Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #321207 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-16 17:58 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-09-25 08:40 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 262 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-16 17:58 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 05:03 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:36 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 10:42 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 10:58 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-24 12:34 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 10:59 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 11:12 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 11:18 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 11:23 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 11:45 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:06 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 12:18 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:28 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:13 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 05:03 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 07:55 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 08:49 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 08:57 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-18 16:06 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 09:19 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 10:02 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-18 19:10 +0200
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 10:27 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-18 19:49 +0200
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 11:31 -0700
Snit has significant issues Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-18 23:43 +0200
Re: Snit has significant issues Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 15:40 -0700
Re: Snit has significant issues Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-19 00:56 +0200
Re: Snit has significant issues Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 16:12 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 10:19 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 10:22 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 10:34 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 10:37 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 11:22 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 11:48 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 12:01 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 12:21 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 13:04 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 05:14 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-21 10:14 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 12:09 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 12:12 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-21 12:35 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 10:55 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-22 11:10 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-21 12:34 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 10:50 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-22 11:03 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-22 21:21 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-22 14:59 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-22 15:22 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-22 23:38 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-22 17:00 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-23 01:50 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-22 19:02 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 14:43 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-22 22:18 -0500
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-23 03:35 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-22 20:56 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-23 05:13 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-22 22:20 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-23 05:35 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-22 22:47 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-23 05:54 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-22 23:04 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-23 06:51 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 scooz <scooz@myemailisspamfree.net> - 2015-09-23 09:00 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 09:20 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-23 18:34 +0200
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 09:51 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 09:19 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-23 17:30 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 10:44 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-23 18:06 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 11:27 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-23 18:38 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 11:47 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-23 19:07 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 12:16 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 14:43 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-23 22:13 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 15:29 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-10-24 00:45 +0200
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-23 18:50 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-24 10:54 -0500
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-24 12:21 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-24 09:27 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-24 17:32 -0500
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-24 16:58 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-25 10:11 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 09:26 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 12:35 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-10-25 12:08 -0500
"Nobody" looking for perky balls? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 10:37 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-26 15:03 -0500
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 13:12 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-27 05:06 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-27 08:44 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-27 09:04 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-27 11:25 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-27 12:57 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-10-26 22:33 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-26 05:06 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 13:04 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-25 10:07 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-26 14:55 -0500
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 13:14 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-26 18:50 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-26 21:38 -0500
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-27 07:59 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-27 16:13 -0600
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-26 14:58 -0500
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 13:13 -0700
More FUD. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-26 17:11 -0600
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-26 20:14 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-26 20:57 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-26 21:42 -0500
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 20:33 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 19:14 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-30 23:15 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 16:33 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-10-24 19:12 +0100
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-10-25 11:50 -0500
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-23 19:28 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 20:56 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-23 22:53 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 21:01 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-24 18:15 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-24 12:20 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-24 23:12 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-24 16:51 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 00:03 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-24 17:10 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 00:20 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-24 17:45 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-26 05:23 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 08:40 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-26 10:12 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-26 13:21 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-26 11:01 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 07:32 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-23 18:26 +0200
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 09:39 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 10:07 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 10:37 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 10:59 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 11:28 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 11:38 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-23 18:45 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 11:48 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 15:54 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 11:48 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 11:55 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 12:02 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 12:13 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 11:53 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 12:00 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 12:13 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 09:45 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-09-22 21:15 -0500
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-22 19:23 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-22 19:30 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-23 04:53 +0200
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-23 05:03 +0200
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-23 03:31 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-23 05:46 +0200
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-09-23 04:50 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-23 09:58 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 09:27 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-23 12:36 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 09:53 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 10:12 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 10:35 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 11:03 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 11:28 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 11:39 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 11:50 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 11:54 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 12:03 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 12:09 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 12:16 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 12:23 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 12:30 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-24 04:54 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-24 09:20 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-24 09:32 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-24 09:39 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-24 11:46 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-24 12:07 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-24 12:28 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-24 13:00 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-25 04:39 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-25 08:40 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 11:06 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-24 12:47 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-24 12:59 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 15:45 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-09-25 09:33 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-25 08:43 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-25 10:02 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-25 10:18 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 15:53 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-23 12:03 -0600
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 11:29 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 10:58 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-22 11:09 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 11:38 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-22 12:06 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-22 12:59 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-22 13:17 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-23 07:31 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-23 09:11 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-18 11:57 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 13:05 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 05:20 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-21 10:04 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-21 20:45 +0200
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-21 11:48 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-21 21:03 +0200
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-21 12:17 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-21 22:39 +0200
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-21 13:42 -0700
Not just thing has significant issues... look at ccretin chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-21 14:14 -0500
Re: Not just thing has significant issues... look at ccretin Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-21 12:35 -0700
Turdv has never been credbile. You're a Troll, Turdv. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-09-21 14:54 -0600
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-21 12:01 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-21 12:16 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 09:57 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-18 19:02 +0200
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 10:28 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-21 16:47 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-22 09:42 +0200
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-22 06:29 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-09-22 20:37 +0200
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 scooz <scooz@myemailisspamfree.net> - 2015-09-18 13:38 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-18 11:15 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-24 12:50 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-09-17 14:47 -0500
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:13 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 20:32 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 13:36 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 20:38 +0000
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 14:27 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 scooz <scooz@myemailisspamfree.net> - 2015-09-17 18:54 -0400
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 16:06 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 11:34 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 11:41 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 11:46 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-17 12:09 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-17 12:18 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-24 12:47 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-24 12:46 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-24 12:40 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-24 12:40 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-24 12:19 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-24 12:33 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-24 12:43 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-24 12:51 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-24 13:06 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-25 04:47 -0700
Re: Not just Linux has significant UI issues... a first look at Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-09-25 08:40 -0700
Page 7 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 14 Next page →
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 23:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <17k6p1jrgptz4$.1wpj7x8cy57z7.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #329897 |
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 19:14:28 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > [snips] > > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:58:40 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: > >> On 2015-10-25, Charmed Tuna <> wrote: >>> On 2015-10-24 6:32 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>> On 2015-10-24, Charmed Tuna <> wrote: >>>>> On 2015-10-24 11:54 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-10-23, Big Fish in a Small Crotch >>>>>> <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 00:45:52 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/23/15, 3:13 PM, in article fdsal.mvjc9@rooftop.invalid, >>>>>>>>> "owl" >>>>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [deletia] >>>>>> >>>>>> >> [deletia] >> >>>> You would think that Microsoft would learn it's lesson after only >>>> 30 years. >>> >>> The fact that WMC has a four-tuner limit is something that won't bother >>> anyone since most people who would use WMC would use one at most. >> >> Weak, weak, weak excuse. > > No kidding. If I have the hardware to run 200 tuners, whether I choose > to do so should be up to *me*, not some completely pointless OS-imposed > limit. Do you listen to 200 CD's playing at once? Sounds like something a Linux loon might do. -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 16:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d91q65F3q5iU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #328129 |
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 10:54:05 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-10-23, Big Fish in a Small Crotch > <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 00:45:52 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >>> Snit wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/23/15, 3:13 PM, in article fdsal.mvjc9@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > > [deletia] > >>> Translation: You know absolutely nothing about the subject. >>> >>> The MS developers did *nothing* to make Notepad handle larger files. >>> They just recompiled it >>> >>> The original Notepad from Win3x could only handle files up to 64K in >>> size. Because that size was the limitation of the Edit-widget used to >>> supply the actual editor window. >>> Later versions could handle larger files because they were compiled >>> with he newer 32bit editor widget >>> >>> And now suck some more donkey balls. You will learn about as much for >>> subjects like these doing just that. You are extremely incompetent, >>> and all your posts about these subjects show that fact >> >> Linux is a fucking mess. >> Desktop Linux. >> If you can prove otherwise please do. > > My editor never had to be recompiled just to edit relatively puny > files. Weak, very weak... :) -- Lloyd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Poaster <wp@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 19:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p9usfc-tgr.ln1@user-1842.linux.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #328129 |
It was reported that JEDIDIAH posted: > On 2015-10-23, Flat Fish in a Toiletbowl wrote: <snip> Nice juicy bait, nice shiny hook... > My editor never had to be recompiled just to edit relatively puny files. -- openSUSE 13.2 64-bit KDE 4.14.9 Kernel: 4.2.2-1.gb3ecf72-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Sep 29 18:51:15 UTC 2015 (b3ecf72) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux This message is virus free, as absolutely NO Micro$oft products were used in its preparation. "If you do want to clean your computer of malware, the first software to delete is Windows." http://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 11:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0j19f$qfl$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #328175 |
On 10/24/2015 01:12 PM, William Poaster wrote: > It was reported that JEDIDIAH posted: > >> On 2015-10-23, Flat Fish in a Toiletbowl wrote: RTFLMAO [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 19:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0efn2$qr5$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #328035 |
On 2015-10-23 6:45 PM, Peter the klöwnish, trölling jöurney attacked an intellectual superior who pointed out that he's an idiöt. -- Charmed Tuna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 20:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2504F6D.6142A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #328035 |
On 10/23/15, 3:45 PM, in article n0ed6v$k46$1@dont-email.me, "Peter
Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
...
>> Given how they already worked to make it work with larger files than you
>> first claimed clearly they spent SOME time on this. Not worth it to make
>> it handle files it is likely not going to be used with anyway.
>>
>> If you know of any use cases where it is likely to be used for such large
>> files, though, I am open to hearing.
>>
>
> Translation:
Not needed. I said what I meant. And you had nothing to add. OK.
> The MS developers did *nothing* to make Notepad handle larger files. They
> just recompiled it
When you make up your mind if they did "nothing" or if they recompiled it
please let me know.
> The original Notepad from Win3x could only handle files up to 64K in size.
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/59578>
-----
Text files used by Notepad should be no larger than 45K. Notepad
cannot open a file that exceeds 54 kilobytes (K) in size and does
not allow you to continue editing a file if the file size reaches
between 45K and 54K.
-----
At least you are not as far off as your norm!
...
> And now suck some more donkey balls. You will learn about as much for
> subjects like these doing just that. You are extremely incompetent, and all
> your posts about these subjects show that fact
I am sure you will apologize for your error and thank me for the correction
in your response. After all, you claim to be as honest and honorable as I am
and I know I surely would!
--
* 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 | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 22:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsamckov90.q3r@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328022 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 10/23/15, 3:13 PM, in article fdsal.mvjc9@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> >>> You asked why Notepad, a low end consumer focused text tool, would not >>> handle huge files that most people would never encounter or use... >> >> Did I? I don't remember. Could you quote it? > > Would have to dig back. But if you are fine with it not then no big deal. > >>> and those >>> that would, as even you note, would be more likely to use an actual >>> feature-rich text editor such as vim. >>> >>> I noted that the developers likely would not take much time to make sure it >>> can handle such files >> >> Why do you think it would "take much time"? > > Given how they already worked to make it work with larger files than you > first claimed clearly they spent SOME time on this. Not worth it to make it > handle files it is likely not going to be used with anyway. > You realize that changing the size of a malloc()'d buffer is one line of code, right? > If you know of any use cases where it is likely to be used for such large > files, though, I am open to hearing. > If you have any evidence that "use cases" were considered, I am open to hearing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 21:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D250508D.6142E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #328042 |
On 10/23/15, 3:53 PM, in article fsamckov90.q3r@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> I noted that the developers likely would not take much time to make sure it >>>> can handle such files >>> >>> Why do you think it would "take much time"? >> >> Given how they already worked to make it work with larger files than you >> first claimed clearly they spent SOME time on this. Not worth it to make it >> handle files it is likely not going to be used with anyway. > > You realize that changing the size of a malloc()'d buffer is one line of > code, right? Peter said they did nothing. Of course, he also said they recompiled it. Which is not much but IS something. But whatever. Who cares? >> If you know of any use cases where it is likely to be used for such large >> files, though, I am open to hearing. > > If you have any evidence that "use cases" were considered, I am open to > hearing. OK, a simple lesson for you: whenever someone creates software they are likely to consider how it is going to be used. In the case of Notepad it is a basic text editor you can use for simple documents. -- * 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 | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 18:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fadms.mvk9d@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328092 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 10/23/15, 3:53 PM, in article fsamckov90.q3r@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> I noted that the developers likely would not take much time to make sure it >>>>> can handle such files >>>> >>>> Why do you think it would "take much time"? >>> >>> Given how they already worked to make it work with larger files than you >>> first claimed clearly they spent SOME time on this. Not worth it to make it >>> handle files it is likely not going to be used with anyway. >> >> You realize that changing the size of a malloc()'d buffer is one line of >> code, right? > > Peter said they did nothing. > Was Peter one of the Notepad developers? > Of course, he also said they recompiled it. Which is not much but IS > something. > That's got to be one of the most idiotic things you've ever said. And that's saying a lot... > But whatever. Who cares? > You apparently do, since this claim of it "taking much time" originated with you. >>> If you know of any use cases where it is likely to be used for such large >>> files, though, I am open to hearing. >> >> If you have any evidence that "use cases" were considered, I am open to >> hearing. > > OK, a simple lesson for you: whenever someone creates software they are > likely to consider how it is going to be used. In the case of Notepad it is > a basic text editor you can use for simple documents. > Try to keep up. The complexity of a document has nothing to do with its size. If you have any evidence that *file-size* "use cases" were considered, I am open to hearing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 12:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2512823.61527%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #328165 |
On 10/24/15, 11:15 AM, in article fadms.mvk9d@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 10/23/15, 3:53 PM, in article fsamckov90.q3r@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>>> I noted that the developers likely would not take much time to make sure >>>>>> it >>>>>> can handle such files >>>>> >>>>> Why do you think it would "take much time"? >>>> >>>> Given how they already worked to make it work with larger files than you >>>> first claimed clearly they spent SOME time on this. Not worth it to make it >>>> handle files it is likely not going to be used with anyway. >>> >>> You realize that changing the size of a malloc()'d buffer is one line of >>> code, right? >> >> Peter said they did nothing. > > Was Peter one of the Notepad developers? As likely as him having programming anything else. :) >> Of course, he also said they recompiled it. Which is not much but IS >> something. > > That's got to be one of the most idiotic things you've ever said. And that's > saying a lot... Not interested in your games of insults based on your own lack of understanding. >> But whatever. Who cares? > > You apparently do, since this claim of it "taking much time" originated > with you. I was responding to you and your question! Now it turns out you have no interest and are just trolling. OK. >>>> If you know of any use cases where it is likely to be used for such large >>>> files, though, I am open to hearing. >>> >>> If you have any evidence that "use cases" were considered, I am open to >>> hearing. >> >> OK, a simple lesson for you: whenever someone creates software they are >> likely to consider how it is going to be used. In the case of Notepad it is >> a basic text editor you can use for simple documents. > > Try to keep up. The complexity of a document has nothing to do with > its size. If you have any evidence that *file-size* "use cases" were > considered, I am open to hearing. And again insults because you cannot understand. Not even slightly interested in your games. Last post to you on this unless you can do better or at least have more interesting trolling. -- * 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 | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 23:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <famsnf93.ksdf@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328167 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 10/24/15, 11:15 AM, in article fadms.mvk9d@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 10/23/15, 3:53 PM, in article fsamckov90.q3r@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> I noted that the developers likely would not take much time to make sure >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> can handle such files >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you think it would "take much time"? >>>>> >>>>> Given how they already worked to make it work with larger files than you >>>>> first claimed clearly they spent SOME time on this. Not worth it to make it >>>>> handle files it is likely not going to be used with anyway. >>>> >>>> You realize that changing the size of a malloc()'d buffer is one line of >>>> code, right? >>> >>> Peter said they did nothing. >> >> Was Peter one of the Notepad developers? > > As likely as him having programming anything else. :) > If you don't trust his opinion, why use him as a reference? >>> Of course, he also said they recompiled it. Which is not much but IS >>> something. >> >> That's got to be one of the most idiotic things you've ever said. And that's >> saying a lot... > > Not interested in your games of insults based on your own lack of > understanding. > It's your lack of understanding that "recompiling" does not mean everybody grabs a shovel and gets to work for many hours or days. >>> But whatever. Who cares? >> >> You apparently do, since this claim of it "taking much time" originated >> with you. > > I was responding to you and your question! Now it turns out you have no > interest and are just trolling. OK. > You were responding to a post that had nothing whatsoever to do with the content of your response. >>>>> If you know of any use cases where it is likely to be used for such large >>>>> files, though, I am open to hearing. >>>> >>>> If you have any evidence that "use cases" were considered, I am open to >>>> hearing. >>> >>> OK, a simple lesson for you: whenever someone creates software they are >>> likely to consider how it is going to be used. In the case of Notepad it is >>> a basic text editor you can use for simple documents. >> >> Try to keep up. The complexity of a document has nothing to do with >> its size. If you have any evidence that *file-size* "use cases" were >> considered, I am open to hearing. > > And again insults because you cannot understand. Not even slightly > interested in your games. > So you have nothing to back up your claim that file size has relevance to document complexity. You are just lost. > Last post to you on this unless you can do better or at least have more > interesting trolling. > Threats to run away. So you are an alumnus of the Obama School of Combat. That's all very interesting, but what does your fear of discussing technology have to do with the subject at hand?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 16:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2516798.6156E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #328190 |
On 10/24/15, 4:12 PM, in article famsnf93.ksdf@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: ... >>>>> You realize that changing the size of a malloc()'d buffer is one line of >>>>> code, right? >>>> >>>> Peter said they did nothing. >>> >>> Was Peter one of the Notepad developers? >> >> As likely as him having programming anything else. :) > > If you don't trust his opinion, why use him as a reference? Hey, I am talking to you, too, and you demonstrated today you are functionally illiterate. Maybe he can come into the conversation and you two can talk about your three different views. >>>> Of course, he also said they recompiled it. Which is not much but IS >>>> something. >>>> >>> That's got to be one of the most idiotic things you've ever said. And >>> that's saying a lot... >>> >> Not interested in your games of insults based on your own lack of >> understanding. > > It's your lack of understanding that "recompiling" does not mean everybody > grabs a shovel and gets to work for many hours or days. See: you are functionally illiterate. Anyway, if you cannot figure out that software is made for uses not sure what to do to help you. Have a good day! -- * 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 | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 00:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sea30.ap@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328193 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 10/24/15, 4:12 PM, in article famsnf93.ksdf@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>>>> You realize that changing the size of a malloc()'d buffer is one line of >>>>>> code, right? >>>>> >>>>> Peter said they did nothing. >>>> >>>> Was Peter one of the Notepad developers? >>> >>> As likely as him having programming anything else. :) >> >> If you don't trust his opinion, why use him as a reference? > > Hey, I am talking to you, too, and you demonstrated today you are > functionally illiterate. Maybe he can come into the conversation and you two > can talk about your three different views. > You inability to compose with clarity says more about your literacy that it does the reader's. >>>>> Of course, he also said they recompiled it. Which is not much but IS >>>>> something. >>>>> >>>> That's got to be one of the most idiotic things you've ever said. And >>>> that's saying a lot... >>>> >>> Not interested in your games of insults based on your own lack of >>> understanding. >> >> It's your lack of understanding that "recompiling" does not mean everybody >> grabs a shovel and gets to work for many hours or days. > > See: you are functionally illiterate. > See: you are still lost. > Anyway, if you cannot figure out that software is made for uses not sure > what to do to help you. > > Have a good day! > Always.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 17:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2516BFA.6157E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #328197 |
On 10/24/15, 5:03 PM, in article sea30.ap@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 10/24/15, 4:12 PM, in article famsnf93.ksdf@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>>>> You realize that changing the size of a malloc()'d buffer is one line of >>>>>>> code, right? >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter said they did nothing. >>>>> >>>>> Was Peter one of the Notepad developers? >>>> >>>> As likely as him having programming anything else. :) >>> >>> If you don't trust his opinion, why use him as a reference? >> >> Hey, I am talking to you, too, and you demonstrated today you are >> functionally illiterate. Maybe he can come into the conversation and you two >> can talk about your three different views. >> > > You inability to compose with clarity says more about your literacy that > it does the reader's. > >>>>>> Of course, he also said they recompiled it. Which is not much but IS >>>>>> something. >>>>>> >>>>> That's got to be one of the most idiotic things you've ever said. And >>>>> that's saying a lot... >>>>> >>>> Not interested in your games of insults based on your own lack of >>>> understanding. >>> >>> It's your lack of understanding that "recompiling" does not mean everybody >>> grabs a shovel and gets to work for many hours or days. >> >> See: you are functionally illiterate. >> > > See: you are still lost. > >> Anyway, if you cannot figure out that software is made for uses not sure >> what to do to help you. >> >> Have a good day! >> > > Always. > The clarity of the quote is fine. You admitted you are functionally illiterate when you said you found it challenging. Then you showed you could not figure out that software is made for uses. We can drag this out for another 1000 posts. But, really, I think we have reached a conclusion here. -- * 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 | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 00:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fsae03.4p@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #328198 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 10/24/15, 5:03 PM, in article sea30.ap@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 10/24/15, 4:12 PM, in article famsnf93.ksdf@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>>>> You realize that changing the size of a malloc()'d buffer is one line of >>>>>>>> code, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter said they did nothing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Was Peter one of the Notepad developers? >>>>> >>>>> As likely as him having programming anything else. :) >>>> >>>> If you don't trust his opinion, why use him as a reference? >>> >>> Hey, I am talking to you, too, and you demonstrated today you are >>> functionally illiterate. Maybe he can come into the conversation and you two >>> can talk about your three different views. >>> >> >> You inability to compose with clarity says more about your literacy that >> it does the reader's. >> >>>>>>> Of course, he also said they recompiled it. Which is not much but IS >>>>>>> something. >>>>>>> >>>>>> That's got to be one of the most idiotic things you've ever said. And >>>>>> that's saying a lot... >>>>>> >>>>> Not interested in your games of insults based on your own lack of >>>>> understanding. >>>> >>>> It's your lack of understanding that "recompiling" does not mean everybody >>>> grabs a shovel and gets to work for many hours or days. >>> >>> See: you are functionally illiterate. >>> >> >> See: you are still lost. >> >>> Anyway, if you cannot figure out that software is made for uses not sure >>> what to do to help you. >>> >>> Have a good day! >>> >> >> Always. >> > > The clarity of the quote is fine. You admitted you are functionally > illiterate when you said you found it challenging. Then you showed you could > not figure out that software is made for uses. > I admit that when quoted material does not attibute the writer of that material it can be challenging to determine its source, particularly if one is not blessed with psychic powers, which I am not. > We can drag this out for another 1000 posts. But, really, I think we have > reached a conclusion here. > The conclusion being that you are lost. But then what is one to expect of a humorously self-described atheist who nevertheless believes that Man is separate from Nature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 17:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D251742B.61587%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #328201 |
On 10/24/15, 5:20 PM, in article fsae03.4p@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> The clarity of the quote is fine. You admitted you are functionally
>> illiterate when you said you found it challenging. Then you showed you could
>> not figure out that software is made for uses.
>
> I admit that when quoted material does not attibute the writer of that
> material it can be challenging to determine its source, particularly
> if one is not blessed with psychic powers, which I am not.
Given the following only a functionally illiterate person could not figure
out it is Peter being quoted (who *he* is quoting is not relevant to the
point of the quote, and thus not noted):
Peter Köhlmann:
-----
| For example, if I modified a BSD variant and tried to pass it
| off as "Linux" to people I would be stopped. I know of no
| example of this but I think it is pretty obvious the license
| holders would not allow this.
BSD allows such sheenigans
-----
The BSD license has no power to override trademarks and "allow" this.
Message-ID: l98q2g$nj1$1@dont-email.me
<http://goo.gl/zvo4fv>
And you openly admit you fit that criteria of functional illiteracy.
>> We can drag this out for another 1000 posts. But, really, I think we have
>> reached a conclusion here.
>
> The conclusion being that you are lost.
It is baffling how an adult, which I presume you are, could post to Usenet
and still be functionally illiterate. Sure.
> But then what is one to expect of a humorously self-described atheist who
> nevertheless believes that Man is separate from Nature.
That was another debate where you showed you were functionally illiterate.
Came down to you could not figure out the contexts you were told in which it
makes sense to say man is or is not a part of nature. Note: it is not that
you merely disagreed, you could not figure out what was MEANT. Oh well -
your ignorance is on you.
--
* 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 | cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 05:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0cfcae3-d0c5-4e5b-b969-aad7f6c80a00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #328201 |
On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 8:20:26 PM UTC-4, owl wrote:
> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> > On 10/24/15, 5:03 PM, in article sea30.ap@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >>> On 10/24/15, 4:12 PM, in article famsnf93.ksdf@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>>>>>>> You realize that changing the size of a malloc()'d buffer is one line of
> >>>>>>>> code, right?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Peter said they did nothing.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Was Peter one of the Notepad developers?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As likely as him having programming anything else. :)
> >>>>
> >>>> If you don't trust his opinion, why use him as a reference?
> >>>
> >>> Hey, I am talking to you, too, and you demonstrated today you are
> >>> functionally illiterate. Maybe he can come into the conversation and you two
> >>> can talk about your three different views.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You inability to compose with clarity says more about your literacy that
> >> it does the reader's.
> >>
> >>>>>>> Of course, he also said they recompiled it. Which is not much but IS
> >>>>>>> something.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's got to be one of the most idiotic things you've ever said. And
> >>>>>> that's saying a lot...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Not interested in your games of insults based on your own lack of
> >>>>> understanding.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's your lack of understanding that "recompiling" does not mean everybody
> >>>> grabs a shovel and gets to work for many hours or days.
> >>>
> >>> See: you are functionally illiterate.
> >>>
> >>
> >> See: you are still lost.
> >>
> >>> Anyway, if you cannot figure out that software is made for uses not sure
> >>> what to do to help you.
> >>>
> >>> Have a good day!
> >>>
> >>
> >> Always.
> >>
> >
> > The clarity of the quote is fine. You admitted you are functionally
> > illiterate when you said you found it challenging. Then you showed you could
> > not figure out that software is made for uses.
> >
>
> I admit that when quoted material does not attibute the writer of that
> material it can be challenging to determine its source, particularly
> if one is not blessed with psychic powers, which I am not.
Snit quoting Peter directly:
Peter Köhlmann:
-----
That is the normal case with that imbecile Snit Michael Glasser It
is extremely rare that this dishonest swine will actually quote
verbatim what someone else said, but instead that cretin will make
up what he wishes has been said, in order to be able to troll
-----
Snit quoting Peter quoting someone else:
Peter Köhlmann:
-----
| For example, if I modified a BSD variant and tried to pass it
| off as "Linux" to people I would be stopped. I know of no
| example of this but I think it is pretty obvious the license
| holders would not allow this.
What's confusing? Putting Peter's name with a colon above a quote
that's not his? Not properly attributing the quote that isn't Peter's?
The minor addition of the "|", a non-standard usenet quote character?
Snit:
-----
| I'm a retarded liar.
-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 08:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D2539785.617E8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #328503 |
On 10/26/15, 5:23 AM, in article
a0cfcae3-d0c5-4e5b-b969-aad7f6c80a00@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 8:20:26 PM UTC-4, owl wrote:
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/24/15, 5:03 PM, in article sea30.ap@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/24/15, 4:12 PM, in article famsnf93.ksdf@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> You realize that changing the size of a malloc()'d buffer is one line
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> code, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peter said they did nothing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was Peter one of the Notepad developers?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As likely as him having programming anything else. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't trust his opinion, why use him as a reference?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, I am talking to you, too, and you demonstrated today you are
>>>>> functionally illiterate. Maybe he can come into the conversation and you
>>>>> two
>>>>> can talk about your three different views.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You inability to compose with clarity says more about your literacy that
>>>> it does the reader's.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, he also said they recompiled it. Which is not much but IS
>>>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's got to be one of the most idiotic things you've ever said. And
>>>>>>>> that's saying a lot...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not interested in your games of insults based on your own lack of
>>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's your lack of understanding that "recompiling" does not mean
>>>>>> everybody
>>>>>> grabs a shovel and gets to work for many hours or days.
>>>>>
>>>>> See: you are functionally illiterate.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See: you are still lost.
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, if you cannot figure out that software is made for uses not sure
>>>>> what to do to help you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have a good day!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Always.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The clarity of the quote is fine. You admitted you are functionally
>>> illiterate when you said you found it challenging. Then you showed you could
>>> not figure out that software is made for uses.
>>>
>>
>> I admit that when quoted material does not attibute the writer of that
>> material it can be challenging to determine its source, particularly
>> if one is not blessed with psychic powers, which I am not.
>
>
> Snit quoting Peter directly:
>
> Peter Köhlmann:
> -----
> That is the normal case with that imbecile Snit Michael Glasser It
> is extremely rare that this dishonest swine will actually quote
> verbatim what someone else said, but instead that cretin will make
> up what he wishes has been said, in order to be able to troll
> -----
>
> Snit quoting Peter quoting someone else:
>
> Peter Köhlmann:
> -----
> | For example, if I modified a BSD variant and tried to pass it
> | off as "Linux" to people I would be stopped. I know of no
> | example of this but I think it is pretty obvious the license
> | holders would not allow this.
>
> What's confusing? Putting Peter's name with a colon above a quote
> that's not his? Not properly attributing the quote that isn't Peter's?
> The minor addition of the "|", a non-standard usenet quote character?
>
> Snit:
> -----
> | I'm a retarded liar.
> -----
You left out the fact I note what PETER says and that is the focus.
In other words, to try to make a point you directly lie.
It is all you have. This would be a better example:
Snit:
-----
| I'm a retarded liar.
Yes, you are.
-----
And it would be fitting for our conversations.
--
* 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 | cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 10:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32c15dd0-9f6c-4a29-98b6-96ad6221f17f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #328567 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 11:40:44 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote: > On 10/26/15, 5:23 AM, in article > a0cfcae3-d0c5-4e5b-b969-aad7f6c80a00@googlegroups.com, "cc" > <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 8:20:26 PM UTC-4, owl wrote: > >> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>> On 10/24/15, 5:03 PM, in article sea30.ap@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 10/24/15, 4:12 PM, in article famsnf93.ksdf@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>> You realize that changing the size of a malloc()'d buffer is one line > >>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>> code, right? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Peter said they did nothing. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Was Peter one of the Notepad developers? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As likely as him having programming anything else. :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you don't trust his opinion, why use him as a reference? > >>>>> > >>>>> Hey, I am talking to you, too, and you demonstrated today you are > >>>>> functionally illiterate. Maybe he can come into the conversation and you > >>>>> two > >>>>> can talk about your three different views. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> You inability to compose with clarity says more about your literacy that > >>>> it does the reader's. > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Of course, he also said they recompiled it. Which is not much but IS > >>>>>>>>> something. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That's got to be one of the most idiotic things you've ever said. And > >>>>>>>> that's saying a lot... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Not interested in your games of insults based on your own lack of > >>>>>>> understanding. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It's your lack of understanding that "recompiling" does not mean > >>>>>> everybody > >>>>>> grabs a shovel and gets to work for many hours or days. > >>>>> > >>>>> See: you are functionally illiterate. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> See: you are still lost. > >>>> > >>>>> Anyway, if you cannot figure out that software is made for uses not sure > >>>>> what to do to help you. > >>>>> > >>>>> Have a good day! > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Always. > >>>> > >>> > >>> The clarity of the quote is fine. You admitted you are functionally > >>> illiterate when you said you found it challenging. Then you showed you could > >>> not figure out that software is made for uses. > >>> > >> > >> I admit that when quoted material does not attibute the writer of that > >> material it can be challenging to determine its source, particularly > >> if one is not blessed with psychic powers, which I am not. > > > > > > Snit quoting Peter directly: > > > > Peter Köhlmann: > > ----- > > That is the normal case with that imbecile Snit Michael Glasser It > > is extremely rare that this dishonest swine will actually quote > > verbatim what someone else said, but instead that cretin will make > > up what he wishes has been said, in order to be able to troll > > ----- > > > > Snit quoting Peter quoting someone else: > > > > Peter Köhlmann: > > ----- > > | For example, if I modified a BSD variant and tried to pass it > > | off as "Linux" to people I would be stopped. I know of no > > | example of this but I think it is pretty obvious the license > > | holders would not allow this. > > > > What's confusing? Putting Peter's name with a colon above a quote > > that's not his? Not properly attributing the quote that isn't Peter's? > > The minor addition of the "|", a non-standard usenet quote character? > > > > Snit: > > ----- > > | I'm a retarded liar. > > ----- > > You left out Nothing. "In short: cc busted himself and I am done with him. At least for now he is set to auto-read with Carroll." How many lies can you tell in a month? You're on record pace. > > Snit: > ----- > | I'm a retarded liar. > -----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 13:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uwlbw28gtb8t.170h35q4elu3h.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #328576 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:12:52 -0700 (PDT), cc wrote: > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 11:40:44 AM UTC-4, Snit wrote: >> On 10/26/15, 5:23 AM, in article >> a0cfcae3-d0c5-4e5b-b969-aad7f6c80a00@googlegroups.com, "cc" >> <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 8:20:26 PM UTC-4, owl wrote: >>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 10/24/15, 5:03 PM, in article sea30.ap@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/24/15, 4:12 PM, in article famsnf93.ksdf@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>> You realize that changing the size of a malloc()'d buffer is one line >>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>> code, right? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter said they did nothing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Was Peter one of the Notepad developers? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As likely as him having programming anything else. :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you don't trust his opinion, why use him as a reference? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hey, I am talking to you, too, and you demonstrated today you are >>>>>>> functionally illiterate. Maybe he can come into the conversation and you >>>>>>> two >>>>>>> can talk about your three different views. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You inability to compose with clarity says more about your literacy that >>>>>> it does the reader's. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course, he also said they recompiled it. Which is not much but IS >>>>>>>>>>> something. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's got to be one of the most idiotic things you've ever said. And >>>>>>>>>> that's saying a lot... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not interested in your games of insults based on your own lack of >>>>>>>>> understanding. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's your lack of understanding that "recompiling" does not mean >>>>>>>> everybody >>>>>>>> grabs a shovel and gets to work for many hours or days. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> See: you are functionally illiterate. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> See: you are still lost. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyway, if you cannot figure out that software is made for uses not sure >>>>>>> what to do to help you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Have a good day! >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Always. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The clarity of the quote is fine. You admitted you are functionally >>>>> illiterate when you said you found it challenging. Then you showed you could >>>>> not figure out that software is made for uses. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I admit that when quoted material does not attibute the writer of that >>>> material it can be challenging to determine its source, particularly >>>> if one is not blessed with psychic powers, which I am not. >>> >>> >>> Snit quoting Peter directly: >>> >>> Peter Köhlmann: >>> ----- >>> That is the normal case with that imbecile Snit Michael Glasser It >>> is extremely rare that this dishonest swine will actually quote >>> verbatim what someone else said, but instead that cretin will make >>> up what he wishes has been said, in order to be able to troll >>> ----- >>> >>> Snit quoting Peter quoting someone else: >>> >>> Peter Köhlmann: >>> ----- >>> | For example, if I modified a BSD variant and tried to pass it >>> | off as "Linux" to people I would be stopped. I know of no >>> | example of this but I think it is pretty obvious the license >>> | holders would not allow this. >>> >>> What's confusing? Putting Peter's name with a colon above a quote >>> that's not his? Not properly attributing the quote that isn't Peter's? >>> The minor addition of the "|", a non-standard usenet quote character? >>> >>> Snit: >>> ----- >>> | I'm a retarded liar. >>> ----- >> >> You left out > > Nothing. > > "In short: cc busted himself and I am done with him. At least for > now he is set to auto-read with Carroll." > > How many lies can you tell in a month? You're on record pace. How so? -- You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web