Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #355182 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-13 22:37 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-05-14 06:52 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 215 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-05-13 22:37 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-13 18:44 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-13 20:55 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior CrimsonIdol <CrimsonIdol@invalid.com> - 2016-05-14 09:19 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-15 13:05 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-13 16:27 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-05-14 01:52 +0200
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-13 17:29 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-13 18:09 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-05-14 03:13 +0200
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-13 18:25 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-13 18:36 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-05-14 13:55 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-05-14 16:02 +0200
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-13 18:19 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-13 18:30 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-13 18:55 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-13 19:18 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-13 21:28 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-13 23:53 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-14 06:41 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-14 11:34 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior sbd <sbd.pambu@safe-mail.net> - 2016-05-15 08:33 -0300
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-15 08:01 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-05-16 13:45 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-16 09:39 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 10:42 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 11:02 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 05:07 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-13 23:53 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-05-14 13:18 +0100
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-14 11:43 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-14 22:44 +0200
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-05-14 22:25 +0100
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 00:57 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-14 18:08 -0700
Ronb needs to get what is left of his mind out of the gutter. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 18:55 -0700
Another inebriated evening in Richmond Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2016-05-14 22:06 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-05-14 04:25 +0200
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 05:01 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-05-14 13:20 +0100
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-14 06:44 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-05-14 15:10 +0100
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-14 07:26 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 09:12 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-14 09:34 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 09:43 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-14 09:50 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 10:31 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-14 12:05 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-14 11:42 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 12:34 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-14 12:02 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 13:08 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-14 21:35 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-14 18:48 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-14 18:55 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 02:03 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-14 19:17 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-14 20:05 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-14 20:06 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-15 13:05 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-15 22:32 +0200
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-18 09:14 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-18 16:49 +0200
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-18 16:59 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-18 23:23 +0200
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-18 14:49 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-05-18 22:52 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-18 16:27 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-06-07 13:43 -0500
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-05-18 23:08 +0100
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-14 22:39 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-14 20:17 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-14 21:08 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-15 14:27 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 11:32 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-15 14:37 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 11:40 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-15 14:42 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-15 22:32 +0200
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-16 07:14 -0500
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-25 17:23 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-25 23:36 +0200
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-25 17:49 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-26 00:00 +0200
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-26 19:26 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-26 18:33 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 16:49 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 21:19 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-25 21:21 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 21:23 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 08:24 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 21:22 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-26 10:17 +0200
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-26 09:54 -0700
Lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser misquoting again Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-26 19:37 +0200
Re: Lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser misquoting again Jack Sperm Whale Whalen <jackspermwhalepacific@noemail9.org> - 2016-05-26 17:38 +0000
Re: Lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser misquoting again Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-26 10:43 -0700
Re: Lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser misquoting again Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-26 10:42 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Jack Sperm Whale Whalen <jackspermwhalepacific@noemail9.org> - 2016-05-26 17:41 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-14 11:37 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Meat Puppet <up@yourfat.ass> - 2016-05-14 17:20 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-14 14:32 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-05-14 16:36 +0200
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-14 15:17 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-05-16 14:44 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-14 07:57 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-14 15:36 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-05-14 15:52 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 09:07 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-14 17:05 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-14 10:09 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-15 08:20 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 05:26 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-15 13:32 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 07:24 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-15 15:14 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 08:24 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-15 16:26 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 10:23 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-16 05:28 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-15 12:00 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-15 21:20 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-15 14:21 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-16 05:31 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-16 09:51 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-05-16 19:49 -0600
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-15 11:30 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-05-16 19:45 -0600
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-17 05:52 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-05-17 19:26 -0600
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-14 09:28 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-14 12:41 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-15 08:18 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 05:23 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-05-15 06:23 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 06:52 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-05-15 07:24 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 07:30 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-05-15 06:58 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 07:33 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-05-15 07:59 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 08:06 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 08:12 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-05-15 08:44 -0700
Re: I paid $293 for my TeraByte SSD, a Samsung 850 EVO. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-15 20:04 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-15 09:27 -0700
Re: If you know nothing about computers, or you're really poor... benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-16 00:33 -0400
Re: If you know nothing about computers, or you're really poor... "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-15 22:49 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-15 13:23 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 07:21 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTLY Superior William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-05-15 16:07 +0100
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTLY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 08:22 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTLY Superior William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-05-15 16:48 +0100
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTLY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 10:03 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTLY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-15 13:47 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTLY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 10:55 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTLY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-15 11:15 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTLY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-15 14:19 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTLY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 11:22 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTLY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-15 14:24 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTLY Superior owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-05-15 18:08 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTLY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-15 14:10 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-15 16:24 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 09:36 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 10:16 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-15 21:20 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-15 11:28 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-15 11:33 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-05-16 15:12 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-05-16 16:27 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-14 23:00 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-14 22:56 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-14 20:09 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-14 20:20 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-14 21:16 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-05-15 09:49 +0100
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 05:29 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-15 12:07 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-15 13:04 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 10:28 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-15 13:55 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 11:15 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-15 14:40 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-05-15 11:43 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-15 14:44 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-15 14:47 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-05-15 22:59 +0100
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-15 12:44 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-05-16 11:27 +0100
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-16 13:27 +0200
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-05-16 12:46 +0100
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-05-16 13:07 +0100
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-16 10:03 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-16 19:12 +0200
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-05-16 12:29 -0500
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-16 15:19 -0400
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-16 10:32 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 10:51 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 11:02 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 11:23 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2016-05-16 12:17 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-16 10:04 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-05-14 13:58 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-05-14 11:35 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-05-14 21:16 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 14:51 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-05-15 00:59 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-05-15 00:27 +0000
GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-05-13 17:59 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior Mick Maelstrom <mickmael@tehsaurus.invalid> - 2016-05-14 01:26 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-05-16 12:31 +0000
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY Superior John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 09:35 -0700
Re: GNU/Linux Is VASTY [sic] Superior John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-05-14 06:52 -0700
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | Jack Sperm Whale Whalen <jackspermwhalepacific@noemail9.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 17:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan.2016.05.26.17.45.25@noemail9.org> |
| In reply to | #357320 |
On Thu, 26 May 2016 09:54:33 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 5/26/16, 1:17 AM, in article ni6b8b$juj$2@dont-email.me, "Peter > Köhlmann" > <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > > ... > >> And Snit Michael Glasser never uses socks. > > Correct... but you and your herd have a never ending gag. Whatever. > > ... Other than talking about Apple, Windows, Microsoft and you, what do they talk about? You are driving them crazy because they know they can't challenge your videos. All they have his copious amounts of flatulence backing up and spewing forth from their mouths.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 11:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D35CBE89.72EF5%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #355283 |
On 5/14/16, 7:10 AM, in article f7oj0d-2nm.ln1@user-1842.linux.individual.net, "William Poaster" <wp@dev.null> wrote: >> Yeah, fun fact, Pixar uses Linux to render their movies. Edits the movie >> with Avid, not Final Cut. LOL. Like I always say, we eat our own >> dogfood. Apple, and Pixar by extension of the former owner Steve Jobs, >> does not. >> >> I would be parading my OS around the most advanced if I wasn't even >> willing to use it in the data center or as a rendering farm. I wouldn't >> be advertising my Non-Linear Editor as the best if I myself was using >> Avid. It's pretty darn hypocritical if you ask me. > > From Anderson Moorer (Senior Visual Effects Artist) - May 2014:- > > "Linux is used in many studios, it is a popular choice because it is > stable and powerful, embraces open source and is highly customizable, > and can be adjusted to maximize computing resources instead of a > machine being saddled with a lot of unnecessary bells and whistles > which is important when dealing with high performance computing. > The argument could be made that by removing operating system demands on > CPU and memory Linux makes any given machine more powerful and therefore > able to render images at higher quality, and that this could be summarized as > "machines running Linux are better at rendering." But this is > a secondary effect due to a more streamlined OS, and is also a result > only obtained with effort and work." I think for this type of work, where computer crunching capabilities are of great importance and the computer is not likely used for many other tasks, Linux is a great choice. The reasons you give above all make perfect sense to me. -- * 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 | Meat Puppet <up@yourfat.ass> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 17:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ndk8wjv4i1zc.dlg@cola.sucks> |
| In reply to | #355316 |
Snit wrote: > work What do you know about work, you little sissy? "Oh, yeah, that's what my wife does every day to earn money." What a loser the Prescott Computer Pussy is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 14:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sandman-7c943cb5affbf9b20c8be2bae7706ffb@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #355277 |
In article <SrWdnXZ3zbhPtqrKnZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Marek Novotny wrote: > > William Poaster: > > Also Disney-Pixar who uses GNU/Linux server farms *&* GNU/LInux > > desktops to create their animations. > > Yeah, fun fact, Pixar uses Linux to render their movies. Edits the > movie with Avid, not Final Cut. LOL. Like I always say, we eat our > own dogfood. Apple, and Pixar by extension of the former owner Steve > Jobs, does not. Final Cut was once the goto application for medium to large video editing outfits, but it has fallen out of grace with the entire Final Cut X thing. It has tried to redeem itself, but people had already switched to other applications, they couldn't wait for Apple to get things right. This is a direct result of a more consumer-focused Apple, and for the professionals it sure is a shame. And as for render farms and Linux, with Linux being more streamlined and getting the most of out the hardware. One *could* use Darwin in the exact same way. It is free, open source and runs on Macs and PCs. But there's a lot of Linux developers out there and for these kind of specialized server/node installations, it has become standard. I used to run my platform on Apple Xserves. I liked the stability and the ease of management (the built in LOM was really nice) as well as the small form factor packing a serious punch. Also, setting up Link Aggregation (LACP) is as easy as clicking a few buttons, as well as fibre channel support for RAID. And as the old Apple motto is; it "just works". When the Xserve was EOL:ed I had to move to Linux, which was fine, I've used Linux extensively since 1994, but getting it up and running with all that neat functionality wasn't as seamless as with the Apple solution, and if you're rolling your own server, there's few good 1U solutions out there. I moved from a 8U rack space to a 36U rack space by moving to Linux, which was a shame. Since then I've moved from colo to a hardware host, so I have no idea what their actual hardware looks like now. LOM for Linux isn't really available, you have to use some form of remote KVM solution, which is fine when it works, but it's stuck behind a private VPN as of now and it's really cumbersome. Not Linux's fault however, but I really enjoyed it being built in and accessible by common GUI tools. Obviously I could run Darwin on all my PC servers, but I have no reason not to run Linux. -- Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 16:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20160514163648.489f028e@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #355285 |
On 14 May 2016 14:32:44 GMT Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote: > > Obviously I could run Darwin on all my PC servers, but I have no > reason not to run Linux. > How do you install Darwin at all? I can;t find any recent ISO?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 15:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sandman-f2cf3bd1c249a179ecf255643cd5b875@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #355286 |
In article <20160514163648.489f028e@maxa-pc>, Melzzzzz wrote: > On 14 May 2016 14:32:44 GMT > > Sandman: > > Obviously I could run Darwin on all my PC servers, but I have no > > reason not to run Linux. > > How do you install Darwin at all? I can;t find any recent ISO? No, there aren't any, you have roll it on your own. Apple shut down OpenDarwin due to lack of interest. puredarwin.org tried to keep it up until version 9 (Mac OS X Leopard) and MacOSForge.org has trunk for Darwin 10 and 11 (Snow Leopard and Lion). But all the source code is available directly from Apple at http://opensource.apple.com. My point wasn't that Darwin is as easy to install as Linux (or other Unix and UNIX operating systems) but that Linux isn't special in itself other than being widespread in this space. There is nothing that Linux brings to the table that can't be implemented using other similar kernels and operating systems (like Darwin, BSD, etc). -- Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-16 14:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dpu4m2F6tu7U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #355286 |
On Sat, 14 May 2016 16:36:48 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: > On 14 May 2016 14:32:44 GMT Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote: > > >> Obviously I could run Darwin on all my PC servers, but I have no reason >> not to run Linux. >> >> > How do you install Darwin at all? I can;t find any recent ISO? http://opensource.apple.com//static/iso/ I just got it installed in a Linux virtual host using virt-manager -- fairly straightforward, though I had to a) use the Darwin fdisk manually, and b) reboot and restart the install process before it would ask me what kind of filesystem I wanted to use. Also, when you fdisk, make sure to run the "update" command to ensure your disk image will have the mbr code for booting. It's a cute parlor trick, but Linux has much more to offer. :) -- -v "Desktops, workstations and servers are and Microsoft is doing very well. AS well as Linux." -"Slimer" "I do not see desktop Linux as a failure." -"Snit"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 07:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <Gpidnftmqox6oarKnZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #355285 |
On 2016-05-14, Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote: > In article <SrWdnXZ3zbhPtqrKnZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Marek Novotny > wrote: > >> > William Poaster: >> > Also Disney-Pixar who uses GNU/Linux server farms *&* GNU/LInux >> > desktops to create their animations. >> >> Yeah, fun fact, Pixar uses Linux to render their movies. Edits the >> movie with Avid, not Final Cut. LOL. Like I always say, we eat our >> own dogfood. Apple, and Pixar by extension of the former owner Steve >> Jobs, does not. > > Final Cut was once the goto application for medium to large video editing > outfits, but it has fallen out of grace with the entire Final Cut X thing. It > has tried to redeem itself, but people had already switched to other > applications, they couldn't wait for Apple to get things right. > > This is a direct result of a more consumer-focused Apple, and for the > professionals it sure is a shame. > > And as for render farms and Linux, with Linux being more streamlined and > getting the most of out the hardware. One *could* use Darwin in the exact same > way. It is free, open source and runs on Macs and PCs. But there's a lot of > Linux developers out there and for these kind of specialized server/node > installations, it has become standard. > > I used to run my platform on Apple Xserves. I liked the stability and the ease > of management (the built in LOM was really nice) as well as the small form > factor packing a serious punch. Also, setting up Link Aggregation (LACP) is as > easy as clicking a few buttons, as well as fibre channel support for RAID. And > as the old Apple motto is; it "just works". > > When the Xserve was EOL:ed I had to move to Linux, which was fine, I've used > Linux extensively since 1994, but getting it up and running with all that neat > functionality wasn't as seamless as with the Apple solution, and if you're > rolling your own server, there's few good 1U solutions out there. I moved from > a 8U rack space to a 36U rack space by moving to Linux, which was a shame. > > Since then I've moved from colo to a hardware host, so I have no idea what > their actual hardware looks like now. > > LOM for Linux isn't really available, you have to use some form of remote KVM > solution, which is fine when it works, but it's stuck behind a private VPN as > of now and it's really cumbersome. Not Linux's fault however, but I really > enjoyed it being built in and accessible by common GUI tools. > > Obviously I could run Darwin on all my PC servers, but I have no reason not to > run Linux. I think Apple's problem is they just don't care about their customers. Dropping the Xserve and XRAID as I KNEW they would is just another example. When they introduced those two products the first thing I said was, don't buy it, they'll drop it and you'll be left with unsupported hardware. And Apple did exactly as I said. Just like the old days when they cut the number of slots down to 3 even though Avid editors were begging them not to because more slots were needed to have a full editing system. Apple was and still is more concerned about how it looks than anything else. And if we look at their current hardware lineup, again, what do we see with the iMac... How the hell do you fix anything? It's basically a big BIC lighter. The trash can, how do you upgrade the video? I'm sure it was easy to use, but I have to say I am just against virtually everything they do. It blows my mind that their customers express such love for a company that is quite obviously MILKING them like crazy. 40% gross margin. Holy cow that's a lot. And products you can't even service easily. And they call this good design?? On what planet is Ive a good designer? He's a dipshit loser that can't design both form and function in the same widget. Look at any G4 tower. All you had to do was open the side door and the whole motherboard was right in front of you and easily accessible. Then the Dual G5 hit with the cooling zones. Getting a hard drive in and out of there with the screws pretty much required a twisty screw driver. That extremely small space for the expansion cards wasn't exactly ideal either. And if the screw fell in there, good luck getting it back out. I will acknowledge that they at least fixed the hard drive situation in later models, but I always found the design to be poor. Cluttered like crazy while at the same time I could by a $100 case and build a fast computer with lots of room to maneuver inside. I could buy one of thousands of motherboards and basically build whatever I want. In my mind, that is good design. It is serviceable, expandable, open and functional. I have yet to see Apple match what a simple case that costs $50 can do. I have nothing but contempt for the company. It's one giant lock-in factory. At least with Windows you have lots of choice with regard to hardware. Apple in my opinion is one of the rare companies that just got lucky. And I for one can't wait to watch them crumble. And I say this, they will be all into open when they do. All of the sudden they will be champions of openness when the shit hits the fan. Same old shit... We love you guys. We just love making great shit. Please... Who drinks this koolaid? -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 15:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sandman-48c7966cb699517d5423c3f28193d909@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #355287 |
In article <Gpidnftmqox6oarKnZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Marek Novotny wrote: > > Sandman: > > Final Cut was once the goto application for medium to large video > > editing outfits, but it has fallen out of grace with the entire > > Final Cut X thing. It has tried to redeem itself, but people had > > already switched to other applications, they couldn't wait for > > Apple to get things right. > > > This is a direct result of a more consumer-focused Apple, and for > > the professionals it sure is a shame. > > > And as for render farms and Linux, with Linux being more > > streamlined and getting the most of out the hardware. One *could* > > use Darwin in the exact same way. It is free, open source and runs > > on Macs and PCs. But there's a lot of Linux developers out there > > and for these kind of specialized server/node installations, it > > has become standard. > > > I used to run my platform on Apple Xserves. I liked the stability > > and the ease of management (the built in LOM was really nice) as > > well as the small form factor packing a serious punch. Also, > > setting up Link Aggregation (LACP) is as easy as clicking a few > > buttons, as well as fibre channel support for RAID. And as the old > > Apple motto is; it "just works". > > > When the Xserve was EOL:ed I had to move to Linux, which was fine, > > I've used Linux extensively since 1994, but getting it up and > > running with all that neat functionality wasn't as seamless as > > with the Apple solution, and if you're rolling your own server, > > there's few good 1U solutions out there. I moved from a 8U rack > > space to a 36U rack space by moving to Linux, which was a shame. > > > Since then I've moved from colo to a hardware host, so I have no > > idea what their actual hardware looks like now. > > > LOM for Linux isn't really available, you have to use some form of > > remote KVM solution, which is fine when it works, but it's stuck > > behind a private VPN as of now and it's really cumbersome. Not > > Linux's fault however, but I really enjoyed it being built in and > > accessible by common GUI tools. > > > Obviously I could run Darwin on all my PC servers, but I have no > > reason not to run Linux. > > I think Apple's problem is they just don't care about their > customers. Sure they do, just not their small user base of *professional* customers, which is outnumbered by the consumer space by a large margin. They're focusing on where they are making most money, as any healthy corporation should do. > Dropping the Xserve and XRAID as I KNEW they would is just another > example. They dropped it in 2010, three years after the release of the iPhone and the more consumer-related direction of the company. It's a shame, but not unexpected. > When they introduced those two products the first thing I said was, > don't buy it, they'll drop it and you'll be left with unsupported > hardware. Well, they introduced the Xserve back in 2002, so it was on the market for quite a while, actually. And they did release server-specific software (and still do) for it. Anyone in the server business that bought hardware in 2002 would have upgraded since then anyhow. Anyone that bought Xserve's in 2009 is going to feel a bit pissed though. :) > And Apple did exactly as I said. Just like the old days when they > cut the number of slots down to 3 even though Avid editors were > begging them not to because more slots were needed to have a full > editing system. Apple was and still is more concerned about how it > looks than anything else. That's true to a degree, looks are important - in the consumer space. And since the consumer space is where the money is at, Apple had no problem letting some of their professional users go due to limiting hardware. > And if we look at their current hardware lineup, again, what do we > see with the iMac... How the hell do you fix anything? It's > basically a big BIC lighter. The trash can, how do you upgrade the > video? That's just how computers works these days, you're just not keeping up :) You and I may be keen to open up the case and switch RAM and HDD if it so pleases us, but the general user (the one that make out some 99.9% of the market) just doesn't care any longer. Regardless of whether it's an iMac or a PC, they just don't open it up and much about with the insides. Indeed, I am currently having severe problems with my gaming PC, which crashes now and then for unknown reasons, likely hardware, and even though I've bult and modified hundreds of PCs in my days, I'm less inclined to do so now, I just want the damn thing to work. > I'm sure it was easy to use, but I have to say I am just against > virtually everything they do. It blows my mind that their customers > express such love for a company that is quite obviously MILKING them > like crazy. 40% gross margin. Holy cow that's a lot. And products > you can't even service easily. And they call this good design?? On > what planet is Ive a good designer? He's a dipshit loser that can't > design both form and function in the same widget. Well, obviously you're entitled to your opinion, but as you are aware, it's not reflect by the people that does buy these products, and Apple laptops and the iMac is selling like crazy as you're probably also aware of. Not to mention their iOS products. And if there is a slump in the sales (which I'm sure you'd cite next) it's not because the customers can't change the HDD in the iMac easily. For the record, I *have* changed the HDD in three iMacs. It's a bit of a process, but it's quite possible, and there's lots of videos to show you how. Just because Apple doesn't make it super easy like with the PowerMac G3 and G4 doesn't mean it can't be done. I've done the same with numerous Mac mini's that has been given new life with SDD and plenty more RAM. > Look at any G4 tower. All you had to do was open the side door and > the whole motherboard was right in front of you and easily > accessible. Which I aree was really neat. But, even so - and even regarding the most tinker friendly of users, you'd only actually do it once or twice over the course of ownership. You'd open it up and add some more RAM, or add a second video card. But it's not like you'd open it up weekly and add/remove stuff from the innards of it. It was a neat function at the time, but its usefulness was a bit overstated. > Then the Dual G5 hit with the cooling zones. Getting a > hard drive in and out of there with the screws pretty much required > a twisty screw driver. That extremely small space for the expansion > cards wasn't exactly ideal either. And if the screw fell in there, > good luck getting it back out. I added many secondary GFX cards to G5's and never had any problems. It was a bit more stuff to get out of the way at times, but not a problem. > I will acknowledge that they at least fixed the hard drive situation > in later models, but I always found the design to be poor. Cluttered > like crazy while at the same time I could by a $100 case and build a > fast computer with lots of room to maneuver inside. I could buy one > of thousands of motherboards and basically build whatever I want. In > my mind, that is good design. It is serviceable, expandable, open > and functional. I have yet to see Apple match what a simple case > that costs $50 can do. You're comparing a BMW to a kit car, though. If you buy all the parts, you know beforehand what size case you need, and the "lots of room" factor is something you decide. You *can* buy a $89 case which will be super cramped as well. Macs are built with specific hardware and there is no reason for Apple to leave "lots of room" inside the case, and I'd rather see them add lots of intelligent fans in what otherwise would be empty space where I could possibly fit a screw driver. > I have nothing but contempt for the company. It's one giant lock-in > factory. At least with Windows you have lots of choice with regard > to hardware. But for the general customer, that "lots of choice" means whatever choice Dell or whoever gives you. If your prime parameter is hardware modification availability then you're not only far outside the target market for Apple, you're also far outside the common need of the generic computer customer, who just doesn't give a rats ass about how supposedly easy it is to open up the case. > Apple in my opinion is one of the rare companies that just got > lucky. And I for one can't wait to watch them crumble. Why do you even care? You're obviously not a customer or a share holder, and them being successful means absolutely nothing to you. Why would you desire for them to fail when so many are using their products? > And I say this, they will be all into open when they do. All of the > sudden they will be champions of openness when the shit hits the > fan. Same old shit... We love you guys. We just love making great > shit. Please... Who drinks this koolaid? Not sure what the above is meant to say. -- Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 15:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gdjiv03.fdji3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #355290 |
Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote: > In article <Gpidnftmqox6oarKnZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Marek Novotny > wrote: > ... >> And if we look at their current hardware lineup, again, what do we >> see with the iMac... How the hell do you fix anything? It's >> basically a big BIC lighter. The trash can, how do you upgrade the >> video? > > That's just how computers works these days, you're just not keeping up :) You > and I may be keen to open up the case and switch RAM and HDD if it so pleases > us, but the general user (the one that make out some 99.9% of the market) > just doesn't care any longer. Regardless of whether it's an iMac or a PC, > they just don't open it up and much about with the insides. > I would say that there are at least as many computer users today who are interested in opening the case and tinkering as there have ever been. ... >> Look at any G4 tower. All you had to do was open the side door and >> the whole motherboard was right in front of you and easily >> accessible. > > Which I aree was really neat. But, even so - and even regarding the most > tinker friendly of users, you'd only actually do it once or twice over the > course of ownership. You'd open it up and add some more RAM, or add a second > video card. But it's not like you'd open it up weekly and add/remove stuff > from the innards of it. It was a neat function at the time, but its > usefulness was a bit overstated. > Most importantly, a door that is rarely opened is so unstylish. Believe me, I am damned happy that I was able to add RAM to my laptop that one and only time I had to do it. It saved me a shitload of money over what it would have cost to order the machine with RAM maxed out at the factory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 09:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e0d7541-b717-492e-8c0c-a7ad16ccb059@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #355291 |
On Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 11:52:30 AM UTC-4, owl wrote: > > I would say that there are at least as many computer users today > who are interested in opening the case and tinkering as there > have ever been. Ooooh! NOT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 17:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sandman-cca91fe5b7ea93c80e9c867ee9c3e056@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #355291 |
In article <gdjiv03.fdji3@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote: > > Sandman: > > That's just how computers works these days, you're just not > > keeping up :) You and I may be keen to open up the case and switch > > RAM and HDD if it so pleases us, but the general user (the one > > that make out some 99.9% of the market) just doesn't care any > > longer. Regardless of whether it's an iMac or a PC, they just > > don't open it up and much about with the insides. > > I would say that there are at least as many computer users today > who are interested in opening the case and tinkering as there > have ever been. Well, I think you're wrong which is based on the fact that all those small computer shops that sold computer parts are pretty much gone these days. But let's assume you're right though - you have to realize that even if the number of actual "tinkerers" have remained the same, the computer *market* har grown a *lot* the last decade or so, so the part of the user base that are tinkerers are shrinking at the same rate. > > > Marek Novotny: > > > Look at any G4 tower. All you had to do was open the side door > > > and the whole motherboard was right in front of you and easily > > > accessible. > > > > Sandman: > > Which I aree was really neat. But, even so - and even regarding > > the most tinker friendly of users, you'd only actually do it once > > or twice over the course of ownership. You'd open it up and add > > some more RAM, or add a second video card. But it's not like you'd > > open it up weekly and add/remove stuff from the innards of it. It > > was a neat function at the time, but its usefulness was a bit > > overstated. > > Most importantly, a door that is rarely opened is so unstylish. Indeed. > Believe me, I am damned happy that I was able to add RAM to my > laptop that one and only time I had to do it. It saved me a > shitload of money over what it would have cost to order the > machine with RAM maxed out at the factory. Neat, I've done that to countless Macs that aren't "user upgradable" in the common sense. -- Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-14 10:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79ednQSoV9RfxqrKnZ2dnUU7-UGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #355310 |
On 2016-05-14, Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote: > In article <gdjiv03.fdji3@rooftop.invalid>, owl wrote: > >> > Sandman: >> > That's just how computers works these days, you're just not >> > keeping up :) You and I may be keen to open up the case and switch >> > RAM and HDD if it so pleases us, but the general user (the one >> > that make out some 99.9% of the market) just doesn't care any >> > longer. Regardless of whether it's an iMac or a PC, they just >> > don't open it up and much about with the insides. >> >> I would say that there are at least as many computer users today >> who are interested in opening the case and tinkering as there >> have ever been. > > Well, I think you're wrong which is based on the fact that all those small > computer shops that sold computer parts are pretty much gone these days. > > But let's assume you're right though - you have to realize that even if the > number of actual "tinkerers" have remained the same, the computer *market* har > grown a *lot* the last decade or so, so the part of the user base that are > tinkerers are shrinking at the same rate. The gaming market is said to be worth $100 billion annually. Aren't they more likely to be open to opening their PCs and adding in state of the art video boards with each release? Aren't they likely to want open systems that they can easily get inside even if they are buying something pre-made? // snip -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 08:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sandman-6f161053753515d83374ed9cf1e2be53@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #355311 |
In article <79ednQSoV9RfxqrKnZ2dnUU7-UGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Marek Novotny wrote: > > > > Sandman: > > > > That's just how computers works these days, you're > > > > just not keeping up :) You and I may be keen to open up the > > > > case and switch RAM and HDD if it so pleases us, but the > > > > general user (the one that make out some 99.9% of the market) > > > > just doesn't care any longer. Regardless of whether it's an > > > > iMac or a PC, they just don't open it up and much about with > > > > the insides. > > > > > > owl: > > > I would say that there are at least as many computer users today > > > who are interested in opening the case and tinkering as there > > > have ever been. > > > > Sandman: > > Well, I think you're wrong which is based on the fact that all > > those small computer shops that sold computer parts are pretty > > much gone these days. > > > But let's assume you're right though - you have to realize that > > even if the number of actual "tinkerers" have remained the same, > > the computer *market* har grown a *lot* the last decade or so, so > > the part of the user base that are tinkerers are shrinking at the > > same rate. > > The gaming market is said to be worth $100 billion annually. Aren't > they more likely to be open to opening their PCs and adding in state > of the art video boards with each release? Apple has never had any real interest in the gaming market. It's hard to compete with the PC there. Both in hardware and software. OS X supports OpenGL but poorly, and there obviously is no DirectX for the Mac, and DX has become a bit of a standard. > Aren't they likely to want open systems that they can easily get > inside even if they are buying something pre-made? Nope. Gamers may, but gamers don't buy Macs. Ordinary people couldn't care less if the case was welded shut. :) -- Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 05:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a66dne5EsIt-96XKnZ2dnUU7-RednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #355438 |
On 2016-05-15, Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote: > Apple has never had any real interest in the gaming market. It's hard to > compete with the PC there. Both in hardware and software. OS X supports > OpenGL but poorly, and there obviously is no DirectX for the Mac, and > DX has become a bit of a standard. Really?? Perhaps you'd be interested in learning more about Metal, Apple's core graphics technology... -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 13:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sandman-fee2993ae203fc56eb94834e7a2ee9de@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #355452 |
In article <a66dne5EsIt-96XKnZ2dnUU7-RednZ2d@giganews.com>, Marek Novotny wrote: > > Sandman: > > Apple has never had any real interest in the gaming market. It's > > hard to compete with the PC there. Both in hardware and software. > > OS X supports OpenGL but poorly, and there obviously is no DirectX > > for the Mac, and DX has become a bit of a standard. > > Really?? Perhaps you'd be interested in learning more about Metal, > Apple's core graphics technology... Which pioneered on iOS, where gaming is something they're FAR more interested in since it drives the platform. Gaming has never driven the Mac platform. Had they made some focus on gaming ten or twenty years ago, then perhaps the Mac would be different, and then perhaps the upgradeability of the Mac would be much more different as well. As it is, they didn't, and here we are. It's a bit late in the game to imagine that Metal is ever going to change this. That being said - the *Consoles* are the real winners for gaming. While there are some neat games for PC still being released, an alarming rate of those are poor console ports. And the game developers are more likely to make a native iOS version of the game than a PC version sometimes. There's still tons of PC-exclusive games out there though, so it's not like it's in any real danger (yet). As for the Mac, it's a bit of chicken or the egg here. Apple ignored gaming early on and it thrived on the PC. This led over time that few Mac owners had the need for in-box upgradeability, at least in the same rate as PC owners. So that's why Apple easily could limit that over time and here we are today. Had Apple been more consumer-focused back in 2000 (iMac notwithstanding), then gaming would probably have been more of a focus. As it is, the iMac was Apple's response of people using Macs at work wanting a "cheap" Mac to use at home which was named "Performa" :) -- Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 07:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <PK-dna_9ucQWG6XKnZ2dnUU7-KednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #355459 |
On 2016-05-15, Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote: > In article <a66dne5EsIt-96XKnZ2dnUU7-RednZ2d@giganews.com>, Marek Novotny > wrote: > >> > Sandman: >> > Apple has never had any real interest in the gaming market. It's >> > hard to compete with the PC there. Both in hardware and software. >> > OS X supports OpenGL but poorly, and there obviously is no DirectX >> > for the Mac, and DX has become a bit of a standard. >> >> Really?? Perhaps you'd be interested in learning more about Metal, >> Apple's core graphics technology... > > Which pioneered on iOS, where gaming is something they're FAR more interested > in since it drives the platform. Gaming has never driven the Mac platform. > > Had they made some focus on gaming ten or twenty years ago, then perhaps the > Mac would be different, and then perhaps the upgradeability of the Mac would be > much more different as well. > > As it is, they didn't, and here we are. It's a bit late in the game to imagine > that Metal is ever going to change this. > > That being said - the *Consoles* are the real winners for gaming. While there > are some neat games for PC still being released, an alarming rate of those are > poor console ports. And the game developers are more likely to make a native > iOS version of the game than a PC version sometimes. > > There's still tons of PC-exclusive games out there though, so it's not like > it's in any real danger (yet). > > As for the Mac, it's a bit of chicken or the egg here. Apple ignored gaming > early on and it thrived on the PC. This led over time that few Mac owners had > the need for in-box upgradeability, at least in the same rate as PC owners. So > that's why Apple easily could limit that over time and here we are today. > > Had Apple been more consumer-focused back in 2000 (iMac notwithstanding), then > gaming would probably have been more of a focus. As it is, the iMac was Apple's > response of people using Macs at work wanting a "cheap" Mac to use at home > which was named "Performa" :) Do you even hear yourself?? So maybe Apple should have focused a little on gaming huh? Is that what you are going to say ten years from now about the enterprise? -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 15:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sandman-fe6e19390462f26ad97677883ef05533@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #355471 |
In article <PK-dna_9ucQWG6XKnZ2dnUU7-KednZ2d@giganews.com>, Marek Novotny wrote: > > > > Apple has never had any real interest in the gaming > > > > market. It's hard to compete with the PC there. Both in > > > > hardware and software. OS X supports OpenGL but poorly, and > > > > there obviously is no DirectX for the Mac, and DX has become a > > > > bit of a standard. > > > > > > Marek Novotny: > > > Really?? Perhaps you'd be interested in learning more about > > > Metal, Apple's core graphics technology... > > > > Sandman: > > Which pioneered on iOS, where gaming is something they're FAR more > > interested in since it drives the platform. Gaming has never > > driven the Mac platform. > > > Had they made some focus on gaming ten or twenty years ago, then > > perhaps the Mac would be different, and then perhaps the > > upgradeability of the Mac would be much more different as well. > > > As it is, they didn't, and here we are. It's a bit late in the > > game to imagine that Metal is ever going to change this. > > > That being said - the *Consoles* are the real winners for gaming. > > While there are some neat games for PC still being released, an > > alarming rate of those are poor console ports. And the game > > developers are more likely to make a native iOS version of the > > game than a PC version sometimes. > > > There's still tons of PC-exclusive games out there though, so it's > > not like it's in any real danger (yet). > > > As for the Mac, it's a bit of chicken or the egg here. Apple > > ignored gaming early on and it thrived on the PC. This led over > > time that few Mac owners had the need for in-box upgradeability, > > at least in the same rate as PC owners. So that's why Apple easily > > could limit that over time and here we are today. > > > Had Apple been more consumer-focused back in 2000 (iMac > > notwithstanding), then gaming would probably have been more of a > > focus. As it is, the iMac was Apple's response of people using > > Macs at work wanting a "cheap" Mac to use at home which was named > > "Performa" :) > > Do you even hear yourself?? So maybe Apple should have focused a > little on gaming huh? No, I just said that *if* they had focused more on gaming then perhaps people would actually be gaming on the Mac since two decades back and *then* the current Mac lineup might look different, with better internal expandability. *I* couldn't care less, I have no problem having a gaming PC, or all the consoles for that matter. > Is that what you are going to say ten years from now about the > enterprise? Huh? Apple's focus on Enterprise is identical to their focus on gaming - i.e. none at all. Never has been. They've made *some* accommodation along the way, like enabling enterprise mail support in the iPhone, or supporting OpenGL and using the then-top-of- the-line Rage128 in their iMacs and PowerMacs, but none of those things amount to any interest overall in the gaming and enterprise market. And, for those few Macs that *were* and *are* sold to the enterprise it's almost exclusively iMacs or laptops. -- Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 08:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <IridnYfXCLEOCaXKnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #355484 |
On 2016-05-15, Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote: > In article <PK-dna_9ucQWG6XKnZ2dnUU7-KednZ2d@giganews.com>, Marek Novotny > wrote: > >> > > > Apple has never had any real interest in the gaming >> > > > market. It's hard to compete with the PC there. Both in >> > > > hardware and software. OS X supports OpenGL but poorly, and >> > > > there obviously is no DirectX for the Mac, and DX has become a >> > > > bit of a standard. >> > > >> > > Marek Novotny: >> > > Really?? Perhaps you'd be interested in learning more about >> > > Metal, Apple's core graphics technology... >> > >> > Sandman: >> > Which pioneered on iOS, where gaming is something they're FAR more >> > interested in since it drives the platform. Gaming has never >> > driven the Mac platform. >> >> > Had they made some focus on gaming ten or twenty years ago, then >> > perhaps the Mac would be different, and then perhaps the >> > upgradeability of the Mac would be much more different as well. >> >> > As it is, they didn't, and here we are. It's a bit late in the >> > game to imagine that Metal is ever going to change this. >> >> > That being said - the *Consoles* are the real winners for gaming. >> > While there are some neat games for PC still being released, an >> > alarming rate of those are poor console ports. And the game >> > developers are more likely to make a native iOS version of the >> > game than a PC version sometimes. >> >> > There's still tons of PC-exclusive games out there though, so it's >> > not like it's in any real danger (yet). >> >> > As for the Mac, it's a bit of chicken or the egg here. Apple >> > ignored gaming early on and it thrived on the PC. This led over >> > time that few Mac owners had the need for in-box upgradeability, >> > at least in the same rate as PC owners. So that's why Apple easily >> > could limit that over time and here we are today. >> >> > Had Apple been more consumer-focused back in 2000 (iMac >> > notwithstanding), then gaming would probably have been more of a >> > focus. As it is, the iMac was Apple's response of people using >> > Macs at work wanting a "cheap" Mac to use at home which was named >> > "Performa" :) >> >> Do you even hear yourself?? So maybe Apple should have focused a >> little on gaming huh? > > No, I just said that *if* they had focused more on gaming then perhaps people > would actually be gaming on the Mac since two decades back and *then* the > current Mac lineup might look different, with better internal expandability. > > *I* couldn't care less, I have no problem having a gaming PC, or all the > consoles for that matter. > >> Is that what you are going to say ten years from now about the >> enterprise? > > Huh? Apple's focus on Enterprise is identical to their focus on gaming - i.e. > none at all. Never has been. > > They've made *some* accommodation along the way, like enabling enterprise > mail support in the iPhone, or supporting OpenGL and using the then-top-of- > the-line Rage128 in their iMacs and PowerMacs, but none of those things > amount to any interest overall in the gaming and enterprise market. > > And, for those few Macs that *were* and *are* sold to the enterprise it's > almost exclusively iMacs or laptops. Because no one sees value in the garbage can? -- Marek Novotny https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sandman <mr@sandman.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-15 16:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sandman-92372c2e6f15e02cf14c991ba52e6cf9@individual.net> |
| In reply to | #355487 |
In article <IridnYfXCLEOCaXKnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@giganews.com>, Marek Novotny wrote: > > > Marek Novotny: > > > Is that what you are going to say ten years from now about the > > > enterprise? > > > > Sandman: > > Huh? Apple's focus on Enterprise is identical to their focus on > > gaming - i.e. none at all. Never has been. > > > They've made *some* accommodation along the way, like enabling > > enterprise mail support in the iPhone, or supporting OpenGL and > > using the then-top-of- the-line Rage128 in their iMacs and > > PowerMacs, but none of those things amount to any interest overall > > in the gaming and enterprise market. > > > And, for those few Macs that *were* and *are* sold to the > > enterprise it's almost exclusively iMacs or laptops. > > Because no one sees value in the garbage can? If you mean the Mac Pro then yes, I suspect that it will be dropped as a product sooner rather than later. Mostly because the next gen iMacs will be just as powerful and just as expandable and the USP of the Mac Pro will just vanish. -- Sandman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web