Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #351579 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-24 06:44 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-04-24 04:52 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 81 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-24 06:44 +0200
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 21:52 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-24 06:58 +0200
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-23 22:32 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-24 07:59 -0400
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-24 14:27 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-24 08:13 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-24 16:16 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-24 09:59 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 12:08 -0500
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 11:05 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-24 07:55 -0400
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-24 07:14 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 08:31 -0500
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 14:15 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 11:04 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 18:20 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 13:31 -0500
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-25 15:11 -0500
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 13:37 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-26 09:15 -0500
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2016-04-26 09:23 -0500
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 07:24 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-26 13:44 -0500
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 12:27 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-26 13:13 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 22:31 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 07:59 -0500
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 23:47 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-28 00:09 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-26 20:29 -0400
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 17:36 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-25 13:48 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-25 16:50 -0400
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 22:47 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 15:59 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 23:20 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 23:21 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-26 07:16 -0500
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 22:40 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-26 16:54 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-27 07:00 -0500
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 13:17 +0100
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 10:28 -0400
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 18:18 +0200
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 17:34 +0100
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 13:17 -0400
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 21:00 +0200
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 15:53 -0400
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 22:39 +0200
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 17:15 -0400
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-27 23:33 +0200
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-27 18:56 -0400
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-27 22:51 -0400
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-28 06:21 -0500
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-27 22:25 +0100
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-27 18:48 -0400
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 23:49 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-28 06:27 -0500
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-28 07:23 -0500
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 15:34 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-28 11:30 -0500
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 18:17 +0000
Windows Phone Free-Fall or Troll Free-For-All? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-25 17:14 -0400
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall or Troll Free-For-All? Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 14:22 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall or Troll Free-For-All? ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 23:03 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall or Troll Free-For-All? Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 17:17 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall or Troll Free-For-All? ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 01:02 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall or Troll Free-For-All? Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 18:29 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall or Troll Free-For-All? ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 22:57 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 22:41 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 11:51 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-25 13:10 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 23:07 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-25 16:57 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-04-26 07:15 -0700
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-24 08:53 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-24 14:35 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-24 18:12 +0000
Re: Windows Phone Free-Fall May Force Microsoft To Push Harder On Windows 10 ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 03:14 +0000
Microsoft Haters are a Disease. John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 04:52 -0700
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 16:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <LJednYTTFMdaYoLKnZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #352057 |
On 2016-04-26, ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 07:16:32 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> ronb wrote:
>>
>>>I know. My kids almost never call their friends. It's almost all texting
>>>or online chatting -- and I admit I text quite a bit now (but that can
>>>be done a flip phone).
>>
>> Yeah, that's what I use my old flip-phone for, mostly. It's the
>> preferred method to communicate with my daughter (who has a Galaxy S6).
>> Tapping three times to get a 'c' isn't the most efficient, but it gets
>> the job done.
>>
>> Funny world, we live in.
>
> You don't use something like T9word? (I thought this was built in to most
> flip phones.) It basically anticipates what you're going to type. It
> almost always gets the words right first shot. For example, if I want to
> type "how" I just hit the numbers 4-6-9 and unscrambles them with
> suggestions ("how" is the first) and then I just hit the number sign "#"
> for a space and type in the next word. It's almost as fast as using a
> QWERTY keyboard. So texting on a flip phone would not be an issue --
> although I do use text to speech on the Admiral when I'm by myself.
> Amazingly accurate now.)
The Blackberry Storm II had a visual keyboard which used two letters per
square rather than three and did that. As a result the keys were large
and typing was fast. It also had the haptic feedback as well. Best damn
visual keyboard I ever used.
--
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 07:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <b0a1ib5ceg9697fprh8vp0bff11bvnbf8u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #352057 |
ronb wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> ronb wrote:
>>
>>>I know. My kids almost never call their friends. It's almost all texting
>>>or online chatting -- and I admit I text quite a bit now (but that can
>>>be done a flip phone).
>>
>> Yeah, that's what I use my old flip-phone for, mostly. It's the
>> preferred method to communicate with my daughter (who has a Galaxy S6).
>> Tapping three times to get a 'c' isn't the most efficient, but it gets
>> the job done.
>>
>> Funny world, we live in.
>
>You don't use something like T9word? (I thought this was built in to most
>flip phones.) It basically anticipates what you're going to type. It
>almost always gets the words right first shot. For example, if I want to
>type "how" I just hit the numbers 4-6-9 and unscrambles them with
>suggestions ("how" is the first) and then I just hit the number sign "#"
>for a space and type in the next word. It's almost as fast as using a
>QWERTY keyboard. So texting on a flip phone would not be an issue --
>although I do use text to speech on the Admiral when I'm by myself.
>Amazingly accurate now.)
Sounds slick, but my phone is like 8 years old. AFAIK, it doesn't
support such things. I never even texted with it until a few years
ago. I texted my daughter and she responded "Wow! How did you do
that?", amazed that my old LG could even do texting.
--
"That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by Linux slopware." - DumFSck,
lying shamelessly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Poaster <wp@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 13:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e7n6vc-go.ln1@user-1842.linux.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #352157 |
chrisv wrote: "That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by Linux slopware." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly Of course he was lying, it's what the trolling fuckwit does. Specifically, it now looks like Windows can “brick” some Samsung machines as well, suggesting that it's not a Linux-specific bug after all. “I bricked a Samsung laptop today,” wrote Linux developer Matthew Garrett, who is also known for uncovering the Windows 8 “Secure Boot” problem, in a new blog post on Friday. “Unlike most of the reported cases of Samsung laptops refusing to boot, I never booted Linux on it—all experimentation was performed under Windows.” http://www.pcworld.com/article/2027819/not-just-linux-windows-can-brick-samsung-laptops-too.html http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2013/02/11/linux-samsung-deaths-2/1 -- openSUSE 13.2 64-bit KDE 4.14.9 Kernel: 4.5.0-10.1.gb98c3d3-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Apr 11 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux This message is virus free, as absolutely NO Micro$oft products were used in its preparation. "If you do want to clean your computer of malware, the first software to delete is Windows." http://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 10:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfqi3e$jgk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352164 |
On 4/27/2016 8:17 AM, William Poaster wrote: > chrisv wrote: > > "That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by Linux slopware." - DumFSck, > lying shamelessly > > Of course he was lying, it's what the trolling fuckwit does. > > Specifically, it now looks like Windows can “brick” some Samsung > machines as well, suggesting that it's not a Linux-specific bug after > all. turd and Dumb Willie are lying sacks of shit. That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by booting Linux slopware. Since booting Windows was 100% safe and the Linux "community" can't stand to see their untrustworthy hobbyware revealed as shit to the world, this pathetic "developer" Matthew Garrett had to sit down and actually write - then publish - a malicious program to trigger the bug under Windows. But no matter how hard he tried, the loser couldn't make it happen just by booting Windows. You needed Linux for that: boot the crapware OS and voila - your hardware is ruined. MS is doomed. > “I bricked a Samsung laptop today,” wrote Linux developer Matthew > Garrett, who is also known for uncovering the Windows 8 “Secure Boot” > problem, in a new blog post on Friday. “Unlike most of the reported > cases of Samsung laptops refusing to boot, I never booted Linux on > it—all experimentation was performed under Windows.” > http://www.pcworld.com/article/2027819/not-just-linux-windows-can-brick-samsung-laptops-too.html > > http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2013/02/11/linux-samsung-deaths-2/1 >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 18:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nfqoj1$e31$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352178 |
DFS wrote: > On 4/27/2016 8:17 AM, William Poaster wrote: >> chrisv wrote: >> >> "That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by Linux slopware." - DumFSck, >> lying shamelessly >> >> Of course he was lying, it's what the trolling fuckwit does. >> >> Specifically, it now looks like Windows can “brick” some Samsung >> machines as well, suggesting that it's not a Linux-specific bug after >> all. > > > turd and Dumb Willie are lying sacks of shit. > > That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by booting Linux slopware. Wrong. It has been shown that windows could under certain circumstances also trigger that bug. And it was a UEFI bug, which was triggered by linux when it *correctly* used UEFI. It wasn't a linux bug You should at least stick to the truth and not lay blame on linux just because you don't like it, You filthy piece of rotten scum
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Poaster <wp@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 17:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <s867vc-eec.ln1@user-1842.linux.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #352206 |
Peter Köhlmann wrote: > DFS wrote: > >> On 4/27/2016 8:17 AM, William Poaster wrote: >>> chrisv wrote: >>> >>> "That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by Linux slopware." - DumFSck, >>> lying shamelessly >>> >>> Of course he was lying, it's what the trolling fuckwit does. >>> >>> Specifically, it now looks like Windows can “brick” some Samsung >>> machines as well, suggesting that it's not a Linux-specific bug after >>> all. >> >> >> turd and Dumb Willie are lying sacks of shit. >> >> That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by booting Linux slopware. > > Wrong. It has been shown that windows could under certain circumstances also > trigger that bug. And it was a UEFI bug, which was triggered by linux when > it *correctly* used UEFI. It wasn't a linux bug You'll note too that the "lying sack of shit" DumbFor$ure left out the URLs I provided which *showed* that windows could *also* trigger it. > You should at least stick to the truth and not lay blame on linux just > because you don't like it, You filthy piece of rotten scum That's an insult to *real* filthy pieces of rotten scum, IMO. -- openSUSE 13.2 64-bit KDE 4.14.9 Kernel: 4.5.0-10.1.gb98c3d3-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Apr 11 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux This message is virus free, as absolutely NO Micro$oft products were used in its preparation. "If you do want to clean your computer of malware, the first software to delete is Windows." http://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 13:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfqs12$s7s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352206 |
On 4/27/2016 12:18 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > DFS wrote: > >> On 4/27/2016 8:17 AM, William Poaster wrote: >>> chrisv wrote: >>> >>> "That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by Linux slopware." - DumFSck, >>> lying shamelessly >>> >>> Of course he was lying, it's what the trolling fuckwit does. >>> >>> Specifically, it now looks like Windows can “brick” some Samsung >>> machines as well, suggesting that it's not a Linux-specific bug after >>> all. >> >> >> turd and Dumb Willie are lying sacks of shit. >> >> That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by booting Linux slopware. > > Wrong. It has been shown that windows could under certain circumstances also > trigger that bug. Only when a piece of crap (like Matthew Garrett) intentionally writes a malicious program to trigger the bug. What kind of scum does that, anyway? That bug was NEVER triggered by booting Windows. ONLY by booting Linux. > And it was a UEFI bug, which was triggered by linux when > it *correctly* used UEFI. It wasn't a linux bug I didn't say it was a Linux bug. What are you babbling about? > You should at least stick to the truth I told ONLY the truth, dumbkopf. > and not lay blame on linux just because you don't like > it, You filthy piece of rotten scum heh! It's not Linux's fault, eh? Whose, then? Cause it sure doesn't happen when booting Windows.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 21:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nfr21r$j8d$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352218 |
DFS wrote: > On 4/27/2016 12:18 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> DFS wrote: >> >>> On 4/27/2016 8:17 AM, William Poaster wrote: >>>> chrisv wrote: >>>> >>>> "That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by Linux slopware." - DumFSck, >>>> lying shamelessly >>>> >>>> Of course he was lying, it's what the trolling fuckwit does. >>>> >>>> Specifically, it now looks like Windows can “brick” some Samsung >>>> machines as well, suggesting that it's not a Linux-specific bug after >>>> all. >>> >>> >>> turd and Dumb Willie are lying sacks of shit. >>> >>> That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by booting Linux slopware. >> >> Wrong. It has been shown that windows could under certain circumstances >> also trigger that bug. > > > Only when a piece of crap (like Matthew Garrett) intentionally writes a > malicious program to trigger the bug. What kind of scum does that, > anyway? > > That bug was NEVER triggered by booting Windows. ONLY by booting Linux. > > > >> And it was a UEFI bug, which was triggered by linux when >> it *correctly* used UEFI. It wasn't a linux bug > > I didn't say it was a Linux bug. What are you babbling about? > Quote: That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by booting Linux slopware Implying that it was linux fault. It wasn't
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 15:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfr55g$1gk$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352230 |
On 4/27/2016 3:00 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > DFS wrote: > >> On 4/27/2016 12:18 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> DFS wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/27/2016 8:17 AM, William Poaster wrote: >>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by Linux slopware." - DumFSck, >>>>> lying shamelessly >>>>> >>>>> Of course he was lying, it's what the trolling fuckwit does. >>>>> >>>>> Specifically, it now looks like Windows can “brick” some Samsung >>>>> machines as well, suggesting that it's not a Linux-specific bug after >>>>> all. >>>> >>>> >>>> turd and Dumb Willie are lying sacks of shit. >>>> >>>> That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by booting Linux slopware. >>> >>> Wrong. It has been shown that windows could under certain circumstances >>> also trigger that bug. >> >> >> Only when a piece of crap (like Matthew Garrett) intentionally writes a >> malicious program to trigger the bug. What kind of scum does that, >> anyway? >> >> That bug was NEVER triggered by booting Windows. ONLY by booting Linux. >> >> >> >>> And it was a UEFI bug, which was triggered by linux when >>> it *correctly* used UEFI. It wasn't a linux bug >> >> I didn't say it was a Linux bug. What are you babbling about? >> > Quote: > That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by booting Linux slopware > > Implying that it was linux fault. It wasn't It doesn't get triggered by booting Windows, so it IS Linux's fault.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 22:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nfr7rh$ca1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352238 |
DFS wrote: > On 4/27/2016 3:00 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> DFS wrote: >> >>> On 4/27/2016 12:18 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>> DFS wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/27/2016 8:17 AM, William Poaster wrote: >>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> "That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by Linux slopware." - DumFSck, >>>>>> lying shamelessly >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course he was lying, it's what the trolling fuckwit does. >>>>>> >>>>>> Specifically, it now looks like Windows can “brick” some Samsung >>>>>> machines as well, suggesting that it's not a Linux-specific bug after >>>>>> all. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> turd and Dumb Willie are lying sacks of shit. >>>>> >>>>> That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by booting Linux slopware. >>>> >>>> Wrong. It has been shown that windows could under certain circumstances >>>> also trigger that bug. >>> >>> >>> Only when a piece of crap (like Matthew Garrett) intentionally writes a >>> malicious program to trigger the bug. What kind of scum does that, >>> anyway? >>> >>> That bug was NEVER triggered by booting Windows. ONLY by booting Linux. >>> >>> >>> >>>> And it was a UEFI bug, which was triggered by linux when >>>> it *correctly* used UEFI. It wasn't a linux bug >>> >>> I didn't say it was a Linux bug. What are you babbling about? >>> >> Quote: >> That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by booting Linux slopware >> >> Implying that it was linux fault. It wasn't > > > It doesn't get triggered by booting Windows, so it IS Linux's fault. Quote: I didn't say it was a Linux bug. What are you babbling about? And now you claim again that it is linux fault You are truly a Snit. A lying imbecile
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 17:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfra00$kmp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352247 |
On 4/27/2016 4:39 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > DFS wrote: > >> On 4/27/2016 3:00 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> DFS wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/27/2016 12:18 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>> DFS wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4/27/2016 8:17 AM, William Poaster wrote: >>>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by Linux slopware." - DumFSck, >>>>>>> lying shamelessly >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course he was lying, it's what the trolling fuckwit does. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Specifically, it now looks like Windows can “brick” some Samsung >>>>>>> machines as well, suggesting that it's not a Linux-specific bug after >>>>>>> all. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> turd and Dumb Willie are lying sacks of shit. >>>>>> >>>>>> That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by booting Linux slopware. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. It has been shown that windows could under certain circumstances >>>>> also trigger that bug. >>>> >>>> >>>> Only when a piece of crap (like Matthew Garrett) intentionally writes a >>>> malicious program to trigger the bug. What kind of scum does that, >>>> anyway? >>>> >>>> That bug was NEVER triggered by booting Windows. ONLY by booting Linux. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> And it was a UEFI bug, which was triggered by linux when >>>>> it *correctly* used UEFI. It wasn't a linux bug >>>> >>>> I didn't say it was a Linux bug. What are you babbling about? >>>> >>> Quote: >>> That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by booting Linux slopware >>> >>> Implying that it was linux fault. It wasn't >> >> >> It doesn't get triggered by booting Windows, so it IS Linux's fault. > > Quote: > I didn't say it was a Linux bug. What are you babbling about? > > > And now you claim again that it is linux fault > > You are truly a Snit. A lying imbecile Typical dumbkopf reading comprehension. Linux bug? No Linux at fault (for triggering UEFI bug)? Yes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 23:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nfrb0j$njk$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352254 |
DFS wrote: > On 4/27/2016 4:39 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> DFS wrote: >> >>> On 4/27/2016 3:00 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>> DFS wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/27/2016 12:18 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>> DFS wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/27/2016 8:17 AM, William Poaster wrote: >>>>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by Linux slopware." - DumFSck, >>>>>>>> lying shamelessly >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course he was lying, it's what the trolling fuckwit does. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Specifically, it now looks like Windows can “brick” some Samsung >>>>>>>> machines as well, suggesting that it's not a Linux-specific bug >>>>>>>> after all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> turd and Dumb Willie are lying sacks of shit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by booting Linux slopware. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrong. It has been shown that windows could under certain >>>>>> circumstances also trigger that bug. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Only when a piece of crap (like Matthew Garrett) intentionally writes >>>>> a >>>>> malicious program to trigger the bug. What kind of scum does that, >>>>> anyway? >>>>> >>>>> That bug was NEVER triggered by booting Windows. ONLY by booting >>>>> Linux. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> And it was a UEFI bug, which was triggered by linux when >>>>>> it *correctly* used UEFI. It wasn't a linux bug >>>>> >>>>> I didn't say it was a Linux bug. What are you babbling about? >>>>> >>>> Quote: >>>> That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by booting Linux slopware >>>> >>>> Implying that it was linux fault. It wasn't >>> >>> >>> It doesn't get triggered by booting Windows, so it IS Linux's fault. >> >> Quote: >> I didn't say it was a Linux bug. What are you babbling about? >> >> >> And now you claim again that it is linux fault >> >> You are truly a Snit. A lying imbecile > > > Typical dumbkopf reading comprehension. > > Linux bug? No > Linux at fault (for triggering UEFI bug)? Yes Wrong again. Linux used UEFI correctly. There were just a few machines with a faulty UEFI which caused the bug. Linux could neither expect nor test for that bug in advance I run a UEFI machine with linux. It runs fine. No bug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 18:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfrg3s$aqg$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352265 |
Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > DFS wrote: > >> Typical dumbkopf reading comprehension. >> >> Linux bug? No >> Linux at fault (for triggering UEFI bug)? Yes Driver at fault for triggering bug in Takata airbag. > Wrong again. Linux used UEFI correctly. There were just a few > machines with a faulty UEFI which caused the bug. Linux could neither > expect nor test for that bug in advance > > I run a UEFI machine with linux. It runs fine. No bug The main bug, here, is the one up <laughing> "DFS"'s ass. -- FORTUNE PROVIDES QUESTIONS FOR THE GREAT ANSWERS: #15 A: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Q: What was the greatest achievement in taxidermy?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 22:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfrtkt$f2e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352290 |
On 4/27/2016 6:56 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > >> DFS wrote: >> >>> Typical dumbkopf reading comprehension. >>> >>> Linux bug? No >>> Linux at fault (for triggering UEFI bug)? Yes > > Driver at fault for triggering bug in Takata airbag. Driver W doesn't trigger bug in Takata airbag. Driver L does trigger bug in Takata airbag. Driver L at fault.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 06:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <s6s3ibpb19ni6fnpa549ltqkvp7o3ig8h4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #352265 |
Peter Köhlmann wrote: > some dumb fsck wrote: >> >> Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> >>> some dumb fsck wrote: >>>> >>>> It doesn't get triggered by booting Windows, so it IS Linux's fault. >>> >>> Quote: >>> I didn't say it was a Linux bug. What are you babbling about? >>> >>> And now you claim again that it is linux fault >>> >>> You are truly a Snit. A lying imbecile >> >> Typical dumbkopf reading comprehension. >> >> Linux bug? No >> Linux at fault (for triggering UEFI bug)? Yes Jeezez. The "logic". And this dumb fsck claims to be a "programmer". >Wrong again. Linux used UEFI correctly. There were just a few machines with >a faulty UEFI which caused the bug. Linux could neither expect nor test for >that bug in advance > >I run a UEFI machine with linux. It runs fine. No bug Another day, another episode of Dumfsck making a lying jackass of himself. It's a good thing that "Ezekiel" thinks that Dumfsck is a reasonable person... (rolling eyes) -- "You're such a moronic hypocrite." - DumFSck, because an advocate felt that language appropriate for cola would be inappropriate for their standard email signature at work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Poaster <wp@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 22:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6cn7vc-6k3.ln1@user-1842.linux.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #352247 |
Peter Köhlmann wrote: > DFS wrote: > >> On 4/27/2016 3:00 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> DFS wrote: >>> >>>> On 4/27/2016 12:18 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>> DFS wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4/27/2016 8:17 AM, William Poaster wrote: >>>>>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by Linux slopware." - DumFSck, >>>>>>> lying shamelessly >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course he was lying, it's what the trolling fuckwit does. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Specifically, it now looks like Windows can “brick” some Samsung >>>>>>> machines as well, suggesting that it's not a Linux-specific bug after >>>>>>> all. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> turd and Dumb Willie are lying sacks of shit. >>>>>> >>>>>> That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by booting Linux slopware. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. It has been shown that windows could under certain circumstances >>>>> also trigger that bug. >>>> >>>> >>>> Only when a piece of crap (like Matthew Garrett) intentionally writes a >>>> malicious program to trigger the bug. What kind of scum does that, >>>> anyway? >>>> >>>> That bug was NEVER triggered by booting Windows. ONLY by booting Linux. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> And it was a UEFI bug, which was triggered by linux when >>>>> it *correctly* used UEFI. It wasn't a linux bug >>>> >>>> I didn't say it was a Linux bug. What are you babbling about? >>>> >>> Quote: >>> That UEFI bug is ONLY triggered by booting Linux slopware >>> >>> Implying that it was linux fault. It wasn't >> >> >> It doesn't get triggered by booting Windows, so it IS Linux's fault. > > Quote: > I didn't say it was a Linux bug. What are you babbling about? > > > And now you claim again that it is linux fault > > You are truly a Snit. A lying imbecile Heh, heh. Tying DumbFor$ure up in knots! Like shooting fish in a barrel. -- openSUSE 13.2 64-bit KDE 4.14.9 Kernel: 4.5.0-10.1.gb98c3d3-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Apr 11 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux This message is virus free, as absolutely NO Micro$oft products were used in its preparation. "If you do want to clean your computer of malware, the first software to delete is Windows." http://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 18:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nfrflu$aqg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352247 |
Peter Köhlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties: > DFS wrote: > >> It doesn't get triggered by booting Windows, so it IS Linux's fault. > > Quote: > I didn't say it was a Linux bug. What are you babbling about? > > And now you claim again that it is linux fault > > You are truly a Snit. A lying imbecile He needs to hop on his DUIcycle and get outa town :-D -- I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me as much as a week sometimes to make it up. -- Mark Twain, "The Innocents Abroad"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 23:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfrj61$l4r$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352157 |
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 07:00:23 -0500, chrisv wrote: > Sounds slick, but my phone is like 8 years old. AFAIK, it doesn't > support such things. I never even texted with it until a few years ago. > I texted my daughter and she responded "Wow! How did you do that?", > amazed that my old LG could even do texting. Eight years old is not much older, but probably just old enough not to have the feature. Out of curiosity, what model is it? -- Zero tolerance for WinDrones and iCultists
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 06:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ils3ibpt20ks8drpea58eug9kegl90a3rp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #352296 |
ronb wrote: >On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 07:00:23 -0500, chrisv wrote: > >> Sounds slick, but my phone is like 8 years old. AFAIK, it doesn't >> support such things. I never even texted with it until a few years ago. >> I texted my daughter and she responded "Wow! How did you do that?", >> amazed that my old LG could even do texting. > >Eight years old is not much older, but probably just old enough not to >have the feature. Out of curiosity, what model is it? LG C1300i Cool! 8) -- "Ah, so you think it is impossible to put someone else's email in a Usenet post." - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 07:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <h004ib5cs6td92inm3t72u1ehhqvsd7omg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #352296 |
ronb wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> Sounds slick, but my phone is like 8 years old. AFAIK, it doesn't
>> support such things. I never even texted with it until a few years ago.
>> I texted my daughter and she responded "Wow! How did you do that?",
>> amazed that my old LG could even do texting.
>
>Eight years old is not much older, but probably just old enough not to
>have the feature. Out of curiosity, what model is it?
Hey, I did some digging, and my phone does do the T9 thing! I had no
idea! The message is then all-caps, but still kind of cool...
I'm on the cutting edge, here, man! 8)
--
"For most people time has value. Few have the patience to sit around
for hours with something they are likely uncomfortable with (like a
computer) in order to test drive every distro out there hoping they
stumble upon one they like." - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel", arguing
that there's "too much choice" in Linux distros ("Oh, dear, will
someone *please* just *tell me* what I should use?")
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web