Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #408428

Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/14/17, 12:29 PM, in article op.yyo9r408js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:17:13 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/14/17, 11:43 AM, in article op.yyo7nkmjjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>>>> I do the latter -- watch the psychology -- and also talk about tech, but
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> latter is heavily shunned unless before the discussion begins you already
>>>>>> know Linux will "win" on the task or whatever is being discussed. There
>>>>>> always has to be a "winner" -- not just a comparison of pros and cons and
>>>>>> learning. It is odd.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's because most linux users are strange.
>>>> 
>>>> There are many who, well, just want to use it because it works for them
>>>> (such as some developers but also others) or because they have old donated
>>>> hardware or hardware not worth fixing or no OS and they can use it for
>>>> free.
>>>> Others use it just to learn and for the joy of it (and in my case because
>>>> there are times some of the above applies).
>>> 
>>> Windows 7 is easy to get for free.  Which used to (and still does?) upgrade
>>> to
>>> 10 for free.
>> 
>> Legally?
> 
> Who cares about that?  As long as it works.

A lot of people. I do not use illegal software (though I also get a lot for
free from employers). But even when not it is not something many know how to
do.

>> And will it run on older hardware?
> 
> Of course.  The problem is newer hardware than the OS.

Old enough and it does not run well.

>> Right now, for example, I have
>> 10 or so year old Mac with a dead hard drive. Could get a new hard drive,
>> fight to put it in (Apple does not make it easy)
> 
> I remember completely dismantling a macbook clamshell for a memory upgrade.
> The corresponding PCs had a flap in the bottom, making it take 2 minutes
> instead of 2 hours.

This is an iMac... but, yes, it is absurdly difficult to open. I do have a
(clean!) plunger I use to remove the screen. Stupid such is even needed
though.

>> and then buy new installation media (I foolishly tossed it about a month
>> before the hard drive died). It is mostly used as a media station... which
>> Linux does well enough - so I popped a USB Flash drive onto the back with
>> Linux installed and set it up. Has been working passably well for some time
>> now. Also can use it to surf the web and do some other basic work.
>> 
>>>> But there is also a large cult-like following of it which is just bizarre.
>>>> They push that you are not a "pure" user then you are not a "real" user...
>>>> >>>> I use macOS, Windows, and Linux and think they all have pros and cons
>>>> and people should use what they like and what fits their needs and
>>>> resources. You know, like with any other tool. To them this makes me a
>>>> Linux "hater" and someone who is not a "real" Linux user. And the fact I
>>>> turn in bug reports and speak of them means I note the weaknesses of
>>>> desktop Linux and that just is unacceptable to them. The fact I do the same
>>>> for software on other platforms is not relevant in their minds.
>>>> 
>>>> Sometimes annoying but overall just interesting to watch.
>>>> 
>>> Isn't MacOS just linux with another GUI on top?
>> 
>> Well, it is a UNIX and not Linux which is a UNIX-clone. Different details
>> but the same idea on the back end but it has a completely different GUI and
>> apps (and overall design principle for those).
>> 
>> Both have access to the same command line, but if that is your primary use
>> then Linux is cheaper, comes with more tools (though you can install them if
>> you want), and is likely faster for most tasks. They also have different
>> rules for their most commonly used file systems (mostly tied to how upper
>> and lower case are dealt with) and some like one more than the other. Most
>> tools, though, are made to not confuse humans which is what the macOS system
>> is designed for as well, so they will work at least MOSTLY the same on both.
> 
> Some weird folk seem to like the Mac OS, but they want decent hardware at a
> decent price.  I've built a number of high end PCs to run Mac OS.

I tend to use Macs. Right now Apple is insanely out of date with updating
most of their hardware, but when you compare what you get compared to other
OEMs they are in the ballpark (though you cannot opt OUT of getting
something you do not want, say a built in camera). I personally like the OS
and the programs that run on it for a lot of things but as with all systems
it has pros and cons.


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-13 23:42 +0000
  Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 18:36 +0100
    Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 10:55 -0700
      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 19:03 +0100
        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 11:17 -0700
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 19:43 +0100
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 12:17 -0700
              Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 20:29 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 15:35 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:33 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 16:35 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 22:04 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 12:44 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:28 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 15:57 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-15 00:58 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:17 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 10:20 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 13:50 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 11:08 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 14:45 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-15 15:20 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 15:35 -0400
              Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 21:30 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-14 16:35 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 22:05 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-14 21:21 +0000
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-14 23:48 +0100
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:25 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 02:20 +0000
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-15 09:03 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-15 13:51 +0000
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-15 12:10 -0400
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 17:20 -0700
      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-14 17:48 -0400
        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-14 16:01 -0700

csiph-web