The mental illness of Linux "advocates"

[DFS]

Rex Ballard, July 2010 (blames the recent recession on MS Office):
"The problem is that Office 2000 format is very difficult to manage
over the long term. It's great for short-term documents and drafts,
as well as documents that you edit, print, and then discard, but it's
a royal pain to locate 10 year old documents that were a critical part
of contract negotiations - and are now needed for legal cases such as
lawsuits, patent defenses, or even to document the completion of a
contract. Word, PowerPoint, and Excel documents were used in mortgage
applications that weren't properly reviewed because it was nearly
impossible to automate the parsing of free-form Office documents, and
manual review of millions of documents by big banks like Citi, Chase,
and Bank of America were considered too costly. The shady
applications and documented risks were unreviewed as they were passed
to companies like AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac. To save nearly $1
billion by not reviewing the Office documents manually, nearly $14
trillion in mortgages are now "under water" - with people owing more
than their property is worth."

Fraud 7, Mar 2013:
"Ubuntu Linux now worth at least 1 Trillion Dollars."

AZNonads, Jul 2009:
"When you upgrade Windows, there's no backward compatibility, you
have to throw out all your hardware, and not use any software
more than a year old."

Creepy Chris Ahlstrom, Feb 2012:
"I wouldn't work for Microsoft for a billion dollars."

Christopher Hunter, Apr 2008:
"the entire German government, French government, most of Scandinavia,
/all/ of China, and much of India switched to Linux"

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

Gooblin, Nov 2010
"The Microsoft Kinect cannot be hailed a success because at the end
of the day its merely a console controller sold to an already
existing customer base."

Hypocrite Homer, Sep 2010
"With a small team of technicians and engineers, I could have done
that [Munich migration] in less than six months, even allowing for
complete re-engineering of otherwise "irreplaceable" proprietary
components, and I guarantee I would have come well under the budget
Munich wasted"

Ian Hilliard, Jun 2012
"Windows has a registry, which was designed specifically to stop
software from being copied from one machine to another."

JED, Apr 2011
"sudo is not a 'Unix thing'"

JeffM(oron), Feb 2012
"Microsoft is already merely a footnote"

super jim, Jan 2008
"Give me a Linux Distro team (even a volunteer one) that is open to
trying my ideas just once, and I will unseat Microsoft in less than
5 years."

Linuxiac/OldTech, Jun 2006
"Linux is 8X quicker [than Windows], even for gaming!"

SMelzzzzz, Aug 2013
"Linux is perfect as it is."

owl,
"The Sandy Hook schoolchildren massacre was a hoax perpetrated by the US
govt."

Roy Spamowitz, 2006
"It's official: Microsoft is dying very quickly"



and so on and so on...

[Hadron]

DFS <***@dfs.com> writes:

> Rex Ballard, July 2010 (blames the recent recession on MS Office):
> "The problem is that Office 2000 format is very difficult to manage
> over the long term. It's great for short-term documents and drafts,
> as well as documents that you edit, print, and then discard, but it's
> a royal pain to locate 10 year old documents that were a critical part
> of contract negotiations - and are now needed for legal cases such as
> lawsuits, patent defenses, or even to document the completion of a
> contract. Word, PowerPoint, and Excel documents were used in mortgage
> applications that weren't properly reviewed because it was nearly
> impossible to automate the parsing of free-form Office documents, and
> manual review of millions of documents by big banks like Citi, Chase,
> and Bank of America were considered too costly. The shady
> applications and documented risks were unreviewed as they were passed
> to companies like AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac. To save nearly $1
> billion by not reviewing the Office documents manually, nearly $14
> trillion in mortgages are now "under water" - with people owing more
> than their property is worth."

Wow. I'd forgotten that.



--
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact."
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[Silver Slimer]

On 10/02/2014 11:11 PM, DFS wrote:

> Fraud 7, Mar 2013:
> "Ubuntu Linux now worth at least 1 Trillion Dollars."

Canonical wouldn't be able to PAY a company to take over the
money-losing operation.

> AZNonads, Jul 2009:
> "When you upgrade Windows, there's no backward compatibility, you
> have to throw out all your hardware, and not use any software
> more than a year old."

In the hardware case, it's a little sad how Windows does not integrate
support for older hardware into the core of the new operating system.
However, for software, you'd have to have a very ancient version for it
to no longer work in a new version of Windows.

> Creepy Chris Ahlstrom, Feb 2012:
> "I wouldn't work for Microsoft for a billion dollars."

He's quite content receiving welfare cheques and doesn't want to work in
general.

> Christopher Hunter, Apr 2008:
> "the entire German government, French government, most of Scandinavia,
> /all/ of China, and much of India switched to Linux"

Which is why China is overrun with a piracy problem affecting Windows XP
in particular and where the government is worried that Microsoft's end
of support for the operating system will result in a few millions
Chinese PCs being compromised.

> Ian Hilliard, Jun 2012
> "Windows has a registry, which was designed specifically to stop
> software from being copied from one machine to another."

The actual reason was to allow for improved cross-program operation. For
instance, to open a link within a mail program, that mail program needs
to know what the browser on the PC is. A registry allows for the mail
program to call on 'the browser' set as default within the registry. In
GNU/Linux, many programs still require the user to manually set up which
browser is to be used.

> owl,
> "The Sandy Hook schoolchildren massacre was a hoax perpetrated by the US
> govt."

Personally, I'm not convinced that it wasn't.
--
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism

[vallor]

On 02/11/2014 10:21 AM, Silver Slimer wrote:

>
> The actual reason was to allow for improved cross-program operation. For
> instance, to open a link within a mail program, that mail program needs
> to know what the browser on the PC is. A registry allows for the mail
> program to call on 'the browser' set as default within the registry. In
> GNU/Linux, many programs still require the user to manually set up which
> browser is to be used.

I think Silly Sucker's MO is to troll with statements about Linux that
are obviously wrong.

Also sounds like he's under the influence of the "five year delusion",
where he thinks Linux is no different today than 2009.

For those who don't know: most browsers today -- even on Linux -- ask
if they want to be your default browser. You can also set preferred
applications in most desktop environments:

http://imgur.com/a/WegHz#0

BTW, there is a "registry" (of sources) used on Linux desktops today
called "dconf". It is a follow-on to the old gnome-2 "gconf" system, if
I'm not mistaken.

However, though gconf kept its data in xml files, dconf is optimized for
extremely fast lookup and reads, with slower writes. It does this by
mmaping the single binary file, which is "essentially a hashtable", or
so says the man page. (The idea being that people don't change desktop
settings nearly as much as they read them.)

The advantage of dconf over a windows registry should be obvious: the
file format isn't a black box, and you have the source to the system.

To see the dconf-editor tool, sudo apt-get install dconf-editor.

-v
ObLinux: "DESCRIPTION" part of the dconf(7) man page. Lol @ "systen" typo.
DCONF(7) Conventions and miscellaneous DCONF(7)

NAME
dconf - A configuration systen

DESCRIPTION
dconf is a simple key/value storage system that is
heavily optimised for reading. This makes it an ideal
system for storing user preferences (which are read
1000s of times for each time the user changes one). It
was created with this usecase in mind.

All preferences are stored in a single large binary
file. Layering of preferences is possible using multiple
files (ie: for site defaults). Lock-down is also
supported. The binary file for the defaults can
optionally be compiled from a set of plain text
keyfiles.

dconf has a partial client/server architecture. It uses
D-Bus. The server is only involved in writes (and is not
activated in the user session until the user modifies a
preference). The service is stateless and can exit
freely at any time (and is therefore robust against
crashes). The list of paths that each process is
watching is stored within the D-Bus daemon itself (as
D-Bus signal match rules).

Reads are performed by direct access (via mmap) to the
on-disk database which is essentially a hashtable. For
this reason, dconf reads typically involve zero system
calls and are comparable to a hashtable lookup in terms
of speed. Practically speaking, in simple non-layered
setups, dconf is less than 10 times slower than
GHashTable.

Writes are assumed only to happen in response to
explicit user interaction (like clicking on a checkbox
in a preferences dialog) and are therefore not optimised
at all. On some file systems, dconf-service will call
fsync() for every write, which can introduce a latency
of up to 100ms. This latency is hidden by the client
libraries through a clever "fast" mechanism that records
the outstanding changes locally (so they can be read
back immediately) until the service signals that a write
has completed.
/v

[Silver Slimer]

On 11/02/2014 3:55 PM, vallor wrote:
> On 02/11/2014 10:21 AM, Silver Slimer wrote:
>
>>
>> The actual reason was to allow for improved cross-program operation. For
>> instance, to open a link within a mail program, that mail program needs
>> to know what the browser on the PC is. A registry allows for the mail
>> program to call on 'the browser' set as default within the registry. In
>> GNU/Linux, many programs still require the user to manually set up which
>> browser is to be used.
>
> I think Silly Sucker's MO is to troll with statements about Linux that
> are obviously wrong.

Read carefully what I said about GNU/Linux. I clearly said that MANY
programs require manual configuration. Nowhere in that statement did I
say ALL.

> Also sounds like he's under the influence of the "five year delusion",
> where he thinks Linux is no different today than 2009.

So by 2009, or fourteen years after Microsoft got it done, GNU/Linux
FINALLY understood the concept of default programs. A decade and a half
is all it takes for GNU/Linux to get simple ideas right.

> For those who don't know: most browsers today -- even on Linux -- ask
> if they want to be your default browser. You can also set preferred
> applications in most desktop environments:
>
> http://imgur.com/a/WegHz#0
>
> BTW, there is a "registry" (of sources) used on Linux desktops today
> called "dconf". It is a follow-on to the old gnome-2 "gconf" system, if
> I'm not mistaken.

Did I say otherwise in that short paragraph which can't possibly be
misinterpreted?

--
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism

[vallor]

On 02/11/2014 02:16 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
> On 11/02/2014 3:55 PM, vallor wrote:
>> Also sounds like he's under the influence of the "five year delusion",
>> where he thinks Linux is no different today than 2009.
>
> So by 2009, or fourteen years after Microsoft got it done, GNU/Linux
> FINALLY understood the concept of default programs. A decade and a half
> is all it takes for GNU/Linux to get simple ideas right.

The date is arbitrary, as it is just "5 years ago". Linux has had a
"desktop settings database" since it had X11 -- because X resources are
part of X11, and are stored in the display server. Try:

$ xrdb -query -all -global

...and you'll still see some of that.

[ Delete here, my 1994 experience of being dragged, kicking and
screaming, into the world of X desktops from my beloved Win 3.11
system...and spending a few hours learning about X resources. They
aren't that hard to understand. ]

And thank you for candidly admitting that you were wrong earlier about
desktop settings databases for Linux. It's refreshing to see, with the
dearth of charity found in this newsfroup.

-v
p.s. I'm kind of ignoring the whole "default programs" issue with
respect to X resources back then, because in 1994, "default programs" in
the (mostly command line) Unix world were set with environment
variables, such as "EDITOR" and "VISUAL" and "PAGER"...as they still are
today.
/v

[Silver Slimer]

On 11/02/2014 9:54 PM, vallor wrote:
> On 02/11/2014 02:16 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
>> On 11/02/2014 3:55 PM, vallor wrote:
>>> Also sounds like he's under the influence of the "five year delusion",
>>> where he thinks Linux is no different today than 2009.
>>
>> So by 2009, or fourteen years after Microsoft got it done, GNU/Linux
>> FINALLY understood the concept of default programs. A decade and a half
>> is all it takes for GNU/Linux to get simple ideas right.

> And thank you for candidly admitting that you were wrong earlier about
> desktop settings databases for Linux. It's refreshing to see, with the
> dearth of charity found in this newsfroup.

When the heck did I say that I was wrong?

--
Silver Slimer

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2014-02-12, vallor <***@cultnix.org> wrote:
> On 02/11/2014 02:16 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
>> On 11/02/2014 3:55 PM, vallor wrote:
>>> Also sounds like he's under the influence of the "five year delusion",
>>> where he thinks Linux is no different today than 2009.
>>
>> So by 2009, or fourteen years after Microsoft got it done, GNU/Linux
>> FINALLY understood the concept of default programs. A decade and a half
>> is all it takes for GNU/Linux to get simple ideas right.
>
> The date is arbitrary, as it is just "5 years ago". Linux has had a
> "desktop settings database" since it had X11 -- because X resources are
> part of X11, and are stored in the display server. Try:

If you count stuff like "$EDITOR" and "$VISUAL" then this notion of
a "desktop settings database" goes back even further than that.

>
> $ xrdb -query -all -global
>
> ...and you'll still see some of that.
>
> [ Delete here, my 1994 experience of being dragged, kicking and
> screaming, into the world of X desktops from my beloved Win 3.11
> system...and spending a few hours learning about X resources. They
> aren't that hard to understand. ]
>
> And thank you for candidly admitting that you were wrong earlier about
> desktop settings databases for Linux. It's refreshing to see, with the
> dearth of charity found in this newsfroup.

[deletia]

--
Redefining terms is for the morally bankrupt.

If you want to make a moral or ethical case against piracy, you |||
lose it the moment you start lying to make a point. All you're / | \
doing is making the case for enlightened self interest a much
harder sell. You are demonizing the very thing you are trying to
"support".

The artists are really much better if you and all the other liars
just shut up and stop trying to be helpful.

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2014-02-11, vallor <***@cultnix.org> wrote:
> On 02/11/2014 10:21 AM, Silver Slimer wrote:
>
>>
>> The actual reason was to allow for improved cross-program operation. For
>> instance, to open a link within a mail program, that mail program needs
>> to know what the browser on the PC is. A registry allows for the mail
>> program to call on 'the browser' set as default within the registry. In
>> GNU/Linux, many programs still require the user to manually set up which
>> browser is to be used.

Yes. But how do you set this registry? Does it automatically set
itself? Does it read your mind? No. At some point you have to tell the
system what you actually want.

Doesn't matter if it is something simple like an environment variable
or a text file or something overly complex and failure prone like the
Windows registry.

>
> I think Silly Sucker's MO is to troll with statements about Linux that
> are obviously wrong.

[deletia]

--
On the subject of kilobyte being "redefined" to mean 1000 bytes...

When I was a wee lad, I was taught that SI units were |||
meant to be computationally convenient rather than just / | \
arbitrarily assigned.

[Silver Slimer]

On 11/02/2014 5:52 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2014-02-11, vallor <***@cultnix.org> wrote:
>> On 02/11/2014 10:21 AM, Silver Slimer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The actual reason was to allow for improved cross-program operation. For
>>> instance, to open a link within a mail program, that mail program needs
>>> to know what the browser on the PC is. A registry allows for the mail
>>> program to call on 'the browser' set as default within the registry. In
>>> GNU/Linux, many programs still require the user to manually set up which
>>> browser is to be used.
>
> Yes. But how do you set this registry? Does it automatically set
> itself? Does it read your mind? No. At some point you have to tell the
> system what you actually want.
>
> Doesn't matter if it is something simple like an environment variable
> or a text file or something overly complex and failure prone like the
> Windows registry.

The Windows registry isn't actually 'failure-prone' as much as it is in
need of cleaning. Unfortunately, when programs are removed, only a few
of them actually do a good job of removing everything they inserted into
the registry. Therefore, applications like the free ccleaner come into
play to put some order into it. You can argue that GNU/Linux doesn't do
the same thing, but the 'purge' command exists in aptitude for a reason.

As long as people periodically clean the registry, especially if they
constantly add and remove software, they shouldn't experience any kind
of troubles in Windows 7 and 8.
--
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism

[Snit]

On 2/11/14, 4:43 PM, in article ldecim$610$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<***@lv.c> wrote:

> On 11/02/2014 5:52 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2014-02-11, vallor <***@cultnix.org> wrote:
>>> On 02/11/2014 10:21 AM, Silver Slimer wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The actual reason was to allow for improved cross-program operation. For
>>>> instance, to open a link within a mail program, that mail program needs
>>>> to know what the browser on the PC is. A registry allows for the mail
>>>> program to call on 'the browser' set as default within the registry. In
>>>> GNU/Linux, many programs still require the user to manually set up which
>>>> browser is to be used.
>>
>> Yes. But how do you set this registry? Does it automatically set
>> itself? Does it read your mind? No. At some point you have to tell the
>> system what you actually want.
>>
>> Doesn't matter if it is something simple like an environment variable
>> or a text file or something overly complex and failure prone like the
>> Windows registry.
>
> The Windows registry isn't actually 'failure-prone' as much as it is in
> need of cleaning. Unfortunately, when programs are removed, only a few
> of them actually do a good job of removing everything they inserted into
> the registry. Therefore, applications like the free ccleaner come into
> play to put some order into it. You can argue that GNU/Linux doesn't do
> the same thing, but the 'purge' command exists in aptitude for a reason.
>
> As long as people periodically clean the registry, especially if they
> constantly add and remove software, they shouldn't experience any kind
> of troubles in Windows 7 and 8.

And some settings *should* stay, or at least there should be an option -
that way if you re-install a piece of software you keep your settings.


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Silver Slimer]

On 11/02/2014 8:37 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 2/11/14, 4:43 PM, in article ldecim$610$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
> <***@lv.c> wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2014 5:52 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2014-02-11, vallor <***@cultnix.org> wrote:
>>>> On 02/11/2014 10:21 AM, Silver Slimer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The actual reason was to allow for improved cross-program operation. For
>>>>> instance, to open a link within a mail program, that mail program needs
>>>>> to know what the browser on the PC is. A registry allows for the mail
>>>>> program to call on 'the browser' set as default within the registry. In
>>>>> GNU/Linux, many programs still require the user to manually set up which
>>>>> browser is to be used.
>>>
>>> Yes. But how do you set this registry? Does it automatically set
>>> itself? Does it read your mind? No. At some point you have to tell the
>>> system what you actually want.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter if it is something simple like an environment variable
>>> or a text file or something overly complex and failure prone like the
>>> Windows registry.
>>
>> The Windows registry isn't actually 'failure-prone' as much as it is in
>> need of cleaning. Unfortunately, when programs are removed, only a few
>> of them actually do a good job of removing everything they inserted into
>> the registry. Therefore, applications like the free ccleaner come into
>> play to put some order into it. You can argue that GNU/Linux doesn't do
>> the same thing, but the 'purge' command exists in aptitude for a reason.
>>
>> As long as people periodically clean the registry, especially if they
>> constantly add and remove software, they shouldn't experience any kind
>> of troubles in Windows 7 and 8.
>
> And some settings *should* stay, or at least there should be an option -
> that way if you re-install a piece of software you keep your settings.

Your personal settings are *never* removed if you clean the registry
using CCleaner. The personal settings are generally stored in the
C:\Users\[User]\AppData hidden directory.

--
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism

[Snit]

On 2/11/14, 7:16 PM, in article ldeli9$gq7$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<***@lv.c> wrote:

>>> The Windows registry isn't actually 'failure-prone' as much as it is in
>>> need of cleaning. Unfortunately, when programs are removed, only a few
>>> of them actually do a good job of removing everything they inserted into
>>> the registry. Therefore, applications like the free ccleaner come into
>>> play to put some order into it. You can argue that GNU/Linux doesn't do
>>> the same thing, but the 'purge' command exists in aptitude for a reason.
>>>
>>> As long as people periodically clean the registry, especially if they
>>> constantly add and remove software, they shouldn't experience any kind
>>> of troubles in Windows 7 and 8.
>>
>> And some settings *should* stay, or at least there should be an option -
>> that way if you re-install a piece of software you keep your settings.
>
> Your personal settings are *never* removed if you clean the registry
> using CCleaner. The personal settings are generally stored in the
> C:\Users\[User]\AppData hidden directory.

Ah, good... though it is good to have the option to remove them.


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[DFS]

On 2/11/2014 5:52 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:


> Doesn't matter if it is something simple like an environment variable
> or a text file or something overly complex and failure prone like the
> Windows registry.


Liar. The Windows Registry is NOT prone to failure.


Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt Windows Registry' and you get
349 results

Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt Linux fstab file' and you get
219 results

Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt gconf' and you get 250 results

Page thru the Google results for 'Linux install failure' and you get 315
results

Page thru the Google results for 'Windows install failure' and you get
260 results

(no quotes on search terms)


Based on Google hits (anecdotal but still useful and reasonable), on a
per-user basis the Linux hobby-crapware suffers much more corruption,
crashing, freezing, spontaneous rebooting, general failure, and install
failure than Windows could ever dream of.





>> I think Silly Sucker's MO is to troll with statements about Linux that
>> are obviously wrong.
>
> [deletia]

[delusia]

[Peter Köhlmann]

DFS wrote:

> On 2/11/2014 5:52 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>
>> Doesn't matter if it is something simple like an environment
>> variable
>> or a text file or something overly complex and failure prone like the
>> Windows registry.
>
>
> Liar. The Windows Registry is NOT prone to failure.
>
>
> Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt Windows Registry' and you get
> 349 results

And if you make the search somewhat more valid you get around 4 million

[RonB]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:16:44 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 2/11/2014 5:52 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Doesn't matter if it is something simple like an environment
>>> variable
>>> or a text file or something overly complex and failure prone like the
>>> Windows registry.
>>
>>
>> Liar. The Windows Registry is NOT prone to failure.
>>
>>
>> Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt Windows Registry' and you get
>> 349 results
>
> And if you make the search somewhat more valid you get around 4 million

Google searches for ...

corrupted windows registry -- gets you 2,280,000 hits
clean windows registry -- gets you 5,850,000 hits
windows registry cleaner -- gets you 16,300,000 hits
corrupt windows registry -- gets you 2,080,000 hits

"corrupted windows registry" -- gets you 717,000 hits
"clean windows registry" -- gets you 1,320,000 hits
"windows registry cleaner" -- gets you 508,000 hits
"corrupt windows registry" -- gets you 597,000 hits

Yeah, the Windows Registry is not a problem at all. Does DFS imagine that
no one checks his "homework."

--
"OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program
for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is
scary." -- Linus Torvalds

[Snit]

On 2/11/14, 6:55 PM, in article ldekb9$4ot$***@dont-email.me, "RonB"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:16:44 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/11/2014 5:52 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter if it is something simple like an environment
>>>> variable
>>>> or a text file or something overly complex and failure prone like the
>>>> Windows registry.
>>>
>>>
>>> Liar. The Windows Registry is NOT prone to failure.
>>>
>>>
>>> Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt Windows Registry' and you get
>>> 349 results
>>
>> And if you make the search somewhat more valid you get around 4 million
>
> Google searches for ...
>
> corrupted windows registry -- gets you 2,280,000 hits
> clean windows registry -- gets you 5,850,000 hits
> windows registry cleaner -- gets you 16,300,000 hits
> corrupt windows registry -- gets you 2,080,000 hits
>
> "corrupted windows registry" -- gets you 717,000 hits
> "clean windows registry" -- gets you 1,320,000 hits
> "windows registry cleaner" -- gets you 508,000 hits
> "corrupt windows registry" -- gets you 597,000 hits
>
> Yeah, the Windows Registry is not a problem at all. Does DFS imagine that
> no one checks his "homework."

Ah, so Google searches are now proof:

"Linux Sucks" -- 180,000 hits

Stupid. Just stupid.


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Silver Slimer]

On 11/02/2014 10:25 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 2/11/14, 6:55 PM, in article ldekb9$4ot$***@dont-email.me, "RonB"
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:16:44 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/11/2014 5:52 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't matter if it is something simple like an environment
>>>>> variable
>>>>> or a text file or something overly complex and failure prone like the
>>>>> Windows registry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Liar. The Windows Registry is NOT prone to failure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt Windows Registry' and you get
>>>> 349 results
>>>
>>> And if you make the search somewhat more valid you get around 4 million
>>
>> Google searches for ...
>>
>> corrupted windows registry -- gets you 2,280,000 hits
>> clean windows registry -- gets you 5,850,000 hits
>> windows registry cleaner -- gets you 16,300,000 hits
>> corrupt windows registry -- gets you 2,080,000 hits
>>
>> "corrupted windows registry" -- gets you 717,000 hits
>> "clean windows registry" -- gets you 1,320,000 hits
>> "windows registry cleaner" -- gets you 508,000 hits
>> "corrupt windows registry" -- gets you 597,000 hits
>>
>> Yeah, the Windows Registry is not a problem at all. Does DFS imagine that
>> no one checks his "homework."
>
> Ah, so Google searches are now proof:
>
> "Linux Sucks" -- 180,000 hits
>
> Stupid. Just stupid.

I went on Google.ca and typed linux shit. The following is what I received:

About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)
--
Silver Slimer

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 9:07 AM, in article ldg68k$3a8$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<***@lv.c> wrote:

> On 11/02/2014 10:25 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 2/11/14, 6:55 PM, in article ldekb9$4ot$***@dont-email.me, "RonB"
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 01:16:44 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/11/2014 5:52 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't matter if it is something simple like an environment
>>>>>> variable
>>>>>> or a text file or something overly complex and failure prone like the
>>>>>> Windows registry.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar. The Windows Registry is NOT prone to failure.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt Windows Registry' and you get
>>>>> 349 results
>>>>
>>>> And if you make the search somewhat more valid you get around 4 million
>>>
>>> Google searches for ...
>>>
>>> corrupted windows registry -- gets you 2,280,000 hits
>>> clean windows registry -- gets you 5,850,000 hits
>>> windows registry cleaner -- gets you 16,300,000 hits
>>> corrupt windows registry -- gets you 2,080,000 hits
>>>
>>> "corrupted windows registry" -- gets you 717,000 hits
>>> "clean windows registry" -- gets you 1,320,000 hits
>>> "windows registry cleaner" -- gets you 508,000 hits
>>> "corrupt windows registry" -- gets you 597,000 hits
>>>
>>> Yeah, the Windows Registry is not a problem at all. Does DFS imagine that
>>> no one checks his "homework."
>>
>> Ah, so Google searches are now proof:
>>
>> "Linux Sucks" -- 180,000 hits
>>
>> Stupid. Just stupid.
>
> I went on Google.ca and typed linux shit. The following is what I received:
>
> About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

Proof!

Heck, even "Linux is shit", in quotes, comes up with:

About 92,600 results (0.41 seconds)

Must be proof!

--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[DFS]

On 2/11/2014 7:16 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 2/11/2014 5:52 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Doesn't matter if it is something simple like an environment
>>> variable
>>> or a text file or something overly complex and failure prone like the
>>> Windows registry.
>>
>>
>> Liar. The Windows Registry is NOT prone to failure.
>>
>>
>> Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt Windows Registry' and you get
>> 349 results
>
> And if you make the search somewhat more valid you get around 4 million


You have to page thru all the way to the end, and the initial high
number goes way down.

[Peter Köhlmann]

DFS wrote:

> On 2/11/2014 7:16 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/11/2014 5:52 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter if it is something simple like an environment
>>>> variable
>>>> or a text file or something overly complex and failure prone like the
>>>> Windows registry.
>>>
>>>
>>> Liar. The Windows Registry is NOT prone to failure.
>>>
>>>
>>> Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt Windows Registry' and you get
>>> 349 results
>>
>> And if you make the search somewhat more valid you get around 4 million
>
>
> You have to page thru all the way to the end, and the initial high
> number goes way down.

Bullhsit. Stop being a Snit

[RonB]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:29:13 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>> You have to page thru all the way to the end, and the initial high
>> number goes way down.
>
> Bullhsit. Stop being a Snit

Yeah, right DFS. When using Google Search and you put a term in quotes --
"corrupt windows registry" for example -- every "hit" will have that
phrase in it. That's how it works.

"corrupt windows registry" currently returns 597,000 hits on Google
Search. The Windows registry is probably the Malware Magnet OS's weakest
"feature."

--
"OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program
for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is
scary." -- Linus Torvalds

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 4:06 AM, in article ldfkjk$r3j$***@dont-email.me, "RonB"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:29:13 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>>> You have to page thru all the way to the end, and the initial high
>>> number goes way down.
>>
>> Bullhsit. Stop being a Snit
>
> Yeah, right DFS. When using Google Search and you put a term in quotes --
> "corrupt windows registry" for example -- every "hit" will have that
> phrase in it. That's how it works.
>
> "corrupt windows registry" currently returns 597,000 hits on Google
> Search. The Windows registry is probably the Malware Magnet OS's weakest
> "feature."

Google search counts as "proof". Please tell me you post this nonsense just
for attention and not because you really believe it. Please... you cannot be
*that* stupid.


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Sandman]

[William Poaster]

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 2/11/2014 5:52 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Doesn't matter if it is something simple like an environment
>>> variable
>>> or a text file or something overly complex and failure prone like the
>>> Windows registry.
>>
>>
>> Liar. The Windows Registry is NOT prone to failure.
>>
>>
>> Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt Windows Registry' and you get
>> 349 results
>
> And if you make the search somewhat more valid you get around 4 million

Even just putting "corrupt Windows Registry" in google you get over 2
million, & *lots* of pages explaining "How to recover from a corrupt
Windows Registry" from WinXP right up to Win8. In fact just searching for
"windows 8 registry is corrupt" brings over 2 million hits in itself.
So if the " Windows Registry is NOT prone to failure" it makes you wonder
why there are so many websites dedicated to helping windoze users fix it!
<chuckle>


--
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves.
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods."
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 2:15 AM, in article umqrsa-***@myhost.linuxnetworkbeta.net,
"William Poaster" <***@induh-vidual.net> wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/11/2014 5:52 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter if it is something simple like an environment
>>>> variable
>>>> or a text file or something overly complex and failure prone like the
>>>> Windows registry.
>>>
>>>
>>> Liar. The Windows Registry is NOT prone to failure.
>>>
>>>
>>> Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt Windows Registry' and you get
>>> 349 results
>>
>> And if you make the search somewhat more valid you get around 4 million
>
> Even just putting "corrupt Windows Registry" in google you get over 2
> million, & *lots* of pages explaining "How to recover from a corrupt
> Windows Registry" from WinXP right up to Win8. In fact just searching for
> "windows 8 registry is corrupt" brings over 2 million hits in itself.
> So if the " Windows Registry is NOT prone to failure" it makes you wonder
> why there are so many websites dedicated to helping windoze users fix it!
> <chuckle>

Can you be as stupid as you present yourself and *really* believe Google hit
counts serve as some sort of "proof"?


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Sinister Midget]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:15:42 +0000, William Poaster wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/11/2014 5:52 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter if it is something simple like an environment
>>>> variable
>>>> or a text file or something overly complex and failure prone like the
>>>> Windows registry.
>>>
>>>
>>> Liar. The Windows Registry is NOT prone to failure.
>>>
>>>
>>> Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt Windows Registry' and you
>>> get 349 results
>>
>> And if you make the search somewhat more valid you get around 4 million
>
> Even just putting "corrupt Windows Registry" in google you get over 2
> million, & *lots* of pages explaining "How to recover from a corrupt
> Windows Registry" from WinXP right up to Win8. In fact just searching
> for "windows 8 registry is corrupt" brings over 2 million hits in
> itself.
> So if the " Windows Registry is NOT prone to failure" it makes you
> wonder why there are so many websites dedicated to helping windoze users
> fix it!
> <chuckle>

corrupt+windows+registry (search for terms anywhere in page)
About 2,170,000 results (0.39 seconds)

broken+windows+registry
About 2,590,000 results (0.31 seconds)

windows+registry+error
About 17,600,000 results (0.40 seconds)

Poor DuFuS. Poor, poor DuFuS.

--
Excuse my English. I went to US public school.

[sbd]

On 02/12/2014 09:12 AM, Sinister Midget wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:15:42 +0000, William Poaster wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/11/2014 5:52 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't matter if it is something simple like an environment
>>>>> variable
>>>>> or a text file or something overly complex and failure prone like the
>>>>> Windows registry.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Liar. The Windows Registry is NOT prone to failure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt Windows Registry' and you
>>>> get 349 results
>>>
>>> And if you make the search somewhat more valid you get around 4 million
>>
>> Even just putting "corrupt Windows Registry" in google you get over 2
>> million, & *lots* of pages explaining "How to recover from a corrupt
>> Windows Registry" from WinXP right up to Win8. In fact just searching
>> for "windows 8 registry is corrupt" brings over 2 million hits in
>> itself.
>> So if the " Windows Registry is NOT prone to failure" it makes you
>> wonder why there are so many websites dedicated to helping windoze users
>> fix it!
>> <chuckle>
>
> corrupt+windows+registry (search for terms anywhere in page)
> About 2,170,000 results (0.39 seconds)
>
> broken+windows+registry
> About 2,590,000 results (0.31 seconds)
>
> windows+registry+error
> About 17,600,000 results (0.40 seconds)
>

Holy crap! this is not good, not good at all. How can anybody defend
such crap, unless of course you are .............

> Poor DuFuS. Poor, poor DuFuS.
>

[Sandman]

In article <ldedbu$9tc$***@dont-email.me>, DFS wrote:

> Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt Windows Registry' and you
> get 349 results

2,110,000 hits

> Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt Linux fstab file' and you
> get 219 results

181,000 hits

> Page thru the Google results for 'corrupt gconf' and you get 250
> results

1,410,000 hits

> Page thru the Google results for 'Linux install failure' and you get
> 315 results

62,600,000 hits

> Page thru the Google results for 'Windows install failure' and you
> get 260 results

33,100,000 hits

> Based on Google hits (anecdotal but still useful and reasonable), on
> a per-user basis the Linux hobby-crapware suffers much more
> corruption, crashing, freezing, spontaneous rebooting, general
> failure, and install failure than Windows could ever dream of.

Not if you count Google search term hits, you don't. Also, since most
people doesn't actually install Windows, the hits for failed Linux installs
is likely to be unproportionally larger.



--
Sandman[.net]

[chrisv]

Sandman wrote:

>Also, since most
>people doesn't actually install Windows, the hits for failed Linux installs
>is likely to be unproportionally larger.

Of course. But the haters won't cut Linux any slack for that...

--
"Dont even begin to suggest the same % of Windows users have issues as
they don't." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

[Snit]

On 2/11/14, 11:21 AM, in article lddpnc$6u3$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<***@lv.c> wrote:

> On 10/02/2014 11:11 PM, DFS wrote:
>
>> Fraud 7, Mar 2013:
>> "Ubuntu Linux now worth at least 1 Trillion Dollars."
>
> Canonical wouldn't be able to PAY a company to take over the
> money-losing operation.

Exactly. It is completely absurd to say they are a huge money making
corporation. Utterly absurd.

...


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Silver Slimer]

On 11/02/2014 8:34 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 2/11/14, 11:21 AM, in article lddpnc$6u3$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
> <***@lv.c> wrote:
>
>> On 10/02/2014 11:11 PM, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Fraud 7, Mar 2013:
>>> "Ubuntu Linux now worth at least 1 Trillion Dollars."
>>
>> Canonical wouldn't be able to PAY a company to take over the
>> money-losing operation.
>
> Exactly. It is completely absurd to say they are a huge money making
> corporation. Utterly absurd.

Despite the fact that they develop the most polished GNU/Linux product,
they have yet to post a profit.
--
Silver Slimer
GNU/Linux is Communism

[Hadron]

Silver Slimer <***@lv.c> writes:

> On 11/02/2014 8:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 2/11/14, 11:21 AM, in article lddpnc$6u3$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
>> <***@lv.c> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/02/2014 11:11 PM, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fraud 7, Mar 2013:
>>>> "Ubuntu Linux now worth at least 1 Trillion Dollars."
>>>
>>> Canonical wouldn't be able to PAY a company to take over the
>>> money-losing operation.
>>
>> Exactly. It is completely absurd to say they are a huge money making
>> corporation. Utterly absurd.
>
> Despite the fact that they develop the most polished GNU/Linux product,
> they have yet to post a profit.

No they don't. Most Linux users I know wouldn't touch it. Poor releases
and weird decisions : not least the "go with upstart".

--
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact."
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[Silver Slimer]

On 11/02/2014 9:15 PM, Hadron wrote:
> Silver Slimer <***@lv.c> writes:
>
>> On 11/02/2014 8:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 2/11/14, 11:21 AM, in article lddpnc$6u3$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
>>> <***@lv.c> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/02/2014 11:11 PM, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fraud 7, Mar 2013:
>>>>> "Ubuntu Linux now worth at least 1 Trillion Dollars."
>>>>
>>>> Canonical wouldn't be able to PAY a company to take over the
>>>> money-losing operation.
>>>
>>> Exactly. It is completely absurd to say they are a huge money making
>>> corporation. Utterly absurd.
>>
>> Despite the fact that they develop the most polished GNU/Linux product,
>> they have yet to post a profit.
>
> No they don't. Most Linux users I know wouldn't touch it. Poor releases
> and weird decisions : not least the "go with upstart".

See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete opposite
of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so polished
and isn't butt-fucking disgusting. Any GNU/Linux enterprise which
doesn't care what the GNU/Retards want has a much higher chance of
succeeding.

With that in mind, I actually kind of like Unity and Ubuntu itself. It's
the only distribution which seems to take itself seriously.
--
Silver Slimer

[Snit]

On 2/11/14, 7:54 PM, in article ldenpd$p81$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<***@lv.c> wrote:

>>>> Exactly. It is completely absurd to say they are a huge money making
>>>> corporation. Utterly absurd.
>>>
>>> Despite the fact that they develop the most polished GNU/Linux product,
>>> they have yet to post a profit.
>>
>> No they don't. Most Linux users I know wouldn't touch it. Poor releases
>> and weird decisions : not least the "go with upstart".
>
> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete opposite
> of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so polished
> and isn't butt-fucking disgusting. Any GNU/Linux enterprise which
> doesn't care what the GNU/Retards want has a much higher chance of
> succeeding.

I agree that following what the long term desktop Linux users want is a sure
way to failure, but I can see the point that Ubuntu is not the best even for
new users. I have been using and suggesting Mint for a while now.

> With that in mind, I actually kind of like Unity and Ubuntu itself. It's
> the only distribution which seems to take itself seriously.



--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Silver Slimer]

On 11/02/2014 10:23 PM, Snit wrote:

>> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete opposite
>> of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so polished
>> and isn't butt-fucking disgusting. Any GNU/Linux enterprise which
>> doesn't care what the GNU/Retards want has a much higher chance of
>> succeeding.
>
> I agree that following what the long term desktop Linux users want is a sure
> way to failure, but I can see the point that Ubuntu is not the best even for
> new users. I have been using and suggesting Mint for a while now.

The problem is that the long-term desktop GNU/Linux users don't even
know what they want. Would they prefer to have a fully-free operating
system or one with every feature available in Windows? Would they prefer
something which operates like Windows, like OS X or something completely
revolutionary? Do they want the system to be pretty or do they want it
to strictly be utilitarian? Do they want to use Debian's core, Ubuntu's
or Arch's?

It simply never ends. 'Advocates' will consider this choice but the
reality is that it is anarchy. Ubuntu attempts to create a default set
of choices and their decision seems to please the masses as there are a
number of distributions BASED on Ubuntu. However, that in itself is a
problem: why BASE a distribution on another's core when you can simply
use that distribution to customize your experience however you want?
Essentially, why destroy the rules and continue to make a mockery of
desktop GNU/Linux when you can try to do what has historically been
proven to be the smartest course of action and standardize the experience?

Say what you will about Windows, but a set of standards exist as a
result of the system's popularity. People know the .DOC or .DOCX is for
text documents, .MP3 is for audio and .JPG is for images. They also know
that .AVI is for video and so on. The technologies aren't proprietary to
Windows, obviously, but became mainstream as a result of Windows being
on most computers in the world. If you look at GNU/Linux, the only
standards they've successfully managed to hold onto are .ODT and .OGG.
--
Silver Slimer

[Peter Köhlmann]

Silver Snit Slimeball snotted:

> On 11/02/2014 10:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>
>>> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete opposite
>>> of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so polished
>>> and isn't butt-fucking disgusting. Any GNU/Linux enterprise which
>>> doesn't care what the GNU/Retards want has a much higher chance of
>>> succeeding.
>>
>> I agree that following what the long term desktop Linux users want is a
>> sure way to failure, but I can see the point that Ubuntu is not the best
>> even for new users. I have been using and suggesting Mint for a while
>> now.
>
> The problem is that the long-term desktop GNU/Linux users don't even
> know what they want. Would they prefer to have a fully-free operating
> system or one with every feature available in Windows? Would they prefer
> something which operates like Windows, like OS X or something completely
> revolutionary? Do they want the system to be pretty or do they want it
> to strictly be utilitarian? Do they want to use Debian's core, Ubuntu's
> or Arch's?
>
> It simply never ends. 'Advocates' will consider this choice but the
> reality is that it is anarchy. Ubuntu attempts to create a default set
> of choices and their decision seems to please the masses as there are a
> number of distributions BASED on Ubuntu. However, that in itself is a
> problem: why BASE a distribution on another's core when you can simply
> use that distribution to customize your experience however you want?
> Essentially, why destroy the rules and continue to make a mockery of
> desktop GNU/Linux when you can try to do what has historically been
> proven to be the smartest course of action and standardize the experience?
>
> Say what you will about Windows, but a set of standards exist as a
> result of the system's popularity. People know the .DOC or .DOCX is for
> text documents, .MP3 is for audio and .JPG is for images. They also know
> that .AVI is for video and so on. The technologies aren't proprietary to
> Windows, obviously, but became mainstream as a result of Windows being
> on most computers in the world. If you look at GNU/Linux, the only
> standards they've successfully managed to hold onto are .ODT and .OGG.

Idiot

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2014-02-12, Peter Köhlmann <peter-***@t-online.de> wrote:
> Silver Snit Slimeball snotted:
>
>> On 11/02/2014 10:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>>
>>>> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete opposite
>>>> of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so polished
>>>> and isn't butt-fucking disgusting. Any GNU/Linux enterprise which
>>>> doesn't care what the GNU/Retards want has a much higher chance of
>>>> succeeding.
>>>
>>> I agree that following what the long term desktop Linux users want is a
>>> sure way to failure, but I can see the point that Ubuntu is not the best
>>> even for new users. I have been using and suggesting Mint for a while
>>> now.
>>
>> The problem is that the long-term desktop GNU/Linux users don't even
>> know what they want. Would they prefer to have a fully-free operating

I think you are confused. Linux users are not a mindless uniform cult.

Different people have different ideas about what they want.

Fortunately, Unix is flexible enough that pretty much all of them can
be easily and effectively accomodated. The system isn't designed to impose
someone else's bad choices on you.

[deletia]

>> Say what you will about Windows, but a set of standards exist as a
>> result of the system's popularity. People know the .DOC or .DOCX is for
>> text documents, .MP3 is for audio and .JPG is for images. They also know

Many widely used formats are widely used regardless of platform. They
have squat to do with the Microsoft hegemony. If anything, the really useful
formats exist and thrive DESPITE of the Microsoft hegemony.

...and DOC is not for "text" documents. It's pointless overkill for that
purpose.

--
Apple: Because only pirates are power users. |||
/ | \

[Lloyd E Parsons]

On 2014-02-12 16:09:17 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:

> On 2014-02-12, Peter Köhlmann <peter-***@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Silver Snit Slimeball snotted:
>>
>>> On 11/02/2014 10:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>>> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete opposite
>>>>> of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so polished
>>>>> and isn't butt-fucking disgusting. Any GNU/Linux enterprise which
>>>>> doesn't care what the GNU/Retards want has a much higher chance of
>>>>> succeeding.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that following what the long term desktop Linux users want is a
>>>> sure way to failure, but I can see the point that Ubuntu is not the best
>>>> even for new users. I have been using and suggesting Mint for a while
>>>> now.
>>>
>>> The problem is that the long-term desktop GNU/Linux users don't even
>>> know what they want. Would they prefer to have a fully-free operating
>
> I think you are confused. Linux users are not a mindless uniform cult.
>
> Different people have different ideas about what they want.
>
> Fortunately, Unix is flexible enough that pretty much all of them can
> be easily and effectively accomodated. The system isn't designed to impose
> someone else's bad choices on you.
>
> [deletia]
>
>>> Say what you will about Windows, but a set of standards exist as a
>>> result of the system's popularity. People know the .DOC or .DOCX is for
>>> text documents, .MP3 is for audio and .JPG is for images. They also know
>
> Many widely used formats are widely used regardless of platform. They
> have squat to do with the Microsoft hegemony. If anything, the really useful
> formats exist and thrive DESPITE of the Microsoft hegemony.

One of your dumber statements of bullshit. :)

>
> ...and DOC is not for "text" documents. It's pointless overkill for that
> purpose.


--
Lloyd

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2014-02-12, Lloyd E Parsons <***@live.com> wrote:
> On 2014-02-12 16:09:17 +0000, JEDIDIAH said:
>
>> On 2014-02-12, Peter Köhlmann <peter-***@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> Silver Snit Slimeball snotted:
>>>
>>>> On 11/02/2014 10:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>

[deletia]

>>
>>>> Say what you will about Windows, but a set of standards exist as a
>>>> result of the system's popularity. People know the .DOC or .DOCX is for
>>>> text documents, .MP3 is for audio and .JPG is for images. They also know
>>
>> Many widely used formats are widely used regardless of platform. They
>> have squat to do with the Microsoft hegemony. If anything, the really useful
>> formats exist and thrive DESPITE of the Microsoft hegemony.
>
> One of your dumber statements of bullshit. :)

JPG and MP3 in particular were widely used on alternate platforms perhaps
even MORE than they were on WinDOS since DOS really wasn't a multi-media power
house back in those days.

PDF is a varation on postscript which was used as a standard print ready
format on Unixen as far back as the 80s.

Even "DOC" has simpler variants. Plus it could be mistaken for a Word
perfect file.

--
Apple: Because only pirates are power users. |||
/ | \

[Silver Slimer]

On 12/02/2014 2:19 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:

>>>>> Say what you will about Windows, but a set of standards exist as a
>>>>> result of the system's popularity. People know the .DOC or .DOCX is for
>>>>> text documents, .MP3 is for audio and .JPG is for images. They also know
>>>
>>> Many widely used formats are widely used regardless of platform. They
>>> have squat to do with the Microsoft hegemony. If anything, the really useful
>>> formats exist and thrive DESPITE of the Microsoft hegemony.
>>
>> One of your dumber statements of bullshit. :)
>
> JPG and MP3 in particular were widely used on alternate platforms perhaps
> even MORE than they were on WinDOS since DOS really wasn't a multi-media power
> house back in those days.

I was explaining that the formats became POPULAR as a result of Windows'
popularity. I never said anything about them being created by Microsoft
or created FOR their operating system.

> PDF is a varation on postscript which was used as a standard print ready
> format on Unixen as far back as the 80s.

And Unix was used by the masses and immensely popular in the 1980's,
right? After all, every household had a computer in the 1980's, right?
And they all ran UNIX, right?

> Even "DOC" has simpler variants. Plus it could be mistaken for a Word
> perfect file.

According to Wikipedia, WordPerfect used .WPD. Older versions of
WordPerfect also used file extensions .wp, .wp7, .wp6, .wp5, .wp4, and
originally no extension at all. *HOW* the hell is .DOC mistaken for a
WordPerfect file? Is .DOC even *REMOTELY* close to .WPD in your bizarro
world?

--
Silver Slimer
'Linux shit' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 12:19 PM, in article ***@nomad.mishnet,
"JEDIDIAH" <***@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

>>> Many widely used formats are widely used regardless of platform. They
>>> have squat to do with the Microsoft hegemony. If anything, the really useful
>>> formats exist and thrive DESPITE of the Microsoft hegemony.
>>
>> One of your dumber statements of bullshit. :)
>
> JPG and MP3 in particular were widely used on alternate platforms perhaps
> even MORE than they were on WinDOS since DOS really wasn't a multi-media power
> house back in those days.
>
> PDF is a varation on postscript which was used as a standard print ready
> format on Unixen as far back as the 80s.
>
> Even "DOC" has simpler variants. Plus it could be mistaken for a Word
> perfect file.

So standards and consistency are good, right?


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Hadron]

JEDIDIAH <***@nomad.mishnet> writes:

> On 2014-02-12, Peter Köhlmann <peter-***@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Silver Snit Slimeball snotted:
>>
>>> On 11/02/2014 10:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>>> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete opposite
>>>>> of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so polished
>>>>> and isn't butt-fucking disgusting. Any GNU/Linux enterprise which
>>>>> doesn't care what the GNU/Retards want has a much higher chance of
>>>>> succeeding.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that following what the long term desktop Linux users want is a
>>>> sure way to failure, but I can see the point that Ubuntu is not the best
>>>> even for new users. I have been using and suggesting Mint for a while
>>>> now.
>>>
>>> The problem is that the long-term desktop GNU/Linux users don't even
>>> know what they want. Would they prefer to have a fully-free operating
>
> I think you are confused. Linux users are not a mindless uniform
> cult.

It certainly seems so listening to the crap you spout here.

>
> Different people have different ideas about what they want.

Yes. And why different apps exist.

>
> Fortunately, Unix is flexible enough that pretty much all of them
> can

Linux is not Unix Jed.

> be easily and effectively accomodated. The system isn't designed to impose
> someone else's bad choices on you.

Flexibility IS a good thing. I recently made a lot of use of it removing
Gnome from my desktop.

>
> [deletia]
>
>>> Say what you will about Windows, but a set of standards exist as a
>>> result of the system's popularity. People know the .DOC or .DOCX is for
>>> text documents, .MP3 is for audio and .JPG is for images. They also know
>
> Many widely used formats are widely used regardless of platform. They
> have squat to do with the Microsoft hegemony. If anything, the really useful
> formats exist and thrive DESPITE of the Microsoft hegemony.
>
> ...and DOC is not for "text" documents. It's pointless overkill for that
> purpose.

You're a clueless idiot and really should shut up talking about things
you know nothing about.

--
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact."
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[vallor]

On 02/12/2014 08:50 AM, Hadron wrote:
>
> You're a clueless idiot and really should shut up talking about things
> you know nothing about.
>

A point of order:

Dear Hadron,

PKB.

A limited vocabulary can say a lot about a person. If anyone is an
"idiot", its someone who does nothing but call other people "idiots",
without fail, repetitively, ad nauseum, no matter what.

In fact, you appear to be so obsessed with that word that it borderlines
on Net.kookdom. Only, that might be an insult to kooks.

So go learn a few more words already:

http://thesaurus.com/browse/idiot

HTH. HAND.

-v

[RonB]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:18:14 -0800, vallor wrote:

> On 02/12/2014 08:50 AM, Hadron wrote:
>>
>> You're a clueless idiot and really should shut up talking about things
>> you know nothing about.
>>
>>
> A point of order:
>
> Dear Hadron,
>
> PKB.
>
> A limited vocabulary can say a lot about a person. If anyone is an
> "idiot", its someone who does nothing but call other people "idiots",
> without fail, repetitively, ad nauseum, no matter what.
>
> In fact, you appear to be so obsessed with that word that it borderlines
> on Net.kookdom. Only, that might be an insult to kooks.
>
> So go learn a few more words already:
>
> http://thesaurus.com/browse/idiot
>
> HTH. HAND.
>
> -v

He and "Lloyd" are charter members of the Bitter Old Biddy Club.

(Subject Line corrected for accuracy.)

--
"OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program
for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is
scary." -- Linus Torvalds

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 9:09 AM, in article ***@nomad.mishnet,
"JEDIDIAH" <***@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2014-02-12, Peter Köhlmann <peter-***@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Silver Snit Slimeball snotted:
>>
>>> On 11/02/2014 10:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>>> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete opposite
>>>>> of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so polished
>>>>> and isn't butt-fucking disgusting. Any GNU/Linux enterprise which doesn't
>>>>> care what the GNU/Retards want has a much higher chance of succeeding.
>>>>>
>>>> I agree that following what the long term desktop Linux users want is a
>>>> sure way to failure, but I can see the point that Ubuntu is not the best
>>>> even for new users. I have been using and suggesting Mint for a while now.
>>>>
>>> The problem is that the long-term desktop GNU/Linux users don't even know
>>> what they want. Would they prefer to have a fully-free operating
>>>
> I think you are confused. Linux users are not a mindless uniform cult.

Correct: though anyone who gets their information from the COLA herd can be
excused for not understanding this.

> Different people have different ideas about what they want.

Correct. And in many cases they have no idea how "what they want" impacts
their productivity, efficiency, or error reduction. Does not mean they
should be restricted from screwing themselves, but it is a shame that *no*
Linux distro does a good job of promoting these things. The KDE and Gnome
HIGs both do, but no distro follows either one well (though some such as
Kubuntu do a decent job).

> Fortunately, Unix is flexible enough that pretty much all of them can be
> easily and effectively accomodated.

Yes: including providing environments which do promote such things, such as
that provided by OS X. And even though it has a *lot* of weaknesses, it is
*much* better than any Linux distro at promoting these things. Day and night
difference. Oh, and Linux is Unix-like, but I will assume that is what you
meant when you spoke of "Unix".

> The system isn't designed to impose someone else's bad choices on you.

Desktop Linux absolutely does (well, unless you want to re-write programs to
fix them!)

> [deletia]
>
>>> Say what you will about Windows, but a set of standards exist as a
>>> result of the system's popularity. People know the .DOC or .DOCX is for
>>> text documents, .MP3 is for audio and .JPG is for images. They also know
>
> Many widely used formats are widely used regardless of platform. They
> have squat to do with the Microsoft hegemony. If anything, the really useful
> formats exist and thrive DESPITE of the Microsoft hegemony.
>
> ...and DOC is not for "text" documents. It's pointless overkill for that
> purpose.

Context is your friend. Well, it should be. :)


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Silver Slimer]

On 12/02/2014 10:47 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Idiot

No, I assure you that I'm not related to you in any way.

--
Silver Slimer
'Linux shit' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 8:47 AM, in article ldg51q$s12$***@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-***@t-online.de> wrote:

> Silver Snit Slimeball snotted:
>
>> On 11/02/2014 10:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>>
>>>> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete opposite
>>>> of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so polished
>>>> and isn't butt-fucking disgusting. Any GNU/Linux enterprise which
>>>> doesn't care what the GNU/Retards want has a much higher chance of
>>>> succeeding.
>>>
>>> I agree that following what the long term desktop Linux users want is a
>>> sure way to failure, but I can see the point that Ubuntu is not the best
>>> even for new users. I have been using and suggesting Mint for a while
>>> now.
>>
>> The problem is that the long-term desktop GNU/Linux users don't even
>> know what they want. Would they prefer to have a fully-free operating
>> system or one with every feature available in Windows? Would they prefer
>> something which operates like Windows, like OS X or something completely
>> revolutionary? Do they want the system to be pretty or do they want it
>> to strictly be utilitarian? Do they want to use Debian's core, Ubuntu's
>> or Arch's?
>>
>> It simply never ends. 'Advocates' will consider this choice but the
>> reality is that it is anarchy. Ubuntu attempts to create a default set
>> of choices and their decision seems to please the masses as there are a
>> number of distributions BASED on Ubuntu. However, that in itself is a
>> problem: why BASE a distribution on another's core when you can simply
>> use that distribution to customize your experience however you want?
>> Essentially, why destroy the rules and continue to make a mockery of
>> desktop GNU/Linux when you can try to do what has historically been
>> proven to be the smartest course of action and standardize the experience?
>>
>> Say what you will about Windows, but a set of standards exist as a
>> result of the system's popularity. People know the .DOC or .DOCX is for
>> text documents, .MP3 is for audio and .JPG is for images. They also know
>> that .AVI is for video and so on. The technologies aren't proprietary to
>> Windows, obviously, but became mainstream as a result of Windows being
>> on most computers in the world. If you look at GNU/Linux, the only
>> standards they've successfully managed to hold onto are .ODT and .OGG.
>
> Idiot

And that is the *best* reasoning Peter can use... vacuous attacks without
even noting a single error in the text he replies to.

And not one of the herd members will call him out on it. Ever.


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Silver Slimer]

On 12/02/2014 12:41 PM, Snit wrote:

>>> It simply never ends. 'Advocates' will consider this choice but the
>>> reality is that it is anarchy. Ubuntu attempts to create a default set
>>> of choices and their decision seems to please the masses as there are a
>>> number of distributions BASED on Ubuntu. However, that in itself is a
>>> problem: why BASE a distribution on another's core when you can simply
>>> use that distribution to customize your experience however you want?
>>> Essentially, why destroy the rules and continue to make a mockery of
>>> desktop GNU/Linux when you can try to do what has historically been
>>> proven to be the smartest course of action and standardize the experience?
>>>
>>> Say what you will about Windows, but a set of standards exist as a
>>> result of the system's popularity. People know the .DOC or .DOCX is for
>>> text documents, .MP3 is for audio and .JPG is for images. They also know
>>> that .AVI is for video and so on. The technologies aren't proprietary to
>>> Windows, obviously, but became mainstream as a result of Windows being
>>> on most computers in the world. If you look at GNU/Linux, the only
>>> standards they've successfully managed to hold onto are .ODT and .OGG.
>>
>> Idiot
>
> And that is the *best* reasoning Peter can use... vacuous attacks without
> even noting a single error in the text he replies to.
>
> And not one of the herd members will call him out on it. Ever.

Meanwhile, we have pages upon pages of evidence that Peter Köhlmann is
an enraged crackhead with down syndrome.
--
Silver Slimer
'Linux shit' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 8:34 AM, in article ldg4as$o1i$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<***@lv.c> wrote:

> On 11/02/2014 10:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>
>>> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete opposite
>>> of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so polished
>>> and isn't butt-fucking disgusting. Any GNU/Linux enterprise which
>>> doesn't care what the GNU/Retards want has a much higher chance of
>>> succeeding.
>>
>> I agree that following what the long term desktop Linux users want is a sure
>> way to failure, but I can see the point that Ubuntu is not the best even for
>> new users. I have been using and suggesting Mint for a while now.
>
> The problem is that the long-term desktop GNU/Linux users don't even
> know what they want. Would they prefer to have a fully-free operating
> system or one with every feature available in Windows? Would they prefer
> something which operates like Windows, like OS X or something completely
> revolutionary? Do they want the system to be pretty or do they want it
> to strictly be utilitarian? Do they want to use Debian's core, Ubuntu's
> or Arch's?

Agreed - heck, look in COLA, even Linux "advocates" are often quite clueless
about how their decisions affect their productivity, efficiency, and
error-reduction. This is not even (much) of a slight against them - why
would they know? They are experts in .... whatever, they are not usabililty
experts.

When they get a car it comes with pedals in a set place, a steering wheel in
a set place, and *all* other controls in set places. Yes, you can adjust
some: move your seat forward or backward, tilt your steering wheel, etc. But
the basic configuration is set by experts in usability that know the horn is
best on the steering wheel and that giving users "choice" to put it on their
head rest would be *bad* and really quite stupid. More that that, even if
you make kit car or the like there are laws regulating where some things go
- your lights have to be in the front and back of such and such range of
colors with such and such brightness, etc. Same of other tools you use -
even ones much more simple than a computer: stairs are tool and nobody
working on making them usable will have inconsistent rises and runs from
step to step, running water is a tool and hot and cold are almost always on
the same sides, street signs are tools and they have great consistency - you
know a red octagon means stop even if the word is not printed on it, on and
on.

Yes: there are exceptions and local variations (stop signs are not red
octagons all over the world, for example, and a handicapped person might
have a car with controls in different areas to fit his or her needs... no
doubt). But these things are not decided on arbitrarily or by the users -
they are designed by usability experts.

And with computers there are usability experts. No system follows all the
"standards" the experts have discovered and described, but desktop Linux
follows them worse of all. Without massive amounts of work and compromise
desktop Linux, with all its touted "choice", does not have choices to fit
the best practices of usability. That is just madness.

> It simply never ends. 'Advocates' will consider this choice but the
> reality is that it is anarchy. Ubuntu attempts to create a default set
> of choices and their decision seems to please the masses as there are a
> number of distributions BASED on Ubuntu. However, that in itself is a
> problem: why BASE a distribution on another's core when you can simply
> use that distribution to customize your experience however you want?
> Essentially, why destroy the rules and continue to make a mockery of
> desktop GNU/Linux when you can try to do what has historically been
> proven to be the smartest course of action and standardize the experience?

Most users do not change even basic settings such as speed of the mouse...
they are not going to change their DE and more. So I opt to find them a good
starting point and then educate them on making reasoned choices. Kubuntu
would be a good starting point as well, but I have gone with Mint. Seems
people pick it up faster (and it works better in my VM software - an
external reason for me to use it and it is what I know so those I help tend
to get it). For some I show different options - depending on the user.

> Say what you will about Windows, but a set of standards exist as a
> result of the system's popularity. People know the .DOC or .DOCX is for
> text documents, .MP3 is for audio and .JPG is for images. They also know
> that .AVI is for video and so on.

Though the number of formats is growing... such as images being GIF or PNG
and videos being MP4, MOV, OGG/OGV, WEBM or whatever. In fact, with the
VIDEO tag in HTML, AVI is not even an officially supported container:
<http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_video.asp>. MP4 is your best bet for a
single container format, but older versions of Firefox and Opera do not
support it.

> The technologies aren't proprietary to Windows, obviously, but became
> mainstream as a result of Windows being on most computers in the world. If you
> look at GNU/Linux, the only standards they've successfully managed to hold
> onto are .ODT and .OGG.



--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Steve Carroll]

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:38:20 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> On 2/12/14, 8:34 AM, in article ldg4as$o1i$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
>
> <***@lv.c> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 11/02/2014 10:23 PM, Snit wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete opposite
>
> >>> of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so polished
>
> >>> and isn't butt-fucking disgusting. Any GNU/Linux enterprise which
>
> >>> doesn't care what the GNU/Retards want has a much higher chance of
>
> >>> succeeding.
>
> >>
>
> >> I agree that following what the long term desktop Linux users want is a sure
>
> >> way to failure, but I can see the point that Ubuntu is not the best even for
>
> >> new users. I have been using and suggesting Mint for a while now.
>
> >
>
> > The problem is that the long-term desktop GNU/Linux users don't even
>
> > know what they want. Would they prefer to have a fully-free operating
>
> > system or one with every feature available in Windows? Would they prefer
>
> > something which operates like Windows, like OS X or something completely
>
> > revolutionary? Do they want the system to be pretty or do they want it
>
> > to strictly be utilitarian? Do they want to use Debian's core, Ubuntu's
>
> > or Arch's?
>
>
>
> Agreed - heck, look in COLA, even Linux "advocates" are often quite clueless
>
> about how their decisions affect their productivity, efficiency, and
>
> error-reduction. This is not even (much) of a slight against them - why
>
> would they know? They are experts in .... whatever, they are not usabililty
>
> experts.
>
>
>
> When they get a car it comes with pedals in a set place, a steering wheel in
>
> a set place, and *all* other controls in set places.

Uh, gluehead? Some cars have the steering wheels on the right, some on the left... and let's not forget things like Toyota's FV2.


> Yes, you can adjust
>
> some: move your seat forward or backward

This is your usual BS. If you were to actually stick to the topic you're talking about here the real question would be: Is the mechanism for doing that the same in all cars?

> , tilt your steering wheel, etc. But
>
> the basic configuration is set by experts in usability that know the horn is
>
> best on the steering wheel

Ever heard of a 'little' company called Ford? I owned an early 80s Ranger that Ford's "usability experts" saw fit to put the horn on the signal indicator. Notably, this was done ever after decades of them building vehicles that put the horn on the steering wheel.


> and that giving users "choice" to put it on their
>
> head rest would be *bad* and really quite stupid.

Your flawed analogy aside, there are a number of fundamental things that differ between the two most widely used OSes.


> Yes: there are exceptions and local variations (stop signs are not red
>
> octagons all over the world, for example

Yeah, that the most important sign in driving exists like this actually blows your ridiculous analogy all to hell. That you're simply too stupid to realize it is where the comedy lives ;)

> And with computers there are usability experts.

Experts that obviously disagree on some very fundamental aspects of OS design.

> No system follows all the
>
> "standards" the experts have discovered and described

True... and any minute now you'll make your argument for the differences in stop signs and this house of cards collapses like the BS that it is ;)

> , but desktop Linux
>
> follows them worse of all.

That's the territory of subjective opinion. You have the right to an opinion (and a great many people may even share it) what you can't do is convince anyone that your opinion is some kind of "fact". What would the "evidence" look like if not your flawed argument above about "experts" who disagree on plenty of fundamental things?

[Peter Köhlmann]

Silver Slimer wrote:

> On 11/02/2014 9:15 PM, Hadron wrote:
>> Silver Slimer <***@lv.c> writes:
>>
>>> On 11/02/2014 8:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/14, 11:21 AM, in article lddpnc$6u3$***@dont-email.me, "Silver
>>>> Slimer" <***@lv.c> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/02/2014 11:11 PM, DFS wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fraud 7, Mar 2013:
>>>>>> "Ubuntu Linux now worth at least 1 Trillion Dollars."
>>>>>
>>>>> Canonical wouldn't be able to PAY a company to take over the
>>>>> money-losing operation.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. It is completely absurd to say they are a huge money making
>>>> corporation. Utterly absurd.
>>>
>>> Despite the fact that they develop the most polished GNU/Linux product,
>>> they have yet to post a profit.
>>
>> No they don't. Most Linux users I know wouldn't touch it. Poor releases
>> and weird decisions : not least the "go with upstart".
>
> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete opposite
> of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so polished

It is not polished. It is butt-ugly

[RonB]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:28:16 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete
>> opposite of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so
>> polished
>
> It is not polished. It is butt-ugly

Ubuntu's Unity desktop is probably why Ubuntu has fallen as number far as
number 4 on Distrowatch list when it used to be a solid number one
constantly. Linux Mint has taken its place in popularity -- almost twice
as popular as Ubuntu there now.

Ubuntu's Unity is kind of like Windows 8 -- except not quite as bad. And,
much like Windows 8, it was designed to be a single interface for all
devices. In the real world, people just don't give a crap about a "single
interface" push. In the real world people use PCs, tablets and smartphones
in different ways -- they don't like to be forced into the same mold for
every device. The fact is, as much as some people like it in theory, it
just doesn't work out in practice. An interface made for a smartphone's
screen is going to be clunky on a desktop, and visa versa.

But I can see why iCultists would like Unity -- it kind of looks a little
like OSX. The fact that many Ubuntu users went elsewhere when Unity was
shoved down their throats -- and the fact that Macs are still (and will
always continue to be) just a niche market -- proves that the "Mac-ish
way" is not the way most people want to go. It appeals to some, but not to
most. In this case "polished" refers to the surface (how it looks) -- it
has nothing to do with the guts and usability of the desktop.

--
"OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program
for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is
scary." -- Linus Torvalds

[Hadron]

RonB <***@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:28:16 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>>> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete
>>> opposite of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so
>>> polished
>>
>> It is not polished. It is butt-ugly
>
> Ubuntu's Unity desktop is probably why Ubuntu has fallen as number far as
> number 4 on Distrowatch list when it used to be a solid number one
> constantly. Linux Mint has taken its place in popularity -- almost twice
> as popular as Ubuntu there now.
>
> Ubuntu's Unity is kind of like Windows 8 -- except not quite as bad. And,
> much like Windows 8, it was designed to be a single interface for all
> devices. In the real world, people just don't give a crap about a "single
> interface" push. In the real world people use PCs, tablets and smartphones
> in different ways -- they don't like to be forced into the same mold for
> every device. The fact is, as much as some people like it in theory, it
> just doesn't work out in practice. An interface made for a smartphone's
> screen is going to be clunky on a desktop, and visa versa.
>
> But I can see why iCultists would like Unity -- it kind of looks a little
> like OSX. The fact that many Ubuntu users went elsewhere when Unity
> was

it's nothing like it.

> shoved down their throats -- and the fact that Macs are still (and will
> always continue to be) just a niche market -- proves that the "Mac-ish

Probably 30x the amount than use Linux.

> way" is not the way most people want to go. It appeals to some, but not to
> most. In this case "polished" refers to the surface (how it looks) -- it
> has nothing to do with the guts and usability of the desktop.

You're an idiot. Really. All gob and no substance.

--
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact."
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[Peter Köhlmann]

Hadron wrote:

> RonB <***@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:28:16 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>>> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete
>>>> opposite of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so
>>>> polished
>>>
>>> It is not polished. It is butt-ugly
>>
>> Ubuntu's Unity desktop is probably why Ubuntu has fallen as number far as
>> number 4 on Distrowatch list when it used to be a solid number one
>> constantly. Linux Mint has taken its place in popularity -- almost twice
>> as popular as Ubuntu there now.
>>
>> Ubuntu's Unity is kind of like Windows 8 -- except not quite as bad. And,
>> much like Windows 8, it was designed to be a single interface for all
>> devices. In the real world, people just don't give a crap about a "single
>> interface" push. In the real world people use PCs, tablets and
>> smartphones in different ways -- they don't like to be forced into the
>> same mold for every device. The fact is, as much as some people like it
>> in theory, it just doesn't work out in practice. An interface made for a
>> smartphone's screen is going to be clunky on a desktop, and visa versa.
>>
>> But I can see why iCultists would like Unity -- it kind of looks a little
>> like OSX. The fact that many Ubuntu users went elsewhere when Unity
>> was
>
> it's nothing like it.

Well, even that ugly Ubuntu is still loads better than OSX

>> shoved down their throats -- and the fact that Macs are still (and will
>> always continue to be) just a niche market -- proves that the "Mac-ish
>
> Probably 30x the amount than use Linux.

You are really an imbecile. Just like Snit Michael Glasser

*If* you were correct (as usual you pull your "facts" rigth from your nether
regions) it would mean that apple has about 60% to 70% marketshare
It has less than 10%, though

>> way" is not the way most people want to go. It appeals to some, but not
>> to most. In this case "polished" refers to the surface (how it looks) --
>> it has nothing to do with the guts and usability of the desktop.
>
> You're an idiot. Really. All gob and no substance.
>

Well, if that were true: What does your snittish idiocy here make you then?

[William Poaster]

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> RonB <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:28:16 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>>> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete
>>>>> opposite of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so
>>>>> polished
>>>>
>>>> It is not polished. It is butt-ugly
>>>
>>> Ubuntu's Unity desktop is probably why Ubuntu has fallen as number far as
>>> number 4 on Distrowatch list when it used to be a solid number one
>>> constantly. Linux Mint has taken its place in popularity -- almost twice
>>> as popular as Ubuntu there now.
>>>
>>> Ubuntu's Unity is kind of like Windows 8 -- except not quite as bad. And,
>>> much like Windows 8, it was designed to be a single interface for all
>>> devices. In the real world, people just don't give a crap about a "single
>>> interface" push. In the real world people use PCs, tablets and
>>> smartphones in different ways -- they don't like to be forced into the
>>> same mold for every device. The fact is, as much as some people like it
>>> in theory, it just doesn't work out in practice. An interface made for a
>>> smartphone's screen is going to be clunky on a desktop, and visa versa.
>>>
>>> But I can see why iCultists would like Unity -- it kind of looks a little
>>> like OSX. The fact that many Ubuntu users went elsewhere when Unity
>>> was
>>
>> it's nothing like it.
>
> Well, even that ugly Ubuntu is still loads better than OSX
>
>>> shoved down their throats -- and the fact that Macs are still (and will
>>> always continue to be) just a niche market -- proves that the "Mac-ish
>>
>> Probably 30x the amount than use Linux.
>
> You are really an imbecile. Just like Snit Michael Glasser
>
> *If* you were correct (as usual you pull your "facts" rigth from your nether
> regions) it would mean that apple has about 60% to 70% marketshare
> It has less than 10%, though
>
>>> way" is not the way most people want to go. It appeals to some, but not
>>> to most. In this case "polished" refers to the surface (how it looks) --
>>> it has nothing to do with the guts and usability of the desktop.
>>
>> You're an idiot. Really. All gob and no substance.

Oh, the irony!

> Well, if that were true: What does your snittish idiocy here make you then?

Indeed.

--
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves.
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods."
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 5:35 AM, in article ldfpr6$nhp$***@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-***@t-online.de> wrote:

...
>>> But I can see why iCultists would like Unity -- it kind of looks a little
>>> like OSX. The fact that many Ubuntu users went elsewhere when Unity
>>> was
>>
>> it's nothing like it.
>
> Well, even that ugly Ubuntu is still loads better than OSX

How does it "load better"?

>>> shoved down their throats -- and the fact that Macs are still (and will
>>> always continue to be) just a niche market -- proves that the "Mac-ish
>>
>> Probably 30x the amount than use Linux.
>
> You are really an imbecile. Just like Snit Michael Glasser
>
> *If* you were correct (as usual you pull your "facts" rigth from your nether
> regions) it would mean that apple has about 60% to 70% marketshare
> It has less than 10%, though

His percentage is wrong, but so is yours... and since you called him an
"imbecile" for getting it wrong, then you are acknowledging you are imbecile
as well. Lovely.

Desktop Linux usage is at about 1.5%... 30 x 1.5% is 45%, not "about 60% to
75%".

...



--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 4:47 AM, in article ***@gmail.com, "Hadron"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

> RonB <***@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:28:16 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>>> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete
>>>> opposite of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so
>>>> polished
>>>
>>> It is not polished. It is butt-ugly
>>
>> Ubuntu's Unity desktop is probably why Ubuntu has fallen as number far as
>> number 4 on Distrowatch list when it used to be a solid number one
>> constantly. Linux Mint has taken its place in popularity -- almost twice
>> as popular as Ubuntu there now.
>>
>> Ubuntu's Unity is kind of like Windows 8 -- except not quite as bad. And,
>> much like Windows 8, it was designed to be a single interface for all
>> devices. In the real world, people just don't give a crap about a "single
>> interface" push. In the real world people use PCs, tablets and smartphones
>> in different ways -- they don't like to be forced into the same mold for
>> every device. The fact is, as much as some people like it in theory, it
>> just doesn't work out in practice. An interface made for a smartphone's
>> screen is going to be clunky on a desktop, and visa versa.
>>
>> But I can see why iCultists would like Unity -- it kind of looks a little
>> like OSX. The fact that many Ubuntu users went elsewhere when Unity
>> was
>
> it's nothing like it.

Not only that: Apple is the one who changed tablet UIs from the norm of
being desktop UIs shoved onto a tablet to a *different* UI. RonB gets things
100% wrong.

>> shoved down their throats -- and the fact that Macs are still (and will
>> always continue to be) just a niche market -- proves that the "Mac-ish
>
> Probably 30x the amount than use Linux.

Not quite that much, but the point is made: *many* more people use OS X on
the desktop than who use Linux on the desktop. And that is with Linux having
every advantage:

Desktop Linux is free.
Macs cost about 2.5x what a Windows system does on average.

Desktop Linux can run on almost any hardware.
OS X is supported on the hardware of one OEM.

Desktop Linux has a cult-like group pushing a "philosophy".
OS X has a lot of people who respect its ease of use.

Desktop Linux has been promoted by Dell, HP, Walmart, and more.
OS X is promoted by one company.

Desktop Linux can be migrated to on "Windows" hardware.
OS X can be migrated to only if you buy a new system [1].

Desktop Linux can be had in many, many forms (distros).
OS X comes in only one "distro".

RonB cannot be so stupid he does not understand this... can he?

>> way" is not the way most people want to go. It appeals to some, but not to
>> most. In this case "polished" refers to the surface (how it looks) -- it
>> has nothing to do with the guts and usability of the desktop.
>
> You're an idiot. Really. All gob and no substance.

That is how he presents himself - time and time again. More than that, he
repeatedly brings Apple and their products into conversations where they are
not even tangentially related and then speaks poorly of them. He does this
out of apparent intense jealousy of their success.


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Silver Slimer]

On 12/02/2014 6:21 AM, RonB wrote:

> Ubuntu's Unity desktop is probably why Ubuntu has fallen as number far as
> number 4 on Distrowatch list when it used to be a solid number one
> constantly. Linux Mint has taken its place in popularity -- almost twice
> as popular as Ubuntu there now.

Linux Mint looks like Windows, Ubuntu doesn't. Therefore, Mint appeals
to migrating Windows users. Let's be honest, the Windows interface is
excellent and people don't want to move away from it.

> Ubuntu's Unity is kind of like Windows 8 -- except not quite as bad. And,
> much like Windows 8, it was designed to be a single interface for all
> devices. In the real world, people just don't give a crap about a "single
> interface" push. In the real world people use PCs, tablets and smartphones
> in different ways -- they don't like to be forced into the same mold for
> every device. The fact is, as much as some people like it in theory, it
> just doesn't work out in practice. An interface made for a smartphone's
> screen is going to be clunky on a desktop, and visa versa.

No shit.

> But I can see why iCultists would like Unity -- it kind of looks a little
> like OSX. The fact that many Ubuntu users went elsewhere when Unity was
> shoved down their throats -- and the fact that Macs are still (and will
> always continue to be) just a niche market -- proves that the "Mac-ish
> way" is not the way most people want to go. It appeals to some, but not to
> most. In this case "polished" refers to the surface (how it looks) -- it
> has nothing to do with the guts and usability of the desktop.

Benchmarks performed by Phoronix routinely show Ubuntu as being no
slower than other distributions and often times faster than all of them
in the majority of tasks. Add to that how easy it is to install
proprietary drivers as well as the fact that most excellent projects are
installable on a default installation and you've essentially avoided
most of the headaches GNU/Linux users face. The only project I can think
of which is not installable by default is Handbrake but getting it
installed is incredibly easy compared to other distributions.
With that in mind, yes, it's polished.

--
Silver Slimer
'Linux shit' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 9:46 AM, in article ldg8h3$iai$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<***@lv.c> wrote:

> On 12/02/2014 6:21 AM, RonB wrote:
>
>> Ubuntu's Unity desktop is probably why Ubuntu has fallen as number far as
>> number 4 on Distrowatch list when it used to be a solid number one
>> constantly. Linux Mint has taken its place in popularity -- almost twice
>> as popular as Ubuntu there now.
>
> Linux Mint looks like Windows, Ubuntu doesn't. Therefore, Mint appeals
> to migrating Windows users. Let's be honest, the Windows interface is
> excellent and people don't want to move away from it.

Which is a problem for MS: they *tried* to push people away from the Windows
7 UI with Windows 8. Not just a little, but a lot - and with a UI designed
for touch devices.

And even with this huge misstep, Linux has not reached 2% of desktop usage.
Being free. Quite sad.

...
>> But I can see why iCultists would like Unity -- it kind of looks a little
>> like OSX. The fact that many Ubuntu users went elsewhere when Unity was
>> shoved down their throats -- and the fact that Macs are still (and will
>> always continue to be) just a niche market -- proves that the "Mac-ish
>> way" is not the way most people want to go. It appeals to some, but not to
>> most. In this case "polished" refers to the surface (how it looks) -- it
>> has nothing to do with the guts and usability of the desktop.
>
> Benchmarks performed by Phoronix routinely show Ubuntu as being no
> slower than other distributions and often times faster than all of them
> in the majority of tasks. Add to that how easy it is to install
> proprietary drivers as well as the fact that most excellent projects are
> installable on a default installation and you've essentially avoided
> most of the headaches GNU/Linux users face. The only project I can think
> of which is not installable by default is Handbrake but getting it
> installed is incredibly easy compared to other distributions.
> With that in mind, yes, it's polished.

The most funny thing about RonB's nonsese is how he keeps calling *you* an
iCultist. Heck, at least with me, as ignorant and frankly stupid as his
claim is, I tend to prefer Macs for my primary computing. With you... what
the hell is he thinking?

--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 4:21 AM, in article ldflgb$r3j$***@dont-email.me, "RonB"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:28:16 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>>> See, the way I see it, the fact the Canonical does the complete
>>> opposite of what GNU/Linux users want is probably WHY the product is so
>>> polished
>>
>> It is not polished. It is butt-ugly
>
> Ubuntu's Unity desktop is probably why Ubuntu has fallen as number far as
> number 4 on Distrowatch list when it used to be a solid number one
> constantly. Linux Mint has taken its place in popularity -- almost twice
> as popular as Ubuntu there now.
>
> Ubuntu's Unity is kind of like Windows 8 -- except not quite as bad. And,
> much like Windows 8, it was designed to be a single interface for all
> devices. In the real world, people just don't give a crap about a "single
> interface" push. In the real world people use PCs, tablets and smartphones
> in different ways -- they don't like to be forced into the same mold for
> every device. The fact is, as much as some people like it in theory, it
> just doesn't work out in practice. An interface made for a smartphone's
> screen is going to be clunky on a desktop, and visa versa.
>
> But I can see why iCultists would like Unity -- it kind of looks a little
> like OSX. The fact that many Ubuntu users went elsewhere when Unity was
> shoved down their throats -- and the fact that Macs are still (and will
> always continue to be) just a niche market -- proves that the "Mac-ish
> way" is not the way most people want to go. It appeals to some, but not to
> most. In this case "polished" refers to the surface (how it looks) -- it
> has nothing to do with the guts and usability of the desktop.

Again: please tell me you are not as stupid as you present yourself.

* A windows user says he thinks Ubuntu is the most polished Linux UI
and you attribute the idea to "iCultists"
* You speak of Unity being sorta like Windows 8
* Then you decide Unity is like a Mac... because, I guess, in your
world Macs run Windows 8 as their norm
* Then you show you cannot figure out Apple is the company that made
having a different but related UI for portable devices popular
* Then you say Macs are a niche market and that this shows people
do not want them, apparently forgetting Macs are vastly more
popular than *all* distros Linux distros *combined*, and Linux
has *every* advantage:

Desktop Linux is free.
Macs cost about 2.5x what a Windows system does on average.

Desktop Linux can run on almost any hardware.
OS X is supported on the hardware of one OEM.

Desktop Linux has a cult-like group pushing a "philosophy".
OS X has a lot of people who respect its ease of use.

Desktop Linux has been promoted by Dell, HP, Walmart, and more.
OS X is promoted by one company.

Desktop Linux can be migrated to on "Windows" hardware.
OS X can be migrated to only if you buy a new system [1].

Desktop Linux can be had in many, many forms (distros).
OS X comes in only one "distro".

How can you *not* know these things? How can you not understand their impact
on the size of their user base? How can you possibly be as stupid as you
present yourself?

I do not think you can be... I think you seek attention and are grossly
jealous of Apple - why else talk about them over and over and over in your
posts, lying about them and their products in derogatory ways, when they
have *nothing* to do with the topic?

--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Snit]

On 2/11/14, 7:08 PM, in article ldel25$e3k$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<***@lv.c> wrote:

> On 11/02/2014 8:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 2/11/14, 11:21 AM, in article lddpnc$6u3$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
>> <***@lv.c> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/02/2014 11:11 PM, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fraud 7, Mar 2013:
>>>> "Ubuntu Linux now worth at least 1 Trillion Dollars."
>>>
>>> Canonical wouldn't be able to PAY a company to take over the
>>> money-losing operation.
>>
>> Exactly. It is completely absurd to say they are a huge money making
>> corporation. Utterly absurd.
>
> Despite the fact that they develop the most polished GNU/Linux product,
> they have yet to post a profit.

Exactly. To make a profit they will need to either sell software or services
or collect user data. Selling services is the only one many in the open
source community will accept (and with the latter there is a good case to be
made why they should do this with *great* restraint).

--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Peter Köhlmann]

Silver Slimer wrote:

> On 11/02/2014 8:34 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 2/11/14, 11:21 AM, in article lddpnc$6u3$***@dont-email.me, "Silver
>> Slimer" <***@lv.c> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/02/2014 11:11 PM, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fraud 7, Mar 2013:
>>>> "Ubuntu Linux now worth at least 1 Trillion Dollars."
>>>
>>> Canonical wouldn't be able to PAY a company to take over the
>>> money-losing operation.
>>
>> Exactly. It is completely absurd to say they are a huge money making
>> corporation. Utterly absurd.
>
> Despite the fact that they develop the most polished GNU/Linux product,

They don't. Not at all

> they have yet to post a profit.

Why? Is software only "good" when it yields profits?

[RonB]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:27:25 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Why? Is software only "good" when it yields profits?

Exactly. The iCultists equate getting reamed by Apple with "quality."
"Quality" meaning it has an Apple logo on the device.

--
"OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program
for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is
scary." -- Linus Torvalds

[Hadron]

RonB <***@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:27:25 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Why? Is software only "good" when it yields profits?
>
> Exactly. The iCultists equate getting reamed by Apple with "quality."
> "Quality" meaning it has an Apple logo on the device.

You idiot.

Koehlmann makes his money from Windows SW.

Canonical is a BUSINESS. It's supposed to make money. Using the power of
FOSS.

And why shouldnt it?

PROFESSIONAL employees of Canonical expect to get paid too. If they dont
make money the tap will soon be closed.

wRonG and Koehlmann being dumb again.

--
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact."
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[Peter Köhlmann]

Hadron wrote:

> RonB <***@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:27:25 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Why? Is software only "good" when it yields profits?
>>
>> Exactly. The iCultists equate getting reamed by Apple with "quality."
>> "Quality" meaning it has an Apple logo on the device.
>
> You idiot.
>
> Koehlmann makes his money from Windows SW.

No. I make my money from writing software for windows, OSX and linux
And I am currently porting it to Android, too.
I expect it to be ready in a few month. There will be no iOS version,
though.
Apples restrictions and the limitations of iOS make it not worthwile to do
that extra effort

[William Poaster]

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> RonB <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:27:25 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why? Is software only "good" when it yields profits?
>>>
>>> Exactly. The iCultists equate getting reamed by Apple with "quality."
>>> "Quality" meaning it has an Apple logo on the device.
>>
>> You idiot.
>>
>> Koehlmann makes his money from Windows SW.
>
> No. I make my money from writing software for windows, OSX and linux
> And I am currently porting it to Android, too.
> I expect it to be ready in a few month. There will be no iOS version,
> though.
> Apples restrictions and the limitations of iOS make it not worthwile to do
> that extra effort

And the "Hadron" troll is a fine one to talk:

"I'm a long term Windows user and programmer."
From: Hadron <***@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <***@googlemail.com>



--
"Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves.
Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods."
-- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --

[chrisv]

William Poaster wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Hadron quacked:
>>>
>>> Koehlmann makes his money from Windows SW.

Poor Larry. You love the Micro$oft Corp, don't you?

>> No. I make my money from writing software for windows, OSX and linux
>> And I am currently porting it to Android, too.
>> I expect it to be ready in a few month. There will be no iOS version,
>> though.
>> Apples restrictions and the limitations of iOS make it not worthwile to do
>> that extra effort
>
>And the "Hadron" troll is a fine one to talk:
>
>"I'm a long term Windows user and programmer."
>From: Hadron <***@googlemail.com>
>Message-ID: <***@googlemail.com>

"Hadron" is a liar. "Hadron" is a POS.

[RonB]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 08:55:32 -0600, chrisv wrote:

> "Hadron" is a liar. "Hadron" is a POS.

And he's a bitter old biddy.

(Subject Line corrected for accuracy.)

--
"OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program
for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is
scary." -- Linus Torvalds

[RonB]

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:30:44 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Apples restrictions and the limitations of iOS make it not worthwile to
> do that extra effort

(Subject Line corrected for accuracy.)

--
"OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program
for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is
scary." -- Linus Torvalds

[Silver Slimer]

On 12/02/2014 6:46 AM, Hadron wrote:
> RonB <***@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:27:25 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Why? Is software only "good" when it yields profits?
>>
>> Exactly. The iCultists equate getting reamed by Apple with "quality."
>> "Quality" meaning it has an Apple logo on the device.

> Canonical is a BUSINESS. It's supposed to make money. Using the power of
> FOSS.

GNU/Retards have been programmed to believe that they live in bizarro
world where profits are optional and where employees don't expect to get
paid for their labour.

--
Silver Slimer
'Linux shit' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 10:16 AM, in article ldga9r$td2$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<***@lv.c> wrote:

> On 12/02/2014 6:46 AM, Hadron wrote:
>> RonB <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:27:25 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why? Is software only "good" when it yields profits?
>>>
>>> Exactly. The iCultists equate getting reamed by Apple with "quality."
>>> "Quality" meaning it has an Apple logo on the device.
>
>> Canonical is a BUSINESS. It's supposed to make money. Using the power of
>> FOSS.
>
> GNU/Retards have been programmed to believe that they live in bizarro
> world where profits are optional and where employees don't expect to get
> paid for their labour.

Shuttleworth will be happy losing money forever!


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 4:46 AM, in article ***@gmail.com, "Hadron"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

> RonB <***@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:27:25 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Why? Is software only "good" when it yields profits?
>>
>> Exactly. The iCultists equate getting reamed by Apple with "quality."
>> "Quality" meaning it has an Apple logo on the device.
>
> You idiot.
>
> Koehlmann makes his money from Windows SW.
>
> Canonical is a BUSINESS. It's supposed to make money. Using the power of
> FOSS.
>
> And why shouldnt it?
>
> PROFESSIONAL employees of Canonical expect to get paid too. If they dont
> make money the tap will soon be closed.
>
> wRonG and Koehlmann being dumb again.

Canonical has a goal to make money.
They repeatedly fail at this.
They are a failing company. I wish them well, but time and time again they
just suck money from Shuttleworth.


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Silver Slimer]

On 12/02/2014 12:48 PM, Snit wrote:

> Canonical has a goal to make money.
> They repeatedly fail at this.
> They are a failing company. I wish them well, but time and time again they
> just suck money from Shuttleworth.

The above are FACTS which no GNU/Linux user or technology expert with
any kind of knowledge can argue.
--
Silver Slimer
'Linux shit' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 11:48 AM, in article ldgflm$ufq$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<***@lv.c> wrote:

> On 12/02/2014 12:48 PM, Snit wrote:
>
>> Canonical has a goal to make money.
>> They repeatedly fail at this.
>> They are a failing company. I wish them well, but time and time again they
>> just suck money from Shuttleworth.
>
> The above are FACTS which no GNU/Linux user or technology expert with
> any kind of knowledge can argue.

The "advocates" will argue I do not truly wish them well. :)


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 4:00 AM, in article ldfk7o$r3j$***@dont-email.me, "RonB"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:27:25 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Why? Is software only "good" when it yields profits?
>
> Exactly. The iCultists equate getting reamed by Apple with "quality."
> "Quality" meaning it has an Apple logo on the device.

Please tell me, RonB, that you post such nonsense just to get attention and
do not really believe it. After all, Peter is responding to Silver Slimer,
who does not even like Macs or Apple products, and who said *nothing* about
logos relating to quality.

Are you *really* as stupid as you present yourself?


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Silver Slimer]

On 12/02/2014 4:27 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>> Despite the fact that they develop the most polished GNU/Linux product,
>
> They don't. Not at all

So which is more polished than Ubuntu, pray tell. This is somehow wrong
but you don't offer a counter-argument.

>> they have yet to post a profit.
>
> Why? Is software only "good" when it yields profits?

Does good music make more money than bad music? Music and software are
both content and music generally sells well if it's good whereas it
doesn't if it's derivative or simply awful. It's the same thing for
software.
--
Silver Slimer
'Linux shit' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

[Lloyd E Parsons]

On 2014-02-12 16:14:24 +0000, Silver Slimer said:

> On 12/02/2014 4:27 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>>> Despite the fact that they develop the most polished GNU/Linux product,
>>
>> They don't. Not at all
>
> So which is more polished than Ubuntu, pray tell. This is somehow wrong
> but you don't offer a counter-argument.
>
>>> they have yet to post a profit.
>>
>> Why? Is software only "good" when it yields profits?
>
> Does good music make more money than bad music? Music and software are
> both content and music generally sells well if it's good whereas it
> doesn't if it's derivative or simply awful. It's the same thing for
> software.

Then explain Justin Beiber... :)

--
Lloyd

[Silver Slimer]

On 12/02/2014 11:55 AM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
> On 2014-02-12 16:14:24 +0000, Silver Slimer said:
>
>> On 12/02/2014 4:27 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>>> Despite the fact that they develop the most polished GNU/Linux product,
>>>
>>> They don't. Not at all
>>
>> So which is more polished than Ubuntu, pray tell. This is somehow wrong
>> but you don't offer a counter-argument.
>>
>>>> they have yet to post a profit.
>>>
>>> Why? Is software only "good" when it yields profits?
>>
>> Does good music make more money than bad music? Music and software are
>> both content and music generally sells well if it's good whereas it
>> doesn't if it's derivative or simply awful. It's the same thing for
>> software.
>
> Then explain Justin Beiber... :)

Teenyboppers think he's cute. It doesn't matter if his music is any
good. It's the same shit as Elvis or Paul McCartney back in the day. The
only difference being that the latter two were able to produce absolute
classics whereas nobody will remember Bieber ten years from now.


--
Silver Slimer
'Linux shit' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

[Hadron]

Silver Slimer <***@lv.c> writes:

> On 12/02/2014 11:55 AM, Lloyd E Parsons wrote:
>> On 2014-02-12 16:14:24 +0000, Silver Slimer said:
>>
>>> On 12/02/2014 4:27 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Despite the fact that they develop the most polished GNU/Linux product,
>>>>
>>>> They don't. Not at all
>>>
>>> So which is more polished than Ubuntu, pray tell. This is somehow wrong
>>> but you don't offer a counter-argument.
>>>
>>>>> they have yet to post a profit.
>>>>
>>>> Why? Is software only "good" when it yields profits?
>>>
>>> Does good music make more money than bad music? Music and software are
>>> both content and music generally sells well if it's good whereas it
>>> doesn't if it's derivative or simply awful. It's the same thing for
>>> software.
>>
>> Then explain Justin Beiber... :)
>
> Teenyboppers think he's cute. It doesn't matter if his music is any
> good. It's the same shit as Elvis or Paul McCartney back in the day. The
> only difference being that the latter two were able to produce absolute
> classics whereas nobody will remember Bieber ten years from now.

Just FYI : Bieber is a musician that's been foisted on the kids. He was
plucked from nothing because of his abilities. I feel sorry for him :
too much too soon. And the same girls will be suing him in 40 years
saying he "touched their left breast" at a gig and left them
traumatised.

--
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact."
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[Silver Slimer]

On 12/02/2014 12:29 PM, Hadron wrote:

>> Teenyboppers think he's cute. It doesn't matter if his music is any
>> good. It's the same shit as Elvis or Paul McCartney back in the day. The
>> only difference being that the latter two were able to produce absolute
>> classics whereas nobody will remember Bieber ten years from now.
>
> Just FYI : Bieber is a musician that's been foisted on the kids. He was
> plucked from nothing because of his abilities. I feel sorry for him :
> too much too soon. And the same girls will be suing him in 40 years
> saying he "touched their left breast" at a gig and left them
> traumatised.

From what I saw, he's definitely talented. It's too bad that it went to
his head though. The latest rumour is that he went into a coffee shop
without a shirt on and tried to order. When they insisted on him wearing
a shirt, he supposedly pulled a hissy fit until he got his ass knocked
out by a basketball player. If this event is true, he clearly isn't
thinking straight anymore and believes that he's above the rules no
matter what he does.
--
Silver Slimer
'Linux shit' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

[Steve Carroll]

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:55:36 AM UTC-7, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> On 2014-02-12 16:14:24 +0000, Silver Slimer said:
>
>
>
> > On 12/02/2014 4:27 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>> Despite the fact that they develop the most polished GNU/Linux product,
>
> >>
>
> >> They don't. Not at all
>
> >
>
> > So which is more polished than Ubuntu, pray tell. This is somehow wrong
>
> > but you don't offer a counter-argument.
>
> >
>
> >>> they have yet to post a profit.
>
> >>
>
> >> Why? Is software only "good" when it yields profits?
>
> >
>
> > Does good music make more money than bad music? Music and software are
>
> > both content and music generally sells well if it's good whereas it
>
> > doesn't if it's derivative or simply awful. It's the same thing for
>
> > software.
>
>
>
> Then explain Justin Beiber... :)

Marketing a persona.

[Melzzzzz]

On 2/12/14, 5:14 PM, Silver Slimer wrote:
"
'Linux shit' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)
"
How about Windows sucks?

[Steve Carroll]

On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:14:24 AM UTC-7, Silver Slimer wrote:
> On 12/02/2014 4:27 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Despite the fact that they develop the most polished GNU/Linux product,
>
> >
>
> > They don't. Not at all
>
>
>
> So which is more polished than Ubuntu, pray tell. This is somehow wrong
>
> but you don't offer a counter-argument.
>
>
>
> >> they have yet to post a profit.
>
> >
>
> > Why? Is software only "good" when it yields profits?
>
>
>
> Does good music make more money than bad music? Music and software are
>
> both content and music generally sells well if it's good whereas it
>
> doesn't if it's derivative or simply awful. It's the same thing for
>
> software.

There is a ton of good music out there that will never sell well. There's also a ton of crap that sells like a mofo. The idea here seems valid on the surface but the insane marketing machine behind music skews this analogy to the point of it being essentially worthless. That music is so tied to the 'cool' factor to the degree that it is, unlike software to the same degree, is the very thing that launches the 'they're both content' idea into the trash can.

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 2:27 AM, in article ldfept$lo$***@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-***@t-online.de> wrote:

...
>>> Exactly. It is completely absurd to say they are a huge money making
>>> corporation. Utterly absurd.
>>
>> Despite the fact that they develop the most polished GNU/Linux product,
>
> They don't. Not at all
>
>> they have yet to post a profit.
>
> Why? Is software only "good" when it yields profits?

When a corporation tries to use a product to get money and fails year after
year it is not a sign of success.


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[owl]

DFS <***@dfs.com> wrote:

> owl,
> "The Sandy Hook schoolchildren massacre was a hoax perpetrated by the US
> govt."

Are those my words? I agree with the sentiment, but it seems to be missing
a "so-called" somewhere in there.

[DFS]

On 2/12/2014 12:16 AM, owl wrote:
> DFS <***@dfs.com> wrote:
>
>> owl,
>> "The Sandy Hook schoolchildren massacre was a hoax perpetrated by the US
>> govt."
>
> Are those my words? I agree with the sentiment, but it seems to be missing
> a "so-called" somewhere in there.


You've stated many times here on cola that it WAS a hoax - not probably was.

Maybe a nutjob will take out your wife at work one day. When you see
her bullet-riddled torso and skull blown all over the floor (as happened
to some of the 27 Sandy Hook victims) will you dismiss it as "a
complete hoax"?

You sad moron.

[Hadron]

DFS <***@dfs.com> writes:

> On 2/12/2014 12:16 AM, owl wrote:
>> DFS <***@dfs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> owl,
>>> "The Sandy Hook schoolchildren massacre was a hoax perpetrated by the US
>>> govt."
>>
>> Are those my words? I agree with the sentiment, but it seems to be missing
>> a "so-called" somewhere in there.
>
> You've stated many times here on cola that it WAS a hoax - not probably was.
>
> Maybe a nutjob will take out your wife at work one day. When you see her
> bullet-riddled torso and skull blown all over the floor (as happened to some of
> the 27 Sandy Hook victims) will you dismiss it as "a complete hoax"?
>
> You sad moron.

People like him should be made to do community service in the areas
affected.

Its the same as wankers denying the holocaust.

--
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact."
The turdv/chrisv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.
PLEASE VISIT OUR HALL OF LINUX IDIOTS
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

[owl]

Hadron <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> DFS <***@dfs.com> writes:

> > On 2/12/2014 12:16 AM, owl wrote:
> >> DFS <***@dfs.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> owl,
> >>> "The Sandy Hook schoolchildren massacre was a hoax perpetrated by the US
> >>> govt."
> >>
> >> Are those my words? I agree with the sentiment, but it seems to be missing
> >> a "so-called" somewhere in there.
> >
> > You've stated many times here on cola that it WAS a hoax - not probably was.
> >
> > Maybe a nutjob will take out your wife at work one day. When you see her
> > bullet-riddled torso and skull blown all over the floor (as happened to some of
> > the 27 Sandy Hook victims) will you dismiss it as "a complete hoax"?
> >
> > You sad moron.

> People like him should be made to do community service in the areas
> affected.

> Its the same as wankers denying the holocaust.

I would expect a Eurotard like you to fall for the hoax. But Dufus ought
to know better.

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 1:51 PM, in article ***@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<***@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

>>> Maybe a nutjob will take out your wife at work one day. When you see her
>>> bullet-riddled torso and skull blown all over the floor (as happened to some
>>> of
>>> the 27 Sandy Hook victims) will you dismiss it as "a complete hoax"?
>>>
>>> You sad moron.
>
>> People like him should be made to do community service in the areas
>> affected.
>
>> Its the same as wankers denying the holocaust.
>
> I would expect a Eurotard like you to fall for the hoax. But Dufus ought
> to know better.

You have no evidence of any hoax.

To claim that the people who died did not exist is bat-shit crazy.

Got it?


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[owl]

DFS <***@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 2/12/2014 12:16 AM, owl wrote:
> > DFS <***@dfs.com> wrote:
> >
> >> owl,
> >> "The Sandy Hook schoolchildren massacre was a hoax perpetrated by the US
> >> govt."
> >
> > Are those my words? I agree with the sentiment, but it seems to be missing
> > a "so-called" somewhere in there.


> You've stated many times here on cola that it WAS a hoax - not probably was.

Sure. It was a hoax. Not "probably a hoax." But that's not what I
was asking. I was asking about the quotation marks you used in the
words you attributed to me. I know I said something to that effect,
but those are not my words which you supposedly quoted.

> Maybe a nutjob will take out your wife at work one day. When you see
> her bullet-riddled torso and skull blown all over the floor (as happened
> to some of the 27 Sandy Hook victims) will you dismiss it as "a
> complete hoax"?

In that case, I would have proof that it actually happened, so no.
Even so, if Gene Rosen was anywhere near the scene, I would have my
doubts. Sandy Hook was an active shooter drill using crisis actors.

> You sad moron.

Baa-aaa-aaa.

[Peter Köhlmann]

owl wrote:

> DFS <***@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 2/12/2014 12:16 AM, owl wrote:
>> > DFS <***@dfs.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> owl,
>> >> "The Sandy Hook schoolchildren massacre was a hoax perpetrated by the
>> >> US govt."
>> >
>> > Are those my words? I agree with the sentiment, but it seems to be
>> > missing a "so-called" somewhere in there.
>
>
>> You've stated many times here on cola that it WAS a hoax - not probably
>> was.
>
> Sure. It was a hoax. Not "probably a hoax." But that's not what I
> was asking. I was asking about the quotation marks you used in the
> words you attributed to me. I know I said something to that effect,
> but those are not my words which you supposedly quoted.
>
>> Maybe a nutjob will take out your wife at work one day. When you see
>> her bullet-riddled torso and skull blown all over the floor (as happened
>> to some of the 27 Sandy Hook victims) will you dismiss it as "a
>> complete hoax"?
>
> In that case, I would have proof that it actually happened, so no.
> Even so, if Gene Rosen was anywhere near the scene, I would have my
> doubts. Sandy Hook was an active shooter drill using crisis actors.
>
>> You sad moron.
>
> Baa-aaa-aaa.

Actually, it would be insulting morons if they would be compared to you.

Even compared to the lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser, the Prescott
Computer Guy, you are way below that cretinous filthy scum

[owl]

Peter Köhlmann <peter-***@t-online.de> wrote:
> owl wrote:

> > DFS <***@dfs.com> wrote:
> >> On 2/12/2014 12:16 AM, owl wrote:
> >> > DFS <***@dfs.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> owl,
> >> >> "The Sandy Hook schoolchildren massacre was a hoax perpetrated by the
> >> >> US govt."
> >> >
> >> > Are those my words? I agree with the sentiment, but it seems to be
> >> > missing a "so-called" somewhere in there.
> >
> >
> >> You've stated many times here on cola that it WAS a hoax - not probably
> >> was.
> >
> > Sure. It was a hoax. Not "probably a hoax." But that's not what I
> > was asking. I was asking about the quotation marks you used in the
> > words you attributed to me. I know I said something to that effect,
> > but those are not my words which you supposedly quoted.
> >
> >> Maybe a nutjob will take out your wife at work one day. When you see
> >> her bullet-riddled torso and skull blown all over the floor (as happened
> >> to some of the 27 Sandy Hook victims) will you dismiss it as "a
> >> complete hoax"?
> >
> > In that case, I would have proof that it actually happened, so no.
> > Even so, if Gene Rosen was anywhere near the scene, I would have my
> > doubts. Sandy Hook was an active shooter drill using crisis actors.
> >
> >> You sad moron.
> >
> > Baa-aaa-aaa.

> Actually, it would be insulting morons if they would be compared to you.

> Even compared to the lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser, the Prescott
> Computer Guy, you are way below that cretinous filthy scum

I'm sure you also believe the Hitler's bunker bullshit.

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 2:23 PM, in article ***@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<***@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

...
>> Actually, it would be insulting morons if they would be compared to you.
>
>> Even compared to the lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser, the Prescott
>> Computer Guy, you are way below that cretinous filthy scum
>
> I'm sure you also believe the Hitler's bunker bullshit.

In my community it is "claimed" that 19 firefighters died not long ago. With
just 19 there were thousands who knew them... even more who had met them...
even more who had heard of them or knew their families. Hardly a person
within 100 miles did not *at least* know someone who knew one of the
families. It had a major impact on the community as a whole.

For someone idiot to come out and claim these people did not exist would be
ignorant and offensive. It would be insanity. While there are questions
about the tragedy (and even lawsuits over fault) the fact these people
existed is just idiotic to question in any serious way. Just nonsense.

With Sandy Hook, though, you claim of the 26 people who were killed they did
not even exist. For this you have no evidence... and the claim, frankly, is
bat-shit crazy. The size of cover up that would be needed would include
*thousands* of people from all walks of life. Absolute idiocy to push that
these people did not even exist.



--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Silver Slimer]

On 12/02/2014 4:23 PM, owl wrote:

> I'm sure you also believe the Hitler's bunker bullshit.

I'm willing to bet an amount equivalent to all of the profits GNU/Linux
has ever made that (somewhere in the vicinity of negative one billion)
that Köhlmann's ancestors were routinely used to assist in Hitler
getting an erection. That 'German War Machine' needed a good oiling and
the Köhlmanns were the right people for the job.

--
Silver Slimer
'Linux shit' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

[Silver Slimer]

On 12/02/2014 3:57 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

>> In that case, I would have proof that it actually happened, so no.
>> Even so, if Gene Rosen was anywhere near the scene, I would have my
>> doubts. Sandy Hook was an active shooter drill using crisis actors.
>>
>>> You sad moron.
>>
>> Baa-aaa-aaa.
>
> Actually, it would be insulting morons if they would be compared to you.
>
> Even compared to the lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser, the Prescott
> Computer Guy, you are way below that cretinous filthy scum

The only lying imbecile is you Peter Köhlmann, Mainz King of Cretins.

Let us all know if one day, when discussing technology, you're ever
right about something. We're still waiting for that glorious day when
you're shown to be correct and DON'T make a complete ass of yourself.

--
Silver Slimer
'Linux shit' on google.ca = About 5,460,000 results (0.30 seconds)

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 3:33 PM, in article ldgss1$f6c$***@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer"
<***@lv.c> wrote:

> On 12/02/2014 3:57 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>>> In that case, I would have proof that it actually happened, so no.
>>> Even so, if Gene Rosen was anywhere near the scene, I would have my
>>> doubts. Sandy Hook was an active shooter drill using crisis actors.
>>>
>>>> You sad moron.
>>>
>>> Baa-aaa-aaa.
>>
>> Actually, it would be insulting morons if they would be compared to you.
>>
>> Even compared to the lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser, the Prescott
>> Computer Guy, you are way below that cretinous filthy scum
>
> The only lying imbecile is you Peter Köhlmann, Mainz King of Cretins.
>
> Let us all know if one day, when discussing technology, you're ever
> right about something. We're still waiting for that glorious day when
> you're shown to be correct and DON'T make a complete ass of yourself.


Oh, Peter is a frickin' technical genius... who else can show such
brilliance as his following quotes:

---------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Köhlmann, referencing his own idiotic quotes:
-----
And what a surprise: Not a single Msg-ID supplied by that liar
Snit... Because *if* he did supply Msg-IDs, anyone could see that
he has doctored the posts. ... He would be shown as the imbecile
liar he really is
-----
Peter distances himself from his own statements saying a msg-ID is
needed to prove he is an idiot. Done, with links. What excuse will he
make next? A claim to kill filter me so he can pretend to not see this
list is my guess!

Message-ID: <l9af1k$7ov$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/miEeYd>

---------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Köhlmann:
-----
Except there are no "700 duplicative Linux distributions"
It is (at most) about a dozen. The rest is special purpose, and
not for the general usage on the desktop.
-----
From <http://distrowatch.com>: "The bewildering choice and the ever
increasing number of Linux distributions can be confusing for those who are
new to Linux."

Message-ID: <jq7pqj$ro7$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/7mTTJw>

---------------------------------------------------------------

Snit:
-----
Excellent screencasting software, similar to ScreenFlow. And
example of something I find key to its use:
<http://youtu.be/To4v70huwAU>. What OSS tool on desktop Linux
has anything even close?
-----
Peter Köhlmann:
-----
There are several more. Look up "Istanbul" for example or
"Byzanz", or "Cankiri" The list can grow quite a bit, but
these are the most used ones
-----
No program Peter pointed to does the task shown in the video. Peter
never found *any* way on desktop Linux.

Message-ID: <jkpf9p$545$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/cLC0Mo>

---------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Köhlmann:
-----
In fact, there are at least 3 programs for screencasting which do
either without exception *all* he "needs" or can do it combined
with others
-----
| You have spoken of three programs.
No, I have not. Your incredibly bad reading comprehension is
rearing its ugly head again,
-----
Both of those quotes come from the same day and the same thread and were
stated in that order. In another thread on a previous day Peter gave the
names of three screen recording programs: Istanbul, Byzanz, and Cankiri

Message ID: <l9scpl$fig$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/Q85TGT>
Message ID: <l9spoa$5qn$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/o6vJcb>
Message-ID: <jkpf9p$545$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/cLC0Mo>

---------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Köhlmann:
-----
When I talked about Hangout, that was obviously to anyone with a
brain that it is a mobile app, a class of programs which will be
more and more important
-----
<http://www.google.com/hangouts>
-----
Android Devices; iPhone, iPad & iPod; Computers; Gmail; Google+
-----
Hmmmm, who is right about Google Hangout: Peter or Google? LOL!

Message-ID: <l9n635$aga$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/t76po2>

---------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Köhlmann:
-----
| For example, if I modified a BSD variant and tried to pass it
| off as "Linux" to people I would be stopped. ...
BSD allows such sheenigans
-----
The BSD license has no power to override trademarks and "allow" this.

Message-ID: <l98q2g$nj1$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/zvo4fv>

---------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Kühlmann:
-----
| I was specifically in reference to "Nobody" and his incorrect
| claim in reference to the Linux code that "Users can do anything
| they want with it." This simply is not true.
It *is* true. Users *can* do anything they want to with it.
-----
Peter did also admit "they have to supply the source too if they want
to distribute the code". He never acknowledged his completely
contradictory claim was wrong.

Message-ID: <l96ad6$t5b$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/IDdPqT>

---------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Köhlmann:
-----
| [Shortcuts and symbolic links] are similar in usage...
They are not even remotely "similar". Neither in usage nor in
behaviour. If you had /any/ clue whatsoever you would know that.
-----
It is not as if they are the same, but they clearly share many
similarities. Peter does not even know the basics on this topic.

Message-ID: <l97mn6$mpb$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/0UHbhj>

---------------------------------------------------------------

-----
| So when I saw a sign that spoke of a "bibliothèque" I figured it
| had to do with books ("biblio") and could guess with pretty
| strong certainty it was a library. Similarly things like
| "hôpital" meaning "hospital" and "métro" referring to the subway
| system are not hard to figure out.
Which does not help you a tiny little bit if you *hear* the
language ...
-----
When people *read* signs they need not *hear* them! Peter never
acknowledged his error and made accusations of dishonesty.

Message-ID: <l92i71$s3j$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/eAm0cC>

---------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Köhlmann, after being shown these videos:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PrintFirstTime.mp4>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/FirstScan.mov>
Both show an OfficeJet Pro 8600 after being connected to a network and
being used for the first time on a Mac. And it works very, very well.
-----
Scanning [on OS X] is not supported *at* *all* without jumping
through several hoops. This includes hunting down 3 different
software packages (libusb, sane-backend and sane) *and* installing
them. Out of the box no scanning is supported at all. This is in
stark contrast to linux where scanning is supported right from the
start after setting up the printer

The same is true about *all* OfficeJet Pro printers under OSX.
-----
LOL! Yes, after being shown how an OfficeJet Pro works without doing
*anything* extra Peter still makes these completely incorrect claims.

Message-ID: <l31oss$9o6$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/600BHt>

---------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Köhlmann
-----
| When you launch it, the splash screen says 'gimp'
Nope.
------
Peter is wrong, and it is trivial to prove:
<http://www.gimp.org/about/splash/stable.html>.

Message-ID: <jmmvqr$efo$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/rGhbir>

---------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Köhlmann:
-----
The apps with "Quit" do *not* exit, they continue to run
in the background
-----
Had he known how to use "top" he would know he was wrong:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/top.mov>

Message-ID: <gq8oo1$u4v$03$***@news.t-online.com>
<http://goo.gl/CcTIAO>

---------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Köhlmann, in reference to <http://goo.gl/IjlkV>:
-----
You both show just *again* your incredible cluelessness. That is
*standard* X behaviour, you cretins. That Snot Michael Glasser
knows *nothing* about that is normal, he is the worst "IT teacher"
of all time. He knows nothing usefull about computing.
-----
The video, of course, shows things other than just standard X
behavior. Peter never showed any understanding of this.

Message-Id: <4985cb95$0$32676$***@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
<http://goo.gl/0R2qow>

---------------------------------------------------------------

In reference to: <http://goo.gl/gBV6G> / <http://goo.gl/nysWd>
Peter Köhlmann:
-----
| What's to understand? I can't read, write, copy or
| delete a root-owned folder... but I can rename it.
Actually, no, you can't
And stop lying. I have tested it.
-----
You have to tamper with the permissions to have it different. And
for that reason DFS claims are simply bullshit.
-----
I can't duplicate the "problem" on any machine here.
-----
Since "Lost+found" is not created with the sticky bit at all, it
should not exhibit the behaviour DFS claims. And I can do whatever
I want with it on my systems (on all of them), it certainly does
not behave in any way near that way claimed
-----
Peter never admitted to his error.

Message-ID: <ik9hu6$7li$02$***@news.t-online.com>
<http://goo.gl/LbeLp9>
Message-ID: <ikaflj$1us$02$***@news.t-online.com>
<http://goo.gl/PyNcnz>
Message-ID: <ike3nf$2u2$02$***@news.t-online.com>
<http://goo.gl/iQiekd>
Message-ID: <ikbtti$e6r$02$***@news.t-online.com>
<http://goo.gl/P91njl>

---------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Köhlmann, speaking of HTML5:
-----
And browsers on desktop computers have little, if any, need to
adhere to such a "standard" which has no real reason to exist
except to support the idiotic iDevices
-----
Yeah, HTML5 has no other reason to exist. LOL!

Message-ID: <ijbl4c$2se$01$***@news.t-online.com>
<http://goo.gl/agjo2B>

---------------------------------------------------------------

<http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4683>
-----
Clicking OK will restart the volume, even if no settings were
changed. Changing this setting does not require the volume to
be reinitialized; data is preserved.
-----
Peter Köhlmann:
-----
So You call having to reformat a drive in order to have that
feature "choice"? Really?
-----
Peter thinks "restarting" a volume reformats it even though it is
specifically stated no reinitialization is done and data is preserved.

Message-ID: <jok7e8$e7k$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/RtL82B>

---------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Köhlmann, in reference to the term "DHCP network", which
is used by Oracle, the University of Illinois, DATAQ, Netgear,
Cisco, and other such groups, <http://goo.gl/C1TpPO>:
-----
No, it is technically bullshit. Nobody wanting to be taken
seriously as being competent would *ever* use such an idiotic
description.
-----
So, to Peter, *none* of those groups should be seen as being competent
when it comes to networking. None of them. LOL!

Message-ID: <jr35kp$bif$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/kf6zYv>

---------------------------------------------------------------

Snit, titling a thread where he made a mistake:
-----
Skype done.... *I* screwed up
-----
Peter Köhlman, referencing the same mistake:
-----
Snot Glasser will claim the most idiotic bullshit to wiggle out
of the fact that he screwed up again
-----
LOL! Just brilliant of Peter... and he never admitted to his mistake.

Message-ID: <k1dtul$vhd$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/j3eShO>

---------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Köhlmann:
-----
Play Services do *not* run in the background. The Update services
it provides *are* controllable by the user
-----
<https://developer.android.com/google/play-services>
-----
The Google Play services APK contains the individual Google
services and runs as a background service in the Android OS. You
interact with the background service through the client library
and the service carries out the actions on your behalf.
...
Automatic Updates
Devices running Android 2.2 and newer and that have the Google
Play Store app automatically receive updates to Google Play
services.
-----
Hmmm, who to believe about Google Play... Peter or Google. So hard to
decide!

Message-ID: <la6leg$rh1$***@dont-email.me>
<http://goo.gl/bg9e6e>

---------------------------------------------------------------


--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[Snit]

On 2/12/14, 1:48 PM, in article ***@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<***@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> DFS <***@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 2/12/2014 12:16 AM, owl wrote:
>>> DFS <***@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> owl,
>>>> "The Sandy Hook schoolchildren massacre was a hoax perpetrated by the US
>>>> govt."
>>>
>>> Are those my words? I agree with the sentiment, but it seems to be missing
>>> a "so-called" somewhere in there.
>
>
>> You've stated many times here on cola that it WAS a hoax - not probably was.
>
> Sure. It was a hoax. Not "probably a hoax." But that's not what I
> was asking. I was asking about the quotation marks you used in the
> words you attributed to me. I know I said something to that effect,
> but those are not my words which you supposedly quoted.

To claim it is a hoax is just silly given how you have no evidence.

To claim the people who were killed did not even exist is bat-shit crazy.

>> Maybe a nutjob will take out your wife at work one day. When you see
>> her bullet-riddled torso and skull blown all over the floor (as happened
>> to some of the 27 Sandy Hook victims) will you dismiss it as "a
>> complete hoax"?
>
> In that case, I would have proof that it actually happened, so no.

Why would you need proof? Why would you even need support? You are making
bat-shit crazy claims with *no* evidence of any sort... claims that go
contrary to all reason. So why would you *now* change and say you need
"proof"?

> Even so, if Gene Rosen was anywhere near the scene, I would have my
> doubts. Sandy Hook was an active shooter drill using crisis actors.

A claim you make with *no* support... but above you claim you need "proof".

You are not just bat-shit crazy, you are a hypocrite.

>> You sad moron.
>
> Baa-aaa-aaa.
>



--
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy
means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' - Isaac Asimov

[DFS]

On 2/12/2014 3:48 PM, owl wrote:
> DFS <***@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 2/12/2014 12:16 AM, owl wrote:
>>> DFS <***@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> owl,
>>>> "The Sandy Hook schoolchildren massacre was a hoax perpetrated by the US
>>>> govt."
>>>
>>> Are those my words? I agree with the sentiment, but it seems to be missing
>>> a "so-called" somewhere in there.
>
>
>> You've stated many times here on cola that it WAS a hoax - not probably was.
>
> Sure. It was a hoax. Not "probably a hoax." But that's not what I
> was asking. I was asking about the quotation marks you used in the
> words you attributed to me. I know I said something to that effect,
> but those are not my words which you supposedly quoted.
>
>> Maybe a nutjob will take out your wife at work one day. When you see
>> her bullet-riddled torso and skull blown all over the floor (as happened
>> to some of the 27 Sandy Hook victims) will you dismiss it as "a
>> complete hoax"?
>
> In that case, I would have proof that it actually happened, so no.

uh huh... sure thing... and dozens if not hundreds of people have proof
the Sandy Hook shooting happened.


> Even so, if Gene Rosen was anywhere near the scene, I would have my
> doubts. Sandy Hook was an active shooter drill using crisis actors.

I rarely do this, but... plonk.



>> You sad moron.
>
> Baa-aaa-aaa.

[owl]

DFS <***@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 2/12/2014 3:48 PM, owl wrote:
> > DFS <***@dfs.com> wrote:

> >
> >> Maybe a nutjob will take out your wife at work one day. When you see
> >> her bullet-riddled torso and skull blown all over the floor (as happened
> >> to some of the 27 Sandy Hook victims) will you dismiss it as "a
> >> complete hoax"?
> >
> > In that case, I would have proof that it actually happened, so no.

> uh huh... sure thing... and dozens if not hundreds of people have proof
> the Sandy Hook shooting happened.

Odd that none of them have seen fit to produce it.

> > Even so, if Gene Rosen was anywhere near the scene, I would have my
> > doubts. Sandy Hook was an active shooter drill using crisis actors.

> I rarely do this, but... plonk.

Run to mommy.