Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #64971 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-01-29 20:24 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-01-30 12:27 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 101 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-29 20:24 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-30 10:34 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-30 10:50 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-30 11:00 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-30 18:44 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-31 15:26 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-31 16:20 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-31 23:49 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-31 20:30 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-02-01 13:07 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-01-31 23:00 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-01 05:25 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-01 01:54 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-01 14:45 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-01 11:39 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-01 14:47 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-01 15:32 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-01 16:00 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-02 11:39 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-02 20:41 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-02 20:46 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-02 22:01 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-02 22:00 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-01 19:38 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-02-01 19:58 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-02-01 20:40 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-02 11:45 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-02-02 17:03 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-02 21:58 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Lars Poulsen <lars@cleo.beagle-ears.com> - 2025-02-02 21:50 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-02-02 22:36 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-03 22:53 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-04 05:46 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-04 09:36 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-04 17:37 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-03 22:52 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-03 22:09 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-04 05:31 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-04 17:30 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-02 21:29 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-03 22:55 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-03 22:17 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-04 17:31 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-05 07:02 +1000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-05 01:33 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Ian <gay@sfuu.ca> - 2025-02-04 23:54 -0800
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-05 11:18 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-05 22:19 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-06 10:35 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-07 06:28 +1000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-06 22:30 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2025-02-07 15:39 +1000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-07 00:55 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-02-08 07:24 +1000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-07 16:19 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-07 17:38 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-07 10:22 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-07 12:42 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-06 22:09 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-06 23:53 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-06 23:27 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-07 10:23 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-05 11:04 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-02-03 10:38 -0800
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-03 20:27 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-03 23:15 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-04 05:35 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-04 09:41 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-04 13:07 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-04 17:39 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-03 23:14 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-02-04 00:36 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-03 22:56 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> - 2025-02-05 09:54 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-02-05 19:32 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-05 22:23 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-02-06 04:50 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-06 00:45 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> - 2025-02-06 18:12 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-02-06 20:38 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-06 23:13 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Joerg Walther <joerg.walther@magenta.de> - 2025-02-06 18:10 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-04 17:29 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-03 22:48 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-04 05:54 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-04 17:35 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-02 11:44 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-02 20:45 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-02 22:01 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-02 21:26 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-02-03 04:17 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-03 01:29 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-03 09:45 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-02-03 09:08 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-03 22:54 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-01 19:36 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-02 11:42 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-02-01 14:44 +0100
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-31 13:35 +0000
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-30 06:14 -0500
Re: M$ 365 Down, Again Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-30 12:27 +0000
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-29 20:24 -0500 |
| Subject | M$ 365 Down, Again |
| Message-ID | <PPqcnbhZjMZRSQf6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14339365/Microsoft-users-report-issues-365-services-outage.html Microsoft is down across the US as users report issues with 365 services. Downdetector, a website that tracks online outages, shows major problems with the website, Outlook and logging into accounts. Issues hit Microsoft 365 services around 12:30pm ET. . . . Trust yer everything to M$ ! :-) DownDetector indicates there are still problems even now at 20:24 est. I guess they'll blame "updates" again. -- 033-33
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-30 10:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e527e308-03a5-9728-ae99-5f07cb5540fd@example.net> |
| In reply to | #64971 |
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: > https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14339365/Microsoft-users-report-issues-365-services-outage.html > > Microsoft is down across the US as users report issues > with 365 services. > > Downdetector, a website that tracks online outages, shows > major problems with the website, Outlook and logging > into accounts. > > Issues hit Microsoft 365 services around 12:30pm ET. > > . . . > > Trust yer everything to M$ ! :-) > > DownDetector indicates there are still problems > even now at 20:24 est. > > I guess they'll blame "updates" again. Libreoffice on my laptop working great over here! ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-30 10:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <h-ydnfsQkJD1xAb6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #64971 |
"WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" wrote: > https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14339365/Microsoft- > users-report-issues-365-services-outage.html > > Microsoft is down across the US as users report issues > with 365 services. > > Downdetector, a website that tracks online outages, shows > major problems with the website, Outlook and logging > into accounts. > > Issues hit Microsoft 365 services around 12:30pm ET. > > . . . > > Trust yer everything to M$ ! :-) > > DownDetector indicates there are still problems > even now at 20:24 est. > > I guess they'll blame "updates" again. Because the Daily Mail and DownDetector are *such* good tools compared to the 365 service health page? (which shows no current or recent problems of that type). <https://admin.cloud.microsoft/?#/servicehealth/history> requires login ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-30 11:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vnfm5a$2tl1t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #64987 |
On 30/01/2025 10:50, Andy Burns wrote: > Because the Daily Mail and DownDetector are *such* good tools compared > to the 365 service health page? (which shows no current or recent > problems of that type). Almost certainly. Admitting to faults can cost a large company serious money if the customers are on service guarantee contracts > > <https://admin.cloud.microsoft/?#/servicehealth/history> > > requires login ... Well that's no effing good is it? -- Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-30 18:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2d7ff7c3-5aa6-acff-bf69-8aee193ce9ac@example.net> |
| In reply to | #64988 |
On Thu, 30 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 30/01/2025 10:50, Andy Burns wrote: >> Because the Daily Mail and DownDetector are *such* good tools compared to >> the 365 service health page? (which shows no current or recent problems of >> that type). > > Almost certainly. Admitting to faults can cost a large company serious money > if the customers are on service guarantee contracts >> >> <https://admin.cloud.microsoft/?#/servicehealth/history> >> >> requires login ... > > Well that's no effing good is it? Indeed. Useless, like all of microsofts products.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-31 15:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <b53v6lxjp9.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #64999 |
On 2025-01-30 18:44, D wrote: > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 30/01/2025 10:50, Andy Burns wrote: >>> Because the Daily Mail and DownDetector are *such* good tools >>> compared to the 365 service health page? (which shows no current or >>> recent problems of that type). >> >> Almost certainly. Admitting to faults can cost a large company >> serious money if the customers are on service guarantee contracts >>> >>> <https://admin.cloud.microsoft/?#/servicehealth/history> >>> >>> requires login ... >> >> Well that's no effing good is it? > > Indeed. Useless, like all of microsofts products. All, all... I like the fight simulator. There is flightgear, but it doesn't make me enjoy the time that much. Using different keys doesn't help. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-31 16:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <C72cnbCiUpcIowD6nZ2dnZfqnPsAAAAA@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #65056 |
On 1/31/25 9:26 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-01-30 18:44, D wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> On 30/01/2025 10:50, Andy Burns wrote: >>>> Because the Daily Mail and DownDetector are *such* good tools >>>> compared to the 365 service health page? (which shows no current or >>>> recent problems of that type). >>> >>> Almost certainly. Admitting to faults can cost a large company >>> serious money if the customers are on service guarantee contracts >>>> >>>> <https://admin.cloud.microsoft/?#/servicehealth/history> >>>> >>>> requires login ... >>> >>> Well that's no effing good is it? >> >> Indeed. Useless, like all of microsofts products. > > All, all... I like the fight simulator. There is flightgear, but it > doesn't make me enjoy the time that much. Using different keys doesn't > help. I suspect "Andy", who we've never ever heard of, is actually a M$ propaganda bot - running the entirety of the net looking for bad stuff about 365 and other high-profit M$ products :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-31 23:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <973f3b08-385a-14c3-88c8-fb464f1df8b1@example.net> |
| In reply to | #65063 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: > On 1/31/25 9:26 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-01-30 18:44, D wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>>> On 30/01/2025 10:50, Andy Burns wrote: >>>>> Because the Daily Mail and DownDetector are *such* good tools compared >>>>> to the 365 service health page? (which shows no current or recent >>>>> problems of that type). >>>> >>>> Almost certainly. Admitting to faults can cost a large company serious >>>> money if the customers are on service guarantee contracts >>>>> >>>>> <https://admin.cloud.microsoft/?#/servicehealth/history> >>>>> >>>>> requires login ... >>>> >>>> Well that's no effing good is it? >>> >>> Indeed. Useless, like all of microsofts products. >> >> All, all... I like the fight simulator. There is flightgear, but it doesn't >> make me enjoy the time that much. Using different keys doesn't help. > > I suspect "Andy", who we've never ever heard of, > is actually a M$ propaganda bot - running the > entirety of the net looking for bad stuff about > 365 and other high-profit M$ products :-) Ahhh.... that would explain it! =)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-31 20:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <z_CdndRHZJq35AD6nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #65073 |
On 1/31/25 5:49 PM, D wrote: > > > On Fri, 31 Jan 2025, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: > >> On 1/31/25 9:26 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2025-01-30 18:44, D wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 30/01/2025 10:50, Andy Burns wrote: >>>>>> Because the Daily Mail and DownDetector are *such* good tools >>>>>> compared to the 365 service health page? (which shows no current >>>>>> or recent problems of that type). >>>>> >>>>> Almost certainly. Admitting to faults can cost a large company >>>>> serious money if the customers are on service guarantee contracts >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://admin.cloud.microsoft/?#/servicehealth/history> >>>>>> >>>>>> requires login ... >>>>> >>>>> Well that's no effing good is it? >>>> >>>> Indeed. Useless, like all of microsofts products. >>> >>> All, all... I like the fight simulator. There is flightgear, but it >>> doesn't make me enjoy the time that much. Using different keys >>> doesn't help. >> >> I suspect "Andy", who we've never ever heard of, >> is actually a M$ propaganda bot - running the >> entirety of the net looking for bad stuff about >> 365 and other high-profit M$ products :-) > > Ahhh.... that would explain it! =) Umm ... "AI"-driven and with M$ bandwidth ... it really COULD be done now. Turn every users PC into a search-n-destroy bot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-01 13:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m06kkbFjg92U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #65063 |
WokieSux282 wrote: > I suspect "Andy", who we've never ever heard of, > is actually a M$ propaganda bot - running the > entirety of the net looking for bad stuff about > 365 and other high-profit M$ products :-) It doesn't really matter whether you've heard of me or not, I've replied in a couple of dozen threads over the last year. It was you that started a microsoft thread in a linux group! I don't particularly like MS Office, mostly stopped using it after Office97, I use LibreOffice now. WordPerfect on DOS and VMS was my favourite. But Office is a necessity for most businesses, 365 has noticeable issues every few months, hence I know where to look for their status info, it's only worth finding out that they are aware that a problem exists, beyond that, let the customer know and wait until the issue gets fixed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-31 23:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e390e74e-e7e4-b4fb-b8de-2cf67e449ef0@example.net> |
| In reply to | #65056 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-01-30 18:44, D wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 30 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> On 30/01/2025 10:50, Andy Burns wrote: >>>> Because the Daily Mail and DownDetector are *such* good tools compared to >>>> the 365 service health page? (which shows no current or recent problems >>>> of that type). >>> >>> Almost certainly. Admitting to faults can cost a large company serious >>> money if the customers are on service guarantee contracts >>>> >>>> <https://admin.cloud.microsoft/?#/servicehealth/history> >>>> >>>> requires login ... >>> >>> Well that's no effing good is it? >> >> Indeed. Useless, like all of microsofts products. > > All, all... I like the fight simulator. There is flightgear, but it doesn't > make me enjoy the time that much. Using different keys doesn't help. Reminds me of when I was young. There was a flight simulator on windows 3.11 I think, and the main joy was to crash the planes into buildings in the most spectacular way. After you did that, they have like a re-run of the crash. Then I moved on to greater things, and more fun things such as Larry, Monkey Island and Dune! =)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-01 05:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m05phjFfqe7U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #65068 |
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:00:03 +0100, D wrote: > Reminds me of when I was young. There was a flight simulator on windows > 3.11 I think, and the main joy was to crash the planes into buildings in > the most spectacular way. After you did that, they have like a re-run of > the crash. I had the original Microsoft Flight Simulator on DOS. All I can say it's a good thing I could fly a real Lark better than the simulator.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-01 01:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0fqcndwTaeGhWAD6nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #65086 |
On 2/1/25 12:25 AM, rbowman wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:00:03 +0100, D wrote: > >> Reminds me of when I was young. There was a flight simulator on windows >> 3.11 I think, and the main joy was to crash the planes into buildings in >> the most spectacular way. After you did that, they have like a re-run of >> the crash. > > I had the original Microsoft Flight Simulator on DOS. All I can say it's a > good thing I could fly a real Lark better than the simulator. Tried to make a small plane with 300-foot wings in the old Simulator. Never could get it to fly :-) And yea, actual planes WERE easier to fly than the sims.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-01 14:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <35l17lxehq.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #65089 |
On 2025-02-01 07:54, WokieSux282@ud0s4.net wrote: > On 2/1/25 12:25 AM, rbowman wrote: >> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:00:03 +0100, D wrote: >> >>> Reminds me of when I was young. There was a flight simulator on windows >>> 3.11 I think, and the main joy was to crash the planes into buildings in >>> the most spectacular way. After you did that, they have like a re-run of >>> the crash. >> >> I had the original Microsoft Flight Simulator on DOS. All I can say >> it's a >> good thing I could fly a real Lark better than the simulator. > > Tried to make a small plane with 300-foot > wings in the old Simulator. Never could get > it to fly :-) > > And yea, actual planes WERE easier to fly > than the sims. You have feedback from the body, and greater view. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-01 11:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <38799da0-b66c-ef55-675c-b1b1068c4452@example.net> |
| In reply to | #65086 |
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, rbowman wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:00:03 +0100, D wrote: > >> Reminds me of when I was young. There was a flight simulator on windows >> 3.11 I think, and the main joy was to crash the planes into buildings in >> the most spectacular way. After you did that, they have like a re-run of >> the crash. > > I had the original Microsoft Flight Simulator on DOS. All I can say it's a > good thing I could fly a real Lark better than the simulator. > I would like to own a private, single jet engine plane like the FLARIS LAR01. I must work harder so I can buy one without crying, and then I can freely roam the world! Or maybe I should buy a small yacht? I hear 60-90 ft should be enough to take me over the atlantic when the season and weather permits. The question is... will the wife accept it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-01 14:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <s7l17lxehq.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #65098 |
On 2025-02-01 11:39, D wrote: > > > On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, rbowman wrote: > >> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:00:03 +0100, D wrote: >> >>> Reminds me of when I was young. There was a flight simulator on windows >>> 3.11 I think, and the main joy was to crash the planes into buildings in >>> the most spectacular way. After you did that, they have like a re-run of >>> the crash. >> >> I had the original Microsoft Flight Simulator on DOS. All I can say >> it's a >> good thing I could fly a real Lark better than the simulator. >> > > I would like to own a private, single jet engine plane like the FLARIS > LAR01. > > I must work harder so I can buy one without crying, and then I can > freely roam the world! > > Or maybe I should buy a small yacht? I hear 60-90 ft should be enough to > take me over the atlantic when the season and weather permits. > > The question is... will the wife accept it? Old nautical saying, translating from Spanish: Small craft, big misery. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-01 15:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ca3b4680-3d3d-1701-027b-0a99a2f7179a@example.net> |
| In reply to | #65103 |
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-02-01 11:39, D wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, rbowman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:00:03 +0100, D wrote: >>> >>>> Reminds me of when I was young. There was a flight simulator on windows >>>> 3.11 I think, and the main joy was to crash the planes into buildings in >>>> the most spectacular way. After you did that, they have like a re-run of >>>> the crash. >>> >>> I had the original Microsoft Flight Simulator on DOS. All I can say it's a >>> good thing I could fly a real Lark better than the simulator. >>> >> >> I would like to own a private, single jet engine plane like the FLARIS >> LAR01. >> >> I must work harder so I can buy one without crying, and then I can freely >> roam the world! >> >> Or maybe I should buy a small yacht? I hear 60-90 ft should be enough to >> take me over the atlantic when the season and weather permits. >> >> The question is... will the wife accept it? > > Old nautical saying, translating from Spanish: Small craft, big misery. Sounds reasonable, but does the spanish saying define "small craft"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-01 16:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mgp17lx98e.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #65104 |
On 2025-02-01 15:32, D wrote: > On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-02-01 11:39, D wrote: >>> On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, rbowman wrote: >>>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:00:03 +0100, D wrote: >>>> >>>>> Reminds me of when I was young. There was a flight simulator >>>>> on windows 3.11 I think, and the main joy was to crash the >>>>> planes into buildings in the most spectacular way. After you >>>>> did that, they have like a re- run of the crash. >>>> >>>> I had the original Microsoft Flight Simulator on DOS. All I >>>> can say it's a good thing I could fly a real Lark better than >>>> the simulator. >>>> >>> >>> I would like to own a private, single jet engine plane like the >>> FLARIS LAR01. >>> >>> I must work harder so I can buy one without crying, and then I >>> can freely roam the world! >>> >>> Or maybe I should buy a small yacht? I hear 60-90 ft should be >>> enough to take me over the atlantic when the season and weather >>> permits. >>> >>> The question is... will the wife accept it? >> >> Old nautical saying, translating from Spanish: Small craft, big >> misery. > > Sounds reasonable, but does the spanish saying define "small craft"? Nope. The saying is relative, the smaller the craft, the worse misery you get, in the sense of bigger waves, you get more seasick, the worse it handles with storms :-p -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | D <nospam@example.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-02 11:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <f9b8c6a4-eeaa-9662-1271-55c6aa2510db@example.net> |
| In reply to | #65105 |
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-02-01 15:32, D wrote: >> On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2025-02-01 11:39, D wrote: >>>> On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, rbowman wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:00:03 +0100, D wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Reminds me of when I was young. There was a flight simulator >>>>>> on windows 3.11 I think, and the main joy was to crash the >>>>>> planes into buildings in the most spectacular way. After you >>>>>> did that, they have like a re- run of the crash. >>>>> >>>>> I had the original Microsoft Flight Simulator on DOS. All I >>>>> can say it's a good thing I could fly a real Lark better than >>>>> the simulator. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I would like to own a private, single jet engine plane like the FLARIS >>>> LAR01. >>>> >>>> I must work harder so I can buy one without crying, and then I >>>> can freely roam the world! >>>> >>>> Or maybe I should buy a small yacht? I hear 60-90 ft should be >>>> enough to take me over the atlantic when the season and weather >>>> permits. >>>> >>>> The question is... will the wife accept it? >>> >>> Old nautical saying, translating from Spanish: Small craft, big >>> misery. >> >> Sounds reasonable, but does the spanish saying define "small craft"? > > Nope. The saying is relative, the smaller the craft, the worse misery > you get, in the sense of bigger waves, you get more seasick, the worse > it handles with storms :-p Yes! That's why I was thinking 60-90 ft for a more pleasant journey. Also, every season there are 2 optimal windows for sailing over the atlantic as far as I can understand. In a small boat, never try outside that window.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-02 20:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m0a3jlF6f09U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #65131 |
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 11:39:10 +0100, D wrote: > Yes! That's why I was thinking 60-90 ft for a more pleasant journey. > Also, > every season there are 2 optimal windows for sailing over the atlantic > as far as I can understand. In a small boat, never try outside that > window. If you miss Iceland you may wind up in America. Farley Mowat has been criticized for accuracy but his book 'Westviking' is a good read.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web