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


Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #310932 > unrolled thread

M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates

Started byronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com>
First post2015-07-27 15:44 +0000
Last post2015-07-27 15:19 -0400
Articles 20 on this page of 130 — 20 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy


Contents

  M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 15:44 +0000
    Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-07-27 17:15 +0100
      Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-07-27 12:22 -0700
        Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-07-27 15:27 -0400
        Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 21:25 +0000
          Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-07-27 23:30 +0200
            Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 21:31 +0000
          Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-07-27 17:39 -0400
          Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-28 07:07 -0500
            Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-07-28 13:25 +0100
            Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-07-28 09:16 -0400
              Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-07-28 18:15 -0400
              Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-29 07:52 -0500
                Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-07-29 09:03 -0400
                Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-07-29 09:09 -0400
                  Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-07-29 09:20 -0400
                  Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-07-29 16:53 +0000
                    Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-23 22:09 -0500
                      Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 03:18 +0000
                        Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-23 22:34 -0500
                          Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-23 21:38 -0700
                        Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-23 21:09 -0700
                        Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "Dr. John Grubor" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-24 12:24 +0000
                      Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-08-24 08:07 -0400
                        Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 12:23 +0000
                          Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 10:05 -0400
                            Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-08-24 10:16 -0400
                              Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 10:25 -0400
                                Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-08-24 10:32 -0400
                                  Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 10:44 -0400
                            Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 17:06 +0000
                              Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 13:49 -0400
                                Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 13:58 -0400
                                  Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-08-24 13:19 -0500
                                    Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-24 14:14 -0500
                                      Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 19:29 +0000
                                    Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 15:56 -0400
                                      Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 17:39 -0400
                                        Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-08-24 17:13 -0500
                                          Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 18:35 -0400
                                            Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-08-25 09:23 -0500
                                    Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-24 15:30 -0500
                                      Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 20:32 +0000
                                        Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-24 22:39 +0200
                                          Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 21:03 +0000
                                            Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-08-24 23:09 +0200
                                              Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 21:18 +0000
                                                Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 17:28 -0400
                                                Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-24 23:28 +0200
                                                  Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 21:39 +0000
                                                    Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-24 23:46 +0200
                                                      Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 22:01 +0000
                                                        Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 18:05 -0400
                                                          Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 22:56 +0000
                                                            Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 19:05 -0400
                                                            Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-08-24 20:24 -0400
                                                              Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 19:34 -0500
                                                                Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-08-24 20:43 -0400
                                                                Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-25 07:32 -0500
                                                                  Turdv IS mentally ill. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-25 22:33 -0600
                                                            Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 19:42 -0500
                                                              Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 00:47 +0000
                                                                Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 20:55 -0400
                                                                  Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-08-25 08:18 -0400
                                                              Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 00:49 +0000
                                                                Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 20:00 -0500
                                                                  Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-08-24 21:03 -0400
                                                                    Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 21:07 -0400
                                                                    Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 20:11 -0500
                                                                      Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-08-24 21:16 -0400
                                                                        Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 21:34 -0400
                                                                          Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-24 18:56 -0700
                                                                    Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 01:50 +0000
                                                                  Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 21:06 -0400
                                                                    Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 20:13 -0500
                                                                      Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-25 22:36 -0600
                                                                  Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 01:49 +0000
                                                                    Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 22:07 -0500
                                                                      Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 23:12 -0400
                                                                        Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 03:23 +0000
                                                                        Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-25 22:37 -0600
                                                                      Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 04:16 +0000
                                                                  Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-25 22:35 -0600
                                          Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-08-24 16:14 -0500
                                            Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 21:40 +0000
                                          Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 17:49 -0400
                                          Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-25 07:26 -0500
                                            Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 12:40 +0000
                                            Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-08-25 09:50 -0400
                                        Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 17:42 -0400
                                          Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-25 22:40 -0600
                                      Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-08-24 16:11 -0500
                                        Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 21:41 +0000
                          Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 19:16 -0500
                            Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 00:50 +0000
                            Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-08-24 21:16 -0400
                              Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. ronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 01:17 +0000
                                Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-08-24 22:09 -0500
                              Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 01:48 +0000
                              Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-25 07:42 -0500
                                Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-08-25 08:52 -0400
                                Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 17:04 +0000
                              When are you going to check yourself in to the nearest rest home? GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-25 22:41 -0600
                        Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-08-24 09:05 -0400
                        Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-24 13:13 -0600
                          Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 19:31 +0000
                            Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 16:01 -0400
                              Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 20:08 +0000
                                Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 16:52 -0400
                                  Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-08-24 14:01 -0700
                              Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-08-25 22:43 -0600
                            Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 17:51 -0400
                              Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-08-24 17:15 -0500
                                Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> - 2015-08-24 18:39 -0400
                          Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-08-24 15:57 -0400
                Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-07-29 14:31 +0100
                  Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-29 11:28 -0500
                    Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-07-29 13:21 -0400
                      Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-07-29 13:26 -0400
                    Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-07-30 12:26 +0100
            Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-07-28 18:13 -0400
              Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-07-28 20:07 -0400
                Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-07-29 08:44 -0400
                  Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-07-29 09:03 -0400
        Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-07-28 08:57 +0100
        Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-07-28 10:30 -0400
    Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 09:19 -0700
    Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-07-27 13:38 -0400
      Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-07-27 14:28 -0400
        Re: M$ "backs down" on W10 forced updates "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-07-27 15:19 -0400

Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next page →


#316769 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

FromJEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet>
Date2015-08-25 09:23 -0500
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<slrnmtouj7.6ci.jedi@nomad.mishnet>
In reply to#316611
On 2015-08-24, Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:13:25 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2015-08-24, Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:56:14 -0400, A.M wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-08-24 2:19 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-08-24, Tommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:49:01 -0400, A.M wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2015-08-24 1:06 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:05:14 -0400, A.M wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-24 8:23 AM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:07:58 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/29/2015 11:53 AM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:09:20 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> 
>> [deletia]
>> 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I haven't seen a commercially sold desktop Linux disk or download in 
>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not one computer store I've gone to since 1999 has stocked _anything_
>>>>>>> which actually says "Linux" on it. The last thing I remember was a store
>>>>>>> called MicroBytes which had a boxed copy of RedHat Linux 5. After that,
>>>>>>> it seemed to become taboo to mention that name, probably because of how
>>>>>>> negative the consumer response to its experience was.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Big box stores rarely stock ANY software anymore.
>>>> 
>>>> Apparently you haven't gone to Best Buy in a while.
>>>
>>> Or Staples.
>> 
>>    I have, and their software sections have gotten SMALLER.
>
> Moving the goal posts again.
> Your comment:
>
> "Big box stores rarely stock ANY software anymore."

   It's not just "Linux software" that's in decline but software in general.

   This is to contrast your assinine assertion that a few boxes of Linux 
software are responsible for the death of book stores.

[deletia]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316555 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

Fromchrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
Date2015-08-24 15:30 -0500
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<hqtmtat35hco58quic3vafhah0ulfucvh4@4ax.com>
In reply to#316495
JEDIDIAH wrote:

>> Slime wrote:
>>> 
>>> Not one computer store I've gone to since 1999 has stocked _anything_
>>> which actually says "Linux" on it. The last thing I remember was a store
>>> called MicroBytes which had a boxed copy of RedHat Linux 5.

Err... Maybe because high-speed Internet came-along, making it faster
and cheaper to just download the ISO?

Dunce.

>...sure, it was all Linux. Amazon, the Internet, and iBooks had nothing
>to do with it.

It's amazing how these Linux-haters never cease with their lying and
fabrications.

-- 
"That depends on where you got the file from.  Most likely the author
or provider set the permissions and forgot about it.
All you have to be is admin and you can right click on the file to set
the permissions."  -  some stupid POS that calls itself "GreyCloud"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316556 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

FromLloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com>
Date2015-08-24 20:32 +0000
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<d41dblFoc40U2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#316555
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:30:47 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> 
>>> Slime wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Not one computer store I've gone to since 1999 has stocked _anything_
>>>> which actually says "Linux" on it. The last thing I remember was a
>>>> store called MicroBytes which had a boxed copy of RedHat Linux 5.
> 
> Err... Maybe because high-speed Internet came-along, making it faster
> and cheaper to just download the ISO?
>
Yep, and all those are FREE!!  No purchase necessary though you can 
donate money.
 
> Dunce.
> 
>>...sure, it was all Linux. Amazon, the Internet, and iBooks had nothing
>>to do with it.
> 
> It's amazing how these Linux-haters never cease with their lying and
> fabrications.

It is more amazing that you claim to love Linux but yet all your posts 
are from Windows.  Makes one wonder if you actually know a damned thing 
about Linux at all.






-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316558 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

FromPeter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>
Date2015-08-24 22:39 +0200
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<mrfv9s$isc$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#316556
Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:30:47 -0500, chrisv wrote:
> 
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> 
>>>> Slime wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not one computer store I've gone to since 1999 has stocked _anything_
>>>>> which actually says "Linux" on it. The last thing I remember was a
>>>>> store called MicroBytes which had a boxed copy of RedHat Linux 5.
>> 
>> Err... Maybe because high-speed Internet came-along, making it faster
>> and cheaper to just download the ISO?
>>
> Yep, and all those are FREE!!  No purchase necessary though you can
> donate money.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you can't get boxed 
sets anymore

You could (for example) get boxed sets of SuSE linux long after that. And 
they cost around $60. and were worth every penny of that. And you got a 
good, several hundred pages handbook with them.

>> Dunce.
>> 
>>>...sure, it was all Linux. Amazon, the Internet, and iBooks had nothing
>>>to do with it.
>> 
>> It's amazing how these Linux-haters never cease with their lying and
>> fabrications.
> 
> It is more amazing that you claim to love Linux but yet all your posts
> are from Windows.  Makes one wonder if you actually know a damned thing
> about Linux at all.
> 

At the time he did the posts he was obviously still at work.
Why do you assume that linux users have to work at linux companies?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316566 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

FromLloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com>
Date2015-08-24 21:03 +0000
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<d41f4lFoc40U3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#316558
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:39:01 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:30:47 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>> 
>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Slime wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Not one computer store I've gone to since 1999 has stocked
>>>>>> _anything_
>>>>>> which actually says "Linux" on it. The last thing I remember was a
>>>>>> store called MicroBytes which had a boxed copy of RedHat Linux 5.
>>> 
>>> Err... Maybe because high-speed Internet came-along, making it faster
>>> and cheaper to just download the ISO?
>>>
>> Yep, and all those are FREE!!  No purchase necessary though you can
>> donate money.
> 
> Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you can't get
> boxed sets anymore
> 
Read the whole posting Peter.  There was a claim that the market share 
number was only for purchased Linux desktop and that doesn't actually 
exist in any meaningful way these days.

> You could (for example) get boxed sets of SuSE linux long after that.
> And they cost around $60. and were worth every penny of that. And you
> got a good, several hundred pages handbook with them.
> 
I remember them, and Caldera and others along the way.  All long gone.

Linux desktop today is free to obtain, no purchase necessary or even 
possible.  So if the market share number was only for purchased Linux 
desktop, then the number would be zero instead of a number closely 
resembling zero for all practical purposes.


>>> Dunce.
>>> 
>>>>...sure, it was all Linux. Amazon, the Internet, and iBooks had
>>>>nothing to do with it.
>>> 
>>> It's amazing how these Linux-haters never cease with their lying and
>>> fabrications.
>> 
>> It is more amazing that you claim to love Linux but yet all your posts
>> are from Windows.  Makes one wonder if you actually know a damned thing
>> about Linux at all.
>> 
>> 
> At the time he did the posts he was obviously still at work.
> Why do you assume that linux users have to work at linux companies?


I don't.  But I've actually never seen a post from him that wasn't from 
Windows, regardless of time or day.



-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316568 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

FromPeter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>
Date2015-08-24 23:09 +0200
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<mrg12i$rs1$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#316566
Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:39:01 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 
>> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:30:47 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>> 
>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Slime wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Not one computer store I've gone to since 1999 has stocked
>>>>>>> _anything_
>>>>>>> which actually says "Linux" on it. The last thing I remember was a
>>>>>>> store called MicroBytes which had a boxed copy of RedHat Linux 5.
>>>> 
>>>> Err... Maybe because high-speed Internet came-along, making it faster
>>>> and cheaper to just download the ISO?
>>>>
>>> Yep, and all those are FREE!!  No purchase necessary though you can
>>> donate money.
>> 
>> Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you can't get
>> boxed sets anymore
>> 
> Read the whole posting Peter.  There was a claim that the market share
> number was only for purchased Linux desktop and that doesn't actually
> exist in any meaningful way these days.

It exists. You just don't pay for the media

Even you should be aware of that, and in your case I already had very low 
expectations

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316571 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

FromLloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com>
Date2015-08-24 21:18 +0000
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<d41g0kFoc40U4@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#316568
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:09:15 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:39:01 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> 
>>> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:30:47 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Slime wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Not one computer store I've gone to since 1999 has stocked
>>>>>>>> _anything_
>>>>>>>> which actually says "Linux" on it. The last thing I remember was
>>>>>>>> a store called MicroBytes which had a boxed copy of RedHat Linux
>>>>>>>> 5.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Err... Maybe because high-speed Internet came-along, making it
>>>>> faster and cheaper to just download the ISO?
>>>>>
>>>> Yep, and all those are FREE!!  No purchase necessary though you can
>>>> donate money.
>>> 
>>> Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you can't get
>>> boxed sets anymore
>>> 
>> Read the whole posting Peter.  There was a claim that the market share
>> number was only for purchased Linux desktop and that doesn't actually
>> exist in any meaningful way these days.
> 
> It exists. You just don't pay for the media
> 
> Even you should be aware of that, and in your case I already had very
> low expectations

Give one link that requires payment for desktop Linux.

-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316576 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

From"A.M" <.m@nsn.s>
Date2015-08-24 17:28 -0400
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<mrg261$vtj$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#316571
On 2015-08-24 5:18 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:09:15 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 
>> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:39:01 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:30:47 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Slime wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not one computer store I've gone to since 1999 has stocked
>>>>>>>>> _anything_
>>>>>>>>> which actually says "Linux" on it. The last thing I remember was
>>>>>>>>> a store called MicroBytes which had a boxed copy of RedHat Linux
>>>>>>>>> 5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Err... Maybe because high-speed Internet came-along, making it
>>>>>> faster and cheaper to just download the ISO?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, and all those are FREE!!  No purchase necessary though you can
>>>>> donate money.
>>>>
>>>> Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you can't get
>>>> boxed sets anymore
>>>>
>>> Read the whole posting Peter.  There was a claim that the market share
>>> number was only for purchased Linux desktop and that doesn't actually
>>> exist in any meaningful way these days.
>>
>> It exists. You just don't pay for the media
>>
>> Even you should be aware of that, and in your case I already had very
>> low expectations
> 
> Give one link that requires payment for desktop Linux.

You fool! You're asking Peter the miserable, tap-dancing Klöwn for
evidence? Don't you know that everything he says is absolute truth and
doesn't require any kind of support whatsoever?

If Peter says that desktop Linux requires payment then it requires payment.

-- 
A.M
Your pet's opinion on technology is more valid than that of a Linux advocate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316577 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

FromMelzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
Date2015-08-24 23:28 +0200
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<20150824232859.527a0236@maxa-pc>
In reply to#316571
On 24 Aug 2015 21:18:12 GMT
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Give one link that requires payment for desktop Linux.
> 

http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-linux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316585 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

FromLloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com>
Date2015-08-24 21:39 +0000
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<d41h81Fplp9U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#316577
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:28:59 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:

> On 24 Aug 2015 21:18:12 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Give one link that requires payment for desktop Linux.
>> 
>> 
> http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-linux

Nope.  Subscription required to get it with support.  You are paying for 
support not the product itself.

I was waiting for someone to try that trick btw.  :)




-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316592 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

FromMelzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
Date2015-08-24 23:46 +0200
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<20150824234612.2a2558be@maxa-pc>
In reply to#316585
On 24 Aug 2015 21:39:13 GMT
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:28:59 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
> 
> > On 24 Aug 2015 21:18:12 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >> Give one link that requires payment for desktop Linux.
> >> 
> >> 
> > http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-linux
> 
> Nope.  Subscription required to get it with support.  You are paying
> for support not the product itself.
> 
> I was waiting for someone to try that trick btw.  :)
> 
> 
> 
> 

Can you download ti for free?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316601 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

Fromronb <ronbNOSPAM@gmail.com>
Date2015-08-24 22:01 +0000
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<mrg478$80a$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#316592
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:46:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:

> On 24 Aug 2015 21:39:13 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:28:59 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>> 
>> > On 24 Aug 2015 21:18:12 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> >> Give one link that requires payment for desktop Linux.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> > http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-
linux
>> 
>> Nope.  Subscription required to get it with support.  You are paying
>> for support not the product itself.
>> 
>> I was waiting for someone to try that trick btw.  :)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> Can you download ti for free?

There is free Red Hat -- it's called CentOS.

-- 
Zero tolerance for WinDrones & iCultists

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316602 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

FromTommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org>
Date2015-08-24 18:05 -0400
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<trvt1rxh8cuf.1j3p16oi7ew0v.dlg@40tude.net>
In reply to#316601
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:01:13 +0000 (UTC), ronb wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:46:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
> 
>> On 24 Aug 2015 21:39:13 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:28:59 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>> 
>>> > On 24 Aug 2015 21:18:12 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> >> Give one link that requires payment for desktop Linux.
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> > http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-
> linux
>>> 
>>> Nope.  Subscription required to get it with support.  You are paying
>>> for support not the product itself.
>>> 
>>> I was waiting for someone to try that trick btw.  :)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> Can you download ti for free?
> 
> There is free Red Hat -- it's called CentOS.

That's not the question.

Now answer the question.

Can you download Redhat Enterprise Linux for free?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316613 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

FromLloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com>
Date2015-08-24 22:56 +0000
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<d41lpeFqnbcU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#316602
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:05:31 -0400, Tommy Troll wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:01:13 +0000 (UTC), ronb wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:46:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>> 
>>> On 24 Aug 2015 21:39:13 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:28:59 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> > On 24 Aug 2015 21:18:12 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> >> Give one link that requires payment for desktop Linux.
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> 
>>>> > http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-
>> linux
>>>> 
>>>> Nope.  Subscription required to get it with support.  You are paying
>>>> for support not the product itself.
>>>> 
>>>> I was waiting for someone to try that trick btw.  :)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> Can you download ti for free?
>> 
>> There is free Red Hat -- it's called CentOS.
> 
> That's not the question.
> 
> Now answer the question.
> 
> Can you download Redhat Enterprise Linux for free?

Doesn't really matter since you have to buy a subscription to use it.  
But let's just say I agree, then RedHat Enterprise would have to single 
handedly support that market share on the desktop if one is to believe 
the hogwash the linux loonies are trying to pass off these days.




-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316615 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

FromTommy Troll <elkabong99@Itroll.org>
Date2015-08-24 19:05 -0400
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<9o9aahec1cpy.l6uugve1yn75.dlg@40tude.net>
In reply to#316613
On 24 Aug 2015 22:56:46 GMT, Lloyd Parsons wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:05:31 -0400, Tommy Troll wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:01:13 +0000 (UTC), ronb wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:46:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 24 Aug 2015 21:39:13 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 23:28:59 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> > On 24 Aug 2015 21:18:12 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> >> Give one link that requires payment for desktop Linux.
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> > http://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-platforms/enterprise-
>>> linux
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nope.  Subscription required to get it with support.  You are paying
>>>>> for support not the product itself.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I was waiting for someone to try that trick btw.  :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> Can you download ti for free?
>>> 
>>> There is free Red Hat -- it's called CentOS.
>> 
>> That's not the question.
>> 
>> Now answer the question.
>> 
>> Can you download Redhat Enterprise Linux for free?
 
> Doesn't really matter since you have to buy a subscription to use it.  
Right. But in typical dishonest Linux loon fashion, he dodged the
question.

> But let's just say I agree, then RedHat Enterprise would have to single 
> handedly support that market share on the desktop if one is to believe 
> the hogwash the linux loonies are trying to pass off these days.

Yep.
They are pathetic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316624 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

From"Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com>
Date2015-08-24 20:24 -0400
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<mrgci7$71r$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#316613
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:d41lpeFqnbcU1@mid.individual.net...
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:05:31 -0400, Tommy Troll wrote:
>
>>
>> Can you download Redhat Enterprise Linux for free?
>
> Doesn't really matter since you have to buy a subscription to use it.
> But let's just say I agree, then RedHat Enterprise would have to single
> handedly support that market share on the desktop if one is to believe
> the hogwash the linux loonies are trying to pass off these days.
>

It's cute how morons simply make up bullshit and then try to pass it off as 
some sort of fact.

-- 
(Linux) "market" share is more like 1.6%, and that counts *only* distros 
that are sold *commercially*.

Bullshit from Chris Ahlstrom
Aug 24, 2015
<mrf1e7$3ok$4@dont-email.me>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316627 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

FromNobody <nobody@invalid.com>
Date2015-08-24 19:34 -0500
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<mrgd6s$2p4$4@news.albasani.net>
In reply to#316624
On 8/24/2015 7:24 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d41lpeFqnbcU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:05:31 -0400, Tommy Troll wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Can you download Redhat Enterprise Linux for free?
>>
>> Doesn't really matter since you have to buy a subscription to use it.
>> But let's just say I agree, then RedHat Enterprise would have to single
>> handedly support that market share on the desktop if one is to believe
>> the hogwash the linux loonies are trying to pass off these days.
>>
>
> It's cute how morons simply make up bullshit and then try to pass it off as
> some sort of fact.

Ezekiel is claiming to be "cute."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316631 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

From"Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com>
Date2015-08-24 20:43 -0400
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<mrgdlr$ab1$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#316627
Music thief "Nobody" <nobody@invalid.com> wrote in message 
news:mrgd6s$2p4$4@news.albasani.net...

(nothing worth reading from the music pirate)

-- 
"I clicked a song on MP3 Skull to download.... While I was there I clicked 
on a Lady Gaga song."

Some scumbag thief named "Nobody"
Aug 9, 2015
<mq93gg$hbg$1@news.albasani.net>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316746 — Re: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.

Fromchrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
Date2015-08-25 07:32 -0500
SubjectRe: Lloyd Parsons can't answer this.
Message-ID<uqnotadlpn4l0nqgsecc5d7a3iae005t6o@4ax.com>
In reply to#316627
> Kreep wrote:
>>
>> It's cute how morons simply make up bullshit and then try to pass it off as
>> some sort of fact.

You're a really bad person, Kreep.  Many of the trolls in here are
just stupid or mentally-ill, but you're just a really bad person.

-- 
'Once again the ranting turd insists that only his *opinion* is
correct and anyone who disagrees with his opinion is a "liar."'  -
Ezekreep, lying shamelessly, as he defends his *clearly wrong*
position of "unless it's illegal then the company hasn't done anything
wrong."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#316868 — Turdv IS mentally ill.

FromGreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com>
Date2015-08-25 22:33 -0600
SubjectTurdv IS mentally ill.
Message-ID<g5Gdnfvn94MM3EDInZ2dnUU7-a-dnZ2d@bresnan.com>
In reply to#316746
On 08/25/15 06:32, chrisv wrote:
>> Kreep wrote:
>>>
>>> It's cute how morons simply make up bullshit and then try to pass it off as
>>> some sort of fact.
>
> You're a really bad person, Kreep.  Many of the trolls in here are
> just stupid or mentally-ill, but you're just a really bad person.
>


-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy


csiph-web