Discussion:
Whatever happened to Google on-line docs, the "MS-Office killer"?
(too old to reply)
Dusty Hendrix
2008-01-03 17:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Seems to be about as popular and prominent as clam flavored ice-cream. I
mean hell, if you go to Google.com it's not even visible from the home page.
You need to click on the "more" button and find it in there.

Certainly even Google must now realize that on-line word processors and
spreadsheets are a joke.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Linonut
2008-01-03 18:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dusty Hendrix
Seems to be about as popular and prominent as clam flavored ice-cream. I
mean hell, if you go to Google.com it's not even visible from the home page.
You need to click on the "more" button and find it in there.
Certainly even Google must now realize that on-line word processors and
spreadsheets are a joke.
Thanks for reminding me to look into it. Looks pretty cool. And you
can save it as OpenOffice format. Works great on Linux. I can even
read in a real Word document, and it looks pretty decent.

Saving it back, and opening it in Word XP, it looks like it can't find
the *.dot needed to give it its correct appearance, so that the headings
and some of the spacing settings aren't identiical to the original, but
it does look well formatted.

Thanks for the heads up, Dusty.

You should charge for this public service.
--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.
Dusty Hendrix
2008-01-03 19:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linonut
Post by Dusty Hendrix
Seems to be about as popular and prominent as clam flavored ice-cream. I
mean hell, if you go to Google.com it's not even visible from the home page.
You need to click on the "more" button and find it in there.
Certainly even Google must now realize that on-line word processors and
spreadsheets are a joke.
Thanks for reminding me to look into it. Looks pretty cool. And you
can save it as OpenOffice format. Works great on Linux. I can even
read in a real Word document, and it looks pretty decent.
Another "yawner" technology from Google. The advocates here like to point
out how Microsoft hasn't been successful at anything other than Windows and
Office. Yet Google has all of these 'other projects' like on-line docs that
have turned out to be smoldering heaps of dog-pooh.
Post by Linonut
Saving it back, and opening it in Word XP, it looks like it can't find
the *.dot needed to give it its correct appearance, so that the headings
and some of the spacing settings aren't identiical to the original, but
it does look well formatted.
Office XP rocks.
Post by Linonut
Thanks for the heads up, Dusty.
Anytime dude. It's my News Years resolution to help out the ill informed.
Post by Linonut
You should charge for this public service.
If I did then very few people would be able to afford the incredible value
that I provide.
Post by Linonut
--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
2008-01-03 20:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dusty Hendrix
Another "yawner" technology from Google. The advocates here like to point
out how Microsoft hasn't been successful at anything other than Windows and
Office. Yet Google has all of these 'other projects' like on-line docs that
have turned out to be smoldering heaps of dog-pooh.
Call it a yawner if you like, but I've actually found it rather
handy when someone sends an MS Office attachment to my gmail
account and I want to read it from a workstation with no office
suite installed (like at my parents house). OK, so its unlikely
to take over the business world, but not every innovation needs
to. Its still a handy gadget and I'm glad they made it.

Thad
--
Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
all the ingredients on the label.
Linonut
2008-01-03 23:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dusty Hendrix
Office XP rocks.
Then why did they follow it up with Office 2003 and then 2007? I
thought Gates didn't bother making new versions except to add new
features?
Post by Dusty Hendrix
Post by Linonut
Thanks for the heads up, Dusty.
Anytime dude. It's my News Years resolution to help out the ill informed.
Help yourself.
Post by Dusty Hendrix
Post by Linonut
You should charge for this public service.
If I did then very few people would be able to afford the incredible value
that I provide.
You mean you'd starve.
--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.
Linux
2008-01-04 03:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linonut
Post by Dusty Hendrix
Office XP rocks.
Then why did they follow it up with Office 2003 and then 2007? I
thought Gates didn't bother making new versions except to add new
features?
Post by Dusty Hendrix
- snip -
I also use Google Docs & Spreadsheets lots, thanks GOOG !
Thufir
2008-01-05 09:01:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dusty Hendrix
Office XP rocks.
I don't use it, but it's all too easy to have a corrupted file. From
Vista, and using the latest Office, printing a very simple spreadsheet
from Excel, landscaped and fitted to one page, it will fail to print
correctly all too often.

The print preview can show it as one page, but of course that won't
happen. The .xls file is corrupt, copy/pasting (or exporting) the data
to a new .xls file gives a correct print out.

Corrupted files seem to be a speciality of Microsoft; to my knowledge
I've never run into a corrupted file in Linux.



-Thufir
DFS
2008-01-05 14:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thufir
Corrupted files seem to be a speciality of Microsoft; to my knowledge
I've never run into a corrupted file in Linux.
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most basic
usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got corrupted
documents (OO 1.9.79 for Windows - embed a document in a floating frame and
try to activate the document - 100% of the time it crashed and did a damaged
document recovery the next time you tried to open it).

Virtually every MS Access .mdb front-end I've ever developed has corrupted
at one point or another - but only after they get to an arbitrarily large
size (lots of code or forms). They almost always - 99.9% of the time -
repair with no problems, but to this day in Access 2003 I continue to get
intermittent error messages upon opening "The file is not recognized or may
be corrupt." Then it opens and is OK.

It's almost definitely something I'm doing (most likely unclosed references
to DAO library objects), but it's irritating and ridiculous and the error
message is no help at all. The saving grace is that if the .mdb file
compiles successfully to an .mde, the .mde has never once corrupted.
Hadron
2008-01-07 02:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Thufir
Corrupted files seem to be a speciality of Microsoft; to my knowledge
I've never run into a corrupted file in Linux.
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most basic
usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got corrupted
documents (OO 1.9.79 for Windows - embed a document in a floating frame and
try to activate the document - 100% of the time it crashed and did a damaged
document recovery the next time you tried to open it).
Slopware is the word.

e.g open opencalc. fill a cell. save file as html, name the file
something like myfile.php. What does it do? Yup. Save myfile.php.html.

Duh!

Better?

OK, same file in calc "myfile.php.html".

File. Wizards. Next. Add...

OO just *vanishes* A complete and utter instant crash.

Nice one. OO 2.2.1.
Gregory Shearman
2008-01-07 07:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by DFS
Post by Thufir
Corrupted files seem to be a speciality of Microsoft; to my knowledge
I've never run into a corrupted file in Linux.
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most basic
usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got corrupted
documents (OO 1.9.79 for Windows - embed a document in a floating frame
and try to activate the document - 100% of the time it crashed and did a
damaged document recovery the next time you tried to open it).
Slopware is the word.
e.g open opencalc. fill a cell. save file as html, name the file
something like myfile.php. What does it do? Yup. Save myfile.php.html.
Duh!
Better?
OK, same file in calc "myfile.php.html".
Uncheck the "Automatic File Extension" box you dickhead.
Post by Hadron
File. Wizards. Next. Add...
OO just *vanishes* A complete and utter instant crash.
Nice one. OO 2.2.1.
I run 2.3.1

I must say that I've NEVER had OO crash on me, not oocalc, not oowriter, not
ever.

I suspect yours is running on a badly configured machine.
--
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Sinister Midget
2008-01-07 10:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
Post by DFS
Post by Thufir
Corrupted files seem to be a speciality of Microsoft; to my knowledge
I've never run into a corrupted file in Linux.
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most basic
usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got corrupted
documents (OO 1.9.79 for Windows - embed a document in a floating frame
and try to activate the document - 100% of the time it crashed and did a
damaged document recovery the next time you tried to open it).
Slopware is the word.
e.g open opencalc. fill a cell. save file as html, name the file
something like myfile.php. What does it do? Yup. Save myfile.php.html.
Duh!
Better?
OK, same file in calc "myfile.php.html".
Uncheck the "Automatic File Extension" box you dickhead.
Post by Hadron
File. Wizards. Next. Add...
OO just *vanishes* A complete and utter instant crash.
Nice one. OO 2.2.1.
I run 2.3.1
I must say that I've NEVER had OO crash on me, not oocalc, not oowriter, not
ever.
I had one crash. Back in the very, very early days. I tried to open a
Word doc I'd brought home and it crashed OOWriter. And Abiword, and
Siag (it was _that_ long ago).

So I took it back to work and let it crash Word, too.

Hey, MS crapware might be garbage. But that's no reason to prevent it
from having the same fun as all of the linux apps.
Post by Gregory Shearman
I suspect yours is running on a badly configured machine.
"Professionally" misconfigured. Darnho is a "professional" dontcha
know.
--
A friend in need is a pain indeed.
Gregory Shearman
2008-01-07 11:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
Post by DFS
Post by Thufir
Corrupted files seem to be a speciality of Microsoft; to my knowledge
I've never run into a corrupted file in Linux.
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most basic
usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got corrupted
documents (OO 1.9.79 for Windows - embed a document in a floating frame
and try to activate the document - 100% of the time it crashed and did
a damaged document recovery the next time you tried to open it).
Slopware is the word.
e.g open opencalc. fill a cell. save file as html, name the file
something like myfile.php. What does it do? Yup. Save myfile.php.html.
Duh!
Better?
OK, same file in calc "myfile.php.html".
Uncheck the "Automatic File Extension" box you dickhead.
Post by Hadron
File. Wizards. Next. Add...
OO just *vanishes* A complete and utter instant crash.
Nice one. OO 2.2.1.
I run 2.3.1
I must say that I've NEVER had OO crash on me, not oocalc, not oowriter,
not ever.
I had one crash. Back in the very, very early days. I tried to open a
Word doc I'd brought home and it crashed OOWriter. And Abiword, and
Siag (it was _that_ long ago).
I must admit I'm not a big user of OOwriter. I do use oocalc from time to
time. My lady wife uses oowriter all the time and it hasn't crashed on her.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Gregory Shearman
I suspect yours is running on a badly configured machine.
"Professionally" misconfigured. Darnho is a "professional" dontcha
know.
Yeah, a real pro, he is.
--
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Hadron
2008-01-07 12:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
Post by DFS
Post by Thufir
Corrupted files seem to be a speciality of Microsoft; to my knowledge
I've never run into a corrupted file in Linux.
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most basic
usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got corrupted
documents (OO 1.9.79 for Windows - embed a document in a floating frame
and try to activate the document - 100% of the time it crashed and did a
damaged document recovery the next time you tried to open it).
Slopware is the word.
e.g open opencalc. fill a cell. save file as html, name the file
something like myfile.php. What does it do? Yup. Save myfile.php.html.
Duh!
Better?
OK, same file in calc "myfile.php.html".
Uncheck the "Automatic File Extension" box you dickhead.
Typical Shearman answer.

Of course the programmer could not detect a legitimate extension? Oh no.
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
File. Wizards. Next. Add...
OO just *vanishes* A complete and utter instant crash.
Nice one. OO 2.2.1.
I run 2.3.1
I must say that I've NEVER had OO crash on me, not oocalc, not oowriter, not
ever.
Sure.
Post by Sinister Midget
I had one crash. Back in the very, very early days. I tried to open a
Word doc I'd brought home and it crashed OOWriter. And Abiword, and
Siag (it was _that_ long ago).
So I took it back to work and let it crash Word, too.
Hey, MS crapware might be garbage. But that's no reason to prevent it
from having the same fun as all of the linux apps.
Post by Gregory Shearman
I suspect yours is running on a badly configured machine.
"Configured"? This is on Debian. I shouldnt have to "configure" anything
to stop it crashing/vanishing.
Post by Sinister Midget
"Professionally" misconfigured. Darnho is a "professional" dontcha
know.
Listen up dickhead : I should NOT HAVE TO configure ANYTHING to stop OO
crashing. What part confuses you?
Peter Köhlmann
2008-01-07 12:46:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
Post by DFS
Post by Thufir
Corrupted files seem to be a speciality of Microsoft; to my knowledge
I've never run into a corrupted file in Linux.
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most basic
usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got corrupted
documents (OO 1.9.79 for Windows - embed a document in a floating
frame and try to activate the document - 100% of the time it crashed
and did a damaged document recovery the next time you tried to open
it).
Slopware is the word.
e.g open opencalc. fill a cell. save file as html, name the file
something like myfile.php. What does it do? Yup. Save myfile.php.html.
Duh!
Better?
OK, same file in calc "myfile.php.html".
Uncheck the "Automatic File Extension" box you dickhead.
Typical Shearman answer.
Of course the programmer could not detect a legitimate extension? Oh no.
What "legitimate extension", Hadron Quark?
Like the "Naked-Tennis-Star.BMP.JPG.GIF.EXE" example?

Face it: OO behaved exactly like you told it to do
Post by Hadron
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
File. Wizards. Next. Add...
OO just *vanishes* A complete and utter instant crash.
Nice one. OO 2.2.1.
I run 2.3.1
I must say that I've NEVER had OO crash on me, not oocalc, not oowriter,
not ever.
Sure.
Yes. Sure. I haven't have it crashing on me ever.
Strange that "kernel hackers" like you have so many problems getting stuff
to work which has no problems for mere mortals, isn't it?
Post by Hadron
Post by Sinister Midget
I had one crash. Back in the very, very early days. I tried to open a
Word doc I'd brought home and it crashed OOWriter. And Abiword, and
Siag (it was _that_ long ago).
So I took it back to work and let it crash Word, too.
Hey, MS crapware might be garbage. But that's no reason to prevent it
from having the same fun as all of the linux apps.
Post by Gregory Shearman
I suspect yours is running on a badly configured machine.
"Configured"? This is on Debian. I shouldnt have to "configure" anything
to stop it crashing/vanishing.
Well, It is a "Hadron Qark machine"

You have weird problems no one else has
Post by Hadron
Post by Sinister Midget
"Professionally" misconfigured. Darnho is a "professional" dontcha
know.
Listen up dickhead : I should NOT HAVE TO configure ANYTHING to stop OO
crashing. What part confuses you?
Well, what part of "OO crashes for you, but for most others it does not"
confuses *you* Hadron Quark?
--
Law of Probable Dispersal:
Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.
Sinister Midget
2008-01-07 13:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Post by Sinister Midget
"Professionally" misconfigured. Darnho is a "professional" dontcha
know.
Listen up dickhead : I should NOT HAVE TO configure ANYTHING to stop OO
crashing. What part confuses you?
Well, what part of "OO crashes for you, but for most others it does not"
confuses *you* Hadron Quark?
Darnho is a "reading specialist", too. It seems he got lost in the
discussion of having a poorly-configured machine, thinking everyone was
referring to his needing to configured OO to do something.
--
A friend in need always finds your new phone number.
Hadron
2008-01-07 13:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Post by Sinister Midget
"Professionally" misconfigured. Darnho is a "professional" dontcha
know.
Listen up dickhead : I should NOT HAVE TO configure ANYTHING to stop OO
crashing. What part confuses you?
Well, what part of "OO crashes for you, but for most others it does not"
confuses *you* Hadron Quark?
Darnho is a "reading specialist", too. It seems he got lost in the
discussion of having a poorly-configured machine, thinking everyone was
referring to his needing to configured OO to do something.
My machines work just fine as I have frequently mentioned. OO is a heap
of junk though. Please dont mistake me thinking the "advocates" in COLA
are a bunch of Windows using hypocrites for me thinking Linux is
bad. Linux is excellent. Unfortunately too much OSS for the GUI is buggy
crap - I have listed the exceptions repeatedly and have no wish to do so again.
Gregory Shearman
2008-01-07 13:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
My machines work just fine as I have frequently mentioned. OO is a heap
of junk though. Please dont mistake me thinking the "advocates" in COLA
are a bunch of Windows using hypocrites for me thinking Linux is
bad. Linux is excellent. Unfortunately too much OSS for the GUI is buggy
crap - I have listed the exceptions repeatedly and have no wish to do so again.
Quark runs away crying..
--
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Peter Köhlmann
2008-01-07 13:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Post by Sinister Midget
"Professionally" misconfigured. Darnho is a "professional" dontcha
know.
Listen up dickhead : I should NOT HAVE TO configure ANYTHING to stop OO
crashing. What part confuses you?
Well, what part of "OO crashes for you, but for most others it does not"
confuses *you* Hadron Quark?
Darnho is a "reading specialist", too. It seems he got lost in the
discussion of having a poorly-configured machine, thinking everyone was
referring to his needing to configured OO to do something.
My machines work just fine as I have frequently mentioned. OO is a heap
of junk though.
So you claim. It appears you repeat that lie because it obviously is not
that junk you hoped it would be, and because of that is a threat to MS
Post by Hadron
Please dont mistake me thinking the "advocates" in COLA
are a bunch of Windows using hypocrites for me thinking Linux is
bad. Linux is excellent. Unfortunately too much OSS for the GUI is buggy
crap - I have listed the exceptions repeatedly and have no wish to do so again.
Yet you continuously do. Again and again repeating the same lies. And from
time to time agreeing with the slimiest scum on this planet how "bad OSS
software" is, picking up another "true linux advocacy" lie
--
Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of
old ones.
Linonut
2008-01-07 16:43:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
My machines work just fine as I have frequently mentioned. OO is a heap
of junk though.
So you claim. It appears you repeat that lie because it obviously is not
that junk you hoped it would be, and because of that is a threat to MS
Based on using Writer, Calc, and Impress quite a bit, I think OpenOffice
is actually pretty good software. I actually like using it better than
Word, for the most part.

It can't yet replace Microsoft Office as an editor of Microsoft formats,
but, of course, Microsoft works hard to make sure that that is the
case.

Allowing a competitor to be able to flawlessly read and write Microsoft
formats without a lucrative licensing agreement is the last thing
Microsoft wants.
--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.
DFS
2008-01-07 16:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linonut
Allowing a competitor to be able to flawlessly read and write
Microsoft formats without a lucrative licensing agreement is the last
thing Microsoft wants.
If an OSS moron showed up at your office and offered to your boss exactly
your coding skills but insisted he would work for no pay, would you be
happy?
Linonut
2008-01-07 18:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Linonut
Allowing a competitor to be able to flawlessly read and write
Microsoft formats without a lucrative licensing agreement is the last
thing Microsoft wants.
If an OSS moron showed up at your office and offered to your boss exactly
your coding skills but insisted he would work for no pay, would you be
happy?
Sure. No way would he get the job until he proved he could do. Even
then, he'd have a hard time matching my experience.

What does that have to do with document format obfuscation and churn?

If Microsoft were as secure in their work as myself, they wouldn't worry
about a little commercial competition the way they are about free
competition.
--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.
DFS
2008-01-07 22:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linonut
Post by DFS
Post by Linonut
Allowing a competitor to be able to flawlessly read and write
Microsoft formats without a lucrative licensing agreement is the
last thing Microsoft wants.
If an OSS moron showed up at your office and offered to your boss
exactly your coding skills but insisted he would work for no pay,
would you be happy?
Sure.
You'd start quaking in your boots, soon to be unemployed. Next place you
went to, same situation: there's some wacko willing to do the work for free.
And the next place. Maybe you luck onto a short-term contract, but you soon
find there's much less more revenue for you, so you have to find an entirely
new career (soccer? how are the old knees?)

That's what could *conceivably* happen to MS if OO got their act together.
I doubt they ever will; they're too in love with the romantic but silly
notion of cross-platform and write-once run-anywhere development to focus on
a Windows fork that utilizes dedicated x86 C++ and assembly programming to
deliver a speedy MS Office competitor.
Post by Linonut
No way would he get the job until he proved he could do. Even
then, he'd have a hard time matching my experience.
That was implicit in the scenario.
Post by Linonut
What does that have to do with document format obfuscation and churn?
Wouldn't you - as a Windows developer - expect MS to continue changing and
improving their document formats? The longer they remain "stable" the more
time OSS wacks have to reverse engineer them, and the less necessary and
valuable MS products become.
Post by Linonut
If Microsoft were as secure in their work as myself, they wouldn't
worry about a little commercial competition the way they are about
free competition.
From what I can tell, they're not worried about what little commercial
office software competition they haven't already beaten up on - but they are
(or should be if OO fixes their stuff) worried about free software that's
competitive with theirs. Considering the obscene amounts of copying from MS
Office to OpenOffice, I definitely see lawsuits in the future.
Linonut
2008-01-08 01:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Linonut
Post by DFS
Post by Linonut
Allowing a competitor to be able to flawlessly read and write
Microsoft formats without a lucrative licensing agreement is the
last thing Microsoft wants.
If an OSS moron showed up at your office and offered to your boss
exactly your coding skills but insisted he would work for no pay,
would you be happy?
Sure.
You'd start quaking in your boots, soon to be unemployed.
Sure I would. Sure I would.

If any kind of "moron" (OSS or not) could get my job, then to hell with
the job.
Post by DFS
That's what could *conceivably* happen to MS if OO got their act together.
I doubt they ever will; they're too in love with the romantic but silly
notion of cross-platform and write-once run-anywhere development to focus on
a Windows fork that utilizes dedicated x86 C++ and assembly programming to
deliver a speedy MS Office competitor.
Hey, according to you, MS already has that avenue locked up.

You're beginning to sound like Jim McCarthy -- "portability is for
canoes".
Post by DFS
Post by Linonut
No way would he get the job until he proved he could do. Even
then, he'd have a hard time matching my experience.
That was implicit in the scenario.
Hardly. You termed him a "moron", moron.
Post by DFS
Post by Linonut
What does that have to do with document format obfuscation and churn?
Wouldn't you - as a Windows developer - expect MS to continue changing and
improving their document formats? The longer they remain "stable" the more
time OSS wacks have to reverse engineer them, and the less necessary and
valuable MS products become.
No. Personally, I think such tactics are repugnant.
Post by DFS
Post by Linonut
If Microsoft were as secure in their work as myself, they wouldn't
worry about a little commercial competition the way they are about
free competition.
From what I can tell, they're not worried about what little commercial
office software competition they haven't already beaten up on - but they are
(or should be if OO fixes their stuff) worried about free software that's
competitive with theirs. Considering the obscene amounts of copying from MS
Office to OpenOffice, I definitely see lawsuits in the future.
Nah. Microsoft made a deal with Sun a few years ago.
--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.
Thufir
2008-01-14 05:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
If an OSS moron showed up at your office and offered to your boss
exactly your coding skills but insisted he would work for no pay, would
you be happy?
You seem to think that because the software is free that no one makes
money...

Wait, weren't you posting about how different corporations had FOSS
efforts and differentiating these efforts from "some guy in a basement"
efforts"?


-Thufir
DFS
2008-01-14 14:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thufir
Post by DFS
If an OSS moron showed up at your office and offered to your boss
exactly your coding skills but insisted he would work for no pay,
would you be happy?
You seem to think that because the software is free that no one makes
money...
Virtually no one.
Post by Thufir
Wait, weren't you posting about how different corporations had FOSS
efforts and differentiating these efforts from "some guy in a
basement" efforts"?
Some corps do have OSS efforts, and some produce better OSS code than the
usual crap.
Kier
2008-01-14 22:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Thufir
Post by DFS
If an OSS moron showed up at your office and offered to your boss
exactly your coding skills but insisted he would work for no pay,
would you be happy?
You seem to think that because the software is free that no one makes
money...
Virtually no one.
Nonsense.
Post by DFS
Post by Thufir
Wait, weren't you posting about how different corporations had FOSS
efforts and differentiating these efforts from "some guy in a
basement" efforts"?
Some corps do have OSS efforts, and some produce better OSS code than the
usual crap.
The 'usual' is *not* crap.
--
Kier
t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
2008-01-14 23:59:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
If an OSS moron showed up at your office and offered to your boss exactly
your coding skills but insisted he would work for no pay, would you be
happy?
I would be thrilled... but then I'm my own boss. ;)

Thad

P.S. does this mythical OSS moron have any handyman skills? I've
some renovation work I could turn him loose on also.
--
Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
all the ingredients on the label.
Linonut
2008-01-15 03:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by DFS
If an OSS moron showed up at your office and offered to your boss exactly
your coding skills but insisted he would work for no pay, would you be
happy?
I would be thrilled... but then I'm my own boss. ;)
Thad
P.S. does this mythical OSS moron have any handyman skills? I've
some renovation work I could turn him loose on also.
Somehow, DFS thinks I'd be in trouble if that dude showed up. He thinks
that the boss would toss me aside since I command a respectable salary,
and this guy would not. However, we already have too much work for the
staff. He'd welcome the guy aboard!

And so would I, if he were /not/ a moron, but a smart fellow!
--
<Kensey> RMS for President???
<RelDrgn> ...or ESR, he wants a new job ;)
Kelsey Bjarnason
2008-01-16 11:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linonut
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by DFS
If an OSS moron showed up at your office and offered to your boss exactly
your coding skills but insisted he would work for no pay, would you be
happy?
I would be thrilled... but then I'm my own boss. ;)
Thad
P.S. does this mythical OSS moron have any handyman skills? I've
some renovation work I could turn him loose on also.
Somehow, DFS thinks I'd be in trouble if that dude showed up. He thinks
that the boss would toss me aside since I command a respectable salary,
and this guy would not. However, we already have too much work for the
staff. He'd welcome the guy aboard!
And so would I, if he were /not/ a moron, but a smart fellow!
I've _yet_ to meet a software house - whether producing commercial stuff
or in-house stuff - where getting an extra coder free of charge would be
considered a bad thing, unless he was free because he just plain couldn't
write code.
DFS
2008-01-22 03:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by DFS
If an OSS moron showed up at your office and offered to your boss
exactly your coding skills but insisted he would work for no pay,
would you be happy?
I would be thrilled... but then I'm my own boss. ;)
I can hear the nervous, shaky undertone in your voice (and Linonut's). You
go in for a technical interview, but the guy cuts it short and says "Sorry,
but the last candidate is as good as you, and he'll work for free."

It happens to you enough times and pretty soon it's "Fsck Linux! Fsck free
software! I gots to get paid!"

You guys want and expect software to be free, but you want and expect to be
paid to develop it. Does not compute!
t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
2008-01-22 13:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by DFS
If an OSS moron showed up at your office and offered to your boss
exactly your coding skills but insisted he would work for no pay,
would you be happy?
I would be thrilled... but then I'm my own boss. ;)
I can hear the nervous, shaky undertone in your voice (and Linonut's). You
go in for a technical interview, but the guy cuts it short and says "Sorry,
but the last candidate is as good as you, and he'll work for free."
I just said I'm my own boss. That means when the guy goes to 'my boss' he
actually comes to me saying he will work for free. I happily put him to work
on one of my OSS projects. Where's the problem?

Thad
--
Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
all the ingredients on the label.
Linonut
2008-01-22 17:40:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by DFS
Post by t***@tux.glaci.delete-this.com
Post by DFS
If an OSS moron showed up at your office and offered to your boss
exactly your coding skills but insisted he would work for no pay,
would you be happy?
I would be thrilled... but then I'm my own boss. ;)
I can hear the nervous, shaky undertone in your voice (and Linonut's). You
go in for a technical interview, but the guy cuts it short and says "Sorry,
but the last candidate is as good as you, and he'll work for free."
I just said I'm my own boss. That means when the guy goes to 'my boss' he
actually comes to me saying he will work for free. I happily put him to work
on one of my OSS projects. Where's the problem?
The problem is DFS thinks we're supposed to get nervous over the fantasy
situation he (de)posits.
--
It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
Gregory Shearman
2008-01-07 13:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
Post by DFS
Post by Thufir
Corrupted files seem to be a speciality of Microsoft; to my knowledge
I've never run into a corrupted file in Linux.
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most basic
usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got corrupted
documents (OO 1.9.79 for Windows - embed a document in a floating
frame and try to activate the document - 100% of the time it crashed
and did a damaged document recovery the next time you tried to open
it).
Slopware is the word.
e.g open opencalc. fill a cell. save file as html, name the file
something like myfile.php. What does it do? Yup. Save myfile.php.html.
Duh!
Better?
OK, same file in calc "myfile.php.html".
Uncheck the "Automatic File Extension" box you dickhead.
Typical Shearman answer.
Of course it is. Who else did it come from.
Post by Hadron
Of course the programmer could not detect a legitimate extension? Oh no.
What's a "legitmate" extension on linux? What about
myththemes-0.20.1.tar.bz2... which is the "legitimate" extension.

There's no such fucking thing on linux. It might exist on an OS that
executes files according to file "extension". On linux a dot in a filename
is just another character.

If you want to tailor your own filename then uncheck the box. It's
blindingly simple. If you can't even handle a simple spreadsheet program
then heaven help you.
Post by Hadron
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
File. Wizards. Next. Add...
OO just *vanishes* A complete and utter instant crash.
Nice one. OO 2.2.1.
I run 2.3.1
I must say that I've NEVER had OO crash on me, not oocalc, not oowriter,
not ever.
Sure.
Never ever... I've had Kmail crash on me heaps. A real shitty program, but
oowriter? oocalc? Never... Ever...
Post by Hadron
Post by Sinister Midget
I had one crash. Back in the very, very early days. I tried to open a
Word doc I'd brought home and it crashed OOWriter. And Abiword, and
Siag (it was _that_ long ago).
So I took it back to work and let it crash Word, too.
Hey, MS crapware might be garbage. But that's no reason to prevent it
from having the same fun as all of the linux apps.
Post by Gregory Shearman
I suspect yours is running on a badly configured machine.
"Configured"? This is on Debian. I shouldnt have to "configure" anything
to stop it crashing/vanishing.
Pathetic.

As I said above, a badly configured machine.
Post by Hadron
Post by Sinister Midget
"Professionally" misconfigured. Darnho is a "professional" dontcha
know.
Listen up dickhead : I should NOT HAVE TO configure ANYTHING to stop OO
crashing. What part confuses you?
The part where you cannot even run OO successfully.

Again, pathetic.

Go back to windows and save us all the incessant whining.
--
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
chrisv
2008-01-07 13:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
Listen up dickhead : I should NOT HAVE TO configure ANYTHING to stop OO
crashing. What part confuses you?
The part where you cannot even run OO successfully.
Again, pathetic.
Go back to windows and save us all the incessant whining.
How then could the "true Linux advocate" do his advocating of Linux?
Hadron
2008-01-07 14:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
Listen up dickhead : I should NOT HAVE TO configure ANYTHING to stop OO
crashing. What part confuses you?
The part where you cannot even run OO successfully.
Good old Shearman. Thick as pig shit to the end. OO crashing in this
case is me not being able to use it. Uh huh. As I said - I hope you have
nothing to do with design and implementation of any serious SW.
Post by chrisv
Post by Gregory Shearman
Again, pathetic.
Go back to windows and save us all the incessant whining.
Incessant whining? Windows? What *ARE* you talking about? Mentioning
some slopware is not whining. It's recognising crap.
Post by chrisv
How then could the "true Linux advocate" do his advocating of Linux?
Huh? According to you I use windows anyway. How's Forte Agent BTW, OSS
"advocate" chrisv?
William Poaster
2008-01-07 14:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
Post by DFS
Post by Thufir
Corrupted files seem to be a speciality of Microsoft; to my
knowledge I've never run into a corrupted file in Linux.
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most basic
usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got corrupted
documents (OO 1.9.79 for Windows - embed a document in a floating
frame and try to activate the document - 100% of the time it crashed
and did a damaged document recovery the next time you tried to open
it).
Slopware is the word.
e.g open opencalc. fill a cell. save file as html, name the file
something like myfile.php. What does it do? Yup. Save myfile.php.html.
Duh!
Better?
OK, same file in calc "myfile.php.html".
Uncheck the "Automatic File Extension" box you dickhead.
Typical Shearman answer.
Of course it is. Who else did it come from.
Post by Hadron
Of course the programmer could not detect a legitimate extension? Oh no.
What's a "legitmate" extension on linux? What about
myththemes-0.20.1.tar.bz2... which is the "legitimate" extension.
There's no such fucking thing on linux. It might exist on an OS that
executes files according to file "extension". On linux a dot in a filename
is just another character.
If you want to tailor your own filename then uncheck the box. It's
blindingly simple. If you can't even handle a simple spreadsheet program
then heaven help you.
Post by Hadron
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
File. Wizards. Next. Add...
OO just *vanishes* A complete and utter instant crash.
Nice one. OO 2.2.1.
I run 2.3.1
I must say that I've NEVER had OO crash on me, not oocalc, not
oowriter, not ever.
Sure.
Never ever... I've had Kmail crash on me heaps. A real shitty program, but
oowriter? oocalc? Never... Ever...
Post by Hadron
Post by Sinister Midget
I had one crash. Back in the very, very early days. I tried to open a
Word doc I'd brought home and it crashed OOWriter. And Abiword, and
Siag (it was _that_ long ago).
So I took it back to work and let it crash Word, too.
Hey, MS crapware might be garbage. But that's no reason to prevent it
from having the same fun as all of the linux apps.
Post by Gregory Shearman
I suspect yours is running on a badly configured machine.
"Configured"? This is on Debian. I shouldnt have to "configure" anything
to stop it crashing/vanishing.
Pathetic.
As I said above, a badly configured machine.
Debian "Lenny" (which he claims to be running on a laptop) is *beta*.
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
Post by Sinister Midget
"Professionally" misconfigured. Darnho is a "professional" dontcha
know.
Listen up dickhead : I should NOT HAVE TO configure ANYTHING to stop OO
crashing. What part confuses you?
The part where you cannot even run OO successfully.
Again, pathetic.
It's incredible, isn't it....
Post by Gregory Shearman
Go back to windows and save us all the incessant whining.
--
<Holly>: It takes time, this. One slight error in any of my thirteen billion
calculations and we'll be blasted to smithereens. Here we go, then: 10, 9,
8, 6, 5--
<Rimmer> Holly, *where's* 7?
--Red Dwarf--
Bob Hauck
2008-01-08 01:01:27 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:20:46 +1100, Gregory Shearman
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Gregory Shearman
I must say that I've NEVER had OO crash on me, not oocalc, not oowriter,
not ever.
Sure.
Never ever... I've had Kmail crash on me heaps. A real shitty program, but
oowriter? oocalc? Never... Ever...
I once had a reproduceable crash in OOWriter. When opening a particular
Word document, it would crash every time, but would work normally on
other documents. This was on a Debian Unstable system and happened right
after the update to OOo 2.2.1-rc3.

Turns out the crash was caused by a bad package that did not have a
needed dependency. The dependency was not required in previous versions
of OOo and so it got overlooked in the new version. Since it was tagged
as "recommended" in the old version most people had it installed anyway,
which is why the upgrade worked for most people.

Anyway, that's why they call it "unstable". Stuff like that happens
sometimes. But since I actually care about Debian I reported the bug
and worked with the packager to resolve it rather than writing up a post
for COLA denoucing the instability of Debian unstable and the crappiness
of OpenOffice.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| http://www.haucks.org/
William Poaster
2008-01-08 11:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Hauck
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:20:46 +1100, Gregory Shearman
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Gregory Shearman
I must say that I've NEVER had OO crash on me, not oocalc, not
oowriter, not ever.
Sure.
Never ever... I've had Kmail crash on me heaps. A real shitty program,
but oowriter? oocalc? Never... Ever...
I once had a reproduceable crash in OOWriter. When opening a particular
Word document, it would crash every time, but would work normally on
other documents. This was on a Debian Unstable system and happened right
after the update to OOo 2.2.1-rc3.
Turns out the crash was caused by a bad package that did not have a
needed dependency. The dependency was not required in previous versions
of OOo and so it got overlooked in the new version. Since it was tagged
as "recommended" in the old version most people had it installed anyway,
which is why the upgrade worked for most people.
Anyway, that's why they call it "unstable". Stuff like that happens
sometimes. But since I actually care about Debian I reported the bug
and worked with the packager to resolve it rather than writing up a post
for COLA denoucing the instability of Debian unstable and the crappiness
of OpenOffice.
Quite right, & that's the way to do it. It's not Quack's way though, he'd
sooner whine that a *beta* version doesn't work properly. Heaven help us if
he ever installed an alpha version (which i have sometimes).
--
<Holly>: It takes time, this. One slight error in any of my thirteen billion
calculations and we'll be blasted to smithereens. Here we go, then: 10, 9,
8, 6, 5--
<Rimmer> Holly, *where's* 7?
--Red Dwarf--
Mark Kent
2008-01-08 14:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Poaster
Post by Bob Hauck
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:20:46 +1100, Gregory Shearman
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Gregory Shearman
I must say that I've NEVER had OO crash on me, not oocalc, not
oowriter, not ever.
Sure.
Never ever... I've had Kmail crash on me heaps. A real shitty program,
but oowriter? oocalc? Never... Ever...
I once had a reproduceable crash in OOWriter. When opening a particular
Word document, it would crash every time, but would work normally on
other documents. This was on a Debian Unstable system and happened right
after the update to OOo 2.2.1-rc3.
Turns out the crash was caused by a bad package that did not have a
needed dependency. The dependency was not required in previous versions
of OOo and so it got overlooked in the new version. Since it was tagged
as "recommended" in the old version most people had it installed anyway,
which is why the upgrade worked for most people.
Anyway, that's why they call it "unstable". Stuff like that happens
sometimes. But since I actually care about Debian I reported the bug
and worked with the packager to resolve it rather than writing up a post
for COLA denoucing the instability of Debian unstable and the crappiness
of OpenOffice.
Quite right, & that's the way to do it. It's not Quack's way though, he'd
sooner whine that a *beta* version doesn't work properly. Heaven help us if
he ever installed an alpha version (which i have sometimes).
One of the particularly wierd misapprehensions of our trolls is that
they seem to think that bugs in Open Source programmes are a problem,
rather than useful information which will be used to fix the next
release. They're so firmly fixed in their Microsoft Proprietary model,
where bugs might not get fixed for years, that they see them as a
major problem.

As is said above, the proper thing to do is to report the problem to the
developer involved.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
William Poaster
2008-01-08 16:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
Post by William Poaster
Post by Bob Hauck
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:20:46 +1100, Gregory Shearman
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Gregory Shearman
I must say that I've NEVER had OO crash on me, not oocalc, not
oowriter, not ever.
Sure.
Never ever... I've had Kmail crash on me heaps. A real shitty program,
but oowriter? oocalc? Never... Ever...
I once had a reproduceable crash in OOWriter. When opening a particular
Word document, it would crash every time, but would work normally on
other documents. This was on a Debian Unstable system and happened right
after the update to OOo 2.2.1-rc3.
Turns out the crash was caused by a bad package that did not have a
needed dependency. The dependency was not required in previous versions
of OOo and so it got overlooked in the new version. Since it was tagged
as "recommended" in the old version most people had it installed anyway,
which is why the upgrade worked for most people.
Anyway, that's why they call it "unstable". Stuff like that happens
sometimes. But since I actually care about Debian I reported the bug
and worked with the packager to resolve it rather than writing up a post
for COLA denoucing the instability of Debian unstable and the crappiness
of OpenOffice.
Quite right, & that's the way to do it. It's not Quack's way though,
he'd sooner whine that a *beta* version doesn't work properly. Heaven
help us if he ever installed an alpha version (which i have sometimes).
One of the particularly wierd misapprehensions of our trolls is that
they seem to think that bugs in Open Source programmes are a problem,
rather than useful information which will be used to fix the next
release. They're so firmly fixed in their Microsoft Proprietary model,
where bugs might not get fixed for years, that they see them as a
major problem.
As is said above, the proper thing to do is to report the problem to the
developer involved.
In the case of kubuntu, I usually report them to 'launchpad'
https://bugs.launchpad.net/distros

If it's PCLinuxOS, I'll report bugs to texstar.

Some OSs, like FreeBSD, PC-BSD etc, are usually done via mailing lists. As
are some linux applications like Pan, in which you can talk directly on the
list with the developers, & even request something to be included. :-)
--
<Holly>: It takes time, this. One slight error in any of my thirteen billion
calculations and we'll be blasted to smithereens. Here we go, then: 10, 9,
8, 6, 5--
<Rimmer> Holly, *where's* 7?
--Red Dwarf--
Thufir
2008-01-14 05:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
One of the particularly wierd misapprehensions of our trolls is that
they seem to think that bugs in Open Source programmes are a problem,
rather than useful information which will be used to fix the next
release.
I wonder if these are the same people who run Vista beta?


-Thufir
Mark Kent
2008-01-15 09:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thufir
Post by Mark Kent
One of the particularly wierd misapprehensions of our trolls is that
they seem to think that bugs in Open Source programmes are a problem,
rather than useful information which will be used to fix the next
release.
I wonder if these are the same people who run Vista beta?
It could explain their confusion, I suppose.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
High Plains Thumper
2008-01-07 11:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Shearman
Slopware is the word. e.g open opencalc. fill a cell. save
file as html, name the file something like myfile.php. What
does it do? Yup. Save myfile.php.html. Duh! Better? OK, same
file in calc "myfile.php.html".
Uncheck the "Automatic File Extension" box you dickhead.
File. Wizards. Next. Add... OO just *vanishes* A complete
and utter instant crash. Nice one. OO 2.2.1.
I run 2.3.1
I must say that I've NEVER had OO crash on me, not oocalc, not
oowriter, not ever. I suspect yours is running on a badly
configured machine.
I have never had it crash on me also. That goes for both Linux
and Windows versions. Of course when one uses terms like
"slopware" already is an opinionated tip off.

I am using 2.3.0.

Seeing the source of these complaints is no wonder, signs of
incompetent trolling. Need I say any more?
--
HPT
Hadron
2008-01-07 12:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Shearman
Slopware is the word. e.g open opencalc. fill a cell. save
file as html, name the file something like myfile.php. What
does it do? Yup. Save myfile.php.html. Duh! Better? OK, same
file in calc "myfile.php.html".
Uncheck the "Automatic File Extension" box you dickhead.
File. Wizards. Next. Add... OO just *vanishes* A complete
and utter instant crash. Nice one. OO 2.2.1.
I run 2.3.1
I must say that I've NEVER had OO crash on me, not oocalc, not
oowriter, not ever. I suspect yours is running on a badly
configured machine.
I have never had it crash on me also. That goes for both Linux and
Windows versions. Of course when one uses terms like "slopware"
already is an opinionated tip off.
I am using 2.3.0.
Seeing the source of these complaints is no wonder, signs of
incompetent trolling. Need I say any more?
Only in COLA would you deny something as infamously buggy as OO as crash
proof.

Morons.
Peter Köhlmann
2008-01-07 12:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Gregory Shearman
Slopware is the word. e.g open opencalc. fill a cell. save
file as html, name the file something like myfile.php. What
does it do? Yup. Save myfile.php.html. Duh! Better? OK, same
file in calc "myfile.php.html".
Uncheck the "Automatic File Extension" box you dickhead.
File. Wizards. Next. Add... OO just *vanishes* A complete
and utter instant crash. Nice one. OO 2.2.1.
I run 2.3.1
I must say that I've NEVER had OO crash on me, not oocalc, not
oowriter, not ever. I suspect yours is running on a badly
configured machine.
I have never had it crash on me also. That goes for both Linux and
Windows versions. Of course when one uses terms like "slopware"
already is an opinionated tip off.
I am using 2.3.0.
Seeing the source of these complaints is no wonder, signs of
incompetent trolling. Need I say any more?
Only in COLA would you deny something as infamously buggy as OO as crash
proof.
Morons.
Only "true linux advocates" like you would claim that OO crashes a lot

I personally have never had a OO crash ever. But several instances of MS
Word crashing

Tell you what, Hadron: What you are reporting about linux and OSS software
has not even so much credibility as any DFS lie
--
Ogden's Law:
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
Linonut
2008-01-07 13:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Only in COLA would you deny something as infamously buggy as OO as crash
proof.
Only "true linux advocates" like you would claim that OO crashes a lot
Hadron is, simply put, a lying son-of-a-bitch.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
I personally have never had a OO crash ever. But several instances of MS
Word crashing
Tell you what, Hadron: What you are reporting about linux and OSS software
has not even so much credibility as any DFS lie
The only time I've had OO crash is on Word documents, and that was on a
64-bit system.

Microsoft Word is cancerous.
--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.
Hadron
2008-01-07 13:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Only in COLA would you deny something as infamously buggy as OO as crash
proof.
Only "true linux advocates" like you would claim that OO crashes a lot
Hadron is, simply put, a lying son-of-a-bitch.
And you're a schizophrenic, Windows using, Windows programming loony
with a crappy sense of humour.
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
I personally have never had a OO crash ever. But several instances of MS
Word crashing
Tell you what, Hadron: What you are reporting about linux and OSS software
has not even so much credibility as any DFS lie
The only time I've had OO crash is on Word documents, and that was on a
64-bit system.
Surely not. According to Peter Koehlmann 64 bit works "perfectly".

ps, My Debian machine IS a 64 bit machine. Admittedly, the 64 bit
performance of Debian and Ubuntu was so crap and unreliable that I went
back to a 32 bit install. Except for OO, pretty much rock solid.
Post by Linonut
Microsoft Word is cancerous.
Except we're discussing OO. And nothing to do with MS formats either.

I wonder how many of the COLA "advocates" have tried to reproduce what I
said? I bet NONE have.
Peter Köhlmann
2008-01-07 13:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Only in COLA would you deny something as infamously buggy as OO as
crash proof.
Only "true linux advocates" like you would claim that OO crashes a lot
Hadron is, simply put, a lying son-of-a-bitch.
And you're a schizophrenic, Windows using, Windows programming loony
with a crappy sense of humour.
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
I personally have never had a OO crash ever. But several instances of MS
Word crashing
Tell you what, Hadron: What you are reporting about linux and OSS
software has not even so much credibility as any DFS lie
The only time I've had OO crash is on Word documents, and that was on a
64-bit system.
Surely not. According to Peter Koehlmann 64 bit works "perfectly".
No. I have said that it works without problems
That is not the same thing as "perfect". Quit lying about other peoples
words
Post by Hadron
ps, My Debian machine IS a 64 bit machine. Admittedly, the 64 bit
performance of Debian and Ubuntu was so crap and unreliable that I went
back to a 32 bit install.
Naturally *your* 64bit systems were crappy and unreliable, "kernel hacker"
Hadron Quark
Post by Hadron
Except for OO, pretty much rock solid.
Naturally
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Microsoft Word is cancerous.
Except we're discussing OO. And nothing to do with MS formats either.
It has. The only problems with OO I have ever heard of were with
Word-format. I never had any
Post by Hadron
I wonder how many of the COLA "advocates" have tried to reproduce what I
said? I bet NONE have.
*Reproduce* what exactly? You have not given any examples which lead to a
problem here. Your "problem" with the "wrongly" named (which *you* did) and
then loading in calc leading to "disappearing OO" does *not* happen here.

The "problems" you are reporting are *your* problems, and it seems yours
alone
Let me translate it for you: You have made them up. All of them. You are
lying. I'd rather believe DumbFullShit than any claim coming from you
--
Support your local Search and Rescue unit -- get lost.
William Poaster
2008-01-07 14:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Only in COLA would you deny something as infamously buggy as OO as
crash proof.
Only "true linux advocates" like you would claim that OO crashes a lot
Hadron is, simply put, a lying son-of-a-bitch.
And you're a schizophrenic, Windows using, Windows programming loony
with a crappy sense of humour.
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
I personally have never had a OO crash ever. But several instances of
MS Word crashing
Tell you what, Hadron: What you are reporting about linux and OSS
software has not even so much credibility as any DFS lie
The only time I've had OO crash is on Word documents, and that was on a
64-bit system.
Surely not. According to Peter Koehlmann 64 bit works "perfectly".
No. I have said that it works without problems
That is not the same thing as "perfect". Quit lying about other peoples
words
Post by Hadron
ps, My Debian machine IS a 64 bit machine. Admittedly, the 64 bit
performance of Debian and Ubuntu was so crap and unreliable that I went
back to a 32 bit install.
Naturally *your* 64bit systems were crappy and unreliable, "kernel hacker"
Hadron Quark
And what he *failed* to mention was that IIRC he was running Hardy Heron
(Ubuntu) & Lenny (Debian) BOTH of which are *beta* versions. But whines &
complains that they were crappy and unreliable. JHC, the guy's a luser.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Except for OO, pretty much rock solid.
Naturally
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Microsoft Word is cancerous.
Except we're discussing OO. And nothing to do with MS formats either.
It has. The only problems with OO I have ever heard of were with
Word-format. I never had any
Post by Hadron
I wonder how many of the COLA "advocates" have tried to reproduce what I
said? I bet NONE have.
*Reproduce* what exactly? You have not given any examples which lead to a
problem here. Your "problem" with the "wrongly" named (which *you* did)
and then loading in calc leading to "disappearing OO" does *not* happen
here.
The "problems" you are reporting are *your* problems, and it seems yours
alone
Let me translate it for you: You have made them up. All of them. You are
lying. I'd rather believe DumbFullShit than any claim coming from you
Amen.
--
<Holly>: It takes time, this. One slight error in any of my thirteen billion
calculations and we'll be blasted to smithereens. Here we go, then: 10, 9,
8, 6, 5--
<Rimmer> Holly, *where's* 7?
--Red Dwarf--
Linonut
2008-01-07 16:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
ps, My Debian machine IS a 64 bit machine. Admittedly, the 64 bit
performance of Debian and Ubuntu was so crap and unreliable that I went
back to a 32 bit install.
Naturally *your* 64bit systems were crappy and unreliable, "kernel hacker"
Hadron Quark
That's pretty funny. I also use Debian for my 64-bit system, and I
absolutely love it.

Is it perfect? No.

But it works very well, and at tasks dealing with file I/O, this 64-bit
Debian GNU/Linux system with 4 Gb of RAM is blazingly fast. Not bad for
a $700 investment.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Except we're discussing OO. And nothing to do with MS formats either.
It has. The only problems with OO I have ever heard of were with
Word-format. I never had any
Post by Hadron
I wonder how many of the COLA "advocates" have tried to reproduce what I
said? I bet NONE have.
Let me translate it for you: You have made them up. All of them. You are
lying.
I wouldn't be surprised at all. He's his own reality-distortion field,
and he has a very unpleasant persona, to boot.
--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.
Hadron
2008-01-07 17:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
ps, My Debian machine IS a 64 bit machine. Admittedly, the 64 bit
performance of Debian and Ubuntu was so crap and unreliable that I went
back to a 32 bit install.
Naturally *your* 64bit systems were crappy and unreliable, "kernel hacker"
Hadron Quark
That's pretty funny. I also use Debian for my 64-bit system, and I
absolutely love it.
Is it perfect? No.
More to the point, is it as perfect as the 32 bit install? Answer : no.

As usual you "advocates" do Linux no service whatsoever. Fact : the 64
bit install is not as comprehensive and reliable in many settings as the
32 bit. For *obvious* reasons to anyone with half a clue on the
necessary porting and code checks required for 64 bit compilations.
Post by Linonut
But it works very well, and at tasks dealing with file I/O, this 64-bit
Debian GNU/Linux system with 4 Gb of RAM is blazingly fast. Not bad for
a $700 investment.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Except we're discussing OO. And nothing to do with MS formats either.
It has. The only problems with OO I have ever heard of were with
Word-format. I never had any
Post by Hadron
I wonder how many of the COLA "advocates" have tried to reproduce what I
said? I bet NONE have.
Let me translate it for you: You have made them up. All of them. You are
lying.
I wouldn't be surprised at all. He's his own reality-distortion field,
and he has a very unpleasant persona, to boot.
This from Linoliar? The man who insults more people per day then Chubby
Brown or Bernard Manning combined?

So the bottom line you two faced, schizo is that you think there are no
64 bit issues which make it less reliable in certain situations than 32
bit? Come on. Back up your big mouth for once. And answer the questions
posed - not the ones you WANT to reply to.
Peter Köhlmann
2008-01-07 17:31:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
ps, My Debian machine IS a 64 bit machine. Admittedly, the 64 bit
performance of Debian and Ubuntu was so crap and unreliable that I went
back to a 32 bit install.
Naturally *your* 64bit systems were crappy and unreliable, "kernel
hacker" Hadron Quark
That's pretty funny. I also use Debian for my 64-bit system, and I
absolutely love it.
Is it perfect? No.
More to the point, is it as perfect as the 32 bit install? Answer : no.
As usual you "advocates" do Linux no service whatsoever. Fact : the 64
bit install is not as comprehensive and reliable in many settings as the
32 bit.
So you claim. My experience is different
Post by Hadron
For *obvious* reasons to anyone with half a clue on the
necessary porting and code checks required for 64 bit compilations.
What "necessary porting and code checks required for 64 bit compilations"
are you blubbering about, "kernel hacker" Hadron Quark?

Linux was already 64bit for several *years* before the AMD64 was there. The
code was already 64bit-ready for a *long* time.
And the 64bit AMD-code was done by SuSE working closely with AMD in Dresden

You actually know shit about practically anything linux related

But naturally the 64bit-linux code simply *has* to be inferior. After all,
your beloved wintendo is exceptionally crappy in 64bits

< snip more Quark bile >
--
Ogden's Law:
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
Linonut
2008-01-07 19:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Is it perfect? No.
More to the point, is it as perfect as the 32 bit install? Answer : no.
As usual you "advocates" do Linux no service whatsoever. Fact : the 64
bit install is not as comprehensive and reliable in many settings as the
32 bit.
So you claim. My experience is different
As usual, Hadron exaggerates or distorts my point.

The 64-bit install is about 99% as comprehensive as the 32-bit debian
install. What, only 200 packages out of 26,000 not present?

Hadron can't even count!

Reliability? Apart from that one OpenOffice Word doc problem, and
perhaps a little bit of slowness in Nvidia's proprietary driver,
everything is fine and reliable on 64-bit.

Unlike Hadron, I have no urge whatsoever to set that machine back to
32-bit.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
For *obvious* reasons to anyone with half a clue on the
necessary porting and code checks required for 64 bit compilations.
What "necessary porting and code checks required for 64 bit compilations"
are you blubbering about, "kernel hacker" Hadron Quark?
Linux was already 64bit for several *years* before the AMD64 was there. The
code was already 64bit-ready for a *long* time.
And the 64bit AMD-code was done by SuSE working closely with AMD in Dresden
You actually know shit about practically anything linux related
Indeed.
Post by Peter Köhlmann
But naturally the 64bit-linux code simply *has* to be inferior. After all,
your beloved wintendo is exceptionally crappy in 64bits
That's okay, Windows will get to where Linux is now in a few years with
64-bit support.
--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.
Hadron
2008-01-07 19:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Is it perfect? No.
More to the point, is it as perfect as the 32 bit install? Answer : no.
As usual you "advocates" do Linux no service whatsoever. Fact : the 64
bit install is not as comprehensive and reliable in many settings as the
32 bit.
So you claim. My experience is different
As usual, Hadron exaggerates or distorts my point.
The 64-bit install is about 99% as comprehensive as the 32-bit debian
install. What, only 200 packages out of 26,000 not present?
Hadron can't even count!
Err, Hadron didn't try and count because hadron is smart enough to
realise that it makes no fucking difference if its 200 or 20000 if that
number contains stuff critical to ones own needs.
Post by Linonut
Reliability? Apart from that one OpenOffice Word doc problem, and
perhaps a little bit of slowness in Nvidia's proprietary driver,
everything is fine and reliable on 64-bit.
Liar.
Post by Linonut
Unlike Hadron, I have no urge whatsoever to set that machine back to
32-bit.
Good for you Liarnut. of course a quick google shows others do have issues.
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
For *obvious* reasons to anyone with half a clue on the
necessary porting and code checks required for 64 bit compilations.
What "necessary porting and code checks required for 64 bit compilations"
are you blubbering about, "kernel hacker" Hadron Quark?
You don't know? You dont realise that all sorts of potential issues
arise with regard to C if its not 100% standards compliant? You dont
realise that a lot of code is coded assuming 32 bit?

Or hang on, did you think that the delay in 64 bit support for so many
packages was simply that someone forgot to compile them?

You had better stick to talking other stuff you dont know about like
swap files, or anti aliasing.

Poor Peter. How embarrassing.
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Linux was already 64bit for several *years* before the AMD64 was there. The
code was already 64bit-ready for a *long* time.
And the 64bit AMD-code was done by SuSE working closely with AMD in Dresden
You actually know shit about practically anything linux related
Linux kernel is not OSS you freak.
Post by Linonut
Indeed.
Liarnut : you are a schizo. Get help.
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
But naturally the 64bit-linux code simply *has* to be inferior. After all,
your beloved wintendo is exceptionally crappy in 64bits
That's okay, Windows will get to where Linux is now in a few years with
64-bit support.
Why are you talking about Windows? Oh yes! You and Peter develop SW for
it!

Hypocrites.
DFS
2008-01-07 19:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Linux kernel is not OSS you freak.
Typo in there? (not the 'freak' part)
Hadron
2008-01-07 23:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Hadron
Linux kernel is not OSS you freak.
Typo in there? (not the 'freak' part)
Actually, no. I dropped half the line. I meant "OSS application SW". It
would have been clear even to Peter to what i was referring even with
that glitch.
Linonut
2008-01-08 01:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Hadron
Linux kernel is not OSS you freak.
Typo in there? (not the 'freak' part)
DFS, can you tell Hadron I have him plonked? I only see his
unpleasantness on the rebound.
--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.
Hadron
2008-01-08 01:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linonut
Post by DFS
Post by Hadron
Linux kernel is not OSS you freak.
Typo in there? (not the 'freak' part)
DFS, can you tell Hadron I have him plonked? I only see his
unpleasantness on the rebound.
I can see yours all the time you schizo fruitcake.

You should read a few of your own posts if you want to discuss
"unpleasant".
Peter Köhlmann
2008-01-07 20:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Is it perfect? No.
More to the point, is it as perfect as the 32 bit install? Answer : no.
As usual you "advocates" do Linux no service whatsoever. Fact : the 64
bit install is not as comprehensive and reliable in many settings as
the 32 bit.
So you claim. My experience is different
As usual, Hadron exaggerates or distorts my point.
The 64-bit install is about 99% as comprehensive as the 32-bit debian
install. What, only 200 packages out of 26,000 not present?
Hadron can't even count!
Err, Hadron didn't try and count because hadron is smart enough to
realise that it makes no fucking difference if its 200 or 20000 if that
number contains stuff critical to ones own needs.
Have you ever heard that you can run 32bit linux apps on a 64bit system,
Hadron Quark?

Why not, "kernel hacker" Hadron?

Because then you would know that those not yet 64bit (who is hindering you
to compile them yourself, "kernel hacker" Hadron?) which are "critical to
ones own needs" can just be installed and run
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Reliability? Apart from that one OpenOffice Word doc problem, and
perhaps a little bit of slowness in Nvidia's proprietary driver,
everything is fine and reliable on 64-bit.
Liar.
Because *you* say so? There are more than a few people running 64bit linux.
*You* claim it is unreliable. Strange, as you are so alone in that claim.
Linux in 64bits exists since several years by now. Don't you think that
nearly all kinks would have been ironed out by now? After all, this is not
windows-64. Those guys are really pathetic and incompetent. Just look at
the dismal state of drivers. You can count the number of 64-bit-apps and
still have fingers left. *That* is incompetency and unreliable crap. It is
not tested very well because nobody dares to run that filthy garbage.

Not the case with linux
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Unlike Hadron, I have no urge whatsoever to set that machine back to
32-bit.
Good for you Liarnut. of course a quick google shows others do have issues.
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
For *obvious* reasons to anyone with half a clue on the
necessary porting and code checks required for 64 bit compilations.
What "necessary porting and code checks required for 64 bit
compilations" are you blubbering about, "kernel hacker" Hadron Quark?
You don't know? You dont realise that all sorts of potential issues
arise with regard to C if its not 100% standards compliant? You dont
realise that a lot of code is coded assuming 32 bit?
I am certain you can point us to those "lots of linux code" which assumes
32bits, right, "kernel hacker" Hadron Quark?
Post by Hadron
Or hang on, did you think that the delay in 64 bit support for so many
packages was simply that someone forgot to compile them?
So tell us, how many packages are 32bit only, poor schmuck
Post by Hadron
You had better stick to talking other stuff you dont know about like
swap files, or anti aliasing.
Poor Peter. How embarrassing.
Again, tell us all, Hadron. This got to be interesting
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Linux was already 64bit for several *years* before the AMD64 was there.
The code was already 64bit-ready for a *long* time.
And the 64bit AMD-code was done by SuSE working closely with AMD in Dresden
You actually know shit about practically anything linux related
Linux kernel is not OSS you freak.
Naturally not, Hadron Quark.
It is all MS code, all pilfered and stolen. Ms told you so

Idiot
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Indeed.
Liarnut : you are a schizo. Get help.
Because you are saying so?
It would indicate extremely well mental health on linonuts side
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
But naturally the 64bit-linux code simply *has* to be inferior. After
all, your beloved wintendo is exceptionally crappy in 64bits
That's okay, Windows will get to where Linux is now in a few years with
64-bit support.
Why are you talking about Windows? Oh yes! You and Peter develop SW for
it!
Hypocrites.
Pray tell, Hadron Quark: What is "hypocrisy" when people are professional
enough to work with more than one platform?

Do you mean perhaps "jealousy"? Because thats what you are. You are just a
wannabee linux user. In reality you are a windows gamer only,
"true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X
specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger
professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time coordinator"
and "email sage" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian
O'Leary
--
Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.
Linonut
2008-01-08 01:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Liarnut : you are a schizo. Get help.
Because you are saying so?
It would indicate extremely well mental health on linonuts side
Besides, why would listen to any goofus who called me "Liarnut"?

I got used to the sticks'n'stones crap when I was a tot.

Hadron's thrashing.
--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.
Hadron
2008-01-08 01:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Liarnut : you are a schizo. Get help.
Because you are saying so?
It would indicate extremely well mental health on linonuts side
Besides, why would listen to any goofus who called me "Liarnut"?
Did you mean DooFuS and then realised you were being schizo again?

Whoops!
Jim Richardson
2008-01-07 22:03:52 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:35:36 +0100,
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Is it perfect? No.
More to the point, is it as perfect as the 32 bit install? Answer : no.
As usual you "advocates" do Linux no service whatsoever. Fact : the 64
bit install is not as comprehensive and reliable in many settings as the
32 bit.
So you claim. My experience is different
As usual, Hadron exaggerates or distorts my point.
The 64-bit install is about 99% as comprehensive as the 32-bit debian
install. What, only 200 packages out of 26,000 not present?
Hadron can't even count!
Err, Hadron didn't try and count because hadron is smart enough to
realise that it makes no fucking difference if its 200 or 20000 if that
number contains stuff critical to ones own needs.
Like what ?
Post by Hadron
Post by Linonut
Reliability? Apart from that one OpenOffice Word doc problem, and
perhaps a little bit of slowness in Nvidia's proprietary driver,
everything is fine and reliable on 64-bit.
Liar.
Post by Linonut
Unlike Hadron, I have no urge whatsoever to set that machine back to
32-bit.
Good for you Liarnut. of course a quick google shows others do have issues.
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Post by Hadron
For *obvious* reasons to anyone with half a clue on the
necessary porting and code checks required for 64 bit compilations.
What "necessary porting and code checks required for 64 bit compilations"
are you blubbering about, "kernel hacker" Hadron Quark?
You don't know? You dont realise that all sorts of potential issues
arise with regard to C if its not 100% standards compliant? You dont
realise that a lot of code is coded assuming 32 bit?
Or hang on, did you think that the delay in 64 bit support for so many
packages was simply that someone forgot to compile them?
You had better stick to talking other stuff you dont know about like
swap files, or anti aliasing.
Poor Peter. How embarrassing.
Post by Linonut
Post by Peter Köhlmann
Linux was already 64bit for several *years* before the AMD64 was there. The
code was already 64bit-ready for a *long* time.
And the 64bit AMD-code was done by SuSE working closely with AMD in Dresden
You actually know shit about practically anything linux related
Linux kernel is not OSS you freak.
of course it is! What? you think it's closed source?



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHgqHId90bcYOAWPYRAgg2AKCeTahAL8BfPpN6CJteDxId3DaWEQCgtyOy
GyxeiHyNf4soAqF42iPhA+8=
=HE1P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Disclaimer: Elvis would agree with me, but he's got dirt in his mouth.
Bob Hauck
2008-01-07 21:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
You don't know? You dont realise that all sorts of potential issues
arise with regard to C if its not 100% standards compliant? You dont
realise that a lot of code is coded assuming 32 bit?
You do realize that a lot of open source code also runs on Solaris and
non-Intel Linux platforms that have been 64-bit for ages, right? Most
of the 32-bit and endian issues have been well wrung-out for a while.

That's why out of the tens of thousands of packages in Debian, only a
relative handful of them aren't available on AMD-64. They did not start
from scratch with no 64-bit support until AMD innovated it.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Jim Richardson
2008-01-07 23:02:34 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:25:21 -0500,
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Hadron
You don't know? You dont realise that all sorts of potential issues
arise with regard to C if its not 100% standards compliant? You dont
realise that a lot of code is coded assuming 32 bit?
You do realize that a lot of open source code also runs on Solaris and
non-Intel Linux platforms that have been 64-bit for ages, right? Most
of the 32-bit and endian issues have been well wrung-out for a while.
That's why out of the tens of thousands of packages in Debian, only a
relative handful of them aren't available on AMD-64. They did not start
from scratch with no 64-bit support until AMD innovated it.
Serverside, it's been handled for damn near a decade. Some of the edge
desktop stuff, like the flash plugin, opera, the *closed source* stuff
is where the few problems there are, reside. Hadron knows this, but
pretends to be unaware.




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHgq+Kd90bcYOAWPYRAkxuAJsEfCa6hXv+nA3UzskrMn1fVYEujACcCO4C
Qk/METwiqCymiYO1J+g1hxc=
=OwAK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If you can tell the difference between good advice and bad advice,
you probably don't need advice.
Hadron
2008-01-07 23:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Richardson
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:25:21 -0500,
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Hadron
You don't know? You dont realise that all sorts of potential issues
arise with regard to C if its not 100% standards compliant? You dont
realise that a lot of code is coded assuming 32 bit?
You do realize that a lot of open source code also runs on Solaris and
"a lot" <> "all

Jesus H Christ on a bike. What is wrong with you. Why do you have to be
so in denial all the time?!?!?!?

You *KNOW* there have been issues with 64 bit.

Skype, video, flash to name a few. Sure a lot of closed source. A lot of
open source too.
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Bob Hauck
non-Intel Linux platforms that have been 64-bit for ages, right? Most
of the 32-bit and endian issues have been well wrung-out for a while.
That's why out of the tens of thousands of packages in Debian, only a
relative handful of them aren't available on AMD-64. They did not start
from scratch with no 64-bit support until AMD innovated it.
Serverside, it's been handled for damn near a decade. Some of the edge
desktop stuff, like the flash plugin, opera, the *closed source* stuff
is where the few problems there are, reside. Hadron knows this, but
pretends to be unaware.
No. Hadron is aware of this. It's a developing situation though.

Why, oh why do some of you have to be so in denial? I will never
understand this mad desire to deny issues.
Jim Richardson
2008-01-07 23:53:06 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:10:51 +0100,
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:25:21 -0500,
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Hadron
You don't know? You dont realise that all sorts of potential issues
arise with regard to C if its not 100% standards compliant? You dont
realise that a lot of code is coded assuming 32 bit?
You do realize that a lot of open source code also runs on Solaris and
"a lot" <> "all
Jesus H Christ on a bike. What is wrong with you. Why do you have to be
so in denial all the time?!?!?!?
You *KNOW* there have been issues with 64 bit.
Skype, video, flash to name a few. Sure a lot of closed source. A lot of
open source too.
could you give me some of these open source examples?
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Bob Hauck
non-Intel Linux platforms that have been 64-bit for ages, right? Most
of the 32-bit and endian issues have been well wrung-out for a while.
That's why out of the tens of thousands of packages in Debian, only a
relative handful of them aren't available on AMD-64. They did not start
from scratch with no 64-bit support until AMD innovated it.
Serverside, it's been handled for damn near a decade. Some of the edge
desktop stuff, like the flash plugin, opera, the *closed source* stuff
is where the few problems there are, reside. Hadron knows this, but
pretends to be unaware.
No. Hadron is aware of this. It's a developing situation though.
Why, oh why do some of you have to be so in denial? I will never
understand this mad desire to deny issues.
it's not a matter of denying issues, it's a matter of being accurate
about them.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHgrtid90bcYOAWPYRAhYSAKDCfwX4jGlGvc3jHO/p8BBx/pSNhACffmsA
ZRYmO9Z2cNR0EIy7TVWeFg0=
=HbZ5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If your voting could really change things, Congress
would make it illegal.
Hadron
2008-01-08 00:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Richardson
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:10:51 +0100,
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:25:21 -0500,
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Hadron
You don't know? You dont realise that all sorts of potential issues
arise with regard to C if its not 100% standards compliant? You dont
realise that a lot of code is coded assuming 32 bit?
You do realize that a lot of open source code also runs on Solaris and
"a lot" <> "all
Jesus H Christ on a bike. What is wrong with you. Why do you have to be
so in denial all the time?!?!?!?
You *KNOW* there have been issues with 64 bit.
Skype, video, flash to name a few. Sure a lot of closed source. A lot of
open source too.
could you give me some of these open source examples?
No. Go and google it up yourself. For all I know many now work. Do your
own home work and stop being such a blind zealot/fanboy.
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Bob Hauck
non-Intel Linux platforms that have been 64-bit for ages, right? Most
of the 32-bit and endian issues have been well wrung-out for a while.
That's why out of the tens of thousands of packages in Debian, only a
relative handful of them aren't available on AMD-64. They did not start
from scratch with no 64-bit support until AMD innovated it.
Serverside, it's been handled for damn near a decade. Some of the edge
desktop stuff, like the flash plugin, opera, the *closed source* stuff
is where the few problems there are, reside. Hadron knows this, but
pretends to be unaware.
No. Hadron is aware of this. It's a developing situation though.
Why, oh why do some of you have to be so in denial? I will never
understand this mad desire to deny issues.
it's not a matter of denying issues, it's a matter of being accurate
about them.
And it is NOT accurate to say that 64bit desktop systems have no
issues. Since they clearly do. Every time I think you are a little above
the Peter Koehlmann's and 7's of this world you go and ruin it.

I have NO doubt that the AMD64 bit platform is a LOT better than when I
tried it last. Linux is always improving at an impressive rate. And who
knows maybe I might change over again soon. But I'm in no hurry. My two
home machines running 32 bit Debian (one etch the other lenny) are
excellent. The Lenny has had a few glitches from updates but any
problems are soon fixed. My Etch (old pc) is (as we speak) finalised to
run exim4/courier (I dropped dovecot) and is my main mailserver. I
access my email now by connecting to my own domain using IMAP. rsync
keeps a backup of my maildir from the mailserver to my development
machine which then, in turn, uses rsnapshot to keep a full system copy
on a permanently attached USB drive. Awesome stuff. About to move my web
and associated mysql db to the mailserver too.

Now, try and notice not ONE mention of Windows. I am NOT a Windows
"shill". I have stated repeatedly that I ONLY use windows for games now.

Disagreeing with wankers that pollute COLA is not shilling windows. It
is being honest. Siding with Spamowitz, Kent, 7, High Plains Rafael,
Rexx "King maker" Ballard and their ilk does nothing for Linux. It just
makes the people who do it look like a bunch of blind buffoons in the
valley of the one eyed king.
Peter Köhlmann
2008-01-08 00:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:10:51 +0100,
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:25:21 -0500,
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:35:36 +0100, Hadron
Post by Hadron
You don't know? You dont realise that all sorts of potential issues
arise with regard to C if its not 100% standards compliant? You dont
realise that a lot of code is coded assuming 32 bit?
You do realize that a lot of open source code also runs on Solaris and
"a lot" <> "all
Jesus H Christ on a bike. What is wrong with you. Why do you have to be
so in denial all the time?!?!?!?
You *KNOW* there have been issues with 64 bit.
Skype, video, flash to name a few. Sure a lot of closed source. A lot of
open source too.
could you give me some of these open source examples?
No. Go and google it up yourself.
Translation: You made it up. Completely
Post by Hadron
For all I know many now work. Do your
own home work and stop being such a blind zealot/fanboy.
Poor Hadron Quark
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
non-Intel Linux platforms that have been 64-bit for ages, right? Most
of the 32-bit and endian issues have been well wrung-out for a while.
That's why out of the tens of thousands of packages in Debian, only a
relative handful of them aren't available on AMD-64. They did not
start from scratch with no 64-bit support until AMD innovated it.
Serverside, it's been handled for damn near a decade. Some of the edge
desktop stuff, like the flash plugin, opera, the *closed source* stuff
is where the few problems there are, reside. Hadron knows this, but
pretends to be unaware.
No. Hadron is aware of this. It's a developing situation though.
Why, oh why do some of you have to be so in denial? I will never
understand this mad desire to deny issues.
it's not a matter of denying issues, it's a matter of being accurate
about them.
And it is NOT accurate to say that 64bit desktop systems have no
issues. Since they clearly do.
They do? You have links for that claim of yours?
Post by Hadron
Every time I think you are a little above
the Peter Koehlmann's and 7's of this world you go and ruin it.
Poor little Haron
Post by Hadron
I have NO doubt that the AMD64 bit platform is a LOT better than when I
tried it last.
Naturally
Post by Hadron
Linux is always improving at an impressive rate.
It is
Post by Hadron
And who knows maybe I might change over again soon. But I'm in no hurry.
Naturally not. After all, Mr. Ballmer has not told you to switch now
Post by Hadron
My two home machines running 32 bit Debian (one etch the other lenny) are
excellent.
Just short of. OO is slightly below MS Office, isn't it?
Post by Hadron
The Lenny has had a few glitches from updates but any
problems are soon fixed. My Etch (old pc) is (as we speak) finalised to
run exim4/courier (I dropped dovecot) and is my main mailserver. I
access my email now by connecting to my own domain using IMAP.
Naturally: Nobody expected less of you
Post by Hadron
rsync keeps a backup of my maildir from the mailserver to my development
machine which then, in turn, uses rsnapshot to keep a full system copy
on a permanently attached USB drive. Awesome stuff. About to move my web
and associated mysql db to the mailserver too.
That is exactly what anyone would have thought, "true linux advocate" Hadron
Quark
Post by Hadron
Now, try and notice not ONE mention of Windows. I am NOT a Windo
"shill". I have stated repeatedly that I ONLY use windows for games now.
Yes. Just like flatfish
Post by Hadron
Disagreeing with wankers that pollute COLA is not shilling windows. It
is being honest.
"Honest" the Erik Funkenbusch way. That is, trying every lie in the book
Post by Hadron
Siding with Spamowitz, Kent, 7, High Plains Rafael,
Rexx "King maker" Ballard and their ilk does nothing for Linux. It just
makes the people who do it look like a bunch of blind buffoons in the
valley of the one eyed king.
Yes, I can see it now, "true linux advocate" Hadron Quark
--
Ogden's Law:
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
Jim Richardson
2008-01-08 01:21:26 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:24:48 +0100,
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:10:51 +0100,
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:25:21 -0500,
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Hadron
You don't know? You dont realise that all sorts of potential issues
arise with regard to C if its not 100% standards compliant? You dont
realise that a lot of code is coded assuming 32 bit?
You do realize that a lot of open source code also runs on Solaris and
"a lot" <> "all
Jesus H Christ on a bike. What is wrong with you. Why do you have to be
so in denial all the time?!?!?!?
You *KNOW* there have been issues with 64 bit.
Skype, video, flash to name a few. Sure a lot of closed source. A lot of
open source too.
could you give me some of these open source examples?
No. Go and google it up yourself. For all I know many now work. Do your
own home work and stop being such a blind zealot/fanboy.
you made the claim, I was hoping you actually knew what you were talking
about and were being honest. Sorry to make that unwarranted assumption.
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Bob Hauck
non-Intel Linux platforms that have been 64-bit for ages, right? Most
of the 32-bit and endian issues have been well wrung-out for a while.
That's why out of the tens of thousands of packages in Debian, only a
relative handful of them aren't available on AMD-64. They did not start
from scratch with no 64-bit support until AMD innovated it.
Serverside, it's been handled for damn near a decade. Some of the edge
desktop stuff, like the flash plugin, opera, the *closed source* stuff
is where the few problems there are, reside. Hadron knows this, but
pretends to be unaware.
No. Hadron is aware of this. It's a developing situation though.
Why, oh why do some of you have to be so in denial? I will never
understand this mad desire to deny issues.
it's not a matter of denying issues, it's a matter of being accurate
about them.
And it is NOT accurate to say that 64bit desktop systems have no
issues. Since they clearly do. Every time I think you are a little above
the Peter Koehlmann's and 7's of this world you go and ruin it.
I didn't claim that they have "no issues" it's your strawman, you feed
him. In fact, in the bit of my post above I clear say that there are a
few problems in 64bit desktop land. Were you deliberatly being
disingenuous or were you simply ranting without actually having read and
understanding the points you were claiming to respond to?
Post by Hadron
I have NO doubt that the AMD64 bit platform is a LOT better than when I
tried it last. Linux is always improving at an impressive rate. And who
knows maybe I might change over again soon. But I'm in no hurry. My two
home machines running 32 bit Debian (one etch the other lenny) are
excellent. The Lenny has had a few glitches from updates but any
problems are soon fixed. My Etch (old pc) is (as we speak) finalised to
run exim4/courier (I dropped dovecot) and is my main mailserver. I
access my email now by connecting to my own domain using IMAP. rsync
keeps a backup of my maildir from the mailserver to my development
machine which then, in turn, uses rsnapshot to keep a full system copy
on a permanently attached USB drive. Awesome stuff. About to move my web
and associated mysql db to the mailserver too.
Now, try and notice not ONE mention of Windows. I am NOT a Windows
"shill". I have stated repeatedly that I ONLY use windows for games now.
that's nice, perhaps if you have evidence that I claimed you were a
"windows shill" you could share it with us? otherwise I am a bit unsure
what your rant above has to do with me?
Post by Hadron
Disagreeing with wankers that pollute COLA is not shilling windows. It
is being honest. Siding with Spamowitz, Kent, 7, High Plains Rafael,
Rexx "King maker" Ballard and their ilk does nothing for Linux. It just
makes the people who do it look like a bunch of blind buffoons in the
valley of the one eyed king.
I try to argue the points, not the people. It's easier for the most
part, and works better. You should try it, it would probably improve
your image. Even you, DFS, or Peter can be right on an occasion.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHgtAWd90bcYOAWPYRAj9lAJ0XncdlbcGAt5cRff039tRLCKFKsQCePw2V
fulDZTK9stvImTJEUrHuqeg=
=JWNl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience, and
Hubris."
-- Larry Wall in den Perl5-Manpages
Hadron
2008-01-08 01:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Richardson
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:24:48 +0100,
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:10:51 +0100,
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:25:21 -0500,
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Hadron
You don't know? You dont realise that all sorts of potential issues
arise with regard to C if its not 100% standards compliant? You dont
realise that a lot of code is coded assuming 32 bit?
You do realize that a lot of open source code also runs on Solaris and
"a lot" <> "all
Jesus H Christ on a bike. What is wrong with you. Why do you have to be
so in denial all the time?!?!?!?
You *KNOW* there have been issues with 64 bit.
Skype, video, flash to name a few. Sure a lot of closed source. A lot of
open source too.
could you give me some of these open source examples?
No. Go and google it up yourself. For all I know many now work. Do your
own home work and stop being such a blind zealot/fanboy.
you made the claim, I was hoping you actually knew what you were talking
about and were being honest. Sorry to make that unwarranted
assumption.
You make it up as you go along. Really. Why would I make up that I had
issues with 64 bit Linux? FFS, enough people have issues with 32 bit
still.

I see no reason to prove anything here. You're not such a nOOb/fanboy to
claim there are no issues, so why ask me to prove anything? Why should
I?
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Bob Hauck
non-Intel Linux platforms that have been 64-bit for ages, right? Most
of the 32-bit and endian issues have been well wrung-out for a while.
That's why out of the tens of thousands of packages in Debian, only a
relative handful of them aren't available on AMD-64. They did not start
from scratch with no 64-bit support until AMD innovated it.
Serverside, it's been handled for damn near a decade. Some of the edge
desktop stuff, like the flash plugin, opera, the *closed source* stuff
is where the few problems there are, reside. Hadron knows this, but
pretends to be unaware.
No. Hadron is aware of this. It's a developing situation though.
Why, oh why do some of you have to be so in denial? I will never
understand this mad desire to deny issues.
it's not a matter of denying issues, it's a matter of being accurate
about them.
And it is NOT accurate to say that 64bit desktop systems have no
issues. Since they clearly do. Every time I think you are a little above
the Peter Koehlmann's and 7's of this world you go and ruin it.
I didn't claim that they have "no issues" it's your strawman, you feed
him. In fact, in the bit of my post above I clear say that there are a
few problems in 64bit desktop land. Were you deliberatly being
disingenuous or were you simply ranting without actually having read and
understanding the points you were claiming to respond to?
I seem to recall it was you coming running here demanding to know what
didn't work.

Get a clue Jim. And don't spend it all at once.
Peter Köhlmann
2008-01-08 08:41:52 UTC
Permalink
< snip >
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Hadron
You *KNOW* there have been issues with 64 bit.
Skype, video, flash to name a few. Sure a lot of closed source. A lot
of open source too.
could you give me some of these open source examples?
No. Go and google it up yourself. For all I know many now work. Do your
own home work and stop being such a blind zealot/fanboy.
you made the claim, I was hoping you actually knew what you were talking
about and were being honest. Sorry to make that unwarranted
assumption.
You make it up as you go along. Really. Why would I make up that I had
issues with 64 bit Linux?
Well, trolling and lying would be enough reason, don't you think?
Post by Hadron
FFS, enough people have issues with 32 bit still.
They do?
Post by Hadron
I see no reason to prove anything here. You're not such a nOOb/fanboy to
claim there are no issues, so why ask me to prove anything? Why should
I?
Well, you claimed something which is obviously bullshit. It follows that you
should provide /some/ stuff to back you up

< snip >
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
I didn't claim that they have "no issues" it's your strawman, you feed
him. In fact, in the bit of my post above I clear say that there are a
few problems in 64bit desktop land. Were you deliberatly being
disingenuous or were you simply ranting without actually having read and
understanding the points you were claiming to respond to?
I seem to recall it was you coming running here demanding to know what
didn't work.
Get a clue Jim. And don't spend it all at once.
Well, it is not surprising that he wanted (not "demanded") to know what does
not work. You claim so a lot of times, and fail to substantiate your claim
every time

Lets guess why: You are lying
--
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' -
they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.
Jim Richardson
2008-01-08 10:26:03 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 02:42:11 +0100,
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:24:48 +0100,
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:10:51 +0100,
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:25:21 -0500,
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Hadron
You don't know? You dont realise that all sorts of potential issues
arise with regard to C if its not 100% standards compliant? You dont
realise that a lot of code is coded assuming 32 bit?
You do realize that a lot of open source code also runs on Solaris and
"a lot" <> "all
Jesus H Christ on a bike. What is wrong with you. Why do you have to be
so in denial all the time?!?!?!?
You *KNOW* there have been issues with 64 bit.
Skype, video, flash to name a few. Sure a lot of closed source. A lot of
open source too.
could you give me some of these open source examples?
No. Go and google it up yourself. For all I know many now work. Do your
own home work and stop being such a blind zealot/fanboy.
you made the claim, I was hoping you actually knew what you were talking
about and were being honest. Sorry to make that unwarranted
assumption.
You make it up as you go along. Really. Why would I make up that I had
issues with 64 bit Linux? FFS, enough people have issues with 32 bit
still.
I see no reason to prove anything here. You're not such a nOOb/fanboy to
claim there are no issues, so why ask me to prove anything? Why should
I?
Because I am asking you to back up a claim you made. I understand that
makes you uncomfortable, but that says a lot more about you, than me.

So could you give me some of these open source examples?_
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Bob Hauck
non-Intel Linux platforms that have been 64-bit for ages, right? Most
of the 32-bit and endian issues have been well wrung-out for a while.
That's why out of the tens of thousands of packages in Debian, only a
relative handful of them aren't available on AMD-64. They did not start
from scratch with no 64-bit support until AMD innovated it.
Serverside, it's been handled for damn near a decade. Some of the edge
desktop stuff, like the flash plugin, opera, the *closed source* stuff
is where the few problems there are, reside. Hadron knows this, but
pretends to be unaware.
No. Hadron is aware of this. It's a developing situation though.
Why, oh why do some of you have to be so in denial? I will never
understand this mad desire to deny issues.
it's not a matter of denying issues, it's a matter of being accurate
about them.
And it is NOT accurate to say that 64bit desktop systems have no
issues. Since they clearly do. Every time I think you are a little above
the Peter Koehlmann's and 7's of this world you go and ruin it.
I didn't claim that they have "no issues" it's your strawman, you feed
him. In fact, in the bit of my post above I clear say that there are a
few problems in 64bit desktop land. Were you deliberatly being
disingenuous or were you simply ranting without actually having read and
understanding the points you were claiming to respond to?
I seem to recall it was you coming running here demanding to know what
didn't work.
I was curious what open source code you thought had problems with 64
bit. Still am for that matter. You have not exactly been forthcoming
with examples.
Post by Hadron
Get a clue Jim. And don't spend it all at once.
pretty lame on the insult-o-meter, I'd suggest you try to do better, but
I suspect you are incapable and wouldn't want to stress you out even
more than you already are.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHg0+7d90bcYOAWPYRAqkBAKCPSH5qQDaxeDVihBaXD0GEPxYf5wCfcftu
Lx8qELCpB91nwQC5Anpx1v8=
=ZhkA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Dorothy Parker's reply to her editor who was bugging her for her belated
work while she was on her honeymoon: "Too fucking busy, and vice versa."
Johan Lindquist
2008-01-08 11:23:19 UTC
Permalink
So anyway, it was like, 11:26 CET Jan 08 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
Jim Richardson was all like, "Dude,
Post by Jim Richardson
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 02:42:11 +0100,
[..]
Post by Jim Richardson
Post by Hadron
Get a clue Jim. And don't spend it all at once.
pretty lame on the insult-o-meter, I'd suggest you try to do better,
but I suspect you are incapable and wouldn't want to stress you out
even more than you already are.
It might be time for hadron to take another "break" from this group,
maybe he can come back with a new catchphrase. The "slopware" one he
seems to have been infatuated with lately has been used to death by
other trolls already.

Disappointing, really, he's come up with so many other slightly odd
expressions to "warlord".. what was it.. with? around? over? before.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
12:19:03 up 43 days, 20:32, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.15, 0.37
Linux 2.6.23.8 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729
Bob Hauck
2008-01-08 00:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:25:21 -0500,
Post by Bob Hauck
You do realize that a lot of open source code also runs on Solaris and
"a lot" <> "all
You may now name an end-user application that comes with Debian that
won't run on Solaris (not including OS or hardware-specific utilities).
Be sure to visit a site like blastwave.org or Sun's own open-source
pages before posting or you'll end up looking like an idiot.
Post by Hadron
Jesus H Christ on a bike. What is wrong with you. Why do you have to
be so in denial all the time?!?!?!?
I might ask why you have to exaggerate all the time. You have problems
with a closed-source driver that doesn't even come with Debian, and you
report to the world that Debian is "slow" and "unstable" on x64. Not
that the nVidia driver has problems, but that the OS does.

Then when sombody calls you on it you have a fit and act as if we're all
in denial and you're the only one who really knows what's going on.
Post by Hadron
You *KNOW* there have been issues with 64 bit.
There are issues with damn near every piece of software. Debian puts
out a constant stream of bug fixes for their *32-bit* versions. MS is
still issuing service packs for XP after seven years for chrissakes.

You, however, like to give the impression that Linux has more than its
share of issues, without actually coming out and saying so. That way,
when somebody points out that Vista-64 has *more* issues than Linux-64
you can say "but I never said that" even though that sure seemed to be
the impression you wanted to give.

The word "advocacy" does not mean "blow any flaws way out of proportion"
any more than it means "hide the flaws".
Post by Hadron
Skype, video, flash to name a few. Sure a lot of closed source. A lot of
open source too.
I see you can't actually name any open-source apps that have these
terrible issues. If there were "a lot" I'd think you could come up
with one at least.

You know damn well that most of the problem children are closed
source, just as they are for Vista-64.
Post by Hadron
Why, oh why do some of you have to be so in denial? I will never
understand this mad desire to deny issues.
We just prefer to not fly off the handle and declare everything broken
and copletely hopeless and unusable based on a couple of problems.

You often act as if Linux is totally useless to anyone but experts
because it has a few flaws that some total idiot off the street may not
be able to work around in ten minutes. But that's insane. All large
software systems have flaws, all of them sometimes require an expert to
sort things out. Yet many people manage to use software.

Most of us here would argue that Linux has fewer such flaws than the
competition. That's not "denial", that's advocacy.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Hadron
2008-01-08 01:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Hadron
Post by Jim Richardson
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:25:21 -0500,
Post by Bob Hauck
You do realize that a lot of open source code also runs on Solaris and
"a lot" <> "all
You may now name an end-user application that comes with Debian that
won't run on Solaris (not including OS or hardware-specific
utilities).
I snipped misleadingly by mistake. I was referring to the stability of
stuff ported or not ported to the 64 bit platform.

Whenever you say "a lot" or "most" you are, without realising it,
supporting what I am saying. *MAYBE* I was just unlucky. MAYBE so were
all the others in google land who had 64 bit issues.

Maybe everyone else except for Peter Koehlmann and other COLA dweebs
really are "too thick" to use it. I don't know. What I do know is that
the last time I tried it, it sucked donkey for a stable desktop
platform and the 32 bit was MUCH, MUCH better.

YMMV of course.
Linonut
2008-01-08 02:55:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Hadron
Why, oh why do some of you have to be so in denial? I will never
understand this mad desire to deny issues.
You often act as if Linux is totally useless to anyone but experts
because it has a few flaws that some total idiot off the street may not
be able to work around in ten minutes. But that's insane. All large
software systems have flaws, all of them sometimes require an expert to
sort things out. Yet many people manage to use software.
Well, at least the Windows users have "The Video Professor" and "Kim
Komando" on their side.
Post by Bob Hauck
Most of us here would argue that Linux has fewer such flaws than the
competition. That's not "denial", that's advocacy.
Sometimes I find myself a little frustrated with a "Linux" problem. But
then I remind myself about the "fun" I have with Windows. <grin>
--
The increasing percentage of Vista isn't growth -- it's molting.
Linonut
2008-01-08 01:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Hadron
You don't know? You dont realise that all sorts of potential issues
arise with regard to C if its not 100% standards compliant? You dont
realise that a lot of code is coded assuming 32 bit?
You do realize that a lot of open source code also runs on Solaris and
non-Intel Linux platforms that have been 64-bit for ages, right? Most
of the 32-bit and endian issues have been well wrung-out for a while.
That's why out of the tens of thousands of packages in Debian, only a
relative handful of them aren't available on AMD-64. They did not start
from scratch with no 64-bit support until AMD innovated it.
Ironically, Windows NT up through NT 4 SP 6 supported the 64-bit DEC
Alpha chip (thanks to Microsoft's and David Cutler's pillage of VMS
design concepts and the ensuing settlement between MS and DEC).

Nonetheless, I would assume that the only reason there is 64-bit Windows
at all today is because of the AMD instruction set.

That, and using 32-bit long integers.

I'm willing to be corrected, though, Bob <grin>.
--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.
Hadron
2008-01-08 01:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linonut
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Hadron
You don't know? You dont realise that all sorts of potential issues
arise with regard to C if its not 100% standards compliant? You dont
realise that a lot of code is coded assuming 32 bit?
You do realize that a lot of open source code also runs on Solaris and
non-Intel Linux platforms that have been 64-bit for ages, right? Most
of the 32-bit and endian issues have been well wrung-out for a while.
That's why out of the tens of thousands of packages in Debian, only a
relative handful of them aren't available on AMD-64. They did not start
from scratch with no 64-bit support until AMD innovated it.
Ironically, Windows NT up through NT 4 SP 6 supported the 64-bit DEC
Alpha chip (thanks to Microsoft's and David Cutler's pillage of VMS
design concepts and the ensuing settlement between MS and DEC).
Nonetheless, I would assume that the only reason there is 64-bit Windows
at all today is because of the AMD instruction set.
Wow. I thought it would exist without it. Way to go Liarnut.
Post by Linonut
That, and using 32-bit long integers.
Err, right <embarrassed whistle as sneaks away to call the ambulance>
Bob Hauck
2008-01-07 14:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
ps, My Debian machine IS a 64 bit machine. Admittedly, the 64 bit
performance of Debian and Ubuntu was so crap and unreliable that I went
back to a 32 bit install. Except for OO, pretty much rock solid.
Interesting. I support a web server that's running 64-bit Debian and it
is about as far from "crap performance" and "unreliable" as you can get.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Hadron
2008-01-07 15:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Hadron
ps, My Debian machine IS a 64 bit machine. Admittedly, the 64 bit
performance of Debian and Ubuntu was so crap and unreliable that I went
back to a 32 bit install. Except for OO, pretty much rock solid.
Interesting. I support a web server that's running 64-bit Debian and it
is about as far from "crap performance" and "unreliable" as you can get.
Good for you. Maybe things are better. It sucked on the desktop for me
big time. Whether it was the nvidia driver or not I never found out. I
don't have the same issues with the 32 bit. I certainly also did not
note any performance increase in 64 bit (I didnt expect any anyway).

I have no doubt that a web server would "just work".

As it happens I just set up my first debian headless mail server for
home. Excellent. All "just worked". I had a bit of a problem with exim4
delivering to the right places but got there in the end. Set up dovecot
for an IMAP server. Brilliant.
Bob Hauck
2008-01-07 16:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Bob Hauck
Interesting. I support a web server that's running 64-bit Debian and
it is about as far from "crap performance" and "unreliable" as you
can get.
Good for you. Maybe things are better. It sucked on the desktop for me
big time. Whether it was the nvidia driver or not I never found out.
So the problem was a third-party proprietary driver, not Debian or
Ubuntu at all. How fair of you. Perhaps you should see if the 64-bit
version of nVidia's driver for Vista has the same problems, and if so
you ought to write a post blaming Microsoft.
Post by Hadron
don't have the same issues with the 32 bit. I certainly also did not
note any performance increase in 64 bit (I didnt expect any anyway).
Most applications won't see much improvement, although in theory there
should be some even for non-memory-challenged apps because there are
more GP registers. The kernel also deals with >= 3 GB of memory in a
more efficient way.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Hadron
2008-01-07 17:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Hadron
Post by Bob Hauck
Interesting. I support a web server that's running 64-bit Debian and
it is about as far from "crap performance" and "unreliable" as you
can get.
Good for you. Maybe things are better. It sucked on the desktop for me
big time. Whether it was the nvidia driver or not I never found out.
So the problem was a third-party proprietary driver, not Debian or
Who cares? Nearly ALL the SW one uses on Debian is "third party" -
what's your point?
Post by Bob Hauck
Ubuntu at all. How fair of you. Perhaps you should see if the 64-bit
version of nVidia's driver for Vista has the same problems, and if so
you ought to write a post blaming Microsoft.
Err, I don't use Vista. What are you talking about? I merely said I had
64 bit Debian/Ubuntu issues. Is that a fscking crime all of a
sudden?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!? What is it with COLA and reality?
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Hadron
don't have the same issues with the 32 bit. I certainly also did not
note any performance increase in 64 bit (I didnt expect any anyway).
Most applications won't see much improvement, although in theory there
should be some even for non-memory-challenged apps because there are
more GP registers. The kernel also deals with >= 3 GB of memory in a
more efficient way.
2 is enough for me.
Bob Hauck
2008-01-07 19:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Hadron
Post by Bob Hauck
Interesting. I support a web server that's running 64-bit Debian and
it is about as far from "crap performance" and "unreliable" as you
can get.
Good for you. Maybe things are better. It sucked on the desktop for me
big time. Whether it was the nvidia driver or not I never found out.
So the problem was a third-party proprietary driver, not Debian or
Who cares? Nearly ALL the SW one uses on Debian is "third party" -
what's your point?
The nVidia driver doesn't come with Debian, it isn't in the repository.
The other "third party" stuff is. Hence Debian ought not to be held
responsible for the nVidia driver in the same way they are the other
stuff.

Likewise, Vista does not come with all of the drivers you might need, so
it would be unfair to blame Microsoft when one of them isn't up to
speed.

I really don't think I was being that obscure.
Post by Hadron
Post by Bob Hauck
Most applications won't see much improvement, although in theory there
should be some even for non-memory-challenged apps because there are
more GP registers. The kernel also deals with >= 3 GB of memory in a
more efficient way.
2 is enough for me.
Then I guess you don't need 64 bits very much.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Linonut
2008-01-08 01:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Hadron
Post by Bob Hauck
Most applications won't see much improvement, although in theory there
should be some even for non-memory-challenged apps because there are
more GP registers. The kernel also deals with >= 3 GB of memory in a
more efficient way.
2 is enough for me.
Then I guess you don't need 64 bits very much.
Hell, I don't either, but it is fun to have and let's me strengthen my
library code.
--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.
Gregory Shearman
2008-01-07 13:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by Gregory Shearman
Slopware is the word. e.g open opencalc. fill a cell. save
file as html, name the file something like myfile.php. What
does it do? Yup. Save myfile.php.html. Duh! Better? OK, same
file in calc "myfile.php.html".
Uncheck the "Automatic File Extension" box you dickhead.
File. Wizards. Next. Add... OO just *vanishes* A complete
and utter instant crash. Nice one. OO 2.2.1.
I run 2.3.1
I must say that I've NEVER had OO crash on me, not oocalc, not
oowriter, not ever. I suspect yours is running on a badly
configured machine.
I have never had it crash on me also. That goes for both Linux and
Windows versions. Of course when one uses terms like "slopware"
already is an opinionated tip off.
I am using 2.3.0.
Seeing the source of these complaints is no wonder, signs of
incompetent trolling. Need I say any more?
Only in COLA would you deny something as infamously buggy as OO as crash
proof.
Morons.
Only Quark would deliberately distort what was written, to suit his own sad
ends. One poster already told us that OO crashed on him once, a long time
ago.

Who the fuck ever said it was crash proof? It crashed on you apparently. I
suspect that you don't know what you're doing. Looks like OO isn't
idiotproof.

I don't like OO and don't use the writer but I wouldn't call it buggy.
Bloated and slow, yes, but not really buggy.

How about this?

http://tinyurl.com/2pk569

Excel 2007 Multiplication Math Bug

Just when I was about to post how great my experience has been with Office
2007 (I really, really like the new ribbon interface, live format preview,
and the enhanced online help), news has been popping up among bloggers and
Google Groups of a serious, yet perhaps somewhat specific, math bug in
Excel 2007:

If you have Excel 2007 installed, try this: Multiply 850 by 77.1 in Excel.

One way to do this is to type "=850*77.1" (without the quotes) into a cell.
The correct answer is 65,535. However, Excel 2007 displays a result of
100,000.

Now the strange thing, according to some posters, is that Excel 2007 treats
this result inconsistently when it's used in other formulas dependent upon
this result. Sometimes it's used as 100,000, and sometimes it's used as
65,535. On my Vista Ultimate laptop, I was able to duplicate the above
poster's test results that reference the above result in cell A1.

As these errors did not occur in Excel 2000 in comparison, this is a step
backwards. Let's hope Microsoft corrects it quickly. The question may
remain, however, as to what to do with spreadsheets and charts created
during the time the bug existed. Assuming MS issues a patch, for critical
data it's probably not a bad idea to reopen them after patching and
refreshing the calculation to see if anything changed.

======================

Now THAT's buggy!
--
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
chrisv
2008-01-07 13:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
Only in COLA would you deny something as infamously buggy as OO as crash
proof.
Morons.
Only Quark would deliberately distort what was written, to suit his own sad
ends. One poster already told us that OO crashed on him once, a long time
ago.
Who the fuck ever said it was crash proof? It crashed on you apparently. I
suspect that you don't know what you're doing. Looks like OO isn't
idiotproof.
Quack is a lying POS, proven again.
Hadron
2008-01-07 14:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by chrisv
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
Only in COLA would you deny something as infamously buggy as OO as crash
proof.
Morons.
Only Quark would deliberately distort what was written, to suit his own sad
ends. One poster already told us that OO crashed on him once, a long time
ago.
Who the fuck ever said it was crash proof? It crashed on you apparently. I
suspect that you don't know what you're doing. Looks like OO isn't
idiotproof.
Quack is a lying POS, proven again.
You guys need help. Really.
William Poaster
2008-01-07 12:33:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
Post by DFS
Post by Thufir
Corrupted files seem to be a speciality of Microsoft; to my knowledge
I've never run into a corrupted file in Linux.
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most basic
usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got corrupted
documents (OO 1.9.79 for Windows - embed a document in a floating frame
and try to activate the document - 100% of the time it crashed and did a
damaged document recovery the next time you tried to open it).
Slopware is the word.
e.g open opencalc. fill a cell. save file as html, name the file
something like myfile.php. What does it do? Yup. Save myfile.php.html.
Duh!
Better?
OK, same file in calc "myfile.php.html".
Uncheck the "Automatic File Extension" box you dickhead.
Post by Hadron
File. Wizards. Next. Add...
OO just *vanishes* A complete and utter instant crash.
Nice one. OO 2.2.1.
I run 2.3.1
I must say that I've NEVER had OO crash on me, not oocalc, not oowriter,
not ever.
I certainly don't recall OO crashing on me, & I've used it for a long time.
Post by Gregory Shearman
I suspect yours is running on a badly configured machine.
Elsewhere Quack claimed to be running Ubuntu "Hardy Heron" on a laptop. That
Ubuntu version is *beta*, & if he's running OO 2.2.1 on it.... 'nuff said?
--
<Holly>: It takes time, this. One slight error in any of my thirteen billion
calculations and we'll be blasted to smithereens. Here we go, then: 10, 9,
8, 6, 5--
<Rimmer> Holly, *where's* 7?
--Red Dwarf--
Sinister Midget
2008-01-07 12:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Poaster
Elsewhere Quack claimed to be running Ubuntu "Hardy Heron" on a laptop. That
Ubuntu version is *beta*, & if he's running OO 2.2.1 on it.... 'nuff said?
Clearly, Darnho can't keep his "experiences" straight. Must be his
years experience as a "true linux advocate", a "kernel hacker" and all
that.
--
A choice is always possible, even without any options.
Hadron
2008-01-07 12:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by William Poaster
Elsewhere Quack claimed to be running Ubuntu "Hardy Heron" on a laptop. That
Ubuntu version is *beta*, & if he's running OO 2.2.1 on it.... 'nuff said?
Clearly, Darnho can't keep his "experiences" straight. Must be his
years experience as a "true linux advocate", a "kernel hacker" and all
that.
How stupid are you people? Really?

I use regularly 4 PCs. One at work, one on the move. Two at home.

I will let you work out the details.

I have frequently stated that I use a mixture of Debian and Ubuntu. I
have even reported the success I have had with Ubuntu on my Thinkpad.

Sheesh. Willy Poaster must be the most useless, boring poster in the
history of Usenet.
William Poaster
2008-01-07 14:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sinister Midget
Post by William Poaster
Elsewhere Quack claimed to be running Ubuntu "Hardy Heron" on a laptop.
That Ubuntu version is *beta*, & if he's running OO 2.2.1 on it.... 'nuff
said?
Clearly, Darnho can't keep his "experiences" straight. Must be his
years experience as a "true linux advocate", a "kernel hacker" and all
that.
I understand it's called "cognitive dissonance" - engaging in behaviour that
conflicts with one's beliefs..
In other words his pretence at being a "linux lover" (his words), is being
given away by his *true* beliefs that he's nothing of the sort. He's
actually *causing* cognitive dissonance. His behaviour does not match
demonstrable reality. In effect it *is* a form of trolling, & furthermore
he does it ALL the time, even though *he* may think he isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
--
<Holly>: It takes time, this. One slight error in any of my thirteen billion
calculations and we'll be blasted to smithereens. Here we go, then: 10, 9,
8, 6, 5--
<Rimmer> Holly, *where's* 7?
--Red Dwarf--
Thufir
2008-01-07 06:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most basic
usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got corrupted
documents
Well, I'm just going by my personal experience. Your say-so doesn't
convince me otherwise.



-Thufir
Linonut
2008-01-07 13:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thufir
Post by DFS
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most basic
usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got corrupted
documents
Well, I'm just going by my personal experience. Your say-so doesn't
convince me otherwise.
DFS is an idiot. That sum-bitch could fuck up a steel ball.
--
This sig has expired. Please reactivate your sig by paying $0.25
and entering the 30-character activation key that will be emailed to
your account.
DFS
2008-01-07 15:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thufir
Post by DFS
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most
basic usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got
corrupted documents
Well, I'm just going by my personal experience. Your say-so doesn't
convince me otherwise.
It doesn't have to. I gave you the exact situation, which you can easily
reproduce.
Hadron
2008-01-07 15:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Thufir
Post by DFS
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most
basic usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got
corrupted documents
Well, I'm just going by my personal experience. Your say-so doesn't
convince me otherwise.
It doesn't have to. I gave you the exact situation, which you can easily
reproduce.
Did any of the loons try the situation that I gave?

On one hand they say "it does not crash" and when I give them an example
and inform them that it (or any SW) is not crash proof they claim they
"never said it was crash proof". They are either mad, stupid or possibly
both.
Peter Köhlmann
2008-01-07 16:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by DFS
Post by Thufir
Post by DFS
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most
basic usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got
corrupted documents
Well, I'm just going by my personal experience. Your say-so doesn't
convince me otherwise.
It doesn't have to. I gave you the exact situation, which you can easily
reproduce.
Did any of the loons try the situation that I gave?
Yes. I did. Even when I am not one of your "loons"
Post by Hadron
On one hand they say "it does not crash"
Right. It does not. At least not with anything you are describing. And so
far also not with anything I have ever thrown at it
Post by Hadron
and when I give them an example and inform them that it (or any SW) is not
crash proof they claim they "never said it was crash proof".
Well, your example convinces of one thing only: You are lying
Post by Hadron
They are either mad, stupid or possibly both.
You talk about yourself much lately?
--
Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.
Gregory Shearman
2008-01-08 03:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hadron
Post by DFS
Post by Thufir
Post by DFS
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most
basic usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got
corrupted documents
Well, I'm just going by my personal experience. Your say-so doesn't
convince me otherwise.
It doesn't have to. I gave you the exact situation, which you can easily
reproduce.
Did any of the loons try the situation that I gave?
On one hand they say "it does not crash" and when I give them an example
and inform them that it (or any SW) is not crash proof they claim they
"never said it was crash proof". They are either mad, stupid or possibly
both.
Who said "it does not crash"????

No one...

Many replied that it had NEVER crashed on them. That does NOT imply that
it "does not crash" or is "crash proof".

Typical Quark, shown up for his uselessness in configuring a linux box,
again attempts to lie in order to back up his pathetic claims.

What a dishonest bastard...
--
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
William Poaster
2008-01-08 11:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
Post by DFS
Post by Thufir
Post by DFS
Then you've never used OpenOffice for anything more than the most
basic usage. Within a few minutes of trying that slowware, I got
corrupted documents
Well, I'm just going by my personal experience. Your say-so doesn't
convince me otherwise.
It doesn't have to. I gave you the exact situation, which you can
easily reproduce.
Did any of the loons try the situation that I gave?
On one hand they say "it does not crash" and when I give them an example
and inform them that it (or any SW) is not crash proof they claim they
"never said it was crash proof". They are either mad, stupid or possibly
both.
Who said "it does not crash"????
No one...
Many replied that it had NEVER crashed on them. That does NOT imply that
it "does not crash" or is "crash proof".
Quite right.
Post by Gregory Shearman
Typical Quark, shown up for his uselessness in configuring a linux box,
again attempts to lie in order to back up his pathetic claims.
What a dishonest bastard...
You'll be giving bastards a bad name, associating them with him.
--
<Holly>: It takes time, this. One slight error in any of my thirteen billion
calculations and we'll be blasted to smithereens. Here we go, then: 10, 9,
8, 6, 5--
<Rimmer> Holly, *where's* 7?
--Red Dwarf--
chrisv
2008-01-08 15:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gregory Shearman
Post by Hadron
Did any of the loons try the situation that I gave?
On one hand they say "it does not crash" and when I give them an example
and inform them that it (or any SW) is not crash proof they claim they
"never said it was crash proof". They are either mad, stupid or possibly
both.
Who said "it does not crash"????
No one...
Many replied that it had NEVER crashed on them. That does NOT imply that
it "does not crash" or is "crash proof".
Typical Quark, shown up for his uselessness in configuring a linux box,
again attempts to lie in order to back up his pathetic claims.
What a dishonest bastard...
He's a snotty, lying prick if ever there was one. Quite amazing, how
he'll make an complete asshole of himself, again and again, as long as
it allows him to fling some snot.
sameer chaudhary
2008-01-13 06:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dusty Hendrix
Seems to be about as popular and prominent as clam flavored ice-cream. I
mean hell, if you go to Google.com it's not even visible from the home page.
You need to click on the "more" button and find it in there.
Certainly even Google must now realize that on-line word processors and
spreadsheets are a joke.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
This time it is not possible but in future it will possible. This is a
good concept for initializing. After successful implementation, there
is no need to access all our documents from one computer only but we
can access from any computer and without attach file. That is power of
online documents. We can store any documents from web directly. I
started using this just 1 week back but it is simple to store here
rather than MS-Office. Yes all features are not met as we have in MS-
Office like bullets etc.
Loading...