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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #408435

Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:44:03 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> 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).

Most people use illegal something.  Mp3s, films, marijuana, breaking speed limits, the list goes on.  Play everything by the book and you'll lead a much duller simpler life.

> But even when not it is not something many know how to do.

Easy enough to Google or ask a friend.

>>> 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.

Add more memory.  My current machine is 3 years old and will take 4 times as much memory as required to run Windows 10 very 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.

The first thing I always get asked when giving someone an imac is.... "Where's the bloody power switch?"  After that, "Where's the reset button?" and "Where's the hard disk activity LED?"

>>> 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.

And I bet you still have to pay more for out of date hardware.

-- 
Q. What's a Catholic priest and a pint of Guinness got in common?
A. A black coat, white collar and you've got to watch your arse if you get a dodgy one!

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