Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #285967 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-03-25 19:01 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-03-26 18:49 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 207 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-25 19:01 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-25 15:51 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 15:03 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 17:15 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 22:01 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 19:53 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:11 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 19:54 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 03:01 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-25 23:21 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-26 11:56 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:13 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-25 23:54 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-03-25 16:01 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Donald Miller <donaldmiller955@mail.com> - 2015-03-25 16:37 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 17:27 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 19:56 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 17:15 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:09 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 19:18 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:24 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 19:30 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 19:58 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 03:02 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-25 23:19 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-25 20:15 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 19:55 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 17:00 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 17:32 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-25 22:43 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 21:56 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-25 23:09 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 23:23 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:31 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 23:36 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 19:39 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:02 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 18:12 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-25 23:22 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 18:36 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 23:15 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-25 20:04 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:04 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 18:08 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-25 23:14 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 18:30 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-25 23:35 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 18:40 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 23:20 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:10 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:24 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 23:25 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:10 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 22:27 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 03:38 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 04:30 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 09:02 -0400
Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-03-28 16:29 -0700
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize Donald Miller <donaldmiller955@mail.com> - 2015-03-28 19:37 -0400
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-03-28 18:51 -0700
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize Donald Miller <donaldmiller955@mail.com> - 2015-03-28 22:09 -0400
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-29 09:33 -0400
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 09:58 -0400
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-28 22:38 -0400
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-29 06:56 -0400
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 13:11 +0000
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 16:18 -0600
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 18:50 -0400
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:40 -0600
For Linux-hating trolls: bite a little harder, why don't you? (was Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-03-31 15:41 -0700
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-28 19:48 -0400
Re: Windows games, sound routing, and all that jazzercize DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-28 22:24 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 07:10 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 13:22 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 09:28 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:12 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-26 12:07 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 17:30 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 23:09 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 20:43 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-26 19:18 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 22:29 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-26 19:16 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 19:11 -0700
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-28 10:55 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-28 11:52 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-28 13:06 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-28 14:20 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-28 19:21 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-28 17:11 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-28 17:22 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-28 11:15 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-28 14:15 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-28 14:13 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-26 19:14 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 19:58 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:12 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 22:50 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-25 23:18 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:10 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 03:23 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-25 23:15 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-26 05:57 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-25 20:13 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:13 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 22:40 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-25 19:25 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 20:42 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:16 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:16 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:09 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 23:19 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:25 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:07 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:15 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-25 20:14 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:18 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 07:14 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:11 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:17 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 03:27 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-25 23:12 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-26 12:00 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:10 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-26 09:24 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-26 06:10 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 11:40 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 09:09 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 14:41 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-26 12:06 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 20:12 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 14:44 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 22:07 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 17:54 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:09 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 17:19 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:08 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:08 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-25 19:22 -0700
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 22:58 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 08:41 -0700
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 17:25 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-26 19:17 -0700
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-25 20:01 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:19 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 03:32 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 04:30 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 21:35 -0700
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 10:53 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 09:59 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 07:34 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-26 09:29 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:06 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-26 21:42 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-27 13:53 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:06 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-26 08:58 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 09:07 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:05 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-26 09:59 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-26 06:03 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-26 06:00 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:04 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 22:52 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 22:32 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-25 23:26 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:00 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 07:19 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-26 09:14 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 14:38 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 08:57 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-26 11:14 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-26 16:35 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 11:08 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:04 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 17:49 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 14:03 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-27 08:20 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-27 09:24 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-27 13:51 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-26 12:55 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 10:49 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 11:33 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 13:59 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 17:27 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-26 10:09 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 13:59 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-26 13:58 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-26 10:05 -0400
Why quote @chrisv ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-03-26 19:27 -0700
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:13 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 23:13 +0000
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 19:20 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-26 00:35 +0100
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-25 19:49 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-25 20:22 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:22 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-26 07:26 -0500
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:21 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-25 20:17 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-03-25 20:22 -0600
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-25 22:59 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-26 09:32 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-26 17:16 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-25 23:32 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-26 09:47 -0400
Re: GNOME 3.16 Released! John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 18:49 -0700
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 19:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <b8GdnVU25Yt9MonInZ2dnUU7-U-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #286312 |
On 03/26/15 18:43, Slimer wrote: > On 2015-03-26 6:09 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> Slimer wrote: >> >>> On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>> On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> ronb wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>>>> Windows... >>>>> >>>>> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >>>>> >>>>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP >>>>>> because >>>>>> of the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x >>>>>> -- so, yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>>>> >>>>> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >>>>> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >>>>> >>>>> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >>>> >>>> No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit of >>>> a >>>> pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate Linux >>>> more. >>> >>> Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. >>> >>> You're an idiot, JEDIDUMBASS. >>> >> >> Well, actually quite a lot. For example, all of those which bring >> their own >> driver. If you have only a 32bit driver, you are *totally* out of luck. >> >> And that is also the area in 64bit windows which has some gaping >> holes. Lots >> of devices which ran in 32bit windows will cease to work with 64bit >> windows >> >> And this is also one of the areas where MS is standing in its own way. >> They >> changed the driver model several times with the new windows versions. >> Meaning that you can't rely on a driver to work in the newer windows > > The hardware drivers I agree with you. It's very sad how Windows can't > keep support for a device which was already supported at some point in > the operating system's history. That's where Linux is a lot better than > Windows in that if the driver is available in free software form, it is > included in the kernel and works forever. I _wish_ Windows would be the > same in this respect but I imagine that manufacturers are happy that the > loss of support means that they sell more hardware as a result of people > replacing perfectly good devices. > > As for the 32-bit driver, you bring up an excellent point. However, > we're no longer talking purely about software as much as talking about > software+hardware. After all, even if it's virtual hardware, that > software is essentially calling for some sort of device in other to > function correctly. In those conditions, I'm not surprised that the > software would cease to work in the 32 to 64-bit transition. > > I'm not sure if this constitutes as a goal post move but it sure seems > that way. > It was. He is using the diversion to make windows look bad, which he utterly failed at. The vendors know about the drivers, and if they want to stay in business they'll provide new drivers. Linux has a more difficult time with the vendors, as there are a lot of vendors that don't give a darn about linux... case in point is Nvidia. -- When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the bottom, and have a longer blanket."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 22:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mf2f8k$nse$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286320 |
On 2015-03-26 9:18 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > On 03/26/15 18:43, Slimer wrote: >> On 2015-03-26 6:09 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> Slimer wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>>> On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> ronb wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>>>>> Windows... >>>>>> >>>>>> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >>>>>> >>>>>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP >>>>>>> because >>>>>>> of the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to >>>>>>> Vista/7/8.x >>>>>>> -- so, yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >>>>>> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >>>>> >>>>> No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit of >>>>> a >>>>> pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate Linux >>>>> more. >>>> >>>> Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. >>>> >>>> You're an idiot, JEDIDUMBASS. >>>> >>> >>> Well, actually quite a lot. For example, all of those which bring >>> their own >>> driver. If you have only a 32bit driver, you are *totally* out of luck. >>> >>> And that is also the area in 64bit windows which has some gaping >>> holes. Lots >>> of devices which ran in 32bit windows will cease to work with 64bit >>> windows >>> >>> And this is also one of the areas where MS is standing in its own way. >>> They >>> changed the driver model several times with the new windows versions. >>> Meaning that you can't rely on a driver to work in the newer windows >> >> The hardware drivers I agree with you. It's very sad how Windows can't >> keep support for a device which was already supported at some point in >> the operating system's history. That's where Linux is a lot better than >> Windows in that if the driver is available in free software form, it is >> included in the kernel and works forever. I _wish_ Windows would be the >> same in this respect but I imagine that manufacturers are happy that the >> loss of support means that they sell more hardware as a result of people >> replacing perfectly good devices. >> >> As for the 32-bit driver, you bring up an excellent point. However, >> we're no longer talking purely about software as much as talking about >> software+hardware. After all, even if it's virtual hardware, that >> software is essentially calling for some sort of device in other to >> function correctly. In those conditions, I'm not surprised that the >> software would cease to work in the 32 to 64-bit transition. >> >> I'm not sure if this constitutes as a goal post move but it sure seems >> that way. >> > It was. He is using the diversion to make windows look bad, which he > utterly failed at. The vendors know about the drivers, and if they want > to stay in business they'll provide new drivers. Linux has a more > difficult time with the vendors, as there are a lot of vendors that > don't give a darn about linux... case in point is Nvidia. Actually, I would say that NVIDIA is Linux's best ally nowadays. It provides updates and seems genuinely interested in supporting Linux properly, it just doesn't open the driver as much as the Linux losers would want. Even then though, the company helps (slightly) with the development of Nouveau. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 19:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <b8GdnVo25YvvMonInZ2dnUU7-U-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #286308 |
On 03/26/15 16:09, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Slimer wrote: > >> On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> On 2015-03-26, chrisv<chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> ronb wrote: >>>> >>>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>>> Windows... >>>> >>>> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >>>> >>>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP because >>>>> of the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x >>>>> -- so, yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>>> >>>> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >>>> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >>>> >>>> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >>> >>> No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit of >>> a >>> pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate Linux more. >> >> Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. >> >> You're an idiot, JEDIDUMBASS. >> > > Well, actually quite a lot. For example, all of those which bring their own > driver. If you have only a 32bit driver, you are *totally* out of luck. > > And that is also the area in 64bit windows which has some gaping holes. Lots > of devices which ran in 32bit windows will cease to work with 64bit windows > > And this is also one of the areas where MS is standing in its own way. They > changed the driver model several times with the new windows versions. > Meaning that you can't rely on a driver to work in the newer windows He asked which 32-bit program won't run under 64-bit windows. Now provide some evidence of your claims. So far you aren't doing well in that area. Like 0% success. -- When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the bottom, and have a longer blanket."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 19:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D13A0A64.4924F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #286301 |
On 3/26/15, 2:30 PM, in article mf1to6$q03$5@dont-email.me, "Slimer" <slvrslmr@lv.c> wrote: > On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> ronb wrote: >>> >>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later Windows... >>> >>> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >>> >>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP because of >>>> the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x -- so, >>>> yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>> >>> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >>> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >>> >>> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >> >> No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit of a >> pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate Linux more. > > Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. > > You're an idiot, JEDIDUMBASS. 32 bit Mac and Linux programs. :) -- * 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 | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-28 10:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mf6fbf$is7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286301 |
On 3/26/2015 5:30 PM, Slimer wrote: > On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >> On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> ronb wrote: >>> >>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>> Windows... >>> >>> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >>> >>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP >>>> because of >>>> the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x >>>> -- so, >>>> yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>> >>> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >>> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >>> >>> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >> >> No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit >> of a pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate Linux more. > > Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. Paradox 5.0 for Windows, from 1994. It's a Windows 3.x app. It installed and ran fine in Win7 32-bit, but won't install at all in Win7 Pro 64-bit, no matter which 'Troubleshoot Compatibility' option is used. When I did install it in Win7 32-bit, it took 6 seconds to install (no exaggeration). I had unpacked all the 3.5" diskettes to a folder and ran INSTALL.EXE from there. note: it installs and runs fine in Windows XP mode (on Win7-64) What's scary is it's still a better desktop database than anything available in Linux today, 20 years later. You know who's doomed. > You're an idiot, JEDIDUMBASS. He really is. He can hardly make a post any more without spewing something really strange or stupid. "Apple is a failure as a computer company.", JED the blithering idiot, referring to a company whose computer sales alone would place it in the Top 140 of the Fortune 500.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-28 11:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mf6imt$du$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286447 |
On 2015-03-28 10:55 AM, DFS wrote: > On 3/26/2015 5:30 PM, Slimer wrote: >> On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> ronb wrote: >>>> >>>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>>> Windows... >>>> >>>> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >>>> >>>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP >>>>> because of >>>>> the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x >>>>> -- so, >>>>> yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>>> >>>> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >>>> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >>>> >>>> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >>> >>> No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit >>> of a pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate >>> Linux more. >> >> Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. > > > Paradox 5.0 for Windows, from 1994. It's a Windows 3.x app. > > It installed and ran fine in Win7 32-bit, but won't install at all in > Win7 Pro 64-bit, no matter which 'Troubleshoot Compatibility' option is > used. > > When I did install it in Win7 32-bit, it took 6 seconds to install (no > exaggeration). I had unpacked all the 3.5" diskettes to a folder and > ran INSTALL.EXE from there. > > note: it installs and runs fine in Windows XP mode (on Win7-64) > > What's scary is it's still a better desktop database than anything > available in Linux today, 20 years later. > > You know who's doomed. A 1994 application made for Windows 3.x which runs fine on a 64-bit edition of Windows using XP-compatibility mode. To say the least, it's this kind of success with old software which makes the Linux losers jealous that they can't afford Windows. >> You're an idiot, JEDIDUMBASS. > > He really is. He can hardly make a post any more without spewing > something really strange or stupid. > > "Apple is a failure as a computer company.", > JED the blithering idiot, referring to a company whose computer sales > alone would place it in the Top 140 of the Fortune 500. Apple has never recovered from JEDIDUMBASS' negative comments. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-28 13:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mf6n26$i4p$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286451 |
On 3/28/2015 11:52 AM, Slimer wrote: > On 2015-03-28 10:55 AM, DFS wrote: >> On 3/26/2015 5:30 PM, Slimer wrote: >>> On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>> On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> ronb wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>>>> Windows... >>>>> >>>>> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >>>>> >>>>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP >>>>>> because of >>>>>> the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x >>>>>> -- so, >>>>>> yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>>>> >>>>> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >>>>> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >>>>> >>>>> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >>>> >>>> No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit >>>> of a pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate >>>> Linux more. >>> >>> Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. >> >> >> Paradox 5.0 for Windows, from 1994. It's a Windows 3.x app. >> >> It installed and ran fine in Win7 32-bit, but won't install at all in >> Win7 Pro 64-bit, no matter which 'Troubleshoot Compatibility' option is >> used. >> >> When I did install it in Win7 32-bit, it took 6 seconds to install (no >> exaggeration). I had unpacked all the 3.5" diskettes to a folder and >> ran INSTALL.EXE from there. >> >> note: it installs and runs fine in Windows XP mode (on Win7-64) >> >> What's scary is it's still a better desktop database than anything >> available in Linux today, 20 years later. >> >> You know who's doomed. > > A 1994 application made for Windows 3.x which runs fine on a 64-bit > edition of Windows using XP-compatibility mode. To say the least, it's > this kind of success with old software which makes the Linux losers > jealous that they can't afford Windows. I've asked the advocates to show us 15-year-old Linux apps running unchanged on current distros, but nobody stepped up in YEARS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-28 14:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mf6rc2$6ta$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286465 |
On 2015-03-28 1:06 PM, DFS wrote: > On 3/28/2015 11:52 AM, Slimer wrote: >> On 2015-03-28 10:55 AM, DFS wrote: >>> On 3/26/2015 5:30 PM, Slimer wrote: >>>> On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>>> On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> ronb wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>>>>> Windows... >>>>>> >>>>>> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >>>>>> >>>>>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP >>>>>>> because of >>>>>>> the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x >>>>>>> -- so, >>>>>>> yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >>>>>> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >>>>> >>>>> No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit >>>>> of a pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate >>>>> Linux more. >>>> >>>> Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. >>> >>> >>> Paradox 5.0 for Windows, from 1994. It's a Windows 3.x app. >>> >>> It installed and ran fine in Win7 32-bit, but won't install at all in >>> Win7 Pro 64-bit, no matter which 'Troubleshoot Compatibility' option is >>> used. >>> >>> When I did install it in Win7 32-bit, it took 6 seconds to install (no >>> exaggeration). I had unpacked all the 3.5" diskettes to a folder and >>> ran INSTALL.EXE from there. >>> >>> note: it installs and runs fine in Windows XP mode (on Win7-64) >>> >>> What's scary is it's still a better desktop database than anything >>> available in Linux today, 20 years later. >>> >>> You know who's doomed. >> >> A 1994 application made for Windows 3.x which runs fine on a 64-bit >> edition of Windows using XP-compatibility mode. To say the least, it's >> this kind of success with old software which makes the Linux losers >> jealous that they can't afford Windows. > > > I've asked the advocates to show us 15-year-old Linux apps running > unchanged on current distros, but nobody stepped up in YEARS. And they never will. They much prefer tap-dancing and spitting excrement from their mouths than proving anything. Of course, proving anything requires them to open up a browser window (while using a newsreader) and copying/pasting a link to a website showing whatever they are trying to prove. As we know, something as simple as copying and pasting information can take down a Linux system and render it inoperative so none of the advocates dare try. The fact that they have to do something unnecessary like multitask two programs at once only adds to the danger. Linux: where typing something into one of the many text editors is the only thing which can't possibly take your system down. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-28 19:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <iPadnTxjiek9zorInZ2dnUU7-YmdnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #286465 |
DFS wrote: > On 3/28/2015 11:52 AM, Slimer wrote: >> On 2015-03-28 10:55 AM, DFS wrote: >>> On 3/26/2015 5:30 PM, Slimer wrote: >>>> On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>>> On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> ronb wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>>>>> Windows... >>>>>> >>>>>> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >>>>>> >>>>>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP >>>>>>> because of >>>>>>> the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x >>>>>>> -- so, >>>>>>> yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >>>>>> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >>>>> >>>>> No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit >>>>> of a pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate >>>>> Linux more. >>>> >>>> Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. >>> >>> >>> Paradox 5.0 for Windows, from 1994. It's a Windows 3.x app. >>> >>> It installed and ran fine in Win7 32-bit, but won't install at all in >>> Win7 Pro 64-bit, no matter which 'Troubleshoot Compatibility' option is >>> used. >>> >>> When I did install it in Win7 32-bit, it took 6 seconds to install (no >>> exaggeration). I had unpacked all the 3.5" diskettes to a folder and >>> ran INSTALL.EXE from there. >>> >>> note: it installs and runs fine in Windows XP mode (on Win7-64) >>> >>> What's scary is it's still a better desktop database than anything >>> available in Linux today, 20 years later. >>> >>> You know who's doomed. >> >> A 1994 application made for Windows 3.x which runs fine on a 64-bit >> edition of Windows using XP-compatibility mode. To say the least, it's >> this kind of success with old software which makes the Linux losers >> jealous that they can't afford Windows. > > > I've asked the advocates to show us 15-year-old Linux apps running > unchanged on current distros, but nobody stepped up in YEARS. They'd have to hunt down all the dependencies to get the program to run. Especially if it was C++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-28 17:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mf6jq4$5ed$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286447 |
DFS wrote: > On 3/26/2015 5:30 PM, Slimer wrote: >> On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>> On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>> ronb wrote: >>>> >>>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>>> Windows... >>>> >>>> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >>>> >>>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP >>>>> because of >>>>> the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x >>>>> -- so, >>>>> yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>>> >>>> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >>>> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >>>> >>>> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >>> >>> No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit >>> of a pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate Linux >>> more. >> >> Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. > > > Paradox 5.0 for Windows, from 1994. It's a Windows 3.x app. > > It installed and ran fine in Win7 32-bit, but won't install at all in > Win7 Pro 64-bit, no matter which 'Troubleshoot Compatibility' option is > used. It can't run on 64Bit windows. 64bit windows has a 32Bit-WoW (windows on windows) but no 16Bit Wow which was present in WinXP. So when you install it in the WinXP compatability layer, it gets provided that missing WoW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-28 17:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mf6kdm$6lh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286454 |
Peter Köhlmann wrote: > DFS wrote: > >> On 3/26/2015 5:30 PM, Slimer wrote: >>> On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>> On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> ronb wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>>>> Windows... >>>>> >>>>> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >>>>> >>>>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP >>>>>> because of >>>>>> the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x >>>>>> -- so, >>>>>> yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>>>> >>>>> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >>>>> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >>>>> >>>>> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >>>> >>>> No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit >>>> of a pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate Linux >>>> more. >>> >>> Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. >> >> >> Paradox 5.0 for Windows, from 1994. It's a Windows 3.x app. >> >> It installed and ran fine in Win7 32-bit, but won't install at all in >> Win7 Pro 64-bit, no matter which 'Troubleshoot Compatibility' option is >> used. > > It can't run on 64Bit windows. 64bit windows has a 32Bit-WoW (windows on > windows) but no 16Bit Wow which was present in WinXP. So when you install > it in the WinXP compatability layer, it gets provided that missing WoW Addition: If you install wine on a 64bit linux, it will run 64bit windows programs, 32bit programs and also 16bit windows programs. Wine has the 2 different WoW modes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-28 11:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <zOOdnUw-8cxbfIvInZ2dnUU7-R2dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #286455 |
Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> DFS wrote: >> >>> On 3/26/2015 5:30 PM, Slimer wrote: >>>> On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>>> On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> ronb wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>>>>> Windows... >>>>>> >>>>>> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >>>>>> >>>>>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP >>>>>>> because of >>>>>>> the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x >>>>>>> -- so, >>>>>>> yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >>>>>> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >>>>> >>>>> No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit >>>>> of a pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate >>>>> Linux more. >>>> >>>> Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. >>> >>> >>> Paradox 5.0 for Windows, from 1994. It's a Windows 3.x app. >>> >>> It installed and ran fine in Win7 32-bit, but won't install at all in >>> Win7 Pro 64-bit, no matter which 'Troubleshoot Compatibility' option is >>> used. >> >> It can't run on 64Bit windows. 64bit windows has a 32Bit-WoW (windows on >> windows) but no 16Bit Wow which was present in WinXP. So when you install >> it in the WinXP compatability layer, it gets provided that missing WoW > > Addition: If you install wine on a 64bit linux, it will run 64bit windows > programs, 32bit programs and also 16bit windows programs. Wine has the 2 > different WoW modes And most likely has more bugs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-28 14:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mf6r2g$5c9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286455 |
On 2015-03-28 12:22 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> DFS wrote: >> >>> On 3/26/2015 5:30 PM, Slimer wrote: >>>> On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>>> On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> ronb wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>>>>> Windows... >>>>>> >>>>>> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >>>>>> >>>>>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP >>>>>>> because of >>>>>>> the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x >>>>>>> -- so, >>>>>>> yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >>>>>> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >>>>> >>>>> No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit >>>>> of a pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate Linux >>>>> more. >>>> >>>> Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. >>> >>> >>> Paradox 5.0 for Windows, from 1994. It's a Windows 3.x app. >>> >>> It installed and ran fine in Win7 32-bit, but won't install at all in >>> Win7 Pro 64-bit, no matter which 'Troubleshoot Compatibility' option is >>> used. >> >> It can't run on 64Bit windows. 64bit windows has a 32Bit-WoW (windows on >> windows) but no 16Bit Wow which was present in WinXP. So when you install >> it in the WinXP compatability layer, it gets provided that missing WoW > > Addition: If you install wine on a 64bit linux, it will run 64bit windows > programs, 32bit programs and also 16bit windows programs. Wine has the 2 > different WoW modes Except that Wine DOESN'T run Windows software reliably despite your enormous amount of tap-dancing. There's a reason for the existence of the Wine app database. <https://appdb.winehq.org/> Your lying never ends, does it, you fucking German joke? -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-28 14:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mf6qvd$5c9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286454 |
On 2015-03-28 12:11 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > DFS wrote: > >> On 3/26/2015 5:30 PM, Slimer wrote: >>> On 2015-03-26 1:07 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>> On 2015-03-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> ronb wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>>>>> Windows... >>>>> >>>>> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >>>>> >>>>>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP >>>>>> because of >>>>>> the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x >>>>>> -- so, >>>>>> yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >>>>> >>>>> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >>>>> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >>>>> >>>>> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. >>>> >>>> No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit >>>> of a pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate Linux >>>> more. >>> >>> Name one 32-bit program which doesn't run in 64-bit Windows. >> >> >> Paradox 5.0 for Windows, from 1994. It's a Windows 3.x app. >> >> It installed and ran fine in Win7 32-bit, but won't install at all in >> Win7 Pro 64-bit, no matter which 'Troubleshoot Compatibility' option is >> used. > > It can't run on 64Bit windows. 64bit windows has a 32Bit-WoW (windows on > windows) but no 16Bit Wow which was present in WinXP. So when you install it > in the WinXP compatability layer, it gets provided that missing WoW This is Klöwnmann's way of tap-dancing away from admitting that old Windows software indeed continues to function in newer versions of the software. The same way that old Linux software will require the old versions of libraries or 32-bit libraries for that software to run, old Windows software will require a 16-bit compatibility layer. For the end-user, there is NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE no matter what idiots like you say. DFS has essentially proven that as it relates to old Windows software, current versions DO INDEED find a way to make them work and that was the point. HOW it gets it done is inconsequential and was NEVER up for debate you ignorant, tap-dancing, goalpost-moving German joke. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-26 19:14 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <b8GdnVs25YuEMonInZ2dnUU7-U-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #286253 |
On 03/26/15 11:07, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2015-03-26, chrisv<chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> ronb wrote: >> >>> Melzzzzz wrote: >>>> >>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later Windows... >> >> Your blanket statment is not even close to being correct. >> >>> For years corporations have avoided upgrading above Windows XP because of >>> the nightmare of adopting their custom applications to Vista/7/8.x -- so, >>> yeah, "Slimer" is full of Snit. >> >> I think it's more the move to 64 bit that can be a problem, and even >> that hasn't been a problem, for most people. >> >> Let's face it. M$ does a pretty decent job, in that department. > > No they don't. Dual bitness support in Windows is actually a bit of a > pain really. It's the sort of thing that makes me appreciate Linux more. > No it isn't. People that can't grok it under windows are just having a hissy fit because they can't grok it. You work by the rules and you play by the rules... it is that simple. -- When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the bottom, and have a longer blanket."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-25 19:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mevi18$3k0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286050 |
> >"Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote in message >news:20150326002400.4ea41097@maxa-pc... >On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:35:47 +0100 >Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > >> Slimer wrote: >> >> > On 2015-03-25 6:14 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >> Slimer wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 2015-03-25 5:43 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >>>> Slimer wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> On 2015-03-25 5:00 PM, Ezekiel wrote: >> >>>>>> "Melzzzzz" <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote in message >> >>>>>> news:20150325190117.6ff30af2@maxa-pc... >> >>>>>>> " The GNOME project has released GNOME 3.16, the latest >> >>>>>>> version of GNOME 3. The new version is the result of six >> >>>>>>> months work, and includes 33,525 changes by 1043 authors." >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Yeeeeey! >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> https://www.gnome.org/news/2015/03/gnome-3-16-released-2/ >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> <quote> >> >>>>>> History >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> GNOME was started in August 1997 by Miguel de Icaza and >> >>>>>> Federico Mena as a free software project to develop a desktop >> >>>>>> environment and applications for it >> >>>>>> </quote> >> >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Miguel was speaking his mind once and said something that >> >>>>>> wasn't flattering >> >>>>>> about Linux. So posers like Ahlstrom who have never >> >>>>>> contributed anything to free software now consider him a >> >>>>>> traitor. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> If I remember correctly, Miguel de Icaza eventually moved on to >> >>>>> Mac OS X and abandoned Gnome and Linux entirely. Actually, >> >>>>> let's see what Wikipedia has to say: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza#Preference_for_Mac_OS_X_over_Linux> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> "Preference for Mac OS X over Linux >> >>>>> >> >>>>> In August 2012, de Icaza criticized the Linux desktop as >> >>>>> "killed by Apple". De Icaza specifically criticized a generally >> >>>>> developer-focused culture, lack of backward compatibility and >> >>>>> fragmentation among the various Linux distributions.[18][19] In >> >>>>> March 2013, de Icaza announced on his personal blog that he >> >>>>> regularly used Mac OS X instead of Linux for desktop >> >>>>> computing.[20]" >> >>>>> >> >>>>> You know your operating system sucks when even one of its most >> >>>>> important developers considers it to be unusable and adopts OS X >> >>>>> instead. >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Which is really hilarious if he cites "lack of backward >> >>>> compatibility and fragmentation" is his reasons. Because OSX is >> >>>> of all the OS the worst one in >> >>>> these regards. By a very long shot. Even windows is far better >> >>>> in these things. Not to mention linux, which is usually far >> >>>> better than windows in backwards compatibility >> >>> >> >>> I agree with you and lack of backward compatibility is one of the >> >>> many reasons I dislike anything Apple produces. Linux is only >> >>> slightly better than OS X though: it's laughable how many >> >>> applications will simply cease to work correctly because you >> >>> updated one of the many packages it referred to >> >> >> >> Bullshit. Especially in linux it is extremely easy to provide >> >> several libraries concurrently. Much easier than in both windows >> >> and OSX >> > >> > It's _so_ hard in Windows that I can install software from the 90s >> > or the early 2000s and know that it will work whereas I have to >> > wrestle with dependencies in Linux. You clearly haven't used >> > Windows since the mid-90s and just make shit up as you go along. >> > >> > You can even run Windows 3.1 apps in Windows 8 fairly easily. Hell, >> > you can use the fucking MS-DOS Executive in Windows 8. You can't do >> > that in Linux with apps from that era. >> > >> > Face it, Klöwn, Windows is better in every imaginable way. >> >> You have no idea at all about DLL-naming problems in windows >> > >Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >Windows... > "You can't even run a few WinXP games on later Windows" - is far more accurate. With any OS you're not going to find 100% backward compatibility. But MS is generally excellent with being backward compatible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-25 20:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <CeudnXogjZi89o7InZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #286061 |
On 03/25/15 17:58, Ezekiel wrote: >> >> "Melzzzzz"<mel@zzzzz.com> wrote in message >> news:20150326002400.4ea41097@maxa-pc... >> On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:35:47 +0100 >> Peter Köhlmann<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> >>> Slimer wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-03-25 6:14 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-03-25 5:43 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2015-03-25 5:00 PM, Ezekiel wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Melzzzzz"<mel@zzzzz.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:20150325190117.6ff30af2@maxa-pc... >>>>>>>>>> " The GNOME project has released GNOME 3.16, the latest >>>>>>>>>> version of GNOME 3. The new version is the result of six >>>>>>>>>> months work, and includes 33,525 changes by 1043 authors." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yeeeeey! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.gnome.org/news/2015/03/gnome-3-16-released-2/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <quote> >>>>>>>>> History >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> GNOME was started in August 1997 by Miguel de Icaza and >>>>>>>>> Federico Mena as a free software project to develop a desktop >>>>>>>>> environment and applications for it >>>>>>>>> </quote> >>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Miguel was speaking his mind once and said something that >>>>>>>>> wasn't flattering >>>>>>>>> about Linux. So posers like Ahlstrom who have never >>>>>>>>> contributed anything to free software now consider him a >>>>>>>>> traitor. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I remember correctly, Miguel de Icaza eventually moved on to >>>>>>>> Mac OS X and abandoned Gnome and Linux entirely. Actually, >>>>>>>> let's see what Wikipedia has to say: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza#Preference_for_Mac_OS_X_over_Linux> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Preference for Mac OS X over Linux >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In August 2012, de Icaza criticized the Linux desktop as >>>>>>>> "killed by Apple". De Icaza specifically criticized a generally >>>>>>>> developer-focused culture, lack of backward compatibility and >>>>>>>> fragmentation among the various Linux distributions.[18][19] In >>>>>>>> March 2013, de Icaza announced on his personal blog that he >>>>>>>> regularly used Mac OS X instead of Linux for desktop >>>>>>>> computing.[20]" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You know your operating system sucks when even one of its most >>>>>>>> important developers considers it to be unusable and adopts OS X >>>>>>>> instead. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is really hilarious if he cites "lack of backward >>>>>>> compatibility and fragmentation" is his reasons. Because OSX is >>>>>>> of all the OS the worst one in >>>>>>> these regards. By a very long shot. Even windows is far better >>>>>>> in these things. Not to mention linux, which is usually far >>>>>>> better than windows in backwards compatibility >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with you and lack of backward compatibility is one of the >>>>>> many reasons I dislike anything Apple produces. Linux is only >>>>>> slightly better than OS X though: it's laughable how many >>>>>> applications will simply cease to work correctly because you >>>>>> updated one of the many packages it referred to >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit. Especially in linux it is extremely easy to provide >>>>> several libraries concurrently. Much easier than in both windows >>>>> and OSX >>>> >>>> It's _so_ hard in Windows that I can install software from the 90s >>>> or the early 2000s and know that it will work whereas I have to >>>> wrestle with dependencies in Linux. You clearly haven't used >>>> Windows since the mid-90s and just make shit up as you go along. >>>> >>>> You can even run Windows 3.1 apps in Windows 8 fairly easily. Hell, >>>> you can use the fucking MS-DOS Executive in Windows 8. You can't do >>>> that in Linux with apps from that era. >>>> >>>> Face it, Klöwn, Windows is better in every imaginable way. >>> >>> You have no idea at all about DLL-naming problems in windows >>> >> >> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >> Windows... >> > > "You can't even run a few WinXP games on later Windows" - is far more > accurate. > > With any OS you're not going to find 100% backward compatibility. But MS is > generally excellent with being backward compatible. > > > > > Very few programs have problems in win7 or win8 from the XP days. I'd put the blame soley on the program vendor for not following the rules. I've got an old win95 program that will run on win7. -- When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the bottom, and have a longer blanket."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-25 22:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mevs4q$qfk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286102 |
On 2015-03-25 10:12 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > On 03/25/15 17:58, Ezekiel wrote: >>> >>> "Melzzzzz"<mel@zzzzz.com> wrote in message >>> news:20150326002400.4ea41097@maxa-pc... >>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:35:47 +0100 >>> Peter Köhlmann<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Slimer wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2015-03-25 6:14 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2015-03-25 5:43 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2015-03-25 5:00 PM, Ezekiel wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "Melzzzzz"<mel@zzzzz.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:20150325190117.6ff30af2@maxa-pc... >>>>>>>>>>> " The GNOME project has released GNOME 3.16, the latest >>>>>>>>>>> version of GNOME 3. The new version is the result of six >>>>>>>>>>> months work, and includes 33,525 changes by 1043 authors." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yeeeeey! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.gnome.org/news/2015/03/gnome-3-16-released-2/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <quote> >>>>>>>>>> History >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> GNOME was started in August 1997 by Miguel de Icaza and >>>>>>>>>> Federico Mena as a free software project to develop a desktop >>>>>>>>>> environment and applications for it >>>>>>>>>> </quote> >>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Miguel was speaking his mind once and said something that >>>>>>>>>> wasn't flattering >>>>>>>>>> about Linux. So posers like Ahlstrom who have never >>>>>>>>>> contributed anything to free software now consider him a >>>>>>>>>> traitor. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If I remember correctly, Miguel de Icaza eventually moved on to >>>>>>>>> Mac OS X and abandoned Gnome and Linux entirely. Actually, >>>>>>>>> let's see what Wikipedia has to say: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza#Preference_for_Mac_OS_X_over_Linux> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Preference for Mac OS X over Linux >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In August 2012, de Icaza criticized the Linux desktop as >>>>>>>>> "killed by Apple". De Icaza specifically criticized a generally >>>>>>>>> developer-focused culture, lack of backward compatibility and >>>>>>>>> fragmentation among the various Linux distributions.[18][19] In >>>>>>>>> March 2013, de Icaza announced on his personal blog that he >>>>>>>>> regularly used Mac OS X instead of Linux for desktop >>>>>>>>> computing.[20]" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You know your operating system sucks when even one of its most >>>>>>>>> important developers considers it to be unusable and adopts OS X >>>>>>>>> instead. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which is really hilarious if he cites "lack of backward >>>>>>>> compatibility and fragmentation" is his reasons. Because OSX is >>>>>>>> of all the OS the worst one in >>>>>>>> these regards. By a very long shot. Even windows is far better >>>>>>>> in these things. Not to mention linux, which is usually far >>>>>>>> better than windows in backwards compatibility >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with you and lack of backward compatibility is one of the >>>>>>> many reasons I dislike anything Apple produces. Linux is only >>>>>>> slightly better than OS X though: it's laughable how many >>>>>>> applications will simply cease to work correctly because you >>>>>>> updated one of the many packages it referred to >>>>>> >>>>>> Bullshit. Especially in linux it is extremely easy to provide >>>>>> several libraries concurrently. Much easier than in both windows >>>>>> and OSX >>>>> >>>>> It's _so_ hard in Windows that I can install software from the 90s >>>>> or the early 2000s and know that it will work whereas I have to >>>>> wrestle with dependencies in Linux. You clearly haven't used >>>>> Windows since the mid-90s and just make shit up as you go along. >>>>> >>>>> You can even run Windows 3.1 apps in Windows 8 fairly easily. Hell, >>>>> you can use the fucking MS-DOS Executive in Windows 8. You can't do >>>>> that in Linux with apps from that era. >>>>> >>>>> Face it, Klöwn, Windows is better in every imaginable way. >>>> >>>> You have no idea at all about DLL-naming problems in windows >>>> >>> >>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>> Windows... >>> >> >> "You can't even run a few WinXP games on later Windows" - is far more >> accurate. >> >> With any OS you're not going to find 100% backward compatibility. But >> MS is >> generally excellent with being backward compatible. >> >> >> >> >> > Very few programs have problems in win7 or win8 from the XP days. > I'd put the blame soley on the program vendor for not following the > rules. I've got an old win95 program that will run on win7. I posted a video for Chris AssStorm that he'll conveniently ignore showing Windows 3.1, even Windows 1 and 2 applications running in Windows 8. The guy is a joke and his insistence that Windows can't do it is more evidence of his complete lack of honour. -- Slimer OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner Encrypt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-25 23:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <x8adnVy2e7oMC47InZ2dnUU7-K-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #286133 |
Slimer wrote: > On 2015-03-25 10:12 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >> On 03/25/15 17:58, Ezekiel wrote: >>>> >>>> "Melzzzzz"<mel@zzzzz.com> wrote in message >>>> news:20150326002400.4ea41097@maxa-pc... >>>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:35:47 +0100 >>>> Peter Köhlmann<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2015-03-25 6:14 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2015-03-25 5:43 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2015-03-25 5:00 PM, Ezekiel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "Melzzzzz"<mel@zzzzz.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>> news:20150325190117.6ff30af2@maxa-pc... >>>>>>>>>>>> " The GNOME project has released GNOME 3.16, the latest >>>>>>>>>>>> version of GNOME 3. The new version is the result of six >>>>>>>>>>>> months work, and includes 33,525 changes by 1043 authors." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yeeeeey! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.gnome.org/news/2015/03/gnome-3-16-released-2/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> <quote> >>>>>>>>>>> History >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> GNOME was started in August 1997 by Miguel de Icaza and >>>>>>>>>>> Federico Mena as a free software project to develop a desktop >>>>>>>>>>> environment and applications for it >>>>>>>>>>> </quote> >>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Miguel was speaking his mind once and said something that >>>>>>>>>>> wasn't flattering >>>>>>>>>>> about Linux. So posers like Ahlstrom who have never >>>>>>>>>>> contributed anything to free software now consider him a >>>>>>>>>>> traitor. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If I remember correctly, Miguel de Icaza eventually moved on to >>>>>>>>>> Mac OS X and abandoned Gnome and Linux entirely. Actually, >>>>>>>>>> let's see what Wikipedia has to say: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza#Preference_for_Mac_OS_X_over_Linux> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Preference for Mac OS X over Linux >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In August 2012, de Icaza criticized the Linux desktop as >>>>>>>>>> "killed by Apple". De Icaza specifically criticized a generally >>>>>>>>>> developer-focused culture, lack of backward compatibility and >>>>>>>>>> fragmentation among the various Linux distributions.[18][19] In >>>>>>>>>> March 2013, de Icaza announced on his personal blog that he >>>>>>>>>> regularly used Mac OS X instead of Linux for desktop >>>>>>>>>> computing.[20]" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You know your operating system sucks when even one of its most >>>>>>>>>> important developers considers it to be unusable and adopts OS X >>>>>>>>>> instead. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which is really hilarious if he cites "lack of backward >>>>>>>>> compatibility and fragmentation" is his reasons. Because OSX is >>>>>>>>> of all the OS the worst one in >>>>>>>>> these regards. By a very long shot. Even windows is far better >>>>>>>>> in these things. Not to mention linux, which is usually far >>>>>>>>> better than windows in backwards compatibility >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree with you and lack of backward compatibility is one of the >>>>>>>> many reasons I dislike anything Apple produces. Linux is only >>>>>>>> slightly better than OS X though: it's laughable how many >>>>>>>> applications will simply cease to work correctly because you >>>>>>>> updated one of the many packages it referred to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bullshit. Especially in linux it is extremely easy to provide >>>>>>> several libraries concurrently. Much easier than in both windows >>>>>>> and OSX >>>>>> >>>>>> It's _so_ hard in Windows that I can install software from the 90s >>>>>> or the early 2000s and know that it will work whereas I have to >>>>>> wrestle with dependencies in Linux. You clearly haven't used >>>>>> Windows since the mid-90s and just make shit up as you go along. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can even run Windows 3.1 apps in Windows 8 fairly easily. Hell, >>>>>> you can use the fucking MS-DOS Executive in Windows 8. You can't do >>>>>> that in Linux with apps from that era. >>>>>> >>>>>> Face it, Klöwn, Windows is better in every imaginable way. >>>>> >>>>> You have no idea at all about DLL-naming problems in windows >>>>> >>>> >>>> Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later >>>> Windows... >>>> >>> >>> "You can't even run a few WinXP games on later Windows" - is far more >>> accurate. >>> >>> With any OS you're not going to find 100% backward compatibility. But >>> MS is >>> generally excellent with being backward compatible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Very few programs have problems in win7 or win8 from the XP days. >> I'd put the blame soley on the program vendor for not following the >> rules. I've got an old win95 program that will run on win7. > > I posted a video for Chris AssStorm that he'll conveniently ignore > showing Windows 3.1, even Windows 1 and 2 applications running in > Windows 8. The guy is a joke and his insistence that Windows can't do it > is more evidence of his complete lack of honour. > If any of these lusers had any brains and actually did program using MFC libs, they'd realize that the APIs have only been extended with newer features, but the earlier APIs will still work. I've poked in a few older programs and compiled on Win7 and they still work fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-25 20:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <CeudnXggjZgH947InZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #286050 |
On 03/25/15 17:24, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:35:47 +0100 > Peter Köhlmann<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > >> Slimer wrote: >> >>> On 2015-03-25 6:14 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>> Slimer wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2015-03-25 5:43 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>>>>> Slimer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2015-03-25 5:00 PM, Ezekiel wrote: >>>>>>>> "Melzzzzz"<mel@zzzzz.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:20150325190117.6ff30af2@maxa-pc... >>>>>>>>> " The GNOME project has released GNOME 3.16, the latest >>>>>>>>> version of GNOME 3. The new version is the result of six >>>>>>>>> months work, and includes 33,525 changes by 1043 authors." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yeeeeey! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.gnome.org/news/2015/03/gnome-3-16-released-2/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <quote> >>>>>>>> History >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> GNOME was started in August 1997 by Miguel de Icaza and >>>>>>>> Federico Mena as a free software project to develop a desktop >>>>>>>> environment and applications for it >>>>>>>> </quote> >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNOME >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Miguel was speaking his mind once and said something that >>>>>>>> wasn't flattering >>>>>>>> about Linux. So posers like Ahlstrom who have never >>>>>>>> contributed anything to free software now consider him a >>>>>>>> traitor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I remember correctly, Miguel de Icaza eventually moved on to >>>>>>> Mac OS X and abandoned Gnome and Linux entirely. Actually, >>>>>>> let's see what Wikipedia has to say: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza#Preference_for_Mac_OS_X_over_Linux> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Preference for Mac OS X over Linux >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In August 2012, de Icaza criticized the Linux desktop as >>>>>>> "killed by Apple". De Icaza specifically criticized a generally >>>>>>> developer-focused culture, lack of backward compatibility and >>>>>>> fragmentation among the various Linux distributions.[18][19] In >>>>>>> March 2013, de Icaza announced on his personal blog that he >>>>>>> regularly used Mac OS X instead of Linux for desktop >>>>>>> computing.[20]" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You know your operating system sucks when even one of its most >>>>>>> important developers considers it to be unusable and adopts OS X >>>>>>> instead. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Which is really hilarious if he cites "lack of backward >>>>>> compatibility and fragmentation" is his reasons. Because OSX is >>>>>> of all the OS the worst one in >>>>>> these regards. By a very long shot. Even windows is far better >>>>>> in these things. Not to mention linux, which is usually far >>>>>> better than windows in backwards compatibility >>>>> >>>>> I agree with you and lack of backward compatibility is one of the >>>>> many reasons I dislike anything Apple produces. Linux is only >>>>> slightly better than OS X though: it's laughable how many >>>>> applications will simply cease to work correctly because you >>>>> updated one of the many packages it referred to >>>> >>>> Bullshit. Especially in linux it is extremely easy to provide >>>> several libraries concurrently. Much easier than in both windows >>>> and OSX >>> >>> It's _so_ hard in Windows that I can install software from the 90s >>> or the early 2000s and know that it will work whereas I have to >>> wrestle with dependencies in Linux. You clearly haven't used >>> Windows since the mid-90s and just make shit up as you go along. >>> >>> You can even run Windows 3.1 apps in Windows 8 fairly easily. Hell, >>> you can use the fucking MS-DOS Executive in Windows 8. You can't do >>> that in Linux with apps from that era. >>> >>> Face it, Klöwn, Windows is better in every imaginable way. >> >> You have no idea at all about DLL-naming problems in windows >> > > Slimer is lying. You can't even run Windows XP games on later > Windows... > Liar. -- When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the bottom, and have a longer blanket."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web