Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #320159 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Edward Milano <milano58_remove_no_spam@post.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-12 00:27 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-09-15 15:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 165 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Why Linux is a failure. Edward Milano <milano58_remove_no_spam@post.com> - 2015-09-12 00:27 +0000
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-09-11 21:36 -0400
Re: Why Chris Ahlstrom is a follower not a leader. Edward Milano <milano58_remove_no_spam@post.com> - 2015-09-12 01:42 +0000
Re: Why Chris Ahlstrom is a follower not a leader. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-12 12:07 +0200
Re: Why Chris Ahlstrom is a follower not a leader. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-12 09:29 -0400
Re: Why Chris Ahlstrom is a follower not a leader. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-15 16:09 -0500
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-12 03:58 +0200
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. scooz <scooz@myemailisspamfree.net> - 2015-09-11 22:22 -0400
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-11 21:01 -0700
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. scooz <scooz@myemailisspamfree.net> - 2015-09-12 00:16 -0400
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-15 07:01 -0500
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-15 10:00 -0700
PLOOPP!!! SPLASH!!! AAAAHHHHHHH!!!! FLUSH!!!! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-15 14:48 -0600
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-09-12 07:06 -0400
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2015-09-12 08:36 -0300
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-12 13:57 -0600
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-12 13:56 -0600
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-09-12 13:42 +0100
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. Edward Milano <milano58_remove_no_spam@post.com> - 2015-09-12 14:39 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a failure. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-12 11:23 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a failure. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 15:51 +0000
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-12 13:55 -0600
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-12 20:59 +0100
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-09-12 16:56 -0400
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 22:26 +0000
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-12 21:05 -0600
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-12 21:04 -0600
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-15 07:06 -0500
Find one for sale in the stores, Turdv. Linux left the shelf years ago. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-15 14:49 -0600
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-12 21:03 -0600
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-13 06:09 +0100
Re: Why my trolling is a failure. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-13 11:50 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a failure. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-12 05:39 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a failure. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-11 22:14 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a failure. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-12 12:05 +0200
Today's topic is: Why is Edward Milano such a Pultz? John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 04:30 -0700
Re: Today's topic is: Why is Edward Milano such a Pultz? "Dr. John Grubor" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-12 15:21 +0000
Re: Why this troll is a failure. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-09-12 13:39 +0100
Re: Why this troll is a failure. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-12 14:00 -0600
Re: Why this troll is a failure. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-12 21:04 +0100
Re: Why this troll is a failure. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-12 21:05 -0600
Re: Why this troll is a failure. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-13 05:19 +0100
Re: Why this troll is a failure. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-13 11:50 -0600
Re: Why this troll is a failure. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-13 13:18 -0500
Re: Why this troll is a failure. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-14 13:08 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a failure. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-15 06:55 -0500
Typical Turdv response. A total LUSER! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-15 14:49 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a failure. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-15 16:08 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a failure. Edward Milano <milano58_remove_no_spam@post.com> - 2015-09-15 21:48 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a failure. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-16 15:20 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a failure. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-09-16 17:04 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a failure. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-09-16 23:03 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 23:24 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-16 18:33 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 17:23 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-17 03:42 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2015-09-17 08:39 -0300
Re: Why Linux is a success. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:33 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-17 06:02 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-18 08:06 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-18 08:54 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 15:24 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-18 12:00 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-18 12:52 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-20 13:03 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-20 19:17 +0200
Re: Why Linux is a success. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-20 14:10 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-20 21:06 +0200
Re: Why Linux is a success. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-21 07:25 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-21 09:30 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-10-24 08:21 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 13:25 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-24 09:47 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 14:28 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-24 11:08 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 16:36 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-10-24 11:57 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 17:06 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-24 19:07 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-24 19:06 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a success. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 17:00 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 17:22 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 10:41 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-26 12:48 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 18:06 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 18:11 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-26 07:35 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-26 08:42 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-26 09:00 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 14:03 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 18:13 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-10-30 19:48 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 11:42 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 19:12 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-10-31 20:57 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:10 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-10-31 21:23 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:40 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-10-31 23:37 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-31 17:07 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-31 17:20 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-31 17:28 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-31 10:17 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-31 08:33 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-31 12:22 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-10-31 17:26 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-31 12:32 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-31 09:50 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-31 12:07 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a success. Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 11:37 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 19:14 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-10-31 15:09 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:11 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-10-31 21:24 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:35 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:41 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:41 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-10-31 23:43 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:32 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 20:42 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-31 12:27 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-31 09:49 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 10:12 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-31 12:06 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a success. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-26 10:26 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-26 10:38 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-26 16:44 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 15:20 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 22:28 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-10-26 16:15 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-26 21:51 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 20:48 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-10-27 04:25 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-27 07:15 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 13:37 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-27 11:47 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-27 10:29 -0400
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-27 11:49 -0700
LINUX SUCKS AND SO DO YOU. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-24 19:05 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-21 11:54 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a success. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-10-24 08:16 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-09-18 09:08 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-10-24 20:36 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-21 03:39 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2015-09-21 08:38 -0300
Re: Why Linux is a failure. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 22:03 +0000
Re: Why Windows is a failure. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 22:04 +0000
Re: Why Windows is a failure. owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-15 22:13 +0000
Re: Why Windows is a failure. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-15 15:41 -0700
Thinking of trying Linux? Better Think again scooz <scooz@myemailisspamfree.net> - 2015-09-15 18:17 -0400
Re: Thinking of trying Linux? Better Think again Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-15 15:26 -0700
Re: Thinking of trying Linux? Better Think again Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-15 20:54 -0500
Re: Thinking of trying Linux? Better Think again chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-16 06:57 -0500
Re: Thinking of trying Linux? Better Think again JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-16 15:23 -0500
Re: Thinking of trying Linux? Better Think again JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-09-16 15:22 -0500
Re: Why Windows is a failure. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-15 15:21 -0700
Re: Why Windows is a failure. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 22:26 +0000
Re: Why Windows is a failure. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-15 20:56 -0500
Re: Why Windows is a failure. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-16 09:41 -0400
Re: Why Windows is a failure. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 00:00 -0500
Re: Why Windows is a failure. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-09-17 08:13 -0400
Re: Why Windows is a failure. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:31 +0000
Re: Why Windows is a failure. Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-17 19:31 -0500
Re: Why Windows is a failure. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 17:30 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a failure. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-15 15:22 -0700
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 17:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <n0j1r6$95i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #328149 |
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 11:08:41 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: > Since when are salesmen an authority on anything? Salesmen push whatever their bosses tell them to push. It's always been that way -- and it almost never has anything to do with quality. -- Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 17:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <d94he1FovduU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #328271 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:00:23 +0000, ronb wrote: > On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 11:08:41 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: > >> Since when are salesmen an authority on anything? > > Salesmen push whatever their bosses tell them to push. It's always been > that way -- and it almost never has anything to do with quality. Yes and no. In storefront retail sales it is mostly yes. In professional, consultive sales it is mostly no. You really need to get a business education, yours is sorely lacking. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 10:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <D2526263.6163F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #328271 |
On 10/25/15, 10:00 AM, in article n0j1r6$95i$1@dont-email.me, "ronb" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 11:08:41 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: > >> Since when are salesmen an authority on anything? > > Salesmen push whatever their bosses tell them to push. It's always been > that way -- and it almost never has anything to do with quality. Hey, why not show some great quality from desktop Linux? Show some tasks it handles it a great way that shows off this quality. Then we can compare its quality to the competition. That would be great! -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * 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> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 12:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <oips2bll8hnjuqjt2st8dus1qpovj4u56m@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #328271 |
ronb wrote: >Salesmen push whatever their bosses tell them to push. It's always been >that way -- and it almost never has anything to do with quality. What's sad to think about is how many unsuspecting people were sold Win 8 machines, and then had to struggle with that POS of an OS. "But it's 'the standard'!" -- "I did make the claim that companies have to break the law in order to increase the revenue for their shareholders." - Oliver Wrong
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 18:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <d978cfFfj09U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #328579 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:48:18 -0500, chrisv wrote: > ronb wrote: > >>Salesmen push whatever their bosses tell them to push. It's always been >>that way -- and it almost never has anything to do with quality. > > What's sad to think about is how many unsuspecting people were sold Win > 8 machines, and then had to struggle with that POS of an OS. > But they'd struggle more if they had Linux on the desktop. > "But it's 'the standard'!" -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 18:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <t2hdgc-6s2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> |
| In reply to | #328581 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 18:06:08 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:48:18 -0500, chrisv wrote: > >> ronb wrote: >> >>>Salesmen push whatever their bosses tell them to push. It's always been >>>that way -- and it almost never has anything to do with quality. >> >> What's sad to think about is how many unsuspecting people were sold Win >> 8 machines, and then had to struggle with that POS of an OS. >> > But they'd struggle more if they had Linux on the desktop. Only the fucktards. We have a few of those here. The usual refrain is something along the lines of "I can't run MS Office!" No shit, Sherlock, but you *can* do spreadsheets and word processing and suchlike, which is the actual job you're trying to do. If you're *that* sort of fuckwit, nothing other than Windows will ever work for you, no matter how good or wonderful it is. It's a PEBKAC problem induced by an ID 10 T error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 07:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <747s2blnp46e5q4odnko8n4ql86jr5fr60@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #328149 |
>> Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> >>> Guess which one Joe buys? The one that he's heard of. The one the "everyone" uses. Of course. The other option could be far superior and still not be chosen. What's your point? That the desktop market is FUBAR? Indeed it is. -- "Hah, you beat me to it." - ccretin, supporting Dumfsck's "you did it this morning" bald-faced *lie*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 08:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <n0l6v5$60o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #328506 |
On 10/26/2015 8:35 AM, shitv wrote: > "Hah, you beat me to it." - ccretin, supporting Dumfsck's "you did > it this morning" bald-faced*lie*. That was the morning in Feb 2012 when you asked... "Does your mother know that you're a piece of shit, "Ezekiel"?" ...after lying many times that "I don't ask people I disagree with if their mother knows they are a piece of shit." shitv: still butthurt after all these years
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 09:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <23cs2bdmhr7ujfoiqp5jll94ljjuodt5l1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #328506 |
chrisv wrote: >>> Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>> >>>> Guess which one Joe buys? > >The one that he's heard of. The one the "everyone" uses. Of course. >The other option could be far superior and still not be chosen. Oh, and the one that runs *every* piece of PC software in the store. Just "slightly" important, that fact. But, despite the "chicken and egg" problems faced by the Free alternative, in here we have drooling morons, ignorant assholes, going on and one about how the FOSS community isn't doing enough, or it's doing the wrong things. -- "But, consumers do have choices - and by and large they don't choose linux on thier pc's." - Tom Shillton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 14:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <d96q57Fbl1tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #328536 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:00:44 -0500, chrisv wrote: > chrisv wrote: > >>>> Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Guess which one Joe buys? >> >>The one that he's heard of. The one the "everyone" uses. Of course. >>The other option could be far superior and still not be chosen. > > Oh, and the one that runs *every* piece of PC software in the store. > Just "slightly" important, that fact. > Absolutely! Couple that with the fact it will also work with any of the printers and scanners that store is selling too. Well, actually any printer/scanner that anyone is selling. > But, despite the "chicken and egg" problems faced by the Free > alternative, in here we have drooling morons, ignorant assholes, going > on and one about how the FOSS community isn't doing enough, or it's > doing the wrong things. Given the less than 2% uptake of Linux desktop, 'drooling morons and ignorant assholes' might better describe the linux loo... uh, advocates. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 18:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <k7hdgc-6s2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> |
| In reply to | #328538 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:03:19 +0000, Lloyd Parsons wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:00:44 -0500, chrisv wrote: > >> chrisv wrote: >> >>>>> Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Guess which one Joe buys? >>> >>>The one that he's heard of. The one the "everyone" uses. Of course. >>>The other option could be far superior and still not be chosen. >> >> Oh, and the one that runs *every* piece of PC software in the store. >> Just "slightly" important, that fact. >> > Absolutely! Couple that with the fact it will also work with any of the > printers and scanners that store is selling too. Well, actually any > printer/scanner that anyone is selling. Note the implicit kowtowing to the corporate master here. No mention of *existing* hardware, just hardware *for sale*. Must spend more money to appease the overlords. And the loons wonder why we can't take them seriously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 19:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <cd810fc2-94aa-45c7-a148-bc291b0e3acc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #329893 |
Kelsey B writes: >, Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:00:44 -0500, chrisv wrote: >>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Guess which one Joe buys? >>>> >>>>The one that he's heard of. The one the "everyone" uses. Of course. >>>>The other option could be far superior and still not be chosen. >>> >>> Oh, and the one that runs *every* piece of PC software in the store. >>> Just "slightly" important, that fact. >> >> Absolutely! Couple that with the fact it will also work with any of the >> printers and scanners that store is selling too. Well, actually any >> printer/scanner that anyone is selling. > > Note the implicit kowtowing to the corporate master here. No mention of > *existing* hardware, just hardware *for sale*. Existing hardware had to have had come from somewhere at some point. > Must spend more money to appease the overlords. Only if you assume that no consumers ever act in their own self-interests. > And the loons wonder why we can't take them seriously. Well, putting your claims to practice, feel free to tell us what hardware you're running, since it obviously has never broken down or had had any other reason to ever have paid money to have been replaced....given your age, it should be something that runs at under 10MHz. If, of course, you're not just being a hypocrite that can safely be ignored as a fool too, who has never spent even a dime for any upgrades. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 11:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <hmefgc-gj8.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> |
| In reply to | #329898 |
[snips] On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:48:52 -0700, -hh wrote: > Kelsey B writes: >>> Absolutely! Couple that with the fact it will also work with any of >>> the printers and scanners that store is selling too. Well, actually >>> any printer/scanner that anyone is selling. >> >> Note the implicit kowtowing to the corporate master here. No mention >> of *existing* hardware, just hardware *for sale*. > > Existing hardware had to have had come from somewhere at some point. Yes, and? > Well, putting your claims to practice, feel free to tell us what > hardware you're running, since it obviously has never broken down or had > had any other reason to ever have paid money to have been > replaced. What the thundering fuck are you blabbering about? Are you delusional enough to consider the user _choosing_ to upgrade his hardware, and the user being _forced_ to upgrade it because some corporate jackass both controls the driver and refuses to update it, as being equivalent? You really *are* a slave of the corporate masters, aren't you? Do they allow you *any* free will?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 19:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <d9ki50Fr46lU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #329960 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:42:57 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > [snips] > > On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:48:52 -0700, -hh wrote: > >> Kelsey B writes: > >>>> Absolutely! Couple that with the fact it will also work with any of >>>> the printers and scanners that store is selling too. Well, actually >>>> any printer/scanner that anyone is selling. >>> >>> Note the implicit kowtowing to the corporate master here. No mention >>> of *existing* hardware, just hardware *for sale*. >> >> Existing hardware had to have had come from somewhere at some point. > > Yes, and? > >> Well, putting your claims to practice, feel free to tell us what >> hardware you're running, since it obviously has never broken down or >> had had any other reason to ever have paid money to have been replaced. > > What the thundering fuck are you blabbering about? Are you delusional > enough to consider the user _choosing_ to upgrade his hardware, and the > user being _forced_ to upgrade it because some corporate jackass both > controls the driver and refuses to update it, as being equivalent? > > You really *are* a slave of the corporate masters, aren't you? Do they > allow you *any* free will? You are an idiot. Drivers will be updated for Windows first and all others after that. That assumes that they think there are enough of whatever is out there to make it worthwhile. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 20:57 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <n136bl$glh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #329966 |
Lloyd Parsons wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:42:57 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > >> [snips] >> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:48:52 -0700, -hh wrote: >> >>> Kelsey B writes: >> >>>>> Absolutely! Couple that with the fact it will also work with any of >>>>> the printers and scanners that store is selling too. Well, actually >>>>> any printer/scanner that anyone is selling. >>>> >>>> Note the implicit kowtowing to the corporate master here. No mention >>>> of *existing* hardware, just hardware *for sale*. >>> >>> Existing hardware had to have had come from somewhere at some point. >> >> Yes, and? >> >>> Well, putting your claims to practice, feel free to tell us what >>> hardware you're running, since it obviously has never broken down or >>> had had any other reason to ever have paid money to have been replaced. >> >> What the thundering fuck are you blabbering about? Are you delusional >> enough to consider the user _choosing_ to upgrade his hardware, and the >> user being _forced_ to upgrade it because some corporate jackass both >> controls the driver and refuses to update it, as being equivalent? >> >> You really *are* a slave of the corporate masters, aren't you? Do they >> allow you *any* free will? > > You are an idiot. Drivers will be updated for Windows first and all > others after that. That assumes that they think there are enough of > whatever is out there to make it worthwhile. > Interesting idiocy you show here. Drivers for *existing* hardware are all too often *not* updated. Meaning you can't use the otherwise fine working peripheral anymore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 20:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <d9kliiFs39fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #329969 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:57:45 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:42:57 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >> >>> [snips] >>> >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:48:52 -0700, -hh wrote: >>> >>>> Kelsey B writes: >>> >>>>>> Absolutely! Couple that with the fact it will also work with any >>>>>> of the printers and scanners that store is selling too. Well, >>>>>> actually any printer/scanner that anyone is selling. >>>>> >>>>> Note the implicit kowtowing to the corporate master here. No >>>>> mention of *existing* hardware, just hardware *for sale*. >>>> >>>> Existing hardware had to have had come from somewhere at some point. >>> >>> Yes, and? >>> >>>> Well, putting your claims to practice, feel free to tell us what >>>> hardware you're running, since it obviously has never broken down or >>>> had had any other reason to ever have paid money to have been >>>> replaced. >>> >>> What the thundering fuck are you blabbering about? Are you delusional >>> enough to consider the user _choosing_ to upgrade his hardware, and >>> the user being _forced_ to upgrade it because some corporate jackass >>> both controls the driver and refuses to update it, as being >>> equivalent? >>> >>> You really *are* a slave of the corporate masters, aren't you? Do >>> they allow you *any* free will? >> >> You are an idiot. Drivers will be updated for Windows first and all >> others after that. That assumes that they think there are enough of >> whatever is out there to make it worthwhile. >> >> > Interesting idiocy you show here. > > Drivers for *existing* hardware are all too often *not* updated. Meaning > you can't use the otherwise fine working peripheral anymore. Most drivers are updated except for very old gear. You still using that Okidata 392?? -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 21:23 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <n137sq$oom$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #329971 |
Lloyd Parsons wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:57:45 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:42:57 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>> >>>> [snips] >>>> >>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:48:52 -0700, -hh wrote: >>>> >>>>> Kelsey B writes: >>>> >>>>>>> Absolutely! Couple that with the fact it will also work with any >>>>>>> of the printers and scanners that store is selling too. Well, >>>>>>> actually any printer/scanner that anyone is selling. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note the implicit kowtowing to the corporate master here. No >>>>>> mention of *existing* hardware, just hardware *for sale*. >>>>> >>>>> Existing hardware had to have had come from somewhere at some point. >>>> >>>> Yes, and? >>>> >>>>> Well, putting your claims to practice, feel free to tell us what >>>>> hardware you're running, since it obviously has never broken down or >>>>> had had any other reason to ever have paid money to have been >>>>> replaced. >>>> >>>> What the thundering fuck are you blabbering about? Are you delusional >>>> enough to consider the user _choosing_ to upgrade his hardware, and >>>> the user being _forced_ to upgrade it because some corporate jackass >>>> both controls the driver and refuses to update it, as being >>>> equivalent? >>>> >>>> You really *are* a slave of the corporate masters, aren't you? Do >>>> they allow you *any* free will? >>> >>> You are an idiot. Drivers will be updated for Windows first and all >>> others after that. That assumes that they think there are enough of >>> whatever is out there to make it worthwhile. >>> >>> >> Interesting idiocy you show here. >> >> Drivers for *existing* hardware are all too often *not* updated. Meaning >> you can't use the otherwise fine working peripheral anymore. > > Most drivers are updated except for very old gear. You still using that > Okidata 392?? > "Most drivers" is not good enough
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 20:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <d9kn95Fshg0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #329974 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 21:23:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:57:45 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >>> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:42:57 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>> >>>>> [snips] >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:48:52 -0700, -hh wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Kelsey B writes: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Absolutely! Couple that with the fact it will also work with any >>>>>>>> of the printers and scanners that store is selling too. Well, >>>>>>>> actually any printer/scanner that anyone is selling. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note the implicit kowtowing to the corporate master here. No >>>>>>> mention of *existing* hardware, just hardware *for sale*. >>>>>> >>>>>> Existing hardware had to have had come from somewhere at some >>>>>> point. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, and? >>>>> >>>>>> Well, putting your claims to practice, feel free to tell us what >>>>>> hardware you're running, since it obviously has never broken down >>>>>> or had had any other reason to ever have paid money to have been >>>>>> replaced. >>>>> >>>>> What the thundering fuck are you blabbering about? Are you >>>>> delusional enough to consider the user _choosing_ to upgrade his >>>>> hardware, and the user being _forced_ to upgrade it because some >>>>> corporate jackass both controls the driver and refuses to update it, >>>>> as being equivalent? >>>>> >>>>> You really *are* a slave of the corporate masters, aren't you? Do >>>>> they allow you *any* free will? >>>> >>>> You are an idiot. Drivers will be updated for Windows first and all >>>> others after that. That assumes that they think there are enough of >>>> whatever is out there to make it worthwhile. >>>> >>>> >>> Interesting idiocy you show here. >>> >>> Drivers for *existing* hardware are all too often *not* updated. >>> Meaning you can't use the otherwise fine working peripheral anymore. >> >> Most drivers are updated except for very old gear. You still using >> that Okidata 392?? >> >> > "Most drivers" is not good enough Bullshit Peter. You can't expect any mfg to support everything they've made since day 1. That is unrealistic and very stupid. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 23:37 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <n13fnc$oqh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #329979 |
Lloyd Parsons wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 21:23:58 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:57:45 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> >>>> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:42:57 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> [snips] >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:48:52 -0700, -hh wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Kelsey B writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Absolutely! Couple that with the fact it will also work with any >>>>>>>>> of the printers and scanners that store is selling too. Well, >>>>>>>>> actually any printer/scanner that anyone is selling. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note the implicit kowtowing to the corporate master here. No >>>>>>>> mention of *existing* hardware, just hardware *for sale*. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Existing hardware had to have had come from somewhere at some >>>>>>> point. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, and? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, putting your claims to practice, feel free to tell us what >>>>>>> hardware you're running, since it obviously has never broken down >>>>>>> or had had any other reason to ever have paid money to have been >>>>>>> replaced. >>>>>> >>>>>> What the thundering fuck are you blabbering about? Are you >>>>>> delusional enough to consider the user _choosing_ to upgrade his >>>>>> hardware, and the user being _forced_ to upgrade it because some >>>>>> corporate jackass both controls the driver and refuses to update it, >>>>>> as being equivalent? >>>>>> >>>>>> You really *are* a slave of the corporate masters, aren't you? Do >>>>>> they allow you *any* free will? >>>>> >>>>> You are an idiot. Drivers will be updated for Windows first and all >>>>> others after that. That assumes that they think there are enough of >>>>> whatever is out there to make it worthwhile. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Interesting idiocy you show here. >>>> >>>> Drivers for *existing* hardware are all too often *not* updated. >>>> Meaning you can't use the otherwise fine working peripheral anymore. >>> >>> Most drivers are updated except for very old gear. You still using >>> that Okidata 392?? >>> >>> >> "Most drivers" is not good enough > > Bullshit Peter. You can't expect any mfg to support everything they've > made since day 1. That is unrealistic and very stupid. > Linux can. And does. It is neither unrealistic nor stupid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 17:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <n13aeo$49t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #329969 |
On 2015-10-31 3:57 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:42:57 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >> >>> [snips] >>> >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:48:52 -0700, -hh wrote: >>> >>>> Kelsey B writes: >>> >>>>>> Absolutely! Couple that with the fact it will also work with any of >>>>>> the printers and scanners that store is selling too. Well, actually >>>>>> any printer/scanner that anyone is selling. >>>>> >>>>> Note the implicit kowtowing to the corporate master here. No mention >>>>> of *existing* hardware, just hardware *for sale*. >>>> >>>> Existing hardware had to have had come from somewhere at some point. >>> >>> Yes, and? >>> >>>> Well, putting your claims to practice, feel free to tell us what >>>> hardware you're running, since it obviously has never broken down or >>>> had had any other reason to ever have paid money to have been replaced. >>> >>> What the thundering fuck are you blabbering about? Are you delusional >>> enough to consider the user _choosing_ to upgrade his hardware, and the >>> user being _forced_ to upgrade it because some corporate jackass both >>> controls the driver and refuses to update it, as being equivalent? >>> >>> You really *are* a slave of the corporate masters, aren't you? Do they >>> allow you *any* free will? >> >> You are an idiot. Drivers will be updated for Windows first and all >> others after that. That assumes that they think there are enough of >> whatever is out there to make it worthwhile. >> > > Interesting idiocy you show here. > > Drivers for *existing* hardware are all too often *not* updated. > Meaning you can't use the otherwise fine working peripheral anymore. Exactly. It's something I absolutely detest about Windows in general. If there is no reason to upgrade a printer or a scanner which might be slower than the newest model but still fine, I would rather not. I understand that people were forced to do such a thing during the days when each computer was proprietary and printers, scanners or whatever else were made specifically for that one computer, but those days have long past. If people with means choose to hold onto their old car even though it's butt-ugly just because it still works fine, I don't see why I can't hold onto my old scanner. Printers seem to get updated drivers, but scanners don't. This area is a major win for Linux and OS X (apparently). -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web