Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #290026 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-16 09:03 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-04-16 08:29 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 362 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-16 09:03 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-16 09:05 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-17 11:00 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-17 08:59 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-17 15:28 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-17 12:35 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-17 18:45 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-17 14:47 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-17 21:27 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-17 21:05 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-18 11:12 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-18 10:23 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-18 17:30 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-18 08:42 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-18 17:50 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-18 09:15 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-18 12:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-18 12:45 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-18 14:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-18 20:28 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-18 15:24 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-21 11:25 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-21 10:48 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-21 08:44 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-21 12:50 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-21 12:05 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-21 12:37 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-21 08:44 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-21 08:30 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-21 11:40 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-21 12:42 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-21 07:18 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-21 14:37 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-21 09:54 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-21 12:05 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-21 12:46 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-21 13:41 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-21 14:53 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-21 12:22 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-21 16:43 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-21 13:58 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-21 14:04 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-23 22:31 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 21:36 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 01:28 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-21 20:56 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-21 14:51 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-22 08:06 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-22 09:20 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-21 23:11 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-21 18:28 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-21 18:54 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-21 21:00 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 10:09 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-23 12:44 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-23 23:24 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 01:19 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-23 21:42 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-23 21:03 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-23 22:41 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:41 -0600
Then how come the landfill is full of tossed out Linux dvds? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:40 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 09:44 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-23 22:38 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 09:05 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 11:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 12:14 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-25 09:19 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-25 11:13 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-27 08:58 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-27 09:14 -0400
FUD #3! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:39 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 09:37 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-21 20:21 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-21 20:43 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-22 07:19 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 10:13 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 11:29 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-23 05:57 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 11:29 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 12:49 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-23 12:06 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 13:39 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 08:49 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 17:41 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 09:48 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 09:16 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 16:31 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 20:13 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 14:56 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-25 00:10 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 15:16 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-25 00:21 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 15:28 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-27 10:08 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 08:59 -0700
Oh, like your lies? GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-04-27 11:08 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-23 07:04 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 12:11 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-23 08:50 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 11:36 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-23 11:54 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 12:16 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-23 06:49 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 13:45 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 17:43 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 17:39 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-23 12:45 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 18:22 +0000
LOL!!! Will it replace your missing braincell? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:38 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 01:21 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 09:51 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-23 08:43 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 15:33 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 17:25 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 08:48 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-23 12:46 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 10:21 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 10:01 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 09:26 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 08:59 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 10:36 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-24 13:45 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 11:24 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 14:34 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 17:44 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 20:14 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-23 12:42 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 09:52 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 10:12 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 10:03 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-23 08:42 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-21 20:42 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-21 13:59 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-21 17:05 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-23 10:05 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 11:28 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 17:37 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 11:02 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 20:13 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 18:25 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-23 15:39 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 01:26 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 18:40 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:37 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 10:12 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:32 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 01:32 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 10:14 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 10:29 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 11:16 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-24 12:27 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-24 13:17 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-24 16:09 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-25 09:17 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-25 13:02 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-27 09:08 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-27 06:41 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-24 16:00 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 09:12 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-24 12:26 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 17:41 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 14:58 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 18:20 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 15:30 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-24 15:59 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-24 18:25 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-25 09:18 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-25 11:07 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 10:05 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 11:32 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-24 06:38 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 13:15 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 14:38 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-24 09:08 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-24 12:10 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 20:16 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 22:45 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-24 07:59 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 20:15 +0000
RonB: Obsessed with Apple and windows for over 20 years. Get a life. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-24 15:57 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-24 09:28 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-24 06:46 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 20:11 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 12:41 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 09:02 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 12:40 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-27 09:05 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 16:37 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-27 13:13 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-27 07:27 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-27 08:48 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 16:40 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-27 10:04 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 16:43 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-27 18:22 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 09:36 -0700
More ignorance and FUD by you. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:30 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-23 14:38 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-23 20:46 -0500
Real UNIX works properly. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:29 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 12:36 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 22:42 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 01:19 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-23 21:40 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-23 21:01 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-23 22:34 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:29 -0600
More FUD. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:28 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 10:16 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 11:28 +0200
Flounder thinks Joe Sixpack knows "restore points" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-24 06:02 -0400
Re: Flounder thinks Joe Sixpack knows "restore points" Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 11:23 +0100
Re: Flounder thinks Joe Sixpack knows "restore points" Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 13:21 +0200
Re: Flounder thinks Joe Sixpack knows "restore points" JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-27 10:12 -0500
Re: Flounder thinks Joe Sixpack knows "restore points" Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 16:46 +0100
Re: Flounder thinks Joe Sixpack knows "restore points" Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-27 13:15 -0400
Re: Flounder thinks Joe Sixpack knows "restore points" ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-27 16:06 +0000
No, you can't. You lie yet again. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-04-27 11:08 -0600
Quit lying, JED. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-04-27 11:07 -0600
Re: Flounder thinks Joe Sixpack knows "restore points" DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-28 07:31 -0400
FUD #2! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:27 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-23 22:32 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-23 12:48 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 18:20 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 13:25 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 22:41 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 13:58 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 23:00 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 14:08 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-23 23:17 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 14:42 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-23 20:23 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 18:17 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 01:18 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 18:27 -0700
But where is your life? GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:26 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-23 20:49 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 02:41 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 19:50 -0700
Yet windows is CERNS new default OS. LOL!!! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:26 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 11:42 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-27 10:40 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 09:02 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-27 12:44 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 09:49 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-27 16:54 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 10:07 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-27 12:23 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-27 19:31 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 10:45 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 10:45 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-27 17:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 14:32 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-27 17:59 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-27 18:25 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 17:27 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-28 00:05 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 17:23 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-28 09:04 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-28 07:53 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-28 07:06 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-28 08:48 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-28 20:42 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-28 11:51 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-28 14:02 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-28 13:16 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-28 14:16 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-29 07:46 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-29 08:03 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-28 00:07 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 17:21 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-28 10:23 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-28 06:21 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-28 08:07 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-28 07:50 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-27 13:24 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 11:51 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-27 19:33 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 12:52 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-27 19:31 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-27 19:50 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-27 20:02 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-27 20:07 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-27 20:13 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-27 20:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-27 20:23 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-27 20:28 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-27 20:38 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 18:14 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-28 12:46 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-28 11:25 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-04-28 12:51 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-28 20:01 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-28 20:37 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-28 19:15 -0700
What way is that, Turdv? Viewing porn? GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-04-27 11:10 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 01:13 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 18:30 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:25 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 11:46 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-24 07:03 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-24 08:51 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 20:31 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 12:49 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-27 10:07 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-27 13:11 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 12:43 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-27 09:01 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-23 20:13 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 18:19 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 11:48 +0100
More FUD! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:24 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-23 21:24 -0600
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 10:19 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-24 11:24 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-24 10:49 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 11:49 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-24 06:10 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-24 11:53 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-24 07:06 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-24 12:08 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-04-24 09:58 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 12:50 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-27 10:00 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-27 10:33 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-04-27 16:58 +0100
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-27 12:56 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-21 12:39 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-18 16:18 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-19 11:04 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-19 18:50 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-19 16:48 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 09:43 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-20 18:47 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 10:20 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-20 21:10 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-20 12:18 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-20 17:10 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-20 14:20 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 19:28 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-20 12:31 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-20 15:37 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-20 12:55 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-20 17:07 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-20 11:31 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-18 15:17 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 00:30 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-19 17:49 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-20 09:49 +0200
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-20 08:13 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-20 11:15 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-20 08:22 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 09:52 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-18 12:05 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-17 12:43 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-17 08:28 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-16 09:26 -0500
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-16 11:43 -0400
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 15:02 +0000
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-16 08:08 -0700
Re: ext4 vs btrfs - a new winner! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 08:29 -0700
Page 16 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 Next page →
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 11:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhd6rq$6qn$2@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #291222 |
On 24/04/2015 02:13, ronb wrote: > On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:41:51 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >>> Why do you feel the need to re-install Windows? I never get that urge. >>> Weird. >>> >>> >> You run it in a VM. You restart from a older version > > To Snit ... I don't feel any need to re-install Windows for myself. I > don't use it. But, unfortunately, others (friends and relatives) still > use it and, despite my best advice, they still want to run it even after > it crashes for the umpteenth time. So I reinstall it for them since > that's the only way to get it to work. If Linux is so great and perfect for you and free, why have you completely and utterly failed to persuade your friends and family to switch. Could it be that Linux Desktop just doesn't replace Windows. I mean why would anyone not want a free operating system for life instead of buying one? ;-) Seriously if a Linux Advocate can't persuade his own friends and famnily to switch what chance is there of getting it into a larger market? I call bullshit on your claims.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 07:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <553a4d20$0$16697$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #291322 |
On 04/24/2015 03:46 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: > On 24/04/2015 02:13, ronb wrote: >> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:41:51 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >>>> Why do you feel the need to re-install Windows? I never get that urge. >>>> Weird. >>>> >>>> >>> You run it in a VM. You restart from a older version >> >> To Snit ... I don't feel any need to re-install Windows for myself. I >> don't use it. But, unfortunately, others (friends and relatives) still >> use it and, despite my best advice, they still want to run it even after >> it crashes for the umpteenth time. So I reinstall it for them since >> that's the only way to get it to work. > > If Linux is so great and perfect for you and free, why have you > completely and utterly failed to persuade your friends and family to > switch. Could it be that Linux Desktop just doesn't replace Windows. I > mean why would anyone not want a free operating system for life instead > of buying one? ;-) > > Seriously if a Linux Advocate can't persuade his own friends and famnily > to switch what chance is there of getting it into a larger market? > > I call bullshit on your claims. > And I call bullshit on yours. Ronb is a Linux advocate. That doesn't make him a zealot like you. Same goes for me. I'd rather my family used Linux, but I'm not a zealot. For example, I've convinced my wife to use a Mac mini and a Macbook Air -- which means, when I have to maintain them, I'm dealing with Unix systems (and not ersatz VMS systems). You have to take a long, hard look in the mirror, and decide just how OS (and software) agnostic you really are. What would it take for you to realize that LibreOffice more than exceeds the needs of many business users? "Nobody ever got fired for recommending Microsoft." ... right? -- -v There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum. -- Arthur C. Clarke
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 08:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D15FB4AB.4AB9E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #291380 |
On 4/24/15, 7:03 AM, in article 553a4d20$0$16697$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com, "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > On 04/24/2015 03:46 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: >> On 24/04/2015 02:13, ronb wrote: >>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:41:51 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> >>>>> Why do you feel the need to re-install Windows? I never get that urge. >>>>> Weird. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> You run it in a VM. You restart from a older version >>> >>> To Snit ... I don't feel any need to re-install Windows for myself. I >>> don't use it. But, unfortunately, others (friends and relatives) still >>> use it and, despite my best advice, they still want to run it even after >>> it crashes for the umpteenth time. So I reinstall it for them since >>> that's the only way to get it to work. >> >> If Linux is so great and perfect for you and free, why have you >> completely and utterly failed to persuade your friends and family to >> switch. Could it be that Linux Desktop just doesn't replace Windows. I >> mean why would anyone not want a free operating system for life instead >> of buying one? ;-) >> >> Seriously if a Linux Advocate can't persuade his own friends and famnily >> to switch what chance is there of getting it into a larger market? >> >> I call bullshit on your claims. >> > > And I call bullshit on yours. > > Ronb is a Linux advocate. When? Really? He mostly talks about his imaginary friends and belittles others. When does he advocate Linux? > That doesn't make him a zealot like you. > > Same goes for me. I'd rather my family used Linux, but I'm not a > zealot. For example, I've convinced my wife to use a Mac mini and a > Macbook Air -- which means, when I have to maintain them, I'm dealing > with Unix systems (and not ersatz VMS systems). Curious: why did you push them toward Macs? > You have to take a long, hard look in the mirror, and decide just how OS > (and software) agnostic you really are. What would it take for you to > realize that LibreOffice more than exceeds the needs of many business users? It is good enough for many business needs. Still not in the same class as MS Office, but good enough and a lot cheaper. > "Nobody ever got fired for recommending Microsoft." ... right? -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * 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> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 20:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mhe97r$7g8$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #291380 |
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:03:11 -0700, vallor wrote: > Ronb is a Linux advocate. That doesn't make him a zealot like you. > > Same goes for me. I'd rather my family used Linux, but I'm not a > zealot. For example, I've convinced my wife to use a Mac mini and a > Macbook Air -- > which means, when I have to maintain them, I'm dealing with Unix systems > (and not ersatz VMS systems). My kids play games. I've already mentioned here -- several times -- that when someone asks me about Linux, the first question I ask is, "do you like to play PC games?" If they say yes, I tell them that they probably want to stick with Windows. Not that Windows is better, it's just that these game makers (the majority of them anyhow) don't support Linux. As for my wife, she uses a professional and specialized Power Point presentation for her classes. Again, it's not that this couldn't have been written for LibreOffice, it just wasn't. I've also mentioned here -- several times -- that if you have specialized Office macros, etc., than you have a good reason to stick with Windows (and work through its numerous issues in the bargain). I, on the other hand, have zero reasons to use M$ Office and I don't play games on my computer. They're are a lot of computer users like me who could benefit by using the vastly superior, much more stable Linux Desktop. My Dad is just one example. Since I sent him his first Linux machine, my support issues for him have almost disappeared -- it was a constant hassle to try to keep his Windows machine running. Of course, actually looking at the fact of each case takes a little more brain-power than does mindlessly spouting the WinDrone FUD, but it's much more honest. -- To WinDrones and iCultists obsessed with Linux. Get a life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-27 12:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhl7lo$vu7$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #291473 |
On 24/04/2015 21:31, ronb wrote: > On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:03:11 -0700, vallor wrote: > >> Ronb is a Linux advocate. That doesn't make him a zealot like you. >> >> Same goes for me. I'd rather my family used Linux, but I'm not a >> zealot. For example, I've convinced my wife to use a Mac mini and a >> Macbook Air -- >> which means, when I have to maintain them, I'm dealing with Unix systems >> (and not ersatz VMS systems). > > My kids play games. I've already mentioned here -- several times -- that > when someone asks me about Linux, the first question I ask is, "do you > like to play PC games?" If they say yes, I tell them that they probably > want to stick with Windows. Not that Windows is better, it's just that > these game makers (the majority of them anyhow) don't support Linux. Good attitude, chose the right OS for the job. I commend you. > As for my wife, she uses a professional and specialized Power Point > presentation for her classes. Again, it's not that this couldn't have > been written for LibreOffice, it just wasn't. I've also mentioned here -- > several times -- that if you have specialized Office macros, etc., than > you have a good reason to stick with Windows (and work through its > numerous issues in the bargain). Again I agree, apart from the numerous issues part. Your experience with Windows issues is a universe apart from what I've seen working as an IT professional for many years in the corporate environment. > > I, on the other hand, have zero reasons to use M$ Office and I don't play > games on my computer. They're are a lot of computer users like me who > could benefit by using the vastly superior, much more stable Linux Any operating system can be configured to be unstable or stable, it depends who's doing the configuring and what their attitude to the OS is. Strangely it's always the Linux zealots who seem to have the most issues with Windows yet I sit on the fence with OS's, I run Macs and PCs at home, Windows at work and a mixture of Windows, Linux and Mac in that order at client sites, I'd say they are pretty much all equal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-27 10:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmjsk5i.ejo.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #291473 |
On 2015-04-24, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:03:11 -0700, vallor wrote:
>
>> Ronb is a Linux advocate. That doesn't make him a zealot like you.
>>
>> Same goes for me. I'd rather my family used Linux, but I'm not a
>> zealot. For example, I've convinced my wife to use a Mac mini and a
>> Macbook Air --
>> which means, when I have to maintain them, I'm dealing with Unix systems
>> (and not ersatz VMS systems).
>
> My kids play games. I've already mentioned here -- several times -- that
> when someone asks me about Linux, the first question I ask is, "do you
> like to play PC games?" If they say yes, I tell them that they probably
...not necessarily true anymore.
Although any gains made by Linux in this area likely also apply to the
Mac as the big industry entity pushing for Linux here seems to be pushing
for platform independence in general.
Plus the indies were more accomodating of things not-DOS even before...
[deletia]
--
This is a consumer product. |||
World domination simply isn't necessary. / | \
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-27 13:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mhlqhs$f51$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #291785 |
On 2015-04-27 11:07 AM, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-04-24, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 07:03:11 -0700, vallor wrote: >> >>> Ronb is a Linux advocate. That doesn't make him a zealot like you. >>> >>> Same goes for me. I'd rather my family used Linux, but I'm not a >>> zealot. For example, I've convinced my wife to use a Mac mini and a >>> Macbook Air -- >>> which means, when I have to maintain them, I'm dealing with Unix systems >>> (and not ersatz VMS systems). >> >> My kids play games. I've already mentioned here -- several times -- that >> when someone asks me about Linux, the first question I ask is, "do you >> like to play PC games?" If they say yes, I tell them that they probably > > ...not necessarily true anymore. Despite the fact that the gaming situation is improving on Linux, using Windows still ensures that ALL of the games become available to you. It's nice that Linux has a few excellent titles but the selection is still mostly pathetic and people have to suffer through numerous issues such as the screen tearing I faced during the summer. > Although any gains made by Linux in this area likely also apply to the > Mac as the big industry entity pushing for Linux here seems to be pushing > for platform independence in general. > > Plus the indies were more accomodating of things not-DOS even before... The indies have no choice but to support Linux as they know that their titles would be drowned out by higher-quality software on the Windows side. Linux users tend to buy the 1980s-style games, not so with Windows users who can easily pay the same amount for an older title in the Assassin's Creed or Far Cry series. -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-27 12:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhl7a8$tk2$3@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #291380 |
On 24/04/2015 15:03, vallor wrote: > On 04/24/2015 03:46 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: >> On 24/04/2015 02:13, ronb wrote: >>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:41:51 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> >>>>> Why do you feel the need to re-install Windows? I never get that urge. >>>>> Weird. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> You run it in a VM. You restart from a older version >>> >>> To Snit ... I don't feel any need to re-install Windows for myself. I >>> don't use it. But, unfortunately, others (friends and relatives) still >>> use it and, despite my best advice, they still want to run it even after >>> it crashes for the umpteenth time. So I reinstall it for them since >>> that's the only way to get it to work. >> >> If Linux is so great and perfect for you and free, why have you >> completely and utterly failed to persuade your friends and family to >> switch. Could it be that Linux Desktop just doesn't replace Windows. I >> mean why would anyone not want a free operating system for life instead >> of buying one? ;-) >> >> Seriously if a Linux Advocate can't persuade his own friends and famnily >> to switch what chance is there of getting it into a larger market? >> >> I call bullshit on your claims. >> > > And I call bullshit on yours. > > Ronb is a Linux advocate. That doesn't make him a zealot like you. > > Same goes for me. I'd rather my family used Linux, but I'm not a > zealot. For example, I've convinced my wife to use a Mac mini and a > Macbook Air -- which means, when I have to maintain them, I'm dealing > with Unix systems (and not ersatz VMS systems). > > You have to take a long, hard look in the mirror, and decide just how OS > (and software) agnostic you really are. What would it take for you to > realize that LibreOffice more than exceeds the needs of many business users? > > "Nobody ever got fired for recommending Microsoft." ... right? > I'm OS agnostic. We use what's right for the job, Linux Desktop isn't ready for the big time but I'll sure as hell recommend it and run it for servers and I do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-27 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D163AB4C.4AD96%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #291751 |
On 4/27/15, 4:43 AM, in article mhl7a8$tk2$3@deskrabbit.motzarella.org, "Desk Rabbit" <me@example.com> wrote: > On 24/04/2015 15:03, vallor wrote: >> On 04/24/2015 03:46 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote: >>> On 24/04/2015 02:13, ronb wrote: >>>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:41:51 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Why do you feel the need to re-install Windows? I never get that urge. >>>>>> Weird. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> You run it in a VM. You restart from a older version >>>> >>>> To Snit ... I don't feel any need to re-install Windows for myself. I >>>> don't use it. But, unfortunately, others (friends and relatives) still >>>> use it and, despite my best advice, they still want to run it even after >>>> it crashes for the umpteenth time. So I reinstall it for them since >>>> that's the only way to get it to work. >>> >>> If Linux is so great and perfect for you and free, why have you >>> completely and utterly failed to persuade your friends and family to >>> switch. Could it be that Linux Desktop just doesn't replace Windows. I >>> mean why would anyone not want a free operating system for life instead >>> of buying one? ;-) >>> >>> Seriously if a Linux Advocate can't persuade his own friends and famnily >>> to switch what chance is there of getting it into a larger market? >>> >>> I call bullshit on your claims. >>> >> >> And I call bullshit on yours. >> >> Ronb is a Linux advocate. That doesn't make him a zealot like you. >> >> Same goes for me. I'd rather my family used Linux, but I'm not a >> zealot. For example, I've convinced my wife to use a Mac mini and a >> Macbook Air -- which means, when I have to maintain them, I'm dealing >> with Unix systems (and not ersatz VMS systems). >> >> You have to take a long, hard look in the mirror, and decide just how OS >> (and software) agnostic you really are. What would it take for you to >> realize that LibreOffice more than exceeds the needs of many business users? >> >> "Nobody ever got fired for recommending Microsoft." ... right? >> > > I'm OS agnostic. We use what's right for the job, Linux Desktop isn't > ready for the big time but I'll sure as hell recommend it and run it for > servers and I do. Ditto here. For many of the "advocates", though, if you do not think Linux is the best solution for all problems you are anti-Linux and a troll. And they say that as they admit their families have opted for other solutions. Just insanity. -- * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * 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> * Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 20:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mhc1pj$5bf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #291190 |
On 2015-04-23 4:25 PM, Snit wrote: > On 4/23/15, 11:20 AM, in article mhbd5m$l80$1@dont-email.me, "ronb" > <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:48:47 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> >>> In Linux you don't have to worry. The OS is not an ill begotten >>> festering >>> pile of crap that's always been a festering pile of crap that can't >>> quite seem to escape from itself. >>> >>> User data is easy to preserve (unlike windows) and the rest is easily >>> recreated from scratch. >> >> Yep. No need to waste your time with "restore points" that just delay the >> inevitable reinstall anyhow. > > Why do you feel the need to re-install Windows? I never get that urge. > Weird. I have yet to feel the need to re-install Windows 8... it just works. -- Slimer Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 18:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D15EE815.4AAD6%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #291213 |
On 4/23/15, 5:13 PM, in article mhc1pj$5bf$1@dont-email.me, "Slimer"
<slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote:
> On 2015-04-23 4:25 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 4/23/15, 11:20 AM, in article mhbd5m$l80$1@dont-email.me, "ronb"
>> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:48:47 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>> In Linux you don't have to worry. The OS is not an ill begotten
>>>> festering
>>>> pile of crap that's always been a festering pile of crap that can't
>>>> quite seem to escape from itself.
>>>>
>>>> User data is easy to preserve (unlike windows) and the rest is easily
>>>> recreated from scratch.
>>>
>>> Yep. No need to waste your time with "restore points" that just delay the
>>> inevitable reinstall anyhow.
>>
>> Why do you feel the need to re-install Windows? I never get that urge.
>> Weird.
>
> I have yet to feel the need to re-install Windows 8... it just works.
And then Ahlstrom feels the need to lie about the above:
-----
Notice how Snit takes Ron's statement, which is about the
time-wasting nature of "restore points" in Windows, and turns it
into a statement that Ron feels the need to install Windows...
when Ron has clearly stated he has not used Windows in years, and
has no intention of using.
-----
The herd is unable to not defend its own... even with lies.
--
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* 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>
* Mavericks / Pages 5.1: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 11:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhd6vl$6qn$3@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #291213 |
On 24/04/2015 01:13, Slimer wrote: > On 2015-04-23 4:25 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 4/23/15, 11:20 AM, in article mhbd5m$l80$1@dont-email.me, "ronb" >> <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:48:47 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> >>>> In Linux you don't have to worry. The OS is not an ill begotten >>>> festering >>>> pile of crap that's always been a festering pile of crap that can't >>>> quite seem to escape from itself. >>>> >>>> User data is easy to preserve (unlike windows) and the rest is >>>> easily >>>> recreated from scratch. >>> >>> Yep. No need to waste your time with "restore points" that just delay >>> the >>> inevitable reinstall anyhow. >> >> Why do you feel the need to re-install Windows? I never get that urge. >> Weird. > > I have yet to feel the need to re-install Windows 8... it just works. > Hundreds of Windows machines monitored by us not needing a re-install. In fact we often have to remind users to power cycle their PCs as they stay on for so long!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 21:24 -0600 |
| Subject | More FUD! |
| Message-ID | <TKOdnTUGrJTzKqTInZ2dnUU7-QudnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #291163 |
ronb wrote: > On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:48:47 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote: > >> In Linux you don't have to worry. The OS is not an ill begotten >> festering >> pile of crap that's always been a festering pile of crap that can't >> quite seem to escape from itself. >> >> User data is easy to preserve (unlike windows) and the rest is easily >> recreated from scratch. > > Yep. No need to waste your time with "restore points" that just delay the > inevitable reinstall anyhow. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-23 21:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <TKOdnToGrJTEKqTInZ2dnUU7-QudnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #291146 |
JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-04-23, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> Desk Rabbit wrote: >> >>> On 21/04/2015 18:05, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>> On 2015-04-21, Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:37:08 +0100, Desk Rabbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 21/04/2015 13:18, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Slime wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, if it were indeed stable and happened to be an option at >>>>>>>>> install time in every distribution, one would have to actually >>>>>>>>> know what it is to choose it. Nothing in its name suggests that it >>>>>>>>> is either faster or more functional than ext4 is. A user would >>>>>>>>> have to learn about it first and THEN choose to install it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "For an intelligent choice of filesystem to be made, some research >>>>>>> must first be done." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Duuhhhh.... >>>>>> >>>>>> And that's a perfect example of why Linux Desktop isn't making >>>>>> inroads into general PC usage. The requirement to learn so much >>>>>> technical information to make an informed choice on a device you just >>>>>> want to get some work done on. >>>>> >>>>> You speak the truth. >>>>> >>>>>> Can you imagine a new brand of car being launched that required the >>>>>> purchaser to have an intimate knowledge of all the mechanics involved >>>>>> in operating and maintaining a car? How many do you think would sell >>>>>> to your average motorist who wants to get himself or his family from >>>>>> A to B quickly and safely? Probably the same 1% that Linux sees at >>>>>> the moment. >>>>> >>>>> They are known as kit cars and arrive in boxes with instructions on >>>>> how to assemble them. >>>>> Great for hobbyists and enthusiasts. >>>>> Horrible for the other 99 percent of car owners. >>>>> Much like Linux. >>>> >>>> The same comparison can be drawn for end users. >>>> >>>> Most people have no interesting requirements for computers. For >>>> them >>>> what they really need is something that's reliable and doesn't implode >>>> in on itself just do to daily use. >>>> >>>> All of the nonense that you trolls like to bring up (like this >>>> entire >>>> thread) is largely irrelevant to the common user. >>>> >>>> [deletia] >>>> >>>> As far as this subject in particular goes, Linux is no more a "kit >>>> car" >>>> than Windows is. There are multiple options available each with their >>>> own uses. You probably don't have to be concerned about the different >>>> choices >>> >>> I agree but at least with Windows there are sensible default choices. In >>> the case of the particular discussion we were having, the default in >>> Windows is to enable restore points. With Linux Desktop Linux you might >>> as well flip a coin. > > In Linux you don't have to worry. The OS is not an ill begotten > festering > pile of crap that's always been a festering pile of crap that can't quite > seem to escape from itself. > > User data is easy to preserve (unlike windows) and the rest is easily > recreated from scratch. > Don't use junk hardware. Never had any data loss in over three years on this HP Tower.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 10:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhd1pg$lfk$4@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #291146 |
On 23/04/2015 18:48, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-04-23, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> Desk Rabbit wrote: >> >>> On 21/04/2015 18:05, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>> On 2015-04-21, Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:37:08 +0100, Desk Rabbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 21/04/2015 13:18, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Slime wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> However, if it were indeed stable and happened to be an option at >>>>>>>>> install time in every distribution, one would have to actually know >>>>>>>>> what it is to choose it. Nothing in its name suggests that it is >>>>>>>>> either faster or more functional than ext4 is. A user would have to >>>>>>>>> learn about it first and THEN choose to install it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "For an intelligent choice of filesystem to be made, some research >>>>>>> must first be done." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Duuhhhh.... >>>>>> >>>>>> And that's a perfect example of why Linux Desktop isn't making inroads >>>>>> into general PC usage. The requirement to learn so much technical >>>>>> information to make an informed choice on a device you just want to get >>>>>> some work done on. >>>>> >>>>> You speak the truth. >>>>> >>>>>> Can you imagine a new brand of car being launched that required the >>>>>> purchaser to have an intimate knowledge of all the mechanics involved >>>>>> in operating and maintaining a car? How many do you think would sell to >>>>>> your average motorist who wants to get himself or his family from A to >>>>>> B quickly and safely? Probably the same 1% that Linux sees at the >>>>>> moment. >>>>> >>>>> They are known as kit cars and arrive in boxes with instructions on >>>>> how to assemble them. >>>>> Great for hobbyists and enthusiasts. >>>>> Horrible for the other 99 percent of car owners. >>>>> Much like Linux. >>>> >>>> The same comparison can be drawn for end users. >>>> >>>> Most people have no interesting requirements for computers. For them >>>> what they really need is something that's reliable and doesn't implode in >>>> on itself just do to daily use. >>>> >>>> All of the nonense that you trolls like to bring up (like this >>>> entire >>>> thread) is largely irrelevant to the common user. >>>> >>>> [deletia] >>>> >>>> As far as this subject in particular goes, Linux is no more a "kit >>>> car" >>>> than Windows is. There are multiple options available each with their own >>>> uses. You probably don't have to be concerned about the different choices >>> >>> I agree but at least with Windows there are sensible default choices. In >>> the case of the particular discussion we were having, the default in >>> Windows is to enable restore points. With Linux Desktop Linux you might >>> as well flip a coin. > > In Linux you don't have to worry. The OS is not an ill begotten festering > pile of crap that's always been a festering pile of crap that can't quite > seem to escape from itself. > > User data is easy to preserve (unlike windows) and the rest is easily recreated from scratch. > Yet this festering pile of crap as you put it has dominated the market for years while it's free and allegedly superior OS languishes at 1% share.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 11:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mhd233$nov$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #291308 |
Desk Rabbit wrote: > On 23/04/2015 18:48, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> On 2015-04-23, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >>> Desk Rabbit wrote: >>> >>>> On 21/04/2015 18:05, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>>> On 2015-04-21, Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:37:08 +0100, Desk Rabbit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 21/04/2015 13:18, chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Slime wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> However, if it were indeed stable and happened to be an option at >>>>>>>>>> install time in every distribution, one would have to actually >>>>>>>>>> know what it is to choose it. Nothing in its name suggests that >>>>>>>>>> it is either faster or more functional than ext4 is. A user would >>>>>>>>>> have to learn about it first and THEN choose to install it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "For an intelligent choice of filesystem to be made, some research >>>>>>>> must first be done." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Duuhhhh.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And that's a perfect example of why Linux Desktop isn't making >>>>>>> inroads into general PC usage. The requirement to learn so much >>>>>>> technical information to make an informed choice on a device you >>>>>>> just want to get some work done on. >>>>>> >>>>>> You speak the truth. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you imagine a new brand of car being launched that required the >>>>>>> purchaser to have an intimate knowledge of all the mechanics >>>>>>> involved in operating and maintaining a car? How many do you think >>>>>>> would sell to your average motorist who wants to get himself or his >>>>>>> family from A to B quickly and safely? Probably the same 1% that >>>>>>> Linux sees at the moment. >>>>>> >>>>>> They are known as kit cars and arrive in boxes with instructions on >>>>>> how to assemble them. >>>>>> Great for hobbyists and enthusiasts. >>>>>> Horrible for the other 99 percent of car owners. >>>>>> Much like Linux. >>>>> >>>>> The same comparison can be drawn for end users. >>>>> >>>>> Most people have no interesting requirements for computers. For >>>>> them >>>>> what they really need is something that's reliable and doesn't implode >>>>> in on itself just do to daily use. >>>>> >>>>> All of the nonense that you trolls like to bring up (like this >>>>> entire >>>>> thread) is largely irrelevant to the common user. >>>>> >>>>> [deletia] >>>>> >>>>> As far as this subject in particular goes, Linux is no more a >>>>> "kit car" >>>>> than Windows is. There are multiple options available each with their >>>>> own uses. You probably don't have to be concerned about the different >>>>> choices >>>> >>>> I agree but at least with Windows there are sensible default choices. >>>> In the case of the particular discussion we were having, the default in >>>> Windows is to enable restore points. With Linux Desktop Linux you might >>>> as well flip a coin. >> >> In Linux you don't have to worry. The OS is not an ill begotten >> festering >> pile of crap that's always been a festering pile of crap that can't quite >> seem to escape from itself. >> >> User data is easy to preserve (unlike windows) and the rest is easily >> recreated from scratch. >> > > Yet this festering pile of crap as you put it I am certain that he would not willingly insult the "real festering pile of crap" by comparing it to windows. The problem is, normal language lacks the appropriate descriptions for "windows" > has dominated the market > for years while it's free and allegedly superior OS languishes at 1% > share. Tell that to the manufacturers of Bugattis, Breitling watches and other rare commodities. They will certainly stop at once to build them. After all, "being superior" is no reason to exist. According to dimbulbs like you
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Poaster <wp@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 10:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <s6gp0c-o7e.ln1@user-1842.linux.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #291309 |
It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted: > Dim Rabbit wrote: <snip for brevity> >> Yet this festering pile of crap as you put it > > I am certain that he would not willingly insult the "real festering pile of > crap" by comparing it to windows. The problem is, normal language lacks the > appropriate descriptions for "windows" > > >> has dominated the market >> for years while it's free and allegedly superior OS languishes at 1% >> share. And there you have it, folks. As a desperate last resort, Dim Rabbit resorts to the discredited "Linux at 1% share" favored by wintrolls. > Tell that to the manufacturers of Bugattis, Breitling watches and other rare > commodities. They will certainly stop at once to build them. After all, > "being superior" is no reason to exist. According to dimbulbs like you -- openSUSE 13.2 64-bit KDE 4.14.6 Kernel: 4.0.0-1.1.g49e42b3.x86_64 GNU/Linux 2015-04-17
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 11:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhd72e$6qn$4@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #291312 |
On 24/04/2015 10:49, William Poaster wrote: > It was reported that Peter Köhlmann posted: > >> Dim Rabbit wrote: > > <snip for brevity> > >>> Yet this festering pile of crap as you put it >> >> I am certain that he would not willingly insult the "real festering pile of >> crap" by comparing it to windows. The problem is, normal language lacks the >> appropriate descriptions for "windows" >> >> >>> has dominated the market >>> for years while it's free and allegedly superior OS languishes at 1% >>> share. > > And there you have it, folks. As a desperate last resort, Dim Rabbit > resorts to the discredited "Linux at 1% share" favored by wintrolls. I'm sorry, is that figure wrong. Please provide the correct figure. > >> Tell that to the manufacturers of Bugattis, Breitling watches and other rare >> commodities. They will certainly stop at once to build them. After all, >> "being superior" is no reason to exist. According to dimbulbs like you Comparing Linux Desktop to Bugatti and Brietling? ROFL! So now Linux is for the rich and famous only!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 06:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mhd4ov$uul$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #291309 |
Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > Desk Rabbit wrote: > >> has dominated the market >> for years while it's free and allegedly superior OS languishes at 1% >> share. 1.65% If you leave out Android and you leave out the non-commercial Linux distros such as Debian. > Tell that to the manufacturers of Bugattis, Breitling watches and other rare > commodities. They will certainly stop at once to build them. After all, > "being superior" is no reason to exist. According to dimbulbs like you Heck, Mac is heavily marketed, viewed as superior by many people, and is allowed to be installed only by one vendor, and its market share is well under 10% (again, leaving out the mobile products). -- All the existing 2.0.x kernels are to buggy for 2.1.x to be the main goal. -- Alan Cox
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-24 11:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mhd79d$9b3$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #291314 |
On 24/04/2015 11:10, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> Desk Rabbit wrote: >> >>> has dominated the market >>> for years while it's free and allegedly superior OS languishes at 1% >>> share. > > 1.65% Gosh, that .65% makes all the difference when you are chasing the leaders at 58% ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web