Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #377994 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-25 21:01 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-26 07:40 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 86 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
High Maintenance? Fuck You! Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-25 21:01 +0000
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-26 06:07 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-26 15:17 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-26 10:18 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-26 17:21 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-26 11:56 -0400
Fuck You! Go to Hell Mr. Maggot ... John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 11:17 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-26 09:02 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-26 12:11 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! fr314159@gmail.com - 2016-10-26 10:21 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-26 23:23 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-26 14:34 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-27 00:46 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-26 19:07 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-10-27 09:37 +0100
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 02:47 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-27 12:08 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 03:16 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-27 12:34 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 04:08 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-27 14:12 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 07:06 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-27 16:35 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 07:44 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-27 07:56 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-27 14:11 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 06:06 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-27 16:34 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 07:52 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-27 17:59 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-27 12:13 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-27 18:30 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-27 12:48 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-11-01 10:02 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-27 07:14 -0500
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-27 14:21 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 19:27 +0000
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 05:36 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-27 07:54 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-27 14:08 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-27 08:11 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-27 14:18 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-27 08:26 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-27 07:20 -0500
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-27 08:51 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-10-27 11:52 +0100
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 04:15 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-27 07:57 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-27 07:02 -0500
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 19:23 +0000
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-27 07:52 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 05:48 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 19:18 +0000
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-28 13:00 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-27 09:49 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 07:22 -0700
Re: Your vote is worth _exactly_ what it cost: nothing. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 07:58 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 02:19 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-27 11:44 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 03:08 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-27 07:52 -0400
Fuck You Idiot! John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 07:40 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-26 15:10 +0000
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-26 11:54 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-26 16:09 +0000
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-26 10:16 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! fr314159@gmail.com - 2016-10-26 10:34 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-26 11:08 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-27 14:10 +0000
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 07:41 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-27 15:03 +0000
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 10:11 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-27 17:33 +0000
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 10:47 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-27 13:53 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-27 19:24 +0000
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-27 12:36 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-27 16:15 +0000
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-28 08:44 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! fr314159@gmail.com - 2016-10-28 13:22 -0700
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-28 23:22 +0200
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-28 23:09 +0000
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-28 23:23 +0000
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-29 09:18 -0400
Re: High Maintenance? Fuck You! Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-29 13:32 +0000
Mjduhgfks, have you always suffered from delusions of persecution, or were you just born stupid? John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 07:40 -0700
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 07:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nusppn$c8v$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #378215 |
On 2016-10-27 5:19 AM, -hh wrote: > On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 6:46:59 PM UTC-4, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> -hh wrote: >>> Peter cherrypicks: >>>> -hh wrote: >>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>> Silver Slimer wrote: >>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>>>> -hh wrote: >>>>>>>>> Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On a recent thread, a few of these despicable Microshit >>>>>>>>>> advocates claimed that GNU/Linux is a "high maintenance" >>>>>>>>>> OS, with the insinuation that such "high maintenance" is >>>>>>>>>> a serious deficiency. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the generic consumer use case, it most certainly is a >>>>>>>>> deficiency. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Only if it is true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In reality, linux has a lot less maintenance needs than windows ha. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ha! Peter the Klöwn made a funny. >>>>> >>>>> Well, in an oblique way, it can be argued that Peter has a point, >>>>> because Linux has there's fewer good Apps: less exists that >>>>> would need to be maintained. Of course, the ramifications of >>>>> this defense is that with fewer tools in its toolbox, it isn't >>>>> as valued because it is less capable too. >>>>> >>>>>>>> Updates are fully or half-automatic (whatever floats your >>>>>>>> boat), and they come from one source, not this scattered >>>>>>>> update "experience" you get with windows or OSX >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Complete bullshit. In Microsoft's case, they also come from >>>>>>> one source though it has also implemented a torrent-like >>>>>>> approach for update delivery which is actually quite innovative. >>>>> >>>>> Apple also has its "App Store" which controls product quality. >>>>> >>>>>> Oh, your wintendo toy system has only MS software? Really? >>>>> >>>>> Oh, so all of the good Linux OSs & apps are centralized? Really? >>>> >>>> Lets say: About 99% >>> >>> Really? Can you substantiate that claim? >> >> Certainly. Just install any big distro and see for yourself >> >>> In any event, it still isn't all, so Linux also fails >> >> Idiot. It is 100% nearly always. You have to install 3rd-party software >> which is in no repos to get a less than 100% rate. > > Such as any third party productivity App software (including for some, games). > This would include MS-Office and Adobe's portfolio, if those companies were > at all interested in selling their product on the Linux OS. Microsoft has already demonstrated that they will _gladly_ port their office suite to a competing platform if it is viable. Office is available on iOS and Android so if Linux adoption were significant enough, there is reason to believe that it would be there too. < snip > -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Proud libertarian, unapologetic nerd, author, gamer, beast-mode teacher and silver-tongued heel Fingerprint: e58428b2633833a3b0c9bb7e40819166642245b7 Gab.ai: @silverslimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 07:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Fuck You Idiot! |
| Message-ID | <f84a81e7-3ee2-48e2-a742-803b1dadca51@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378116 |
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 9:17:21 AM UTC-4, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > -hh wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 4:58:29 PM UTC-4, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks > > wrote: > >> On a recent thread, a few of these despicable Microshit > >> advocates claimed that GNU/Linux is a "high maintenance" > >> OS, with the insinuation that such "high maintenance" is > >> a serious deficiency. > > > > For the generic consumer use case, it most certainly is a deficiency. > > Only if it is true. > > In reality, linux has a lot less maintenance needs than windows ha. > Updates are fully or half-automatic (whatever floats your boat), and they > come from one source, not this scattered update "experience" you get with > windows or OSX > > > For Enterprise, it is an overhead expense and each hour it costs > > ultimately comes out of profits. > > And for those, the overhead per unit is even less Idiot!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 15:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e7bvc3FfmicU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378116 |
On 2016-10-26, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > -hh wrote: > >> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 4:58:29 PM UTC-4, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks >> wrote: >>> On a recent thread, a few of these despicable Microshit >>> advocates claimed that GNU/Linux is a "high maintenance" >>> OS, with the insinuation that such "high maintenance" is >>> a serious deficiency. >> >> For the generic consumer use case, it most certainly is a deficiency. > > Only if it is true. > > In reality, linux has a lot less maintenance needs than windows ha. > Updates are fully or half-automatic (whatever floats your boat), and they > come from one source, not this scattered update "experience" you get with > windows or OSX Spare me. I've just seen for myself how updates in Manjaro Linux rendered the system unbootable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 11:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nuqjjc$2ie$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #378133 |
On 2016-10-26 11:10 AM, Jim Polaski wrote: > On 2016-10-26, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> -hh wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 4:58:29 PM UTC-4, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks >>> wrote: >>>> On a recent thread, a few of these despicable Microshit >>>> advocates claimed that GNU/Linux is a "high maintenance" >>>> OS, with the insinuation that such "high maintenance" is >>>> a serious deficiency. >>> >>> For the generic consumer use case, it most certainly is a deficiency. >> >> Only if it is true. >> >> In reality, linux has a lot less maintenance needs than windows ha. >> Updates are fully or half-automatic (whatever floats your boat), and they >> come from one source, not this scattered update "experience" you get with >> windows or OSX > > Spare me. > I've just seen for myself how updates in Manjaro Linux rendered the > system unbootable. I've been telling the Linux twats in here about this problem for years and been called a liar every single time. I'm glad that spindrift documented the problem as well as he has but am not surprised to see the Linux twats _still_ deny that there is such a problem. -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Proud libertarian, unapologetic nerd, author, gamer, beast-mode teacher and silver-tongued heel Fingerprint: e58428b2633833a3b0c9bb7e40819166642245b7 Gab.ai: @silverslimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e7c2q6FgtcoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #378139 |
On 2016-10-26, Silver Slimer <> wrote: > On 2016-10-26 11:10 AM, Jim Polaski wrote: >> On 2016-10-26, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >>> -hh wrote: >>> >>>> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 4:58:29 PM UTC-4, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks >>>> wrote: >>>>> On a recent thread, a few of these despicable Microshit >>>>> advocates claimed that GNU/Linux is a "high maintenance" >>>>> OS, with the insinuation that such "high maintenance" is >>>>> a serious deficiency. >>>> >>>> For the generic consumer use case, it most certainly is a deficiency. >>> >>> Only if it is true. >>> >>> In reality, linux has a lot less maintenance needs than windows ha. >>> Updates are fully or half-automatic (whatever floats your boat), and they >>> come from one source, not this scattered update "experience" you get with >>> windows or OSX >> >> Spare me. >> I've just seen for myself how updates in Manjaro Linux rendered the >> system unbootable. > > I've been telling the Linux twats in here about this problem for years > and been called a liar every single time. I'm glad that spindrift > documented the problem as well as he has but am not surprised to see the > Linux twats _still_ deny that there is such a problem. The Linux COLA Cabal are crazy people. Liars, nuts and kooks every one of them. There is no point in offering up any documentation to prove Linux's faults because they will claim it's been faked. Linux would probably be doing better in the market place if the Linux advocates disappeared because they are more of a hinderance to Linux than a help.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 10:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nuqdrc$cta$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #378115 |
On 2016-10-26 9:07 AM, -hh wrote: > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 4:58:29 PM UTC-4, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote: >> On a recent thread, a few of these despicable Microshit >> advocates claimed that GNU/Linux is a "high maintenance" >> OS, with the insinuation that such "high maintenance" is >> a serious deficiency. > > For the generic consumer use case, it most certainly is a deficiency. > For Enterprise, it is an overhead expense and each hour it costs > ultimately comes out of profits. Linux users don't understand how that works because they don't know what profits are. > Of course, for fanboys who believe that time spent turning a > wrench is "fun", they have difficulties in recognizing this. It's the same as people who buy Dodge vehicles and are therefore forced to spend most of their time fixing this or that just to get their "performance" vehicle to work right. Some people like that, but most would just buy a car that actually works like an Infiniti and buy those losers in drag races anyway... all without tuning or fixing a thing. > FYI, to extend the automotive analogy, consumers' lack of love > for even the most basic vehicular maintenance elements is why > Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems are now required in the USA. Well said. >> Well, they can go and fuck themselves. > > Facts state otherwise: > > > "Next up is the Lamborghini....quite expensive to maintain.... > The Murcielago will run you about $2000 for an oil change, > $4000 for plugs and the best part $12000 for an E-Gear Clutch. > The Gallardo [is] just $400 for an oil change, $2000 for plugs > and finally about $3500 for an E-Gear clutch....Despite using > Audi based parts, Lamborghini does a great job at making you > ^^^^ ! > pay big bucks for parts so don’t take a chance." > > <http://www.secretentourage.com/lifestyle/autos/cost-of-ownership-of-an-exotic-car/> > > Same basic message can be found here too: > > <http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/features/a6327/the-boot-high-maintenance/> What kind of oil are these people putting into that car for it to cost so damned much? It is oil made from prestigious, upper class dinosaurs or something? >> A user can choose a zero-maintenance GNU/Linux distribution >> or the user can choose to do it all for himself or the user >> can choose something in between the two extremes. > > And just which distributions are "zero-maintenance"? Be specific > and substantiate your claim. There is no such thing. -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Proud libertarian, unapologetic nerd, author, gamer, beast-mode teacher and silver-tongued heel Fingerprint: e58428b2633833a3b0c9bb7e40819166642245b7 Gab.ai: @silverslimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fr314159@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 10:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b452ecbb-b895-4155-8261-fc517c596e47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378115 |
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 9:07:24 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: > > And just which distributions are "zero-maintenance"? Be specific > and substantiate your claim. > Gentoo. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Gentoo scares the fuck out of even hard-core GNU/Linux users, but I have not performed any maintenance per se on my Gentoo system in a very long while. However, since I do a lot of custom work that is not covered by the standard Gentoo policies, I need to sometimes research and fix problems that arise. But the fault is mine and not Gentoo's. > > MS uses a different business model where effectively, their > costs of maintenance are paid for upfront with the purchase > of what's effectively a turnkey product. > Whew! For a "turnkey product" most companies sure do invest a lot of extra money by either employing or contracting a veritable army of MS support technicians. A "turnkey product" is like a furnace or air conditioner. After installation, such infrastructure is supposed to perform unattended day after day after day in a totally invisible manner. Needless to say, Microshit Winblows is not like that at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 11:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fdece5de-618f-4653-a71b-e6c788f81360@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378155 |
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 1:34:40 PM UTC-4, fr31...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 9:07:24 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote: > > > > > And just which distributions are "zero-maintenance"? Be specific > > and substantiate your claim. > > > > Gentoo. Sorry, but they characterize themselves as easy to maintain, which falls short of zero maintenance. > > MS uses a different business model where effectively, their > > costs of maintenance are paid for upfront with the purchase > > of what's effectively a turnkey product. > > > > Whew! For a "turnkey product" most companies sure do invest > a lot of extra money by either employing or contracting a > veritable army of MS support technicians. And if an employee has to call in a ticket more than once per year, there's some deficiency in that IT Support Dept. Nevertheless, those highly compensated non-IT users are able to perform their functions without having to lose their valuable time doing DIY IT functions...from a corporate Enterprise standpoint, this division and prioritization of labor not only makes sense, it is cost-effective. > A "turnkey product" is like a furnace or air conditioner. > After installation, such infrastructure is supposed to > perform unattended day after day after day in a totally > invisible manner. Needless to say, Microshit Winblows is not > like that at all. You sure about that? Your claims makes it sound very much like you're suffering from CO poisoning from your failure to have maintained your furnace. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 14:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nut1s5018f7@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #378159 |
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:08:16 -0700, -hh wrote: > > Nevertheless, those highly compensated non-IT users are > able to perform their functions without having to lose > their valuable time doing DIY IT functions... > Translation: The only way that these "highly compensated non-IT users" can survive in the digital world is by utilizing the highly circumscribed software "appliances" that are provided by Microshit. American businesses are staffed by highly paid bumpkins that, when it comes to things digital, can't distinguish their ass from a hole in the ground. Compared to what it could/should be, the average corporate environment is at least THIRTY FUCKING YEARS behind the times. I still have highly compensated idiots send me faxes which I have to filter through a digital conversion process! I still have highly compensated idiots that can't digitally sign a digital document, or cannot even produce a custom "fill in" form, and thus expect me to fiddle around with the extremely cumbersome routine of print-sign-scan-print-sign-scan! After FIFTY FUCKING YEARS of personal computing, these highly compensated idiots still have not mastered the art of a paperless office and bulky, inefficient file cabinets and printing machines still abound! I am so sorry, but the general-purpose nature of computing as we know it, based on the von Neumann architecture, simply DEMANDS a do-it-yourself approach. There is an unlimited potential which exists that cannot be grasped by canned software alone. Microshit attempts to cover what it deems are the important application areas with its comforting circumscribed GUIs, but when the need to venture beyond those areas arises then things begin to quickly fall apart, with users resorting to ridiculous and clumsy ad hoc solutions, a couple of which I have alluded to above. That is one, but not only, of my revulsions for Microshit. Their system is so circumscribed that true creativity, which most humans strive for at all times, is very difficult to implement. Thus, your "assembly line" view of things may be appropriate for a narrow range of well defined and thoughtless tasks, but it will fail miserably to accommodate the demands within a free form and creative environment where DIY becomes a BIG factor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 07:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ca1184a-301a-4dee-b25c-915574a138fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378254 |
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 10:11:20 AM UTC-4, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote: > On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:08:16 -0700, -hh wrote: > > > > > Nevertheless, those highly compensated non-IT users are > > able to perform their functions without having to lose > > their valuable time doing DIY IT functions... > > Translation: > > The only way that these "highly compensated non-IT users" > can survive in the digital world is by utilizing the highly > circumscribed software "appliances" that are provided by > Microshit. Enterprise needs various resources, people & tools. MS does provides some of these, but other corporations do too. That your personal preference for a tool differs from what XYZ Enterprise chooses is of no significance to them, until such time that *your* corporation is a meaningful competitor. That's Free Enterprise. Deal with it. > American businesses are staffed by highly paid bumpkins > that, when it comes to things digital, can't distinguish > their ass from a hole in the ground. Compared to what > it could/should be, the average corporate environment > is at least THIRTY FUCKING YEARS behind the times. So then, just how well is your corporation doing? > I still have highly compensated idiots send me faxes > which I have to filter through a digital conversion > process! So if they're so inept, why are they still your employees? > I still have highly compensated idiots that can't > digitally sign a digital document, or cannot even > produce a custom "fill in" form, and thus expect me > to fiddle around with the extremely cumbersome routine > of print-sign-scan-print-sign-scan! > > After FIFTY FUCKING YEARS of personal computing, ... 40 years. A minor nit, sure, but not only does this merit correction, but so too the general timeline of when PC's entered into the Enterprise environment, as that was basically yet another decade later. > Microshit attempts to cover what it deems are the important > application areas with its comforting circumscribed GUIs, > but when the need to venture beyond those areas arises > then things begin to quickly fall apart, with users resorting > to ridiculous and clumsy ad hoc solutions, a couple of which > I have alluded to above. MS (et al) is merely applying the Pareto Principle to their Enterprise. > That is one, but not only, of my revulsions for Microshit. Nah, you're just like Ahstrom: what you find revolting is anything that you actually have to pay real money for. That's why you'll go squander hours of your time to avoid spending ten bucks. > Thus, your "assembly line" view of things may be appropriate > for a narrow range of well defined and thoughtless tasks, but > it will fail miserably to accommodate the demands within a > free form and creative environment where DIY becomes a BIG factor. "Assembly line"? Sorry, that's your fabrication and false flag. FWIW, much of what I was generalizing about with 'highly compensated non-IT users' phrase is of Enterprise valued activities which are much less linear and less defined than the stuff that the IT staff does to support these workers, and that's why they're being paid more than the IT Staff. On average, I'd say probably ~33% more. And if some of them have idiosyncrasies where they don't want to e-sign PDFs, etc, then that's merely another cost of doing business for the things that they do provide which are of Enterprise value. And besides, for some of these ... and e-signing of PDFs is a specific example ... there are external regulations which specifically prohibit it, so our personal opinion that it is 'stupid' is utterly irrelevant. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 15:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nut50h01r4j@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #378258 |
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:41:31 -0700, -hh wrote: > > That > your personal preference for a tool differs from what XYZ > Enterprise chooses is of no significance to them, until such > time that *your* corporation is a meaningful competitor. > Or until such time that they want to be my supplier and they discover that I want nothing to do with them unless they are able to effect ALL exchanges digitally. It's amazing that, in the majority of corporate offices, as they sit right next to their shiny Microshit machines, people are still pushing mountains of paper. Every time I walk into the sleek and modernistic corporate HQ, I feel as though I've stepped through a time portal into the nineteenth century. But at least these highly compensated executives have managed to eliminate the pneumatic tubes -- no wait -- I can actually point to a few companies that still use them. Judas Priest! Am I dreaming or what? > > So if they're so inept, why are they still your employees? > I'm not talking about employees, idiot. I am referring to the necessary exchanges with other organizations, most of which are staffed by digitally ignorant imbeciles that even Microshit can't help. > > And besides, for some of these ... and e-signing of PDFs is > a specific example ... there are external regulations which > specifically prohibit it, so our personal opinion that it > is 'stupid' is utterly irrelevant. > Do you dwell under a rock? This is nonsense. The ESIGN ACT has been in force since 2000. ALL document exchanges should be digital by now. Is SEVENTEEN YEARS not sufficient? Holy shite! A monkey could be re-educated in far less time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Signatures_in_Global_and_National_Commerce_Act
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 10:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d8d85a6-b3e5-48e7-b8f9-443ff7640eaa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378262 |
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 11:04:16 AM UTC-4, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:41:31 -0700, -hh wrote: > > > > So if they're so inept, why are they still your employees? > > > > I'm not talking about employees, idiot. I am referring to > the necessary exchanges with other organizations, most of > which are staffed by digitally ignorant imbeciles that even > Microshit can't help. Apparently, you missed the sarcasm: if it is your business, you can set the rules and when it is not, you cannot. Either way, you have no basis (or authority) to complain about the local corporate policy. > > And besides, for some of these ... and e-signing of PDFs is > > a specific example ... there are external regulations which > > specifically prohibit it, so our personal opinion that it > > is 'stupid' is utterly irrelevant. > > > > Do you dwell under a rock? This is nonsense. The ESIGN ACT has > been in force since 2000. ALL document exchanges should be digital > by now. Is SEVENTEEN YEARS not sufficient? Holy shite! A monkey > could be re-educated in far less time: Oh, I'm quite aware of the ESIGN and had been under the belief that everything was good, but the reason I mentioned it is because I recently (earlier this fall) ran across one of its exceptions. > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Signatures_in_Global_and_National_Commerce_Act> ...and from your own citation you should notice this: "...to facilitate the use of electronic records and electronic signatures in interstate and foreign commerce..." If you recall your US Constitutional Law, if it isn't interstate commerce, the Feds don't have jurisdiction: it varies by State. Similarly, for international, this US Law only covers the USA side and you need an accompanying law for the other engaged country. Plus there's other exceptions that aren't detailed on this wiki page. For example, I believe that the POTUS still signs hardcopies, as that's something which similarly falls outside of 'commerce'. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 17:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nutdpp0247p@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #378278 |
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:11:03 -0700, -hh wrote: > > Either > way, you have no basis (or authority) to complain about the > local corporate policy. > The fuck I don't. The only way that these antiquated organizations will change is if they are FORCED to change. GM, for example, tells its suppliers to to do it their way or hit the highway. That's why I am glad Stallman and the FSF advocate barraging these asinine companies with complaints if they do not accommodate open document standards. The average office employee should be educated enough to accept, for example, all document formats that are in use throughout the world. If Microshit is the defacto standard only the stupidity of corporate personnel is to blame. > > if it isn't interstate commerce, the Feds don't have jurisdiction > What the heck isn't interstate commerce nowadays? What company uses only local suppliers and sells only locally? Besides, most state laws follow the Federal standards, as the IRS allows digital records as being legitimate for tax purposes. The days of states being like Texas, setting its own unique rules, are long gone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 10:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e367fcd7-66dc-446f-bd61-738079099204@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378280 |
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 1:31:33 PM UTC-4, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:11:03 -0700, -hh wrote: > > > > > Either > > way, you have no basis (or authority) to complain about the > > local corporate policy. > > > > The fuck I don't. If that was true, then you're responsible for all of the stuff you're bitching about: the problem is you. > The only way that these antiquated organizations will change > is if they are FORCED to change. If it is your business, then you're the boss: make it happen. Oh right...it isn't _your_ business. So then stop yer whining, go hit the highway and start your own damn business. > > if it isn't interstate commerce, the Feds don't have jurisdiction > > > > What the heck isn't interstate commerce nowadays? Paying my property taxes for but one tiny example. But specifics don't really matter: the point is that the Feds does not have universal, unilateral jurisdiction. > Besides, most state laws follow ... Where once again, "most" does not legally constitute "all", which is an important distinction in things like contract law. > The days of states being like Texas, setting its own unique rules, > are long gone. Depends entirely on the specifics of the Industry. Some still have 51 different sets of rules to follow, even though there are certain "linchpin" State regulators that ~40 of the others will generally follow. Plus there's still that which I mentioned that you deleted: "...other exceptions that aren't detailed on this wiki page." My understanding is that some of these include Governance. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 13:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nuteth$qs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #378284 |
On 2016-10-27 1:47 PM, -hh wrote: > On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 1:31:33 PM UTC-4, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:11:03 -0700, -hh wrote: >> >>> >>> Either >>> way, you have no basis (or authority) to complain about the >>> local corporate policy. >>> >> >> The fuck I don't. > > If that was true, then you're responsible for all of the stuff > you're bitching about: the problem is you. +1. When did hh become so damned cool? This is unlike him. >> The only way that these antiquated organizations will change >> is if they are FORCED to change. > > If it is your business, then you're the boss: make it happen. > Oh right...it isn't _your_ business. So then stop yer whining, > go hit the highway and start your own damn business. +1. Seriously hh, you're gaining a ton of my respect and I'm starting to feel bad that I was mean to you in the past. >>> if it isn't interstate commerce, the Feds don't have jurisdiction >>> >> >> What the heck isn't interstate commerce nowadays? > > Paying my property taxes for but one tiny example. > > But specifics don't really matter: the point is that the Feds > does not have universal, unilateral jurisdiction. +1. They were never supposed to. The states themselves were supposed to have more power than the federal. The Democrats have tried to change that over the years to consolidate as much power as possible and the people have unfortunately let them. However, states still reserve the right to secede (though I can't imagine them succeeding in doing such a thing). < snip > -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Proud libertarian, unapologetic nerd, author, gamer, beast-mode teacher and silver-tongued heel Fingerprint: e58428b2633833a3b0c9bb7e40819166642245b7 Gab.ai: @silverslimer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 19:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nutka40274c@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #378284 |
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:47:42 -0700, -hh wrote: > > Where once again, "most" does not legally constitute "all", > which is an important distinction in things like contract law. > Check out: http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Electronic%20Transactions%20Act Those very few places that do not conform to modern standards should be treated like pariah states. No one should do business there. But digital documents are not limited to legal contracts. Digital documents have yet to replace things as trivial as invoices or job applications. Unfortunately, the USA is still a backward society and it will certainly increase in backwardness in the future. The USA has still not adopted the metric system. The USA still insists that its workers become slaves with little free time or vacations. But its a perfect place for Microshit. That company thrives on backwardness and stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 12:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e718846b-9102-4348-9356-faadd3e438f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378287 |
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 3:22:49 PM UTC-4, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:47:42 -0700, -hh wrote: > > > > > Where once again, "most" does not legally constitute "all", > > which is an important distinction in things like contract law. > > > > Check out: > > <http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Electronic%20Transactions%20Act> Hmmmm...that lists only 53 jurisdictions listed instead of 56. Suggest that you double check it against other references, for it very well may be an incomplete listing. FYI, the ones which appear to be missing are American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Marinara Islands. -hh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 16:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nut96h0219t@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #378258 |
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 07:41:31 -0700, -hh wrote: > > what you find revolting is anything > that you actually have to pay real money for. That's why you'll > go squander hours of your time to avoid spending ten bucks. > I've used ALL commercial software. My expert opinion is that ALL of it is JUNK. Time is money, and by investing a bit of time I have paid for a highly competent document scanning and management system using GNU/Linux tools. My system is the BEST that exists anywhere. Equivalent commercial systems, if they even come close to my system, are quite lacking. Technical aspects, such as the compression algorithms employed, are unknown and beyond user control. In short, commercial systems are forced to follow a paradigm of "design for the dummy." But not my system. I can compress 8" x 12" documents scanned at 300 dpi to less than 12 kilobytes, and that beats any commercial capability. My system, however, is not designed for dummies. It would never make it in the commercial market (not that I would ever want it to). It requires a deep understanding and vigilance of the document management and transformation process. Yet the end results are the best that is possible to attain with current technology. In conclusion, one can either purchase off-the-shelf, "turnkey" products that are largely junk, or one can purchase, in equivalent time units, much more competent and adaptable systems with open-source, GNU/Linux software.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 08:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nuvh71$4lr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #378269 |
On 10/27/2016 12:15 PM, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote: > Time is money, and by investing a bit of time I have paid for a highly > competent document scanning and management system using GNU/Linux > tools. My system is the BEST that exists anywhere. uh huh... you said that about your crappy home-built audio equipment, too. When are you gonna support your claims, Feeb?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fr314159@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-28 13:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab8c1ed4-d184-429f-9940-5ed11a6fae5e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378306 |
On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 8:44:43 AM UTC-4, DFS wrote: > > you said that about your crappy home-built audio equipment, too. > You disgusting idiot. My audio equipment is based on LM357 and LM12 operational amplifiers (op amps) from National Semiconductor (now TI). These op amps have supreme characteristics for the audio frequency range involved and you find them in ANY commercial audio equipment (because commercial audio equipment is junk). Therefore my equipment beats any commercial product.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web