Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #684212 > unrolled thread

M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-01-17 15:08 +0000
    Re: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-17 11:39 -0500
      Re: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-01-17 17:20 +0000
      Re: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-17 15:55 -0500
        Re: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-17 22:05 +0000
    Re: MS Excel Working As Designed (was: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity) Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-01-17 21:46 +0000
      Re: MS Excel Working As Designed (was: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity) Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-17 22:49 +0000
      Re: MS Excel Working As Designed (was: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-17 23:08 +0000
        Re: MS Excel Working As Designed DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-17 18:35 -0500
        Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-01-17 23:37 +0000
          Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-17 23:52 +0000
            Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-01-18 01:00 +0000
              Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-18 02:19 +0000
              Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-18 09:27 +0000
                Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-18 10:04 +0000
                  Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 19:45 -0600
                Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 17:20 -0500
                  Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-01-18 23:21 +0000
              Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> - 2025-01-18 18:04 +0000
          Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-18 00:05 +0000
            Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 13:38 -0600
              Re: MS Excel Working As Designed DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-18 16:03 -0500
                Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-19 00:52 +0000
          Re: MS Excel Working As Designed -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-17 21:57 -0500
            Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-01-18 04:34 +0000
              Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-18 06:50 +0000
                Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-18 10:58 +0000
                  Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 14:01 -0600
                    Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-18 21:02 +0000
                      Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 16:05 -0600
                        Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 16:27 -0600
                        Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-01-19 00:19 +0000
                          Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 18:34 -0600
                          Re: MS Excel Working As Designed CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-18 21:12 -0500
                          Re: MS Excel Working As Designed rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-19 04:35 +0000
                            Re: MS Excel Working As Designed CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-19 05:58 -0500
                              Re: MS Excel Working As Designed chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-01-19 11:02 -0600
                                Re: MS Excel Working As Designed CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-19 12:18 -0500
                              Re: MS Excel Working As Designed rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-19 19:32 +0000
                                Re: MS Excel Working As Designed CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-19 14:37 -0500
                                  Re: MS Excel Working As Designed rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-01-20 01:48 +0000
                      Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-01-18 23:16 +0000
                  Re: MS Excel Working As Designed Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 16:33 -0500
              Re: MS Excel Working As Designed -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2025-01-18 13:57 -0500
    Re: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-17 18:31 -0500
    Re: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-18 09:39 +0000
      Re: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-18 20:00 -0600
        Re: PhysFatFuck's Supreme Delusion DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-20 16:37 -0500

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#684212 — M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity

Wanna good laugh?

Fire up Microcrap Excel.  Open a blank workbook and format
a cell as "Date."  (Accept the default display format.)

Now in that same cell enter "60."

What do you see?  Answer: “February 29, 1900” (or whatever
display format you have chosen).

The problem is that Feb 29, 1900 does not exist!

The year 1900 is not a leap year!

I'm seeing this right in front of me right now and I am using
the very latest version of Microcrap Excel.

OMFG!  What junk!

I thank John Walker for this:

https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/



-- 
Hail Linux!  Hail FOSS!  Hail Stallman!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#684215

Farley Flud wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> Wanna good laugh?
>
> Fire up Microcrap Excel.  Open a blank workbook and format
> a cell as "Date."  (Accept the default display format.)
>
> Now in that same cell enter "60."
>
> What do you see?  Answer: “February 29, 1900” (or whatever
> display format you have chosen).
>
> The problem is that Feb 29, 1900 does not exist!
>
> The year 1900 is not a leap year!
>
> I'm seeing this right in front of me right now and I am using
> the very latest version of Microcrap Excel.
>
> OMFG!  What junk!
>
> I thank John Walker for this:
>
> https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

In LibreOffice, it's just "60". When you apply the "Date" format, the
result is 2/28/00;  or choose the full date format to see the 1900.

-- 
Everything bows to success, even grammar.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684218

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:39:28 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> 
> In LibreOffice, it's just "60". When you apply the "Date" format, the
> result is 2/28/00;  or choose the full date format to see the 1900.
>

That's correct for LibreOffice because the LO epoch, or Day 0, is
December 30, 1899.  (Don't ask why.)

But for Microslop Excel, the correct date should be March 1, 1900
because the Excel epoch, or Day 1, is January 1, 1900.

Another superiority of LO Calc is that it handles dates before the
epoch (negative times) all the way back to the year 1582.

Microslop Excel cannot display dates before its epoch.  Total junk!

But the Excel epoch can be changed to 1904 and then can use negative
time, but then this will fuck up a lot of other spreadsheets.

For dates M$ Excel is a total mess.


-- 
Hail Linux!  Hail FOSS!  Hail Stallman!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684221

On 1/17/25 11:39 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Farley Flud wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
> 
>> Wanna good laugh?
>>
>> Fire up Microcrap Excel.  Open a blank workbook and format
>> a cell as "Date."  (Accept the default display format.)
>>
>> Now in that same cell enter "60."
>>
>> What do you see?  Answer: “February 29, 1900” (or whatever
>> display format you have chosen).
>>
>> The problem is that Feb 29, 1900 does not exist!
>>
>> The year 1900 is not a leap year!
>>
>> I'm seeing this right in front of me right now and I am using
>> the very latest version of Microcrap Excel.
>>
>> OMFG!  What junk!
>>
>> I thank John Walker for this:
>>
>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
> 
> In LibreOffice, it's just "60". When you apply the "Date" format, the
> result is 2/28/00;  or choose the full date format to see the 1900.

Looking into the Excel bug, it actually appears to be more than merely 
that 2/29/1900 doesn't exist:

Using a value of 1 ... it reports as being 1/1/1900.  Good enough, but 
it also reports that that was a Sunday.  But calendars report that 
1/1/1900 was actually a Monday

Values 2 thru 59:  same as above: the day of the week is off by one.

60:  the Wednesday, 2/29/1900 error

61 & higher:  Thursday 3/1/1900 .. so the day of week is now correct.


-hh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684227

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:55:42 -0500, -hh wrote:

> On 1/17/25 11:39 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Farley Flud wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>> 
>>> Wanna good laugh?
>>>
>>> Fire up Microcrap Excel.  Open a blank workbook and format
>>> a cell as "Date."  (Accept the default display format.)
>>>
>>> Now in that same cell enter "60."
>>>
>>> What do you see?  Answer: “February 29, 1900” (or whatever
>>> display format you have chosen).
>>>
>>> The problem is that Feb 29, 1900 does not exist!
>>>
>>> The year 1900 is not a leap year!
>>>
>>> I'm seeing this right in front of me right now and I am using
>>> the very latest version of Microcrap Excel.
>>>
>>> OMFG!  What junk!
>>>
>>> I thank John Walker for this:
>>>
>>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/
>> 
>> In LibreOffice, it's just "60". When you apply the "Date" format, the
>> result is 2/28/00;  or choose the full date format to see the 1900.
> 
> Looking into the Excel bug, it actually appears to be more than merely 
> that 2/29/1900 doesn't exist:
> 
> Using a value of 1 ... it reports as being 1/1/1900.  Good enough, but 
> it also reports that that was a Sunday.  But calendars report that 
> 1/1/1900 was actually a Monday
> 
> Values 2 thru 59:  same as above: the day of the week is off by one.
> 
> 60:  the Wednesday, 2/29/1900 error
> 
> 61 & higher:  Thursday 3/1/1900 .. so the day of week is now correct.
> 
> 
> -hh

If you read the article that I linked then you will discover
the total bullshit:

"But this is a Microsoft calendar, remember, so one must first look to make
sure it doesn't contain one of those bonehead blunders characteristic of
Microsoft. As is usually the case, one doesn't have to look very far.
If you have a copy of PC Excel, fire it up, format a cell as containing
a date, and type 60 into it: out pops “February 29, 1900”. 

"By the time the 1900 blunder was discovered, Excel users had created millions
of spreadsheets containing incorrect day numbers, so Microsoft decided to leave
the error in place rather than force users to convert their spreadsheets,
and the error remains to this day."

It's fucking unbelievable!  To save millions of dummy spreadsheets
Microslop decided to fudge the dates for all users.  Incredible!

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!  If this were FOSS there would be an immediate
hostile, and fruitful, reaction.



-- 
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684224 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed (was: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity)

On Jan 17, 2025 at 10:08:17 AM EST, "Farley Fucktard"
<fsquared@fsquared.linux> made a fool of himself.  Again.:

> Wanna good laugh?
> 
> Fire up Microcrap Excel.  Open a blank workbook and format
> a cell as "Date."  (Accept the default display format.)
> 
> Now in that same cell enter "60."
> 
> What do you see?  Answer: “February 29, 1900” (or whatever
> display format you have chosen).
> 
> The problem is that Feb 29, 1900 does not exist!
> 
> The year 1900 is not a leap year!

As usual, Farley Fucktard is behind the times.  This is a known issue AND it
was designed this way for a reason AND changing it now would break many
things.

<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/office/troubleshoot/excel/wrongly-assumes-1900-is-leap-year>

Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of yourself. 

But then, if you stopped making such a fucking fool of yourself, we would have
no one here to make fun of.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684233 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed (was: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity)

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:46:39 +0000, Tyrone wrote:

> 
> Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of yourself. 
> 

Maybe if you'd the link that I provided you would have discovered
the reason before your ridiculous searches.

But the fact that you continue to defend a company that is engaged
in such reprehensible cover ups indicates that you are a lackey
faggot.

Maybe faggot lackey?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!





-- 
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684236 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed (was: M$ Excel Supreme Stupidity)

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:46:39 +0000, Tyrone wrote:

> Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of
> yourself.

Hard to believe it’s come to the point where the Microsoft marketing 
machine has persuaded people that the ones pointing out the bug are the 
“fools”, rather than the ones who were stupid enough to make it in the 
first place.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684245 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On 1/17/2025 6:08 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:46:39 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
> 
>> Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of
>> yourself.
> 
> Hard to believe it’s come to the point where the Microsoft marketing
> machine has persuaded people that the ones pointing out the bug are the
> “fools”, rather than the ones who were stupid enough to make it in the
> first place.


Hard to believe you're too ignorant to understand why MS made the 
decision to treat 1900 as a leap year.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684246 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On Jan 17, 2025 at 6:08:53 PM EST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid>
wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:46:39 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
> 
>> Maybe if you read and learn FIRST, you would stop making a fool of
>> yourself.
> 
> Hard to believe it’s come to the point where the Microsoft marketing
> machine has persuaded people that the ones pointing out the bug are the
> “fools”, rather than the ones who were stupid enough to make it in the
> first place.

It was designed that way to be compatible with Lotus 1,2,3.  Multiplan (and
later Excel) HAD to be 100% compatible with that. 

This issue probably goes all the way back to the first spreadsheet, VisiCalc
in 1979 on the Apple II.  Lotus 1,2,3 was the IBM PC version of Visicalc in
1983. 

The only fool here is Farley, thinking he has "discovered" something.  As
usual, he is a clueless child who has probably never heard of Lotus 1,2,3 or
VisiCalc. 

BTW, since LO does not follow this standard (as weird as it is), this is
probably yet another reason why businesses don't use it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684247 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:37:45 +0000, Tyrone wrote:

> BTW, since LO does not follow this standard (as weird as it is), this is
> probably yet another reason why businesses don't use it.

Imagine that: businesses avoiding using a product because it doesn’t lie 
to them. And here I thought the successful businesses were the ones who 
were most adept at recognizing reality and dealing with it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684256 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On Jan 17, 2025 at 6:52:37 PM EST, "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@nz.invalid>
wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:37:45 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
> 
>> BTW, since LO does not follow this standard (as weird as it is), this is
>> probably yet another reason why businesses don't use it.
> 
> Imagine that: businesses avoiding using a product because it doesn’t lie
> to them. And here I thought the successful businesses were the ones who
> were most adept at recognizing reality and dealing with it?

Imagine that: Businesses use a product that gives them the results they are
looking for, without changing their existing code.

Like it or not, that's how businesses work.  No one is interested in a
"better" product - even when it is "free" - if they have to waste time
changing code that has been working for decades.

Successful businesses realize what is best for the business TODAY. Very few
businesses need to worry about dates 125 years ago. And if they do, they would
have coded around this issue 40 years ago in Lotus 1-2-3. Which still works
TODAY in Excel.

Going forward - which is what everyone does - the dates are correct. And that
is all that matters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684261 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:00:11 +0000, Tyrone wrote:

> Like it or not, that's how businesses work.

The only businesses that “work” are the ones that stay in business.

Either the quality of the employee’s work is important to their employer’s 
success, or it is not. If it is, then anything that helps the quality of 
that work is a boon.

If it is not, then they are deadweight and might as well be jettisoned.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684268 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:00:11 +0000, Tyrone wrote:

> 
> Going forward - which is what everyone does - the dates are correct. And that
> is all that matters.
>

Speak for yourself, autococksucker.

A lot of non-assholes, such as historians, economists, astronomers, etc. may
want to work with historical dates.

Spreadsheets are not just for brain-dead business people.





-- 
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684270 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

Microslop is Selling Cars
--------------------------------

Microslop Dealer: Check out our new model.

Buyer: The paint job is a bit thin.

Microslop Dealer: Just take it for a test drive.

Buyer: OK. [Climbs in and starts] Hey!  Where's the fucking reverse?

Microslop Dealer: Reverse? Who needs reverse?  We always move
forward.

Buyer: [Climbs out] Fuck this pile of shit!  [Exits]

Microslop Dealer: Hmm.  Must be an intelligent scientist.


Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!


-- 
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684318 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On 1/18/25 4:04 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> Microslop is Selling Cars
> --------------------------------
> 
> Microslop Dealer: Check out our new model.
> 
> Buyer: The paint job is a bit thin.
> 
> Microslop Dealer: Just take it for a test drive.
> 
> Buyer: OK. [Climbs in and starts] Hey!  Where's the fucking reverse?
> 
> Microslop Dealer: Reverse? Who needs reverse?  We always move
> forward.
> 
> Buyer: [Climbs out] Fuck this pile of shit!  [Exits]
> 
> Microslop Dealer: Hmm.  Must be an intelligent scientist.
> 
> 
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
> 
> 


Hehehe :)

Or, "Must not be just a Sheep."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684297 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:00:11 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
>
>> Going forward - which is what everyone does - the dates are correct. And that
>> is all that matters.
>
>Speak for yourself, autococksucker.
>
>A lot of non-assholes, such as historians, economists, astronomers, etc. may
>want to work with historical dates.
>
>Spreadsheets are not just for brain-dead business people.


I would rather use LO, but for many reasons beyond how 1900 is
treated.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684306 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

Le 18-01-2025, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>>On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:00:11 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
>>
>>> Going forward - which is what everyone does - the dates are correct. And that
>>> is all that matters.
>>
>>Speak for yourself, autococksucker.
>>
>>A lot of non-assholes, such as historians, economists, astronomers, etc. may
>>want to work with historical dates.
>>
>>Spreadsheets are not just for brain-dead business people.
>
> I would rather use LO, but for many reasons beyond how 1900 is
> treated.

Of course, in real life nobody need to care about it. The historians may
need to use dates in 1900's without having difficulties around that. For
the astronomers and economists, I'd like to know how they would have
wrong results.

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684280 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:00:11 +0000, Tyrone wrote:

> 
> Going forward - which is what everyone does - the dates are correct. And that
> is all that matters.
>

That's correct.

Talented Tyrone can only bend forward to suck his own cock
and not bend backward to lick his own asshole.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!




-- 
Gentoo: The Fastest GNU/Linux Hands Down

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#684250 — Re: MS Excel Working As Designed

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 23:37:45 +0000, Tyrone wrote:

>
> [snip outrageous shill]
>

Holey moley!  This motherfucking asshole has got to be
on the payroll of some Microslop affiliate.

Read John Walker's link to discover the REAL cause for
failure.

John Walker, by the way, was the founder and CEO of AutoDesk,
which is the global standard for CAD software.

What has Tyrone accomplished?  Maybe bending over to suck
his own cock?  Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Nope.  There is no defense.  Microslop Excel is FUBAR.
It's only because none of its idiot adherents, like Tyrone,
have a use for dates before 1901.

But any competent software makes no assumptions about user
preference.  The only concern is to do it properly whatever
the scenario.

Microslop fails in this regard and there is no way to conceal
the fact.  No fucking way.

Now cue the shills for more futile apologies.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

I hope Tyrone will post an image of himself sucking his own
cock.  That's quite an accomplishment.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!



-- 
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web