Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #15848 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-12-31 19:08 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-01-07 02:07 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 121 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11
This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-31 19:08 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-31 15:19 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2024-12-31 15:41 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-31 21:09 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-31 21:40 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-31 22:14 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-31 22:16 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-31 22:46 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-01 07:50 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-01 08:37 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-01 09:20 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-01 10:06 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-01 23:31 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-01 19:26 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-02 19:14 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-01 09:38 -0600
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Gregg Fowler <totsob@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-01 14:45 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-01 10:20 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 11:42 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-01 19:28 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 14:34 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-01 18:17 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 18:30 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-01 19:23 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 20:10 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-02 08:32 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-02 19:00 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-02 15:04 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 15:18 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-04 20:10 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-01 23:46 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 00:15 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-02 08:58 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 12:11 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-01 23:38 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 18:54 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-01 19:28 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-01 23:59 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 00:16 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-02 05:31 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-02 18:21 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-02 21:55 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 10:18 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-03 21:25 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 13:06 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-04 09:48 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 00:28 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-04 21:16 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 02:44 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-01-04 13:29 -0700
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-02 08:55 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-02 19:22 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-02 15:04 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-03 01:58 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-02 22:12 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-03 08:41 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-03 07:16 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-03 20:24 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-03 15:38 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-02 22:36 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 11:26 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-03 06:13 -0600
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 13:47 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-03 21:26 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-03 20:24 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-04 06:43 -0600
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-04 10:20 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 13:47 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 13:16 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 00:26 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 14:35 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 00:15 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-06 14:47 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 20:20 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-04 20:21 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-02 18:50 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-02 21:57 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-02 22:41 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 10:37 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 10:28 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-01 20:19 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 15:24 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-01 21:14 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 17:10 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-02 00:19 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-01 22:12 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-02 19:26 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-01 23:53 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-01 21:54 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-01 22:42 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-02 05:29 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-02 18:39 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-02 21:56 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 10:18 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-03 21:27 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-01-26 19:07 +1100
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-27 17:14 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-12-31 20:45 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-01 01:27 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2024-12-31 21:33 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-01 13:45 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-01-02 13:50 +0100
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> - 2025-01-02 09:47 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 10:37 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-03 05:20 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 16:48 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-04 20:32 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-01-05 01:39 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2025-01-05 00:43 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-05 02:45 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2025-01-08 00:00 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 14:14 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 00:15 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-05 22:29 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-06 06:29 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2025-01-08 00:09 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-08 02:24 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-07 22:44 -0500
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-01-09 09:02 -0700
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-06 14:48 +0000
Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-07 02:07 +0000
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 20:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl4bfp.108o.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15906 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:45:44 GMT, Gregg Fowler wrote: > > > Beta software is beta software. An OS is an OS. > > And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and expecting its > users to rely on that for mission-critical production work. Don't be silly! Any such 'users' are total idiots. The consumer versions of Windows are totally unfit for "mission-critical production work". And even business/enterprise versions need competent IT staff and procedures to properly manage such systems. FYI, I've been supporting Five Nines systems (obviously not Windows ones), so remarks like yours tend to push my button.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 15:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <qu8bnj170rb6fmq2a80qegdbtb411uqlse@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #15913 |
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>User-Agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (CYGWIN_NT-10.0-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2
Fascinating that you prefer using that for Usenet, I'm the reverse,
using Forte Agent under Wine, lol.
>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:45:44 GMT, Gregg Fowler wrote:
>>
>> > Beta software is beta software. An OS is an OS.
>>
>> And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and expecting its
>> users to rely on that for mission-critical production work.
>
> Don't be silly! Any such 'users' are total idiots. The consumer
>versions of Windows are totally unfit for "mission-critical production
>work". And even business/enterprise versions need competent IT staff and
>procedures to properly manage such systems.
>
> FYI, I've been supporting Five Nines systems (obviously not Windows
>ones), so remarks like yours tend to push my button.
That's a good point - the business Winblows users will not be using
24H2, in the first place, M$ is testing it in the wild with early-
adopter types, masochists one might surmise.
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 21:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl4ena.7ts.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15914 |
Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >User-Agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (CYGWIN_NT-10.0-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2
>
>
> Fascinating that you prefer using that for Usenet, I'm the reverse,
> using Forte Agent under Wine, lol.
I started with 'notes' ('notesfiles', not Lotus Notes) on Unix/UNIX
(HP-UX), so tin was the logical next step. Anyway, why would I want to
use a GUI+'mouse' for a pure text medium? No need to go forwards and
backwards between keyboard and mouse. But that's just my choice/
preference.
As to Cygwin, for my personal use, Windows programs and all GNU tools
is the best combination, ever since early 2003. WSL came way too late
for me considering to switch to it.
> >Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:45:44 GMT, Gregg Fowler wrote:
> >>
> >> > Beta software is beta software. An OS is an OS.
> >>
> >> And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and expecting its
> >> users to rely on that for mission-critical production work.
> >
> > Don't be silly! Any such 'users' are total idiots. The consumer
> >versions of Windows are totally unfit for "mission-critical production
> >work". And even business/enterprise versions need competent IT staff and
> >procedures to properly manage such systems.
> >
> > FYI, I've been supporting Five Nines systems (obviously not Windows
> >ones), so remarks like yours tend to push my button.
>
> That's a good point - the business Winblows users will not be using
> 24H2, in the first place, M$ is testing it in the wild with early-
> adopter types, masochists one might surmise.
Indeed. I only updated to 24H2 after some months passed and most of
the dust had settled. Update went fine and the power efficiency
enhancements indeed seem to make my laptop's battery to last longer.
Who would have thought that! :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 17:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <euebnjtt65867kipag7mcm4feaiqpq8iui@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #15916 |
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> >User-Agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (CYGWIN_NT-10.0-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2
>>
>> Fascinating that you prefer using that for Usenet, I'm the reverse,
>> using Forte Agent under Wine, lol.
>
> I started with 'notes' ('notesfiles', not Lotus Notes) on Unix/UNIX
>(HP-UX), so tin was the logical next step. Anyway, why would I want to
>use a GUI+'mouse' for a pure text medium? No need to go forwards and
>backwards between keyboard and mouse. But that's just my choice/
>preference.
Agent is the flagship (GUI) app other than the ones like you're using.
> As to Cygwin, for my personal use, Windows programs and all GNU tools
>is the best combination, ever since early 2003. WSL came way too late
>for me considering to switch to it.
Well, whether it's Cygwin or WSL 2 or Windows 7 Ultimate for that
matter, it's still an intriguing thing to be running in a rather more
profound sense than me running Agent under Wine.
>> >Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:45:44 GMT, Gregg Fowler wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Beta software is beta software. An OS is an OS.
>> >>
>> >> And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and expecting its
>> >> users to rely on that for mission-critical production work.
>> >
>> > Don't be silly! Any such 'users' are total idiots. The consumer
>> >versions of Windows are totally unfit for "mission-critical production
>> >work". And even business/enterprise versions need competent IT staff and
>> >procedures to properly manage such systems.
>> >
>> > FYI, I've been supporting Five Nines systems (obviously not Windows
>> >ones), so remarks like yours tend to push my button.
>>
>> That's a good point - the business Winblows users will not be using
>> 24H2, in the first place, M$ is testing it in the wild with early-
>> adopter types, masochists one might surmise.
>
> Indeed. I only updated to 24H2 after some months passed and most of
>the dust had settled. Update went fine and the power efficiency
>enhancements indeed seem to make my laptop's battery to last longer.
>Who would have thought that! :-)
Good that it is functioning properly for your machine.
--
Joel W. Crump
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-02 00:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ltm4cdFiao7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15916 |
On 1 Jan 2025 21:14:06 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: > As to Cygwin, for my personal use, Windows programs and all GNU tools > is the best combination, ever since early 2003. WSL came way too late > for me considering to switch to it. I don't think it has been maintained in a while but there was a native Windows build of Unix utilities that didn't depend on Cygwin or MSYS2. I get tired of typing ls and finding nothing there. I haven't used Cygwin recently. Speaking of way too late I started with DJGPP which ported gcc to Windows. There were two threads growing out of that. Corrina Vinschen and others took the Cygwin branch which more to create a Unix environment of Windows while Colin Peters, and later Mumit Khan took the mingw32 branch to use gcc to build native Windows programs that became MSYS2 over the years. It was an interesting era. At work we used the MKS NutCracker tools to port what were originally AIX programs to Windows. While Cygwin would have probably worked it would have gotten into the whole GPL limitations on commercial software morass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 22:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <vl506p$3216p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15934 |
On Wed, 1/1/2025 7:19 PM, rbowman wrote: > On 1 Jan 2025 21:14:06 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: > >> As to Cygwin, for my personal use, Windows programs and all GNU tools >> is the best combination, ever since early 2003. WSL came way too late >> for me considering to switch to it. > > I don't think it has been maintained in a while but there was a native > Windows build of Unix utilities that didn't depend on Cygwin or MSYS2. I > get tired of typing ls and finding nothing there. > > I haven't used Cygwin recently. Speaking of way too late I started with > DJGPP which ported gcc to Windows. There were two threads growing out of > that. Corrina Vinschen and others took the Cygwin branch which more to > create a Unix environment of Windows while Colin Peters, and later Mumit > Khan took the mingw32 branch to use gcc to build native Windows programs > that became MSYS2 over the years. It was an interesting era. > > At work we used the MKS NutCracker tools to port what were originally AIX > programs to Windows. While Cygwin would have probably worked it would have > gotten into the whole GPL limitations on commercial software morass. > That's gnuwin32. https://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages.html Example of a package. Has multiple download components, and you have to do something about %PATH% if you expect full integration. I run these in portable mode (English translation "I don't follow the instructions") . https://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/coreutils.htm Requires a bit of skill in terms of getting them set up to run. Note that on Windows 11, the nice dyndll response of the past is missing. On previous Windows, running an EXE that was missing a dynDLL, the loader would tell you the DLL that was missing. You'd put it next to the EXE, and it would tell you the next DLL that was missing. In this way, you could assemble all the dependencies. Windows 11 seems to be all or nothing. But it is easy enough to test, by moving a DLL and see what happens. Static compiling seems to be better for consumers, but not many do it. And look at SNAPS, if you want to see the ultimate level of bloating -- as the size of the package increases (gnome desktop SNAP), the wasted download bandwidth increases enormously. I still use at least one gnuwin32 regularly. That's gawk.exe . I have other things I can run, like bash shell. The difference between gnuwin32 gawk.exe and bash shell gawk, is the line endings. Gnuwin32 uses native Windows line termination, while bash shell uses Linux line termination, and a tiny mod must be made to your script, if moving it. Cygwin is yet another environment, with a decidedly mixed bag of namespaces. But it's nothing to freak out about. That gives you a Windows.exe and you refer to /dev/sda when picking the first disk drive :-) It depends on the person doing the port, as to what they support or what throws a warning so you know what just happened. Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-02 19:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <lto7j6Frr0kU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15941 |
On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 22:12:24 -0500, Paul wrote: > I still use at least one gnuwin32 regularly. That's gawk.exe . > I have other things I can run, like bash shell. The difference between > gnuwin32 gawk.exe and bash shell gawk, is the line endings. > Gnuwin32 uses native Windows line termination, while bash shell uses > Linux line termination, and a tiny mod must be made to your script, if > moving it. Yeah, that misery... Our legacy apps started life on AIX and were ported to Windows. <CR><LF> caused a number of bugs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 23:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ltm2rkFi3saU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15914 |
On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 15:24:22 -0500, Joel wrote: > That's a good point - the business Winblows users will not be using > 24H2, in the first place, M$ is testing it in the wild with early- > adopter types, masochists one might surmise. Don't bet on it. I updated both of my work Windows machines to 24H2 last month. IT isn't forcing it yet but they get antsy if machines aren't updated. Windows 10 is completely verboten. Any box that couldn't run 11 was wiped. I got a new Linux box out of it. The head of IT does his best to pretend Linux doesn't exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 21:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl4djg$2v362$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15913 |
On 1 Jan 2025 20:19:01 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and expecting >> its users to rely on that for mission-critical production work. > > Any such 'users' are total idiots. You said it, I didn’t ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 22:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <vl51v0$3610d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15921 |
On Wed, 1/1/2025 4:54 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On 1 Jan 2025 20:19:01 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: > >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> >>> And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and expecting >>> its users to rely on that for mission-critical production work. >> >> Any such 'users' are total idiots. > > You said it, I didn’t ... > There are multiple streams. We don't have experience with all of them, so cannot comment on the practical differences. I bet the US military version, doesn't have the "location tracker" turned on :-) And at least one other SKU, doesn't have Edge. There are differences in the lineup, and a different set of policies in GPEDIT. Paul
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-02 05:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <vl588h$36ulr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15942 |
On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 22:42:23 -0500, Paul wrote: > I bet the US military version, doesn't have the "location tracker" > turned on :-) But how would they be sure? Looking at source code provides no guarantees that those binaries were actually built from that code. They would have to build it themselves to be sure. You can only do that with Free Software.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-02 18:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl6q10.dio.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15921 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On 1 Jan 2025 20:19:01 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > > > >> And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and expecting > >> its users to rely on that for mission-critical production work. > > > > Any such 'users' are total idiots. > > You said it, I didn?t ... Nope, I didn't. You 'conveniently', silently, stripped the rest of the paragraph, making it look to say something completely different than the real/full story. Oldest trick in the book and one of the most dishonest ones at that. But granted, not much different than your initial description of a non-existing group of "users".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-02 21:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl7229$3h9eh$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15979 |
On 2 Jan 2025 18:39:20 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> On 1 Jan 2025 20:19:01 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: >> >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and >>>> expecting its users to rely on that for mission-critical production >>>> work. >>> >>> Any such 'users' are total idiots. >> >> You said it, I didn?t ... > > Nope, I didn't. You 'conveniently', silently, stripped the rest of the > paragraph ... You mean, the part that agreed with what I said?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 10:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl8h2q.5bk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15994 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On 2 Jan 2025 18:39:20 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On 1 Jan 2025 20:19:01 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: > >> > >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >>> > >>>> And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and > >>>> expecting its users to rely on that for mission-critical production > >>>> work. > >>> > >>> Any such 'users' are total idiots. > >> > >> You said it, I didn?t ... > > > > Nope, I didn't. You 'conveniently', silently, stripped the rest of the > > paragraph ... > > You mean, the part that agreed with what I said? Nope it didn't. Quite the contrary, as you very well know, or should know. In hindsight, I see that you didn't only snip the rest of the paragraph, but also the beginning, where I said "Don't be silly!". I wonder why you snipped that part! Bottom line: Can't do the time, ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 21:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl9kod$2vmi$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16024 |
On 3 Jan 2025 10:18:55 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> You mean, the part that agreed with what I said? > > Nope it didn't. If you cannot make your point clearly, that is your fault, not mine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-26 19:07 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <vn4qgq$3ihau$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15906 |
On 2/01/2025 6:28 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:45:44 GMT, Gregg Fowler wrote: > >> Beta software is beta software. An OS is an OS. > > And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and > expecting its users to rely on that for mission-critical production > work. > .... but, hey, Microsoft give the OS to us sooooo cheap ;-) it's almost like they're subsidising us to be Beta-testers!! ;-P -- Daniel70
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-27 17:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <k81gpjlv7324a75947ti66u4d5tqjdp1k8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16526 |
Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote: >On 2/01/2025 6:28 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:45:44 GMT, Gregg Fowler wrote: >> >>> Beta software is beta software. An OS is an OS. >> >> And Microsoft is the only one shipping a beta-quality OS and >> expecting its users to rely on that for mission-critical production >> work. >> >.... but, hey, Microsoft give the OS to us sooooo cheap ;-) it's almost >like they're subsidising us to be Beta-testers!! ;-P You might find specific deals to get Windows cheap, but the retail prices are not cheap, people seeking the real experience. -- Joel W. Crump Amendment XIV Section 1. [...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-31 20:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl1ok6.7ro.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15848 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > Yet another > <https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-windows-11-24h2-bug-could-block-future-security-updates-see-whos-affected/> > in the ongoing stream of bugs from Microsoft resulting from the > Windows update process itself. This one breaks the ability to receive > further security updates. So once you get it, how do you get an update > to fix it? Particularly when there have already been updates that kept > introducing their own new bugs? This is a bit of a corner case, i.e. limited timeframe, uncommon way to update and somewhat uncommon way to install. Also the article is messing up the terminology, so I would take it with quite a lot of salt. FWIW, my updates went without any glitches. Knock on wood. And FTR, in 20+ years I've had only one case - on only one of two systems - where Windows Update was somwhat messed up. Not broken, but re-offering already installed updates, so I wanted to clean it up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-01 01:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ltjjvbF61fhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15862 |
On 31 Dec 2024 20:45:03 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote: > And FTR, in 20+ years I've had only one case - on only one of two > systems - where Windows Update was somwhat messed up. Not broken, but > re-offering already installed updates, so I wanted to clean it up. You're volunteering to be a beta tester but I had a machine on the Insiders releases. About the time they juggled the developers and canary classifications it would repeatedly try to update and fail. I was not the only person affected. There was no path forward other than a complete reinstall. I have been to the point where you need to stop the updater service and blow away the Software Update directory before restarting the service a couple of times. Not a big deal but not something Aunt Tilly is going to figure out without a visit by the Geek Squad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-31 21:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: This Is Why They Say Windows Is A Great OS -- If Your Time Is Worth Nothing |
| Message-ID | <EP1dP.111421$Uup4.6124@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #15848 |
On 2024-12-31 14:08, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > Yet another > <https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-windows-11-24h2-bug-could-block-future-security-updates-see-whos-affected/> > in the ongoing stream of bugs from Microsoft resulting from the > Windows update process itself. This one breaks the ability to receive > further security updates. So once you get it, how do you get an update > to fix it? Particularly when there have already been updates that kept > introducing their own new bugs? Dear Lord is this embarrassing. -- Andrzej (Andre) Matuch Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41 KDE supporting member
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-11
csiph-web