Introducing the 3.3 and 3.4 Linux kernels

[Hardon]

<http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-33linuxkernel/index.html?ca=drs->

<quote>
Review the latest Linux kernel and its features for Google Android,
Open vSwitch, networking, and more

Summary: In March 2012, version 3.3 of the Linux kernel was released
(followed in by version 3.4 in May). In addition to a plethora of
small features and bug fixes, several important changes have arrived
with these releases, including the merging of the Google Android
project; merging of the Open vSwitch; several networking improvements
(including the teaming network device); and a variety of file system,
memory management, and virtualization updates. Explore many of the
important changes in versions 3.3 and 3.4, and have a peek at what's
ahead in 3.5.
</quote>

--
Since it is no longer permissible to disparage any single faith or
creed, let us start disparaging all of them. A religion is a belief
system with no basis in reality whatever. Religious belief is without
reason and without dignity, and its record is near-universally
dreadful.
-Martin Amis

[Snit]

On 6/19/12 8:22 AM, in article
3P0Er.295500$7A3.2...@news.usenetserver.com, "Hardon"
<hardon...@gmail.com> wrote:

> <http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-33linuxkernel/index.html?ca

> =drs->
>
> <quote>
> Review the latest Linux kernel and its features for Google Android,
> Open vSwitch, networking, and more
>
> Summary: In March 2012, version 3.3 of the Linux kernel was released
> (followed in by version 3.4 in May). In addition to a plethora of
> small features and bug fixes, several important changes have arrived
> with these releases, including the merging of the Google Android
> project; merging of the Open vSwitch; several networking improvements
> (including the teaming network device); and a variety of file system,
> memory management, and virtualization updates. Explore many of the
> important changes in versions 3.3 and 3.4, and have a peek at what's
> ahead in 3.5.
> </quote>

Merging? There goes choice!

Right? I mean choice is good... why merge projects?

Poor herd with their choice mantra... so often it comes back to bite them.


--
The indisputable facts about that absurd debate: <http://goo.gl/2337P>
cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP>
7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu>
cc again pretends to be knowledgeable about things he is clueless about.

[Onion Knight]

On Jun 19, 3:22 pm, Hardon <hardon.qu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Since it is no longer permissible to disparage any single faith or
> creed, let us start disparaging all of them. A religion is a belief
> system with no basis in reality whatever. Religious belief is without
> reason and without dignity, and its record is near-universally
> dreadful.
> -Martin Amis

The anti-religious crowd is just as religious as those of us who are
religious. Their religion is to believe there is no God and nothing
higher than human beings. This is taken on faith as much as my belief
in God is taken on faith. More really given that I have a personal
relationship with God and atheists do not have a relationship with a
lack of God. How could you? To be an atheist takes a lot more faith
than to be religious.

[Snit]

On 6/19/12 8:36 PM, in article
973af35e-ec2d-4cb0...@fr28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, "Onion

This is a bit silly... it is like saying it takes faith to not believe in
each of the gods people believe in. Do you believe in Zeus? If not, do you
base that lack of belief on faith? Do you believe in Njord? If not, do you
base that lack of belief on faith?

I do not believe in a god in much the same way I do not believe in unicorns
or the tooth fairy or Santa Clause. Many people do believe in these
entities - some even say they have evidence they exist... but I have not
seen any evidence that would convince me that they exist. Or that any god
exists.

This does not prove that some god does not exist just as it does not prove
that unicorns or the tooth fairy do not exist. And if you believe in a god
or in something else I do not believe in I am fine with that - as long as
you do not try to push your belief on me. I have nothing against theists, I
just happen to disagree.

With all of that said, I believe the universe is a lot more complex than any
of us can ever understand. We simply lack the ability to comprehend
*everything*. So be it. A lack of knowing does not mean, to me, that I
should believe in something which cannot be shown.

[Onion Knight]

On Jun 20, 3:48 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 6/19/12 8:36 PM, in article

> 973af35e-ec2d-4cb0-a019-269e1fef6...@fr28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, "Onion

Do you believe it takes faith to believe in your family and your
coworkers and your friends? You have a personal relationship with
these people so I bet not. It does not take faith to believe in
someone you personally know. I personally know God and have no need to
rely on only faith to believe in Him. I believe in Him for the same
reason you believe in those you know.

[Onion Knight]

On Jun 20, 3:48 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 6/19/12 8:36 PM, in article

> 973af35e-ec2d-4cb0-a019-269e1fef6...@fr28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com, "Onion

>
> I do not believe in a god in much the same way I do not believe in unicorns
> or the tooth fairy or Santa Clause. Many people do believe in these
> entities - some even say they have evidence they exist... but I have not
> seen any evidence that would convince me that they exist. Or that any god
> exists.
>
> This does not prove that some god does not exist just as it does not prove
> that unicorns or the tooth fairy do not exist. And if you believe in a god
> or in something else I do not believe in I am fine with that - as long as
> you do not try to push your belief on me. I have nothing against theists, I
> just happen to disagree.
>
> With all of that said, I believe the universe is a lot more complex than any
> of us can ever understand. We simply lack the ability to comprehend
> *everything*. So be it. A lack of knowing does not mean, to me, that I
> should believe in something which cannot be shown.

Do you believe it takes faith to believe in your family and your
coworkers and your friends? You have a personal relationship with
these people so I bet not. It does not take faith to believe in
someone you personally know. I personally know God and have no need to
rely on only faith to believe in Him. I believe in Him for the same
reason you believe in those you know.

[Sorry if this is a repost. Google Groups seems to have eaten my first
posting of this.]

[Snit]

On 6/19/12 9:05 PM, in article
2cec7103-05e1-47bf...@p27g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, "Onion

I have no problem with you having a belief in a god (or God, if you prefer).
As far as you having the same type of personal relationship, I do not think
that is the case. Do you really believe you have the same type of
interaction with God as you do your friends and family? The same type of two
way discussions? Can you play a board game with God?

Again: I am *not* putting down your belief system... as long as you are not
pushing it on me I do not find it offensive in any way. But I doubt your
description of your relationship is quite the same as the relationship I
have with people or even pets.

[Snit]

On 6/19/12 9:10 PM, in article
6e74128a-a656-4c81...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Knight" <onionkn...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> [Sorry if this is a repost. Google Groups seems to have eaten my first
> posting of this.]

If it did then it also burped it up. :)

[TomB]

On 2012-06-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:

8<

> Merging? There goes choice!

Are you serious, or are you just trolling?

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Unless⋅and⋅Until you define the word "god", I can't care
if you belive "he" (some random being) exists or not.
Quoting scriptures doesn't count, I need ⋅your⋅ definition.

When engaging in theological discussions,
these (linguistic) definitions are useful:

  "a god" is a position of power, like a prison warden who
  commands respect from (unwilling) inmates.

  "Mother Nature" is "The Supreme God": eternal, infinite and perfect.
  She consumes fuel (eXergy) so, virtually, She's "alive".
  [ All gods are virtual/pseudo, not real, including nature herself ]

Energy that can do work is called "eXergy" or "Quality Energy".
The so⋅called "energy crisis" (1979) was really an eXergy crisis.
Overall, once eXergy is used it's spent, never to return.

Eventually, everything loses the ability to do work ( eXergy ),
including the cosmos itself −− the known Universe is weakening.

There's always some eXergy left in the cosmos because, 
over any length of time, only a portion is consumed.
Whether that's "a lot" or "a little" depends on your perspective.

It took millions of years to create the coal and oil that's
now being used up in a "geological blink of an eye" by 7 billion
humans, breeding exponentionally, each one wanting cars and planes.

Those who live and breed like rabbits, die like rabbits.
Religious people breed and breed, because "it's in God's hands",
until, eventually, war takes care of it.  That's what war is for.

  "Live faster, die sooner" is our biggest "choice".

For that ( feel⋅good over⋅consumption ), we'll die early, way early.
At least we're enjoying it, and that's what matters most, apparently.

All who breathe are committing "slow suicide" ( so to speak ). 
Quoting NIH.GOV:

« Honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) life span
  varies from a few weeks to more than 2 years.
  This plasticity is largely ⋅controlled⋅by⋅environmental⋅ factors. »

« When workers switch from nest to foraging tasks [ breathing harder ],
  [ there's ] a rapid increase in mortality »

« Moreover, during unfavourable periods,
  when brood rearing and foraging ceases,
  a third worker sub-caste develops ( diutinus or ‘winter’ bees ).
   
  This sub-caste is characterized by 
  an extreme life span potential of up to 1 year »

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:

Why do you even try to read Snit's drivel anymore? Right or wrong,
he's nuts.

Heh, thanks to "Hadron" (see sig):

http://content.dell.com/us/en/enterprise/linux.aspx?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz

Proprietary business support solutions have increasingly become a
drain on IT budgets. The limitations of legacy platforms are
compromising business-critical applications. Crucial dollars are
being spent on maintaining the status quo, which sacrifices
innovation.

Gee, who is the "status quo"?

Obviously, the URL is not aimed at the home consumer.

--
If people dont know about Linux then its not Dell's job to educate
them. And, indeed, IF they dont know about Linux they almost certainly
do not want Linux since Linux is a niche product.
They do have Linux products for people that want them.
They are not hidden. They are there at dell.com/linux
It could not be easier.
-- "Hadron" <iitpp5$e50$1...@news.eternal-september.org>

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>>> Merging? There goes choice!
>>
>> Are you serious, or are you just trolling?
>
>Why do you even try to read Snit's drivel anymore? Right or wrong,
>he's nuts.

No shit.

[Snit]

On 6/19/12 10:12 PM, in article 201206200...@usenet.drumscum.be,

My initial comments:

Merging? There goes choice!
Right? I mean choice is good... why merge projects?
Poor herd with their choice mantra... so often it comes
back to bite them.

You snipped in a dishonest way - twisting the meaning of my comments. So the
answer to your question is *you* are trolling.

And running from the point I made. Oh well... it is not as though that is
not your habit. Notice how you repeatedly ran from this message:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/848be5987cc736b3>

You made claims about how the different desktop environments lead to desktop
Linux serving people so well... and then ran when it was noted how even with
all of these desktop environments there are still a lot of significant
lacking features... and that is ignoring the whole question of apps.

You will speak of the advantages tied to desktop Linux... which is great.
But you run when the weaknesses of what you speak of are pointed out... of
how there are trade-offs.

The same is true, above, where I making fun of the lack of ability for the
herd to see the trade-offs of the choice they claim to worship (even though
they often belittle the idea of choice... but so be it).

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 3:17 AM, in article jrs7tm$539$2...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"

<ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:

> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2012-06-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
>> 8<
>>
>>> Merging? There goes choice!
>>
>> Are you serious, or are you just trolling?
>
> Why do you even try to read Snit's drivel anymore? Right or wrong,
> he's nuts.

That is your way of admitting you could not refute my claims... and that you
know - or at least fear - I am generally right.

Nothing more.

...

[Lusotec]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Snit wrote:

> Hardon wrote:
>> <http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-33linuxkernel/
>> index.html?ca=drs->
>>
>> <quote>
>> Review the latest Linux kernel and its features for Google Android,
>> Open vSwitch, networking, and more
>>
>> Summary: In March 2012, version 3.3 of the Linux kernel was released
>> (followed in by version 3.4 in May). In addition to a plethora of
>> small features and bug fixes, several important changes have arrived
>> with these releases, including the merging of the Google Android
>> project; merging of the Open vSwitch; several networking improvements
>> (including the teaming network device); and a variety of file system,
>> memory management, and virtualization updates. Explore many of the
>> important changes in versions 3.3 and 3.4, and have a peek at what's
>> ahead in 3.5.
>> </quote>
>
> Merging? There goes choice!
>
> Right? I mean choice is good... why merge projects?

LOL!

Tell us Snit, what choice is lost/removed/diminished with these branch
merges?

> Poor herd with their choice mantra... so often it comes back to bite them.

Says the ignorant lying sock puppet master!

Regards.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAk/iAW0ACgkQGQjO2ccW76pF9gD/d9NKITR+wdIuWa4lRrt9CIXc
xEkGO0N5ItQBX+ElHUEA/1IMFn16M/3rPy9f25g1GBsP4Geu1IkRcDopQweeROQ+
=lx/2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 9:59 AM, in article jrsvhe$t87$1...@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"

I am mocking the "choice" mantra of the herd. But before there were two
choices - now there is one. And if they had stayed as two choices they
would have been developed and become more different. Now this will not
happen.

Of course, this is a good thing... but remember the herd mantra of "choice".
Why is none of the herd fighting this?

>> Poor herd with their choice mantra... so often it comes back to bite them.
>
> Says the ignorant lying sock puppet master!

What the??? Really... even for a white flat that is boring!

[TomB]

On 2012-06-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:

> On 6/19/12 10:12 PM, in article 201206200...@usenet.drumscum.be,
> "TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-06-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>
>> 8<
>>
>>> Merging? There goes choice!
>>
>> Are you serious, or are you just trolling?
>
> My initial comments:
>
> Merging? There goes choice!
> Right? I mean choice is good... why merge projects?
> Poor herd with their choice mantra... so often it comes
> back to bite them.
>
> You snipped in a dishonest way - twisting the meaning of my
> comments. So the answer to your question is *you* are trolling.

Okay, so your comment was sarcastic, and you don't really believe that
merging projects means choice going away. And you think that is
opposed to the ideas of the GNU/Linux advocates in COLA? Right? If so,
why not state it clearly like that, instead of making a silly posting
like the above? Why not actually try to start a reasonable discussion
on the topic. What you posted is *nothing* to go by. It's just lame
trolling bait.

Sorry, but that's a fact. If you fail to see that, so be it.

> And running from the point I made. Oh well... it is not as though
> that is not your habit. Notice how you repeatedly ran from this
> message:
><http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/848be5987cc736b3>

Can you not understand that some people do not spent 24/7 on usenet
like you? That some people actually have a real job to do, a family to
spend time with, hobbies to do, and friends to visit?

Running from... Yeah, right. Get this, dude: some people actually have
a life to live. That may seem like a odd concept to you, but that's
how it is.

> You made claims about how the different desktop environments lead to
> desktop Linux serving people so well... and then ran when it was
> noted how even with all of these desktop environments there are
> still a lot of significant lacking features...

...and is offering totally different features. Yes, that what
alternatives do. Snit A: Apple is being copied. Snit B: typical OSX
features are not available on GNU/Linux.

Make up your mind, dude.

> and that is ignoring the whole question of apps.

How many times do I have to tell you the following: those that really
need to use an application that is not available on GNU/Linux, for
whatever reason, should use another OS. Simple as that. Hell, in my
professional life I use Windows XP just for that reason.

Will you remember my opinion now?

> You will speak of the advantages tied to desktop Linux...

In a usenet group devoted to Linux advocacy. How strange!

> which is great. But you run when the weaknesses of what you speak
> of are pointed out... of how there are trade-offs.
>
> The same is true, above, where I making fun of the lack of ability
> for the herd to see the trade-offs of the choice

I can see the trade-offs, so I must not be part of this imaginary herd
of yours!

> they claim to worship (even though they often belittle the idea of
> choice... but so be it).

--

A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five.

[chrisv]

Lusotec wrote:

> some vile bastard liar asshole wrote:
>>
>> Poor herd with their choice mantra... so often it comes back to bite them.
>
>Says the ignorant lying sock puppet master!

An ignorant lying piece of shit who ignores what has already been
explained (and is also obvious).

"Consolidation" is *fine* if that is where a free market goes. What
we object-to is some "dictator" deciding what choices should be
offered.

Free market forces will determine the correct amount of choice.

--
"COLA morons are always claiming that MORE choice IS always better." -
Hadron Quark, lying shamelessly

[chrisv]

TomB wrote:

> some vile bastard asshole liar wrote:
>>
>> The same is true, above, where I making fun of the lack of ability
>> for the herd to see the trade-offs of the choice
>
>I can see the trade-offs, so I must not be part of this imaginary herd
>of yours!

Every single one of us does, without exception. It's not rocket
science.

Please KF that fscking *liar*.

[chrisv]

chrisv wrote:

>Free market forces will determine the correct amount of choice.

The desktop OS market is *not* a properly-functioning free market. It
is dominated, to an extremely unhealthy extent, by one provider.

The desktop Linux microcosm *is* a properly-functioning free market.

[TomB]

On 2012-06-20, the following emerged from the brain of chrisv:

That's what /I/ thought. Being in favour of massive choice doesn't
automatically mean that one cannot see the possible downsides of it.
To the contrary, we accept those downsides as a fact of life, and
choose to deal with 'em.

So that's at least you and me not fitting into this one property of
Snit's herd. Anyone else?

> Please KF that fscking *liar*.

Nah, it's kind of fun to see that lunatic rave on :-)

--
Any girl can be glamorous; all you have to do is stand still and look
stupid.
-- Hedy Lamarr

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 10:12 AM, in article 20120620...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"

<tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2012-06-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> On 6/19/12 10:12 PM, in article 201206200...@usenet.drumscum.be,
>> "TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-06-19, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>
>>> 8<
>>>
>>>> Merging? There goes choice!
>>>
>>> Are you serious, or are you just trolling?
>>
>> My initial comments:
>>
>> Merging? There goes choice!
>> Right? I mean choice is good... why merge projects?
>> Poor herd with their choice mantra... so often it comes
>> back to bite them.
>>
>> You snipped in a dishonest way - twisting the meaning of my
>> comments. So the answer to your question is *you* are trolling.
>
> Okay, so your comment was sarcastic, and you don't really believe that
> merging projects means choice going away.

Well, if you have choice A and choice B (two choices) and then they merge
you are left with one choice. Sure, you can still use the older pre-merge
material, but the two will not be developed independently.

But I do not worship at the alter of "choice" and do not see this as a bad
thing. Consolidation can often be a *good* thing (which is not to say it
always is).

> And you think that is opposed to the ideas of the GNU/Linux advocates in COLA?

I will say that since I made an issue of it, I see less worshipping at the
alter of "choice"... so the "advocates" (the herd) is learning.

> Right? If so, why not state it clearly like that, instead of making a silly
> posting like the above? Why not actually try to start a reasonable discussion
> on the topic. What you posted is *nothing* to go by. It's just lame trolling
> bait.
>
> Sorry, but that's a fact. If you fail to see that, so be it.

I mocked your herd... though, I admit, the mocking was based on a claim that
is not often made any more. So I can see that as a reasoned argument
against my making my comments.

It is not like my noting of the herd where even you, above, speak of the
"advocates" - the same group. And yet you and others *in this group you
just spoke of* deny this group exists.

Question: if you deny the group which calls itself the "advocates" exists
(the herd), then why did you refer to them, above?

>> And running from the point I made. Oh well... it is not as though
>> that is not your habit. Notice how you repeatedly ran from this
>> message:
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/848be5987cc736b3>
>
> Can you not understand that some people do not spent 24/7 on usenet
> like you? That some people actually have a real job to do, a family to
> spend time with, hobbies to do, and friends to visit?
>
> Running from... Yeah, right. Get this, dude: some people actually have
> a life to live. That may seem like a odd concept to you, but that's
> how it is.

Oh give it up. Here you are hounding me for mocking the herd for its
worshipping at the alter of "choice" and complaining I was not working
toward a good topic of discussion.

The post I reference above, I acknowledge, is a much better post for
building a good and reasoned discussion. So if you really wanted good and
reasoned discussions you would have ignored my comments *here* and not
*there*.

You can pretend otherwise, but it is very clear you avoided the other post
because you knew I was making points you had no good, honest answer to - and
I was making points the "advocates" (the herd) do not like.

>> You made claims about how the different desktop environments lead to
>> desktop Linux serving people so well... and then ran when it was
>> noted how even with all of these desktop environments there are
>> still a lot of significant lacking features...
>
> ...and is offering totally different features. Yes, that what
> alternatives do. Snit A: Apple is being copied. Snit B: typical OSX
> features are not available on GNU/Linux.
>
> Make up your mind, dude.

While Gnome and Unity (and even KDE) do get inspiration from Apple, this
does not mean the open source environment is mature enough to copy the items
I listed. It is not. Also, just in case you go there: I am not saying all
such "inspiration" is wrong... it is the nature of competition and how
markets grow. Where to draw the line as to "copying" too much is a hard
question to answer.

>> and that is ignoring the whole question of apps.
>
> How many times do I have to tell you the following: those that really
> need to use an application that is not available on GNU/Linux, for
> whatever reason, should use another OS. Simple as that. Hell, in my
> professional life I use Windows XP just for that reason.
>
> Will you remember my opinion now?

And do you see that this cuts off a *lot* of users... many, likely most,
users use applications where there needs are better met with apps that do
not run on desktop Linux.

>> You will speak of the advantages tied to desktop Linux...
>
> In a usenet group devoted to Linux advocacy. How strange!

Hence the second part of my sentence - which you cut off. See how you try
to make it look like that which I call "great" is something I am against.
It is quite dishonest of you.

>> which is great. But you run when the weaknesses of what you speak
>> of are pointed out... of how there are trade-offs.
>>
>> The same is true, above, where I making fun of the lack of ability
>> for the herd to see the trade-offs of the choice
>
> I can see the trade-offs, so I must not be part of this imaginary herd
> of yours!

You do not consider yourself one of the "advocates", the term the herd uses
for itself?

>> they claim to worship (even though they often belittle the idea of
>> choice... but so be it).



--

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 10:40 AM, in article 201206201...@usenet.drumscum.be,

"TomB" <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2012-06-20, the following emerged from the brain of chrisv:
>> TomB wrote:
>>
>>> some vile bastard asshole liar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The same is true, above, where I making fun of the lack of ability
>>>> for the herd to see the trade-offs of the choice
>>>
>>> I can see the trade-offs, so I must not be part of this imaginary
>>> herd of yours!
>>
>> Every single one of us does, without exception. It's not rocket
>> science.
>
> That's what /I/ thought.

You might *claim* to, but when the trade-offs of choice are talked about the
"advocates" (the herd) run.

> Being in favour of massive choice doesn't automatically mean that one cannot
> see the possible downsides of it.

Then you have come to accept my view of choice. Excellent. Yet in the past
you have claimed I am anti-choice. Others in your group of "advocates" (the
herd) have made a huge point of making this claim (RonB used to make this
claim on an almost daily basis). But now you admit I was right all along.

Good to see my points *are* being heard and that the "advocates" (the false
"advocates", or the herd) are learning.

> To the contrary, we accept those downsides as a fact of life, and choose to
> deal with 'em.
>
> So that's at least you and me not fitting into this one property of
> Snit's herd. Anyone else?

All you are showing is that you and others in the herd are finally
acknowledging that I have been right and RonB and others (including
yourself, TomB) who claimed I was against choice were wrong.

Good to see you no longer see my position as being anti-choice. Does any of
your herd still hold to that false claim?

>> Please KF that fscking *liar*.
>
> Nah, it's kind of fun to see that lunatic rave on :-)

The herd hates that you speak to people outside of your group... but they do
seem to tolerate it now. Interesting.

[chrisv]

TomB wrote:

>Being in favour of massive choice doesn't
>automatically mean that one cannot see the possible downsides of it.
>To the contrary, we accept those downsides as a fact of life, and
>choose to deal with 'em.

Having more choice costs more.

*Obviously*

It is up to the free market to determine what choices are economically
viable to provide.

In an evolving market, there will always be new choices being offered,
and existing choices ceasing to be offered because they are no longer
competitive.

[Lusotec]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Snit wrote:

You are wrong. Now there are the same choices as before. No choices were
removed with these merges. Before there was Linux with and without these
patches. Now there is Linux with and without these patches. Same for the
other merges.

The only difference is that before one had to get the patches from another
repository and now one just has to flip a few compilation configuration
switch.

> And if they had stayed as two choices they would have been developed and
> become more different.

You are wrong. Both the Linux Android branch and the vSwitch branch were
being kept in sync with the Linux main branch, even if with some delay. The
only differences were related to their specific features. Everything else
was equal.

> Now this will not happen.

Again you are wrong. Development will continue as before and the Linux
branches will continue to grow and will diverge again, if and until they are
merged again.

> Of course, this is a good thing... but remember the herd mantra of
> "choice". Why is none of the herd fighting this?

You are a liar, you are insulting, and you are ignorant of almost everything
related to software development. Still you /think/ you know better?!

>>> Poor herd with their choice mantra... so often it comes back to bite
>>> them.
>>
>> Says the ignorant lying sock puppet master!
>
> What the??? Really... even for a white flat that is boring!

You are fooling no one with your sock puppet show, and like I said before,
it only makes you look more pathetic.

Regards.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAk/iE64ACgkQGQjO2ccW76rbTwD7B27z3WmbrICodFWxD+VQdlfm
CDekZ/joI1QrogwDJiIA+wX+Ni7kSQYuswPyHSqWHdMzll7vigLwz8fjhfa39oQr
=SQhW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 11:17 AM, in article jrt43f$s0p$1...@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"
<nom...@nomail.not> wrote:

...

>>>> Merging? There goes choice!
>>>>
>>>> Right? I mean choice is good... why merge projects?
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> Tell us Snit, what choice is lost/removed/diminished with these branch
>>> merges?
>>
>> I am mocking the "choice" mantra of the herd.
>> But before there were two choices - now there is one.
>
> You are wrong.

No: I am completely right that it was the choice matra of the herd that I
was mocking.

How can you even pretend to know otherwise. As I discussed with TomB, this
mantra is no longer used nearly as much - likely largely in response to my
proving how absurd it was. Heck, before my noting the trade-offs in choice
used to be used to make attacks against me that I was "anti-choice"... but
it is now being pointed out that the false "advocates" (the herd) are now
accepting the reality of these tradeoffs and no longer see those of us who
note them as being anti-choice.

So while perhaps I should not have mocked claims which have not been
recently made (or are at least only rarely made), it did serve to show how
the herd has learned - and this learning is consistent with the lessons I
was explaining. So while the herd pretends to not read what I write their
views have been changing in a way consistent with what I have been educating
them about. They will deny the change in their views or, if they admit to
them, deny it had anything to do with my repeatedly pointing out such facts.
So be it. The fact the herd has learned and improved in this area is
something I am happy to see - no matter what claims and denials are sure to
come from my noting it.

Before there are such denials, though, look for the last time the herd
accused me of being anti-choice. They used to all the time (esp. RonB with
TomB backing him at least once... and there were others). Now the herd
realizes not only that I am not anti-choice, but that the trade-offs I spoke
of which lead them to believe I was were, in fact, a good observation on my
part. This is excellent to see.

> Now there are the same choices as before. No choices were removed with these
> merges. Before there was Linux with and without these patches. Now there is
> Linux with and without these patches. Same for the other merges.
>
> The only difference is that before one had to get the patches from another
> repository and now one just has to flip a few compilation configuration
> switch.

Based on the same logic, do you think that if KDE and Gnome were to merge
this would not reduce choice? Please note, this is not something I am
advocating... it is just a question.

>> And if they had stayed as two choices they would have been developed and
>> become more different.
>
> You are wrong. Both the Linux Android branch and the vSwitch branch were
> being kept in sync with the Linux main branch, even if with some delay. The
> only differences were related to their specific features. Everything else
> was equal.

When you have two products they can be developed differently... even if they
are not.

>> Now this will not happen.
>
> Again you are wrong. Development will continue as before and the Linux
> branches will continue to grow and will diverge again, if and until they are
> merged again.

I am speaking of these "choices"... not future ones that may or may not
happen (though likely will).

>> Of course, this is a good thing... but remember the herd mantra of
>> "choice". Why is none of the herd fighting this?
>
> You are a liar, you are insulting, and you are ignorant of almost everything
> related to software development. Still you /think/ you know better?!

Ignorant insults bore me.

>>>> Poor herd with their choice mantra... so often it comes back to bite
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> Says the ignorant lying sock puppet master!
>>
>> What the??? Really... even for a white flat that is boring!
>
> You are fooling no one with your sock puppet show, and like I said before,
> it only makes you look more pathetic.

Ignorant accusations also bore me. But it is quite telling how you and
others are making such accusations - trying to put me on the defensive and
work to somehow disprove a false accusation so you can avoid talking about
Linux, OSS, and technology in general.

Face it: *nobody* believes the accusations that Onion Knight and Kaba are my
socks... if someone did they would have posted evidence. Also of note is
that it was Carroll who first started making these accusations - shortly
after it was pointed out he uses so many socks he cannot even name them all.
He runs when asked what names he has used. He knows there are just too many
for him to remember... or so many he would humiliate himself to be honest
about it.

This is not the case with me at all. I have no such need or desire to be
like Carroll and use an army of socks. And there is no reason to think you
believe your accuations.

[DFS]

On 6/20/2012 1:40 PM, TomB wrote:

> That's what /I/ thought. Being in favour of massive choice doesn't
> automatically mean that one cannot see the possible downsides of it.

But you're not in favor of massive choice. Neither is turd chrisv.
You're both just paying lip service, proven by the fact that both of you
chickenshits run away from a challenge of picking 10 computer components.

Go to www.newegg.com and build a new computer:

CPU
mobo
memory
SSD
hard drive
optical drive
video card
power supply
monitor
case

For each component, explain why you chose one part over all the others
in that category.

> To the contrary, we accept those downsides as a fact of life, and
> choose to deal with 'em.

I saw how you dealt with 'em: you let the website make your choices for
you, after you got too lazy to do your own research because massive
choice is usually nothing but a big, time-consuming hassle.

Previously you couldn't even reasonably explain why you chose one
component (the CPU), let alone all ten:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/0e378754676453d0?hl=en

You said: "I want an AMD CPU with 4 cores."

I said: "Why AMD? Why quad-core? Almost no software takes advantage of
more than 2 cores. AMD sells 12 quad-core models (across the Phenom and
Phenom 2 lines). Which chip do you want and why?"

You ran away.



You said: "I want a mobo by Gigabyte, and with a socket that takes my
brand new AMD CPU. Should have an AMD/ATI chipset too."

I said: "Why Gigabyte? Why not Asus or Intel or MSI or Foxconn?
Gigabyte sells 22 AMD mobos. Which do you want and why?"

You ran away.



You said: "I want 4GB of whatever memory, as long as it fits my
motherboard. Don't care about the brand."
You said: "I want whatever power supply is in the case"

"whatever" and "don't care" are code words for "I'm tired and defeated
by too much choice".



You'll run away right now, too. Just like that chickenshit turdv has
done for 2 years.

[Peter Köhlmann]

DFS wrote:

>
> I said: "Why AMD? Why quad-core? Almost no software takes advantage of
> more than 2 cores.

That is a rather idiotic claim, worthy a Hadron Larry

> AMD sells 12 quad-core models (across the Phenom and
> Phenom 2 lines). Which chip do you want and why?"

Even *if* you would only run software which uses *one* core you are
profitting from several cores, if you run several programs at once, as the
cores will not as often switch tasks

I know, you as a windows loser only need one core, because running more than
one application on windows borders on the insane and is heavily discouraged
(in Win8 even more with its lunatic tile interface)

> You ran away.
>

Which is another Snit-like claim. In the view of you imbeciles people are
"running" if they

a) go to sleep (different timezone)
b) are simply fed up with your inane shite
c) have answered your lunacy for the umpteenth time
d) simply have a life and chose to ignore usenet for some hours

[DFS]

On 6/20/2012 1:34 PM, chrisv wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> Free market forces will determine the correct amount of choice.
>
> The desktop OS market is *not* a properly-functioning free market.

Of course it functions extremely properly: everyone is free to
develop/sell/buy the desktop OS they want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems

> It is dominated, to an extremely unhealthy extent, by one provider.

The market is dominated by all the participants.

If you want proof, build 100 Linux machines and 100 Windows machines and
100 ES machines and price them accordingly and put them on eBay and
watch what happens. MS won't stop you, I promise.

Better yet, put your life savings in such a venture.



ES operating system: http://code.google.com/p/es-operating-system/

> The desktop Linux microcosm *is* a properly-functioning free market.

The desktop Linux microcosm of hundreds of crappy desktop distros given
away for free because nobody will pay for them is a joke.

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 12:14 PM, in article jrt7f8$ie1$1...@dont-email.me, "DFS"

<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

> On 6/20/2012 1:40 PM, TomB wrote:
>
>> That's what /I/ thought. Being in favour of massive choice doesn't
>> automatically mean that one cannot see the possible downsides of it.
>
>
> But you're not in favor of massive choice. Neither is turd chrisv.
> You're both just paying lip service, proven by the fact that both of you
> chickenshits run away from a challenge of picking 10 computer components.
>
> Go to www.newegg.com and build a new computer:
>
> CPU
> mobo
> memory
> SSD
> hard drive
> optical drive
> video card
> power supply
> monitor
> case
>
> For each component, explain why you chose one part over all the others
> in that category.

Oh, just let the site pick for you (within certain parameters) and then
select the first one.

LOL!

Yeah, I remember that idiotic debate. As TomB was denying he was letting
the site make his choices (within, again, parameters he set) he was also
describing his process of doing exactly that.

I do not believe he ever got it figured out in his head. But this is an old
debate...

>> To the contrary, we accept those downsides as a fact of life, and
>> choose to deal with 'em.
>
> I saw how you dealt with 'em: you let the website make your choices for
> you, after you got too lazy to do your own research because massive
> choice is usually nothing but a big, time-consuming hassle.
>
> Previously you couldn't even reasonably explain why you chose one
> component (the CPU), let alone all ten:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/0e378754676453d0?hl=
> en
>
> You said: "I want an AMD CPU with 4 cores."
>
> I said: "Why AMD? Why quad-core? Almost no software takes advantage of
> more than 2 cores. AMD sells 12 quad-core models (across the Phenom and
> Phenom 2 lines). Which chip do you want and why?"
>
> You ran away.

And never once said anything about the downsides of so much choice. He
never showed any understanding of the trade-offs.

He and the herd, however, are now claiming they are learning about this...
they get what they have been taught. This is excellent.

I predict they will deny they learned this... they will claim they already
knew it. But this is irrelevant... the fact that *have* learned is the good
thing.

> You said: "I want a mobo by Gigabyte, and with a socket that takes my
> brand new AMD CPU. Should have an AMD/ATI chipset too."
>
> I said: "Why Gigabyte? Why not Asus or Intel or MSI or Foxconn?
> Gigabyte sells 22 AMD mobos. Which do you want and why?"
>
> You ran away.
>
>
>
> You said: "I want 4GB of whatever memory, as long as it fits my
> motherboard. Don't care about the brand."
> You said: "I want whatever power supply is in the case"
>
> "whatever" and "don't care" are code words for "I'm tired and defeated
> by too much choice".
>
>
>
> You'll run away right now, too. Just like that chickenshit turdv has
> done for 2 years.

But now he is admitting the the trade-offs he used to never admit to. And
he is no longer claiming I am anti-choice for understanding these
trade-offs.

He is learning and I commend him for that.

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 12:26 PM, in article jrt86p$n83$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"

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

> DFS wrote:
>
>>
>> I said: "Why AMD? Why quad-core? Almost no software takes advantage of
>> more than 2 cores.
>
> That is a rather idiotic claim, worthy a Hadron Larry
>
>> AMD sells 12 quad-core models (across the Phenom and
>> Phenom 2 lines). Which chip do you want and why?"
>
> Even *if* you would only run software which uses *one* core you are
> profitting from several cores, if you run several programs at once, as the
> cores will not as often switch tasks
>
> I know, you as a windows loser only need one core, because running more than
> one application on windows borders on the insane and is heavily discouraged
> (in Win8 even more with its lunatic tile interface)

Where do you think this is "heavily discouraged"... or discouraged at all?

Oh.

There goes Peter running away.

And none of the herd will call him on it.

>> You ran away.
>>
>
> Which is another Snit-like claim. In the view of you imbeciles people are
> "running" if they
>
> a) go to sleep (different timezone)
> b) are simply fed up with your inane shite
> c) have answered your lunacy for the umpteenth time
> d) simply have a life and chose to ignore usenet for some hours
>

LOL! You and your herd have all the time in the world to make up stories
about people, to create fictions of their lives, to make absurd
accusations... but no time to defend your own claims.

Yeah, *that* makes sense.

Or at least none of the herd will call you on it.

[chrisv]

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>DFS wrote:
>>
>> You ran away.
>
>Which is another Snit-like claim. In the view of you imbeciles people are
>"running" if they

I did something I almost never do, and pulled-up the dumfscker's post
to see the context, here.

Ask the dumfscker how goes to the mall and chooses

Shirt
Shoes
Socks
Pants
Tie
Jacket
Underwear
Umbrella
Hat

For each item, demand the worthless troll to explain why it chose one
item over all the others in that category.

Watch the troll run away.

Does the dumfscker expect anyone to believe that we can't do things
that we all routinely do?

People routinely buy things from NewEgg, and are satisfied with their
purchase and their buying experience!

Sheesh!

[TomB]

On 2012-06-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:

8<

> Consolidation can often be a *good* thing (which is not to say it
> always is).

Of course. And when it is and isn't is highly subjective. I personally
encourage the merge between the mainstream Linux kernel and Linux as
used in Android.

>> And you think that is opposed to the ideas of the GNU/Linux advocates in COLA?
>
> I will say that since I made an issue of it, I see less worshipping at the
> alter of "choice"... so the "advocates" (the herd) is learning.

You suffer from delusions of grandeur. Really.

8<

> Question: if you deny the group which calls itself the "advocates" exists
> (the herd), then why did you refer to them, above?

I'm not referring to a group of people as if they shared a collective
mind or something. I'm referring to a group of people using GNU/Linux
daily, because they like to and because they find it the best
available OS for their use. Me referring to COLA's GNU/Linux advocates
is something completely different than you referring to "the herd".
The GNU/Linux advocates actually exist, and are all very different
people with very different back-grounds, each using and liking
GNU/Linux for their own personal reason.

And no, you are not such an advocate.

8<

> While Gnome and Unity (and even KDE) do get inspiration from Apple,
> this does not mean the open source environment is mature enough to
> copy the items I listed.

That's a silly claim. I can say the same about OSX or Windows for not
offering decent tiled window management. Each environment has its own
set of features that are not available on the others. Or not as good
implemented.

Let's see... Windows is not mature enough to offer decent virtual
desktop. Hey, that sound good. I'll use that more often.

Another one... OSX is not mature enough to offer easy access to SSH
servers from Finder. Yeah, sounds good too. I'll use this one as well.

Oh, both OSX and Windows are not mature enough to have a central
repository of all the software on the system, from the kernel to the
web browser, and everything inbetween, with centralized management of
updates for each and every installed program. Yeah, sounds great.

>> How many times do I have to tell you the following: those that
>> really need to use an application that is not available on
>> GNU/Linux, for whatever reason, should use another OS. Simple as
>> that. Hell, in my professional life I use Windows XP just for that
>> reason.
>>
>> Will you remember my opinion now?
>
> And do you see that this cuts off a *lot* of users... many, likely
> most, users use applications where there needs are better met with
> apps that do not run on desktop Linux.

Possibly. Like I have said over and over again: lack of direct
industry support for both hard- and software is the main reason why
GNU/Linux isn't mainstream.

I'm cool with that. The spirit of the underdog.

8<

--
The main thing is the play itself. I swear that greed for money has nothing
to do with it, although heaven knows I am sorely in need of money.
- Feodor Dostoyevsky

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, DFS belched this bit o' wisdom:

> You ran away.
> You ran away.

> You'll run away right now, too.

Get over yourself. You're unpleasant and few want to converse with you.

--
(I used the term "registration hub" as poorly concealed bait to attract
the dumber advocate like Gortard who will read is as "single registry
file".)
-- "Hadron" <oulixtb...@news.eternal-september.org>

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> DFS belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> You ran away.
>> You ran away.
>> You'll run away right now, too.
>
>Get over yourself. You're unpleasant and few want to converse with you.

He's a shameless jackass who seems to think that someone might be
fooled with his idiocy.

Just because it's not necessarily easy to describe precisely why we
choose one product over another, doesn't mean that actually making the
choice is particularly difficult.

We all make these choices every time we go shopping. We don't find it
onerous. We don't wish for fewer choices.

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 1:29 PM, in article itb4u71q0m9tgkn7s...@4ax.com,

People often make choices because of convenience. I know that is how I
generally select what clothing to wear each day.

[Lusotec]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Snit wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:

>>> I am mocking the "choice" mantra of the herd.
>>> But before there were two choices - now there is one.
>>
>> You are wrong.
>
> No: I am completely right that it was the choice matra of the herd that I
> was mocking.

I was *obviously* referring to "But before there were two choices - now
there is one."

> (snip bunch of stupidity)

>
>> Now there are the same choices as before. No choices were removed with
>> these merges. Before there was Linux with and without these patches. Now
>> there is Linux with and without these patches. Same for the other merges.
>>
>> The only difference is that before one had to get the patches from
>> another repository and now one just has to flip a few compilation
>> configuration switch.
>
> Based on the same logic, do you think that if KDE and Gnome were to merge
> this would not reduce choice?

Same logic? Not even close. KDE is not a branch of Gnome, and vice-versa.

But if KDE and Gnome where merged and one could still flip a switch and get
KDE and flip another switch and get Gnome, and if the both projects
continued to be developed like they have been until the merge, then there
would be no reduction in choice, obviously.

> Please note, this is not something I am advocating... it is just a
> question.
>
>>> And if they had stayed as two choices they would have been developed and
>>> become more different.
>>
>> You are wrong. Both the Linux Android branch and the vSwitch branch were
>> being kept in sync with the Linux main branch, even if with some delay.
>> The only differences were related to their specific features. Everything
>> else was equal.
>
> When you have two products they can be developed differently... even if
> they are not.

The original products are still there and continue to be developed in
parallel with the main Linux branch. The fact that Open vSwitch branch was
merged with the main Linux branch does not extinguish the Open vSwicth
project or its branch. Same for the Android Linux project and its branch.

>>> Now this will not happen.
>>
>> Again you are wrong. Development will continue as before and the Linux
>> branches will continue to grow and will diverge again, if and until they
>> are merged again.
>
> I am speaking of these "choices"... not future ones that may or may not
> happen (though likely will).

The options that existed before the merge will continue to exist after the
merge. Future wise, things are pretty much the same as well. The projects
will continue to be developed in parallel with Linux.

>>> Of course, this is a good thing... but remember the herd mantra of
>>> "choice". Why is none of the herd fighting this?
>>
>> You are a liar, you are insulting, and you are ignorant of almost
>> everything related to software development. Still you /think/ you know
>> better?!
>
> Ignorant insults bore me.

Then you must be a very bored person, considering the amount of insults in
your own posts. And even as bored as you certainly are, you continue to
waste your life in COLA, a place full of insults, *many* directed at you.

>>>>> Poor herd with their choice mantra... so often it comes back to bite
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> Says the ignorant lying sock puppet master!
>>>
>>> What the??? Really... even for a white flat that is boring!
>>
>> You are fooling no one with your sock puppet show, and like I said
>> before, it only makes you look more pathetic.
>
> Ignorant accusations also bore me. But it is quite telling how you and
> others are making such accusations - trying to put me on the defensive and
> work to somehow disprove a false accusation so you can avoid talking about
> Linux, OSS, and technology in general.
>
> Face it: *nobody* believes the accusations that Onion Knight and Kaba are

> my socks... (...)

Your denials certainly bore me and fool nobody.

Regards.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAk/iO3cACgkQGQjO2ccW76pScQD9FEIhK+G+UyGJFEY2+e0dxXwY
kaflMuW8oFHJVoxSdfsA/27fBNvWVaBTjyEjKJ08FbPqGCPntJAkVhmUcM/U2liA
=L3tX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[TomB]

On 2012-06-20, the following emerged from the brain of Lusotec:

8<

> The options that existed before the merge will continue to exist
> after the merge. Future wise, things are pretty much the same as
> well. The projects will continue to be developed in parallel with
> Linux.

With that in mind, from a end-user point of view there wasn't even
much choice to speak of. Even without a separate Android branch of
Linux the choice for the end-user remains exactly the same: Android
and GNU/Linux, each in a number of flavours.

The entire argument is a red herring.

[William Poaster]

Here is a facsimile from Chris Ahlstrom who, on 20/6/2012 21:40, wrote:

> After swilling some grog, DFS belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> You ran away.
>> You ran away.
>> You'll run away right now, too.
>
> Get over yourself. You're unpleasant and few want to converse with you.

Some of us aren't interested in conversing with an argumentative
drooling widiot like him. He's a total waste of time.

--
Linux -- The Choice of a GnuType Generation

Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft.
That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
-- Linus Torvalds (2003-09-28)

Every time Windows had a rebirth I would get hold of it
and buy a new machine to run it on believing that they (M$)
must now have got things right and finally created an operating
environment that could excite, impress and enthral me.
But each time their system got more ham-fisted, more insulting
and more indifferent to the pleasures and interests of the **consumer**.
-- Stephen Fry - December 2008 --

Windows is like a hooker; they're both easy,
and using either puts you at risk of viruses.
-- Kelsey Bjarnason --
comp.os.linux.advocacy

Micro$oft, the company that makes spreading malware easy.

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 1:35 PM, in article 201206202...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"

<tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2012-06-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>
> 8<
>
>> Consolidation can often be a *good* thing (which is not to say it
>> always is).
>
> Of course. And when it is and isn't is highly subjective. I personally
> encourage the merge between the mainstream Linux kernel and Linux as
> used in Android.

No argument here. It is good to see you recognize that such a view is not
anti-choice, as RonB and others used to accuse me of being ... and you
jumped in to agree at least once.

>>> And you think that is opposed to the ideas of the GNU/Linux advocates in
>>> COLA?
>>
>> I will say that since I made an issue of it, I see less worshipping at the
>> alter of "choice"... so the "advocates" (the herd) is learning.
>
> You suffer from delusions of grandeur. Really.

Baseless insults are boring. Of note, though, you find time to post those
but not respond to this:

<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/848be5987cc736b3>

Funny how you have too much of a life to engage in a conversation but not
enough of one to stop you from posting herd-pleasing absurd insults.

> 8<
>
>> Question: if you deny the group which calls itself the "advocates" exists
>> (the herd), then why did you refer to them, above?
>
> I'm not referring to a group of people as if they shared a collective
> mind or something.

Has anyone said the herd (or the false "advocates") share a collective mind?
They do share collective false claims and do *generally* back each others
lies and absurd insults and accusations (or at least refuse to speak out
against them), but this does not mean you share a hive mind or something.

> I'm referring to a group of people using GNU/Linux daily, because they like to
> and because they find it the best available OS for their use.

So you include Hadron (especially) and myself in that group, right? He has
noted he does - even on the desktop... and I have noted I do (at least with
the Linux side of that), if nothing else on the server and in other devices.

No. You exclude such people.

The herd does not include all who use desktop Linux as their main OS. And
this is not what defines the false "advocates" of COLA. I have gone into
more detail elsewhere and also noted Linus Torvalds speaking of such groups:

Linux Torvalds:
-----
There are "extremists" in the free software world, but that's
one major reason why I don't call what I do "free software"
any more. I don't want to be associated with the people for
whom it's about exclusion and hatred.
-----
I don't believe a religiously motivated development community
can ever generate as good code except by pure chance.
-----

And listed behaviors of the false "advocates" of COLA:

* They attack outsiders - to the point that the term "troll" is
(essentially) used to mean anyone outside of the herd. If an outsider comes
in and sucks up to the herd they might be able to escape being called this
for a short time... but it is rare. More often than not that are attacked
or accused of being a "sock" of a "troll"... merely because they do not buy
the irrational worldview of the herd. Look at you, TomB, who has already
started targeting Onion Knight in this way. Carroll also targeted Kaba in
such a way, though I did not see the herd glom on to that attack she he let
it go.

* They seek to avoid outside information: look at how often the herd speaks
of who they are kill filtering and encourage each other to also kill filter
those outside of their group. They *want* to be closed off to other ideas.
Just earlier today, TomB, you were encouraged to KF those who are not of the
herd.

* They blame the problems of desktop Linux adoption on one simple (and
incorrect) explanation - the boogieman (generally MS though sometimes others
are included in this made up conspiracy).

* They offer almost completely unconditional "love" to each other - no
matter how extreme the lie they are loath to call each other out. For
example, not a single herd member has called TomB out on his outrageous
behavior of contacting my Usenet provider simply because I quoted Stallman
and noted how repulsive his comments are.

* They share the same irrational beliefs: such as their irrational denial of
Stallman's comments, even though they come directly from his own site, the
aforementioned obsession with the boogieman, the attacks against those who
are not of the herd, the claim that they support choice as they attack those
who do not chose as they do... all irrational. All very cultish.

On and on... these things and more have been described many times in COLA.

> Me referring to COLA's GNU/Linux advocates is something completely different
> than you referring to "the herd".

Can you list where the groups do not overlap? Who is in your group of
"advocates" who is not a part of the "herd"?

> The GNU/Linux advocates actually exist, and are all very different people with
> very different back-grounds, each using and liking GNU/Linux for their own
> personal reason.

But, as I note before, they act in a very cult-like way.

> And no, you are not such an advocate.

Right: while I use and advocate Linux I am not of the herd. That is a
difference: I am a *real* advocate of the use of Linux (as appropriate - and
even you say it should only be used when appropriate). But I am not of the
herd. So when you speak of "advocates" you do *not* mean those who advocate
Linux but those who tie themselves to the herd.

> 8<
>
>> While Gnome and Unity (and even KDE) do get inspiration from Apple,
>> this does not mean the open source environment is mature enough to
>> copy the items I listed.
>
> That's a silly claim.

Not at all. The open source environment is simply not mature enough to offer
the types of choices seen in the competition. For example, with OS X it is
able to include proxy icons, integration with any form of media browser,
easy methods to use the title bar to get to the path of a program, a visual
versioning system, saved status indicators, QuickLook, PDF Services, etc. I
have listed more before.

To have these, though, an environment has to be mature and at least
relatively consistent. Even on OS X there are weaknesses in some of these
systems, esp. those Apple is transitioning to.

While there is no doubt that some of these desktop interfaces on Linux offer
things which are great, they are also lacking in some very significant ways.
The above things I list, and system wide services of that nature, are
missing from all of those Linux desktop interfaces combined, no less present
in any given one?

Again: there is a trade-off here.

> I can say the same about OSX or Windows for not offering decent tiled window
> management.

You can get many tiled window managers for OS X. Some examples:

* Afloat: <http://goo.gl/HDvj>
* Arrange: <http://goo.gl/4ZpRu>
* BetterSnapTool: <http://goo.gl/wjF2n>
* BetterTouchTool: <http://goo.gl/dCLKw>
* Breeze: <http://goo.gl/wXinR>
* Cinch: <http://goo.gl/DOgc>
* Divvy: <http://goo.gl/Yllb>
* DockView: <http://goo.gl/aPek>
* DoublePane: <http://goo.gl/Ej32P>
* HyperDock: <http://goo.gl/hTRhN>
* MercuryMover: <http://goo.gl/R9DFh>
* Moom: <http://goo.gl/nWEQO>
* Move Window: <http://git.io/gJ6N0w>
* NuKit: <http://goo.gl/K6Bb9>
* Optimal Layout <http://goo.gl/ildW>
* ShiftIt <http://git.io/Yc_MwA>
* Simple WindowSets: <http://goo.gl/40YjG>
* SizeUp: <http://goo.gl/0Vdm>
* Stay: <http://goo.gl/diJF>
* Total Finder: <http://goo.gl/fOqX>
* Tyler WM: <http://goo.gl/D7BRN>
* Window Magnet: <http://goo.gl/Cq8Ky>
* Witch: <http://goo.gl/jh9i>
* Zooom/2: <http://goo.gl/6Sge9>

And those are just the ones I found with a few minute of looking. And you
claim *none* are decent. Several do have other tools / features included,
which may or may not be what you want, but most are focused on window
tiling. I use Breeze myself. For my needs it is excellent (though several
other options there would be as well).

> Each environment has its own set of features that are not
> available on the others. Or not as good implemented.

Sure: for example OS X and Linux offer different "takes" on virtual windows
- each with its pros and cons. And while Linux offers more options in that
area, the take OS X has on it is unique and I think better fitted for *most*
users than any I have seen on Linux. Several in COLA have said they feel
they need 16 desktops and the like - and OS X would as such not be the best
option for them (in that area, at least).

At the same time, the class of options I was talking about are not things
you can sort of "tack on"... they are things that are possible because you
have an integrated *system*. It is this lack of integration I am talking
about when I speak of the lack of maturity of the open source desktop. The
ecosystem is not "there" yet, so no distro is "there" yet.

This does not mean that there are not options available for desktop Linux
which OS X lacks... just in case you were thinking that was my belief!

> Let's see... Windows is not mature enough to offer decent virtual
> desktop. Hey, that sound good. I'll use that more often.

Not sure I would say it is not mature enough... I do not see anything in its
"maturity" that would prevent it from having such. In fact, there are many
virtual desktop managers for Windows. Over 100 of them are talked about
here: <http://goo.gl/A5rOO>. And, no, I did not look at them all - there
may be some false positives in their... but the idea that Windows is not
"mature" enough to have such software is sorta a silly claim when it *does*
have such software.

I will agree, though, that many of these types of features work best when
developers can count on them being there - when they are integrated into the
system and the software makers know this. OS X developers, for example,
*know* proxy icons and the media browser (etc.) will be there. They do
*not* know what will be available or the standard for the system for their
Linux software.

> Another one... OSX is not mature enough to offer easy access to SSH
> servers from Finder. Yeah, sounds good too. I'll use this one as well.

Again: this shows your ignorance of OS X.

<http://support.apple.com/kb/PH3721>
-----
If you allow remote login, you can use Secure Shell (SSH) to log
in to your computer from another location.
-----

How is OS X not "mature" enough to have its built in features?

> Oh, both OSX and Windows are not mature enough to have a central
> repository of all the software on the system, from the kernel to the
> web browser, and everything inbetween, with centralized management of
> updates for each and every installed program. Yeah, sounds great.

No OS has this. OS X does have a "store" which is much like this. Linux
distros do tend to have excellent repositories... but part of that is to
deal with the hassle of installing software not in the repositories. Still,
the repositories are generally excellent - even if they do not warn you when
you are installing software that is not "native" to your environment.

>>> How many times do I have to tell you the following: those that
>>> really need to use an application that is not available on
>>> GNU/Linux, for whatever reason, should use another OS. Simple as
>>> that. Hell, in my professional life I use Windows XP just for that
>>> reason.
>>>
>>> Will you remember my opinion now?
>>
>> And do you see that this cuts off a *lot* of users... many, likely
>> most, users use applications where there needs are better met with
>> apps that do not run on desktop Linux.
>
> Possibly.

Good to see you admit to that.

> Like I have said over and over again: lack of direct industry support for both
> hard- and software is the main reason why GNU/Linux isn't mainstream.

It is one of the big reasons. No doubt. But it is something that has to be
earned... and even then it will take time. As I have shown you, Adobe has
gone into some detail as to what it would take for desktop Linux to mature
enough for it to be worth it to them.

> I'm cool with that. The spirit of the underdog.

I am OK with the underdog growing... heck, I have been a happy user of Macs
since Apple was referred to as "beleaguered" in every other article about
it. Apple earned its way "up the ladder"... and I believe the open source
ecosystem can do the same thing. I am a big fan of open source software and
desktop Linux and have a lot of faith in it. Sure, given the lose nature of
the "community" it will not be easy... but it is not impossible.

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 2:07 PM, in article jrte1p$tlr$1...@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"

<nom...@nomail.not> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Snit wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>> I am mocking the "choice" mantra of the herd.
>>>> But before there were two choices - now there is one.
>>>
>>> You are wrong.
>>
>> No: I am completely right that it was the choice matra of the herd that I
>> was mocking.
>
> I was *obviously* referring to "But before there were two choices - now
> there is one."

When there is consolidation of two choices into one, you go from two choices
to one. Sure, you can pick the ever-increasingly outdated old choices...
but if we are talking current choices, the idea that two options
consolidating into one leaves you with one choice (which is really no
choice) is pretty clear.

>> (snip bunch of stupidity)

Let me know when you can do better than snip and run as you spew insults. I
will read the rest of your post then.

...

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 2:07 PM, in article jrte1p$tlr$1...@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"
<nom...@nomail.not> wrote:

>>> You are fooling no one with your sock puppet show, and like I said
>>> before, it only makes you look more pathetic.
>>
>> Ignorant accusations also bore me. But it is quite telling how you and
>> others are making such accusations - trying to put me on the defensive and
>> work to somehow disprove a false accusation so you can avoid talking about
>> Linux, OSS, and technology in general.
>>
>> Face it: *nobody* believes the accusations that Onion Knight and Kaba are
>> my socks... (...)
>
> Your denials certainly bore me and fool nobody.

Ok, here goes nothing:

Post your *best* evidence. No letting this go into a never-ending debate of
absurdity. Your *best* evidence.

Bottom line: it will consist of *nothing* other than:

* Like me, Onion Knight posts (posted?) a lot
* Like me, Onion Knight was honest
* Like me, Onion Knight knew of Carroll's repulsive history

Of course, this describes any honest person who posts a lot and has been a
part of CSMA or any length of time. But give it your best shot... I would
*love* to hear it!

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 2:47 PM, in article 201206202...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"

So the choices do not really matter.

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 1:40 PM, in article jrtcdu$ie6$1...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"

<ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:

> After swilling some grog, DFS belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> You ran away.
>> You ran away.
>> You'll run away right now, too.
>
> Get over yourself. You're unpleasant and few want to converse with you.

Just because he is unpleasant does not mean he is not right. But have fun
running!

[Lusotec]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Snit wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>>> I am mocking the "choice" mantra of the herd.
>>>>> But before there were two choices - now there is one.
>>>>
>>>> You are wrong.
>>>
>>> No: I am completely right that it was the choice matra of the herd that
>>> I was mocking.
>>
>> I was *obviously* referring to "But before there were two choices - now
>> there is one."
>
> When there is consolidation of two choices into one, you go from two
> choices to one. Sure, you can pick the ever-increasingly outdated old
> choices...
> but if we are talking current choices, the idea that two options
> consolidating into one leaves you with one choice (which is really no
> choice) is pretty clear.

I have already clearly explained the situation and how you are *wrong*. I'm
not going to waste any more time with your lies.

>>> (snip bunch of stupidity)
>
> Let me know when you can do better than snip

I sniped a bunch of *stupidity* resulting from your erroneous interpretation
of my post. You sniped my *correct* explanation of the Linux mergers.
Hypocrite, you are!

> and run as you spew insults.

Almost every one of your posts insults others. Hypocrite, you are!

> I will read the rest of your post then.

You have already read my post but did not like how it showed you a ignorant
troll. Now you are just running away like a coward.

Regards.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAk/iTNsACgkQGQjO2ccW76qFaAD/Ws+xrHti0nE2eLkUvgnEmDXb
UQR3j7DjaU+SXQFkWckA/1IHV82KM7AZ8JZynM9rA0c4BlaZL/v5KBkoVCKxSa4S
=vQRw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[DFS]

On 6/20/2012 4:40 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, DFS belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> You ran away.
>> You ran away.
>> You'll run away right now, too.
>
> Get over yourself. You're unpleasant and few want to converse with you.

That works out fine, since there are only a few "advocates" here in the
first place that are worth talking to.

[DFS]

On 6/20/2012 2:08 PM, chrisv wrote:
> TomB wrote:
>
>> Being in favour of massive choice doesn't
>> automatically mean that one cannot see the possible downsides of it.
>> To the contrary, we accept those downsides as a fact of life, and
>> choose to deal with 'em.
>
> Having more choice costs more.
>
> *Obviously*
>
> It is up to the free market to determine what choices are economically
> viable to provide.

heh!

You dumb little shit - you just negated every stupid babbling post you
and other cola idiots ever made about "OEMs controlled by Microsoft" and
"MS distorts and dominates the market".

Good job!

> In an evolving market, there will always be new choices being offered,
> and existing choices ceasing to be offered because they are no longer
> competitive.

Desktop Linux isn't competitive. When will it cease to be offered?

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 3:21 PM, in article jrticr$nlc$1...@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"

<nom...@nomail.not> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Snit wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>>>> I am mocking the "choice" mantra of the herd.
>>>>>> But before there were two choices - now there is one.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> No: I am completely right that it was the choice matra of the herd that
>>>> I was mocking.
>>>
>>> I was *obviously* referring to "But before there were two choices - now
>>> there is one."
>>
>> When there is consolidation of two choices into one, you go from two choices
>> to one. Sure, you can pick the ever-increasingly outdated old choices... but
>> if we are talking current choices, the idea that two options consolidating
>> into one leaves you with one choice (which is really no choice) is pretty
>> clear.
>
> I have already clearly explained the situation and how you are *wrong*. I'm
> not going to waste any more time with your lies.

Your claim is that consolidation does not limit choices... but then you
claim they are not really consolidating and that development shall continue
on both of the originals.

>>>> (snip bunch of stupidity)
>>
>> Let me know when you can do better than snip
>
> I sniped a bunch

And spewed insults and accusation because you felt it was the best you could
do.

I think you can do better. Of note, I do not believe this of everyone... if
you look at the idiotic "debate" I am having with cc I do not believe he or
my stalker *can* do better. They are incompetent in ways you cannot even
come close to. You are just pretending. :)

[Peter Köhlmann]

Translation: You will talk only to utter filth like Hadron Larry, flatfish
Gary Stewrat or Snit Michael Glasser.
All of them combined worth less than a demented garden slug.

I don't get it. You are not as incompetent as Hadron Larry.
You are not as dishonest as Snit Michael Glasser
You are not a criminal thug as flatfish Gary Stewart
You are not as stupid as "The Bee"

And yet you want to position yourself along that bunch of imbeciles. Why?

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 3:42 PM, in article jrtjl9$uon$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"

None of the herd will call Peter out on such BS.

Ever.

Yet they deny they are a herd.

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 3:38 PM, in article jrtje4$svb$1...@dont-email.me, "DFS"

<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

> On 6/20/2012 2:08 PM, chrisv wrote:
>> TomB wrote:
>>
>>> Being in favour of massive choice doesn't
>>> automatically mean that one cannot see the possible downsides of it.
>>> To the contrary, we accept those downsides as a fact of life, and
>>> choose to deal with 'em.
>>
>> Having more choice costs more.
>>
>> *Obviously*
>>
>> It is up to the free market to determine what choices are economically
>> viable to provide.
>
> heh!
>
> You dumb little shit - you just negated every stupid babbling post you
> and other cola idiots ever made about "OEMs controlled by Microsoft" and
> "MS distorts and dominates the market".
>
> Good job!

You mean it is *not* the boogieman. Wow... they almost had me convinced!

>> In an evolving market, there will always be new choices being offered,
>> and existing choices ceasing to be offered because they are no longer
>> competitive.
>
> Desktop Linux isn't competitive. When will it cease to be offered?

It is useful to some and free... so it will stick around.

My hope is the open source ecosystem matures enough so it can become a true
competitor. Not that I am placing bets on this happening, but I really
would like to see it.

[Lusotec]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Snit wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>>>>> I am mocking the "choice" mantra of the herd.
>>>>>>> But before there were two choices - now there is one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> No: I am completely right that it was the choice matra of the herd
>>>>> that I was mocking.
>>>>
>>>> I was *obviously* referring to "But before there were two choices - now
>>>> there is one."
>>>
>>> When there is consolidation of two choices into one, you go from two
>>> choices
>>> to one. Sure, you can pick the ever-increasingly outdated old
>>> choices... but if we are talking current choices, the idea that two
>>> options consolidating into one leaves you with one choice (which is
>>> really no choice) is pretty clear.
>>
>> I have already clearly explained the situation and how you are *wrong*.
>> I'm not going to waste any more time with your lies.
>
> Your claim is that consolidation does not limit choices...

Like I wrote before, these mergers do not limit choice simply because all
previously existing choices continue to exist after the merger and all
relevant projects continue to develop as before.

> but then you claim they are not really consolidating and that development
> shall continue on both of the originals.

You claimed the mergers reduce choice (Snit: "Merging? There goes choice!")
but you have yet to say *one* single choice that has become unavailable due
to these mergers.

Snit, what choice is lost/removed/diminished with these branch merges?

>>>>> (snip bunch of stupidity)
>>>
>>> Let me know when you can do better than snip
>>
>> I sniped a bunch
>
> And spewed insults and accusation because you felt it was the best you
> could do.

I have asked you before, repeatedly, not to insult me and not to lie about
what I write, but you systematically insisted on doing both. You don't like
the way I'm treating you, too bad. I have treated you better than you
deserve!

If you want to be treated better then improve you behavior towards me (and
others while you are at it).

Here are a few rules of thumb:
- - If you don't like being called a liar, then don't lie (like you frequently
do about what I write);
- - If you don't like being called ignorant then don't parade your ignorance
around others that know far more than you on the relevant subjects (like you
are doing on this subject);
- - If you don't like being insulted then don't make your first post on a
subject an insult to the users of that forum (like you did with this
subject).

Regards.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAk/iZHUACgkQGQjO2ccW76rF+wD/fktC4QGrXH71dqNggT3dyJvj
qMPNnr1wFAB6W4Q+A5AA/3NApUFRZxetbn8ES8BV0w+z+cyKbV1/eU9thVY2dd1I
=XlzT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Peter Köhlmann belched this bit o' wisdom:

Because he's an imbecile, too.

Didn't even know, after years of existence, that ODF formats are
ZIP-compressed XML files. Hell, even Microsoft knows that! Microsoft
wrote (or bought) an ODF importer/exporter that's part of MS Office
2010.

--
> Says the man dangling from Snit's nether regions.
I have been advocating an improvement in Linux based DE/WMs for ages. As
I have done in Windows systems in days gone by when involved in Windows
SW development. I have read and understand the links he posts to try and
educate you. This is most certainly not dangling from his nether regions
: indeed I have commented more than once on his propensity to copy and
paste the same replies to the likes of you as you seem incapable of
reading the relevant studies which totally debunk your strange stance.
-- "Hadron" <ill8gc$qtc$1...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 5:01 PM, in article jrto9l$t1e$1...@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"
<nom...@nomail.not> wrote:

...

>> Your claim is that consolidation does not limit choices...
>
> Like I wrote before, these mergers do not limit choice simply because all
> previously existing choices continue to exist after the merger and all
> relevant projects continue to develop as before.

So this is not really a merger. OK.

>> but then you claim they are not really consolidating and that development
>> shall continue on both of the originals.
>
> You claimed the mergers reduce choice (Snit: "Merging? There goes choice!")
> but you have yet to say *one* single choice that has become unavailable due
> to these mergers.
>
> Snit, what choice is lost/removed/diminished with these branch merges?

Well, if you are now denying there is a merger (where two entities
consolidate into one), then with the changed story the conclusion is
different.

>>>>>> (snip bunch of stupidity)
>>>>
>>>> Let me know when you can do better than snip
>>>
>>> I sniped a bunch
>>
>> And spewed insults and accusation because you felt it was the best you
>> could do.
>
> I have asked you before, repeatedly, not to insult me and not to lie about
> what I write, but you systematically insisted on doing both.

See how you make up stories about me. Just silly.

> You don't like the way I'm treating you, too bad. I have treated you better
> than you deserve!

The question is not about how you treat *me*, it is how you are treating
*yourself*. You are showing yourself in a bad light.

> If you want to be treated better then improve you behavior towards me (and
> others while you are at it).
>
> Here are a few rules of thumb:

Look below how you spew baseless accusations. You will make my stalker very
happy, and your herd will squee with glee. But this is not something I
back.

> - - If you don't like being called a liar, then don't lie (like you frequently
> do about what I write);
> - - If you don't like being called ignorant then don't parade your ignorance
> around others that know far more than you on the relevant subjects (like you
> are doing on this subject);
> - - If you don't like being insulted then don't make your first post on a
> subject an insult to the users of that forum (like you did with this
> subject).
>
> Regards.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iF4EAREIAAYFAk/iZHUACgkQGQjO2ccW76rF+wD/fktC4QGrXH71dqNggT3dyJvj
> qMPNnr1wFAB6W4Q+A5AA/3NApUFRZxetbn8ES8BV0w+z+cyKbV1/eU9thVY2dd1I
> =XlzT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

[Lusotec]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Snit wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:

>>> Your claim is that consolidation does not limit choices...
>>
>> Like I wrote before, these mergers do not limit choice simply because all
>> previously existing choices continue to exist after the merger and all
>> relevant projects continue to develop as before.
>
> So this is not really a merger. OK.

Of course it is a merger. Did the repeated use of the word *merger* confuse
you in to thinking it is not a merger?!

>>> but then you claim they are not really consolidating and that
>>> development shall continue on both of the originals.
>>
>> You claimed the mergers reduce choice (Snit: "Merging? There goes
>> choice!") but you have yet to say *one* single choice that has become
>> unavailable due to these mergers.
>>
>> Snit, what choice is lost/removed/diminished with these branch merges?
>
> Well, if you are now denying there is a merger (where two entities
> consolidate into one), then with the changed story the conclusion is
> different.

And one more time you *lie* about what I have written. I have repeatedly and
explicitly said it is a merger, many times.

>>>>>>> (snip bunch of stupidity)
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me know when you can do better than snip
>>>>
>>>> I sniped a bunch
>>>
>>> And spewed insults and accusation because you felt it was the best you
>>> could do.
>>
>> I have asked you before, repeatedly, not to insult me and not to lie
>> about what I write, but you systematically insisted on doing both.
>
> See how you make up stories about me. Just silly.

Just above you lied yet again about what I have written and below you have
insulted me yet again. And this "make up stories" is yet another lie.

You can't resist being a liar, it is pathological, just like you can't
resist trolling these forums day after day, week after week, month after
month, year after year, decade after decade. A pathetic waste of life.

>> You don't like the way I'm treating you, too bad. I have treated you
>> better than you deserve!
>
> The question is not about how you treat *me*, it is how you are treating
> *yourself*. You are showing yourself in a bad light.

Liar, pathetic, ignorant, insulting, all adjectives that qualify you
perfectly.

>> If you want to be treated better then improve you behavior towards me
>> (and others while you are at it).
>>
>> Here are a few rules of thumb:
>
> Look below how you spew baseless accusations.

More lies from the pathologic liar Snit.

> You will make my stalker very happy, and your herd will squee with glee.

More insults from the Snit.

> But this is not something I back.

All the points below (you claim are "baseless accusations") are absolutely
true.

- - If you don't like being called a liar, then don't lie (like you frequently
do about what I write);

Proof: see above!!!

- - If you don't like being called ignorant then don't parade your ignorance
around others that know far more than you on the relevant subjects (like you
are doing on this subject);

Proof that Snit is ignorant on this subject but still insist on parading is
ignorance. Snit: "But before there were two choices - now there is one. And

if they had stayed as two choices they would have been developed and become

more different. Now this will not happen."

- - If you don't like being insulted then don't make your first post on a
subject an insult to the users of that forum (like you did with this
subject).

Proof that Snit insulted the users of this forum on the first post on this
subject. Snit: "Poor herd with their choice mantra... so often it comes back
to bite them."

Regards.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAk/igQMACgkQGQjO2ccW76pS9gD+NWma//AtGnyNjj1WdgtrgvYB
qGEClzHiOwJTXqirA/IA/2ctO5iU7AJHvLPpdKZ5FmER4jUrK7wVnotX+KXNmIX+
=Vmm1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 7:03 PM, in article jrtve3$ua8$1...@dont-email.me, "Lusotec"

<nom...@nomail.not> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Snit wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>> Your claim is that consolidation does not limit choices...
>>>
>>> Like I wrote before, these mergers do not limit choice simply because all
>>> previously existing choices continue to exist after the merger and all
>>> relevant projects continue to develop as before.
>>
>> So this is not really a merger. OK.
>
> Of course it is a merger. Did the repeated use of the word *merger* confuse
> you in to thinking it is not a merger?!

Define how you are using the term merger? Clearly you do not mean the normal
definition of two separate items becoming one... leaving one item when
before there were two (or, I suppose, more).

Really you mean that one project is adopting ideas / code from the other but
the two project are not really merging.

And while your accusations and insults and other BS might excite the herd,
it bores me. You are, in a word, getting quite boring. I mean, really, how
many paragraphs did you think you needed just to spew your herd-pleasing BS
against me? Are you really that fearful of them where you feel that need?

[DFS]

On 6/20/2012 8:05 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, Peter Köhlmann belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/20/2012 4:40 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> After swilling some grog, DFS belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>> You ran away.
>>>>> You ran away.
>>>>> You'll run away right now, too.
>>>>
>>>> Get over yourself. You're unpleasant and few want to converse with you.
>>>
>>> That works out fine, since there are only a few "advocates" here in the
>>> first place that are worth talking to.
>>
>> Translation: You will talk only to utter filth like Hadron Larry, flatfish
>> Gary Stewrat or Snit Michael Glasser.
>> All of them combined worth less than a demented garden slug.
>>
>> I don't get it. You are not as incompetent as Hadron Larry.
>> You are not as dishonest as Snit Michael Glasser
>> You are not a criminal thug as flatfish Gary Stewart
>> You are not as stupid as "The Bee"
>>
>> And yet you want to position yourself along that bunch of imbeciles. Why?
>
> Because he's an imbecile, too.
>
> Didn't even know, after years of existence, that ODF formats are
> ZIP-compressed XML files.

au contraire, my little dweeb. Knew it years ago, but don't keep up
with LibreOffice file formats.

Here's proof I knew it nearly 7 years ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/88efe6efe6c41320?hl=en

What I didn't understand today was why the Linux slopware itself would
try to nonsensically associate an office document with an Archive
Manager, or why some idiot on cola (Lusertec) would actually use an
office document as a compressed image container.

[TomB]

On 2012-06-21, the following emerged from the brain of Lusotec:
> Snit wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:

8<

>>>> but then you claim they are not really consolidating and that
>>>> development shall continue on both of the originals.
>>>
>>> You claimed the mergers reduce choice (Snit: "Merging? There goes
>>> choice!") but you have yet to say *one* single choice that has
>>> become unavailable due to these mergers.
>>>
>>> Snit, what choice is lost/removed/diminished with these branch
>>> merges?
>>
>> Well, if you are now denying there is a merger (where two entities
>> consolidate into one), then with the changed story the conclusion
>> is different.
>
> And one more time you *lie* about what I have written. I have
> repeatedly and explicitly said it is a merger, many times.

Hehe, a typical converstation with Snit :-D

Hehe, you are "denying there is a merger" when you question explicitly
mentions that very merger. Yes, that makes perfect sense :-p

And in the meantime he fails to answer your question of course. Well,
I would like to know it too: what choice is lost/removed/diminished by
merging mainstream and Android's Linux?

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 9:22 PM, in article 201206210...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"

<tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2012-06-21, the following emerged from the brain of Lusotec:
>> Snit wrote:
>>> Lusotec wrote:
>
> 8<
>
>>>>> but then you claim they are not really consolidating and that
>>>>> development shall continue on both of the originals.
>>>>
>>>> You claimed the mergers reduce choice (Snit: "Merging? There goes
>>>> choice!") but you have yet to say *one* single choice that has
>>>> become unavailable due to these mergers.
>>>>
>>>> Snit, what choice is lost/removed/diminished with these branch
>>>> merges?
>>>
>>> Well, if you are now denying there is a merger (where two entities
>>> consolidate into one), then with the changed story the conclusion
>>> is different.
>>
>> And one more time you *lie* about what I have written. I have
>> repeatedly and explicitly said it is a merger, many times.
>
> Hehe, a typical converstation with Snit :-D
>
> Hehe, you are "denying there is a merger" when you question explicitly
> mentions that very merger. Yes, that makes perfect sense :-p

He keeps flip flopping... they merged but the two original entities are
still there... so they did not merge... but they did... but not really...
when he makes up his mind I would love to know.

> And in the meantime he fails to answer your question of course. Well,
> I would like to know it too: what choice is lost/removed/diminished by
> merging mainstream and Android's Linux?

Depends on what you mean by merging. Are you saying the non-mainstream
choice is going away (being merged with the mainstream) or not?

When you make up your mind on if it is or is not being merged then the
answer to the question becomes obvious. Until that question is answered,
however, the question you ask is a nonsense question: how do I answer for
what the effect are of something which you cannot decide what you are
talking about.

[TomB]

On 2012-06-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:

> On 6/20/12 2:47 PM, in article
> 201206202...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
><tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-06-20, the following emerged from the brain of Lusotec:
>>
>> 8<
>>
>>> The options that existed before the merge will continue to exist
>>> after the merge. Future wise, things are pretty much the same as
>>> well. The projects will continue to be developed in parallel with
>>> Linux.
>>
>> With that in mind, from a end-user point of view there wasn't even
>> much choice to speak of. Even without a separate Android branch of
>> Linux the choice for the end-user remains exactly the same: Android
>> and GNU/Linux, each in a number of flavours.
>>
>> The entire argument is a red herring.
>
> So the choices do not really matter.

Not what I say /at all/. What I'm saying is that the split beween the
mainline kernel and the android kernel never was a choice to end-users
in the first place.

[Snit]

On 6/20/12 9:47 PM, in article 201206210...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"

<tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2012-06-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> On 6/20/12 2:47 PM, in article
>> 201206202...@usenet.drumscum.be, "TomB"
>> <tommy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-06-20, the following emerged from the brain of Lusotec:
>>>
>>> 8<
>>>
>>>> The options that existed before the merge will continue to exist
>>>> after the merge. Future wise, things are pretty much the same as
>>>> well. The projects will continue to be developed in parallel with
>>>> Linux.
>>>
>>> With that in mind, from a end-user point of view there wasn't even
>>> much choice to speak of. Even without a separate Android branch of
>>> Linux the choice for the end-user remains exactly the same: Android
>>> and GNU/Linux, each in a number of flavours.
>>>
>>> The entire argument is a red herring.
>>
>> So the choices do not really matter.
>
> Not what I say /at all/. What I'm saying is that the split beween the
> mainline kernel and the android kernel never was a choice to end-users
> in the first place.

So it is not that the choice does not matter, the different options just do
not offer choice at all. OK.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:

Snit's got Lusotec wrapped around his little finger.

Well, thankfully, the impulse respond to continual idiocy wears off
after a year or two.

--
"Love may fail, but courtesy will previal."
-- A Kurt Vonnegut fan

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>Snit's got Lusotec wrapped around his little finger.

No shit. You'd think he'd never encountered a troll before.

"I have to keep correcting this guy's idiotic assertions and lies."

[chrisv]

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>I don't get it. You are not as incompetent as Hadron Larry.
>You are not as dishonest as Snit Michael Glasser
>You are not a criminal thug as flatfish Gary Stewart
>You are not as stupid as "The Bee"
>
>And yet you want to position yourself along that bunch of imbeciles. Why?

He's as shitty as any of them.

[chrisv]

TomB wrote:

>Not what I say /at all/. What I'm saying is that the split beween the
>mainline kernel and the android kernel never was a choice to end-users
>in the first place.

Oh, gosh. Endless opportunities to troll and misinterpret and accuse
and insult.

[chrisv]

chrisv wrote:

>I did something I almost never do, and pulled-up the dumfscker's post

<jrt7f8$ie1$1...@dont-email.me>

I should have documented the dumfsck's *lies*.

Another bald-faced DumFSck lie. Documented. Two, actually.

It's a *lie* to claim that we do not favor "massive choice".

It's also a *lie* claim that the above *lie* is "proven correct" by
the fact that we refuse to go through the *significant* effort of
documenting the thought process and research involved in making all
the choices required to build a PC from components.

I have built *many* PC's, choosing each component from NewEgg. That
*is* proof of *exactly the opposite* of what the dumfsck claims, i.e.
that I *do* like massive choice.

It is *obviously* a *lie* to claim that anything is "proved" because a
demand to do a large amount of work was refused, especially
considering that it was an *outrageous* demand that we prove that
something *that countless people do every day* could be done!

"Ezekiel" still likes and supports the documented piece of shit liar
(and shameless jackass) DumFSck, though.

--
"Go to www.newegg.com and build a new computer:" - DumFSck,
providing "evidence" that there can be "too much choice" in a free
market.

[DFS]

On 6/20/2012 4:55 PM, chrisv wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> DFS belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> You ran away.
>>> You ran away.
>>> You'll run away right now, too.
>>
>> Get over yourself. You're unpleasant and few want to converse with you.
>

> He's a shameless jackass who seems to think that someone might be
> fooled with his idiocy.
>
> Just because it's not necessarily easy to describe precisely why we
> choose one product over another, doesn't mean that actually making the
> choice is particularly difficult.


heh!

Of course any moron can stab a finger at the screen and say "I want
whatever is square and black" (see TomB) or "I want that one at the top
of the list!" (see TomB), but the fact is, turd, your "choice is good"
drooling will defeat you when facing 25 nearly identical power supplies
or DVD burners and you're asked to justify one. It becomes a burden,
and research has proven this to be true.

And that's exactly why you keep running away from picking PC components
or recommending which of the 9 media player apps in Gentoo: you're a
chickenshit who doesn't want to face such choices and prove yourself
wrong at the same time.

Same thing with the plethora of 974 crappy Linux distros: there's too
many with too much overlap, and it's a waste of effort having to
evaluate them (not to mention the wasted effort to produce them). So
like the good sheeple you think you aren't, you let the distrowatch
popularity rankings make the choice for you.

So yeah, in a free market, there can be too many choices.



> We all make these choices every time we go shopping. We don't find it
> onerous. We don't wish for fewer choices.

No, you don't make those choices every time you go shopping. There
aren't 25 jars of mayo that are very close in specs, or 25 shirts that
are so close in color and pattern and style, etc.

[DFS]

On 6/20/2012 5:46 PM, William Poaster wrote:
> Here is a facsimile from Chris Ahlstrom who, on 20/6/2012 21:40, wrote:
>
>> After swilling some grog, DFS belched this bit o' wisdom:

>>
>>> You ran away.
>>> You ran away.
>>> You'll run away right now, too.
>>
>> Get over yourself. You're unpleasant and few want to converse with you.
>

> Some of us aren't interested in conversing with an argumentative
> drooling widiot like him. He's a total waste of time.


Nobody is interested in conversing with you, Dumb Willie.

Did you ever notice that?

[DFS]

On 6/20/2012 4:40 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, DFS belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> You ran away.
>> You ran away.
>> You'll run away right now, too.
>
> Get over yourself. You're unpleasant and few want to converse with you.

Wrong. TomB was responding to me in that thread back then, until I made
him whimper.

[Peter Köhlmann]

Well, he isn't.
But I don't get it why he tries to.

After all, nobody with more than half a brain would be proud to be on
friendly terms with scum like Hadron, flatfish or that Glasser filth

[DFS]

On 6/20/2012 6:42 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 6/20/2012 4:40 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> After swilling some grog, DFS belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> You ran away.
>>>> You ran away.
>>>> You'll run away right now, too.
>>>
>>> Get over yourself. You're unpleasant and few want to converse with you.
>>
>>
>> That works out fine, since there are only a few "advocates" here in the
>> first place that are worth talking to.
>
> Translation: You will talk only to utter filth like Hadron Larry, flatfish
> Gary Stewrat or Snit Michael Glasser.
> All of them combined worth less than a demented garden slug.

I'll talk to almost everyone if the topic is right.

I do refuse to talk to Snit. After having him killfiled for years I
tried to, but it turns out he's rotten to the core. How cc and Carroll
do it for months on end I'll never know.

> I don't get it. You are not as incompetent as Hadron Larry.
> You are not as dishonest as Snit Michael Glasser
> You are not a criminal thug as flatfish Gary Stewart
> You are not as stupid as "The Bee"

* "Hadron Larry" is two people: Hadron (a European) and Ezekiel (an
American). Neither is incompetent in the least. In fact, both develop
on Linux right now.

* I'm not dishonest at all. AT ALL.

* I agree Snit is incredibly dishonest. And in a group that includes
Rex Ballard, Fraud 7, Homer, Chris Ahlstrom, Dumb Willie and yourself,
that's saying something.

* Flattie is in no way a criminal or thug; she's just a prolific
nymshifter who likes to smack down you lying idiots like you deserve.

* Don't know who The Bee is.

> And yet you want to position yourself along that bunch of imbeciles. Why?

It's not like that. I do my own thing. I call out everyone, including
Hadron and Flattie, if I think it's worth it.

Regardless, you have no room to talk. You aligned yourself with that
moronic Fraud 7, defending his stupid lie that as of Oct. 2008 no MS
product supported more than 3gb RAM and Linux had no RAM limits
whatsoever. You actually defended that bullshit.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Peter Köhlmann belched this bit o' wisdom:

> chrisv wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>>I don't get it. You are not as incompetent as Hadron Larry.
>>>You are not as dishonest as Snit Michael Glasser
>>>You are not a criminal thug as flatfish Gary Stewart
>>>You are not as stupid as "The Bee"
>>>
>>>And yet you want to position yourself along that bunch of imbeciles. Why?
>>
>> He's as shitty as any of them.
>
> Well, he isn't.

Well, he is.

> But I don't get it why he tries to.

Tries to? He succeeds!

> After all, nobody with more than half a brain would be proud to be on
> friendly terms with scum like Hadron, flatfish or that Glasser filth

At this point, one should accept the empirical evidence... DFS is as
shitty (and noisy) as any of the rest of the trolling herd.

I wonder if "Hadron" has yet acknowledged to himself that he's wrong:

--
A NULL pointer doesnt "point" to anything you idiot. Its why its called
a NULL pointer. The *fact* its binary value is 0 is immaterial.
> This error can be trapped (by the OS or the application) and handled
> accordingly.
> But to claim that it is *illegal* is another typical Hadron Larry Snot Quark
> idiocy
dereferencing a NULL pointer IS illegal in ANY sane interpretation of the
ISO standards. it would take someone of colossal stupidity and arrogance
to argue against it. You cant dereference something that doesn't
exist. Wow. You really ARE an idiot.
-- "Hadron" <4dd3j94...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Snit]

On 6/21/12 8:08 AM, in article jrvdde$79l$1...@dont-email.me, "DFS"

<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:

> On 6/20/2012 6:42 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/20/2012 4:40 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> After swilling some grog, DFS belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>> You ran away.
>>>>> You ran away.
>>>>> You'll run away right now, too.
>>>>
>>>> Get over yourself. You're unpleasant and few want to converse with you.
>>>
>>>
>>> That works out fine, since there are only a few "advocates" here in the
>>> first place that are worth talking to.
>>
>> Translation: You will talk only to utter filth like Hadron Larry, flatfish
>> Gary Stewrat or Snit Michael Glasser.
>> All of them combined worth less than a demented garden slug.
>
>
> I'll talk to almost everyone if the topic is right.
>
> I do refuse to talk to Snit. After having him killfiled for years I
> tried to, but it turns out he's rotten to the core. How cc and Carroll
> do it for months on end I'll never know.

You made some accusations against me. I proved you wrong. Now you refuse
to talk to me.

Oh, and that was a couple months ago - not "years" as you claim. You, once
again, are lying.

>> I don't get it. You are not as incompetent as Hadron Larry.
>> You are not as dishonest as Snit Michael Glasser
>> You are not a criminal thug as flatfish Gary Stewart
>> You are not as stupid as "The Bee"
>
>
> * "Hadron Larry" is two people: Hadron (a European) and Ezekiel (an
> American). Neither is incompetent in the least. In fact, both develop
> on Linux right now.
>
> * I'm not dishonest at all. AT ALL.

That is a lie. I can list some of your lies if you like.

> * I agree Snit is incredibly dishonest. And in a group that includes
> Rex Ballard, Fraud 7, Homer, Chris Ahlstrom, Dumb Willie and yourself,
> that's saying something.

Please quote a few of these "lies" from me.

But you cannot. Ever.

> * Flattie is in no way a criminal or thug; she's just a prolific
> nymshifter who likes to smack down you lying idiots like you deserve.
>
> * Don't know who The Bee is.
>
>
>
>> And yet you want to position yourself along that bunch of imbeciles. Why?
>
> It's not like that. I do my own thing. I call out everyone, including
> Hadron and Flattie, if I think it's worth it.
>
> Regardless, you have no room to talk. You aligned yourself with that
> moronic Fraud 7, defending his stupid lie that as of Oct. 2008 no MS
> product supported more than 3gb RAM and Linux had no RAM limits
> whatsoever. You actually defended that bullshit.
>

[DFS]

On 6/21/2012 9:13 AM, chrisv wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> I did something I almost never do, and pulled-up the dumfscker's post
>
> <jrt7f8$ie1$1...@dont-email.me>
>
> I should have documented the dumfsck's *lies*.

I don't lie, turd. You have nothing to document.

> Another bald-faced DumFSck lie. Documented. Two, actually.
>
> It's a *lie* to claim that we do not favor "massive choice".

No, it's not a lie. At worst it's an off-base opinion. At best it's
spot-on opinion.

Either way it's based on observing your runaway behavior. If you liked
*massive choice* you'd jump at the chance to defend your it. But the
fact is, you can't even tell me which of the 9 video players in Gentoo I
should use, and why.

> It's also a *lie* claim that the above *lie* is "proven correct" by
> the fact that we refuse to go through the *significant* effort of
> documenting the thought process and research involved in making all
> the choices required to build a PC from components.

LMAO! And why is it *significant* effort? Because there are billions
of combinations of the 9 or 10 primary components of a PC. Good
self-nuke you little shithead.

From www.newegg.com (desktop-oriented choices):

Intel CPU: 48 choices socket 1155 and up
Intel mobo: 322 choices socket 1155 and up
AMD CPU: 25 choices socket AM3/3+/FM1
AMD mobo: 114 choices socket AM3/3+/FM1
memory: 65 choices of 2x2GB, 240-Pin DDR3, 1333+
internal SSD: 271 choices between 80GB and 256GB
internal hard drive: 252 choices between 500GB and 2TB
optical drive: 20 non-slim SATA CD/DVD burners
video card: 569 choices of PCI Express 2.x
power supply: 270 choices between 500W and 1000W
case: 419 choices of ATX-sized

Note: you can see how I already greatly restricted the choices to
minimize your pussified whining.

The above are mostly combinatorial ignoring incompatibilities in
mobo/memory voltages, memory speed, type of PCI slot, etc.

Let's count the "massive choice" that you love so much:

Intel: 48*322*65*271*252*20*569*270*419 = 8.83284E+19
AMD: 25*114*65*271*252*20*569*270*419 = 1.62873E+19

Those numbers could easily be quadrupled.

LMAO! Someone new to computers would be completely lost trying to build
one that worked out of the box.

If there were just 3 choices of each component it would still be a lot:
3^9 = 19683 available combinations.


Anyway, the whole point is there are too many bullshit Linux distros and
the "choice is good" chant in support of them is bogus. You know it and
I know it. Even honest Linux people know it and are willing to admit
it; some will even laugh about it. But not the frothing idiots on
cesspool.of.lying.advocates.

> I have built *many* PC's, choosing each component from NewEgg. That
> *is* proof of *exactly the opposite* of what the dumfsck claims, i.e.
> that I *do* like massive choice.

If you weren't such a runaway chickenshit liar you'd list every system
you built and detail all the components, and we'd see how much 'massive
choice' you exercised.

I'm 100% confident you chose the same or very similar components over
and over and over.

Go ahead and prove me wrong, turd. Show me the invoices and parts lists.

> It is *obviously* a *lie* to claim that anything is "proved" because a
> demand to do a large amount of work was refused, especially
> considering that it was an *outrageous* demand that we prove that
> something *that countless people do every day* could be done!
>
> "Ezekiel" still likes and supports the documented piece of shit liar
> (and shameless jackass) DumFSck, though.

Poor turd can't handle having his lame ass handed to him, day after day
after day.

[Lusotec]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

DFS wrote:
> What I didn't understand today was why the Linux slopware itself would
> try to nonsensically associate an office document with an Archive
> Manager,

The office documents files are not explicitly associated with the Archive
Manager. The zip archive files are the ones associated with the Archive
Manager and the shell automatically detects that those files are zip
archives and offers the options to treat them as such.

> or why some idiot on cola (Lusertec) would actually use an
> office document as a compressed image container.

You are the idiot, DFS, incapable of understanding many simple things.

I have documents with many images (some in the thousands). Opening the
document in LibreOffice and searching for the images I wanted would require
more time and effort than just opening the document in gwenview and quickly
filtering and browsing through the images.

Regards.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAk/jTwgACgkQGQjO2ccW76ozUgD/byIlQ0o5UA1jOGXPBNhjNfzJ
Yw/m1J7xQDT8iDnWu8QA/1k6nd9bh8gtglbG3tqXBEWstu84DzX7QJzR1VU+xRVd
=bjBM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann belched :

>>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> He's as shitty as any of them.
>>
>> Well, he isn't.
>
>Well, he is.
>
>> But I don't get it why he tries to.
>
>Tries to? He succeeds!

Peter must have a different definition of "shitty" than we do.

To me, it matters not how "intelligent" or technically proficient they
may be, if they are a filthy lying assholes that lie and support
clearly idiotic positions to attack FOSS and its advocates.

--
'You see with foods, not any idiot like you could mix up their own
bacteria filled yoghurts and sell them to the public from your
basement: there are rules and regulations to stop you poisoning the
public and claiming "its good for you". See the similarity?' - "True
Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Lusotec belched this bit o' wisdom:

> DFS wrote:
>> What I didn't understand today was why the Linux slopware itself would
>> try to nonsensically associate an office document with an Archive
>> Manager,
>
> The office documents files are not explicitly associated with the Archive
> Manager. The zip archive files are the ones associated with the Archive
> Manager and the shell automatically detects that those files are zip
> archives and offers the options to treat them as such.
>
>> or why some idiot on cola (Lusertec) would actually use an
>> office document as a compressed image container.
>
> You are the idiot, DFS, incapable of understanding many simple things.
>
> I have documents with many images (some in the thousands). Opening the
> document in LibreOffice and searching for the images I wanted would require
> more time and effort than just opening the document in gwenview and quickly
> filtering and browsing through the images.

You're "talking" with a Win-washed troll, Lusotec. He has grave
difficulty in grokking anything outside of the workflows he's
encountered in Windows.

He doesn't even seem to understand that many Linux applications do use
'libmagic' to determine the type of a file, no matter what name the user
chose to give it.

Signote: Except for one time, long ago, when Peter got trapped into
incorrectly arguing about null pointers (and since then Peter has shown
"Hadron" to be a bit limited in his knowledge of C), Peter has shown
himself to know a lot more about Linux than "Hadron".

Y'see, "Hadron"'s puffed head apparently forces him to try to clamber
over the backs of people who know more than him, and so he claims that
he's "schooled" this guy, or that this guy know "ZERO" about a topic.
Or that this guy is not really a programmer, or that this guy really
doesn't use Linux much.

Empty words from an empty head.

--
Koehlmann is a Windows user and programmer who probably just uses Linux
to check his cross compile works. He clearly has ZERO clue about Linux.
-- "Hadron", claiming God-like knowledge of another poster

[DFS]

On 6/21/2012 5:14 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, Lusotec belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>> What I didn't understand today was why the Linux slopware itself would
>>> try to nonsensically associate an office document with an Archive
>>> Manager,
>>
>> The office documents files are not explicitly associated with the Archive
>> Manager. The zip archive files are the ones associated with the Archive
>> Manager and the shell automatically detects that those files are zip
>> archives and offers the options to treat them as such.
>>
>>> or why some idiot on cola (Lusertec) would actually use an
>>> office document as a compressed image container.
>>
>> You are the idiot, DFS, incapable of understanding many simple things.
>>
>> I have documents with many images (some in the thousands). Opening the
>> document in LibreOffice and searching for the images I wanted would require
>> more time and effort than just opening the document in gwenview and quickly
>> filtering and browsing through the images.
>
> You're "talking" with a Win-washed troll, Lusotec. He has grave
> difficulty in grokking anything outside of the workflows he's
> encountered in Windows.

Bullshit. I have grave difficulty swallowing the line of horsecrap I'm
handed here on cola.

> He doesn't even seem to understand that many Linux applications do use
> 'libmagic' to determine the type of a file, no matter what name the user
> chose to give it.

So I've been told, over and over by cola bozos.

Which apps?

Every time I've changed a file extension on Linux (say .txt to .jpg, or
.jpg to .txt) and tried to open the file with the "correct" app (a text
editor or graphics app respectively) it's failed. Every single time. It
has always looked only at the extension.

And if some do it "right", why don't they all? Oh, it's just more of
that famous Linux kualitee and consistency...

[Peter Köhlmann]

That is because you are clueless.
DEs like Gnome or KDE are preconfigured to look at the extension first (for
speed reasons. Otherwise they need to access every file to determine its
type when doing a directory listing).
That does not mean it has to stay that way, it can be changed.
And if you simply remove the extension (which works real wonders to make
windows go bonkers), the linux system will continue to work. With the right
file types. It will just be a tad slower when doing a dir

If you knew anything at all about linux in general, you would not display
this hadronesque lack of knowledge

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, Peter Köhlmann belched this bit o' wisdom:

> DFS wrote:
>
>> Bullshit. I have grave difficulty swallowing the line of horsecrap I'm
>> handed here on cola.

Sure. And yet DFS swallows his own line of horsecrap just fine.

>>> He doesn't even seem to understand that many Linux applications do use
>>> 'libmagic' to determine the type of a file, no matter what name the user
>>> chose to give it.
>>
>> So I've been told, over and over by cola bozos.
>>
>> Which apps?

File managers.

XFce's 'thunar', for example. I renamed a PDF to have no extension, and
thunar tags it correctly as a 'PDF Document'.

However, if I rename it to end in .jpg, then 'thunar' tags it
incorrectly as a 'JPEG image'.

>> Every time I've changed a file extension on Linux (say .txt to .jpg, or
>> .jpg to .txt) and tried to open the file with the "correct" app (a text
>> editor or graphics app respectively) it's failed. Every single time. It
>> has always looked only at the extension.
>>
>> And if some do it "right", why don't they all? Oh, it's just more of
>> that famous Linux kualitee and consistency...

I wouldn't be so quick to judge... Windows is *worse* at this task.

> That is because you are clueless.
> DEs like Gnome or KDE are preconfigured to look at the extension first (for
> speed reasons. Otherwise they need to access every file to determine its
> type when doing a directory listing).
> That does not mean it has to stay that way, it can be changed.
> And if you simply remove the extension (which works real wonders to make
> windows go bonkers), the linux system will continue to work. With the right
> file types. It will just be a tad slower when doing a dir

Thunar illustrates that just fine. (I'm not going to try to install
others to see what they do.)

> If you knew anything at all about linux in general, you would not display
> this hadronesque lack of knowledge

Like "Hadron", DFS would rather say something shitty than not say
anything at all.

--
> My heart goes out to them as they work hard to make this a less
> literate, more impolite society.
He says posting a one liner behind a nym to use net based on his closed
minded philosophies!
LOL! Just when I thought Chris Ahlstrom had cornered the "hypocrite" of
the year award!
-- "Hadron", http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_thread/thread/3c56424f6120f60/9b696ba14882f32b?lnk=gst&q=hadron#9b696ba14882f32b

[Hadron]

Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:

> After swilling some grog, Peter Köhlmann belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Bullshit. I have grave difficulty swallowing the line of horsecrap I'm
>>> handed here on cola.
>
> Sure. And yet DFS swallows his own line of horsecrap just fine.

What lines Creepy? Making things up to try and hide your proven idiocy is
no way to go through life son.

>
>>>> He doesn't even seem to understand that many Linux applications do use
>>>> 'libmagic' to determine the type of a file, no matter what name the user
>>>> chose to give it.
>>>
>>> So I've been told, over and over by cola bozos.
>>>
>>> Which apps?
>
> File managers.
>
> XFce's 'thunar', for example. I renamed a PDF to have no extension, and
> thunar tags it correctly as a 'PDF Document'.

Now what happens in the rest if you tag them with other extensions?

You see? You dont know.

>
> However, if I rename it to end in .jpg, then 'thunar' tags it
> incorrectly as a 'JPEG image'.

Correct : in other words DFS is right. Its crap and Linux distros DO
INDEED use the extensions. Which you denied a while back. In a pique of
sucking up and showing off you though you were 1337 because you know of
libmagic. What you failed to take into account is how rarely its
properly used.

>
>>> Every time I've changed a file extension on Linux (say .txt to .jpg, or
>>> .jpg to .txt) and tried to open the file with the "correct" app (a text
>>> editor or graphics app respectively) it's failed. Every single time. It
>>> has always looked only at the extension.
>>>
>>> And if some do it "right", why don't they all? Oh, it's just more of
>>> that famous Linux kualitee and consistency...
>
> I wouldn't be so quick to judge... Windows is *worse* at this task.

No evidence noted. Backtracking in abundance plain for all to see. Nice
one Creepy. You did it again.

>
>> That is because you are clueless.
>> DEs like Gnome or KDE are preconfigured to look at the extension first (for
>> speed reasons. Otherwise they need to access every file to determine its
>> type when doing a directory listing).
>> That does not mean it has to stay that way, it can be changed.
>> And if you simply remove the extension (which works real wonders to make
>> windows go bonkers), the linux system will continue to work. With the right
>> file types. It will just be a tad slower when doing a dir
>
> Thunar illustrates that just fine. (I'm not going to try to install
> others to see what they do.

Of course you're not..

)
>
>> If you knew anything at all about linux in general, you would not display
>> this hadronesque lack of knowledge
>
> Like "Hadron", DFS would rather say something shitty than not say
> anything at all.

Like "Hadron"? Its not me being caught telling lies Creepy. Thats
you. And I canf find PLENTY of posts from me extolling Linux/Debian and
FOSS. Probably in more places than you.

--
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>

[chrisv]

TomB wrote:

>What I'm saying is that the split beween the
>mainline kernel and the android kernel never was a choice to end-users
>in the first place.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that it's *impossible* to "reduce
choice" with FOSS. As long as the license is respected, anyone can
take it and do whatever they want with it. Even Linus' direction can
be ignored.

--
Linux user: Ubuntu keeps getting better and more stable with each
release. I'm looking forward to the next version.
"True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark: Why? What's so buggy you need an
entire new version? Come on freetard fan boy, spill the beans.

[Snit]

On 6/22/12 5:31 AM, in article l7p8u75oihg6oj4ve...@4ax.com,

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

> TomB wrote:
>
>> What I'm saying is that the split beween the
>> mainline kernel and the android kernel never was a choice to end-users
>> in the first place.
>
> Perhaps it should be mentioned that it's *impossible* to "reduce
> choice" with FOSS. As long as the license is respected, anyone can
> take it and do whatever they want with it. Even Linus' direction can
> be ignored.

This is a copout.

When two programs are being actively developed there are two choices.

If these programs truly merge they leave just one option being developed.

Yes, you can still use the ever-increasingly-outdated options from before
merger and even modify them, but for most people and most purposes you have
gone from two choices down to one.

[Snit]

On 6/21/12 11:57 PM, in article js152g$rt6$1...@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"

One thing "missing" from Linux, as far as I know, is being able to be able
to make the default program for opening, say, PDF files be Program X but
then being able to override that on a file-by-file basis, so *some* PDF
files open with another program when you double click on them (or single
click if that is how you have things set up).

[DFS]

Makes me a perfect fit for the clueless "operating system" called Linux.
Case-sensitive? Really?

> DEs like Gnome or KDE are preconfigured to look at the extension first (for
> speed reasons. Otherwise they need to access every file to determine its
> type when doing a directory listing).
> That does not mean it has to stay that way, it can be changed.

How?

> And if you simply remove the extension (which works real wonders to make
> windows go bonkers),

It makes Windows ask which program you'd like to use, then the right
class of app opens the file perfectly.

> the linux system will continue to work. With the right
> file types. It will just be a tad slower when doing a dir
>
> If you knew anything at all about linux in general, you would not display
> this hadronesque lack of knowledge

You haven't told me anything new, dumbkopf. Just babbled a lie about
Windows.

[Hadron]

Peter, you know the "advocates" claimed that only IDIOTS use file
extensions since its so easy to con the system into opening a file using
the wrong app.

I suspect YOU probably made that claim but I cant be bothered looking :
you're wrong on just about each and every proclamation you make
here. Its quite clear you know little if anything about using Linux and
just resort to a quick google when you're trying to impress.

[Hadron]

And lies about me. I was, again, correct when (ages ago) I told them
that the DE didnt use libmagic in most cases. (Emacs does btw).

Kohlkopf seems to revel in being proven wrong. Time and time again.

[Peter Köhlmann]

You told me nothing, you incompetent Snit.
And the DE *does* use libmagic if no extension is present.
*Or* you have it configured to not use the extension first

> Kohlkopf seems to revel in being proven wrong. Time and time again.

The one being wrong is you. Again

[DFS]

On 6/23/2012 8:20 AM, Hadron wrote:


> And lies about me. I was, again, correct when (ages ago) I told them
> that the DE didnt use libmagic in most cases. (Emacs does btw).

Gnome doesn't, that I've seen. Nor does KDE. Nor does lxde. Nor does
xfce (Thunar).

In fact, I've never seen a Linux DE or file manager override the
incorrect file extension and determine the real file type and launch the
correct app. Never.

Using 'Open With' or loading the file from inside the app, you sometimes
get the correct result.

Change .jpg extension to .txt:

On Debian 604 lxde, gpicview and gimp correctly loaded up the file and
showed the image. But OpenOffice and Iceweasel failed to recognize it
as a .jpg file.

Using Bridge Linux xfce, Thunar only says it's a .jpg if it has that
extension. The file did open correctly with Chromium, VLC and Gimp.

Anyway, they're typical cola liars making exaggerated claims about Linux.

> Kohlkopf seems to revel in being proven wrong. Time and time again.

You want a real laugh: see Dumbkopf support Fraud 7's ridiculous claim
that as of Oct 2008, no Microsoft product supported more than 3GB RAM,

and Linux had no RAM limits whatsoever.

Fraud's original claim:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/15f33d0134308d07?hl=en

Dumbkopf's support of it: "his claim *is* true"
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/b5e4ad97a97d81b2?hl=en


Dumbkopf is a real moron.

[TomB]

On 2012-06-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:

8<

>> Another one... OSX is not mature enough to offer easy access to SSH
>> servers from Finder. Yeah, sounds good too. I'll use this one as
>> well.
>
> Again: this shows your ignorance of OS X.
>
><http://support.apple.com/kb/PH3721>
> -----
> If you allow remote login, you can use Secure Shell (SSH) to log
> in to your computer from another location.
> -----
>
> How is OS X not "mature" enough to have its built in features?

I was not talking about not having an SSH server. Of course OSX has
that. I was talking about connecting to an SSH server on a different
machine from the default file manager, like can be done from the
default file manager in both Gnome and KDE.

8<

[TomB]

On 2012-06-22, the following emerged from the brain of Chris Ahlstrom:

8<

> XFce's 'thunar', for example. I renamed a PDF to have no extension,
> and thunar tags it correctly as a 'PDF Document'.
>
> However, if I rename it to end in .jpg, then 'thunar' tags it
> incorrectly as a 'JPEG image'.

So basically it boils down to the following:

* No extension: libmagic is used to determine the file type.
* Extension: extension is used to determine the file type.

Seems like a very sensible way of handling stuff.

[TomB]

On 2012-06-22, the following emerged from the brain of Hadron:

8<

> Correct : in other words DFS is right. Its crap and Linux distros DO
> INDEED use the extensions. Which you denied a while back.

IIRC the argument was that GNU/Linux doesn't rely on the file
extension to determine if a file is executable. And that is true.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:

As long as the file manager uses libmagic to verify that the extension
is honest when the user tries to "open" the document.

--
As I recall he claimed his "nym" was, rotflm, bequeathed to
him for his beardy knowledge... *lol*
-- "Hadron" <3yzkh1n...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:

"Hadron" is insulting and an idiot.

But you knew that.

--
So Gobbler, do let us know when more "advocates" are coming onto your
"show"...
-- "Hadron" <tl1uzjd...@news.eternal-september.org>

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:

Not according to "Hadron", the poser.

--
FYI he said in aolu that the dual head nvidia is "still controlled from my
main development machines and certainly isnt a Mon & Pop at home set up."
-- "Hadron" ~ <i9ju2t$itk$6...@news.eternal-september.org>
alt.os.linux.ubuntu -Tue, 19 Oct 2010

[TomB]

On 2012-06-21, the following emerged from the brain of DFS:

8<

> Of course any moron can stab a finger at the screen and say "I want
> whatever is square and black" (see TomB) or "I want that one at the
> top of the list!" (see TomB), (...)

Ho there, dude. That's not how it went at all. You asked how I would
choose from the vast array of options available at newegg.com, and I
did way more than what you claim above. I filtered on brands, budget,
features... like anyone would do. And that's why having a lot of
choice is a Good Thing; it increases the chance that I can find
exactly what I want for the money I'm prepared to spend on it. And I
never spend more than 300 EUR on a desktop PC (that's without hard
drives and optical storage drives).

Online shops like newegg.com are perfect for someone like me, and
given how well shops like that do, they seem to be perfect for lots of
people.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, DFS belched this bit o' wisdom:

> Of course any moron can stab a finger at the screen and say "I want
> whatever is square and black" (see TomB) or "I want that one at the top

> of the list!" (see TomB), but the fact is, turd, your "choice is good"
> drooling will defeat you when facing 25 nearly identical power supplies
> or DVD burners and you're asked to justify one. It becomes a burden,
> and research has proven this to be true.
>
> And that's exactly why you keep running away from picking PC components
> or recommending which of the 9 media player apps in Gentoo: you're a
> chickenshit who doesn't want to face such choices and prove yourself
> wrong at the same time.

*LMAO*

Man, you are a moron.

--
So being the big-time Linux advocate that you are... why is your own
daughter running Windows instead of Linux?
-- Larry "Message ID" Qualig

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> DFS belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>

>> And that's exactly why .

>
>*LMAO*
>
>Man, you are a moron.

And a *shameless* liar, as we see *again* above.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

After swilling some grog, chrisv belched this bit o' wisdom:

Poor bastard can't even flip a coin.

--
The number one benefit of information technology is that it empowers people
to do what they want to do. It lets people be creative. It lets people be
productive. It lets people learn things they didn’t think they could learn
before, and so in a sense it is all about potential.
-- Steve Ballmer

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> chrisv belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> DFS belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>>> And that's exactly why .
>>>
>>>*LMAO*
>>>
>>>Man, you are a moron.
>>
>> And a *shameless* liar, as we see *again* above.
>
>Poor bastard can't even flip a coin.

And no one shops at NewEgg. I sure don't. Constantly (for my job).

It's just too much of a "burden" to have all that choice, man!

Sheesh, what a pathetic loser/liar/asshole/idiot.

"Ezekiel" likes him, though.