alten Programmen beibehalten, neue Programme
sollten terminfo(5) und die dazugehörigen Bibliotheken verwenden."
Not sure why you have provide a google.de link, but I suppose this
means you understand German. Please note the bits "eine veraltete
Einrichtung", "nur noch aus Gründen der Kompatibilität mit alten
Programmen" and "neue Programme sollten terminfo(5) (...) verwenden".
>> Or when you said that a rogue ls script is bound to wreak havoc
>> when a user has . on his path.
>
> Context TomB me old mate. You're doing a Creepy.
The context was me having . at the end of $PATH. No 'rogue ls
script' will do anything, unless someone managed to get the original
ls program out of my $PATH. And if that were the case, I'd have bigger
things to worry about.
>> Or when you said that the Debian folks think that apt-get is crap,
>> and mixing it with aptitude is guaranteed to cause major breakage -
>> even in the repositories themselves!
>
> No. What I said was that mixing the has been known to break systems.
> It did mine and it did others. I even provided you links. YOU made
> some silly claims about them being identical.
Hey, there's that lie again. I have *never* said that apt-get and
aptitude are "identical". Not by /any/ stretch.
Good of you to remind me that you're a liar!
> They are not.
Of course they are not.
> And by Debian folks I mentioned #Debian not the debian developers
> per se. A LOT will still deny this but the evidence is over
> whelming. It hasnt happened in a while and maybe the issues are
> totally fixed. Time will tell.
>
>> Or when you said that even on GNU/Linux files are executable based
>> on their extension.
>
> Executed *based* on their file extensions moron.
*Opened with a particular program* based on their extension, moron.
But feel free to think that this means the same as 'executing'.
> You really dont think I think adding a file extension suddenly means
> you can type its name at the bash cli and it magically runs do you?
> This type of silly pretence to get one over shows you to be a lame
> wanker. Obviously talking about file managers etc and file
> association. You really do like making a fool of yourself.
>
> I also showed how you can "execute" a file WITHOUT it being set - its as
> simple as "sh file.sh". Now, stop being such a dumbarse. You're
> embarassing yourself and clutching at straws.
Check out the special knowledge on Hadron!
> Only recently an article was posted which pretty much repeated what
> *I* told you ages ago : how to hack a Linux system when the use is a
> dumbarse. You dont need root to get info. The uses info is in his
> $HOME most of the time and NOT wrapped up a a .gpg or something
> similar.
>
>>
>> And so on.
>>
>> Yes, some very good pro Linux and OSS post that can be verified
>> from you there!
>
> Serious Q : what above do you find "anti Linux"? YOu really are like
> your hero Creepy. Try reading and understanding for a change.
>
> You listed some off the ocuff comments that I made to correct the
> clueless fanbois. I stand by each and every one above. Yet you didnt
> list me waxing lyrical about emacs, gnus, debian, rsync, rsnapshot,
> ssh, gnupg, liquorix etc etc. Why is that? Oh yes. You're a dick.
>
> YOU are the one that was claiming to keep a root window open all the
> time, you are the one who didnt know the difference between
> ./configure and configure. You are the one who downloads and builds
> as root. You're an idiot at times. A shame. You could be so much
> more honest and less of a fanboi. Why not try it.
Much will be your power by the essence of a flower
By seducement and cold rapture by abusing mother nature
~ Helloween
Hadron
> On 13/06/2011 13:42, Hadron wrote:
>
>> White Spirit<wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> This is what you said:
>
>>> 'What IS a nightmare is when you start to run different curses type apps in he
>>> terminal types and termcap issues start to crop up'
>
>> Curses type apps. Yes. And? Quite clear what this means in the
>> context.
>
> It is quite clear that you don't know what you are talking about. No one who
> has used the Curses library, or even knows what it is, would use it to refer to
> a type of application in any circumstances.
Seriously, are you insane?
You dont understand what a curses type app is in the context of
different terminal types and their termcaps?
You're a fucking idiot : get some help.
Clog_-_wog (®)
news:u52hc8-...@linuxnetwork.alpha.org...
William Poaster, Kansas AKA Dumb Willie Boaster - at least 7 straight years
where ~99% of his posts
are about "trolls" and "me too" and nothing else - makes up fictitious
claims about MS SEC filings.
White Spirit
> White Spirit<wsp...@homechoice.co.uk> writes:
>> It is quite clear that you don't know what you are talking about. No one who
>> has used the Curses library, or even knows what it is, would use it to refer to
>> a type of application in any circumstances.
> Seriously, are you insane?
> You dont understand what a curses type app is in the context of
> different terminal types and their termcaps?
I understand what you were trying to communicate but you obviously don't
like the fact that I also understand that you don't know the difference
between a library and a type of application. Referring to a 'curses
type application' is ridiculous and no amount of pontification is going
to make that go away.
> You're a fucking idiot : get some help.
Translation: Hadron is angry because his ignorance has been exposed once
again.
chrisv
> Hadron quacked:
>>
>> I would make bet that you would find more pro Linux and OSS posts from
>> me that can be verified compared to what Creepy has posted.
AHHAHAHHAHHAAAHAHAHAHAA
>Yes, like when you said that Linus regrets licensing Linux under the
>GPL.
>
>Or when you mentioned 'termcap' issues while termcap has been
>deprecated for years and replaced with terminfo.
>
>Or when you said that a rogue ls script is bound to wreak havoc
>when a user has . on his path.
>
>Or when you said that the Debian folks think that apt-get is crap, and
>mixing it with aptitude is guaranteed to cause major breakage - even
>in the repositories themselves!
>
>Or when you said that even on GNU/Linux files are executable based on
>their extension.
>
>And so on.
>
>Yes, some very good pro Linux and OSS post that can be verified from
>you there!
Not to mention his absolute *contempt* for all the principles of Free
software.
An M$ shill all the way.
--
"Until Linux has a REASON for people to dump Windows they won't" -
"True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
Steve Carroll
> On 13/06/2011 13:04, Hadron wrote:
>
> >> Let's not forget Hadron thinking that Curses is a type of application, not a
> >> library. There is also his claim of being involved in kernel development, which
> >> it turns out meant that he once submitted a bug report for something that was
> >> not even kernel related IIRC.
> > I know full well what curses is and programmed curses for VTs while you
> > were still sucking on your dummy. Please find the link of me thinking
> > curses is an "application". If I *did* I must have been incredibly
> > drunk, or it was a typo, or the context is wrong. I suspect you're just
> > telling lies. Again.
>
> This is what you said:
>
> 'What IS a nightmare is when you start to run different curses type apps
> in he terminal types and termcap issues start to crop up'
Whew! It's a good thing he listed the combo-pack of excuses for this
one or he'd be SOL!
He was obviously "incredibly drunk" ;)
Gluey tries the combo-pack when cornered with his BS (to cover as many
bases as he can). He's also used the "typo" bit ... but he'd keep
using it even after reading a quote like you posted to Hadron showing
it isn't a typo (proving that Snit has no idea what a typo is ).
Another one Snit likes to pull... as I'm sure you've seen... is to cry
foul on how old his lies are, as if they have an expiration date.
Snit will insist on "proof" of my typo claim above...
I once pointed out something Snit had written that I considered to be
a freudian slip. Snit wrote:
"Not only do I lie about what others are claiming, I show evidence
from the records".
When Snit saw me quote this he commented with:
Quoting of a *obvious* typo that was quickly corrected.
Me: "You call it a typo... I call it a freudian slip".
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/2ce4f080e2d25a14?hl=en&
For Snit's continuing education on the matter:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/typographical+error
chrisv
>I'm trying to figure out where this "boom" is that is getting lowered on me.
I missed it completely.
>All I'm getting is a tickly feeling at getting so much attention from
>a trio of mental dwarves.
They sure are creepy.
chrisv
In "Hadron" Quack's upside-down world, the person who is correct is
the "insane idiot".
--
"The Windows GUI is generally much more polished than Linux." -
Pippa
fscking asshole "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ri3cv6pgv26dt099p...@4ax.com...
SLURP!!!!
"chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a worthless piece of shit.
Pippa
rat asshole "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:p44cv65nu1let39n1...@4ax.com...
>
> In "Hadron" Quack's upside-down world, the person who is correct is
> the "insane idiot".
another fine "advocacy" post from the dumbest piece of shit in the septic
tank.
"chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a mentally ill piece of shit.
High Plains Thumper
> I once pointed out something Snit had written that I considered to be a
> freudian slip. Snit wrote:
>
> "Not only do I lie about what others are claiming, I show evidence from
> the records".
>
> When Snit saw me quote this he commented with: Quoting of a *obvious*
> typo that was quickly corrected.
>
> Me: "You call it a typo... I call it a freudian slip".
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/
msg/2ce4f080e2d25a14?hl=en&
>
> For Snit's continuing education on the matter:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/typographical+error
or this:
Wally (CSMA): "Hey teacher! You do realize that you have just stated that
High Plains Thumper is humiliated because he found a comment of yours to
back up his accusations don't you! LOL ROTFLMAO! Seriously Snit are you
ever going to be able put down in words what it is that you are actually
trying so desperately to say? No! ...I doubt it too! :-)" 23 Jan 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/91aaecdbffb66ea3
--
HPT
chrisv
> Hadron quacked:
>>
>> TomB writes:
>>>
>>> Yes, like when you said that Linus regrets licensing Linux under
>>> the GPL.
Note: No Quack response.
>>> Or when you mentioned 'termcap' issues while termcap has been
>>> deprecated for years and replaced with terminfo.
>>
>> You really are a sad little nitpicker :-
>>
>> http://www.google.de/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=ubuntu+termcap
>>
>> Do you really think that silly nitpick helps your cause?
>
>Whoa, a Google search result link to provide "proof". You are the man!
Really. What a fscktard, "Hadron" is.
>>> Or when you said that a rogue ls script is bound to wreak havoc
>>> when a user has . on his path.
>>
>> Context TomB me old mate. You're doing a Creepy.
>
>The context was me having . at the end of $PATH. No 'rogue ls
>script' will do anything, unless someone managed to get the original
>ls program out of my $PATH. And if that were the case, I'd have bigger
>things to worry about.
I still chuckle when I recall that bald-faced liar "Hadron" claiming
that the Mactroll Snit, of all people, schooled you in the
"dangerousness" of what you were doing.
"Hadron" lies without shame! "Ezekiel" pretends not to notice.
>>> Or when you said that the Debian folks think that apt-get is crap,
>>> and mixing it with aptitude is guaranteed to cause major breakage -
>>> even in the repositories themselves!
>>
>> No. What I said was that mixing the has been known to break systems.
That's all you said, liar Larry. You also *lied* that "the Debian
crowd" are saying that apt-get is "crap".
>> It did mine and it did others. I even provided you links. YOU made
>> some silly claims about them being identical.
>
>Hey, there's that lie again. I have *never* said that apt-get and
>aptitude are "identical". Not by /any/ stretch.
>
>Good of you to remind me that you're a liar!
"Hadron" lies like other people breath.
>> (snip further Larry lies)
Pippa
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>
> Really. What a fscktard, "Hadron" is.
>
>
>
more useless bullshit from the stupid fscking piece of shit asshole named
"chrisv"
"chrisv" is bald faced liar. "chrisv" is a piece of shit.
TomB
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>>I'm trying to figure out where this "boom" is that is getting
>>lowered on me.
>
> I missed it completely.
Me Too™ Yet in the collective mind of the 'wintrolls' it must have
been some grotesque event.
>>All I'm getting is a tickly feeling at getting so much attention
>>from a trio of mental dwarves.
>
> They sure are creepy.
Their obsession with this usenet group and its visitors (and even
those not visiting it anymore like Roy S.) is very creepy indeed.
Nice party, Hapsburg... I see a lot of familiar face lifts.
~ Frank Drebin
Chris Ahlstrom
> On Monday 13 June 2011 12:41 Hadron wrote:
>>
>> <lies snipped>
>>
>> <idiocy snipped >
>
> Now I'm even more confused :-(
> Not only do I still not understand the Original Post that started this
> thread, but when I ask for an explanation, I find hadron replying to
> everything that I did *not* post, while studiously avoiding everything that
> I *did* post!
> What *is* going on?
A lot of repeating of the same old lying, insulting garbage.
"Extreme trolling" :-D
--
Beer & Pretzels -- Breakfast of Champions.
chrisv
>>>> Or when you said that the Debian folks think that apt-get is crap,
>>>> and mixing it with aptitude is guaranteed to cause major breakage -
>>>> even in the repositories themselves!
>>>
>>> No. What I said was that mixing the has been known to break systems.
>
>That's all you said, liar Larry. You also *lied* that "the Debian
>crowd" are saying that apt-get is "crap".
Should say "That's _not_ all you said, liar Larry.".
--
'We are talking about you and the fellow "advocates" claiming Linux is
super stable and has no bugs' - Hadron Quark, (again) lying about
what advocates have claimed.
Pippa
useless asshole "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:t57cv6lhjimcmmhv4...@4ax.com...
> chrisv wrote:
>
>>>>> Or when you said that the Debian folks think that apt-get is crap,
>>>>> and mixing it with aptitude is guaranteed to cause major breakage -
>>>>> even in the repositories themselves!
>>>>
>>>> No. What I said was that mixing the has been known to break systems.
>>
>>That's all you said, liar Larry. You also *lied* that "the Debian
>>crowd" are saying that apt-get is "crap".
>
> Should say "That's _not_ all you said, liar Larry.".
nobody gives a flying fsck what a useless asshole like you says or should
have said.
fsck off and die you stupid turd.
"chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a piece of shit.
flatfish+++
Ain't it hysterical watching the Linturds circling the wagons around one
of their own Chris Ahlstrom?
I do!!!
The Linux vermin come crawling out of the woodwork like roaches!
--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Watching Linux Fail:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
Linux's dismal desktop market share:
http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/05/12/the-top-20-strongholds-for-desktop-linux/
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
Desktop Linux on Life Support:
http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/is-linux-on-the-desktop-dead--961508
flatfish+++
> bbgruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Monday 13 June 2011 11:37 Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> William Poaster wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> And how about these "pro-linux & OSS posts" from the trolling M$ zealot:
>>>>
>>>> Linux as a desktop OS is pretty much doomed it would appear.
>>>> Too little too late.
>>>> Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com>
>>>> Message-ID: <fnd3jj$or8$2...@registered.motzarella.org>
>
> And your point? Linux desktop share is dropping. This does not in any
> way mean I think its unsuitable for certain people. I know it makes you
> cry but I use it. Poor Dumb Willy. And it looks like I was correct
> because despite the abject failure of Vista and the press time Ubuntu
> was getting all that happened was people jumped from DistroNerd to
> Ubuntu and many are now leaving that following its buggy, unstable
> rushed out of the door releases.
>
>>>
>>> I'm trying to figure out where this "boom" is that is getting lowered on
>> me.
>>> All I'm getting is a tickly feeling at getting so much attention from
>>> a trio of mental dwarves.
>
> Because you're a dishonest, two faced hypocrite. That should be
> abundantly clear. You suck up to liars and frauds like 7. You tell lies
> about your Linux usage at work (your OO usage being one). You claim to
> be a godlike C programmer yet was unaware dereferencing a null pointer
> in C is a no no. You use words like "fuckheads" and "cunts" and are rude
> to established FOSS developers like Schilling and deIcaza. I could go
> on. You earn your money from closed source Windows SW yet spout on and
> on here about how evil proprietary code is and how evil MS are.
>
> So stop playing the poor put upon Linux "advocate".
They are all dishonest.
COLA Linux vermin who LIE for LIEnux 24x7.
DFS
> Their obsession with this usenet group and its visitors (and even
> those not visiting it anymore like Roy S.) is very creepy indeed.
Is that some kind of joke?
In a fit of warped fanboi-ism and hero-worship, Creepy Chris Ahlstrom
has lately taken to using Spamowitz's term 'Munchkin'.
flatfish+++
He also uses the term "Vole" which is another Schestowitz'ism.
Sicko.....
As for Slimeowtiz, he hasn't left here.
His bots sift the group and he replies on his irc....
Hadron
And TomB now using the word "creepy". The mind boggles. It's as if the
freetards dont have a novel thought themselves...
Chris
> They are all dishonest.
> COLA Linux vermin who LIE for LIEnux 24x7.
Am I too "they all"?
Can you show me where I am dishonest, then?
TomB
Oh, my apologies.
Their obsession with this usenet group and its visitors (and even
those not visiting it anymore like Roy S.) is very Creepy™ indeed..
Better?
Genetic engineering is man's way of correcting God's hideous mistakes,
like German people.
~ Mr. Garrison
Chris Ahlstrom
Why worry about it? They're nasty and they'll say *anything*.
--
Whenever I date a guy, I think, is this the man I want my children
to spend their weekends with?
-- Rita Rudner
Chris Ahlstrom
> On 2011-06-13, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>>> On 6/13/2011 10:18 AM, TomB wrote:
>>>
>>>> Their obsession with this usenet group and its visitors (and even
>>>> those not visiting it anymore like Roy S.) is very creepy indeed.
>>>
>>> Is that some kind of joke?
>>>
>>> In a fit of warped fanboi-ism and hero-worship, Creepy Chris
>>> Ahlstrom has lately taken to using Spamowitz's term 'Munchkin'.
>>
>> And TomB now using the word "creepy". The mind boggles. It's as if
>> the freetards dont have a novel thought themselves...
>
> Oh, my apologies.
>
> Their obsession with this usenet group and its visitors (and even
> those not visiting it anymore like Roy S.) is very Creepy??? indeed..
>
> Better?
I'm wondering just how silly this stuff can get. <eyes roll>
--
"The chain which can be yanked is not the eternal chain."
-- G. Fitch
Snit
PM:
Some of my fan club has followed me here for a while... it is generally
quite tame in COLA. Amazing, eh?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
>>>
>>> And TomB now using the word "creepy". The mind boggles. It's as if
>>> the freetards dont have a novel thought themselves...
Hey, Larry, you stupid POS.
Are you going to deny that trolls don't copy our insults?
Because I know for a fact that they do.
Hypocrite.
Pippa
mentally ill fsckwit "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:obqcv614l0tmndg5h...@4ax.com...
SNIP UNREAD.
shut the fsck up and quit lieing you stupid fscking asshole.
Steve Carroll
> Chris Ahlstrom stated in post it5pac$lc...@dont-email.me on 6/13/11 12:41
You think it's tame... meanwhile you're cast as the butt of some
pretty funny backdoor BS by people you think are 'supporting' you.
This ng is hilarious!
MUCH funnier than csma;)
chrisv
> Chris wrote:
>
>> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>
>>> They are all dishonest.
>>> COLA Linux vermin who LIE for LIEnux 24x7.
>>
>> Am I too "they all"?
>> Can you show me where I am dishonest, then?
>
>Why worry about it? They're nasty and they'll say *anything*.
They are pathological liars, and they get-off on calling decent,
honest people "liars".
Some lying POS calling you a "liar" should result in immediate
plonking. IMHO, of course.
Pippa
stupid dog shit "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:hhqcv69kvutvtn33r...@4ax.com...
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>>> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>>
>>>> They are all dishonest.
>>>> COLA Linux vermin who LIE for LIEnux 24x7.
>>>
>>> Am I too "they all"?
>>> Can you show me where I am dishonest, then?
>>
>>Why worry about it? They're nasty and they'll say *anything*.
>
> They are pathological liars, and they get-off on calling decent,
> honest people "liars".
>
SLURP!!!!! you two sweet hearts done leg humping each other yet?
maybe marti can cum along and give each of you a reach around.
you are such a stupid piece of dog shit turd.
TomB
>
> And don't forget the 'fstab' thread, where a few Linux advocates tried to
> explain it to the dumbass, but he *still* didn't get it!
Would you mind pointing me towards that 'fstab' thread? I can't
imagine anyone not getting how fstab works or what it does. Well,
except for Hadron that is, as he also had no clue that the periodic
file system checks at boot time are not controlled by fstab.
When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s
pushing the Earth down.
TomB
> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> On 2011-06-13, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>> DFS <nos...@dfs.com> writes:
>>>> On 6/13/2011 10:18 AM, TomB wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Their obsession with this usenet group and its visitors (and
>>>>> even those not visiting it anymore like Roy S.) is very creepy
>>>>> indeed.
>>>>
>>>> Is that some kind of joke?
>>>>
>>>> In a fit of warped fanboi-ism and hero-worship, Creepy Chris
>>>> Ahlstrom has lately taken to using Spamowitz's term 'Munchkin'.
>>>
>>> And TomB now using the word "creepy". The mind boggles. It's as if
>>> the freetards dont have a novel thought themselves...
>>
>> Oh, my apologies.
>>
>> Their obsession with this usenet group and its visitors (and even
>>
>> Better?
>
> I'm wondering just how silly this stuff can get. <eyes roll>
It's just amazing how low these guys are willing to sink to insult and
discredit us 'advocates'.
"Ooh, TomB uses the word creepy. Whaaa, that's /my/ word! He stole it
from me. Doesn't he have a single original thought in his head."
This must be an adolescent at work, right?
Every now and then you simply have to knock over the anthill,
and redesign.
~ Tuomo Valkonen
William Poaster
> On 2011-06-13, the following emerged from the brain of William Poaster:
>>
>> And don't forget the 'fstab' thread, where a few Linux advocates tried to
>> explain it to the dumbass, but he *still* didn't get it!
>
> Would you mind pointing me towards that 'fstab' thread? I can't
> imagine anyone not getting how fstab works or what it does.
>
I don't have the Message-ID to hand (it was sometime around Dec 2008) but
the trolling Hadron claimed he was very knowledgeable about fstab, & he
kept asking Marti to explain it over, & over & over again.
> Well, except for Hadron that is, as he also had no clue that the periodic
> file system checks at boot time are not controlled by fstab.
How about this!
"You do know a lot of distros set up auto disk checks at system start in
the fstab which can take hours to complete don't you?"
Hadron - Message-ID: <ik8oi3$ojc$3...@news.eternal-september.org>
--
E Pluribus UNIX.
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves.
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods."
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --
DFS
> It's just amazing how low these guys are willing to sink to insult and
> discredit us 'advocates'.
It's good that you recognize enough about yourself to put advocates in
quotes.
> "Ooh, TomB uses the word creepy. Whaaa, that's /my/ word! He stole it
> from me. Doesn't he have a single original thought in his head."
>
> This must be an adolescent at work, right?
TomB == pwned!
TomB
Poaster:
> In reply to TomB who posted:
>> On 2011-06-13, the following emerged from the brain of William
>> Poaster:
>>>
>>> And don't forget the 'fstab' thread, where a few Linux advocates
>>> tried to explain it to the dumbass, but he *still* didn't get it!
>>
>> Would you mind pointing me towards that 'fstab' thread? I can't
>> imagine anyone not getting how fstab works or what it does.
>>
> I don't have the Message-ID to hand (it was sometime around Dec
> 2008) but the trolling Hadron claimed he was very knowledgeable
> about fstab, & he kept asking Marti to explain it over, & over &
> over again.
Too bad. I really would like to read what he had to say on the subject
:-)
>> Well, except for Hadron that is, as he also had no clue that the
>> periodic file system checks at boot time are not controlled by
>> fstab.
>
> How about this! "You do know a lot of distros set up auto disk
> checks at system start in the fstab which can take hours to complete
> don't you?" Hadron - Message-ID:
> <ik8oi3$ojc$3...@news.eternal-september.org>
Yeah, that's the one. Classic. The checks he's talking about (and
which do /not/ take 'hours' by the way) are controlled with the
tune2fs command, not by fstab. The fstab fs_passno field controls the
order in which fsck checks the filesystems at boot time, and will only
trigger an actual check if a filesystem is marked dirty.
When Chuck Norris falls in water, Chuck Norris doesn't get wet. Water
gets Chuck Norris.
Marti Van Lin
> On 2011-06-13, the following emerged from the brain of William
> Poaster:
>> In reply to TomB who posted:
>>> On 2011-06-13, the following emerged from the brain of William
>>> Poaster:
>>>>
>>>> And don't forget the 'fstab' thread, where a few Linux advocates
>>>> tried to explain it to the dumbass, but he *still* didn't get it!
>>>
>>> Would you mind pointing me towards that 'fstab' thread? I can't
>>> imagine anyone not getting how fstab works or what it does.
>>>
>> I don't have the Message-ID to hand (it was sometime around Dec
>> 2008) but the trolling Hadron claimed he was very knowledgeable
>> about fstab,& he kept asking Marti to explain it over,& over&
>> over again.
>
> Too bad. I really would like to read what he had to say on the subject
> :-)
I don't have a Message-ID ether, but I have a link to the treat in
Google Groups:
(Removed the full URL, coz I bet it looks horrible in slrn ;-)
>>> Well, except for Hadron that is, as he also had no clue that the
>>> periodic file system checks at boot time are not controlled by
>>> fstab.
>>
>> How about this! "You do know a lot of distros set up auto disk
>> checks at system start in the fstab which can take hours to complete
>> don't you?" Hadron - Message-ID:
>> <ik8oi3$ojc$3...@news.eternal-september.org>
>
> Yeah, that's the one. Classic. The checks he's talking about (and
> which do /not/ take 'hours' by the way) are controlled with the
> tune2fs command, not by fstab. The fstab fs_passno field controls the
> order in which fsck checks the filesystems at boot time, and will only
> trigger an actual check if a filesystem is marked dirty.
"Hadron" also attacks people who reconfigured and compiled their 2.2.x
and 2.4.x series kernels in the past, and those who (for what ever
reason) manually create and initialize their file systems with mk2fs and
mkswap / swapon, simply because it flies right over his head.
--
|_|0|_| Marti T. van Lin, alias ML2MST
|_|_|0| Registered GNU/Linux user 513040
|0|0|0| http://www.soundclick.com/martivanlin
Gregory Shearman
Really? How else can you build a Gentoo system without manually creating
and initializing your filesystems?
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Hadron
> On 2011-06-14, Marti Van Lin <ml2...@dontevenbother.invalid> wrote:
>> On 14-06-11 01:29, TomB wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's the one. Classic. The checks he's talking about (and
>>> which do /not/ take 'hours' by the way) are controlled with the
Yes they can take ages. You are wrong. Why do you continue to make a
fool of yourself by making silly claims that are easily disproven?
>>> tune2fs command, not by fstab. The fstab fs_passno field controls the
>>> order in which fsck checks the filesystems at boot time, and will only
>>> trigger an actual check if a filesystem is marked dirty.
What is your point exactly? You clearly dont understnd the issue and are
making things up to big yourself up again.
My POINT was that the check at sytem start can land you in the shit.
AND you are WRONG. The defaults here are to check every N reboots.
Your cluelessness seems to know no bounds.
And for any lurkers go read here to realise TomB is either a fool, a
liar or trolling:-
known problems with sys start checks :
http://nion.modprobe.de/blog/archives/507-Cancel-file-system-checks-during-boot-on-EXT32.html
auto checks every N boots:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=300477
It includes how you can block the check using the FSTAB
Right. Now thats TomB humiiated and proven to be telling lies once
again.
His problem is that he gets fixated on the trivia and it might well be
possible I gabble on and mention the wrong config parm name or even
forget I can use tune2fs but that doesnt change the overrakk issue, And
the overrall issue here is quite clear. Other than TomB being made to
look a fool once again.
>>
>> "Hadron" also attacks people who reconfigured and compiled their 2.2.x
>> and 2.4.x series kernels in the past, and those who (for what ever
>> reason) manually create and initialize their file systems with mk2fs and
>> mkswap / swapon, simply because it flies right over his head.
>>
>
> Really? How else can you build a Gentoo system without manually creating
> and initializing your filesystems?
Marti is talking rubbish and making things up again.
As is tomb : who has become a totally dishonest bullshitter.
TomB
> On 14-06-11 01:29, TomB wrote:
>> On 2011-06-13, the following emerged from the brain of William
>> Poaster:
>>> In reply to TomB who posted:
>>>> On 2011-06-13, the following emerged from the brain of William
>>>> Poaster:
>>>>>
>>>>> And don't forget the 'fstab' thread, where a few Linux advocates
>>>>> tried to explain it to the dumbass, but he *still* didn't get
>>>>> it!
>>>>
>>>> Would you mind pointing me towards that 'fstab' thread? I can't
>>>> imagine anyone not getting how fstab works or what it does.
>>>>
>>> I don't have the Message-ID to hand (it was sometime around Dec
>>> 2008) but the trolling Hadron claimed he was very knowledgeable
>>> about fstab,& he kept asking Marti to explain it over,& over&
>>> over again.
>>
>> Too bad. I really would like to read what he had to say on the
>> subject :-)
>
> I don't have a Message-ID ether, but I have a link to the treat in
> Google Groups:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6bphv4x
Thanks. Funny little thread there. Hadron claiming extensive knowledge
on /etc/fstab, yet having no clue what that one line did. And while
not spot on, your educated guess was good. Let me guess: when Hadron
claims he 'schooled' you on the subject of fstab, this is the thread
he's referring to?
Kind of an hairy solution though, fixing permission on device nodes
through /etc/fstab. The better solution would've been to add your user
to whatever group needed to gain read/write on the relevant device
node (the video group in this case I think).
> (Removed the full URL, coz I bet it looks horrible in slrn ;-)
Eh? Of course not. Why would it?
>>>> Well, except for Hadron that is, as he also had no clue that the
>>>> periodic file system checks at boot time are not controlled by
>>>> fstab.
>>>
>>> How about this! "You do know a lot of distros set up auto disk
>>> checks at system start in the fstab which can take hours to
>>> complete don't you?" Hadron - Message-ID:
>>> <ik8oi3$ojc$3...@news.eternal-september.org>
>>
>> Yeah, that's the one. Classic. The checks he's talking about (and
>> which do /not/ take 'hours' by the way) are controlled with the
>> tune2fs command, not by fstab. The fstab fs_passno field controls
>> the order in which fsck checks the filesystems at boot time, and
>> will only trigger an actual check if a filesystem is marked dirty.
>
> "Hadron" also attacks people who reconfigured and compiled their
> 2.2.x and 2.4.x series kernels in the past, and those who (for what
> ever reason) manually create and initialize their file systems with
> mk2fs and mkswap / swapon, simply because it flies right over his
> head.
He's quite the character, our Hadron. So he doesn't like people using
the tools at hand for doing a particular job? What a nutcase. He will
say /anything/ to insult an 'advocate'.
Thats galloping insanity for you if you ask me.
~ 7
TomB
Come on, just buy one os those many laptops that come with Gentoo
pre-loaded. They're all over the place ;-)
I always do create my partitions/filesystems from the command line.
By far the fastest tool to get the job done.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
~ Albert Einstein
TomB
> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>> On 2011-06-14, Marti Van Lin <ml2...@dontevenbother.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 14-06-11 01:29, TomB wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that's the one. Classic. The checks he's talking about (and
>>>> which do /not/ take 'hours' by the way) are controlled with the
>
> Yes they can take ages.
No, they don't. A fairly loaded 1TB drive will take 15 minutes or so.
Certainly not /hours/.
> You are wrong. Why do you continue to make a
> fool of yourself by making silly claims that are easily disproven?
>
>>>> tune2fs command, not by fstab. The fstab fs_passno field controls the
>>>> order in which fsck checks the filesystems at boot time, and will only
>>>> trigger an actual check if a filesystem is marked dirty.
>
> What is your point exactly? You clearly dont understnd the issue and are
> making things up to big yourself up again.
>
> My POINT was that the check at sytem start can land you in the shit.
>
> AND you are WRONG. The defaults here are to check every N reboots.
Never said otherwise.
> Your cluelessness seems to know no bounds.
>
> And for any lurkers go read here to realise TomB is either a fool, a
> liar or trolling:-
>
> known problems with sys start checks :
> http://nion.modprobe.de/blog/archives/507-Cancel-file-system-checks-during-boot-on-EXT32.html
>
> auto checks every N boots:
> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=300477
>
> It includes how you can block the check using the FSTAB
No, it doesn't. And rightly so, because you *cannot* disable the
periodic file system checks with /etc/fstab. Those are controlled with
the filesystem parameters and set with tune2fs, as explained in the
very thread you're linking to. The fs_passnum field in /etc/fstab
(the 6th field) is to set the order of the fsck run that occurs at
*every boot*, and which will only trigger a full filesystem check on
filesystems marked dirty.
> Right. Now thats TomB humiiated and proven to be telling lies once
> again.
>
> His problem is that he gets fixated on the trivia and it might well be
> possible I gabble on and mention the wrong config parm name or even
> forget I can use tune2fs but that doesnt change the overrakk issue, And
> the overrall issue here is quite clear. Other than TomB being made to
> look a fool once again.
>
>>> "Hadron" also attacks people who reconfigured and compiled their 2.2.x
>>> and 2.4.x series kernels in the past, and those who (for what ever
>>> reason) manually create and initialize their file systems with mk2fs and
>>> mkswap / swapon, simply because it flies right over his head.
>>
>> Really? How else can you build a Gentoo system without manually creating
>> and initializing your filesystems?
>
> Marti is talking rubbish and making things up again.
>
> As is tomb : who has become a totally dishonest bullshitter.
--
http://twitter.com/drumscum | http://drumscum.be
There's nothing more exhilarating than pointing out the
shortcomings of others, is there?
~ Randal Graves
William Poaster
> On 2011-06-13, the following emerged from the brain of William
> Poaster:
>> In reply to TomB who posted:
>>> On 2011-06-13, the following emerged from the brain of William
>>> Poaster:
>>>>
>>>> And don't forget the 'fstab' thread, where a few Linux advocates
>>>> tried to explain it to the dumbass, but he *still* didn't get it!
>>>
>>> Would you mind pointing me towards that 'fstab' thread? I can't
>>> imagine anyone not getting how fstab works or what it does.
>>>
>> I don't have the Message-ID to hand (it was sometime around Dec
>> 2008) but the trolling Hadron claimed he was very knowledgeable
>> about fstab, & he kept asking Marti to explain it over, & over &
>> over again.
>
> Too bad. I really would like to read what he had to say on the subject
> :-)
Ok, TomB, I've found these references to it, by Mart van Lin:
Fri, 25 Sep 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/e49e25b99d819671?hl=en&dmode=source
Wed, 23 Dec 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/e49e25b99d819671?hl=en&dmode=source
Sat, Feb 26 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f2662b60a343e505?hl=en&dmode=source
>>> Well, except for Hadron that is, as he also had no clue that the
>>> periodic file system checks at boot time are not controlled by
>>> fstab.
>>
>> How about this! "You do know a lot of distros set up auto disk
>> checks at system start in the fstab which can take hours to complete
>> don't you?" Hadron - Message-ID:
>> <ik8oi3$ojc$3...@news.eternal-september.org>
>
> Yeah, that's the one. Classic.
Here's the original hadron quote:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/51a8b80189610013?hl=en&dmode=source
>The checks he's talking about (and which do /not/ take 'hours' by the way) are
> controlled with the tune2fs command, not by fstab.
Well *if* they trolling f#ckwit is running Linux, trust him to screw it up
somehow. I've *never* had checks take hours to complete, more like a few
minutes at *most*.
OTOH I dunno what the effect would be if he's running a Linux distro in a
VM in WinXP or Win7.
> The fstab fs_passno field controls the order in which fsck checks
> the filesystems at boot time, and will only trigger an actual check
>if a filesystem is marked dirty.
Apparently the trolling f#ckwit thinks that the interval between fs checks
is an entry in fstab!
--
Never violate the Prime Directory! \
William Poaster
Well the "true linux advocate" & "kernel hacker" (snicker) hasn't got the
faintest clue. As has been said by a few posters (in other groups too) he's
not a bright or clever as *he* thinks he is.
--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.
William Poaster
I believe it is.
Naturally, because *he* can't do it, he's jealous of those that can. And
you're right, he's a real nutcase, an "ill-mannered, ill-educated,
arrogant and shamelessly lying character" as someone described him
in another group.
--
"!sgub evah t'nseod CP sihT ?sgub naem ayaddahW"
Chris Ahlstrom
> On 2011-06-14, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>
> No, it doesn't. And rightly so, because you *cannot* disable the
> periodic file system checks with /etc/fstab. Those are controlled with
> the filesystem parameters and set with tune2fs, as explained in the
> very thread you're linking to. The fs_passnum field in /etc/fstab
> (the 6th field) is to set the order of the fsck run that occurs at
> *every boot*, and which will only trigger a full filesystem check on
> filesystems marked dirty.
>
>> Right. Now thats TomB humiiated and proven to be telling lies once
>> again.
>>
>>> Really? How else can you build a Gentoo system without manually creating
>>> and initializing your filesystems?
>>
>> Marti is talking rubbish and making things up again.
>>
>> As is tomb : who has become a totally dishonest bullshitter.
Said the totally dishonest bullshitter, "Hadron".
The important question is, does Zeke approve of "Hadron"'s claims,
and is "Hadron" getting his full measure of supportive rejoinders from his
fellow newsgroup thugs?
--
It's a poor workman who blames his tools.
William Poaster
> TomB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2011-06-14, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>>
>> No, it doesn't. And rightly so, because you *cannot* disable the
>> periodic file system checks with /etc/fstab. Those are controlled with
>> the filesystem parameters and set with tune2fs, as explained in the
>> very thread you're linking to. The fs_passnum field in /etc/fstab
>> (the 6th field) is to set the order of the fsck run that occurs at
>> *every boot*, and which will only trigger a full filesystem check on
>> filesystems marked dirty.
>>
>>> Right. Now thats TomB humiiated and proven to be telling lies once
>>> again.
>>>
>>>> Really? How else can you build a Gentoo system without manually creating
>>>> and initializing your filesystems?
>>>
>>> Marti is talking rubbish and making things up again.
>>>
>>> As is tomb : who has become a totally dishonest bullshitter.
>
> Said the totally dishonest bullshitter, "Hadron".
"Hadron, you are so full of shit I am amazed I can't smell you.
You need to be on arrogant.assholes, not here."
A.O.L.U.
Message-ID: <cZ2Aj.8886$tW....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>
> The important question is, does Zeke approve of "Hadron"'s claims,
> and is "Hadron" getting his full measure of supportive rejoinders from his
> fellow newsgroup thugs?
Probably.
--
"!sgub evah t'nseod CP sihT ?sgub naem ayaddahW"
chrisv
> Hadron quacked:
>>
>> Yes they can take ages.
Changing your story, Larry?
>No, they don't. A fairly loaded 1TB drive will take 15 minutes or so.
>Certainly not /hours/.
>
>> You are wrong. Why do you continue to make a
>> fool of yourself by making silly claims that are easily disproven?
Hahaha. What a clown you are, Larry.
>> What is your point exactly? You clearly dont understnd the issue and are
>> making things up to big yourself up again.
>>
>> My POINT was that the check at sytem start can land you in the shit.
Nice FUD, "true Linux advocate".
>> AND you are WRONG. The defaults here are to check every N reboots.
Nice straw-man argument, Larry.
>Never said otherwise.
>
>> Your cluelessness seems to know no bounds.
Hahahaa How ironic.
>> And for any lurkers go read here to realise TomB is either a fool, a
>> liar or trolling:-
Poor Larry. Are you hoping that no one actually reads what your links
say?
>> It includes how you can block the check using the FSTAB
>
>No, it doesn't. And rightly so, because you *cannot* disable the
>periodic file system checks with /etc/fstab. Those are controlled with
>the filesystem parameters and set with tune2fs, as explained in the
>very thread you're linking to. The fs_passnum field in /etc/fstab
>(the 6th field) is to set the order of the fsck run that occurs at
>*every boot*, and which will only trigger a full filesystem check on
>filesystems marked dirty.
>
>> Right. Now thats TomB humiiated and proven to be telling lies once
>> again.
There's Larry with his upside-down, wrong-is-right view of the word,
again...
Does he think that anyone would be fooled?
>> As is tomb : who has become a totally dishonest bullshitter.
Hahaha. Sure, Larry. You didn't just make a fscking jackass of
yourself, AGAIN.
--
"In the 90s multi head set up was very common place at home" -
"Hadron"
Feudo Maccari
stupid turd "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:5akev693olneapcgd...@4ax.com...
>
> Hahaha. Sure, Larry. You didn't just make a fscking jackass of
> yourself, AGAIN.
chrisv - the king turd of all jackasses everywhere.
Marti Van Lin
Ask our self assumed "expert on everything" "Hadron". He "ridiculed" me
for mentioning my "mk2fs and mkswap/swapon idiocy".
Ezekiel
"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0q1uywv...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>> On 2011-06-14, Marti Van Lin <ml2...@dontevenbother.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 14-06-11 01:29, TomB wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that's the one. Classic. The checks he's talking about (and
>>>> which do /not/ take 'hours' by the way) are controlled with the
>
> Yes they can take ages. You are wrong. Why do you continue to make a
> fool of yourself by making silly claims that are easily disproven?
>
>
>>>> tune2fs command, not by fstab. The fstab fs_passno field controls the
>>>> order in which fsck checks the filesystems at boot time, and will only
>>>> trigger an actual check if a filesystem is marked dirty.
>
> What is your point exactly? You clearly dont understnd the issue and are
> making things up to big yourself up again.
>
> My POINT was that the check at sytem start can land you in the shit.
>
> AND you are WRONG. The defaults here are to check every N reboots.
>
> Your cluelessness seems to know no bounds.
>
Wrong on another count as well. The other day I booted from my Ubuntu HDD
drive. The *default* configuration is such that I saw this message:
/dev/xxx/yyy has gone <N> days without being checked, check forced.
By *default* Ubuntu (the most widely used desktop Linux by far) will force a
filesystem check periodically.
chrisv
>By *default* Ubuntu (the most widely used desktop Linux by far) will force a
>filesystem check periodically.
Who claimed otherwise, fsckwit?
Surely, you don't believe a claim by the shameless liar "Hadron"...
--
"GUI? Huh? You said GUIs where for Windiots." - Hadron Quark, lying
shamelessly
Feudo Maccari
fscking asshole "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:9usev6tirnalpk1me...@4ax.com...
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>By *default* Ubuntu (the most widely used desktop Linux by far) will force
>>a
>>filesystem check periodically.
>
> Who claimed otherwise, fsckwit?
>
> Surely, you don't believe a claim by the shameless liar "Hadron"...
>
another fine "advocacy" post from the 100% userless piece of shit turd.
Ezekiel
"Feudo Maccari" <fe...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:it7s9o$l7g$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
The frothing turd really is a STUPID piece of shit. Seems that even basic
reading is too difficult for an idiot like him.
>>>By *default* Ubuntu (the most widely used desktop Linux by far) will
>>>force a filesystem check periodically.
>>
>> Who claimed otherwise, fsckwit?
Hmmmm.... maybe it was *this* claim you stupid piece of shit.
<quote>
... fsck checks the filesystems at boot time, and will *ONLY* trigger an
actual check if a filesystem is marked dirty.
</quote>
It does not ONLY check if it's marked dirty because it will also check the
filesystem after N-many days have elapsed.
Go back to grilling burgers turd - even the most basic reading and computer
concepts are too fscking difficult for idiots like you.
William Poaster
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>By *default* Ubuntu (the most widely used desktop Linux by far) will force a
>>filesystem check periodically.
>
> Who claimed otherwise, fsckwit?
It seems the trolling "Ezekiel" f#ckwit is as mentally challenged in
reading & comprehension as his twin M$ zealot Hadron. Or is it a
requirement of being a M$ wintroll.
> Surely, you don't believe a claim by the shameless liar "Hadron"...
Wouldn't surprise me.
--
"!sgub evah t'nseod CP sihT ?sgub naem ayaddahW"
Marti Van Lin
LOL, four more shameless lies from "Hadron" documented, for the record.
I'm not talking rubbish, like I posted about two months ago, check out
the Gentoo Handbook, which proves me right :-p
Neither I'm making up things again. I posted a link to the treat where
"Hadron" makes a fool out of himself once more regarding fstab, by
exposing his incompetence and tried to cover it with insults (as usual).
"Hadron" "ridiculed" me for describing how I used a Slackware 8.1 CD as
a work around for the b0rk3d Puppy Linux install-script, a couple of
years ago. I used cfdisk, mk2fs, mkswap and swapon.
"Hadron" also totally freaked out, when I wrote that configuring and
compiling Linux, is pretty easy (using Menuconfig or Xconfig) and that
this was required some times in the heydays of Linux 2.2.x and 2.4.x.
Tomb hasn't become dishonest nor a bullshitter. It was crystal clear,
right from the start that Tommy is a polite and professional,
knowledgeable Unix sysadmin.
chrisv
>>>>By *default* Ubuntu (the most widely used desktop Linux by far) will
>>>>force a filesystem check periodically.
>>>
>>> Who claimed otherwise, fsckwit?
>
>Hmmmm.... maybe it was *this* claim
>
><quote>
>... fsck checks the filesystems at boot time, and will *ONLY* trigger an
>actual check if a filesystem is marked dirty.
></quote>
Who wrote that? Do you have a message-ID? Maybe they were referring
to their favorite distro?
Feudo Maccari
stupid asshole "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:pbuev6hes4pttipts...@4ax.com...
fsck you asshole troll. nobody owes you any explanation you mentally ill
piece of shit.
Marti Van Lin
*Bingo* ;-)
> Kind of an hairy solution though, fixing permission on device nodes
> through /etc/fstab. The better solution would've been to add your user
> to whatever group needed to gain read/write on the relevant device
> node (the video group in this case I think).
Indeed, I made myself member of the video group, yet unfortunately it
didn't solve the problem. This weird "hack" in /etc/fstab was solved it.
In the next version of Ubuntu, the shitty webcam however worked out of
the box.
>> (Removed the full URL, coz I bet it looks horrible in slrn ;-)
>
> Eh? Of course not. Why would it?
Thanks, in that case I have to investigate my ~.slrn config file and
search for the word wrap settings (I guess). Frequently I have to scroll
horizontally through messages in slrn. My bad.
>>>>> Well, except for Hadron that is, as he also had no clue that the
>>>>> periodic file system checks at boot time are not controlled by
>>>>> fstab.
>>>>
>>>> How about this! "You do know a lot of distros set up auto disk
>>>> checks at system start in the fstab which can take hours to
>>>> complete don't you?" Hadron - Message-ID:
>>>> <ik8oi3$ojc$3...@news.eternal-september.org>
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's the one. Classic. The checks he's talking about (and
>>> which do /not/ take 'hours' by the way) are controlled with the
>>> tune2fs command, not by fstab. The fstab fs_passno field controls
>>> the order in which fsck checks the filesystems at boot time, and
>>> will only trigger an actual check if a filesystem is marked dirty.
>>
>> "Hadron" also attacks people who reconfigured and compiled their
>> 2.2.x and 2.4.x series kernels in the past, and those who (for what
>> ever reason) manually create and initialize their file systems with
>> mk2fs and mkswap / swapon, simply because it flies right over his
>> head.
>
> He's quite the character, our Hadron. So he doesn't like people using
> the tools at hand for doing a particular job? What a nutcase. He will
> say /anything/ to insult an 'advocate'.
He doesn't like the people using the tools at hand, because it flies
right over his head.
--
Chris
> By *default* Ubuntu (the most widely used desktop Linux by far) will
> force a filesystem check periodically.
Actually the filesystem occurs after N boots OR N days, whatever happens
first.
At least the last time I checked.
Hadron
I just noticed turd chrisv claiming I am lying... LOL!
Once more sMarti ends up with egg on his face me-tooing known morons.
I hope the "new Chris" corrects the idiots.
Hadron
Amazing isnt it? You would think even the turd would have learnt by
now. What a catch : Turd, TomB, sMarti, Dumb Willy and co all in the
same net. All wrong. And TomB claims to use Debian and he didnt KNOW
THIS?
Once more : Hadron 1 - 0 "Advocates"
ROTFLM!
Goblin
Why do you resort to insults if what you say is right? For me the
knowledge that I am in the right removes the need to try and insult
people with childish remarks.
--
Openbytes the Linux/FOSS Blogazine! - http://www.openbytes.tk
"Cave quid dicis, quando, et cui."
Catch me in #techrights on freenode.net
BytesMedia: www.bytesmedia.co.uk
Email: bytes...@googlemail.com
Skype: tim.openbytes
Twitter: twitter.com/_goblin
Identi.ca: identi.ca/openbytes
Ezekiel
"Chris" <chris...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:it819v$juj$1...@inf2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de...
Correct. It does *not* check the filesystem "only" when if the filesystem is
marked dirty.
chrisv
>>
>> What a catch : Turd, TomB, sMarti, Dumb Willy and co all in the
>> same net. All wrong. And TomB claims to use Debian and he didnt KNOW
>> THIS?
Stop lying, Larry.
>> Once more : Hadron 1 - 0 "Advocates"
If you are counting lies that are not fooling anyone with a brain...
--
"nymshifting foul mouthed cretin chrisv" - Hadron Quark, lying
shamelessly
Ezekiel
Don't waste your time with that idiot. Once again he has absolutely nothing
of value to add other than leg humping someone who is proven to be factually
wrong. The useless turd is too busy frothing and screaming to even
comprehend a simple sentence.
<quote>
... fsck checks the filesystems at boot time, and will *ONLY* trigger an
actual check if a filesystem is marked dirty.
</quote>
> Once more sMarti ends up with egg on his face me-tooing known morons.
>
> I hope the "new Chris" corrects the idiots.
I think he just did. Facts are facts. And the *fact* is that fsck does not
run "only" if the filesystem is marked dirty. (you can configure it this
way - but it is not the default and the claim is still wrong.)
TomB
>
> Hmmmm.... maybe it was *this* claim you stupid piece of shit.
>
><quote>
> ... fsck checks the filesystems at boot time, and will *ONLY* trigger an
> actual check if a filesystem is marked dirty.
></quote>
>
> It does not ONLY check if it's marked dirty because it will also
> check the filesystem after N-many days have elapsed.
WTF, does Hadron's dumbness rubs off or what? The above statement was
in reference to the filesystem checks triggered by the settings in
/etc/fstab, more specifically the fs_passno field. *Those* filesystem
checks happen at *every* boot, but will only result in a full check on
dirty filesystems.
The *periodic* filesystem checks are a property of the filesystem
itself, and are configured with the tune2fs command line tool, and not
by /etc/fstab as Hadron thinks.
It are two totally different and unrelated mechanisms. Now, for Hadron
all hope is gone, but I'm sure you will take this opportunity to learn
something.
You should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
~ Bullet Tooth Tony
Marti Van Lin
Oh well, *every real GNU/Linux* user on usenet noticed by now that
"Hadron" is nothing but a sneering troll and a incompetent clown who
attacks his superiors shamelessly.
Don't worry and be happy, let "Hadron" rot in his bin bucket ;-)
Feudo Maccari
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> Hadron quacked:
>>>
>>> What a catch : Turd, TomB, sMarti, Dumb Willy and co all in the
>>> same net. All wrong. And TomB claims to use Debian and he didnt KNOW
>>> THIS?
>
> Stop lying, Larry.
>
stop breathing you useless piece of shit.
TomB
Yes, of course. I never said otherwise. But those checks are *not* set
in /etc/fstab; they are set up with the tune2fs command. The fs checks
defined in /etc/fstab run at *every* boot, but will *only* result in a
full check on dirty filesystems.
Now think this through, perhaps read some manpages, and then come back
saying I wasn't wrong at all.
I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared
for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
~ Winston Churchill
Hadron
In fairness it believe it was TomB who dragged poor sMarti and dumb
Willy in. The turd is generally ignored for obvious reasons.
Chris Ahlstrom
> On 2011-06-14, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel:
>
> <snip>
>
> It are two totally different and unrelated mechanisms. Now, for Hadron
> all hope is gone, but I'm sure you will take this opportunity to learn
> something.
I used to think that.
--
A woman physician has made the statement that smoking is neither
physically defective nor morally degrading, and that nicotine, even
when indulged to in excess, is less harmful than excessive petting."
-- Purdue Exponent, Jan 16, 1925
chrisv
Ha! TomB explained what he said here:
<201106141...@usenet.drumscum.be>
So, the trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel" is *again* shown to be wrong, to be
a dishonest POS, by taking something out of context to attack an
advocate who was, in fact, *correct*.
Poor "Ezekiel". At least "Hadron" still likes you...
chrisv
><quote>
> ... fsck checks the filesystems at boot time, and will *ONLY* trigger an
>actual check if a filesystem is marked dirty.
> </quote>
You took that out of context, fsckwit.
TomB explains, here: <201106141...@usenet.drumscum.be>
> Facts are facts. And the *fact* is that fsck does not
>run "only" if the filesystem is marked dirty.
Who has claimed otherwise, fsckwit?
Poor "Ezekiel" was giddy with excitement, thinking that, perhaps, he
had, for *once*, gotten the better of me.
LOL
Chris Ahlstrom
> Tomb hasn't become dishonest nor a bullshitter. It was crystal clear,
> right from the start that Tommy is a polite and professional,
> knowledgeable Unix sysadmin.
I agree heartily. Except he also has some knowledge of Windows, too.
--
Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian.
-- Robert Orben
Immigration is the sincerest form of flattery.
-- Jack Paar
TomB
>
>> Thanks. Funny little thread there. Hadron claiming extensive
>> knowledge on /etc/fstab, yet having no clue what that one line did.
>> And while not spot on, your educated guess was good. Let me guess:
>> when Hadron claims he 'schooled' you on the subject of fstab, this
>> is the thread he's referring to?
>
> *Bingo* ;-)
Rolf, quite the 'schooling' you got there.
"I don't know what it does, hence you do not know either."
Brilliant.
>>> (Removed the full URL, coz I bet it looks horrible in slrn ;-)
>>
>> Eh? Of course not. Why would it?
>
> Thanks, in that case I have to investigate my ~.slrn config file and
> search for the word wrap settings (I guess). Frequently I have to
> scroll horizontally through messages in slrn. My bad.
Hehe, I consider that to be The Right Thing™
;-)
(wrapping URLs sucks)
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates
us from the animals... except the weasel.
~ Homer J. Simpson
Ezekiel
"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:201106141...@usenet.drumscum.be...
Since there is no field/column in fstab to set the number-of-days between
checks interval it clearly won't be there.
But when I read (out of context since I've kept out of this thread) that
"fsck *only* runs if the filesystem is dirty" it clearly wasn't right.
Ultimately it doesn't matter to the user whether it's an entry in fstab or
something else because fsck can, does and will get run for a variety of
reasons.
> Now think this through, perhaps read some manpages, and then come back
> saying I wasn't wrong at all.
>
Actually it can literally take "hours" for fsck to run.
Feudo Maccari
piece of shit asshole "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:0a6fv6he306v7029d...@4ax.com...
go fsck yourself you mentally ill piece of shit stalker.
Ezekiel
What I find remarkable is that useless turd like chrisv has nothing better
to do then to reply to 99% of the posts I make. He's like some stupid shit
covered puppy that follows me everywhere I go and won't leave me alone.
Perhaps the idiot is stupid enough to think he's my equal or peer and thinks
I give a rats ass what he thinks. In reality I'd much rather listen to some
urine covered homeless bum tell me his thoughts on the global economy.
Ahhh - enough already. I've wasted too much time as it is talking about the
"turd." I feel the need to bathe.
BTW - Keep up the good work OSOK. You're a zany and insightful poster.