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 251 — 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> - 2015-11-02 07:21 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 14:05 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 09:52 -0500
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. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 23:13 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-01 01:41 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 00:43 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-01 01:45 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-31 17:52 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-31 19:47 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-31 21:37 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-31 19:46 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a success. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 01:59 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:09 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:12 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-31 17:54 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:08 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-31 17:53 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-01 02:04 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-31 18:17 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-31 19:45 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-31 21:39 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 01:57 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-31 20:37 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-01 14:22 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:07 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 12:13 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-01 20:47 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 15:15 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 13:42 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-11-01 22:37 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-01 17:42 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-02 00:14 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-01 18:18 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-02 00:29 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-01 18:33 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-02 00:37 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-01 18:39 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-02 00:58 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 16:59 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 16:50 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 20:15 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 18:35 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-02 07:56 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 09:47 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-02 18:21 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 12:46 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 18:42 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-03 00:58 +0100
You're a liar. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 16:15 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 16:50 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 20:12 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-01 18:58 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-11-02 00:09 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 20:18 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-01 18:34 -0700
No it doesn't, moron. You are a liar. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-01 18:59 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 20:11 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-01 18:58 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-11-02 09:52 -0600
Go lick your urinals, dog. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-01 18:57 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-31 19:43 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-31 19:42 -0600
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. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-31 19:50 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 02:31 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-01 14:26 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 14:14 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-01 14:27 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-01 20:02 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-01 19:01 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 09:40 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 09:41 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 14:49 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 09:57 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-02 10:38 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-02 10:41 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-02 16:07 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-11-02 18:16 -0500
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-03 16:16 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-31 19:42 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a success. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-11-01 11:29 +0100
Re: Why Linux is a success. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-11-01 14:28 -0700
Re: Why Linux is a success. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-02 07:28 -0600
Re: Why Linux is a success. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 14:03 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-10-31 18:27 -0700
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. Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 23:11 +0000
Re: Why Linux is a success. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-11-05 13:03 -0500
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 10 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Next page →
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 19:42 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <X46dnRH_2qVy8KjLnZ2dnUU7-VednZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #329969 |
On 10/31/15 13:57, 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. So you say. That hardware vendor will lose money over the long haul and also ruin their reputation if they don't. HP printers have always provided updates for newer windows, as an example. The company that doesn't is probably already bankrupt. > Meaning you can't use the otherwise fine working peripheral anymore. Fine working? Most of you linux loons use the most off the road peripherals ever heard of. And most of the time they are almost garbage can ready. -- 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]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 11:29 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <n14pet$uft$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #330020 |
GreyCloud wrote: > On 10/31/15 13:57, 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. > > So you say. That hardware vendor will lose money over the long haul and > also ruin their reputation if they don't. Well, they don't. Often. They rather sell you a new device
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 14:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <LL2dnTSV1opmHqvLnZ2dnUU7-SWdnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #330057 |
On 11/01/15 03:29, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > GreyCloud wrote: > >> On 10/31/15 13:57, 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. >> >> So you say. That hardware vendor will lose money over the long haul and >> also ruin their reputation if they don't. > > Well, they don't. Often. They rather sell you a new device I've got an old HP printer that is 10 years old, and I can still get drivers for win10 and El Capitan. It is one of the few HP printers that can be taken apart and cleaned. -- 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]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 07:28 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <u1pe3bhfgrlpgo37i47ofqvkde1poiv13g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #330057 |
Peter Köhlmann wrote: > some piece of shit wrote: >> >> Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> >>> Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> So you say. That hardware vendor will lose money over the long haul and >> also ruin their reputation if they don't. > > Well, they don't. Often. They rather sell you a new device The efficiency of FOSS allows things to be supported that a "normal" business cannot economically support. -- "get the HW mfrs on board and stop demanding these people give their code away so that their competitors can steal their hard earned IP." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 14:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <d9p8p8F2cmfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #330304 |
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 07:28:58 -0600, chrisv wrote: > Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> some piece of shit wrote: >>> >>> Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>> >>>> Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> So you say. That hardware vendor will lose money over the long haul >>> and also ruin their reputation if they don't. >> >> Well, they don't. Often. They rather sell you a new device > > The efficiency of FOSS allows things to be supported that a "normal" > business cannot economically support. Unfortunately the linux crowd hasn't shown that 'efficiency' to be enough to get more of the business community to move to linux on their desktops. And that is really more because of the lack of real business acumen than the technology. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 18:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <547d96d7-d885-4172-ba2f-d76a0a07b117@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #329960 |
Kelsey Bjarnason Wrote: > -hh wrote: >> Kelsey Bjarnason 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? Merely just how off-base your attitude is. >> 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? That you dodged answering the question has provided its answer. Not that it is expected for you to understand that it revealed your hypocrisy. > 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? Nice straw man. Too bad it ignores the reality that the user only generally gets into that dilemma *if* he chose to change his system somehow. Similarly, users also generally _elect_ to upgrade because of some benefit of doing so, and then also accepts as part of the price that other upgrade expenses may get dragged along as well. Now you are free to still tooling around on your "Big Wheel" tricycle, but when one upgrades to a car proper, the prospects of also having to pay for gas and insurance isn't an injustice, nor a huge surprise ... at least for adults. > You really *are* a slave of the corporate masters, aren't you? Nope. Merely an informed consumer...with the key being below. > Do they allow you *any* free will? "They" have no power over me. The key is knowing that one is not obligated to purchase. Now since you're still apparently living in that pile of rags in the old beater van, supposedly "camping", you will of course be trying to blame anyone other than yourself, and continue to try to lash out at anyone that tells you that your little victim game is old and lame. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 10:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <n12ico$uc2$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #329893 |
On 2015-10-31 12:17 AM, Snit wrote: > On 10/30/15, 7:38 PM, in article d9intsFda4dU1@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd > Parsons" <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> 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. >>> >> OK, don't buy the latest. The odds of a random selection of printers and >> scanners that have drivers for Windows is extremely high, for OSX a bit >> less and for linux a much shorter list. > > What? Peter tells us OS X cannot even handle common HP printer / scanners! > > Peter Köhlmann, <http://goo.gl/600BHt>: > ----- > Scanning [on OS X] is not supported *at* *all* without jumping > through several hoops. This includes hunting down 3 different > software packages (libusb, sane-backend and sane) *and* installing > them. Out of the box no scanning is supported at all. This is in > stark contrast to linux where scanning is supported right from the > start after setting up the printer > > The same is true about *all* OfficeJet Pro printers under OSX. > ----- > > It is not possible he is wrong, is it? > > <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PrintFirstTime.mp4> > <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/FirstScan.mov> > > Oh. > > Never mind. :) I'm wondering whether OS X would support my ancient HP Scanjet 3500c. I have no reason to throw it out and am annoyed that Windows 10 doesn't support it "just because." -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 08:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <D25A2D4F.622E5%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #329923 |
On 10/31/15, 7:17 AM, in article n12ico$uc2$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > On 2015-10-31 12:17 AM, Snit wrote: >> On 10/30/15, 7:38 PM, in article d9intsFda4dU1@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd >> Parsons" <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>> OK, don't buy the latest. The odds of a random selection of printers and >>> scanners that have drivers for Windows is extremely high, for OSX a bit >>> less and for linux a much shorter list. >> >> What? Peter tells us OS X cannot even handle common HP printer / scanners! >> >> Peter Köhlmann, <http://goo.gl/600BHt>: >> ----- >> Scanning [on OS X] is not supported *at* *all* without jumping >> through several hoops. This includes hunting down 3 different >> software packages (libusb, sane-backend and sane) *and* installing >> them. Out of the box no scanning is supported at all. This is in >> stark contrast to linux where scanning is supported right from the >> start after setting up the printer >> >> The same is true about *all* OfficeJet Pro printers under OSX. >> ----- >> >> It is not possible he is wrong, is it? >> >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PrintFirstTime.mp4> >> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/FirstScan.mov> >> >> Oh. >> >> Never mind. :) > > I'm wondering whether OS X would support my ancient HP Scanjet 3500c. I > have no reason to throw it out and am annoyed that Windows 10 doesn't > support it "just because." They list the 3500, so likely yes: <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201465> -- * 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 | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 12:22 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <n12pnn$s1p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #329926 |
On 2015-10-31 11:33 AM, Snit wrote: > On 10/31/15, 7:17 AM, in article n12ico$uc2$3@dont-email.me, "Charmed Tuna" > <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> On 2015-10-31 12:17 AM, Snit wrote: >>> On 10/30/15, 7:38 PM, in article d9intsFda4dU1@mid.individual.net, "Lloyd >>> Parsons" <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> OK, don't buy the latest. The odds of a random selection of printers and >>>> scanners that have drivers for Windows is extremely high, for OSX a bit >>>> less and for linux a much shorter list. >>> >>> What? Peter tells us OS X cannot even handle common HP printer / scanners! >>> >>> Peter Köhlmann, <http://goo.gl/600BHt>: >>> ----- >>> Scanning [on OS X] is not supported *at* *all* without jumping >>> through several hoops. This includes hunting down 3 different >>> software packages (libusb, sane-backend and sane) *and* installing >>> them. Out of the box no scanning is supported at all. This is in >>> stark contrast to linux where scanning is supported right from the >>> start after setting up the printer >>> >>> The same is true about *all* OfficeJet Pro printers under OSX. >>> ----- >>> >>> It is not possible he is wrong, is it? >>> >>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PrintFirstTime.mp4> >>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/FirstScan.mov> >>> >>> Oh. >>> >>> Never mind. :) >> >> I'm wondering whether OS X would support my ancient HP Scanjet 3500c. I >> have no reason to throw it out and am annoyed that Windows 10 doesn't >> support it "just because." > > They list the 3500, so likely yes: > <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201465> There you go, a decent reason to use OS X: whatever hardware you buy is supported and for a longer period of time. I really find it disgusting how Windows seems to _lose_ hardware support over time. The 3500c worked in XP and Vista, but suddenly lost support in 7 and 8 (unless you used the Vista driver). With 10, they seem to have decided you're an asshole for having one. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 17:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <20151031172616.3481ea57@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #329927 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:22:22 -0400 Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > There you go, a decent reason to use OS X: whatever hardware you buy > is supported and for a longer period of time. Linux is better in this regard...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 12:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <28e0myadfcll.1x61npjax03s6.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #329928 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:26:16 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:22:22 -0400 > Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> >> There you go, a decent reason to use OS X: whatever hardware you buy >> is supported and for a longer period of time. > > Linux is better in this regard... Much, much better. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 09:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <D25A3F61.622FE%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #329928 |
On 10/31/15, 9:26 AM, in article 20151031172616.3481ea57@maxa-pc, "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:22:22 -0400 > Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> >> There you go, a decent reason to use OS X: whatever hardware you buy >> is supported and for a longer period of time. > > Linux is better in this regard... > From what I have seen I agree - though the support is usually weaker, the length of the support is longer. It is a trade off: support peripherals for a longer time less well vs. supporting peripherals for a shorter time but doing so better. -- * 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 | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 12:07 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <M6-dna-NEun4nqjLnZ2dnUU7-ImdnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #329928 |
On 10/31/15 10:26, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:22:22 -0400 > Charmed Tuna<.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> >> There you go, a decent reason to use OS X: whatever hardware you buy >> is supported and for a longer period of time. > > Linux is better in this regard... > Not really. -- 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]
| From | Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 11:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <lcefgc-gj8.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> |
| In reply to | #329928 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:26:16 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:22:22 -0400 Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > >> There you go, a decent reason to use OS X: whatever hardware you buy is >> supported and for a longer period of time. > > Linux is better in this regard... *Vastly* better. In LGX, there are basically two reasons a driver for a piece of hardware will stop being offered: 1) There *are no more* of the physical devices. 2) The driver was so abstruse it is beyond updating. 2 is rare. So is 1, for that matter. In Windows-land, it's far from rare to have a piece of hardware become abandonware simply because the vendor would much prefer you buy a new device than spend a seconds' effort to update the device driver for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 19:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <d9ki9hFr46lU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #329959 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:37:41 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:26:16 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:22:22 -0400 Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >> >>> There you go, a decent reason to use OS X: whatever hardware you buy >>> is supported and for a longer period of time. >> >> Linux is better in this regard... > > *Vastly* better. > > In LGX, there are basically two reasons a driver for a piece of hardware > will stop being offered: > > 1) There *are no more* of the physical devices. > 2) The driver was so abstruse it is beyond updating. > > 2 is rare. So is 1, for that matter. In Windows-land, it's far from > rare to have a piece of hardware become abandonware simply because the > vendor would much prefer you buy a new device than spend a seconds' > effort to update the device driver for it. While there are examples of abandoned hardware out there, the mfgs have been pretty damned good about keeping drivers up to date. Not all of them of course. But it is all about business, because business is about business. Not in satisfying some nym-shifted nimrod on usenet and his old crappy gear. Of course, Linux might still have a driver that works for about 1/2 the functions. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 15:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <n13753$h1d$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #329959 |
On 10/31/2015 1:37 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:26:16 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:22:22 -0400 Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >> >>> There you go, a decent reason to use OS X: whatever hardware you buy is >>> supported and for a longer period of time. >> >> Linux is better in this regard... > > *Vastly* better. > > In LGX, there are basically two reasons a driver for a piece of hardware > will stop being offered: > > 1) There *are no more* of the physical devices. > 2) The driver was so abstruse it is beyond updating. > > 2 is rare. So is 1, for that matter. In Windows-land, it's far from > rare to have a piece of hardware become abandonware simply because the > vendor would much prefer you buy a new device than spend a seconds' > effort to update the device driver for it. Lack of drivers has kept many users, especially businesses, on WinXP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 20:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <d9klkfFs39fU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #329970 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 15:09:08 -0500, Nobody wrote: > On 10/31/2015 1:37 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:26:16 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:22:22 -0400 Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> There you go, a decent reason to use OS X: whatever hardware you buy >>>> is supported and for a longer period of time. >>> >>> Linux is better in this regard... >> >> *Vastly* better. >> >> In LGX, there are basically two reasons a driver for a piece of >> hardware will stop being offered: >> >> 1) There *are no more* of the physical devices. >> 2) The driver was so abstruse it is beyond updating. >> >> 2 is rare. So is 1, for that matter. In Windows-land, it's far from >> rare to have a piece of hardware become abandonware simply because the >> vendor would much prefer you buy a new device than spend a seconds' >> effort to update the device driver for it. > > Lack of drivers has kept many users, especially businesses, on WinXP. Refining 'many' as to mean 'a few' and you might be right. But I'd say a business still running on WinXP isn't much of a business. -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 21:24 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <n137to$oom$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #329972 |
Lloyd Parsons wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 15:09:08 -0500, Nobody wrote: > >> On 10/31/2015 1:37 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:26:16 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:22:22 -0400 Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> There you go, a decent reason to use OS X: whatever hardware you buy >>>>> is supported and for a longer period of time. >>>> >>>> Linux is better in this regard... >>> >>> *Vastly* better. >>> >>> In LGX, there are basically two reasons a driver for a piece of >>> hardware will stop being offered: >>> >>> 1) There *are no more* of the physical devices. >>> 2) The driver was so abstruse it is beyond updating. >>> >>> 2 is rare. So is 1, for that matter. In Windows-land, it's far from >>> rare to have a piece of hardware become abandonware simply because the >>> vendor would much prefer you buy a new device than spend a seconds' >>> effort to update the device driver for it. >> >> Lack of drivers has kept many users, especially businesses, on WinXP. > > Refining 'many' as to mean 'a few' and you might be right. But I'd say a > business still running on WinXP isn't much of a business. > You would be surprised
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 20:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <n138m2$r58$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #329975 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 21:24:29 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 15:09:08 -0500, Nobody wrote: >> >>> On 10/31/2015 1:37 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:26:16 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:22:22 -0400 Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> There you go, a decent reason to use OS X: whatever hardware you >>>>>> buy is supported and for a longer period of time. >>>>> >>>>> Linux is better in this regard... >>>> >>>> *Vastly* better. >>>> >>>> In LGX, there are basically two reasons a driver for a piece of >>>> hardware will stop being offered: >>>> >>>> 1) There *are no more* of the physical devices. >>>> 2) The driver was so abstruse it is beyond updating. >>>> >>>> 2 is rare. So is 1, for that matter. In Windows-land, it's far from >>>> rare to have a piece of hardware become abandonware simply because >>>> the vendor would much prefer you buy a new device than spend a >>>> seconds' effort to update the device driver for it. >>> >>> Lack of drivers has kept many users, especially businesses, on WinXP. >> >> Refining 'many' as to mean 'a few' and you might be right. But I'd say >> a business still running on WinXP isn't much of a business. >> >> > You would be surprised The lemon-sucker once again shows he's clueless. He's good at that. -- Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 20:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Why Linux is a success. |
| Message-ID | <d9knc3Fshg0U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #329978 |
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:35:15 +0000, ronb wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 21:24:29 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> Lloyd Parsons wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 15:09:08 -0500, Nobody wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/31/2015 1:37 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:26:16 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:22:22 -0400 Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> There you go, a decent reason to use OS X: whatever hardware you >>>>>>> buy is supported and for a longer period of time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Linux is better in this regard... >>>>> >>>>> *Vastly* better. >>>>> >>>>> In LGX, there are basically two reasons a driver for a piece of >>>>> hardware will stop being offered: >>>>> >>>>> 1) There *are no more* of the physical devices. >>>>> 2) The driver was so abstruse it is beyond updating. >>>>> >>>>> 2 is rare. So is 1, for that matter. In Windows-land, it's far >>>>> from rare to have a piece of hardware become abandonware simply >>>>> because the vendor would much prefer you buy a new device than spend >>>>> a seconds' effort to update the device driver for it. >>>> >>>> Lack of drivers has kept many users, especially businesses, on WinXP. >>> >>> Refining 'many' as to mean 'a few' and you might be right. But I'd >>> say a business still running on WinXP isn't much of a business. >>> >>> >> You would be surprised > > The lemon-sucker once again shows he's clueless. He's good at that. FOAD -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web