Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #286560 > unrolled thread
| Started by | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-03-29 13:24 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-03-29 15:50 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 413 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 13:24 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-29 15:41 +0200
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 13:59 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-29 16:00 +0200
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:09 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-29 16:10 +0200
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:19 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-29 16:16 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 10:20 -0400
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:35 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 11:09 -0400
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:59 +0000
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 16:04 -0600
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-29 10:18 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-29 16:23 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-29 12:38 -0400
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 17:02 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-03-29 13:08 -0400
Re: fucking firefox John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 10:12 -0700
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-29 13:53 -0400
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 03:48 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 10:04 -0400
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-29 10:15 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 10:20 -0400
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-29 10:30 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 11:07 -0400
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-29 21:04 -0400
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 01:21 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 13:01 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 12:54 -0400
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:39 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:37 +0000
Re: fucking firefox John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 07:30 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-03-30 11:21 +0100
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 14:39 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 15:06 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-29 17:09 +0200
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 15:17 +0000
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 04:16 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 13:31 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-30 19:47 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 14:01 -0400
Re: fucking firefox chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-30 13:35 -0500
Re: fucking firefox chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-30 13:57 -0500
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-30 20:00 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 20:56 -0400
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-30 22:22 +0100
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-30 19:59 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-03-30 20:02 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 08:53 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-31 05:53 -0400
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-31 10:59 +0100
The Apache Software Foundation Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-31 06:11 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 13:07 -0600
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-31 22:32 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 21:28 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 12:17 -0600
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 08:40 -0400
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-01 08:12 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 17:24 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 12:10 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 18:37 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 10:15 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 19:51 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 11:20 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-01 14:22 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 11:27 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:49 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-02 01:01 +0200
Re: fucking wintrolls ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 23:01 +0000
Re: fucking lintrolls GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:46 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 19:51 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:45 -0600
Re: fucking firefox cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-02 05:00 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:44 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 19:06 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 13:12 +0200
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:39 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 12:17 -0600
Re: fucking firefox cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-01 11:27 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 11:30 -0700
Re: fucking firefox cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-01 11:35 -0700
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-01 14:47 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 12:01 -0700
Re: fucking firefox cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-01 12:14 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 13:02 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 22:57 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-01 23:46 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-02 00:02 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-02 00:08 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-02 00:23 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 15:43 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:41 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-04 09:36 -0700
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-01 20:11 -0400
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-01 20:30 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 18:30 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:39 -0600
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-01 21:02 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-01 23:47 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-02 06:09 +0200
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-02 08:58 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 09:23 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 08:12 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2015-04-04 02:17 +0000
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-03 09:38 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 19:57 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 19:56 -0400
Re: fucking firefox JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-02 13:35 -0500
Re: fucking wintrolls ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 22:17 +0000
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:46 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 14:58 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-02 00:13 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 15:20 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-01 21:31 +0200
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-01 15:38 -0400
Ezekiel doesn't care, obviously. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-02 08:20 -0700
Re: Ezekiel doesn't care, obviously. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-02 12:01 -0400
Your Usenet skills reflect your email skills. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-02 09:55 -0700
Re: Your Usenet skills reflect your email skills. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 13:37 -0400
Re: Your Usenet skills reflect your email skills. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-02 14:20 -0400
Re: Your Usenet skills reflect your email skills. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 11:34 -0700
If you don't need more, than fine. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-02 19:25 -0700
Re: If you don't need more, than fine. Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-02 23:50 -0400
Re: If you don't need more, than fine. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 13:10 +0200
Re: If you don't need more, than fine. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-03 12:58 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 19:53 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 12:17 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 19:49 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-02 01:53 +0200
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-01 12:36 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 12:16 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 08:59 -0400
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 09:25 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 09:54 -0400
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-31 00:04 +0000
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:29 -0600
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-30 20:49 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 21:56 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-03-31 10:50 +0100
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 12:11 +0200
Re: fucking firefox chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-31 07:07 -0500
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 14:42 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-03-31 13:45 +0100
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 08:55 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 17:13 +0200
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-31 11:35 -0400
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-01 08:09 -0700
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-01 11:59 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 12:15 -0600
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-01 15:26 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:42 -0600
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-01 15:01 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:43 -0600
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-01 19:54 -0400
If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-02 06:16 -0700
Re: If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 13:47 -0500
Re: If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-04-02 20:14 +0000
Re: If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 17:57 -0400
Re: If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-02 18:21 -0400
Re: If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-02 16:48 -0700
Re: If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-02 22:14 -0400
Define "Good things". Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-02 19:29 -0700
Re: Define "Good things". Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 22:15 -0500
Re: Define "Good things". Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-02 23:49 -0400
The House of Saud. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-02 07:55 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 12:07 -0400
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-01 18:40 +0000
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-01 14:52 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:40 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 11:56 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 20:31 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-31 12:03 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 16:43 -0600
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-01 07:38 -0700
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 14:42 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 17:13 +0200
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 12:14 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 12:13 -0600
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-01 13:49 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:39 -0600
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 04:15 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 04:33 +0000
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 04:35 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 04:50 +0000
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:28 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-30 06:00 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:28 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2015-03-30 23:26 +0000
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-30 08:05 -0400
Hooting owl Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-30 05:56 -0400
Re: Hooting owl William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-30 11:01 +0100
Re: Hooting owl Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 08:58 -0700
Re: Hooting owl Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 09:43 -0700
Re: Hooting owl GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:26 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 13:28 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:25 -0600
fucking owl Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-29 12:27 -0400
Re: fucking owl Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-03-29 12:32 -0400
Re: fucking owl GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 16:00 -0600
Fucking bowel Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2015-03-29 18:41 +0000
Re: fucking owl owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 18:54 +0000
Re: fucking owl GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 15:58 -0600
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-29 09:45 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-29 15:54 +0200
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:06 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 10:00 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 15:55 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 09:55 -0400
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 14:38 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:43 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 16:42 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 15:55 -0600
Re: fucking firefox taka0038@gmail.com - 2015-04-01 09:23 -0700
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 14:41 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:55 +0000
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 04:25 +0000
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 04:29 +0000
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:24 -0600
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 04:44 +0000
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-30 09:05 +0100
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-30 09:55 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 09:40 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:23 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:22 -0600
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-29 16:19 +0100
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 15:41 +0000
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 15:54 -0600
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 04:09 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 04:23 +0000
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 04:32 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 04:40 +0000
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-30 09:06 +0100
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-30 10:06 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:21 -0600
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-30 20:45 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:20 -0600
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-30 09:02 +0100
Irritable bowel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-30 07:09 -0500
Re: Irritable bowel DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-30 10:40 -0400
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-30 10:40 -0400
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-30 11:25 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:18 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:16 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 15:53 -0600
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 03:47 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-03-30 08:23 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-03-30 16:06 +0100
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:15 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 09:43 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 16:57 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 12:13 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 19:24 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 12:35 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 12:44 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 19:54 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 13:06 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 20:29 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 13:59 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 00:55 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 18:15 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 01:38 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 18:54 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 02:25 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 22:53 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 03:12 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 22:56 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 13:06 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-30 19:46 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 14:00 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-30 20:15 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 11:42 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-30 20:54 +0200
Re: fucking firefox JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-30 14:03 -0500
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 12:12 -0700
Re: fucking firefox chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-30 14:22 -0500
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-03-30 15:37 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-30 19:50 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 21:51 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-30 19:49 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-03-30 20:01 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 08:50 +0200
"What's a Sea drive?" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-31 05:57 -0400
Re: "What's a Sea drive?" DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 08:40 -0400
Re: "What's a Sea drive?" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-31 09:14 -0500
Re: "What's a Sea drive?" DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 13:22 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 08:57 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 17:11 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 11:40 -0400
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 11:47 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 13:29 -0400
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-31 22:29 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-03-31 18:39 -0400
Re: fucking firefox JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-02 13:31 -0500
Re: fucking firefox chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-02 14:19 -0500
Re: fucking firefox JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-02 15:42 -0500
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 21:19 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-02 23:41 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-02 19:37 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-02 12:49 -0700
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-02 22:56 +0100
C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-02 19:40 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-03 09:40 +0100
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-03 06:04 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 13:07 +0200
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-03 12:16 +0100
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-03 07:11 -0500
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:35 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:35 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 07:57 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 15:21 +0200
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 09:42 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 16:03 +0200
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 10:16 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-03 10:16 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:35 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-03 10:20 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:34 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-03 22:29 +0100
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-04 09:33 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-03 09:49 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-03 09:10 -0500
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:31 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-03 11:00 -0500
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 12:24 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 12:36 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:30 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:30 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:29 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 15:01 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-04 16:25 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:28 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-03 22:29 +0100
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:28 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-03 13:01 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:27 -0600
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-02 16:55 -0700
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-02 17:21 -0700
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-02 22:06 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 13:02 +0200
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 07:53 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 15:19 +0200
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 09:36 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:27 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-03 09:51 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:26 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:25 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 19:03 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-02 19:35 -0400
Re: fucking firefox chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-03 06:49 -0500
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-03 09:00 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:22 -0600
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 14:55 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-04 16:24 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-03 09:39 -0400
Re: fucking firefox JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-03 11:03 -0500
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-31 17:40 -0700
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-01 08:45 -0400
Re: fucking firefox JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-31 09:33 -0500
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 11:11 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 17:19 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 11:42 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-31 13:18 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 11:43 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 20:30 +0200
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-31 22:36 +0100
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-31 23:51 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 00:18 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-31 19:52 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 21:27 -0400
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-01 08:23 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 12:10 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-01 14:30 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:30 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 16:41 -0600
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-31 22:49 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-31 19:54 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 21:35 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 16:40 -0600
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-31 22:33 +0100
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-31 22:39 +0000
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 12:04 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 13:34 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-31 10:50 -0700
Re: fucking firefox chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-31 08:33 -0500
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 12:15 -0700
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-03-30 15:31 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 16:23 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 23:36 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 17:44 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 15:26 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-30 22:06 +0200
Re: fucking firefox JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-30 15:19 -0500
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 23:02 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 08:49 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 08:52 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 11:39 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 12:16 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-30 19:46 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 08:47 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 08:50 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 17:07 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 11:37 -0400
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-01 09:03 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-01 12:56 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 19:50 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-01 14:21 -0400
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-01 22:45 +0100
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-01 21:01 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 20:00 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 12:54 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 10:08 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 15:50 -0600
Page 20 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 Next page →
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 22:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mff7mh$k7s$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286979 |
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:19:05 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> And there's nothing wrong with that. If you insert a disc and an icon >> for a disc suddenly appears on your computer's desktop, that's fine. >> You know that the icon represents the disc. Similarly, Windows popping >> up with a dialog and asking you what you want to do makes sense. >> Putting in a disc and not knowing how to access it, the typical Linux >> way, is ridiculous. Only you unwashed Linux losers tolerate that kind >> of stupidity. >> >> > And you have no idea how it is *really* handled in linux. That much is > clear, as your description is utter bullshit Slime again proves he hasn't used Linux in at least 15 years. He should at least learn a little about the subject before putting his ignorance on display in a Linux Advocacy newsgroup. But I guess FUD thrives on ignorance. -- To WinDrones and iCultists obsessed with Linux. Get a life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 12:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mfeghh$ehh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286977 |
On 03/31/2015 11:11 AM, Slimer wrote: > On 2015-03-31 10:33 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> On 2015-03-31, Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> wrote: >>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:49:23 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>> >>>> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >>>> >>>>> TomB already expained all of thos to that vile thing, of >>>>> course. >>>>> >>>>> AGAIN, the ignorant thing knows best, and declares "Linux >>>>> bad". >>>>> >>>>> Sheesh. >>>>> >>>>> -- "If Ubuntu cannot see the drive /letters/ and can't use >>>>> the alphabet then what good is it?" - some thing (posting >>>>> as "Rekruled") >>>> >>>> Incredible. Drive letters! How 8-bit can you get? >>> >>> Normal people understand C:, D:, E: drives. They don't >>> understand: /dev/sda : /dev/sda1 etc. >> >> I think you're kidding yourself if they understand drive letters. >> >> On the other hand, the "gold standard" behavior for dealing with >> media for which this matters has always been "wait for the window >> to pop up". Apple set that standard in 1984. > > And there's nothing wrong with that. If you insert a disc and an icon > for a disc suddenly appears on your computer's desktop, that's fine. > You know that the icon represents the disc. Similarly, Windows > popping up with a dialog and asking you what you want to do makes > sense. Putting in a disc and not knowing how to access it, the > typical Linux way, is ridiculous. Only you unwashed Linux losers > tolerate that kind of stupidity. I'm running Manjaro Linux (xfce desktop) right now, and just plugged in a digital camera. Received absolutely no notification that anything happened. (I had disabled the xfce setting to show 'removable device' icons because I didn't want a desktop crammed full of icons for each of the 8 unmounted partitions on my disk. If that setting is enabled, the camera pops up on the desktop when it's plugged in.) Which distro will they recommend to get a normal, expected OS response to plugging in a digital camera? The Microsoft Windows distro if they're smart.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 13:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mfelom$5a9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286988 |
On 2015-03-31 12:04 PM, DFS wrote: > On 03/31/2015 11:11 AM, Slimer wrote: >> On 2015-03-31 10:33 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> On 2015-03-31, Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:49:23 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>>> >>>>> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >>>>> >>>>>> TomB already expained all of thos to that vile thing, of >>>>>> course. >>>>>> >>>>>> AGAIN, the ignorant thing knows best, and declares "Linux >>>>>> bad". >>>>>> >>>>>> Sheesh. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- "If Ubuntu cannot see the drive /letters/ and can't use >>>>>> the alphabet then what good is it?" - some thing (posting >>>>>> as "Rekruled") >>>>> >>>>> Incredible. Drive letters! How 8-bit can you get? >>>> >>>> Normal people understand C:, D:, E: drives. They don't >>>> understand: /dev/sda : /dev/sda1 etc. >>> >>> I think you're kidding yourself if they understand drive letters. >>> >>> On the other hand, the "gold standard" behavior for dealing with >>> media for which this matters has always been "wait for the window >>> to pop up". Apple set that standard in 1984. >> >> And there's nothing wrong with that. If you insert a disc and an icon >> for a disc suddenly appears on your computer's desktop, that's fine. >> You know that the icon represents the disc. Similarly, Windows >> popping up with a dialog and asking you what you want to do makes >> sense. Putting in a disc and not knowing how to access it, the >> typical Linux way, is ridiculous. Only you unwashed Linux losers >> tolerate that kind of stupidity. > > > I'm running Manjaro Linux (xfce desktop) right now, and just plugged in > a digital camera. Received absolutely no notification that anything > happened. > > (I had disabled the xfce setting to show 'removable device' icons > because I didn't want a desktop crammed full of icons for each of the 8 > unmounted partitions on my disk. If that setting is enabled, the camera > pops up on the desktop when it's plugged in.) > > Which distro will they recommend to get a normal, expected OS response > to plugging in a digital camera? The Microsoft Windows distro if > they're smart. My experience with Linux recently is that the desktop environments tend to let you know that a USB device was plugged in. Discs as well. Back in the day though, this was not the case. If you put your disc in, the system told you nothing and you had to figure out which directory represented your optical drive. Sometimes it was something that made sense like /media/cdrom but oftentimes it ended up in the /dev where no mind in the world would have expected it to be unless he was already quite proficient with the system. As far as I know, current editions of KDE, GNOME and XFCE detect it and probably have for a while, but it's clearly not because Linux losers wanted it to but rather because they copied the functionality from the evil designers at Microsoft and Apple. If the Linux losers had their way, the system wouldn't let you know at all and you'd have to mount and umount the device every fucking time. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 10:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D1402C6C.495BA%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286977 |
On 3/31/15, 8:11 AM, in article mfeddh$1io$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: >>> Normal people understand C:, D:, E: drives. >>> They don't understand: /dev/sda : /dev/sda1 etc. >> >> I think you're kidding yourself if they understand drive letters. >> >> On the other hand, the "gold standard" behavior for dealing with >> media for which this matters has always been "wait for the window to >> pop up". Apple set that standard in 1984. > > And there's nothing wrong with that. If you insert a disc and an icon > for a disc suddenly appears on your computer's desktop, that's fine. You > know that the icon represents the disc. Similarly, Windows popping up > with a dialog and asking you what you want to do makes sense. Putting in > a disc and not knowing how to access it, the typical Linux way, is > ridiculous. Only you unwashed Linux losers tolerate that kind of stupidity. I do find it funny when Windows has pop ups telling you something worked... as if it was a big surprise. :) -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 08:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0p7lha9msoo5m0kjkod4irm864si1kd2lq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #286854 |
Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> -- >> "If Ubuntu cannot see the drive /letters/ and can't use the alphabet >> then what good is it?" - some thing (posting as "Rekruled") > >Incredible. Drive letters! How 8-bit can you get? What's hilarious is the implication that, without the "drive letters", the ability to read from NTFS volumes is completely worthless. "what good is it?" I mean, it just does not get much more *stupid* than that. -- "So TomB are you now calling Snit a liar too?" - "Hadron"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 12:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D13EEEFC.494BF%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286796 |
On 3/30/15, 11:54 AM, in article mfc63n$n4u$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > Snit wrote: > >> On 3/30/15, 11:15 AM, in article mfc3ps$dd9$1@dont-email.me, "Peter >> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> >>>> Some might use NTFS, but the majority don't despite your incessant >>>> tap-dancing. However, if they DO use NTFS, it really shows that Windows >>>> is so influential that people don't care whether the hardware is >>>> incompatible with LinSux. That's how insignificant your toilet OS is. >>> >>> You are aware that linux has no problems reading (and writing) to NTFS? >>> Obviously not, as you have never in your entire miserable life used linux >> >> Well, accept when it does: >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/NTFS_WIN_LINUX.mov> >> >> By design it fails to respect the OS NTFS was designed for, even as an >> easy option. >> > > Repeating that idiocy does not make it any more true. > Linux is using NTFS they way it was designed. Your lunatic ideas simply make > no sense Two main times Linux users are going to use NTFS: 1) They think Microsoft's proprietary file system is better than the open source ones 2) They are using a file system to share with Windows users In case 1 it makes sense to not care how Windows users use NTFS. In case 2 it does. Amazing to see "advocates" argue for case 1. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 15:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5519cec9$0$1801$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #286796 |
On 03/30/2015 11:54 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Snit wrote: > >> On 3/30/15, 11:15 AM, in article mfc3ps$dd9$1@dont-email.me, "Peter >> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> >>>> Some might use NTFS, but the majority don't despite your incessant >>>> tap-dancing. However, if they DO use NTFS, it really shows that Windows >>>> is so influential that people don't care whether the hardware is >>>> incompatible with LinSux. That's how insignificant your toilet OS is. >>> >>> You are aware that linux has no problems reading (and writing) to NTFS? >>> Obviously not, as you have never in your entire miserable life used linux >> >> Well, accept when it does: >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/NTFS_WIN_LINUX.mov> >> >> By design it fails to respect the OS NTFS was designed for, even as an >> easy option. >> > > Repeating that idiocy does not make it any more true. > Linux is using NTFS they way it was designed. Your lunatic ideas simply make > no sense > Microsoft set the standard for how NTFS volumes were to be used as a POSIX mount (no doubt, to claim POSIX compliance). If anyone is to blame for their POSIX policies, it's Microsoft. Obviously. And the fact that people can go back and forth on this, and even make fucking videos about it, goes to show just how useless their input actually is. -- -v You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend too much time reading this sort of trash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 16:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D13F28E5.49501%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286847 |
On 3/30/15, 3:31 PM, in article 5519cec9$0$1801$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com, "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > On 03/30/2015 11:54 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> Snit wrote: >> >>> On 3/30/15, 11:15 AM, in article mfc3ps$dd9$1@dont-email.me, "Peter >>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >>> >>>>> Some might use NTFS, but the majority don't despite your incessant >>>>> tap-dancing. However, if they DO use NTFS, it really shows that Windows >>>>> is so influential that people don't care whether the hardware is >>>>> incompatible with LinSux. That's how insignificant your toilet OS is. >>>> >>>> You are aware that linux has no problems reading (and writing) to NTFS? >>>> Obviously not, as you have never in your entire miserable life used linux >>> >>> Well, accept when it does: >>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/NTFS_WIN_LINUX.mov> >>> >>> By design it fails to respect the OS NTFS was designed for, even as an >>> easy option. >>> >> >> Repeating that idiocy does not make it any more true. >> Linux is using NTFS they way it was designed. Your lunatic ideas simply make >> no sense >> > > Microsoft set the standard for how NTFS volumes were to be used as a > POSIX mount (no doubt, to claim POSIX compliance). > > If anyone is to blame for their POSIX policies, it's Microsoft. Obviously. > > And the fact that people can go back and forth on this, and even make > fucking videos about it, goes to show just how useless their input > actually is. Two main times Linux users are going to use NTFS: 1) They think Microsoft's proprietary file system is better than the open source ones 2) They are using a file system to share with Windows users In case 1 it makes sense to not care how Windows users use NTFS. In case 2 it does. Amazing to see "advocates" argue for case 1. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 23:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bvh3e9.f3aw03@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #286849 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/15, 3:31 PM, in article
> 5519cec9$0$1801$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com, "vallor"
> <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>> On 03/30/2015 11:54 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/30/15, 11:15 AM, in article mfc3ps$dd9$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
>>>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Some might use NTFS, but the majority don't despite your incessant
>>>>>> tap-dancing. However, if they DO use NTFS, it really shows that Windows
>>>>>> is so influential that people don't care whether the hardware is
>>>>>> incompatible with LinSux. That's how insignificant your toilet OS is.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are aware that linux has no problems reading (and writing) to NTFS?
>>>>> Obviously not, as you have never in your entire miserable life used linux
>>>>
>>>> Well, accept when it does:
>>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/NTFS_WIN_LINUX.mov>
>>>>
>>>> By design it fails to respect the OS NTFS was designed for, even as an
>>>> easy option.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Repeating that idiocy does not make it any more true.
>>> Linux is using NTFS they way it was designed. Your lunatic ideas simply make
>>> no sense
>>>
>>
>> Microsoft set the standard for how NTFS volumes were to be used as a
>> POSIX mount (no doubt, to claim POSIX compliance).
>>
>> If anyone is to blame for their POSIX policies, it's Microsoft. Obviously.
>>
>> And the fact that people can go back and forth on this, and even make
>> fucking videos about it, goes to show just how useless their input
>> actually is.
> Two main times Linux users are going to use NTFS:
> 1) They think Microsoft's proprietary file system is better than the open
> source ones
> 2) They are using a file system to share with Windows users
> In case 1 it makes sense to not care how Windows users use NTFS.
> In case 2 it does.
> Amazing to see "advocates" argue for case 1.
Case 3: They are sharing a drive, but not necessarily data, with others,
so they can take full advantage of NTFS case-sensitivity in
their private directories.
Case 4: The don't feel like formatting the drive before using it.
Case 5: They are not under any obligation to format to something else
just because they are running Linux, and NTFS might suffice.
Case 6: Windows, properly set up, can handle case sensitivity anyway,
so it doesn't matter, even if they do need to share data with
a Windows user.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 17:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D13F3C04.49525%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286851 |
On 3/30/15, 4:36 PM, in article bvh3e9.f3aw03@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 3/30/15, 3:31 PM, in article >> 5519cec9$0$1801$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com, "vallor" >> <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > >>> On 03/30/2015 11:54 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>> Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 3/30/15, 11:15 AM, in article mfc3ps$dd9$1@dont-email.me, "Peter >>>>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Some might use NTFS, but the majority don't despite your incessant >>>>>>> tap-dancing. However, if they DO use NTFS, it really shows that Windows >>>>>>> is so influential that people don't care whether the hardware is >>>>>>> incompatible with LinSux. That's how insignificant your toilet OS is. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are aware that linux has no problems reading (and writing) to NTFS? >>>>>> Obviously not, as you have never in your entire miserable life used linux >>>>> >>>>> Well, accept when it does: >>>>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/NTFS_WIN_LINUX.mov> >>>>> >>>>> By design it fails to respect the OS NTFS was designed for, even as an >>>>> easy option. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Repeating that idiocy does not make it any more true. >>>> Linux is using NTFS they way it was designed. Your lunatic ideas simply >>>> make >>>> no sense >>>> >>> >>> Microsoft set the standard for how NTFS volumes were to be used as a >>> POSIX mount (no doubt, to claim POSIX compliance). >>> >>> If anyone is to blame for their POSIX policies, it's Microsoft. Obviously. >>> >>> And the fact that people can go back and forth on this, and even make >>> fucking videos about it, goes to show just how useless their input >>> actually is. > >> Two main times Linux users are going to use NTFS: > >> 1) They think Microsoft's proprietary file system is better than the open >> source ones > >> 2) They are using a file system to share with Windows users > >> In case 1 it makes sense to not care how Windows users use NTFS. >> In case 2 it does. > >> Amazing to see "advocates" argue for case 1. > > Case 3: They are sharing a drive, but not necessarily data, with others, > so they can take full advantage of NTFS case-sensitivity in > their private directories. I can see this on a network or the like. > Case 4: The don't feel like formatting the drive before using it. Yeah, because that is so hard. I mean, sure, it could happen, but why not spend a few minutes to put a better filesystem on it? > Case 5: They are not under any obligation to format to something else > just because they are running Linux, and NTFS might suffice. Obligation? What? > Case 6: Windows, properly set up, can handle case sensitivity anyway, > so it doesn't matter, even if they do need to share data with > a Windows user. The standard GUI on Windows goes out of its way to be case insensitive. But one of your four options make some sense. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 15:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mfc7uj$vk5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286781 |
On 2015-03-30 2:15 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Slimer wrote: > >> On 2015-03-30 1:46 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> Slimer wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-03-29 9:38 PM, owl wrote: >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 3/29/15, 5:55 PM, in article xcjd3.4a5@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/29/15, 1:29 PM, in article bvhdu0.f30@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Linux screws things up for the primary users of NTFS systems by >>>>>>>>>> not following the Windows standards, even as an easy to use >>>>>>>>>> option: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Linux is following the NTFS standard. And since Linux is not >>>>>>>>> Windows, it does not have to play by Windows rules when it >>>>>>>>> interfaces with NTFS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is like saying you will go by an official French book when you >>>>>>>> visit Paris and insist the people in Paris are wrong when they use >>>>>>>> their own vernacular. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it's like going to paris and insisting that they use verbs >>>>>>> instead of some mishmash of spoken language and charades. >>>>> >>>>>> How? Paris is the land. If you go there speak as they do. >>>>> >>>>>> NTFS is the file system of Windows. If you use NTFS use it as Windows >>>>>> does - at least as an easy to set option. >>>>> >>>>> Umm.. you do realize that NTFS is used for more than just a place to >>>>> install a windoze distro, right? Lots of people have external drives >>>>> formatted to NTFS. No OS at all. Why should they be resticted to >>>>> speaking to their data like a windoze-stroke-victim? >>>> >>>> If people format their external hard disks to NTFS, it's because they >>>> did it from within Windows with the intention of using it within that >>>> operating system. >>> >>> No. They come preformatted that way >> >> Pre-formatting to NTFS indicates that you believe the consumer will or >> should use Windows with your hardware. > > No. It indicates that the disk is too big for FAT The specifications, features, and requirements of the exFAT file system include these: File size limit of 16 EiB – 1 byte (otherwise limited by maximum volume size of 128 PiB – 1 byte),[nb 1] raised from 4 GiB − 1 byte in a standard FAT32 file system.[1] Therefore, for the typical user, seamless interoperability between Windows and OS X platforms for files in excess of 4 GiB. (The open FAT32+[4] specification proposes an extension how to store files up to 256 GB on otherwise backward-compatible FAT32 volumes as well. This extension is available in some versions of DR-DOS so far, but is trivial to implement in other FAT32 implementations as well.) Have you seen many hard disks larger than 16 EiB for sale in Mainz? >> It is incredibly limiting and >> most manufacturers avoid it. As such, they will most often use either of >> the two FATs which get much better support from non-Microsoft operating >> systems. > > exFAT has not really better support than NTFS. <http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3389/~/operating-systems-that-support-the-exfat-file-system> They don't mention Linux but who cares about Linux anyway? >>>> By default, manufacturers tend to format the disks as >>>> FAT32 of exFAT, not NTFS. >>> >>> Wrong >> >> Some might use NTFS, but the majority don't despite your incessant >> tap-dancing. However, if they DO use NTFS, it really shows that Windows >> is so influential that people don't care whether the hardware is >> incompatible with LinSux. That's how insignificant your toilet OS is. > > You are aware that linux has no problems reading (and writing) to NTFS? > Obviously not, as you have never in your entire miserable life used linux I've used it and complained about how NTFS in Linux treats filenames differently than Windows does. I would have to have used it to know that, wouldn't I you ridiculous imbecile? In Linux, certain characters such are permitted in filenames which aren't in Windows. It's more evidence that while Linux supports NTFS, it doesn't do it _well_. Mind you, you should be used to it since Linux does absolutely nothing properly. >>>> If a Linux user formats his external hard disk >>>> as NTFS and it doesn't work right, he has only himself and his shit >>>> "operating system" to blame. >>> >>> Linux users would normally refrain to use such an inferior FS without >>> need >> >> If they intend to just make a backup, using NTFS makes no sense. If they >> plan on using their data on other computers through the external HD, >> NTFS _does_ make sense. >> > > It makes sense if you use it with both windows and linux. OSX is out of > luck, though. It has no build in NTFS support It doesn't need it since Mac users live in their own little world when you think about it. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 22:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfcaas$9dd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286806 |
Slimer wrote: > On 2015-03-30 2:15 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> Slimer wrote: >> >>> On 2015-03-30 1:46 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>> Slimer wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2015-03-29 9:38 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/29/15, 5:55 PM, in article xcjd3.4a5@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/29/15, 1:29 PM, in article bvhdu0.f30@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Linux screws things up for the primary users of NTFS systems by >>>>>>>>>>> not following the Windows standards, even as an easy to use >>>>>>>>>>> option: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Linux is following the NTFS standard. And since Linux is not >>>>>>>>>> Windows, it does not have to play by Windows rules when it >>>>>>>>>> interfaces with NTFS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is like saying you will go by an official French book when >>>>>>>>> you visit Paris and insist the people in Paris are wrong when they >>>>>>>>> use their own vernacular. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, it's like going to paris and insisting that they use verbs >>>>>>>> instead of some mishmash of spoken language and charades. >>>>>> >>>>>>> How? Paris is the land. If you go there speak as they do. >>>>>> >>>>>>> NTFS is the file system of Windows. If you use NTFS use it as >>>>>>> Windows does - at least as an easy to set option. >>>>>> >>>>>> Umm.. you do realize that NTFS is used for more than just a place to >>>>>> install a windoze distro, right? Lots of people have external drives >>>>>> formatted to NTFS. No OS at all. Why should they be resticted to >>>>>> speaking to their data like a windoze-stroke-victim? >>>>> >>>>> If people format their external hard disks to NTFS, it's because they >>>>> did it from within Windows with the intention of using it within that >>>>> operating system. >>>> >>>> No. They come preformatted that way >>> >>> Pre-formatting to NTFS indicates that you believe the consumer will or >>> should use Windows with your hardware. >> >> No. It indicates that the disk is too big for FAT > > The specifications, features, and requirements of the exFAT file system > include these: > > File size limit of 16 EiB – 1 byte (otherwise limited by maximum volume > size of 128 PiB – 1 byte),[nb 1] raised from 4 GiB − 1 byte in a > standard FAT32 file system.[1] Therefore, for the typical user, seamless > interoperability between Windows and OS X platforms for files in excess > of 4 GiB. (The open FAT32+[4] specification proposes an extension how to > store files up to 256 GB on otherwise backward-compatible FAT32 volumes > as well. This extension is available in some versions of DR-DOS so far, > but is trivial to implement in other FAT32 implementations as well.) > > Have you seen many hard disks larger than 16 EiB for sale in Mainz? > >>> It is incredibly limiting and >>> most manufacturers avoid it. As such, they will most often use either of >>> the two FATs which get much better support from non-Microsoft operating >>> systems. >> >> exFAT has not really better support than NTFS. > > <http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3389/~/operating-systems-that-support-the-exfat-file-system> > > They don't mention Linux but who cares about Linux anyway? Well, linux can read and write exFAT Too bad for your idiotic assumptions
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 15:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmhjbua.qms.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #286813 |
On 2015-03-30, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> Slimer wrote:
>
>> On 2015-03-30 2:15 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Slimer wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-03-30 1:46 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>> Slimer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-03-29 9:38 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/29/15, 5:55 PM, in article xcjd3.4a5@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/15, 1:29 PM, in article bvhdu0.f30@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>>>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux screws things up for the primary users of NTFS systems by
>>>>>>>>>>>> not following the Windows standards, even as an easy to use
>>>>>>>>>>>> option:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Linux is following the NTFS standard. And since Linux is not
>>>>>>>>>>> Windows, it does not have to play by Windows rules when it
>>>>>>>>>>> interfaces with NTFS.
NTFS should have an option to use the WinDummy namespace when mounted on Linux.
[deletia]
>> Have you seen many hard disks larger than 16 EiB for sale in Mainz?
>>
>>>> It is incredibly limiting and
>>>> most manufacturers avoid it. As such, they will most often use either of
>>>> the two FATs which get much better support from non-Microsoft operating
>>>> systems.
>>>
>>> exFAT has not really better support than NTFS.
>>
>> <http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3389/~/operating-systems-that-support-the-exfat-file-system>
>>
>> They don't mention Linux but who cares about Linux anyway?
...kind of like they would not have had to explicitly spell out
Amiga or ST support back in the day. There's no reason to expect
that everyone won't adapt to deal with the 2015 version of FAT
just like they adapted to deal with the 1985 version of FAT.
>
> Well, linux can read and write exFAT
> Too bad for your idiotic assumptions
--
The difference between a monopoly and a "market leader" is |||
that you can simply ignore a "market leader" and be no worse / | \
for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 23:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mfd2m8$njj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286813 |
On 2015-03-30 4:06 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Slimer wrote: > >> On 2015-03-30 2:15 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> Slimer wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-03-30 1:46 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-03-29 9:38 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/29/15, 5:55 PM, in article xcjd3.4a5@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/15, 1:29 PM, in article bvhdu0.f30@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Linux screws things up for the primary users of NTFS systems by >>>>>>>>>>>> not following the Windows standards, even as an easy to use >>>>>>>>>>>> option: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Linux is following the NTFS standard. And since Linux is not >>>>>>>>>>> Windows, it does not have to play by Windows rules when it >>>>>>>>>>> interfaces with NTFS. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is like saying you will go by an official French book when >>>>>>>>>> you visit Paris and insist the people in Paris are wrong when they >>>>>>>>>> use their own vernacular. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, it's like going to paris and insisting that they use verbs >>>>>>>>> instead of some mishmash of spoken language and charades. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How? Paris is the land. If you go there speak as they do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NTFS is the file system of Windows. If you use NTFS use it as >>>>>>>> Windows does - at least as an easy to set option. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Umm.. you do realize that NTFS is used for more than just a place to >>>>>>> install a windoze distro, right? Lots of people have external drives >>>>>>> formatted to NTFS. No OS at all. Why should they be resticted to >>>>>>> speaking to their data like a windoze-stroke-victim? >>>>>> >>>>>> If people format their external hard disks to NTFS, it's because they >>>>>> did it from within Windows with the intention of using it within that >>>>>> operating system. >>>>> >>>>> No. They come preformatted that way >>>> >>>> Pre-formatting to NTFS indicates that you believe the consumer will or >>>> should use Windows with your hardware. >>> >>> No. It indicates that the disk is too big for FAT >> >> The specifications, features, and requirements of the exFAT file system >> include these: >> >> File size limit of 16 EiB – 1 byte (otherwise limited by maximum volume >> size of 128 PiB – 1 byte),[nb 1] raised from 4 GiB − 1 byte in a >> standard FAT32 file system.[1] Therefore, for the typical user, seamless >> interoperability between Windows and OS X platforms for files in excess >> of 4 GiB. (The open FAT32+[4] specification proposes an extension how to >> store files up to 256 GB on otherwise backward-compatible FAT32 volumes >> as well. This extension is available in some versions of DR-DOS so far, >> but is trivial to implement in other FAT32 implementations as well.) >> >> Have you seen many hard disks larger than 16 EiB for sale in Mainz? >> >>>> It is incredibly limiting and >>>> most manufacturers avoid it. As such, they will most often use either of >>>> the two FATs which get much better support from non-Microsoft operating >>>> systems. >>> >>> exFAT has not really better support than NTFS. >> >> <http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3389/~/operating-systems-that-support-the-exfat-file-system> >> >> They don't mention Linux but who cares about Linux anyway? > > Well, linux can read and write exFAT > Too bad for your idiotic assumptions So we now know that exFAT, regardless of your original statement, is widely supported. Thank you for admitting your error and proving that I was right in stating that manufacturers not only do but have a huge advantage to pre-format in exFAT. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 08:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfdfvc$nd3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286906 |
Slimer wrote: > On 2015-03-30 4:06 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> Slimer wrote: >> >>> On 2015-03-30 2:15 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>> Slimer wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2015-03-30 1:46 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2015-03-29 9:38 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/29/15, 5:55 PM, in article xcjd3.4a5@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/15, 1:29 PM, in article bvhdu0.f30@rooftop.invalid, >>>>>>>>>>> "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux screws things up for the primary users of NTFS systems >>>>>>>>>>>>> by not following the Windows standards, even as an easy to use >>>>>>>>>>>>> option: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Linux is following the NTFS standard. And since Linux is not >>>>>>>>>>>> Windows, it does not have to play by Windows rules when it >>>>>>>>>>>> interfaces with NTFS. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is like saying you will go by an official French book when >>>>>>>>>>> you visit Paris and insist the people in Paris are wrong when >>>>>>>>>>> they use their own vernacular. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, it's like going to paris and insisting that they use verbs >>>>>>>>>> instead of some mishmash of spoken language and charades. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How? Paris is the land. If you go there speak as they do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> NTFS is the file system of Windows. If you use NTFS use it as >>>>>>>>> Windows does - at least as an easy to set option. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Umm.. you do realize that NTFS is used for more than just a place >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> install a windoze distro, right? Lots of people have external >>>>>>>> drives >>>>>>>> formatted to NTFS. No OS at all. Why should they be resticted to >>>>>>>> speaking to their data like a windoze-stroke-victim? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If people format their external hard disks to NTFS, it's because >>>>>>> they did it from within Windows with the intention of using it >>>>>>> within that operating system. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. They come preformatted that way >>>>> >>>>> Pre-formatting to NTFS indicates that you believe the consumer will or >>>>> should use Windows with your hardware. >>>> >>>> No. It indicates that the disk is too big for FAT >>> >>> The specifications, features, and requirements of the exFAT file system >>> include these: >>> >>> File size limit of 16 EiB – 1 byte (otherwise limited by maximum volume >>> size of 128 PiB – 1 byte),[nb 1] raised from 4 GiB − 1 byte in a >>> standard FAT32 file system.[1] Therefore, for the typical user, seamless >>> interoperability between Windows and OS X platforms for files in excess >>> of 4 GiB. (The open FAT32+[4] specification proposes an extension how to >>> store files up to 256 GB on otherwise backward-compatible FAT32 volumes >>> as well. This extension is available in some versions of DR-DOS so far, >>> but is trivial to implement in other FAT32 implementations as well.) >>> >>> Have you seen many hard disks larger than 16 EiB for sale in Mainz? >>> >>>>> It is incredibly limiting and >>>>> most manufacturers avoid it. As such, they will most often use either >>>>> of the two FATs which get much better support from non-Microsoft >>>>> operating systems. >>>> >>>> exFAT has not really better support than NTFS. >>> >>> <http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3389/~/operating-systems-that-support-the-exfat-file-system> >>> >>> They don't mention Linux but who cares about Linux anyway? >> >> Well, linux can read and write exFAT >> Too bad for your idiotic assumptions > > So we now know that exFAT, regardless of your original statement, is > widely supported. It may be "widely supported" on computers. On mobile devices of all sorts it is found very rarely > Thank you for admitting your error and proving that I was right in > stating that manufacturers not only do but have a huge advantage to > pre-format in exFAT. > Idiot. You have no idea what real "widely supported" means
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 08:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mfe59i$vb1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286922 |
On 2015-03-31 2:49 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Slimer wrote: > >> On 2015-03-30 4:06 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> Slimer wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-03-30 2:15 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-03-30 1:46 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2015-03-29 9:38 PM, owl wrote: >>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/15, 5:55 PM, in article xcjd3.4a5@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/15, 1:29 PM, in article bvhdu0.f30@rooftop.invalid, >>>>>>>>>>>> "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux screws things up for the primary users of NTFS systems >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by not following the Windows standards, even as an easy to use >>>>>>>>>>>>>> option: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux is following the NTFS standard. And since Linux is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows, it does not have to play by Windows rules when it >>>>>>>>>>>>> interfaces with NTFS. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is like saying you will go by an official French book when >>>>>>>>>>>> you visit Paris and insist the people in Paris are wrong when >>>>>>>>>>>> they use their own vernacular. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, it's like going to paris and insisting that they use verbs >>>>>>>>>>> instead of some mishmash of spoken language and charades. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How? Paris is the land. If you go there speak as they do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> NTFS is the file system of Windows. If you use NTFS use it as >>>>>>>>>> Windows does - at least as an easy to set option. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Umm.. you do realize that NTFS is used for more than just a place >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> install a windoze distro, right? Lots of people have external >>>>>>>>> drives >>>>>>>>> formatted to NTFS. No OS at all. Why should they be resticted to >>>>>>>>> speaking to their data like a windoze-stroke-victim? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If people format their external hard disks to NTFS, it's because >>>>>>>> they did it from within Windows with the intention of using it >>>>>>>> within that operating system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. They come preformatted that way >>>>>> >>>>>> Pre-formatting to NTFS indicates that you believe the consumer will or >>>>>> should use Windows with your hardware. >>>>> >>>>> No. It indicates that the disk is too big for FAT >>>> >>>> The specifications, features, and requirements of the exFAT file system >>>> include these: >>>> >>>> File size limit of 16 EiB – 1 byte (otherwise limited by maximum volume >>>> size of 128 PiB – 1 byte),[nb 1] raised from 4 GiB − 1 byte in a >>>> standard FAT32 file system.[1] Therefore, for the typical user, seamless >>>> interoperability between Windows and OS X platforms for files in excess >>>> of 4 GiB. (The open FAT32+[4] specification proposes an extension how to >>>> store files up to 256 GB on otherwise backward-compatible FAT32 volumes >>>> as well. This extension is available in some versions of DR-DOS so far, >>>> but is trivial to implement in other FAT32 implementations as well.) >>>> >>>> Have you seen many hard disks larger than 16 EiB for sale in Mainz? >>>> >>>>>> It is incredibly limiting and >>>>>> most manufacturers avoid it. As such, they will most often use either >>>>>> of the two FATs which get much better support from non-Microsoft >>>>>> operating systems. >>>>> >>>>> exFAT has not really better support than NTFS. >>>> >>>> <http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3389/~/operating-systems-that-support-the-exfat-file-system> >>>> >>>> They don't mention Linux but who cares about Linux anyway? >>> >>> Well, linux can read and write exFAT >>> Too bad for your idiotic assumptions >> >> So we now know that exFAT, regardless of your original statement, is >> widely supported. > > It may be "widely supported" on computers. > On mobile devices of all sorts it is found very rarely So it's up to the manufacturer to provide support for the filesystem on their hardware. Considering how NTFS is tied to Microsoft, it just makes sense for them to use something which is still proprietary but doesn't empower Microsoft so much. >> Thank you for admitting your error and proving that I was right in >> stating that manufacturers not only do but have a huge advantage to >> pre-format in exFAT. >> > > Idiot. You have no idea what real "widely supported" means It's supported, by a wide proportion of users and companies all over the world. Trust me, my mastery of the English language is far superior to yours. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 11:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D13EE654.494A6%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286773 |
On 3/30/15, 11:00 AM, in article mfc2ti$9ki$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer" <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: >>>> Umm.. you do realize that NTFS is used for more than just a place to >>>> install a windoze distro, right? Lots of people have external drives >>>> formatted to NTFS. No OS at all. Why should they be resticted to >>>> speaking to their data like a windoze-stroke-victim? >>> >>> If people format their external hard disks to NTFS, it's because they >>> did it from within Windows with the intention of using it within that >>> operating system. >> >> No. They come preformatted that way > > Pre-formatting to NTFS indicates that you believe the consumer will or > should use Windows with your hardware. It is incredibly limiting and > most manufacturers avoid it. As such, they will most often use either of > the two FATs which get much better support from non-Microsoft operating > systems. > >>> By default, manufacturers tend to format the disks as >>> FAT32 of exFAT, not NTFS. >> >> Wrong > > Some might use NTFS, but the majority don't despite your incessant > tap-dancing. However, if they DO use NTFS, it really shows that Windows > is so influential that people don't care whether the hardware is > incompatible with LinSux. That's how insignificant your toilet OS is. > >>> If a Linux user formats his external hard disk >>> as NTFS and it doesn't work right, he has only himself and his shit >>> "operating system" to blame. >> >> Linux users would normally refrain to use such an inferior FS without need > > If they intend to just make a backup, using NTFS makes no sense. If they > plan on using their data on other computers through the external HD, > NTFS _does_ make sense. Two main times Linux users are going to use NTFS: 1) They think Microsoft's proprietary file system is better than the open source ones 2) They are using a file system to share with Windows users In case 1 it makes sense to not care how Windows users use NTFS. In case 2 it does. Amazing to see "advocates" argue for case 1. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 12:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D13EEF0B.494C0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286769 |
On 3/30/15, 10:46 AM, in article mfc23r$5gk$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >>> Umm.. you do realize that NTFS is used for more than just a place to >>> install a windoze distro, right? Lots of people have external drives >>> formatted to NTFS. No OS at all. Why should they be resticted to >>> speaking to their data like a windoze-stroke-victim? >> >> If people format their external hard disks to NTFS, it's because they >> did it from within Windows with the intention of using it within that >> operating system. > > No. They come preformatted that way > >> By default, manufacturers tend to format the disks as >> FAT32 of exFAT, not NTFS. > > Wrong > >> If a Linux user formats his external hard disk >> as NTFS and it doesn't work right, he has only himself and his shit >> "operating system" to blame. > > Linux users would normally refrain to use such an inferior FS without need Two main times Linux users are going to use NTFS: 1) They think Microsoft's proprietary file system is better than the open source ones 2) They are using a file system to share with Windows users In case 1 it makes sense to not care how Windows users use NTFS. In case 2 it does. Amazing to see "advocates" argue for case 1. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 19:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mfcn6t$q1o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286769 |
Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > Slimer wrote: >> On 2015-03-29 9:38 PM, bowel wrote: >> >> If people format their external hard disks to NTFS, it's because they >> did it from within Windows with the intention of using it within that >> operating system. > > No. They come preformatted that way > >> By default, manufacturers tend to format the disks as >> FAT32 of exFAT, not NTFS. > > Wrong Not completely. I bought a Transcend high-speed 64Gb SDHC card. It came formatted with exFAT, as I found when I copied a number of files and that shitty file format couldn't deal with filenames that had double-quotes in them. I reformatted it to ext4 and copied again; no problemo. >> If a Linux user formats his external hard disk >> as NTFS and it doesn't work right, he has only himself and his shit >> "operating system" to blame. Poor "sLIEmore". He's like "Hadron" trying to be more of a "meanie". 1.5 on the Troll-o-Meter. > Linux users would normally refrain to use such an inferior FS without need NTFS has some interesting features, I suppose. -- The most dangerous food is wedding cake. -- American proverb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 08:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfdfs5$nd3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286853 |
Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> Slimer wrote: >>> On 2015-03-29 9:38 PM, bowel wrote: >>> >>> If people format their external hard disks to NTFS, it's because they >>> did it from within Windows with the intention of using it within that >>> operating system. >> >> No. They come preformatted that way >> >>> By default, manufacturers tend to format the disks as >>> FAT32 of exFAT, not NTFS. >> >> Wrong > > Not completely. I bought a Transcend high-speed 64Gb SDHC card. > It came formatted with exFAT, as I found when I copied a number > of files and that shitty file format couldn't deal with filenames > that had double-quotes in them. I know that they often come formatted as exFAT. But I have bought several which came with NTFS > I reformatted it to ext4 and copied again; no problemo. > >>> If a Linux user formats his external hard disk >>> as NTFS and it doesn't work right, he has only himself and his shit >>> "operating system" to blame. > > Poor "sLIEmore". He's like "Hadron" trying to be more of a "meanie". > > 1.5 on the Troll-o-Meter. > >> Linux users would normally refrain to use such an inferior FS without >> need > > NTFS has some interesting features, I suppose. > Yes. It is slow. Not as slow as HFS, but still very slow. Otherwise it does not have any features which can't be had in other fs too
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 20 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web