Ask.com Still sucks

[Justin]

You don't see this on OSX! As usual, most software for Windows is
pretty much useless. The only way companies can get users to install
it, is by tricking them.
A good example is cutepdf and the piece of shit ask.com toolbar.

Why is ask.com even still around?
Is Jeeves in a union?
Do they get a nickel for every popup they generate on user's machines?
Of course somebody on here seems to believe I was faking the
screenshots. I must have faked this video too.
Here's a challenge, find a similar attempt to trick a user into
installing something on OSX.
Of course, one doesn't need cutepdf or anything like that on the mac
since it has PDF generation built in.

http://tinypic.com/r/19vxow/6

[Snit]

On 11/27/12 2:24 PM, in article k93b1r$9qh$1...@dont-email.me, "Justin"

For a better video of the same process:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PrintToPDF.mp4>

Yes: Windows sucks in this area. No doubt.


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

[Norman Peelman]

That looks like a great idea... You can actually search the Internet
directly from your browser!

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

[Snit]

On 11/27/12 8:24 PM, in article k9405l$m6d$1...@dont-email.me, "Norman Peelman"

Er?


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

[Justin]

Color me confused.

[AD]

On Nov 28, 12:24 am, Justin <n...@becauseireallyhatespam.edu> wrote:
> You don't see this on OSX!  As usual, most software for Windows is
> pretty much useless.  The only way companies can get users to install
> it, is by tricking them.
> A good example is cutepdf and the piece of shit ask.com toolbar.
>

Oh my gawd I had installed CIV 1,II,III,IV on my X38 driven PC by
accident,
thanks for enlightening me

(Like that program ever worked on my macbook pro, I've spent many
hours
to get past the blank screen of application death)

[Hadron]

LOL. Its so funny watching you make a tit of yourself. You use cutepdf
as an example and then forget that and think its the foundation for your
clueless wine.

SW that "tricks" is as likely on WIndows as it is on Linux as it is on
OSX assuming similar user numbers. See Android for details about
virs/trojans/adware scams.


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

[Justin]

On 11/30/2012 3:40 AM, Hadron wrote:
> Justin<n...@becauseireallyhatespam.edu> writes:
>
>> You don't see this on OSX! As usual, most software for Windows is pretty much
>> useless. The only way companies can get users to install it, is by tricking
>> them.
>> A good example is cutepdf and the piece of shit ask.com toolbar.
>>
>> Why is ask.com even still around?
>> Is Jeeves in a union?
>> Do they get a nickel for every popup they generate on user's machines?
>> Of course somebody on here seems to believe I was faking the screenshots. I
>> must have faked this video too.
>> Here's a challenge, find a similar attempt to trick a user into installing
>> something on OSX.
>> Of course, one doesn't need cutepdf or anything like that on the mac since it
>> has PDF generation built in.
>>
>> http://tinypic.com/r/19vxow/6
>>
>
> LOL. Its so funny watching you make a tit of yourself. You use cutepdf
> as an example and then forget that and think its the foundation for your
> clueless wine.
>
> SW that "tricks" is as likely on WIndows as it is on Linux as it is on
> OSX assuming similar user numbers. See Android for details about
> virs/trojans/adware scams.
>
>

HAHAHA!
Ignorance is bliss.
If is is just as likely, why aren't we seeing it? Go ahead. Prove me
wrong. Find a piece of software for OSX that tries to get you to
install some useless toolbar, or "security" suite.
Adobe's flash player tries to install Chrome, or Norton. Doesn't on OSX...
It isn't my fault OSX is simply better in every way than Windows.

[Hadron]

Amazing. It's as if you read what I typed but didn't understand a single
thing! Well done "just in".

[Justin]

Actually you're correct, the few bits I skimmed are fairly
incomprehensible to those of us without Aspergers.
In other words I barely read it.

[Nobody]

I downloaded Ghostscript and CutePDF for Windows. Avoiding the Ask.com
toolbar and browser software changes was easy. All I had to do was
remove three checks in the installation option screen.

Now I can create a PDF file from any of my Windows applications.

I like that a lot better than paying Apple $1200 for $400 worth of
hardware just to get print to PDF in OSX.

[Alan Baker]

In article <k9gc3f$nbp$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Welcome back, Edwin!

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[Nobody]

On 11/30/2012 10:05 AM, Justin wrote:
> On 11/30/2012 3:40 AM, Hadron wrote:
>> Justin<n...@becauseireallyhatespam.edu> writes:
>>

[...]

>
> HAHAHA!
> Ignorance is bliss.
> If is is just as likely, why aren't we seeing it? Go ahead. Prove me
> wrong. Find a piece of software for OSX that tries to get you to
> install some useless toolbar, or "security" suite.
> Adobe's flash player tries to install Chrome, or Norton. Doesn't on OSX...
> It isn't my fault OSX is simply better in every way than Windows.

You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between software
installers and operating systems.

[Snit]

On 12/2/12 1:01 PM, in article k9gc3f$nbp$1...@news.albasani.net, "Nobody"

What? Oh, you are just trolling. Carry on. :)

[GreyCloud]

I believe you get more than that for your money.
If I had to shell out money to get a similar development environment on
windows that Apple provides I would have to pay somewhere around $3000.
If you aren't into that, then windows or linux (depending on your needs)
would be a better way to go.
For my needs, all I need to have done with pdf files is to read them.

[FDK]

"Nobody" wrote in message news:k9gc3f$nbp$1...@news.albasani.net...

You whistled - Alan came running. Tripping all over his feet.

He seems to be obsessed with "Edwin" and "Michael", to an unhealthy
degree. They must have opened his eyes to the fact that he's a
useless, little nothing, without a wife, a life, a car, a job, a
house. He should thank God every day for his parents money.

If I were crossing a desert and came upon him dying of thirst, I might
shit on his head, even though I know the moisture might sustain him.

[Snit]

On 12/2/12 3:48 PM, in article Ur-dnU8e6NIoRybN...@bresnan.com,

"GreyCloud" <cum...@mist.com> wrote:

> On 12/02/12 13:01, Nobody wrote:
>> On 11/27/2012 3:24 PM, Justin wrote:
>>> You don't see this on OSX! As usual, most software for Windows is
>>> pretty much useless. The only way companies can get users to install
>>> it, is by tricking them.
>>> A good example is cutepdf and the piece of shit ask.com toolbar.
>>>
>>> Why is ask.com even still around?
>>> Is Jeeves in a union?
>>> Do they get a nickel for every popup they generate on user's machines?
>>> Of course somebody on here seems to believe I was faking the
>>> screenshots. I must have faked this video too.
>>> Here's a challenge, find a similar attempt to trick a user into
>>> installing something on OSX.
>>> Of course, one doesn't need cutepdf or anything like that on the mac
>>> since it has PDF generation built in.
>>>
>>> http://tinypic.com/r/19vxow/6
>>
>> I downloaded Ghostscript and CutePDF for Windows. Avoiding the Ask.com
>> toolbar and browser software changes was easy. All I had to do was
>> remove three checks in the installation option screen.
>>
>> Now I can create a PDF file from any of my Windows applications.
>>
>> I like that a lot better than paying Apple $1200 for $400 worth of
>> hardware just to get print to PDF in OSX.
>
> I believe you get more than that for your money.

Of course. And he knows that - he is just trolling.

> If I had to shell out money to get a similar development environment on
> windows that Apple provides I would have to pay somewhere around $3000.
> If you aren't into that, then windows or linux (depending on your needs)
> would be a better way to go.
> For my needs, all I need to have done with pdf files is to read them.

I also make them. One of the things I really like about OS X is how it keeps
links in the PDFs it makes. I was going to say this is the same on Ubuntu,
though it was not on older versions of OS X - but just tested Ubuntu and it
does not save the links. OS X is just far, far better here... saves links,
has a menu where you can select where you want to save it to (I have some
common places - desktop, downloads, a web receipts folder, a menu folder,
etc.) and it allows you to "pipe" it to other programs or fax it. OS X does
this for any program which uses the standard print dialog (pretty much all
programs).

No other OS does this as well - as far as I know anyway. If others can show
one I would like to see it.

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

[GreyCloud]

I like the way they have made it rather obvious to the user.

>
> No other OS does this as well - as far as I know anyway. If others can show
> one I would like to see it.
>

Yes, I know.

[Sandman]

In article <k9gc3f$nbp$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Nobody <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:

Good to see you again, Edwin!


--
Sandman[.net]

[FDK]

"Sandman" wrote in message
news:mr-14C95B.08...@News.Individual.NET...

Go get em, boy!!

http://s1225.beta.photobucket.com/user/Jaybirdsong/media/his-voice.gif.html?sort=3&o=1#/user/Jaybirdsong/media/his-voice.gif.html?sort=3&o=1&_suid=135453911810003128000950354707


--
Sandman[.net]

[GreyCloud]

Wonder what Edwin is up to these days?

[Sandman]

In article <ieOdnc3zHtLQlCDN...@bresnan.com>,

He has apparently switched to Linux, presumably because he can't
afford Windows any longer. His troll antics have remained the same,
and most troll wannabes in csma have a thing or two to learn from him.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Justin]

Even Linux?!?!?!?

[GreyCloud]

No... linux is stuck in the far distant past with X11.
Time for them to move forward. No wonder no one uses linux.

[Justin]

When are they going to use X12?

[GreyCloud]

Don't know. But X11 is getting long in the tooth.

[Aaron W. Hsu]

GreyCloud wrote:

> Don't know. But X11 is getting long in the tooth.

A replacement has been in the works for a while, and some people feel that
it is getting mature enough to think about transitioning over to it.

--
Aaron W. Hsu | arc...@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us
Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-12-12, Aaron W. Hsu <arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
>> Don't know. But X11 is getting long in the tooth.
>
> A replacement has been in the works for a while, and some people feel that
> it is getting mature enough to think about transitioning over to it.
>

If it can't handle natively running applications over the network at least
as well as RDP or X11 itself then it's a total nonstarter.

I've seen firsthand what the Mac approach to this problem gets you and it
isn't pretty.

--
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
|||
/ | \

[Peter Köhlmann]

JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2012-12-12, Aaron W. Hsu <arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>> Don't know. But X11 is getting long in the tooth.
>>
>> A replacement has been in the works for a while, and some people feel
>> that it is getting mature enough to think about transitioning over to it.
>>
>
> If it can't handle natively running applications over the network at
> least
> as well as RDP or X11 itself then it's a total nonstarter.

Luckily Wayland is designed to be able to do that.
It isn't quite complete yet, but getting close.

Still, X has its advantages, and it will be available as default graphical
system for linux for quite some time and as an alternative to Wayland for a
long time

> I've seen firsthand what the Mac approach to this problem gets you and
> it isn't pretty.
>

No, it isn't. It uses VNC, and that is as sluggy as a snail on tranquilizer.
It is better than having nothing, but a *lot* worse than remote X.
And OSX X is practically useless. And already no longer present on the new
OSX versions

[GreyCloud]

On 12/12/12 12:05, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2012-12-12, Aaron W. Hsu<arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>> Don't know. But X11 is getting long in the tooth.
>>
>> A replacement has been in the works for a while, and some people feel that
>> it is getting mature enough to think about transitioning over to it.
>>
>
> If it can't handle natively running applications over the network at least
> as well as RDP or X11 itself then it's a total nonstarter.
>
> I've seen firsthand what the Mac approach to this problem gets you and it
> isn't pretty.
>

Macs also have X11... and in case you didn't know I'll provide you with
someone elses comments about it:


"> > Your number seems a bit low. I'd say 98% of Apple users don't care
about X11. But those 2% are extremely influential. Did you see any
pictures of the NASA control room for the Mars Curiosity landing? All
Macs except for one.
Certainly correct, and I speak as someone who works in the Mission
Control Center for a NASA satellite, where we use a lot of Macs. Nobody
here ever complained about the installation experience of X11 though.

I know you seemingly won't be convinced, but this really is a non-issue.

Jamie"

"> Certainly correct, and I speak as someone who works in the Mission
Control Center for a NASA satellite, where we use a lot of Macs. Nobody
here ever complained about the installation experience of X11 though.

Agreed. I work at CERN, where macs are now very common. The reason I
would say is the UNIX heritage, so you get all the power of the command
line etc. + X11, plus the nice native GUI and applications of course.

X11 is heavily used, but the time to install it or the number of clicks
is really not a concern. X11 is now arguably better supported, since
Apple has outsourced it to Xquartz, than it was when it was shipped with
OSX, since Xquartz is more up to date anyway."

Got these off the X11 forum mailing list.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-12-12, Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2012-12-12, Aaron W. Hsu <arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't know. But X11 is getting long in the tooth.
>>>
>>> A replacement has been in the works for a while, and some people feel
>>> that it is getting mature enough to think about transitioning over to it.
>>>
>>
>> If it can't handle natively running applications over the network at
>> least
>> as well as RDP or X11 itself then it's a total nonstarter.
>
> Luckily Wayland is designed to be able to do that.

No it isn't.

Wayland developers and fanboys treat remote desktops as a passe
feature that should be left back in the 80s despite the realities
of modern corporate desktop computing.

Remote access isn't being addressed. It's being ignored.

[Peter Köhlmann]

JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2012-12-12, Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-12-12, Aaron W. Hsu <arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
>>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't know. But X11 is getting long in the tooth.
>>>>
>>>> A replacement has been in the works for a while, and some people feel
>>>> that it is getting mature enough to think about transitioning over to
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it can't handle natively running applications over the network at
>>> least
>>> as well as RDP or X11 itself then it's a total nonstarter.
>>
>> Luckily Wayland is designed to be able to do that.
>
> No it isn't.

You are wrong. It *can* do remote X, that is just a plugin away

> Wayland developers and fanboys treat remote desktops as a passe
> feature that should be left back in the 80s despite the realities
> of modern corporate desktop computing.
>
> Remote access isn't being addressed. It's being ignored.

Nope. Wrong on all accounts

[Justin]

You were in space?!

>
> Agreed. I work at CERN, where macs are now very common. The reason I
> would say is the UNIX heritage, so you get all the power of the command
> line etc. + X11, plus the nice native GUI and applications of course.

Tell them to stop making black holes.

>
> X11 is heavily used, but the time to install it or the number of clicks
> is really not a concern. X11 is now arguably better supported, since
> Apple has outsourced it to Xquartz, than it was when it was shipped with
> OSX, since Xquartz is more up to date anyway."

What's the best RemoteX solution for Mac?

[GreyCloud]

Odd that CERN and NASA mission control use mostly macs now.

[GreyCloud]

Nope... I'm quoting what was sent to me.

>
>>
>> Agreed. I work at CERN, where macs are now very common. The reason I
>> would say is the UNIX heritage, so you get all the power of the command
>> line etc. + X11, plus the nice native GUI and applications of course.
>
> Tell them to stop making black holes.

What for? Black holes is where Congress is shoveling our money into. :-))
And in the future... I'll be on the other side waiting for the riches to
come thru.

>
>>
>> X11 is heavily used, but the time to install it or the number of clicks
>> is really not a concern. X11 is now arguably better supported, since
>> Apple has outsourced it to Xquartz, than it was when it was shipped with
>> OSX, since Xquartz is more up to date anyway."
>
> What's the best RemoteX solution for Mac?
>
>

Don't know, I'd have to ask those that do use it. I have no need of it.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-12-12, Justin <n...@becauseihatespam.info> wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 3:07 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>> On 12/12/12 12:05, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2012-12-12, Aaron W. Hsu<arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
>>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't know. But X11 is getting long in the tooth.
>>>>
>>>> A replacement has been in the works for a while, and some people feel
>>>> that
>>>> it is getting mature enough to think about transitioning over to it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it can't handle natively running applications over the network at
>>> least
>>> as well as RDP or X11 itself then it's a total nonstarter.
>>>
>>> I've seen firsthand what the Mac approach to this problem gets you and it
>>> isn't pretty.
>>>
>> Macs also have X11... and in case you didn't know I'll provide you with
>> someone elses comments about it:

...fat lot of good that does for any Mac apps.

THAT is what we're talking about here, "platform apps".

[deletia]

The fact that I can run alien applications from a graphical framework
that young kids love to hate on and want to kill is not really the point
here. Once Linux "goes down the Mac path" here, there won't be any such
apps because they will all be Wayland apps.

--
Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
events not in their control.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2012-12-12, Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2012-12-12, Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-12-12, Aaron W. Hsu <arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
>>>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't know. But X11 is getting long in the tooth.
>>>>>
>>>>> A replacement has been in the works for a while, and some people feel
>>>>> that it is getting mature enough to think about transitioning over to
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it can't handle natively running applications over the network at
>>>> least
>>>> as well as RDP or X11 itself then it's a total nonstarter.
>>>
>>> Luckily Wayland is designed to be able to do that.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
> You are wrong. It *can* do remote X, that is just a plugin away

Remote X on top of Wayland is much like doing X on top of Wnidows.

It's not the same thing at all.

>
>> Wayland developers and fanboys treat remote desktops as a passe
>> feature that should be left back in the 80s despite the realities
>> of modern corporate desktop computing.
>>
>> Remote access isn't being addressed. It's being ignored.
>
> Nope. Wrong on all accounts
>

You are conflating something like Hummingbird with real baked
in remote access features that are considered and designed into the
project while it is being built.

That proves my point.

[AD]

On Dec 13, 8:23 pm, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2012-12-12, Justin <n...@becauseihatespam.info> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12/12/2012 3:07 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
> >> On 12/12/12 12:05, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> >>> On 2012-12-12, Aaron W. Hsu<arcf...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
> >>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>
> >>>>> Don't know. But X11 is getting long in the tooth.
>
> >>>> A replacement has been in the works for a while, and some people feel
> >>>> that
> >>>> it is getting mature enough to think about transitioning over to it.
>
> >>> If it can't handle natively running applications over the network at
> >>> least
> >>> as well as RDP or X11 itself then it's a total nonstarter.
>
> >>> I've seen firsthand what the Mac approach to this problem gets you and it
> >>> isn't pretty.
>
> >> Macs also have X11... and in case you didn't know I'll provide you with
> >> someone elses comments about it:
>
> ...fat lot of good that does for any Mac apps.
>
> THAT is what we're talking about here, "platform apps".
>
> [deletia]
>
> The fact that I can run alien applications from a graphical framework
> that young kids love to hate on and want to kill is not really the point
> here. Once Linux "goes down the Mac path" here, there won't be any such
> apps because they will all be Wayland apps.
>

so you suggest to keep using the slave labor, er, mit students
for upkeep of the xorg code?

(the problem?) is that open gl in it's current shape and form is
not well suited for remote apps anymore anyway.

me thinks remoting gles and using that on desktop is a cheaper
and easier to maintain path that the upkeep of the old behemoth x11
(or getting full desktop ogl remote capable)

not sure how expensive it's to rewrite your (large and unwieldy i take
it)
x11 clients to remote mode capable gles (3). (that exists solely in my
fantasies
of young girls love and hate ;)