Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #285967 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-03-25 19:01 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-03-26 18:49 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 207 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-25 19:01 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-25 15:51 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 15:03 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 17:15 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 22:01 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 19:53 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:11 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 19:54 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 03:01 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-25 23:21 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-26 11:56 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:13 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-25 23:54 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-03-25 16:01 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Donald Miller <donaldmiller955@mail.com> - 2015-03-25 16:37 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 17:27 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 19:56 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 17:15 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:09 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 19:18 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:24 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 19:30 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 19:58 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 03:02 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-25 23:19 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-25 20:15 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 19:55 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 17:00 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 17:32 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-25 22:43 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 21:56 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-25 23:09 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 23:23 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:31 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 23:36 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 19:39 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:02 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 18:12 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-25 23:22 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 18:36 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 23:15 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-25 20:04 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:04 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 18:08 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-25 23:14 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 18:30 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-25 23:35 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 18:40 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 23:20 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:10 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:24 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 23:25 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:10 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 22:27 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 03:38 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 04:30 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 09:02 -0400
Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-03-28 16:29 -0700
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize Donald Miller <donaldmiller955@mail.com> - 2015-03-28 19:37 -0400
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-03-28 18:51 -0700
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize Donald Miller <donaldmiller955@mail.com> - 2015-03-28 22:09 -0400
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-29 09:33 -0400
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 09:58 -0400
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-28 22:38 -0400
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-29 06:56 -0400
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 13:11 +0000
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 16:18 -0600
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 18:50 -0400
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:40 -0600
For Linux-hating trolls: bite a little harder, why don't you? (was Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-03-31 15:41 -0700
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-28 19:48 -0400
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-28 22:24 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 07:10 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 13:22 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 09:28 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:12 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-26 12:07 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 17:30 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 23:09 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 20:43 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-26 19:18 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 22:29 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-26 19:16 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 19:11 -0700
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-28 10:55 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-28 11:52 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-28 13:06 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-28 14:20 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-28 19:21 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-28 17:11 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-28 17:22 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-28 11:15 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-28 14:15 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-28 14:13 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-26 19:14 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 19:58 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:12 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 22:50 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-25 23:18 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:10 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 03:23 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-25 23:15 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-26 05:57 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-25 20:13 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:13 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 22:40 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-25 19:25 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 20:42 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:16 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:16 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:09 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 23:19 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:25 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:07 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:15 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-25 20:14 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:18 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 07:14 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:11 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:17 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 03:27 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-25 23:12 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-26 12:00 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:10 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-26 09:24 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-26 06:10 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 11:40 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 09:09 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 14:41 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-26 12:06 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 20:12 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 14:44 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 22:07 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 17:54 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:09 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 17:19 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:08 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:08 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 19:22 -0700
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 22:58 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 08:41 -0700
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 17:25 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 19:17 -0700
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-25 20:01 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:19 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 03:32 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 04:30 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 21:35 -0700
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 10:53 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 09:59 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 07:34 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-26 09:29 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:06 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-26 21:42 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-27 13:53 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:06 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-26 08:58 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 09:07 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:05 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-26 09:59 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-26 06:03 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-26 06:00 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:04 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 22:52 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 22:32 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-25 23:26 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:00 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 07:19 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-26 09:14 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 14:38 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 08:57 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-26 11:14 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 16:35 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 11:08 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:04 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 17:49 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:03 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-27 08:20 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-27 09:24 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-27 13:51 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-26 12:55 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 10:49 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 11:33 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 13:59 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 17:27 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-26 10:09 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 13:59 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 13:58 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-26 10:05 -0400
Why quote @chrisv ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-03-26 19:27 -0700
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:13 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 23:13 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 19:20 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:35 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 19:49 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-25 20:22 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:22 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 07:26 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:21 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-25 20:17 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:22 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 22:59 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-26 09:32 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 17:16 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-25 23:32 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-26 09:47 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 18:49 -0700
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
| From | Donald Miller <donaldmiller955@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-28 22:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize |
| Message-ID | <htmeha1hkbrj3r1am1ijdn5hual4ttpgvr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #286523 |
On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 18:51:09 -0700, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >On 03/28/2015 04:37 PM, Donald Miller wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 16:29:59 -0700, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >> >>> On 03/25/2015 07:38 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 22:27:58 -0400 >>>> Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2015-03-25 7:25 PM, ronb wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 00:24:00 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:35:47 +0100 Peter Köhlmann >>>>>>> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2015-03-25 6:14 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-03-25 5:43 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-03-25 5:00 PM, Ezekiel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:20150325190117.6ff30af2@maxa-pc... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> " The GNOME project has released GNOME 3.16, the latest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version of GNOME 3. The new version is the result of six >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> months work, and includes 33,525 changes by 1043 authors." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeeeeey! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.gnome.org/news/2015/03/gnome-3-16-released-2/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <quote> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> History >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> GNOME was started in August 1997 by Miguel de Icaza and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federico Mena as a free software project to develop a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> desktop environment and applications for it </quote> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Miguel was speaking his mind once and said something that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't flattering about Linux. So posers like Ahlstrom who >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have never contributed anything to free software now >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider him a traitor. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If I remember correctly, Miguel de Icaza eventually moved on >>>>>>>>>>>>> to Mac OS X and abandoned Gnome and Linux entirely. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, let's see what Wikipedia has to say: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >>>>>> Miguel_de_Icaza#Preference_for_Mac_OS_X_over_Linux> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Preference for Mac OS X over Linux >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In August 2012, de Icaza criticized the Linux desktop as >>>>>>>>>>>>> "killed by Apple". De Icaza specifically criticized a >>>>>>>>>>>>> generally developer-focused culture, lack of backward >>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility and fragmentation among the various Linux >>>>>>>>>>>>> distributions.[18][19] In March 2013, de Icaza announced on >>>>>>>>>>>>> his personal blog that he regularly used Mac OS X instead of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux for desktop computing.[20]" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You know your operating system sucks when even one of its >>>>>>>>>>>>> most important developers considers it to be unusable and >>>>>>>>>>>>> adopts OS X instead. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which is really hilarious if he cites "lack of backward >>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility and fragmentation" is his reasons. Because OSX >>>>>>>>>>>> is of all the OS the worst one in these regards. By a very >>>>>>>>>>>> long shot. Even windows is far better in these things. Not to >>>>>>>>>>>> mention linux, which is usually far better than windows in >>>>>>>>>>>> backwards compatibility >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you and lack of backward compatibility is one of >>>>>>>>>>> the many reasons I dislike anything Apple produces. Linux is >>>>>>>>>>> only slightly better than OS X though: it's laughable how many >>>>>>>>>>> applications will simply cease to work correctly because you >>>>>>>>>>> updated one of the many packages it referred to >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. Especially in linux it is extremely easy to provide >>>>>>>>>> several libraries concurrently. Much easier than in both >>>>>>>>>> windows and OSX >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's _so_ hard in Windows that I can install software from the >>>>>>>>> 90s or the early 2000s and know that it will work whereas I have >>>>>>>>> to wrestle with dependencies in Linux. You clearly haven't used >>>>>>>>> Windows since the mid-90s and just make shit up as you go along. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You can even run Windows 3.1 apps in Windows 8 fairly easily. >>>>>>>>> Hell, you can use the fucking MS-DOS Executive in Windows 8. You >>>>>>>>> can't do that in Linux with apps from that era. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Face it, Klöwn, Windows is better in every imaginable way. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have no idea at all about DLL-naming problems in windows >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>>>> Windows... >>>>>> >>>>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP >>>>>> because of the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to >>>>>> Vista/7/8.x -- so, yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>>>> >>>>> Funny enough, GTA: San Andreas and Vice City are both Windows XP >>>>> games which run fine on Windows 8.1. It's too bad that Melzzzz is too >>>>> much of an idiot to get them to run. >>>> >>>> They both run on Linux under wine no problem with platinum rating... >>>> >>>> As far as I know, Fallout 3 is >>>>> the only one causing any sort of issues. >>>>> >>>> >>>> On wine under Linux it runs flawlessly... >>>> I have bought it when game came out ;) >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I've talked about this before. Fallout 3 is only one example of "works >>> not so well with Windows 7". I've tried all the fixes myself, and still >>> can't get it to run properly in Win7 64-bit. This is not for a lack of >>> trying -- but with WINE on Linux, I'm good. >> >> 2008 called and wants their game back. >> > >(You're in luck -- this is my laptop, which doesn't have a complete >snubbery set up on it. Aren't you special?) Snubbery? Is that a Linux distribution? Sounds like it. >2008 can't have it, I paid good money for it. (Along with bazillions of >other Win 7 users.) You paid money for a game that was designed to work on a particular operating system and version. Read the system requirements. >So there's stupid idea #1: "Old games are no good." Bzzzt. Wrong. Those are your words not mine. I still play tetris and Missile Command. >> Solution 1: Play Linux games instead. > >It just burns you up that Linux+WINE made Fallout 3 playable, doesn't it? Why would it? Use what works. Personally, when I was a Linux zealot my goal was to use Linux programs and not subsidize or promote Windows or Microsoft software. Seems you don't mind doing that. That's fine. >U Mad, bro? No. My games work. Of course I use Windows. You might want to try GTA V. Great game. >So there's stupid idea #2: (trying to) exclude people from playing a >game because of operating system choice -- even when alternate systems >are quite capable of doing the job -- and in this case, _better_ than >Windows 7. So there is a stupid idiot who doesn't understand how software works. You bought a game designed, and guaranteed to work on a particular operating system. If it works on a different version, especially a major different version like 7 vs XP that's fine and many programs do. Unfortunately many do not. You found one. Use the operating system your game is designed for and it will work fine. If not get your money back. >Ooo, does that sting yet? Sting? I'm laughing at you. You are a massive idiot. >> Solution 2: Run the game under the version of the operating system it >> was designed for, Windows XP I believe. > >Bzzzt. The common argument from the wintrolls is that Win7 supports >legacy applications better than other OS's. But in the two examples I >gave, the legacy apps were supported better _on Linux with WINE_. I'm not a wintroll. I'm presenting the facts. Facts you seem to be avoiding. >Strike three, you're outtathere! You never even tossed a pitch over the plate. All in the dirt. >> >> Try telling IBM you need to run some System 370 program from 1975 on >> your EC12 machine and see how far you get. >> >> > >What a stupid analogy. Fallout 3 is a classic, and very well loved in >the gaming community -- I suggest you try it. It's a perfect analogy and it demonstrates how little you know about software. Maybe that's why your business partner is driving a Porsche and you are driving a clapped out Subaru. >That is...IF YOU CAN. rofl! Done. Signed sealed and delivered. >Finally, I note that talk of 16-bit apps and sound woes are missing from >your missive. Did you not have anything clueful to contribute there, >either? 16 bit? Geek stuff? Who cares? If I wanted to run that game so much I would use the OS it was designed to run under. You don't seem to understand that simple concept. Maybe that's why you are a Linux user. They seem to miss the basic points completely. BTW I can feel that dick wiper ready to agree with your post. He or she will be wrong as usual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-29 09:33 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize |
| Message-ID | <mf8usv$81p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286525 |
"Donald Miller" <donaldmiller955@mail.com> wrote in message
news:htmeha1hkbrj3r1am1ijdn5hual4ttpgvr@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 18:51:09 -0700, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>Bzzzt. The common argument from the wintrolls is that Win7 supports
>>legacy applications better than other OS's. But in the two examples I
>>gave, the legacy apps were supported better _on Linux with WINE_.
>
> I'm not a wintroll.
> I'm presenting the facts.
> Facts you seem to be avoiding.
>
Is this vallor guy drunk and high or is he normally this incredibly stupid?
"...common argument ...is that Win7 supports legacy
applications better than other OS's. But in the two
examples I gave..."
There are thousands, probably 10's of thousands of native Windows
applications. Because he found *two* examples then somehow this is supposed
to prove that Win7 legacy support is inferior to Linux+Wine.
Is he serious? These *two* examples out of 10's of thousands are supposed to
prove something?
He should stick to creating new threads where he whines that a browser from
2003 didn't support web standards that were passed in 2008.
--
> "Ford has abandoned its troubled Microsoft Sync
> automotive infotainment system"
>
"Funny. My Fiesta got a "non-safety" recall for a software update.
I think it was because the crapware would disable the right rear
airbag if someone was sitting in the passenger's seat."
Chris Ahlstrom = Ignorant enough to think that an Infotainment System
controls the airbags in a car.
Jan 14, 2015
<m95jpu$3bi$2@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-29 09:58 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize |
| Message-ID | <mf90cd$dbh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286562 |
On 2015-03-29 9:33 AM, Ezekiel wrote: > "Donald Miller" <donaldmiller955@mail.com> wrote in message > news:htmeha1hkbrj3r1am1ijdn5hual4ttpgvr@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 18:51:09 -0700, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> Bzzzt. The common argument from the wintrolls is that Win7 supports >>> legacy applications better than other OS's. But in the two examples I >>> gave, the legacy apps were supported better _on Linux with WINE_. >> >> I'm not a wintroll. >> I'm presenting the facts. >> Facts you seem to be avoiding. >> > > Is this vallor guy drunk and high or is he normally this incredibly stupid? > > "...common argument ...is that Win7 supports legacy > applications better than other OS's. But in the two > examples I gave..." > > There are thousands, probably 10's of thousands of native Windows > applications. Because he found *two* examples then somehow this is supposed > to prove that Win7 legacy support is inferior to Linux+Wine. > > Is he serious? These *two* examples out of 10's of thousands are supposed to > prove something? > > He should stick to creating new threads where he whines that a browser from > 2003 didn't support web standards that were passed in 2008. Well, at least he's "proven" more than any of the other Linux losers in here. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-28 22:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize |
| Message-ID | <mf7ogk$j97$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286523 |
On 2015-03-28 9:51 PM, vallor wrote: >>> I've talked about this before. Fallout 3 is only one example of "works >>> not so well with Windows 7". I've tried all the fixes myself, and still >>> can't get it to run properly in Win7 64-bit. This is not for a lack of >>> trying -- but with WINE on Linux, I'm good. >> >> 2008 called and wants their game back. >> > > (You're in luck -- this is my laptop, which doesn't have a complete > snubbery set up on it. Aren't you special?) > > 2008 can't have it, I paid good money for it. (Along with bazillions of > other Win 7 users.) > > So there's stupid idea #1: "Old games are no good." Bzzzt. Wrong. > > >> Solution 1: Play Linux games instead. > > It just burns you up that Linux+WINE made Fallout 3 playable, doesn't it? > > U Mad, bro? The thing that I find funny is that for whatever reason, you consider Linux's ability to play Fallout 3 some sort of victory. While the gaming world has moved on from that page by playing its sequel Fallout: New Vegas AND Skyrim, they also consider those two games to be OLD now even though they're a lot more recent than Fallout 3 is. Only Linux losers are stuck in the past the way you are, everyone else enjoys playing an updated game with better graphics and more features. Enjoy Fallout 3 and playing it over and over and over. By the time Linux succeeds in running Skyrim in say 2020, we'll be playing the seventh Elder Scrolls episode. > So there's stupid idea #2: (trying to) exclude people from playing a > game because of operating system choice -- even when alternate systems > are quite capable of doing the job -- and in this case, _better_ than > Windows 7. > > Ooo, does that sting yet? I'm not sure _why_ it should sting for anyone. Does it sting for _you_ to know that you can't play Skyrim? Actually, you can if you don't mind encountering a number of bugs: <https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=24749> It runs _well_ though according to the delusional Linux losers. >> Solution 2: Run the game under the version of the operating system it >> was designed for, Windows XP I believe. > > Bzzzt. The common argument from the wintrolls is that Win7 supports > legacy applications better than other OS's. But in the two examples I > gave, the legacy apps were supported better _on Linux with WINE_. > > Strike three, you're outtathere! The problem is that the people who paid for Fallout 3 did so at the time that it was released. Back then, XP and Vista were common and it worked exactly as it should. By the time they were finished, Windows hadn't even been released yet. THAT is how old your game is. The point here is that people got to play Fallout 3 and finished it a number of times before the Windows 7 issue even came to existence. You paid "good money" for Fallout 3 and we're all proud of that, but it's not Microsoft's fault that you paid "good money" several years after its release once it dropped to the 1$ purchase price you could afford. >> Try telling IBM you need to run some System 370 program from 1975 on >> your EC12 machine and see how far you get. > > What a stupid analogy. Fallout 3 is a classic, and very well loved in > the gaming community -- I suggest you try it. > > That is...IF YOU CAN. rofl! > > Finally, I note that talk of 16-bit apps and sound woes are missing from > your missive. Did you not have anything clueful to contribute there, > either? It _is_ a classic, which is why Skyrim used its successful system and improved on it significantly, providing the player with a much more innovative experience. You'll find out about it once the game runs properly in 2020 and you'll be able to pay "good money" to purchase it for 1$. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-29 06:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize |
| Message-ID | <mf8lmv$55p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286523 |
vallor wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > On 03/28/2015 04:37 PM, Donald Miller wrote: > > So there's stupid idea #1: "Old games are no good." Bzzzt. Wrong. > >> Solution 1: Play Linux games instead. > > It just burns you up that Linux+WINE made Fallout 3 playable, doesn't it? > > U Mad, bro? Mad as a hatter! > So there's stupid idea #2: (trying to) exclude people from playing a > game because of operating system choice -- even when alternate systems > are quite capable of doing the job -- and in this case, _better_ than > Windows 7. > > Ooo, does that sting yet? > >> Solution 2: Run the game under the version of the operating system it >> was designed for, Windows XP I believe. > > Bzzzt. The common argument from the wintrolls is that Win7 supports > legacy applications better than other OS's. But in the two examples I > gave, the legacy apps were supported better _on Linux with WINE_. > > Strike three, you're outtathere! One can only hope. But unlikely. 40/41 posts killed. No much out there but invisible troll thrash/trash, apparently. Buncha k00ks. -- If some day we are defeated, well, war has its fortunes, good and bad. -- Commander Kor, "Errand of Mercy", stardate 3201.7
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-29 13:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize |
| Message-ID | <nvhd93.pfa3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #286555 |
Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote: > vallor wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> On 03/28/2015 04:37 PM, Donald Miller wrote: >> >> So there's stupid idea #1: "Old games are no good." Bzzzt. Wrong. >> >>> Solution 1: Play Linux games instead. >> >> It just burns you up that Linux+WINE made Fallout 3 playable, doesn't it? >> >> U Mad, bro? > Mad as a hatter! U Mad Magazine, bro?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-29 16:18 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize |
| Message-ID | <oc6dnYljyJi354XInZ2dnUU7-WWdnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #286555 |
Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > vallor wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> On 03/28/2015 04:37 PM, Donald Miller wrote: >> >> So there's stupid idea #1: "Old games are no good." Bzzzt. Wrong. >> >>> Solution 1: Play Linux games instead. >> >> It just burns you up that Linux+WINE made Fallout 3 playable, doesn't it? >> >> U Mad, bro? > > Mad as a hatter! > >> So there's stupid idea #2: (trying to) exclude people from playing a >> game because of operating system choice -- even when alternate systems >> are quite capable of doing the job -- and in this case, _better_ than >> Windows 7. >> >> Ooo, does that sting yet? >> >>> Solution 2: Run the game under the version of the operating system it >>> was designed for, Windows XP I believe. >> >> Bzzzt. The common argument from the wintrolls is that Win7 supports >> legacy applications better than other OS's. But in the two examples I >> gave, the legacy apps were supported better _on Linux with WINE_. >> >> Strike three, you're outtathere! > > One can only hope. > > But unlikely. 40/41 posts killed. No much out there but invisible > troll thrash/trash, apparently. Buncha k00ks. > Guffaw!!! You read all of the posts. You're just too chickenshit to respond.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-29 18:50 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize |
| Message-ID | <mf9vhp$bip$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286653 |
On 2015-03-29 6:18 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> vallor wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >> >>> On 03/28/2015 04:37 PM, Donald Miller wrote: >>> >>> So there's stupid idea #1: "Old games are no good." Bzzzt. Wrong. >>> >>>> Solution 1: Play Linux games instead. >>> >>> It just burns you up that Linux+WINE made Fallout 3 playable, doesn't it? >>> >>> U Mad, bro? >> >> Mad as a hatter! >> >>> So there's stupid idea #2: (trying to) exclude people from playing a >>> game because of operating system choice -- even when alternate systems >>> are quite capable of doing the job -- and in this case, _better_ than >>> Windows 7. >>> >>> Ooo, does that sting yet? >>> >>>> Solution 2: Run the game under the version of the operating system it >>>> was designed for, Windows XP I believe. >>> >>> Bzzzt. The common argument from the wintrolls is that Win7 supports >>> legacy applications better than other OS's. But in the two examples I >>> gave, the legacy apps were supported better _on Linux with WINE_. >>> >>> Strike three, you're outtathere! >> >> One can only hope. >> >> But unlikely. 40/41 posts killed. No much out there but invisible >> troll thrash/trash, apparently. Buncha k00ks. >> > > Guffaw!!! You read all of the posts. You're just too chickenshit to > respond. Nah, I believe that he indeed filters them. He strikes me as the type of coward who will definitely dish it out but can't take it. So he'll insult everyone but doesn't want to see them defend themselves. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-30 15:40 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize |
| Message-ID | <e5CdnSN69ZJ5X4TInZ2dnUU7-dednZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #286656 |
Slimer wrote: > On 2015-03-29 6:18 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >> Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> >>> vallor wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: >>> >>>> On 03/28/2015 04:37 PM, Donald Miller wrote: >>>> >>>> So there's stupid idea #1: "Old games are no good." Bzzzt. Wrong. >>>> >>>>> Solution 1: Play Linux games instead. >>>> >>>> It just burns you up that Linux+WINE made Fallout 3 playable, doesn't >>>> it? >>>> >>>> U Mad, bro? >>> >>> Mad as a hatter! >>> >>>> So there's stupid idea #2: (trying to) exclude people from playing a >>>> game because of operating system choice -- even when alternate systems >>>> are quite capable of doing the job -- and in this case, _better_ than >>>> Windows 7. >>>> >>>> Ooo, does that sting yet? >>>> >>>>> Solution 2: Run the game under the version of the operating system it >>>>> was designed for, Windows XP I believe. >>>> >>>> Bzzzt. The common argument from the wintrolls is that Win7 supports >>>> legacy applications better than other OS's. But in the two examples I >>>> gave, the legacy apps were supported better _on Linux with WINE_. >>>> >>>> Strike three, you're outtathere! >>> >>> One can only hope. >>> >>> But unlikely. 40/41 posts killed. No much out there but invisible >>> troll thrash/trash, apparently. Buncha k00ks. >>> >> >> Guffaw!!! You read all of the posts. You're just too chickenshit to >> respond. > > Nah, I believe that he indeed filters them. He strikes me as the type of > coward who will definitely dish it out but can't take it. So he'll > insult everyone but doesn't want to see them defend themselves. > Oh, I've caught him a few times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 15:41 -0700 |
| Subject | For Linux-hating trolls: bite a little harder, why don't you? (was Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize |
| Message-ID | <551b2291$0$20160$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #286505 |
On 03/28/2015 04:37 PM, Donald Miller wrote: > On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 16:29:59 -0700, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > >> On 03/25/2015 07:38 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 22:27:58 -0400 >>> Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-03-25 7:25 PM, ronb wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 00:24:00 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:35:47 +0100 Peter Köhlmann >>>>>> <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2015-03-25 6:14 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2015-03-25 5:43 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-03-25 5:00 PM, Ezekiel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:20150325190117.6ff30af2@maxa-pc... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> " The GNOME project has released GNOME 3.16, the latest >>>>>>>>>>>>>> version of GNOME 3. The new version is the result of six >>>>>>>>>>>>>> months work, and includes 33,525 changes by 1043 authors." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeeeeey! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.gnome.org/news/2015/03/gnome-3-16-released-2/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <quote> >>>>>>>>>>>>> History >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> GNOME was started in August 1997 by Miguel de Icaza and >>>>>>>>>>>>> Federico Mena as a free software project to develop a >>>>>>>>>>>>> desktop environment and applications for it </quote> >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Miguel was speaking his mind once and said something that >>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't flattering about Linux. So posers like Ahlstrom who >>>>>>>>>>>>> have never contributed anything to free software now >>>>>>>>>>>>> consider him a traitor. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If I remember correctly, Miguel de Icaza eventually moved on >>>>>>>>>>>> to Mac OS X and abandoned Gnome and Linux entirely. >>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, let's see what Wikipedia has to say: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >>>>> Miguel_de_Icaza#Preference_for_Mac_OS_X_over_Linux> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Preference for Mac OS X over Linux >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In August 2012, de Icaza criticized the Linux desktop as >>>>>>>>>>>> "killed by Apple". De Icaza specifically criticized a >>>>>>>>>>>> generally developer-focused culture, lack of backward >>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility and fragmentation among the various Linux >>>>>>>>>>>> distributions.[18][19] In March 2013, de Icaza announced on >>>>>>>>>>>> his personal blog that he regularly used Mac OS X instead of >>>>>>>>>>>> Linux for desktop computing.[20]" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You know your operating system sucks when even one of its >>>>>>>>>>>> most important developers considers it to be unusable and >>>>>>>>>>>> adopts OS X instead. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Which is really hilarious if he cites "lack of backward >>>>>>>>>>> compatibility and fragmentation" is his reasons. Because OSX >>>>>>>>>>> is of all the OS the worst one in these regards. By a very >>>>>>>>>>> long shot. Even windows is far better in these things. Not to >>>>>>>>>>> mention linux, which is usually far better than windows in >>>>>>>>>>> backwards compatibility >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I agree with you and lack of backward compatibility is one of >>>>>>>>>> the many reasons I dislike anything Apple produces. Linux is >>>>>>>>>> only slightly better than OS X though: it's laughable how many >>>>>>>>>> applications will simply cease to work correctly because you >>>>>>>>>> updated one of the many packages it referred to >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bullshit. Especially in linux it is extremely easy to provide >>>>>>>>> several libraries concurrently. Much easier than in both >>>>>>>>> windows and OSX >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's _so_ hard in Windows that I can install software from the >>>>>>>> 90s or the early 2000s and know that it will work whereas I have >>>>>>>> to wrestle with dependencies in Linux. You clearly haven't used >>>>>>>> Windows since the mid-90s and just make shit up as you go along. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You can even run Windows 3.1 apps in Windows 8 fairly easily. >>>>>>>> Hell, you can use the fucking MS-DOS Executive in Windows 8. You >>>>>>>> can't do that in Linux with apps from that era. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Face it, Klöwn, Windows is better in every imaginable way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have no idea at all about DLL-naming problems in windows >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>>> Windows... >>>>> >>>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP >>>>> because of the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to >>>>> Vista/7/8.x -- so, yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>>> >>>> Funny enough, GTA: San Andreas and Vice City are both Windows XP >>>> games which run fine on Windows 8.1. It's too bad that Melzzzz is too >>>> much of an idiot to get them to run. >>> >>> They both run on Linux under wine no problem with platinum rating... >>> >>> As far as I know, Fallout 3 is >>>> the only one causing any sort of issues. >>>> >>> >>> On wine under Linux it runs flawlessly... >>> I have bought it when game came out ;) >>> >>> >> >> I've talked about this before. Fallout 3 is only one example of "works >> not so well with Windows 7". I've tried all the fixes myself, and still >> can't get it to run properly in Win7 64-bit. This is not for a lack of >> trying -- but with WINE on Linux, I'm good. > > 2008 called and wants their game back. > > Solution 1: Play Linux games instead. > Solution 2: Run the game under the version of the operating system it > was designed for, Windows XP I believe. > > Try telling IBM you need to run some System 370 program from 1975 on > your EC12 machine and see how far you get. > > -- -v Marxist Law of Distribution of Wealth: Shortages will be divided equally among the peasants.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-28 19:48 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize |
| Message-ID | <mf7ej7$meb$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286504 |
vallor wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> On 03/25/2015 07:38 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 22:27:58 -0400
>> Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote:
>>
>> <whatever>
>
> I've talked about this before. Fallout 3 is only one example of "works
> not so well with Windows 7". I've tried all the fixes myself, and still
> can't get it to run properly in Win7 64-bit. This is not for a lack of
> trying -- but with WINE on Linux, I'm good.
>
> Is it possible for me to get it running on Win 7? Possibly with...how
> much work? Meanwhile, all it took to get it working in WINE is to use
> winecfg to set up the environment in such a way that you (and the game)
> are happy with the result.
>
> But this isn't the only game that runs on XP that wouldn't run on Win 7
> 64-bit -- another one was "Independence War", for which I had a
> hankering to play a year or so ago. I tracked down and bought the
> original CD set, thinking I would just install it on Windows and be done
> with it. For whatever reason, the EXE's on the CD I got were 16-bit.
> Windows 7 64-bit did away with support for 16-bit executables.
>
> So you can either downgrade to 32-bit Win7, or do something like this:
>
> http://www.freezenet.ca/guides/compatibility-and-emulation/how-to-play-16-bit-windows-gamesapplications-on-a-64-bit-computer/
>
> ...whose solution is basically, "install Windows 3.1 in a DOSBox, and
> run it there".
>
> Or -- boot Linux and try running it in WINE.
>
> Or -- ignore the CD's and buy it on gog.com. Which is what I should
> have done in the first place. ;)
>
> http://www.gog.com/game/independence_war_deluxe
>
> Anyway, this is all moot now, since I've been eating up time in
> Elite:Dangerous. That, unfortunately, doesn't work in WINE yet -- which
> is a shame, because the sound options available with pulseaudio make
> those in Windows 7 look like a joke.
>
> Hell, last night I was testing my new video server (which is running
> nginx+rtmp module), and wanted to watch the video stream on the same
> machine that was publishing the audio and video. No problem -- shunted
> the sound I wanted published to the video server to a null device, and
> used obs-studio to stream that audio, as well as captured video from
> part of my desktop. Then muted my loopback device that I usually use to
> listen to the null device. Tada -- I was streaming the sound, but only
> hearing it on the playback stream coming from the video server.
>
> Maybe Windows 8.1 or Windows 10 have this kind of flexibility with their
> sound? Windows 7 certainly doesn't, unless you buy Virtual Audio Cable
> -- and even then, there are still limitations if you want sound from
> certain applications to go to a non-default device, without dragging
> everything else along with it. Nor does VAC have the equivalent of a
> pulseaudio loopback device -- you run a separate program called a
> "repeater" to pump audio around. This is more complicated than Linux.
>
> And if anyone knows, on Windows 7, exactly how I can watch a video
> without the audio being rebroadcasted while I'm streaming, "I'd love to
> hear how to do that". Because the only way you could do that with VAC
> is if you had a web browser that lets you set the audio device to be
> non-default (so you can, say, set the output device to a VAC virtual
> device).
>
> (But I've digressed. I'm not sure that the average gamer streams their
> games to twitch.tv, and even fewer are racking their own video server in
> a datacenter cab...)
>
> p.s. Apparently XP had the ability to redirect sound from the game's
> window's menu -- why on earth would they do away with that on Win7?
Old Billious Gatus has your answer:
When Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether the idea
will move the industry forward, they ask, 'how will it help us sell more
copies of Windows?'
-- Bill Gates, The Seattle Weekly, (April 30, 1998)
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're doing about average.
-- Leonard Levinson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-28 22:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize |
| Message-ID | <mf7nnf$7ma$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286512 |
On 3/28/2015 7:48 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Old Billious Gatus has your answer: > > When Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether the idea > will move the industry forward, they ask, 'how will it help us sell more > copies of Windows?' > -- Bill Gates, The Seattle Weekly, (April 30, 1998) Creepy, Why do you Linux creeps think Microsoft ever had responsibility to "move the industry forward"? btw: "Marti, we don't care about Microsoft and its products here." Chris "Little Beaver" Ahlstrom, Oct 2013
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 07:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pjt7hatior5t2pvnmk0016cf50a03oa83r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #286053 |
ronb wrote: > Melzzzzz wrote: >> >> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later Windows... Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP because of >the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x -- so, >yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even that hasn't been a problem, for most people. Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. -- "These whining hypocrites are never happy." - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel", lying shamelessly to attack (claiming advocate "hypocrisy" regarding Apple and CUPS)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 13:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mf0tk7$cah$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286191 |
chrisv wrote: > ronb wrote: > >> Melzzzzz wrote: >>> >>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later Windows... > > Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. It is a blanket statement, but it is also at least partially true >>For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP because of >>the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x -- so, >>yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. > > I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even > that hasn't been a problem, for most people. > > Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. > It has gotten better. But it still isn't working as well as the first 64bit linux versions. The only problems one /could/ encounter then were flash- plugins which could be problematic. And some proprietary drivers which where only available as 32bit versions. Other than that, 64bit worked extremely well in linux from the start Also, the vast majority of software for windows is still 32bits, and 64bit versions is increasing very slowly. Linux software has been the other way around from the start
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 09:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mf11fp$s5i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286194 |
On 2015-03-26 8:22 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > chrisv wrote: > >> ronb wrote: >> >>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>> >>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later Windows... >> >> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. > > It is a blanket statement, but it is also at least partially true > >>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP because of >>> the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x -- so, >>> yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >> >> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >> >> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >> > > It has gotten better. But it still isn't working as well as the first 64bit > linux versions. The only problems one /could/ encounter then were flash- > plugins which could be problematic. And some proprietary drivers which where > only available as 32bit versions. Other than that, 64bit worked extremely > well in linux from the start It didn't, that's yet another lie. In reality, most of what users most desired wasn't even available in the distributions which dared to release a 64-bit edition and for the longest time, most developers kept recommending that users install the 32-bit edition as a result. > Also, the vast majority of software for windows is still 32bits, and 64bit > versions is increasing very slowly. Linux software has been the other way > around from the start Continuing with your lie, as always. The same way that Windows treats 32-bit software is how Linux treats it. Linux users who dared to install the 64-bit editions of Linux needed to make sure that the 32-bit libraries were installed to be able to run their applications. In no way does that prove that Linux "does it better" or that "it was that way from the start." In fact, most recently, when people wanted to install Steam on their 64-bit distributions, things didn't work because users were not aware that they needed the 32-bit libraries. Only once they were installed did the program finally function correctly. Yet another one of your lies refuted. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 14:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <cdidnbByQ4O59YnInZ2dnUU7-amdnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #286194 |
Peter Köhlmann wrote: > chrisv wrote: > >> ronb wrote: >> >>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>> >>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>> Windows... >> >> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. > > It is a blanket statement, but it is also at least partially true > >>>For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP because of >>>the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x -- so, >>>yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >> >> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >> >> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >> > > It has gotten better. But it still isn't working as well as the first > 64bit linux versions. The only problems one /could/ encounter then were > flash- plugins which could be problematic. And some proprietary drivers > which where only available as 32bit versions. Other than that, 64bit > worked extremely well in linux from the start > > Also, the vast majority of software for windows is still 32bits, and 64bit > versions is increasing very slowly. Linux software has been the other way > around from the start Bunk. Linux is a pile of crap for lusers like you that can't afford a hamburger.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 12:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmh8f5q.2d5.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #286191 |
On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> ronb wrote:
>
>> Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>
>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later Windows...
>
> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct.
>
>>For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP because of
>>the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x -- so,
>>yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit.
>
> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even
> that hasn't been a problem, for most people.
>
> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department.
No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit of a
pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate Linux more.
--
"If I give you a pfennig, you will be one pfennig richer and
I'll be one pfennig poorer. But if I give you an idea, you will |||
have a new idea, but I shall still have it, too." / | \
~ Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 17:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mf1to6$q03$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286253 |
On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> ronb wrote: >> >>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>> >>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later Windows... >> >> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >> >>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP because of >>> the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x -- so, >>> yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >> >> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >> >> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. > > No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit of a > pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate Linux more. Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. You're an idiot, JEDIDUMBASS. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 23:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mf200d$42s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286301 |
Slimer wrote: > On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> ronb wrote: >>> >>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>> Windows... >>> >>> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >>> >>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP because >>>> of the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x >>>> -- so, yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>> >>> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >>> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >>> >>> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >> >> No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit of >> a >> pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate Linux more. > > Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. > > You're an idiot, JEDIDUMBASS. > Well, actually quite a lot. For example, all of those which bring their own driver. If you have only a 32bit driver, you are *totally* out of luck. And that is also the area in 64bit windows which has some gaping holes. Lots of devices which ran in 32bit windows will cease to work with 64bit windows And this is also one of the areas where MS is standing in its own way. They changed the driver model several times with the new windows versions. Meaning that you can't rely on a driver to work in the newer windows
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 20:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mf2910$7n3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286308 |
On 2015-03-26 6:09 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Slimer wrote: > >> On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> ronb wrote: >>>> >>>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>>> Windows... >>>> >>>> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >>>> >>>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP because >>>>> of the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x >>>>> -- so, yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>>> >>>> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >>>> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >>>> >>>> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >>> >>> No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit of >>> a >>> pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate Linux more. >> >> Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. >> >> You're an idiot, JEDIDUMBASS. >> > > Well, actually quite a lot. For example, all of those which bring their own > driver. If you have only a 32bit driver, you are *totally* out of luck. > > And that is also the area in 64bit windows which has some gaping holes. Lots > of devices which ran in 32bit windows will cease to work with 64bit windows > > And this is also one of the areas where MS is standing in its own way. They > changed the driver model several times with the new windows versions. > Meaning that you can't rely on a driver to work in the newer windows The hardware drivers I agree with you. It's very sad how Windows can't keep support for a device which was already supported at some point in the operating system's history. That's where Linux is a lot better than Windows in that if the driver is available in free software form, it is included in the kernel and works forever. I _wish_ Windows would be the same in this respect but I imagine that manufacturers are happy that the loss of support means that they sell more hardware as a result of people replacing perfectly good devices. As for the 32-bit driver, you bring up an excellent point. However, we're no longer talking purely about software as much as talking about software+hardware. After all, even if it's virtual hardware, that software is essentially calling for some sort of device in other to function correctly. In those conditions, I'm not surprised that the software would cease to work in the 32 to 64-bit transition. I'm not sure if this constitutes as a goal post move but it sure seems that way. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web