Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #95100 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201610.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-03 15:35 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-04 14:51 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 185 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201610.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2016-10-03 15:35 +0000
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2016-10-03 16:12 +0000
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. "Mongoose" <mongoose@rikkitikkitavi.com> - 2016-10-03 12:26 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 12:36 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 12:59 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 13:16 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Anonymous <nobody@roance.net> - 2016-10-03 17:30 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 15:22 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 18:38 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 22:20 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 22:51 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 23:56 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 20:55 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 09:10 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-04 10:04 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 14:21 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 22:14 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 23:14 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 16:06 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 22:29 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 20:55 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 09:12 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-10-04 10:03 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 10:17 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-04 09:44 -0500
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. "Mongoose" <mongoose@rikkitikkitavi.com> - 2016-10-03 16:08 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 16:31 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 16:46 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. "Mongoose" <mongoose@rikkitikkitavi.com> - 2016-10-03 18:26 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 18:38 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 22:25 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 21:08 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 09:24 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-04 14:22 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-05 01:40 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-05 11:05 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 16:18 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-05 22:45 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 16:50 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 16:53 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:15 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-06 09:22 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 09:50 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-05 23:07 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 17:08 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-05 23:17 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:22 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-05 18:05 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:07 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 15:33 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 16:22 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 09:44 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 09:47 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 10:08 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-10-06 15:07 +0100
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:08 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 10:33 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 16:43 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 16:48 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 14:56 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 18:53 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:04 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 18:59 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:08 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 19:31 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:43 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2016-10-07 00:44 +0100
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-07 06:40 -0500
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 19:45 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 19:12 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 22:19 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-07 12:25 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 19:09 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:18 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-05 23:21 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:34 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-05 23:42 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:53 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-06 00:17 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 18:26 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-06 00:45 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 09:09 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-06 15:22 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:34 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 10:02 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-06 00:32 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-05 19:03 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-06 00:30 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-06 00:46 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-06 00:58 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 09:54 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 09:57 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 10:14 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 15:33 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 16:56 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 16:24 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 18:54 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:13 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 15:33 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-06 23:49 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 15:00 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-07 00:05 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 15:31 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 19:15 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 22:19 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-07 00:01 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-07 12:28 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-05 23:23 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-10-05 16:40 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-05 20:29 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-05 18:02 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:19 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 16:51 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-05 23:04 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 17:05 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-05 17:16 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-05 23:16 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-05 18:10 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:21 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 15:33 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 16:27 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 15:33 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 19:00 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:09 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 19:36 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:42 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 19:20 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-06 22:19 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-07 12:31 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-07 14:43 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-05 22:07 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 11:22 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 10:36 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 16:32 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-05 18:01 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-06 09:42 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-06 16:20 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-06 19:28 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Rene Lamontagne <rlamont@shaw.ca> - 2016-10-06 21:03 -0500
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2016-10-06 19:18 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2016-10-06 19:27 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-07 12:33 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-07 20:41 +0200
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-07 13:37 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-07 00:00 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-03 22:32 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 09:42 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 15:59 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 22:16 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 22:51 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 23:51 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 23:55 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-04 09:21 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-04 10:29 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 10:26 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 14:09 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 11:19 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 14:27 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 11:35 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 14:56 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 11:59 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 15:01 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 12:07 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 15:35 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 12:43 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2016-10-03 15:36 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-10-03 12:45 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-03 20:54 +0000
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-03 17:17 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-03 16:48 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-03 22:55 +0000
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-03 19:04 -0400
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-03 23:17 +0000
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-03 19:30 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2016-10-03 16:01 -0600
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2016-10-17 10:00 -0700
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 20:16 +0100
Re: Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) loses patent retrial, owes $302.4 million to VirnetX. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-04 14:51 -0500
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 17:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt3sno$m9c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95300 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-05 5:42 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:34:56 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 2016-10-05 5:21 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:18:20 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2016-10-05 5:07 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>> >>>>> And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... >>>>> You need at least 2GB to fire up program without having to >>>>> swap out.... That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32 >>>>> bit version you need half of that... >>>> >>>> LOL, a complete lie. I didn't realize you posted to COLA, >>>> Senator Kaine. >>>> >>> >>> Sure. Lie. Having Win 10 in VM now, it reports 1GB usage with >>> only task manager open? Does Win 10 lies? Perhaps... >> >> I wasn't referring to the memory usage, I was referring to your >> belief that it needs at least 2GB to prevent disk swapping. I >> won't say that Windows 10 doesn't hog memory, but I will say that >> it is not worse than 7 or 8 were. > > Win 8 takes less then 7 and 10 takes less then 8. Also they > finally implemented zswap in Win 10. > >> >> Linux is seriously king when it comes to using only as much >> memory or disk space as needed. > > That depends on what you run. eg running KDE with akonadi and > indexer services will easily take more then 1GB of RAM sitting > doing nothing... I was never a fan of KDE so I wouldn't know. I just don't like interfaces which mimic Windows 95. They made it prettier but let's be honest, it's Windows 95. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9XZHAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uKRoH/iUayXsjmMzOauH/HTBaMlLv iWLhsIuc2tSsS7Ss4toWNPUCuDyi2HSsR849X1l8VmWp4EaXtoWcyLdHEuM8ilH2 ywCXmI/vhzXxJaESj/pFke17rRBK4rXgCc+CJsJJ+B6ufMVwufLBKsG8nPM6PSss 2LJAoaiBvj7qC3XdYtXF7uvi9qvhaJdADCVwqaK7SgPwmp6w3oxt3AbfSxFXlrU+ 5mTgSBXH3dpol23NPI50Dx5BL1JB1khyiLBfyG/iT7dP548Kxrc4ezEWMv/axxqY jNqVRULOaMwWE+46OQsLxK5Bt96uKAq4nvdmmv4bvzUXbqAxORoNfHguLnimilc= =GYLw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 00:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20161006001709.704088e7@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net> |
| In reply to | #95301 |
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:53:11 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 2016-10-05 5:42 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:34:56 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 > >> > >> On 2016-10-05 5:21 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > >>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:18:20 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 2016-10-05 5:07 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... > >>>>> You need at least 2GB to fire up program without having to > >>>>> swap out.... That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32 > >>>>> bit version you need half of that... > >>>> > >>>> LOL, a complete lie. I didn't realize you posted to COLA, > >>>> Senator Kaine. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Sure. Lie. Having Win 10 in VM now, it reports 1GB usage with > >>> only task manager open? Does Win 10 lies? Perhaps... > >> > >> I wasn't referring to the memory usage, I was referring to your > >> belief that it needs at least 2GB to prevent disk swapping. I > >> won't say that Windows 10 doesn't hog memory, but I will say that > >> it is not worse than 7 or 8 were. > > > > Win 8 takes less then 7 and 10 takes less then 8. Also they > > finally implemented zswap in Win 10. > > > >> > >> Linux is seriously king when it comes to using only as much > >> memory or disk space as needed. > > > > That depends on what you run. eg running KDE with akonadi and > > indexer services will easily take more then 1GB of RAM sitting > > doing nothing... > > I was never a fan of KDE so I wouldn't know. I just don't like > interfaces which mimic Windows 95. They made it prettier but let's be > honest, it's Windows 95. > Well you can make KDE looks like anything. Manjaro theme changes KDE looks, so that seasoned KDE user can't recognize it ;) But, let's be honest. There is no better GUI then that of Windows 95. Start menu, task bar and tray icons. What else one needs? I use Gnome currently which begs for Mac like dock on the bottom so I combine cairo-dock with it ;) -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 18:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt3um1$vq8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95302 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-05 6:17 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:53:11 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 2016-10-05 5:42 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:34:56 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >>>> >>>> On 2016-10-05 5:21 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:18:20 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2016-10-05 5:07 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing >>>>>>> nothing... You need at least 2GB to fire up program >>>>>>> without having to swap out.... That is 64 bit version. >>>>>>> I guess that for 32 bit version you need half of >>>>>>> that... >>>>>> >>>>>> LOL, a complete lie. I didn't realize you posted to COLA, >>>>>> Senator Kaine. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sure. Lie. Having Win 10 in VM now, it reports 1GB usage >>>>> with only task manager open? Does Win 10 lies? Perhaps... >>>>> >>>> >>>> I wasn't referring to the memory usage, I was referring to >>>> your belief that it needs at least 2GB to prevent disk >>>> swapping. I won't say that Windows 10 doesn't hog memory, but >>>> I will say that it is not worse than 7 or 8 were. >>> >>> Win 8 takes less then 7 and 10 takes less then 8. Also they >>> finally implemented zswap in Win 10. >>> >>>> >>>> Linux is seriously king when it comes to using only as much >>>> memory or disk space as needed. >>> >>> That depends on what you run. eg running KDE with akonadi and >>> indexer services will easily take more then 1GB of RAM sitting >>> doing nothing... >> >> I was never a fan of KDE so I wouldn't know. I just don't like >> interfaces which mimic Windows 95. They made it prettier but >> let's be honest, it's Windows 95. >> > Well you can make KDE looks like anything. Manjaro theme changes > KDE looks, so that seasoned KDE user can't recognize it ;) It changes the window decorations and the icons but the interface itself mostly remains the same. > But, let's be honest. There is no better GUI then that of Windows > 95. Sure there is: Gnome 3. I still think that it is a winner. It's daring, it imitates no one (except for the dock) and it is incredibly intuitive after the first day. I miss it in using Windows. > Start menu, task bar and tray icons. What else one needs? I use > Gnome currently which begs for Mac like dock on the bottom so I > combine cairo-dock with it ;) I don't see a reason to use a dock with Gnome when it already comes with its own. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9X4PAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+urYcH/RFfStCAUegO55WgoqECmqAT JHEvAd16OCv+LEKUUu+CqbP8ZNes+nbNMTn/6dd5HcFV6XtW3i0ald9QbrD1p7U/ fouaDe9jpRw9oict4HKUik5o+8ksKcj3qqTqdGpieqqcJNvJj3QqXr7QJcwvwJRH zyF7m5gPCYxsFdT0K96OpI39t4oiNME/uIotFrwFbGGLCFcOvoAvoqGelJaaTaYc 4SkV1AjU+UrTOv5YvOEoR/D9TCfaPbnrtJaxnKkp3z7ZoVY/ttLKYJMNcnn7WB3W MTZmEAbhs95qXfPCJEMieChtvQez7SNvSGIo5JaIKD2oQ1gyY7c8AqmLwaImFEw= =dvw/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 00:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20161006004500.465990ca@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net> |
| In reply to | #95303 |
On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:26:23 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > > Start menu, task bar and tray icons. What else one needs? I use > > Gnome currently which begs for Mac like dock on the bottom so I > > combine cairo-dock with it ;) > > I don't see a reason to use a dock with Gnome when it already comes > with its own. > Well if you want to quickly navigate windows by mouse dock comes handy. -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt5id5$12v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95306 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-05 6:45 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:26:23 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> >>> Start menu, task bar and tray icons. What else one needs? I >>> use Gnome currently which begs for Mac like dock on the bottom >>> so I combine cairo-dock with it ;) >> >> I don't see a reason to use a dock with Gnome when it already >> comes with its own. >> > > Well if you want to quickly navigate windows by mouse dock comes > handy. I find that Gnome 3's hot corner is actually a lot faster. I'm a gigantic fan of what they did with their hot corners to be honest and am disappointed that Unity doesn't do the same thing. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9kz0AAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uvLQIAILEijPP7ymnjFCiq8w4Sq6G 0IwH7K7D67bAipomd/83M73bF5kOsq6NlII3cAqV6u/vMGuWVeon8a/lRV6urYCO Jxi6A0L5b2wdq1KjTUM0TLm6sT/qp4rqSAP7q0eyCC+xmSOwRC8lp1y6DieVFFWT DTP753vJEPK6Uw+6mAtFxFB91M/qZEOBF9wl3iLLQvau3j5zmF9dQ3j88rXToWMQ E7tolv77ASQrWZvzBkh0v3aGWBR6xNSIWLYGrCJU0emjMc4sBYUJRjAr9XGecSX5 pt9S25OnhITBcxBErbtsfXtHch6gXqzQTbAgtEoROog7iGXb19xOwsKZ6pC0RNg= =vZQt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 15:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20161006152208.44525a04@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net> |
| In reply to | #95328 |
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 09:09:08 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 2016-10-05 6:45 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 18:26:23 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > > >> > >>> Start menu, task bar and tray icons. What else one needs? I > >>> use Gnome currently which begs for Mac like dock on the bottom > >>> so I combine cairo-dock with it ;) > >> > >> I don't see a reason to use a dock with Gnome when it already > >> comes with its own. > >> > > > > Well if you want to quickly navigate windows by mouse dock comes > > handy. > > I find that Gnome 3's hot corner is actually a lot faster. I'm a > gigantic fan of what they did with their hot corners to be honest and > am disappointed that Unity doesn't do the same thing. > Unity uses compiz, you can define hot corners but it's not obvious. -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt5jtk$6pj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95328 |
Silver Slimer wrote: > I find that Gnome 3's hot corner is actually a lot faster. I'm a > gigantic fan of what they did with their hot corners to be honest and > am disappointed that Unity doesn't do the same thing. Yes it does, it just is disabled by default. Simplest way to enable and configure is install the Unity Tweak Tool sudo apt-get install unity-tweak-tool launch it and under Windows Manager click Hotcorners, enjoy! -- Take care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 10:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt5lh8$7an$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95333 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-06 9:34 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote: > Silver Slimer wrote: >> I find that Gnome 3's hot corner is actually a lot faster. I'm a >> gigantic fan of what they did with their hot corners to be honest >> and am disappointed that Unity doesn't do the same thing. > > Yes it does, it just is disabled by default. Simplest way to enable > and configure is install the Unity Tweak Tool I meant by default. Clearly, every Linux DE allows you to customize it if you are looking for a specific feature. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9ll3AAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uqr8H/RBowo2/qFBt3jV/BydQuURe W1JrSUOWdifwcmWIRqId/yIFqItoR55FHfItFq5xXkbTcFsY4/5fm91tSqMQwZbR wT937+ikYFtWxewpo6JWo/mag3oEsVWEtI2vnSK87A/0cKHWmubtmUJovS+JaEBD cBpyNxftez9LsVQNFxs60xDXwDecdFsd+uxlM1hQHEYYRZrnojlfED+VSsB/cdm8 oo+A7g+z7nqHyvppr3Mxzx2w8MU/J+A+U/fJxGdIi+dbveHuLDK+9rOkC3cmzASC rDXtbppQ5+UKJKaD3VWdP3x2bqtzO1xn2g6u0osL5/5p2HRKfZK8W0zTzVZu2qk= =xB9F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 00:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt3v18$dv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95302 |
Melzzzzz wrote: > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:53:11 -0400 > Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 2016-10-05 5:42 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:34:56 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> > >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >> >> >> >> On 2016-10-05 5:21 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:18:20 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On 2016-10-05 5:07 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... >> >>>>> You need at least 2GB to fire up program without having to >> >>>>> swap out.... That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32 >> >>>>> bit version you need half of that... >> >>>> >> >>>> LOL, a complete lie. I didn't realize you posted to COLA, >> >>>> Senator Kaine. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> Sure. Lie. Having Win 10 in VM now, it reports 1GB usage with >> >>> only task manager open? Does Win 10 lies? Perhaps... >> >> >> >> I wasn't referring to the memory usage, I was referring to your >> >> belief that it needs at least 2GB to prevent disk swapping. I >> >> won't say that Windows 10 doesn't hog memory, but I will say that >> >> it is not worse than 7 or 8 were. >> > >> > Win 8 takes less then 7 and 10 takes less then 8. Also they >> > finally implemented zswap in Win 10. >> > >> >> >> >> Linux is seriously king when it comes to using only as much >> >> memory or disk space as needed. >> > >> > That depends on what you run. eg running KDE with akonadi and >> > indexer services will easily take more then 1GB of RAM sitting >> > doing nothing... >> >> I was never a fan of KDE so I wouldn't know. I just don't like >> interfaces which mimic Windows 95. They made it prettier but let's be >> honest, it's Windows 95. >> > Well you can make KDE looks like anything. Manjaro theme changes KDE > looks, so that seasoned KDE user can't recognize it ;) > But, let's be honest. There is no better GUI then that of Windows 95. > Start menu, task bar and tray icons. What else one needs? There certainly was a better one: OS/2 Warp KDE has been quite good at replacing that extremely well done GUI
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 19:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pFfJz.13349$hF2.7669@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #95305 |
On 2016-10-05 18:32, Peter Köhlmann wrote: [...] > There certainly was a better one: OS/2 Warp [...] I seriously miss OS/2. IMO IBM seriously misunderstood the PC. Sigh. Ok, that's enough nostalgia for today. -- Best, Wolf K kirkwood40.blogspot.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 00:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt3uth$dv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95300 |
Melzzzzz wrote: > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:34:56 -0400 > Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> On 2016-10-05 5:21 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:18:20 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> > >> >> On 2016-10-05 5:07 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> >> >> >>> And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... You >> >>> need at least 2GB to fire up program without having to swap >> >>> out.... That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32 bit version >> >>> you need half of that... >> >> >> >> LOL, a complete lie. I didn't realize you posted to COLA, >> >> Senator Kaine. >> >> >> > >> > Sure. Lie. Having Win 10 in VM now, it reports 1GB usage with only >> > task manager open? Does Win 10 lies? Perhaps... >> >> I wasn't referring to the memory usage, I was referring to your belief >> that it needs at least 2GB to prevent disk swapping. I won't say that >> Windows 10 doesn't hog memory, but I will say that it is not worse >> than 7 or 8 were. > > Win 8 takes less then 7 and 10 takes less then 8. Also they finally > implemented zswap in Win 10. > >> >> Linux is seriously king when it comes to using only as much memory or >> disk space as needed. > > That depends on what you run. eg running KDE with akonadi and indexer > services will easily take more then 1GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... > Wrong. The indexer will run once and then only for a few seconds when the FS changes enough
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 00:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20161006004607.3896ab9d@maxa-pc.cpe.bvcom.net> |
| In reply to | #95304 |
On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:30:23 +0200 Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > Melzzzzz wrote: > > > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:34:56 -0400 > > Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA256 > >> > >> On 2016-10-05 5:21 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:18:20 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 2016-10-05 5:07 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... You > >> >>> need at least 2GB to fire up program without having to swap > >> >>> out.... That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32 bit version > >> >>> you need half of that... > >> >> > >> >> LOL, a complete lie. I didn't realize you posted to COLA, > >> >> Senator Kaine. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Sure. Lie. Having Win 10 in VM now, it reports 1GB usage with > >> > only task manager open? Does Win 10 lies? Perhaps... > >> > >> I wasn't referring to the memory usage, I was referring to your > >> belief that it needs at least 2GB to prevent disk swapping. I > >> won't say that Windows 10 doesn't hog memory, but I will say that > >> it is not worse than 7 or 8 were. > > > > Win 8 takes less then 7 and 10 takes less then 8. Also they finally > > implemented zswap in Win 10. > > > >> > >> Linux is seriously king when it comes to using only as much memory > >> or disk space as needed. > > > > That depends on what you run. eg running KDE with akonadi and > > indexer services will easily take more then 1GB of RAM sitting > > doing nothing... > > Wrong. The indexer will run once and then only for a few seconds when > the FS changes enough That is, if you don't have terabytes of data in home dir ;) I disabled baloo immediately because damn thing is dreadfully slow. -- press any key to continue or any other to quit
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 00:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt40i4$5cn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95307 |
Melzzzzz wrote: > On Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:30:23 +0200 > Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > >> Melzzzzz wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:34:56 -0400 >> > Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> > >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> >> >> On 2016-10-05 5:21 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:18:20 -0400 Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On 2016-10-05 5:07 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> And Win 10 takes 1-1.5GB of RAM sitting doing nothing... You >> >> >>> need at least 2GB to fire up program without having to swap >> >> >>> out.... That is 64 bit version. I guess that for 32 bit version >> >> >>> you need half of that... >> >> >> >> >> >> LOL, a complete lie. I didn't realize you posted to COLA, >> >> >> Senator Kaine. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Sure. Lie. Having Win 10 in VM now, it reports 1GB usage with >> >> > only task manager open? Does Win 10 lies? Perhaps... >> >> >> >> I wasn't referring to the memory usage, I was referring to your >> >> belief that it needs at least 2GB to prevent disk swapping. I >> >> won't say that Windows 10 doesn't hog memory, but I will say that >> >> it is not worse than 7 or 8 were. >> > >> > Win 8 takes less then 7 and 10 takes less then 8. Also they finally >> > implemented zswap in Win 10. >> > >> >> >> >> Linux is seriously king when it comes to using only as much memory >> >> or disk space as needed. >> > >> > That depends on what you run. eg running KDE with akonadi and >> > indexer services will easily take more then 1GB of RAM sitting >> > doing nothing... >> >> Wrong. The indexer will run once and then only for a few seconds when >> the FS changes enough > > That is, if you don't have terabytes of data in home dir ;) Well, who has > I disabled baloo immediately because damn thing is dreadfully slow. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 22:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <051020162248438919%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95295 |
In article <nt3qmc$ers$3@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > > Like I said before, it has already been resolved with forced updates. > The remaining problem is that after updating, Windows keeps the update > files on the hard disk for God knows what reason. that's to be able to undo the update in case there are any problems, which is a very good idea and since disk space is cheap, who cares, and it eventually auto-deletes anyway (i think it's 10 days). > The more they > accumulate, the slower the computer gets. nonsense. it only takes up disk space. it doesn't affect speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt5l28$7an$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95320 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-05 10:48 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <nt3qmc$ers$3@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> > wrote: > >> >> Like I said before, it has already been resolved with forced >> updates. The remaining problem is that after updating, Windows >> keeps the update files on the hard disk for God knows what >> reason. > > that's to be able to undo the update in case there are any > problems, which is a very good idea and since disk space is cheap, > who cares, and it eventually auto-deletes anyway (i think it's 10 > days). > >> The more they accumulate, the slower the computer gets. > > nonsense. it only takes up disk space. it doesn't affect speed. Theoretically, that's true. That's why I refused to believe it when people told me that back in the early 2000s. However, in my own experience, deleting those files indeed declogs the system and increases performance. If you have a Windows machine, I would suggest that you _not_ delete those files for a year and then delete them once 365 days have passed. Do nothing else; don't clean the registry or defragment. If the performance improves, you'll know I'm correct. Like I said, I didn't believe it either but that's actually what happens and was the case even on Win 9x machines. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9leXAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uzzwH/RUlxCx2eBDTPf38lDFj/vsp pRDJ7dUMIzyZVx6As/5dSU10Gh2FalHZ31YBGpmg/SGhu/JmpiHa8AIeIwjfaMs0 QgJoirqfWpYibyUF2gszq1H5oFM+TeR3qmtgSw3LL0xJc4jyd03XhhW/1xFnWojm kti1g/z9BStkcPdlKvTqvU+53sqri4vyO660+s6vhpjkJ/xABDVosrfGEnbCGTWb xcr27oXbC8zsO5DNJUm2yJyl54VcI+Ml0/LpbirW+Wo8zvVG01ZS8l5hRFC9Ylhw xMkvHWSpuHPxoqsrowVqNMl50pwObtbXDL2W2o2cokrmWIPgRweBMZ1FPZ6g5tc= =6Iaw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <061020160957075051%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95338 |
In article <nt5l28$7an$8@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >> Like I said before, it has already been resolved with forced > >> updates. The remaining problem is that after updating, Windows > >> keeps the update files on the hard disk for God knows what > >> reason. > > > > that's to be able to undo the update in case there are any > > problems, which is a very good idea and since disk space is cheap, > > who cares, and it eventually auto-deletes anyway (i think it's 10 > > days). > > > >> The more they accumulate, the slower the computer gets. > > > > nonsense. it only takes up disk space. it doesn't affect speed. > > Theoretically, that's true. not just theoretically, but in reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 10:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt5m76$fac$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95339 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-06 9:57 AM, nospam wrote: > In article <nt5l28$7an$8@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> > wrote: > >>>> Like I said before, it has already been resolved with forced >>>> updates. The remaining problem is that after updating, >>>> Windows keeps the update files on the hard disk for God knows >>>> what reason. >>> >>> that's to be able to undo the update in case there are any >>> problems, which is a very good idea and since disk space is >>> cheap, who cares, and it eventually auto-deletes anyway (i >>> think it's 10 days). >>> >>>> The more they accumulate, the slower the computer gets. >>> >>> nonsense. it only takes up disk space. it doesn't affect >>> speed. >> >> Theoretically, that's true. > > not just theoretically, but in reality. <http://www.theeldergeek.com/disk_cleanup_utility.htm> "To keep a PC running smoothly, regular maintenance is critical. Many users shy away from maintenance tasks, thinking it is a long, drawn out manual affair, but the Disk Cleanup Utility can easily determine which files on a hard drive may no longer be needed and delete those files. In addition to freeing up potentially significant amounts of hard drive space, using Disk Cleanup on a regular basis can significantly improve system performance." <http://windowssecrets.com/forums/showthread.php/144411-Disk-cleanup-and - -performance-improvements> "Clearly there has been an increase in performance observed, but why? What is is about the removal of log files, setup files, temporary internet files, etc that makes the system run faster?" The only nonsense here is whatever _you_ post. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9lw0AAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uZhYH/3rO4yyV7BJ7GL7ErgUkVCQs wsJsJcU1BMtaAJxs0rhpAvklQfg4D/5Z86LJaX0jSR2OOyJLvdGs5TG2+GSY6h/3 fU8OeZywU4St/WsFgsUapbA8TeH/n5JN2pOW06JazfZ6PE/4FK3KKdJSPA6q4E4+ i+IPmDPKozYyah8c1sk2iNaPpgBiqdNSKelOsBKSiFsDBBnPTl9kc/VubvUwWFsB 1daPvyBGB1UguIYlfSEWrSmF2h+1kqPe0IAH3nltSaglMyfdEWZ3sGGec7VzDiLs wRRX5PBMhdkZA5wDYm4RgrwoVMm66zs/U8yP3e5fq3bQ9Z4YVzbEtdiOoTbiC0o= =SIIM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 15:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <061020161533004141%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #95344 |
In article <nt5m76$fac$1@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >>> > >>>> The more they accumulate, the slower the computer gets. > >>> > >>> nonsense. it only takes up disk space. it doesn't affect > >>> speed. > >> > >> Theoretically, that's true. > > > > not just theoretically, but in reality. > > <http://www.theeldergeek.com/disk_cleanup_utility.htm> > > "To keep a PC running smoothly, regular maintenance is critical. Many > users shy away from maintenance tasks, thinking it is a long, drawn > out manual affair, but the Disk Cleanup Utility can easily determine > which files on a hard drive may no longer be needed and delete those > files. In addition to freeing up potentially significant amounts of > hard drive space, using Disk Cleanup on a regular basis can > significantly improve system performance." don't believe everything you read.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 16:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nt6dpt$apl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95355 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2016-10-06 3:33 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <nt5m76$fac$1@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> > wrote: > >>>>> >>>>>> The more they accumulate, the slower the computer gets. >>>>> >>>>> nonsense. it only takes up disk space. it doesn't affect >>>>> speed. >>>> >>>> Theoretically, that's true. >>> >>> not just theoretically, but in reality. >> >> <http://www.theeldergeek.com/disk_cleanup_utility.htm> >> >> "To keep a PC running smoothly, regular maintenance is critical. >> Many users shy away from maintenance tasks, thinking it is a >> long, drawn out manual affair, but the Disk Cleanup Utility can >> easily determine which files on a hard drive may no longer be >> needed and delete those files. In addition to freeing up >> potentially significant amounts of hard drive space, using Disk >> Cleanup on a regular basis can significantly improve system >> performance." > > don't believe everything you read. Which is why I'm joyfully disregarding everything you write. - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX9rqMAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uocUH/Rerpe2swlQI9LAWbrTKluQg CKxmovB40weirWTTNXUlYt/Hg+dz9hSeUK6Mzf/l/0BBt60N11LdJmYxikAUy3oN +Mv/lbVwPPHdfgnfwDOj2V9mzXzV6FCUs7l2Lb78+rqY802BIHxl1dP/m0z9aC5q HGAlYRaOpC6FvpVV/+xLHTv/NpyXciJST+JmovBFTlcVkz8kv3Jj9WdS2w5p2WXp 0T2Onl3pfJ16rrQbxcjrJYxafpeZNei1V14TJy1DX4ZkM79O7xi6I8nKT+2mSCz6 YzXlpVr1ku6G6VCqqCbB0sitZt/+xA657tcptt7aV/FIUxal31PofcFr5I38xpA= =xbZv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 16:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nt6iup$ufh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95371 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/06/2016 02:56 PM, Silver Slimer wrote: > On 2016-10-06 3:33 PM, nospam wrote: >> In article <nt5m76$fac$1@dont-email.me>, Silver Slimer >> <.m@nsn.s> wrote: > >>>>>> >>>>>>> The more they accumulate, the slower the computer >>>>>>> gets. >>>>>> >>>>>> nonsense. it only takes up disk space. it doesn't affect >>>>>> speed. >>>>> >>>>> Theoretically, that's true. >>>> >>>> not just theoretically, but in reality. >>> >>> <http://www.theeldergeek.com/disk_cleanup_utility.htm> >>> >>> "To keep a PC running smoothly, regular maintenance is >>> critical. Many users shy away from maintenance tasks, thinking >>> it is a long, drawn out manual affair, but the Disk Cleanup >>> Utility can easily determine which files on a hard drive may no >>> longer be needed and delete those files. In addition to freeing >>> up potentially significant amounts of hard drive space, using >>> Disk Cleanup on a regular basis can significantly improve >>> system performance." > >> don't believe everything you read. > > Which is why I'm joyfully disregarding everything you write. > > Do you think that this may be snit? It's starting to look like it, fanboi stuff and all. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJX9s8nAAoJEMfxH5jgl5XRvj4P+wamJ4FJb29Pk0cduKMNltAk hQgARP0Ztln8HAm3brY/PkPio32PdPJlwPv5FPamjP323UsUgAux4VRjCO9711s7 fSdY2+iI4yFkBPAkIaGDKrVoqaEnEDqzJEGzYFtYDH2RLnXE7FGeVU8uCvFY0o5/ fNJsCoxrsRnyHeekzxNuSce0B7UzX2skGRNZqLlPCxR+3Xq7Myg8Kku30qfhrSaQ zQNJM7BbQR1JLRyN+PTEW/y4Y3qE0LwpUf/arfv1ua+ZcASTsott1/ZEtF4+pw40 4bXztWkl4XyPdiDx/ClTKGA5RQL+YLaKy5AaIQE8dz+Ex2Q6/Rpp38yfASKq/UUl 9vqW136GwLLoF6gnuDpu9knuxV44OvnR+UyidUYC1DTl0D6m2Q3rKJTt76CZi5Aa qdXU+zSr0sCyPaSYyi21zBE+Kj5g/gVLfJZrUJdroT0mKFViz9w/1qmuCVzPQ5Ty sIS8GWjn6hrSkx5JuY+ic8bJpd6gsfN3O4flmOT+bzjYcoy8dthf+hNAnxk2g40d uhkqhBF7VhNrB2yCOkJIbAsnVx+BtTkSeeKyqm2mmY4WDWLl+nk28ZkE7avboF2q U0+vDzScVBQeHNLB3iveoaaB5J9Kls56DFG0Ifezznun3DzZTeznD6hjuZxM3Wvg IxsCoNaLXuk3EeKHpQZa =xm0q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web