Kernel contributions: Canonical (Ubuntu), Where are you?
Ezekiel
Over the past four years, the word Linux has become almost synonymous with
Ubuntu; the company behind Ubuntu, Canonical, has proportionately gained an
enormous amount of mindshare within the FOSS community.
But when one looks at one crucial area of contributing back to the progress
of Linux, Canonical stands exposed.
It does not figure anywhere in the top 30 contributors to the Linux kernel,
according to figures (PDF) released by the Linux Foundation, the non-profit
that sponsors Linus Torvalds' work. The figures are updated to August 2009.
Yet, there is not a single mention of Canonical anywhere in the report.
</quote>
Hadron
Yup, the makers, like the COLA users, are freetards. It's one of the
reasons I dumped it.
Ubuntu appears to be in it to make money off Debian's hard work. And
like freetards, give little, if anything, back.
Moshe Goldfarb
It's well known that Canonical doesn't give back to the Linux
community.
Probably a good thing though because each version of Ubuntu
seems to be worse than the previous one and the last thing Linux
needs is that Ubuntu crapware contaminating the few
distributions that are halfway decent.
JEDIDIAH
...yes: because it's about the kernel and only the kernel.
What part of the kernel (precisely) do you think they should be mucking about in?
--
Some people have this nutty idea that in 1997 |||
reading to a hard disk and writing to a hard disk / | \
both at the same time was something worth patenting.
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:33:46 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> <quote>
>> Over the past four years, the word Linux has become almost synonymous with
>> Ubuntu; the company behind Ubuntu, Canonical, has proportionately gained an
>> enormous amount of mindshare within the FOSS community.
>>
>> But when one looks at one crucial area of contributing back to the progress
>> of Linux, Canonical stands exposed.
>>
>> It does not figure anywhere in the top 30 contributors to the Linux kernel,
>> according to figures (PDF) released by the Linux Foundation, the non-profit
>> that sponsors Linus Torvalds' work. The figures are updated to August 2009.
>>
>> Yet, there is not a single mention of Canonical anywhere in the report.
>> </quote>
>>
>> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/27089/1090/
>
> It's well known that Canonical doesn't give back to the Linux
> community.
...now how would that work out exactly?
The only way Cannonical could "not give back" is if they don't change
anything they get from upstream EVER. Otherwise, anything they modify
has to be either made available or fed back into the upstream.
Of course this is just more bogus Lemming BS.
>
> Probably a good thing though because each version of Ubuntu
> seems to be worse than the previous one and the last thing Linux
> needs is that Ubuntu crapware contaminating the few
> distributions that are halfway decent.
Tony(UK)
I agree, but IMO there is a bigger picture affecting most Linux
distributions - the 'derivatives' or 'spin-off'.
Like a hierarchical tree of sub-folders made from the parent,
Debian
+ Ubuntu
+ Mint
+ [Insert derivative here]
each riding from the back of another.
Mandriva
+ PC Linux OS
Etc, each inheriting the defects or benefits of the parent, many offering
little more than a theme change, codec support or new wallpaper. It is very
hard to find a Linux distribution that is independently developed from the
ground up from the kernel base. I use one such distribution exclusively now
for this very reason.
Would this give rise to the term 'Linux prostitution'?
Moshe Goldfarb
> Would this give rise to the term 'Linux prostitution'?
With Linux it's more like "whoring" because Linux can barely be
given away.
Paying for it is completely out of the question.
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> "Ezekiel" <not-...@the-zeke.com> writes:
>>
>>> <quote>
>>> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/27089/1090/
>>
>> Yup, the makers, like the COLA users, are freetards. It's one of the
>> reasons I dumped it.
>>
>> Ubuntu appears to be in it to make money off Debian's hard work. And
>> like freetards, give little, if anything, back.
> I agree, but IMO there is a bigger picture affecting most Linux
> distributions - the 'derivatives' or 'spin-off'.
> Like a hierarchical tree of sub-folders made from the parent,
> Debian
There are too many distributions. There aren't enough distributions.
Trolls please make up your minds.
[deletia]
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On 2009-08-20, Moshe Goldfarb <mosheg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:33:46 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> <quote>
>>> Yet, there is not a single mention of Canonical anywhere in the report.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/27089/1090/
>>
>> It's well known that Canonical doesn't give back to the Linux
>> community.
>
> ...now how would that work out exactly?
>
> The only way Cannonical could "not give back" is if they don't change
> anything they get from upstream EVER. Otherwise, anything they modify
> has to be either made available or fed back into the upstream.
>
> Of course this is just more bogus Lemming BS.
Of course it is. These numbnuts are just passing along Kroah-Hartman's
complaint about very minimal contributions to the *kernel*.
What about Bazaar-NG? Landscape? Launchpad?
What about bringing Linux to DELL, and to many users otherwise intimidated
by Linux? What about their promotional activities.
Moshe, Zeke, "Hadron", and, sadly, even Tony are simply smearing the
producers of one of the leading Linux distros with their new favorite word
-- freetard.
And compare revenues of Canonical ($30M) versus Novell ($935M). Who can
more afford to pay engineers?
--
You are number 6! Who is number one?
Ezekiel
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
news:h6jsm4$aef$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Why are you comparing the total revenue for Novell and not just the revenue
they derive from Linux? Is Novell supposed to use revenue from the entire
line of company products to pay just their Linux engineers?
JEDIDIAH
Actually you bring up an interesting point but one that doesn't benefit
you the way you think it does. Novell is a dying brand. They have old legacy
products that have been clobbered by Microsoft in the marketplace. One reason
they latched onto Linux was the idea of continuing some of their own product
lines with a new kernel.
So if anything, a lot of the "contributions" from Novell might be entirely
self serving meant to prop up their old dying netware brand.
Tony(UK)
> Moshe, Zeke, "Hadron", and, sadly, even Tony are simply smearing the
> producers of one of the leading Linux distros with their new favorite word
> -- freetard.
>
> And compare revenues of Canonical ($30M) versus Novell ($935M). Who can
> more afford to pay engineers?
>
1. You have never, and will never, hear the phrase 'freetard' from me. You
have me confused with someone else.
2. Open thoughts and criticisms or praise are just that - one person's
opinions, and there was no 'smearing' involved, just as I see it.
Without Debian, Ubuntu would not be a leading Linux distribution, and it is
my understanding that Ubuntu make changes to both kernel and applications.
Is it not fair that they share and give back to their parent? Revenue has
nothing to do with it - the philosophies, nature of developers and attitudes
of communities do.
chrisv
>>>
>>> Ubuntu appears to be in it to make money off Debian's hard work.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using OSS to make money, Quack,
you stupid asshole.
>>> And like freetards, give little, if anything, back.
Wrong. They've been quite good for Linux. "Giving back" takes many
forms, you nasty little lying creep.
Tony(UK)
>
> There are too many distributions. There aren't enough distributions.
>
> Trolls please make up your minds.
>
I review Linux, I promote Linux, I get involved with my chosen
distribution's community.
And yet in the world where you live, I am a troll?
Behave, you've 'aving a laugh, as they say 34 miles away from where I live.
I stand by my thought that there too many distributions /very/ closely based
on others - if the best of these ideas and individuals were pooled instead
of forked, the whole of Linux would benefit.
I would appreciate an apology for calling me a troll please.
Matt
You say you use Linux. Then what do you "give back" to the kernel or to
your distro of choice or to any of the apps you use, if you hold any of
that to be so important?
If Ubuntu doesn't contribute anything, then why is it the most popular
distro?
And since when has Canonical been making a profit?
Shuttleworth is one of the best things that ever happened to Linux.
Maybe you should consider sticking your idiotic post back up your ass.
chrisv
>Without Debian, Ubuntu would not be a leading Linux distribution, and it is
>my understanding that Ubuntu make changes to both kernel and applications.
>Is it not fair that they share and give back to their parent? Revenue has
>nothing to do with it - the philosophies, nature of developers and attitudes
>of communities do.
They need only abide by the terms of the relevant licenses, such as
the GPL, and I'm sure they are.
William Poaster
>>> Hadron quacked:
>>>>
>>>> Ubuntu appears to be in it to make money off Debian's hard work.
>
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with using OSS to make money, Quack,
> you stupid asshole.
The troll's "It's one of the reasons I dumped it." is laughable, as
Ubuntu is more "bleeding edge" than Debian, but Quack had all sorts of
problems, & couldn't get it to work!
>>>> And like freetards, give little, if anything, back.
>
> Wrong. They've been quite good for Linux. "Giving back" takes many
> forms, you nasty little lying creep.
Indeed it does, but that POS doesn't contribute anything.
"All he does is whine & moan about Linux"
Trevor Best - alt.os.linux.ubuntu
"just wanted to see what Hadron would answer, since he /complains about
everything/ in Linux. Notice no answer."
caver1 - alt.os.linux.ubuntu
Message-ID: <47fac17c$0$17354$4c36...@roadrunner.com>
"Just more grandstanding and whinnying about Linux".
Joe - Message-ID: <S5ydnQgj9s_02-ra...@giganews.com>
--
Digital Tipping Point
http://www.archive.org/details/proof_of_concept_four_mins.mpg
JEDIDIAH
>
>>
>> There are too many distributions. There aren't enough distributions.
>>
>> Trolls please make up your minds.
>>
> I review Linux, I promote Linux, I get involved with my chosen
> distribution's community.
> And yet in the world where you live, I am a troll?
You quack very nicely for a non-troll.
> Behave, you've 'aving a laugh, as they say 34 miles away from where I live.
>
> I stand by my thought that there too many distributions /very/ closely based
> on others - if the best of these ideas and individuals were pooled instead
> of forked, the whole of Linux would benefit.
>
> I would appreciate an apology for calling me a troll please.
>
Tim Smith
"Ezekiel" <not-...@the-zeke.com> wrote:
Sounds like a Sam Varghese column. Checking....yup.
As someone noted in one of the comments, if we define contribution to
Linux as only kernel work, projects like KDE have made no contribution
to Linux. Seems a pretty deficient definition.
--
--Tim Smith
Hadron
> On 2009-08-20, Moshe Goldfarb <mosheg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:33:46 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> <quote>
>>> Over the past four years, the word Linux has become almost synonymous with
>>> Ubuntu; the company behind Ubuntu, Canonical, has proportionately gained an
>>> enormous amount of mindshare within the FOSS community.
>>>
>>> But when one looks at one crucial area of contributing back to the progress
>>> of Linux, Canonical stands exposed.
>>>
>>> It does not figure anywhere in the top 30 contributors to the Linux kernel,
>>> according to figures (PDF) released by the Linux Foundation, the non-profit
>>> that sponsors Linus Torvalds' work. The figures are updated to August 2009.
>>>
>>> Yet, there is not a single mention of Canonical anywhere in the report.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/27089/1090/
>>
>> It's well known that Canonical doesn't give back to the Linux
>> community.
>
> ...now how would that work out exactly?
>
> The only way Cannonical could "not give back" is if they don't change
> anything they get from upstream EVER. Otherwise, anything they modify
> has to be either made available or fed back into the upstream.
>
Err, ... right. I think.
WTF are you burbling about?!?!?!?!?
Hadron
> On 2009-08-20, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Ezekiel" <not-...@the-zeke.com> writes:
>>
>>> <quote>
>>> Over the past four years, the word Linux has become almost synonymous with
>>> Ubuntu; the company behind Ubuntu, Canonical, has proportionately gained an
>>> enormous amount of mindshare within the FOSS community.
>>>
>>> But when one looks at one crucial area of contributing back to the progress
>>> of Linux, Canonical stands exposed.
>>>
>>> It does not figure anywhere in the top 30 contributors to the Linux kernel,
>>> according to figures (PDF) released by the Linux Foundation, the non-profit
>>> that sponsors Linus Torvalds' work. The figures are updated to August 2009.
>>>
>>> Yet, there is not a single mention of Canonical anywhere in the report.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/27089/1090/
>>
>> Yup, the makers, like the COLA users, are freetards. It's one of the
>> reasons I dumped it.
>>
>> Ubuntu appears to be in it to make money off Debian's hard work. And
>> like freetards, give little, if anything, back.
>
> ...yes: because it's about the kernel and only the kernel.
>
> What part of the kernel (precisely) do you think they should be mucking about in?
The same parts debian developers do and other companies do.
Why do you ask? Where did you think?
Hadron
Common sense of course. You will now be ostracised from the COLA gang.
>
> I would appreciate an apology for calling me a troll please.
>
You're talking to Jeb. Jeb can't understand why people would need dual
monitors. He also things Quake 1 is a "cutting edge" game.
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>> "Ezekiel" <not-...@the-zeke.com> writes:
>>
>>> <quote>
>>> Over the past four years, the word Linux has become almost synonymous with
>>> Ubuntu; the company behind Ubuntu, Canonical, has proportionately gained an
>>> enormous amount of mindshare within the FOSS community.
>>>
>>> But when one looks at one crucial area of contributing back to the progress
>>> of Linux, Canonical stands exposed.
>>>
>>> It does not figure anywhere in the top 30 contributors to the Linux kernel,
>>> according to figures (PDF) released by the Linux Foundation, the non-profit
>>> that sponsors Linus Torvalds' work. The figures are updated to August 2009.
>>>
>>> Yet, there is not a single mention of Canonical anywhere in the report.
>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/27089/1090/
>>
>> Yup, the makers, like the COLA users, are freetards. It's one of the
>> reasons I dumped it.
>>
>> Ubuntu appears to be in it to make money off Debian's hard work. And
>> like freetards, give little, if anything, back.
>
>
> You say you use Linux. Then what do you "give back" to the kernel or to
> your distro of choice or to any of the apps you use, if you hold any of
> that to be so important?
That is the worst analogy I have ever seen.
>
> If Ubuntu doesn't contribute anything, then why is it the most popular
> distro?
Big talk. Big adverts. Quicker to pack in proprietary solutions for
modern HW.
>
> And since when has Canonical been making a profit?
I said "make money". That doesn't mean profit now.
>
> Shuttleworth is one of the best things that ever happened to Linux.
In some ways I agree. At least he understands what a good UI should be like.
>
> Maybe you should consider sticking your idiotic post back up your ass.
>
Maybe you should put your brain into geat and understand what I actually
said. Ubuntu does not give back to the main branches. They take, take
and smother lipstick on and then charge huge support rates to
businesses.
Remember that the Ubuntu forums etc are 99.99% volunteer staffed too.
So stick that, you mindless little fanboi.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Moshe, Zeke, "Hadron", and, sadly, even Tony are simply smearing the
>> producers of one of the leading Linux distros with their new favorite word
>> -- freetard.
>>
>> And compare revenues of Canonical ($30M) versus Novell ($935M). Who can
>> more afford to pay engineers?
>>
> 1. You have never, and will never, hear the phrase 'freetard' from me. You
> have me confused with someone else.
My bad, I apologize.
> 2. Open thoughts and criticisms or praise are just that - one person's
> opinions, and there was no 'smearing' involved, just as I see it.
Well, you might want to wipe the "Hadron" off your shoes then.
> Without Debian, Ubuntu would not be a leading Linux distribution, and it is
> my understanding that Ubuntu make changes to both kernel and applications.
> Is it not fair that they share and give back to their parent? Revenue has
> nothing to do with it - the philosophies, nature of developers and attitudes
> of communities do.
Indeed. That's why you find GPL'd software from Canonical out there to be
used by anyone.
I wasn't aware that Ubuntu hid their changes from others. Is that really
true?
--
Never give an inch!
Hadron
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tony(UK) belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> Moshe, Zeke, "Hadron", and, sadly, even Tony are simply smearing the
>>> producers of one of the leading Linux distros with their new favorite word
>>> -- freetard.
>>>
>>> And compare revenues of Canonical ($30M) versus Novell ($935M). Who can
>>> more afford to pay engineers?
>>>
>> 1. You have never, and will never, hear the phrase 'freetard' from me. You
>> have me confused with someone else.
>
> My bad, I apologize.
>
>> 2. Open thoughts and criticisms or praise are just that - one person's
>> opinions, and there was no 'smearing' involved, just as I see it.
>
> Well, you might want to wipe the "Hadron" off your shoes then.
The same Hadron that knows more about Debian than you, you little
hypocrite you. Hows the Windows SW development going?
>
>> Without Debian, Ubuntu would not be a leading Linux distribution, and it is
>> my understanding that Ubuntu make changes to both kernel and applications.
>> Is it not fair that they share and give back to their parent? Revenue has
>> nothing to do with it - the philosophies, nature of developers and attitudes
>> of communities do.
>
> Indeed. That's why you find GPL'd software from Canonical out there to be
> used by anyone.
>
> I wasn't aware that Ubuntu hid their changes from others. Is that really
> true?
No. Everyone just makes it up.....
chrisv
> Tony(UK) belched:
>>
>> 2. Open thoughts and criticisms or praise are just that - one person's
>> opinions, and there was no 'smearing' involved, just as I see it.
>
>Well, you might want to wipe the "Hadron" off your shoes then.
Hehe. Sometimes you need to use a stick, to get it out from the
cracks and patterns in the soles.
Tim Smith
"Tony(UK)" <tony_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> I would appreciate an apology for calling me a troll please.
JEDIDIAH's usual response to being caught in a blatant error about
someone is to silently exit the thread, not apologize.
--
--Tim Smith
JEDIDIAH
...and odd assertion considering that there isn't any version of Ubuntu
that I could actually BUY. This is in stark contrast to Redhat, Suse and
even Mandrake.
[deletia]
--
It's not the size of the CPU, it's how you use it. |||
/ | \
JEDIDIAH
The great pretender not understanding the mechanics of Free Software.
Imagine that.
It's almost like you are pretending to be some sort of Linux booster
when infact you are nothing but a garden variety lemming troll.
JEDIDIAH
You're the one blabbering about it not me.
As it turns out you have no clue at all. Big surprise there.
JEDIDIAH
You are confused.
JEDIDIAH
>
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There are too many distributions. There aren't enough distributions.
>>>
>>> Trolls please make up your minds.
>>>
>> I review Linux, I promote Linux, I get involved with my chosen
>> distribution's community.
>> And yet in the world where you live, I am a troll?
>> Behave, you've 'aving a laugh, as they say 34 miles away from where I live.
>>
>> I stand by my thought that there too many distributions /very/ closely based
>> on others - if the best of these ideas and individuals were pooled instead
>> of forked, the whole of Linux would benefit.
>
> Common sense of course. You will now be ostracised from the COLA gang.
Not everyone is as dedicated to trolling COLA as you are.
>
>>
>> I would appreciate an apology for calling me a troll please.
>>
>
> You're talking to Jeb. Jeb can't understand why people would need dual
> monitors. He also things Quake 1 is a "cutting edge" game.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it anymore true.
I understand perfectly well why a conspicous consumer such as yourself
would throw another monitor on his desk.
Real users with real problems and real budgets are another matter.
Sinister Midget
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>Well, you might want to wipe the "Hadron" off your shoes then.
>
> Hehe. Sometimes you need to use a stick, to get it out from the
> cracks and patterns in the soles.
I usually use a hose. Sometimes the dogs don't go where they're
supposed to. Every couple of months I step in the Hadron of one of
them. Sticks don't quite get everything a shoe-bath will eliminate.
The last thing I want to do is walk around with Hadron stench on my
shoe all day.
--
Dogs crawl under fences. Software crawls under Windows.
Hadron
WTF are you talking about!?!??!?!?!?!?
1) You CAN buy Ubuntu support
2) WTF has buying got to do with anything?
Hadron
Its as if you inhabit some parallel universe where the obvious is
invisible.
Hadron
Err, right.
Now, what has this got to do with Canonical not giving back the base
Debian upon which many alternative distros to Ubuntu are reliant?
Seriously, you need to see the doctor.
Hadron
So real users dont use dual monitors?
I see.
So me using my PC as a TV tuner and recorder is me being a "conspicuous
consumer"? You are an idiot of the highest order. And yuo still dont
understand how dual monitors are a must for an efficietn developer these
days do you?
Tim Smith
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2009-08-20, Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > In article <csfjm.142395$OM.1...@newsfe06.ams2>,
> > "Tony(UK)" <tony_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >>
> >> I would appreciate an apology for calling me a troll please.
> >
> > JEDIDIAH's usual response to being caught in a blatant error about
> > someone is to silently exit the thread, not apologize.
>
> You are confused.
Want an example? I posted that the OO 3 spreadsheet files were not
handled correctly by the then current version of Symphony--formulas get
converted to text in the cell. Your response was to say I was a liar.
I then gave you a link to the bug report in the Symphony knowledgebase,
which contained an admission of the problem by Lotus. You disappeared
from that thread then. You were still around posting on other threads.
--
--Tim Smith
JEDIDIAH
So now that the Lemmings are going to equate the availability of
support contracts with the availability of product.
Although even if we accept your argument blindly that still leaves us
with one of two possibilities:
Ubuntu is nothing more than a Debian support company.
Ubuntu has made changes of it's own that have to be "given back"
to the community because of the way that Linux and all of it's
various component projects are licensed.
Unless Ubuntu is an exact clone of Debian, they can't not give back.
You Lemmings are trying to push standards that not even RMS does.
--
Truth is irrelevant as long as the predictions are good. |||
/ | \
JEDIDIAH
Since even RMS wouldn't demand this, you're the one that needs to see
a doctor. This "issue" is just another lame attempt by the Lemming Trolls
to find some way (any way) of defaming Linux.
Infact, Shuttleworth offered manpower to Debian.
So your facts aren't even right to begin with.
>
> Seriously, you need to see the doctor.
JEDIDIAH
Not generally no.
>
> So me using my PC as a TV tuner and recorder is me being a "conspicuous
> consumer"? You are an idiot of the highest order. And yuo still dont
This is also a bit of a geeky niche. Although there are at least widely
used consumer appliances that cover the same territory as an HTPC.
> understand how dual monitors are a must for an efficietn developer these
> days do you?
Programmer centric computing. Nice.
It's like you never left the 80s.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On 2009-08-20, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <yada yada nada>
>
> Ubuntu is nothing more than a Debian support company.
>
> Ubuntu has made changes of it's own that have to be "given back"
> to the community because of the way that Linux and all of it's
> various component projects are licensed.
>
> Unless Ubuntu is an exact clone of Debian, they can't not give back.
>
> You Lemmings are trying to push standards that not even RMS does.
Of course. It's only by lying and twisting words that "Moshe", "Ezekiel",
and "Hadron" can smear one of the more popular Linux distros.
--
Yup, the makers, like the COLA users, are freetards. It's one of the
reasons I dumped it.
Ubuntu appears to be in it to make money off Debian's hard work. And
like freetards, give little, if anything, back.
"Hadron", Usenet kook, calling Canonical "freetards"
<h6jn8v$f37$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
Actually, "Hadron" is more kooky than most trolls. He's been applying a
lighter touch lately.
I think he aspires to be a Tim Smith.
--
A Tale of Two Cities LITE(tm)
-- by Charles Dickens
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
Bingo.
>> Seriously, you need to see the doctor.
"Doctor doctor! Can you give him something for his cough?"
"Here's a quarter."
"That's not much."
"It's not much of a cough."
--
Just to have it is enough.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On 2009-08-20, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So me using my PC as a TV tuner and recorder is me being a "conspicuous
>> consumer"? You are an idiot of the highest order. And yuo still dont
>> understand how dual monitors are a must for an efficietn developer these
>> days do you?
>
> Programmer centric computing. Nice.
> It's like you never left the 80s.
Actually, after the last couple days, if I had to choose, I'd take virtual
desktops over dual monitors any day.
Windows sucks.
--
Q: How many gradual (sorry, that's supposed to be "graduate") students
does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: "I'm afraid we don't know, but make my stipend tax-free, give my
advisor a $30,000 grant of the taxpayer's money, and I'm sure he
can tell me how to do the gruntwork for him so he can take the
credit for answering this incredibly vital question."
Rick
> <quote>
> Over the past four years, the word Linux has become almost synonymous
> with Ubuntu; the company behind Ubuntu, Canonical, has proportionately
> gained an enormous amount of mindshare within the FOSS community.
>
> But when one looks at one crucial area of contributing back to the
> progress of Linux, Canonical stands exposed.
>
> It does not figure anywhere in the top 30 contributors to the Linux
> kernel, according to figures (PDF) released by the Linux Foundation,
> the non-profit that sponsors Linus Torvalds' work. The figures are
> updated to August 2009.
>
> Yet, there is not a single mention of Canonical anywhere in the report.
> </quote>
>
> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/27089/1090/
What's your point? Shuttle worth has addressed this in public.
One example:
<http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/11/ubuntu-open-week-mark-
shuttleworth-speaks.ars>
--
Rick
Rick
> "Ezekiel" <not-...@the-zeke.com> writes:
>
>> <quote>
>> Over the past four years, the word Linux has become almost synonymous
>> with Ubuntu; the company behind Ubuntu, Canonical, has proportionately
>> gained an enormous amount of mindshare within the FOSS community.
>>
>> But when one looks at one crucial area of contributing back to the
>> progress of Linux, Canonical stands exposed.
>>
>> It does not figure anywhere in the top 30 contributors to the Linux
>> kernel, according to figures (PDF) released by the Linux Foundation,
>> the non-profit that sponsors Linus Torvalds' work. The figures are
>> updated to August 2009.
>>
>> Yet, there is not a single mention of Canonical anywhere in the report.
>> </quote>
>>
>> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/27089/1090/
>
> Yup, the makers, like the COLA users, are freetards. It's one of the
> reasons I dumped it.
>
> Ubuntu appears to be in it to make money off Debian's hard work. And
> like freetards, give little, if anything, back.
The above statement shows your lack of understanding of the OSS ecosystem.
--
Rick
Rick
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:28:18 +0100, Tony(UK) wrote:
>
>
>> Would this give rise to the term 'Linux prostitution'?
>
> With Linux it's more like "whoring" because Linux can barely be given
> away.
> Paying for it is completely out of the question.
Do you never tire of spewing your dishonest tripe?
--
Rick
Rick
So... from what do you think Canonical is making money from... off the
backs of others, since you can't buy Ubuntu?
--
Rick
Rick
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:33:46 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> <quote>
>> Over the past four years, the word Linux has become almost synonymous
>> with Ubuntu; the company behind Ubuntu, Canonical, has proportionately
>> gained an enormous amount of mindshare within the FOSS community.
>>
>> But when one looks at one crucial area of contributing back to the
>> progress of Linux, Canonical stands exposed.
>>
>> It does not figure anywhere in the top 30 contributors to the Linux
>> kernel, according to figures (PDF) released by the Linux Foundation,
>> the non-profit that sponsors Linus Torvalds' work. The figures are
>> updated to August 2009.
>>
>> Yet, there is not a single mention of Canonical anywhere in the report.
>> </quote>
>>
>> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/27089/1090/
>
> It's well known that Canonical doesn't give back to the Linux community.
It is well know that Canonical does give back to the "Linux community".
>(snip)
--
Rick
TomB
> After takin' a swig o' grog, JEDIDIAH belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2009-08-20, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> So me using my PC as a TV tuner and recorder is me being a "conspicuous
>>> consumer"? You are an idiot of the highest order. And yuo still dont
>>> understand how dual monitors are a must for an efficietn developer these
>>> days do you?
>>
>> Programmer centric computing. Nice.
>> It's like you never left the 80s.
>
> Actually, after the last couple days, if I had to choose, I'd take virtual
> desktops over dual monitors any day.
>
> Windows sucks.
If you're used to nine workspaces and a tiling window manager sporting
borderless windows, working on Windows is hell. Why the fsck did they
make the titlebar so big? Why are all those menus, toolbars and
ribbons so big? If I tile let's say four windows on my Vista desktop
at work, there's almost no space left to actually *work* in. And then
Windows 7 came, and lo and behold, they had to make the taskbar twice
as big too!
On my awesome 'desktop' at home I can easily run 25 applications at
once without losing track; on my Vista desktop at work things get
cluttered from the moment I have more than four applications running.
How is that efficient? Do people not care about this?
--
Q: What is the difference between a duck?
A: One leg is both the same.
7
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
> <quote>
> Over the past four years, the word Linux has become almost synonymous with
> Ubuntu; the company behind Ubuntu, Canonical, has proportionately gained
> an enormous amount of mindshare within the FOSS community.
>
> But when one looks at one crucial area of contributing back to the
> progress of Linux, Canonical stands exposed.
>
> It does not figure anywhere in the top 30 contributors to the Linux
> kernel,
> according to figures (PDF) released by the Linux Foundation, the
> non-profit that sponsors Linus Torvalds' work. The figures are updated to
> August 2009.
>
> Yet, there is not a single mention of Canonical anywhere in the report.
> </quote>
>
> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/27089/1090/
Doh! This Ezekiel fool will now hang himself in shame
or explain how making distros requires distro makers to modify stock kernels
and then hang himself with his own shoe lace and afterwards he will wet
himself explaining how the kernel mods of one distro must be distributed to
every other distro maker. Lectures will start promptly at 10:69 AM.
Besides Ubuntu team contribute millions of lines of application code.
Its all here free to download http://www.ubuntu.com
JEDIDIAH
You rather have that backwards.
Why should anyone think that Cannonical is making any money off
of the whole enterprise and being some sort of "leech" if there isn't
any visible retail presence? I don't recall anyone bragging about
how profitable Canonical Corp is either.
Leeching? What Leeching?
--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...
Hadron
I dont know any developer, give or take, that doesn't use dual screens,
Especially when developing web based SW.
You really are a clueless fool at times.
Ezekiel
"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20090820...@usenet.drumscum.be...
> On 2009-08-20, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, JEDIDIAH belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> On 2009-08-20, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So me using my PC as a TV tuner and recorder is me being a
>>>> "conspicuous
>>>> consumer"? You are an idiot of the highest order. And yuo still dont
>>>> understand how dual monitors are a must for an efficietn developer
>>>> these
>>>> days do you?
>>>
>>> Programmer centric computing. Nice.
>>> It's like you never left the 80s.
>>
>> Actually, after the last couple days, if I had to choose, I'd take
>> virtual
>> desktops over dual monitors any day.
>>
>> Windows sucks.
>
> If you're used to nine workspaces and a tiling window manager sporting
> borderless windows, working on Windows is hell.
> Why the fsck did they make the titlebar so big?
Have someone show you how you can make the title bar smaller from the
"Desktop Properties" control panel applet.
> Why are all those menus, toolbars and ribbons so big?
Ask someone to show you how to change the size of the fonts, borders and
menus from the "Desktop Properties" control panel applet.
> If I tile let's say four windows on my Vista desktop
> at work, there's almost no space left to actually *work* in.
Then use dual monitors or virtual desktops.
> And then Windows 7 came, and lo and behold, they had to make the
> taskbar twice as big too!
I'm sure there's a way to set the size of this on Windows 7 as well.
JEDIDIAH
"especially" when developing web software?
You've got to be kidding.
>
> You really are a clueless fool at times.
You remain a legend in your own mind.
TomB
>
> "TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:20090820...@usenet.drumscum.be...
>> On 2009-08-20, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, JEDIDIAH belched out
>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-08-20, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So me using my PC as a TV tuner and recorder is me being a
>>>>> "conspicuous
>>>>> consumer"? You are an idiot of the highest order. And yuo still dont
>>>>> understand how dual monitors are a must for an efficietn developer
>>>>> these
>>>>> days do you?
>>>>
>>>> Programmer centric computing. Nice.
>>>> It's like you never left the 80s.
>>>
>>> Actually, after the last couple days, if I had to choose, I'd take
>>> virtual
>>> desktops over dual monitors any day.
>>>
>>> Windows sucks.
>>
>> If you're used to nine workspaces and a tiling window manager sporting
>> borderless windows, working on Windows is hell.
>
>
>> Why the fsck did they make the titlebar so big?
> Have someone show you how you can make the title bar smaller from the
> "Desktop Properties" control panel applet.
Well, actually I turn off all that Aero stuff to get the old win2k
like interface. Of course Office 2007 insists on using the new style
titlebars anyway. Brilliant...
But the defaults are just crazy, and most people just leave it that
way.
>> Why are all those menus, toolbars and ribbons so big?
> Ask someone to show you how to change the size of the fonts, borders and
> menus from the "Desktop Properties" control panel applet.
You cannot change e.g. the appearance of the office ribbons from a
'control panel applet'. But yes, I have set the Office ribbons to
'auto-hide' and added the functions I use the most the the 'quick
access' thiny.
>> If I tile let's say four windows on my Vista desktop
>> at work, there's almost no space left to actually *work* in.
> Then use dual monitors or virtual desktops.
Dual monitors are not an option.
Virtual desktops on Windows suck. At least the ones I tried.
>> And then Windows 7 came, and lo and behold, they had to make the
>> taskbar twice as big too!
> I'm sure there's a way to set the size of this on Windows 7 as well.
It is possible to change this. The option to do so is called 'Use
small icons'. How intuitive...
Damn the day I had to turn in my Windows 2000 machine at work to have
it replaced with a Vista machine... It worked 10 times better on a
machine with only a quarter of the specs of my current machine.
--
The naked truth of it is, I have no shirt.
-- William Shakespeare, "Love's Labour's Lost"
DFS
> On my awesome 'desktop' at home I can easily run 25 applications at
> once without losing track; on my Vista desktop at work things get
> cluttered from the moment I have more than four applications running.
Spare us the bullshit show us the screenshots of this "organized" 25 window
Linux system.
Or slink - that's what "advocate$" mostly do.
Hadron
Unfortunately for you not.
Invariable there is a development screen showing server status, a UI to
the rdbms etc, and editor, and the other monitor might have 2 or 3 tiled
browsers showing the results immediately of some css hacking or judcious
php tweaking etc. Maybe also a server load graph? Whatever. I, for
example, us mozrepl to auto refresh my firefox when I save certain file
types. Clearly the layout alters. But anyone doing serious work
involving UIs tends to use two monitors these days. Sure, not
everyone. But a lot. HW is cheap and they are easy to use - that and
LCDs means less electrical noise and more desk real estate to play with.
>
>>
>> You really are a clueless fool at times.
>
> You remain a legend in your own mind.
Seriously, I begin to wonder if you are stuck in a time warp. You are
clearly not a professional developer.
TomB
> TomB wrote:
>
>> On my awesome 'desktop' at home I can easily run 25 applications at
>> once without losing track; on my Vista desktop at work things get
>> cluttered from the moment I have more than four applications running.
>
> Spare us the bullshit show us the screenshots of this "organized" 25 window
> Linux system.
Okay, why not:
http://www.drumscum.be/linux/wosp1.jpg
http://www.drumscum.be/linux/wosp2.jpg
http://www.drumscum.be/linux/wosp3.jpg
http://www.drumscum.be/linux/wosp4.jpg
http://www.drumscum.be/linux/wosp5.jpg
http://www.drumscum.be/linux/wosp6.jpg
http://www.drumscum.be/linux/wosp7.jpg
http://www.drumscum.be/linux/wosp8.jpg
http://www.drumscum.be/linux/wosp9.jpg
I was out of inspiration after the 17th application...
--
Tonight you will pay the wages of sin; Don't forget to leave a tip.
DFS
wtf am I looking at? It's far from organized.
Face it: you made a cola clown statement you can't support.
JEDIDIAH
...nothing so pressing as to require it all to be right in your face
all of the time. It's perfect sort of thing for the grouping allowed
by a proper virtual workstation manager.
> example, us mozrepl to auto refresh my firefox when I save certain file
> types. Clearly the layout alters. But anyone doing serious work
> involving UIs tends to use two monitors these days. Sure, not
> everyone. But a lot. HW is cheap and they are easy to use - that and
> LCDs means less electrical noise and more desk real estate to play with.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> You really are a clueless fool at times.
>>
>> You remain a legend in your own mind.
>
> Seriously, I begin to wonder if you are stuck in a time warp. You are
> clearly not a professional developer.
Neither are you. Don't kid yourself.
"web developer"
Indeed...
--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \
Hadron
You still don't get it do you?
Look, I use xmonyd. This means not only can I programme what x classes go
to what workspaces, I can also send them, retrieve them with keyboard
bindings. I can then juggle the different workspaces between the
different physical devices. These workspaces can in turn have different
tiling layouts applied and either jumped directly to or cycled through
with a key sequence e.g
I can launch FF with a hot key. "TV" is usually ins simpleFloat
layout. However I am NOT acutally on the TV. I am on the lcd. I can then
play with some FF settings or pick my page/bookmark and then, with
another key, send that app to workspace TV. Whoops! I just realised that
the layout of the floats on the tv dont work so I hotkey the TV
workspace straight to my monitor, I play with the TV layout and then
hotkey it back. All the things working fine on the TV and visible at all
times. I hot key my main development emacs workspace to the lcs now and
carry on working - in this I tend to have emacs full screen. However,
supose I want to use Gimp? Gimp works best with an IM layout so I keep
it on another dedicated "Gimp" workspace. I just hot key that workspace
to my lcd, all the while the tv remains unaffected, and do my thing. But
wait, I dont always want to full screen emacs or jump to another WS. No,
hit Control-space and cycle between me 3 most common layouts with emacs
taking a lesser role for a short to, say, urxvt in which I am rsyncing,
Unison, or oocalc. Meanwhile my skype gui is still running and visible
on the TV ... as is my 2 firefoxes displaying different pages of the web
component being worked on.
I could go on, but, well, you just dont get it and think that the world
ends with virtual desktops.
Hadron
not the best English, even by my lax cola standard, above as its the end
of a 36 hour day - but you get the msg.
TomB
> Look, I use xmonyd. This means not only can I programme what x classes go
> to what workspaces, I can also send them, retrieve them with keyboard
> bindings. I can then juggle the different workspaces between the
> different physical devices. These workspaces can in turn have different
> tiling layouts applied and either jumped directly to or cycled through
> with a key sequence e.g
Very much like awesome. Great.
--
Don't go surfing in South Dakota for a while.
TomB
No it isn't. It's *very* organized.
> Face it: you made a cola clown statement you can't support.
Whatever...
--
You will hear good news from one you thought unfriendly to you.
chrisv
>You disappeared from that thread then.
Like we haven't seen you do that, Timmy twit.
chrisv
> JEDIDIAH belched:
>>
>> You Lemmings are trying to push standards that not even RMS does.
>
>Of course. It's only by lying and twisting words that "Moshe", "Ezekiel",
>and "Hadron" can smear one of the more popular Linux distros.
"Hadron" hates Ubuntu precisely because is *has* been so successful in
attracting new Linux users. He hates it because it helped make it so
easy to try Linux.
chrisv
> Hadron quacked:
>>
>> Now, what has this got to do with Canonical not giving back the base
>> Debian upon which many alternative distros to Ubuntu are reliant?
Quack: Canonical is under *no* obligation, moral or otherwise, to do
*anything* more than what is required by the licenses, you stupid,
Micro$oft-loving asshole.
The GPL was *made* for this. It's *why* people use it. They *want*
the code to be used. This benefits *everyone*.
>Since even RMS wouldn't demand this, you're the one that needs to see
>a doctor. This "issue" is just another lame attempt by the Lemming Trolls
>to find some way (any way) of defaming Linux.
Hadron Quack *hates* Linux with every fiber of his body.
> Infact, Shuttleworth offered manpower to Debian.
>
> So your facts aren't even right to begin with.
Hadron Quack lie? Wow, there's something new...
William Poaster
The M$ fanboi also hates it beacuse he claimed all kinds of difficulties in
installing Ubuntu (most of which had a flatfish stink to it: i.e Googled
difficulties).
So teh troll claimed to install Debian "testing" instead, funny because Ubuntu
is often regarded as more "bleeding edge" than Debian. So another of the M$
fanboi's idiotic foibles "Ubuntu leaches off Debian where all the real hard
work was done." (M-ID <gknmm8$9i1$1...@news.motzarella.org>) is shot down IMO.
Futhermore in January 2007, the self-confessed troll said ""Ubuntu has really
set the standard for quality.".
Seem that, given time, Hadron the Halfwit contradicts himself!
--
Digital Tipping Point
http://www.archive.org/details/proof_of_concept_four_mins.mpg
Hadron
It is : try it! xmonad interacts well as the WM for gnome too if you
want to stay gnomish for example. Google will reveal all, but here's a
start:
http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Xmonad/Using_xmonad_in_Gnome
I used to use a full gnome way, but now use gdm to boot to an xsession
which does the "exec gnome-session" trick. I just find it cleaner (the
host of .*{rc} files had me in a tiz as to which were used). Now I KNOW
.xsession is used...
The programming of your own control file is not so easy as Haskell is a
bit of a bitch to be honest. It also remove all those pesky title bars
:-; Lots of examples in google land.
Trust me, the colatards (of which I dont think you are one) will be
wetting their panties and calling you a wintroll before you know it when
they realise you actually DO use Linux for real and push it!
On that subject, I finally got around to pulling in the Debian
experimental video drivers (not without issue :-() and installing them
the "Debian way" using m-a, and now I have xrandr support again and
compositing extension works properly with xcompmgr! I load xcompmgr
"manually" at xstart from the .xsession before launching
gnome-session. Works really, really well! (I dont do compiz - compiz is
for nerds who use Linux to show they, well, use Linux).
Should you try it, I strongly recommend googling up xmodmap to convert
your left caps lock to another "control" key for xmonad (mod4).
Moshe Goldfarb
Wow!
It's like a trip back to the early 1990's
No wonder you like Linux!!!
Thanks for the trip down memory lane!
TomB
> bit of a bitch to be honest. It also remove all those pesky title bars
>:-; Lots of examples in google land.
Awesome uses lua to 'program' the interface. It has features very
similar to xmonad. Both are also based on dwm, which I used before I
switched to awesome.
> Should you try it, I strongly recommend googling up xmodmap to convert
> your left caps lock to another "control" key for xmonad (mod4).
I use a happy hacking keyboard, so my control key is already in the
right place ;-)
I do use xmodmap to make the right 'alt' key act as a 'compose' key
though:
keysym Alt_R = Multi_key
By the way, afaik 'mod4' is the 'logo' key.
--
You have a will that can be influenced by all with whom you come in contact.
JEDIDIAH
...if the tool fits.
Working solutions should not be destroyed simply to keep a corporate
money machine on life support.
>
> Thanks for the trip down memory lane!
--
In a "stable" but "inconsistent" system, the end user only |||
has to adapt once rather than needing to adapt any time a / | \
new version of the relevant shovelware is released.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> TomB <tommy.b...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Very much like awesome. Great.
>
> Trust me, the colatards (of which I dont think you are one) will be
> wetting their panties and calling you a wintroll before you know it when
> they realise you actually DO use Linux for real and push it!
Such incredible silliness from big-head "Hadron".
--
You don't become a failure until you're satisfied with being one.
TomB
Absolutely. I can't do this on Windows.
> Thanks for the trip down memory lane!
You're welcome.
--
It's all in the mind, ya know.
Hadron
You're right there but thats there too to left of space. I prefer to use
capslock. especially on the thinkpad.
TomB
>> By the way, afaik 'mod4' is the 'logo' key.
>
> You're right there but thats there too to left of space. I prefer to use
> capslock. especially on the thinkpad.
Ah, by 'control' you meant 'to control xmonad'? So you turn your caps
lock into mod4 then?
--
Q: How do you stop an elephant from charging?
A: Take away his credit cards.
Hadron
> On 2009-08-21, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:
>> TomB <tommy.b...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> By the way, afaik 'mod4' is the 'logo' key.
>>
>> You're right there but thats there too to left of space. I prefer to use
>> capslock. especially on the thinkpad.
>
> Ah, by 'control' you meant 'to control xmonad'? So you turn your caps
> lock into mod4 then?
yes.
Thats why I said
,----
| your left caps lock to another "control" key for xmonad (mod4).
`----
sorry, if wasn't clear.
Tim Smith
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>
> I think he aspires to be a Tim Smith.
What does the "registrant" field mean in a whois record, Chris?
--
--Tim Smith
Moshe Goldfarb
The silence is deafening.....wait...wait....I do hear something!
Sounds like sucking noises, yes it *is* sucking noises.
Sounds like MiniWitz (Chris Ahlstrom) is consulting with his
master Roy Schestowitz for advice on how to save face.
He must have mistook "save face" for "sitting on face",
henceforth the sucking noises.
Hadron
> After takin' a swig o' grog, JEDIDIAH belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2009-08-20, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> WTF are you burbling about?!?!?!?!?
>>
>> The great pretender not understanding the mechanics of Free Software.
>> Imagine that.
>> It's almost like you are pretending to be some sort of Linux booster
>> when infact you are nothing but a garden variety lemming troll.
>
> Actually, "Hadron" is more kooky than most trolls. He's been applying a
> lighter touch lately.
Kooky? Proving you're a little show off and generally talking through
your arse is not "kooky".
Your latest defense of Roy with regard to "registrant" is an all time
low.
>
> I think he aspires to be a Tim Smith.
You should. You would be a better person. Proving things with facts that
is and not making up things as you go along to curry favour with loonies
like Roy.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> In article <h6ke3g$2eb$4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think he aspires to be a Tim Smith.
>
> What ...
Sorry Tim, no trolling for you.
--
Q: Why did the programmer call his mother long distance?
A: Because that was her name.
Ezekiel
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
news:h6mpnv$rqq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> In article <h6ke3g$2eb$4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think he aspires to be a Tim Smith.
>>
>> What ...
>
> Sorry Tim, no trolling for you.
Since you're wrong and won't admit it you make some feeble attempt to run
and hide.
Take your beatdown like a man for once!!!! (But get Roy's permission
first - just in case.)
Moshe Goldfarb
Didn't I tell you I heard sucking noises !!!!
And like magic, Lin-O-Vac "comes" out of nowhere.
chrisv
> Tim Smith belched:
>>
>> What ...
>
>Sorry Tim, no trolling for you.
Hehe. Censored!
Remember when the Quack asshole and his fellow Wintrolls were claiming
that plonking or otherwise ignoring people was "censoring" them?
Guffaw. What a bunch of cretinous clowns.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Tim keeps harping on the "registrant". So what? Either Roy registed under
the dept's name with consent, or without. In either case, he is listed
as the point of contact, so there's nothing nefarious going on. If he
didn't get consent, someone there will ping him on it. Maybe. Maybe they
don't care.
Meanwhile, Moshe and "Hadron" are barking like little puppies joining in the
fun as their slightly older sibling grrrowls and shakes its head with a dry,
dirty bone in its mouth. "What a catch, Spike!"
--
Don't tell any big lies today. Small ones can be just as effective.
Tim Smith
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
> Tim keeps harping on the "registrant". So what? Either Roy registed under
Nice misrepresentation there, Chris. I simply noted that the WHOIS data
listed the university as the owner of the domain, rather than Roy, and
wondered if the university knew this.
Then you start accusing me of malicious snipping for not listing the
irrelevant technical and administrative contact entries. It's not
harping to try to correct your misunderstand of what the WHOIS data
fields mean.
> the dept's name with consent, or without. In either case, he is listed
> as the point of contact, so there's nothing nefarious going on. If he
> didn't get consent, someone there will ping him on it. Maybe. Maybe they
> don't care.
The registrant is supposed to be the *owner* of the domain. As it stands
in the WHOIS data right now, if someone wonders who owns the BN domain,
the data says it is the university. Is it nefarious? Probably not--but
it could be. Roy has exaggerated his credentials before, such as when he
claims to be a computer scientist when writing to government bodies.
Making it look like his site is an official university site could aid in
that credential inflating.
--
--Tim Smith
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> In article <h6n1fb$k96$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>> Tim keeps harping on the "registrant". So what? Either Roy registed under
>
> Nice misrepresentation there, Chris. I simply noted that the WHOIS data
> listed the university as the owner of the domain, rather than Roy, and
> wondered if the university knew this.
>
> Then you start accusing me of malicious snipping for not listing the
> irrelevant technical and administrative contact entries. It's not
> harping to try to correct your misunderstand of what the WHOIS data
> fields mean.
I had no misunderstanding, unless it was that you were accusing Roy
of something nefarious.
You still could have examined the rest of the whois in your post,
though.
> The registrant is supposed to be the *owner* of the domain. As it stands
> in the WHOIS data right now, if someone wonders who owns the BN domain,
> the data says it is the university. Is it nefarious? Probably not--but
> it could be. Roy has exaggerated his credentials before, such as when he
> claims to be a computer scientist when writing to government bodies.
> Making it look like his site is an official university site could aid in
> that credential inflating.
I agree.
But, my God, what a yawner. It's more likely just a convenience, or
even consented to by the department head, who may be quite sympathetic to
the aims of BN.
Maybe flatfish will report to us on how his tattle-taling went.
--
It is so very hard to be an
on-your-own-take-care-of-yourself-because-there-is-no-one-else-to-do-it-for-you
grown-up.
Moshe Goldfarb
> In article <h6n1fb$k96$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>> Tim keeps harping on the "registrant". So what? Either Roy registed under
>
> Nice misrepresentation there, Chris. I simply noted that the WHOIS data
> listed the university as the owner of the domain, rather than Roy, and
> wondered if the university knew this.
Poor Chris Ahlstrom.
He has to start this up in a another thread so it doesn't
continue under a subject line that might be damaging to Roy or
BN.
> Then you start accusing me of malicious snipping for not listing the
> irrelevant technical and administrative contact entries. It's not
> harping to try to correct your misunderstand of what the WHOIS data
> fields mean.
Chris knows full well what it means.
He will never, ever, ever, sully the good name of his master Roy
Schestowitz though.
It's quite puzzling that a supposed grown man would be taken
under another person's "spell" like that.
>> the dept's name with consent, or without. In either case, he is listed
>> as the point of contact, so there's nothing nefarious going on. If he
>> didn't get consent, someone there will ping him on it. Maybe. Maybe they
>> don't care.
>
> The registrant is supposed to be the *owner* of the domain. As it stands
> in the WHOIS data right now, if someone wonders who owns the BN domain,
> the data says it is the university. Is it nefarious? Probably not--but
> it could be. Roy has exaggerated his credentials before, such as when he
> claims to be a computer scientist when writing to government bodies.
> Making it look like his site is an official university site could aid in
> that credential inflating.
Nothing that Roy Schestowitz does would surprise me.
He has an ego the size of Texas and his narcissistic tendencies
drive him to believe he is above everyone else.
He must be laughing his ass off at all these people he has
sucked into his web.
When it all comes crashing down though, Schestowitz will not
only be left holding the bag, he will be all alone because the
Linux community will dump him like a hot potato.
He will at that point become a pariah like Hans Resier.
Moshe Goldfarb
I didn't rat him out.
Why?
Glad you asked!
It's better that when BN gets sued, and they will be getting
sued, that University of Manchester gets named in the suit as
the "owner" of BN
Boy is that going to come as a surprise to the University.
And then, that coupled with Roy Schestowitz leaching off the
school's network to SPAM his own personal garbage will make
Schestowitz's life very miserable.
Since the Novell and Microsoft throng that hang out in his
channel and lurk in COLA already know all about it, I suspect he
has already reported though.
I don't hate Roy Schestowitz, but some of those guys having been
digging up dirt on him for quite some time now.
He is in for a rude awakening.
Get ready for another lame excuse while he finds an ISP.
Get out the popcorn and beer because the show is about to begin!
William Poaster
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Tim Smith belched:
>>>
>>> What ...
>>
>>Sorry Tim, no trolling for you.
>
> Hehe. Censored!
>
> Remember when the Quack asshole and his fellow Wintrolls were claiming
> that plonking or otherwise ignoring people was "censoring" them?
Yes, utter bullshit. But what do you expect from idiots like that.
> Guffaw. What a bunch of cretinous clowns.
Inane assholes.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:56:14 +0000, TomB wrote:
> On 2009-08-21, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel:
> Well, actually I turn off all that Aero stuff to get the old win2k like
> interface. Of course Office 2007 insists on using the new style
> titlebars anyway. Brilliant...
Hmm? You mean you can re-theme Vista to look like something useful, but
then MSO insists on doing the wrong thing anyways? Wasn't one of the key
issues with Linux - according to some of the Windroids, at least - how
inconsistent the UI can be? Ah, well, yet another argument "against"
Linux bites the dust. :)
> Dual monitors are not an option.
> Virtual desktops on Windows suck. At least the ones I tried.
It's been that way a long, long time, too. It's not that you couldn't
get VW support by one means or another, it's that too many apps failed to
work with such a setup, or you'd wind up with (in at least one memorable
case) - a system modal dialog which needed attention, but you couldn't
get to it because the method to switch desktops was blocked by the system
modal dialog.
Granted, that was back in the days of Dashboard (if I recall the name
correctly) but still, more than a little amusing. :)
TomB
> [snips]
>
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:56:14 +0000, TomB wrote:
>
>> On 2009-08-21, the following emerged from the brain of Ezekiel:
>
>> Well, actually I turn off all that Aero stuff to get the old win2k like
>> interface. Of course Office 2007 insists on using the new style
>> titlebars anyway. Brilliant...
>
> Hmm? You mean you can re-theme Vista to look like something useful, but
> then MSO insists on doing the wrong thing anyways?
Yes. I guess MSO insist on using the Vista style title bars because
the developers thought it was a good idea to put program functionality
into the title bar. Bad idea.
> Wasn't one of the key
> issues with Linux - according to some of the Windroids, at least - how
> inconsistent the UI can be? Ah, well, yet another argument "against"
> Linux bites the dust. :)
That agrument never even made it out of the dust ;-)
I have used every version since 98 in a production environment, and
inconsistencies were always a part of it. I don't give a damn, by the
way. Only those friggin title bars. I want 'em small, with a red to
black gradient, and w2k-like.
--
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would
be a merrier world.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien