Windows more secure - Hacker states

[ray]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:22:11 -0700, Frank wrote:



> On 4/19/2010 3:42 PM, ray wrote:

>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:52 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>

>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>> news:8340kdFhp0U41@mid.individual.net...

>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:13:38 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On 4/19/2010 10:29 AM, ray wrote:

>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:42 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20002317-245.html

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yawn. I guess that's why so much time, effort and money is expended

>>>>>> in keeping MS machines up and running - while none of the three on

>>>>>> Linux.

>>>>>

>>>>> Keep telling yourself that myth if it makes you feel better!

>>>>

>>>> Or we could simply compare how much time, money, effort we've spent

>>>> on our respective systems to keep them malware free over the last

>>>> eight years. I'll go first - zero.

>>>

>>> You didn't take into account how many hours it took to research the

>>> cryptic line commands you need to enter go get that SHITTY Ubuntu

>>> working right. The countless hours to figure out which SYNAPTIC

>>> programs to install. The countless hours to get the right drivers

>>> for sound, video, and MOBO that are missing. and on and on and

>>> on.........

>>

>> You're wrong, as usual.

>

> No, you're wrong...as usual.

>

> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other

>> Linux distributions and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line

>> commands" to get any of them running at any point. Generally a Linux

>> install is simpler and quicker with many, many more apps included than

>> an MS install.

>

> That is simply not true!



Sorry, but it is.



>

> Now, if you'd like to count all the time you spent hunting down

>> or buying and installing apps equivalent to what are already included

>> in Linux, you'll be ever further behind!

>

> Do yourself a big favor and get lost, ok?



I try, but I keep finding myself.

 

[Death]

ray wrote:



> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:36:55 +0200, Death wrote:

>

>> ray wrote:

>>

>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:52 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>

>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>> news:8340kdFhp0U41@mid.individual.net...

>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:13:38 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On 4/19/2010 10:29 AM, ray wrote:

>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:42 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20002317-245.html

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Yawn. I guess that's why so much time, effort and money is expended

>>>>>>> in keeping MS machines up and running - while none of the three on

>>>>>>> Linux.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Keep telling yourself that myth if it makes you feel better!

>>>>>

>>>>> Or we could simply compare how much time, money, effort we've spent

>>>>> on our respective systems to keep them malware free over the last

>>>>> eight years. I'll go first - zero.

>>>>

>>>> You didn't take into account how many hours it took to research the

>>>> cryptic line commands you need to enter go get that SHITTY Ubuntu

>>>> working right. The countless hours to figure out which SYNAPTIC

>>>> programs to install. The countless hours to get the right drivers

>>>> for sound, video, and MOBO that are missing. and on and on and

>>>> on.........

>>>

>>> You're wrong, as usual. I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other

>>> Linux distributions and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line

>>> commands" to get any of them running at any point. Generally a Linux

>>> install is simpler and quicker with many, many more apps included than

>>> an MS install. Now, if you'd like to count all the time you spent

>>> hunting down or buying and installing apps equivalent to what are

>>> already included in Linux, you'll be ever further behind!

>>

>> You should try Fedora.

>> Just getting the nvidia drivers installed, the nouveau drivers

>> blacklisted is a trial.

>

> Why would I want to do that? Quite frankly, I'm not enamoured of RPM

> distributions - I much prefer Debian package management.

>



RPM package dependency hell is over.

I like the presto rpmdelta system that cuts way down on update sizes.

The first one I did the 425MB dl was only 180MB.



>>

>> Hate to tell you, but the only "free app" worth a shit in Linux is Open

>> Office ... and downloading that into Windows takes no longer than in

>> Linux, and the Windows version is more likely to be the newer version

>> than the "pre-packaged version" most distros have in their package

>> manager.

>

> That's your opinion, which you're welcome to. I disagree.



So, it takes longer to download and install into Windows?

Not hardly.

Most of the "package manager versions" of all software are a version or

two behind. It is so with firefox also.



--

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

 

[ray]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 03:02:07 +0200, Death wrote:



> ray wrote:

>

>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:36:55 +0200, Death wrote:

>>

>>> ray wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:52 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>> news:8340kdFhp0U41@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:13:38 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On 4/19/2010 10:29 AM, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:42 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20002317-245.html

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Yawn. I guess that's why so much time, effort and money is

>>>>>>>> expended in keeping MS machines up and running - while none of

>>>>>>>> the three on Linux.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Keep telling yourself that myth if it makes you feel better!

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Or we could simply compare how much time, money, effort we've spent

>>>>>> on our respective systems to keep them malware free over the last

>>>>>> eight years. I'll go first - zero.

>>>>>

>>>>> You didn't take into account how many hours it took to research the

>>>>> cryptic line commands you need to enter go get that SHITTY Ubuntu

>>>>> working right. The countless hours to figure out which SYNAPTIC

>>>>> programs to install. The countless hours to get the right drivers

>>>>> for sound, video, and MOBO that are missing. and on and on and

>>>>> on.........

>>>>

>>>> You're wrong, as usual. I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other

>>>> Linux distributions and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line

>>>> commands" to get any of them running at any point. Generally a Linux

>>>> install is simpler and quicker with many, many more apps included

>>>> than an MS install. Now, if you'd like to count all the time you

>>>> spent hunting down or buying and installing apps equivalent to what

>>>> are already included in Linux, you'll be ever further behind!

>>>

>>> You should try Fedora.

>>> Just getting the nvidia drivers installed, the nouveau drivers

>>> blacklisted is a trial.

>>

>> Why would I want to do that? Quite frankly, I'm not enamoured of RPM

>> distributions - I much prefer Debian package management.

>>

>>

> RPM package dependency hell is over.

> I like the presto rpmdelta system that cuts way down on update sizes.

> The first one I did the 425MB dl was only 180MB.

>

>

>>> Hate to tell you, but the only "free app" worth a shit in Linux is

>>> Open Office ... and downloading that into Windows takes no longer than

>>> in Linux, and the Windows version is more likely to be the newer

>>> version than the "pre-packaged version" most distros have in their

>>> package manager.

>>

>> That's your opinion, which you're welcome to. I disagree.

>

> So, it takes longer to download and install into Windows? Not hardly.

> Most of the "package manager versions" of all software are a version or

> two behind. It is so with firefox also.



I don't generally time downloads - with broadband connections - who

cares! I disagree with your statement that OOo is the only Linux app

worth anything.

 

[Frank]

On 4/19/2010 5:12 PM, ray wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:22:11 -0700, Frank wrote:

>

>> On 4/19/2010 3:42 PM, ray wrote:

>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:52 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>

>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>> news:8340kdFhp0U41@mid.individual.net...

>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:13:38 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On 4/19/2010 10:29 AM, ray wrote:

>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:42 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20002317-245.html

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Yawn. I guess that's why so much time, effort and money is expended

>>>>>>> in keeping MS machines up and running - while none of the three on

>>>>>>> Linux.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Keep telling yourself that myth if it makes you feel better!

>>>>>

>>>>> Or we could simply compare how much time, money, effort we've spent

>>>>> on our respective systems to keep them malware free over the last

>>>>> eight years. I'll go first - zero.

>>>>

>>>> You didn't take into account how many hours it took to research the

>>>> cryptic line commands you need to enter go get that SHITTY Ubuntu

>>>> working right. The countless hours to figure out which SYNAPTIC

>>>> programs to install. The countless hours to get the right drivers

>>>> for sound, video, and MOBO that are missing. and on and on and

>>>> on.........

>>>

>>> You're wrong, as usual.

>>

>> No, you're wrong...as usual.

>>

>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other

>>> Linux distributions and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line

>>> commands" to get any of them running at any point. Generally a Linux

>>> install is simpler and quicker with many, many more apps included than

>>> an MS install.

>>

>> That is simply not true!

>

> Sorry, but it is.

>

>>

Sorry but it isn't. Unlike you, I've actually tried numerous linux

distros over the years and I'm pretty sure you have never installed

Vista or 7.



>> Now, if you'd like to count all the time you spent hunting down

>>> or buying and installing apps equivalent to what are already included

>>> in Linux, you'll be ever further behind!

>>

>> Do yourself a big favor and get lost, ok?

>

> I try, but I keep finding myself.



Oh, so you're permanently lost!

Figures!

 

[Alias]

ray wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:22:11 -0700, Frank wrote:

>

>> On 4/19/2010 3:42 PM, ray wrote:

>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:52 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>

>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>> news:8340kdFhp0U41@mid.individual.net...

>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:13:38 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On 4/19/2010 10:29 AM, ray wrote:

>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:42 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20002317-245.html

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Yawn. I guess that's why so much time, effort and money is expended

>>>>>>> in keeping MS machines up and running - while none of the three on

>>>>>>> Linux.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Keep telling yourself that myth if it makes you feel better!

>>>>>

>>>>> Or we could simply compare how much time, money, effort we've spent

>>>>> on our respective systems to keep them malware free over the last

>>>>> eight years. I'll go first - zero.

>>>>

>>>> You didn't take into account how many hours it took to research the

>>>> cryptic line commands you need to enter go get that SHITTY Ubuntu

>>>> working right. The countless hours to figure out which SYNAPTIC

>>>> programs to install. The countless hours to get the right drivers

>>>> for sound, video, and MOBO that are missing. and on and on and

>>>> on.........

>>>

>>> You're wrong, as usual.

>>

>> No, you're wrong...as usual.

>>

>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other

>>> Linux distributions and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line

>>> commands" to get any of them running at any point. Generally a Linux

>>> install is simpler and quicker with many, many more apps included than

>>> an MS install.

>>

>> That is simply not true!

>

> Sorry, but it is.



LOL! Linux comes with more programs installed by default than any flavor

of Windows. Course, it doesn't come with Internet Explorer but, in

Europe, Windows 7 doesn't even come with that preinstalled.



--

Alias

 

[ray]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:29:35 -0700, Frank wrote:



> On 4/19/2010 5:12 PM, ray wrote:

>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:22:11 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>

>>> On 4/19/2010 3:42 PM, ray wrote:

>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:52 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>> news:8340kdFhp0U41@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:13:38 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On 4/19/2010 10:29 AM, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:42 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20002317-245.html

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Yawn. I guess that's why so much time, effort and money is

>>>>>>>> expended in keeping MS machines up and running - while none of

>>>>>>>> the three on Linux.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Keep telling yourself that myth if it makes you feel better!

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Or we could simply compare how much time, money, effort we've spent

>>>>>> on our respective systems to keep them malware free over the last

>>>>>> eight years. I'll go first - zero.

>>>>>

>>>>> You didn't take into account how many hours it took to research the

>>>>> cryptic line commands you need to enter go get that SHITTY Ubuntu

>>>>> working right. The countless hours to figure out which SYNAPTIC

>>>>> programs to install. The countless hours to get the right drivers

>>>>> for sound, video, and MOBO that are missing. and on and on and

>>>>> on.........

>>>>

>>>> You're wrong, as usual.

>>>

>>> No, you're wrong...as usual.

>>>

>>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other

>>>> Linux distributions and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line

>>>> commands" to get any of them running at any point. Generally a Linux

>>>> install is simpler and quicker with many, many more apps included

>>>> than an MS install.

>>>

>>> That is simply not true!

>>

>> Sorry, but it is.

>>

>>

> Sorry but it isn't. Unlike you, I've actually tried numerous linux

> distros over the years and I'm pretty sure you have never installed

> Vista or 7.



So now you're telling me that you have tried numerous Linux distributions

and I have not.



Yeah, sure.



>

>>> Now, if you'd like to count all the time you spent hunting down

>>>> or buying and installing apps equivalent to what are already included

>>>> in Linux, you'll be ever further behind!

>>>

>>> Do yourself a big favor and get lost, ok?

>>

>> I try, but I keep finding myself.

>

> Oh, so you're permanently lost!

> Figures!



No - I'm permanently found - you're lost.

 

[Bill Yanaire]

"ray" wrote in message

news:8349pqFhp0U45@mid.individual.net...

> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:27 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

>

>> On 19 Apr 2010 22:42:31 GMT, ray wrote:

>>

>>>I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other Linux distributions and

>>>I've not had to resort to "cryptic line commands" to get any of them

>>>running at any point.

>>

>> Why do you need to run more than one distribution?

>>

>> Steve

>

> Taylor the distro to the machine. I run Debian on my wife's netbook and

> on a 'lite' desktop because they are better for those architectures. I

> run Ubuntu (not the most recent version) on a couple of desktops and a

> 2ghz laptop. Run Gentoo on a mini-itx.



Wow. Sounds like you have a lot of work to do just to get those INFERIOR

distros working. So one is better for certain "architectures"? What does

that mean? They are not compatible with the hardware? Sounds like it. If

you need to run a few different OS! With Windows, all you need to do is

install it, the updates will run and load your apps. Simple.



Now go spend another 10 hours looking up what needs to be fixed on each

distro, look into drivers and see if you can find them and then go spend

some time watching the spinning cube. LOL!

 

[Bill Yanaire]

"Alias" wrote in message

news:hqjssp$o4r$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> ray wrote:

>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:22:11 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>

>>> On 4/19/2010 3:42 PM, ray wrote:

>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:52 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>> news:8340kdFhp0U41@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:13:38 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On 4/19/2010 10:29 AM, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:42 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20002317-245.html

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Yawn. I guess that's why so much time, effort and money is expended

>>>>>>>> in keeping MS machines up and running - while none of the three on

>>>>>>>> Linux.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Keep telling yourself that myth if it makes you feel better!

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Or we could simply compare how much time, money, effort we've spent

>>>>>> on our respective systems to keep them malware free over the last

>>>>>> eight years. I'll go first - zero.

>>>>>

>>>>> You didn't take into account how many hours it took to research the

>>>>> cryptic line commands you need to enter go get that SHITTY Ubuntu

>>>>> working right. The countless hours to figure out which SYNAPTIC

>>>>> programs to install. The countless hours to get the right drivers

>>>>> for sound, video, and MOBO that are missing. and on and on and

>>>>> on.........

>>>>

>>>> You're wrong, as usual.

>>>

>>> No, you're wrong...as usual.

>>>

>>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other

>>>> Linux distributions and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line

>>>> commands" to get any of them running at any point. Generally a Linux

>>>> install is simpler and quicker with many, many more apps included than

>>>> an MS install.

>>>

>>> That is simply not true!

>>

>> Sorry, but it is.

>

> LOL! Linux comes with more programs installed by default than any flavor

> of Windows. Course, it doesn't come with Internet Explorer but, in Europe,

> Windows 7 doesn't even come with that preinstalled.

>

> --

> Alias



Are you talking about some of those 25,000 Open Sores programs that you can

use with Ubuntu? Imagine, 25,000 FREE INFERIOR pieces of crap for free.

 

[Bill Yanaire]

"ray" wrote in message

news:834gsoFhp0U47@mid.individual.net...

> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 03:02:07 +0200, Death wrote:

>

>> ray wrote:

>>

>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:36:55 +0200, Death wrote:

>>>

>>>> ray wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:52 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>>> news:8340kdFhp0U41@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:13:38 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2010 10:29 AM, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:42 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20002317-245.html

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Yawn. I guess that's why so much time, effort and money is

>>>>>>>>> expended in keeping MS machines up and running - while none of

>>>>>>>>> the three on Linux.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Keep telling yourself that myth if it makes you feel better!

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Or we could simply compare how much time, money, effort we've spent

>>>>>>> on our respective systems to keep them malware free over the last

>>>>>>> eight years. I'll go first - zero.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You didn't take into account how many hours it took to research the

>>>>>> cryptic line commands you need to enter go get that SHITTY Ubuntu

>>>>>> working right. The countless hours to figure out which SYNAPTIC

>>>>>> programs to install. The countless hours to get the right drivers

>>>>>> for sound, video, and MOBO that are missing. and on and on and

>>>>>> on.........

>>>>>

>>>>> You're wrong, as usual. I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other

>>>>> Linux distributions and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line

>>>>> commands" to get any of them running at any point. Generally a Linux

>>>>> install is simpler and quicker with many, many more apps included

>>>>> than an MS install. Now, if you'd like to count all the time you

>>>>> spent hunting down or buying and installing apps equivalent to what

>>>>> are already included in Linux, you'll be ever further behind!

>>>>

>>>> You should try Fedora.

>>>> Just getting the nvidia drivers installed, the nouveau drivers

>>>> blacklisted is a trial.

>>>

>>> Why would I want to do that? Quite frankly, I'm not enamoured of RPM

>>> distributions - I much prefer Debian package management.

>>>

>>>

>> RPM package dependency hell is over.

>> I like the presto rpmdelta system that cuts way down on update sizes.

>> The first one I did the 425MB dl was only 180MB.

>>

>>

>>>> Hate to tell you, but the only "free app" worth a shit in Linux is

>>>> Open Office ... and downloading that into Windows takes no longer than

>>>> in Linux, and the Windows version is more likely to be the newer

>>>> version than the "pre-packaged version" most distros have in their

>>>> package manager.

>>>

>>> That's your opinion, which you're welcome to. I disagree.

>>

>> So, it takes longer to download and install into Windows? Not hardly.

>> Most of the "package manager versions" of all software are a version or

>> two behind. It is so with firefox also.

>

> I don't generally time downloads - with broadband connections - who

> cares! I disagree with your statement that OOo is the only Linux app

> worth anything.



Come on now, Alias says there are 25,000 of 'em! LOL! 24,999 are crap and

Open Sores Orafice is probably just OK.

 

[Frank]

On 4/20/2010 7:46 AM, ray wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:29:35 -0700, Frank wrote:

>

>> On 4/19/2010 5:12 PM, ray wrote:

>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:22:11 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>> On 4/19/2010 3:42 PM, ray wrote:

>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:52 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>>> news:8340kdFhp0U41@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:13:38 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2010 10:29 AM, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:42 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20002317-245.html

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Yawn. I guess that's why so much time, effort and money is

>>>>>>>>> expended in keeping MS machines up and running - while none of

>>>>>>>>> the three on Linux.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Keep telling yourself that myth if it makes you feel better!

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Or we could simply compare how much time, money, effort we've spent

>>>>>>> on our respective systems to keep them malware free over the last

>>>>>>> eight years. I'll go first - zero.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You didn't take into account how many hours it took to research the

>>>>>> cryptic line commands you need to enter go get that SHITTY Ubuntu

>>>>>> working right. The countless hours to figure out which SYNAPTIC

>>>>>> programs to install. The countless hours to get the right drivers

>>>>>> for sound, video, and MOBO that are missing. and on and on and

>>>>>> on.........

>>>>>

>>>>> You're wrong, as usual.

>>>>

>>>> No, you're wrong...as usual.

>>>>

>>>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other

>>>>> Linux distributions and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line

>>>>> commands" to get any of them running at any point. Generally a Linux

>>>>> install is simpler and quicker with many, many more apps included

>>>>> than an MS install.

>>>>

>>>> That is simply not true!

>>>

>>> Sorry, but it is.

>>>

>>>

>> Sorry but it isn't. Unlike you, I've actually tried numerous linux

>> distros over the years and I'm pretty sure you have never installed

>> Vista or 7.

>

> So now you're telling me that you have tried numerous Linux distributions

> and I have not.

>

> Yeah, sure.



You are that stupid huh?

Too bad.

>

>>

>>>> Now, if you'd like to count all the time you spent hunting down

>>>>> or buying and installing apps equivalent to what are already included

>>>>> in Linux, you'll be ever further behind!

>>>>

>>>> Do yourself a big favor and get lost, ok?

>>>

>>> I try, but I keep finding myself.

>>

>> Oh, so you're permanently lost!

>> Figures!

>

> No - I'm permanently found - you're lost.



Sorry ray-the-snake, I have a legitimate reason for being here. You

don't, so you are the permanently lost one.

 

[ray]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:08:51 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:



> "ray" wrote in message

> news:834gsoFhp0U47@mid.individual.net...

>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 03:02:07 +0200, Death wrote:

>>

>>> ray wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:36:55 +0200, Death wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> ray wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:52 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:8340kdFhp0U41@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:13:38 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2010 10:29 AM, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:42 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20002317-245.html

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Yawn. I guess that's why so much time, effort and money is

>>>>>>>>>> expended in keeping MS machines up and running - while none of

>>>>>>>>>> the three on Linux.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Keep telling yourself that myth if it makes you feel better!

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Or we could simply compare how much time, money, effort we've

>>>>>>>> spent on our respective systems to keep them malware free over

>>>>>>>> the last eight years. I'll go first - zero.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You didn't take into account how many hours it took to research

>>>>>>> the cryptic line commands you need to enter go get that SHITTY

>>>>>>> Ubuntu working right. The countless hours to figure out which

>>>>>>> SYNAPTIC programs to install. The countless hours to get the

>>>>>>> right drivers for sound, video, and MOBO that are missing. and on

>>>>>>> and on and on.........

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You're wrong, as usual. I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of

>>>>>> other Linux distributions and I've not had to resort to "cryptic

>>>>>> line commands" to get any of them running at any point. Generally a

>>>>>> Linux install is simpler and quicker with many, many more apps

>>>>>> included than an MS install. Now, if you'd like to count all the

>>>>>> time you spent hunting down or buying and installing apps

>>>>>> equivalent to what are already included in Linux, you'll be ever

>>>>>> further behind!

>>>>>

>>>>> You should try Fedora.

>>>>> Just getting the nvidia drivers installed, the nouveau drivers

>>>>> blacklisted is a trial.

>>>>

>>>> Why would I want to do that? Quite frankly, I'm not enamoured of RPM

>>>> distributions - I much prefer Debian package management.

>>>>

>>>>

>>> RPM package dependency hell is over.

>>> I like the presto rpmdelta system that cuts way down on update sizes.

>>> The first one I did the 425MB dl was only 180MB.

>>>

>>>

>>>>> Hate to tell you, but the only "free app" worth a shit in Linux is

>>>>> Open Office ... and downloading that into Windows takes no longer

>>>>> than in Linux, and the Windows version is more likely to be the

>>>>> newer version than the "pre-packaged version" most distros have in

>>>>> their package manager.

>>>>

>>>> That's your opinion, which you're welcome to. I disagree.

>>>

>>> So, it takes longer to download and install into Windows? Not hardly.

>>> Most of the "package manager versions" of all software are a version

>>> or two behind. It is so with firefox also.

>>

>> I don't generally time downloads - with broadband connections - who

>> cares! I disagree with your statement that OOo is the only Linux app

>> worth anything.

>

> Come on now, Alias says there are 25,000 of 'em! LOL! 24,999 are crap

> and Open Sores Orafice is probably just OK.



Your opinion, which I do not share.

 

[ray]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:05:18 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:



> "ray" wrote in message

> news:8349pqFhp0U45@mid.individual.net...

>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:27 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

>>

>>> On 19 Apr 2010 22:42:31 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>

>>>>I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other Linux distributions and

>>>>I've not had to resort to "cryptic line commands" to get any of them

>>>>running at any point.

>>>

>>> Why do you need to run more than one distribution?

>>>

>>> Steve

>>

>> Taylor the distro to the machine. I run Debian on my wife's netbook and

>> on a 'lite' desktop because they are better for those architectures. I

>> run Ubuntu (not the most recent version) on a couple of desktops and a

>> 2ghz laptop. Run Gentoo on a mini-itx.

>

> Wow. Sounds like you have a lot of work to do just to get those

> INFERIOR distros working.



First, they are not inferior or I would not be using them. Second, no,

they just simply install and work. Don't believe I've spent more than 45

minutes on any install except Gentoo - and I was prepared for that.



> So one is better for certain

> "architectures"? What does that mean? They are not compatible with the

> hardware? Sounds like it. If you need to run a few different OS!

> With Windows, all you need to do is install it, the updates will run and

> load your apps. Simple.



For example, my mini-itx box with 1ghz VIA C3 is underpowered. You would

not be able, for example, to run any modern MS on it. With a fully

optimized Gentoo, it's performance is quite good. It's not a hardware

compatibility issue at all - it's a performance level issue.



>

> Now go spend another 10 hours looking up what needs to be fixed on each

> distro, look into drivers and see if you can find them and then go spend

> some time watching the spinning cube. LOL!



I've spent three minutes the last few months checking what needs to be

fixed on each distro. Final analysis: nothing needs to be fixed - they're

all working perfectly.

 

[ray]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:09:48 -0700, Frank wrote:



> On 4/20/2010 7:46 AM, ray wrote:

>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:29:35 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>

>>> On 4/19/2010 5:12 PM, ray wrote:

>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:22:11 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On 4/19/2010 3:42 PM, ray wrote:

>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:52 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:8340kdFhp0U41@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:13:38 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2010 10:29 AM, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:42 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20002317-245.html

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Yawn. I guess that's why so much time, effort and money is

>>>>>>>>>> expended in keeping MS machines up and running - while none of

>>>>>>>>>> the three on Linux.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Keep telling yourself that myth if it makes you feel better!

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Or we could simply compare how much time, money, effort we've

>>>>>>>> spent on our respective systems to keep them malware free over

>>>>>>>> the last eight years. I'll go first - zero.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You didn't take into account how many hours it took to research

>>>>>>> the cryptic line commands you need to enter go get that SHITTY

>>>>>>> Ubuntu working right. The countless hours to figure out which

>>>>>>> SYNAPTIC programs to install. The countless hours to get the

>>>>>>> right drivers for sound, video, and MOBO that are missing. and on

>>>>>>> and on and on.........

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You're wrong, as usual.

>>>>>

>>>>> No, you're wrong...as usual.

>>>>>

>>>>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other

>>>>>> Linux distributions and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line

>>>>>> commands" to get any of them running at any point. Generally a

>>>>>> Linux install is simpler and quicker with many, many more apps

>>>>>> included than an MS install.

>>>>>

>>>>> That is simply not true!

>>>>

>>>> Sorry, but it is.

>>>>

>>>>

>>> Sorry but it isn't. Unlike you, I've actually tried numerous linux

>>> distros over the years and I'm pretty sure you have never installed

>>> Vista or 7.

>>

>> So now you're telling me that you have tried numerous Linux

>> distributions and I have not.

>>

>> Yeah, sure.

>

> You are that stupid huh?

> Too bad.



I will believe that you have installed a couple of Linux systems. Your

comments, however, show that you have never seriously TRIED one. There is

a difference. For the record, I had a subscription to Linux Pro for a few

years and generally tried the 'distro of the month' as it came with each

issue - often in a VM - sometimes on one or two dedicated partitions of

my 'testing' machine. Most of them I did not do a detailed analysis on -

I simply attempted to get a sense of the flavor. I doubt you did that

much.





>>

>>

>>>>> Now, if you'd like to count all the time you spent hunting down

>>>>>> or buying and installing apps equivalent to what are already

>>>>>> included in Linux, you'll be ever further behind!

>>>>>

>>>>> Do yourself a big favor and get lost, ok?

>>>>

>>>> I try, but I keep finding myself.

>>>

>>> Oh, so you're permanently lost!

>>> Figures!

>>

>> No - I'm permanently found - you're lost.

>

> Sorry ray-the-snake, I have a legitimate reason for being here. You

> don't, so you are the permanently lost one.

 

[Alias]

Bill Yanaire wrote:

>

>

> "ray" wrote in message

> news:8349pqFhp0U45@mid.individual.net...

>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:27 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

>>

>>> On 19 Apr 2010 22:42:31 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>

>>>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other Linux distributions and

>>>> I've not had to resort to "cryptic line commands" to get any of them

>>>> running at any point.

>>>

>>> Why do you need to run more than one distribution?

>>>

>>> Steve

>>

>> Taylor the distro to the machine. I run Debian on my wife's netbook and

>> on a 'lite' desktop because they are better for those architectures. I

>> run Ubuntu (not the most recent version) on a couple of desktops and a

>> 2ghz laptop. Run Gentoo on a mini-itx.

>

> Wow. Sounds like you have a lot of work to do just to get those INFERIOR

> distros working. So one is better for certain "architectures"? What does

> that mean? They are not compatible with the hardware? Sounds like it. If

> you need to run a few different OS! With Windows, all you need to do is

> install it, the updates will run and load your apps. Simple.

>

> Now go spend another 10 hours looking up what needs to be fixed on each

> distro, look into drivers and see if you can find them and then go spend

> some time watching the spinning cube. LOL!

>

>

>



Lies:



No need to use a command line.



The cube does not spin by itself.



Drivers are not a problem in Ubuntu like they are in Windows 7



The architecture is the structure where to access the root kernel, you

need to key in your password or it ain't going there. In Windows, most

programs are intertwined with the registry (MS' stupid name for a

kernel) and are therefore more vulnerable.



--

Alias

 

[Alias]

Bill Yanaire wrote:

>

>

> "Alias" wrote in message

> news:hqjssp$o4r$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>> ray wrote:

>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:22:11 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>> On 4/19/2010 3:42 PM, ray wrote:

>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:52 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>>> news:8340kdFhp0U41@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:13:38 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2010 10:29 AM, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:42 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20002317-245.html

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Yawn. I guess that's why so much time, effort and money is

>>>>>>>>> expended

>>>>>>>>> in keeping MS machines up and running - while none of the three on

>>>>>>>>> Linux.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Keep telling yourself that myth if it makes you feel better!

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Or we could simply compare how much time, money, effort we've spent

>>>>>>> on our respective systems to keep them malware free over the last

>>>>>>> eight years. I'll go first - zero.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You didn't take into account how many hours it took to research the

>>>>>> cryptic line commands you need to enter go get that SHITTY Ubuntu

>>>>>> working right. The countless hours to figure out which SYNAPTIC

>>>>>> programs to install. The countless hours to get the right drivers

>>>>>> for sound, video, and MOBO that are missing. and on and on and

>>>>>> on.........

>>>>>

>>>>> You're wrong, as usual.

>>>>

>>>> No, you're wrong...as usual.

>>>>

>>>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other

>>>>> Linux distributions and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line

>>>>> commands" to get any of them running at any point. Generally a Linux

>>>>> install is simpler and quicker with many, many more apps included than

>>>>> an MS install.

>>>>

>>>> That is simply not true!

>>>

>>> Sorry, but it is.

>>

>> LOL! Linux comes with more programs installed by default than any

>> flavor of Windows. Course, it doesn't come with Internet Explorer but,

>> in Europe, Windows 7 doesn't even come with that preinstalled.

>>

>> --

>> Alias

>

> Are you talking about some of those 25,000 Open Sores programs that you

> can use with Ubuntu? Imagine, 25,000 FREE INFERIOR pieces of crap for free.

>

>

>



Let's see, asshole:



Firefox

Thunderbird

Open Office

Blender

Pidgin

GIMP

Brasero

Deluge

Audacity

Exaile

Evolution

Streamtuner

Cheese



And many, many more. Course, you haven't used Ubuntu longer than five

minutes per your own post, you obviously don't know what the fuck you're

talking about but that won't stop you from doing it again and again.





--

Alias

 

[Alias]

Bill Yanaire wrote:

>

>

> "ray" wrote in message

> news:834gsoFhp0U47@mid.individual.net...

>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 03:02:07 +0200, Death wrote:

>>

>>> ray wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:36:55 +0200, Death wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> ray wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:52 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:8340kdFhp0U41@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:13:38 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2010 10:29 AM, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:42 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20002317-245.html

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Yawn. I guess that's why so much time, effort and money is

>>>>>>>>>> expended in keeping MS machines up and running - while none of

>>>>>>>>>> the three on Linux.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Keep telling yourself that myth if it makes you feel better!

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Or we could simply compare how much time, money, effort we've spent

>>>>>>>> on our respective systems to keep them malware free over the last

>>>>>>>> eight years. I'll go first - zero.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You didn't take into account how many hours it took to research the

>>>>>>> cryptic line commands you need to enter go get that SHITTY Ubuntu

>>>>>>> working right. The countless hours to figure out which SYNAPTIC

>>>>>>> programs to install. The countless hours to get the right drivers

>>>>>>> for sound, video, and MOBO that are missing. and on and on and

>>>>>>> on.........

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You're wrong, as usual. I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other

>>>>>> Linux distributions and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line

>>>>>> commands" to get any of them running at any point. Generally a Linux

>>>>>> install is simpler and quicker with many, many more apps included

>>>>>> than an MS install. Now, if you'd like to count all the time you

>>>>>> spent hunting down or buying and installing apps equivalent to what

>>>>>> are already included in Linux, you'll be ever further behind!

>>>>>

>>>>> You should try Fedora.

>>>>> Just getting the nvidia drivers installed, the nouveau drivers

>>>>> blacklisted is a trial.

>>>>

>>>> Why would I want to do that? Quite frankly, I'm not enamoured of RPM

>>>> distributions - I much prefer Debian package management.

>>>>

>>>>

>>> RPM package dependency hell is over.

>>> I like the presto rpmdelta system that cuts way down on update sizes.

>>> The first one I did the 425MB dl was only 180MB.

>>>

>>>

>>>>> Hate to tell you, but the only "free app" worth a shit in Linux is

>>>>> Open Office ... and downloading that into Windows takes no longer than

>>>>> in Linux, and the Windows version is more likely to be the newer

>>>>> version than the "pre-packaged version" most distros have in their

>>>>> package manager.

>>>>

>>>> That's your opinion, which you're welcome to. I disagree.

>>>

>>> So, it takes longer to download and install into Windows? Not hardly.

>>> Most of the "package manager versions" of all software are a version or

>>> two behind. It is so with firefox also.

>>

>> I don't generally time downloads - with broadband connections - who

>> cares! I disagree with your statement that OOo is the only Linux app

>> worth anything.

>

> Come on now, Alias says there are 25,000 of 'em! LOL! 24,999 are crap

> and Open Sores Orafice is probably just OK.



Liar. I corrected that figure two years ago. Please try to keep up with

your lies. You should try telling the truth as it's easier to remember.



--

Alias

 

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

On 20 Apr 2010 00:11:38 GMT, ray wrote:



>On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:27 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

>

>> On 19 Apr 2010 22:42:31 GMT, ray wrote:

>>

>>>I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other Linux distributions and

>>>I've not had to resort to "cryptic line commands" to get any of them

>>>running at any point.

>>

>> Why do you need to run more than one distribution?

>>

>> Steve

>

>Taylor the distro to the machine. I run Debian on my wife's netbook and

>on a 'lite' desktop because they are better for those architectures. I

>run Ubuntu (not the most recent version) on a couple of desktops and a

>2ghz laptop. Run Gentoo on a mini-itx.



I still don't understand why you need different distros. Are you

saying users need to try different distros until they find one that

matches the architecture. Most users would give up and go back to W7.

Others would not even try Linux in the first place if they realised

it's so fussy about the architecture.



Steve



--

Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com

EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com

SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com

JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com

 

[ray]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:38:54 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:



> On 20 Apr 2010 00:11:38 GMT, ray wrote:

>

>>On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:27 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

>>

>>> On 19 Apr 2010 22:42:31 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>

>>>>I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other Linux distributions and

>>>>I've not had to resort to "cryptic line commands" to get any of them

>>>>running at any point.

>>>

>>> Why do you need to run more than one distribution?

>>>

>>> Steve

>>

>>Taylor the distro to the machine. I run Debian on my wife's netbook and

>>on a 'lite' desktop because they are better for those architectures. I

>>run Ubuntu (not the most recent version) on a couple of desktops and a

>>2ghz laptop. Run Gentoo on a mini-itx.

>

> I still don't understand why you need different distros. Are you saying

> users need to try different distros until they find one that matches the

> architecture. Most users would give up and go back to W7. Others would

> not even try Linux in the first place if they realised it's so fussy

> about the architecture.

>

> Steve



Not saying that at all. Prime example: my mini-itx with 1ghz VIA C3 is no

powerhouse. I doubt you could 'run' vista or win7 on it (thought they

would probably 'crawl'). A fully optimized Gentoo Linux runs quite nicely

on it. On the wife's netbook (4gb SSD) many distros are too bloated to

install easily. There is a Debian eeepc wiki which is tailored to doing a

network install from flash drive - so I did that - no point mucking

around with other stuff trying to figure out how to install with no CD.

It's not an architecture issue - it's a performance issue.

 

[Bill Yanaire]

"Alias" wrote in message

news:hqkh7t$f5c$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>

>>

>> "ray" wrote in message

>> news:8349pqFhp0U45@mid.individual.net...

>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:27 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

>>>

>>>> On 19 Apr 2010 22:42:31 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other Linux distributions and

>>>>> I've not had to resort to "cryptic line commands" to get any of them

>>>>> running at any point.

>>>>

>>>> Why do you need to run more than one distribution?

>>>>

>>>> Steve

>>>

>>> Taylor the distro to the machine. I run Debian on my wife's netbook and

>>> on a 'lite' desktop because they are better for those architectures. I

>>> run Ubuntu (not the most recent version) on a couple of desktops and a

>>> 2ghz laptop. Run Gentoo on a mini-itx.

>>

>> Wow. Sounds like you have a lot of work to do just to get those INFERIOR

>> distros working. So one is better for certain "architectures"? What does

>> that mean? They are not compatible with the hardware? Sounds like it. If

>> you need to run a few different OS! With Windows, all you need to do is

>> install it, the updates will run and load your apps. Simple.

>>

>> Now go spend another 10 hours looking up what needs to be fixed on each

>> distro, look into drivers and see if you can find them and then go spend

>> some time watching the spinning cube. LOL!

>>

>>

>>

>

> Lies:

>

> No need to use a command line.

>

> The cube does not spin by itself.



Never said the cube doesn't spin by itself. People like you who can't

really do anything useful with Ubuntu probably run the cube and watch it

spin all day to give them something to do. That way they can say they use

Ubuntu.





>

> Drivers are not a problem in Ubuntu like they are in Windows 7

>



BULLSHIT. Look at the Ubuntu forums you idiot. Why do so many users need

to update drivers? Oh, I forgot, you don't know where the Ubuntu forums

are.

 

[Bill Yanaire]

"ray" wrote in message

news:835v97Fhp0U51@mid.individual.net...

> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:09:48 -0700, Frank wrote:

>

>> On 4/20/2010 7:46 AM, ray wrote:

>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:29:35 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>

>>>> On 4/19/2010 5:12 PM, ray wrote:

>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:22:11 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On 4/19/2010 3:42 PM, ray wrote:

>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:52 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:8340kdFhp0U41@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:13:38 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2010 10:29 AM, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:42 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20002317-245.html

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Yawn. I guess that's why so much time, effort and money is

>>>>>>>>>>> expended in keeping MS machines up and running - while none of

>>>>>>>>>>> the three on Linux.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Keep telling yourself that myth if it makes you feel better!

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Or we could simply compare how much time, money, effort we've

>>>>>>>>> spent on our respective systems to keep them malware free over

>>>>>>>>> the last eight years. I'll go first - zero.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> You didn't take into account how many hours it took to research

>>>>>>>> the cryptic line commands you need to enter go get that SHITTY

>>>>>>>> Ubuntu working right. The countless hours to figure out which

>>>>>>>> SYNAPTIC programs to install. The countless hours to get the

>>>>>>>> right drivers for sound, video, and MOBO that are missing. and on

>>>>>>>> and on and on.........

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You're wrong, as usual.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> No, you're wrong...as usual.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other

>>>>>>> Linux distributions and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line

>>>>>>> commands" to get any of them running at any point. Generally a

>>>>>>> Linux install is simpler and quicker with many, many more apps

>>>>>>> included than an MS install.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> That is simply not true!

>>>>>

>>>>> Sorry, but it is.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>> Sorry but it isn't. Unlike you, I've actually tried numerous linux

>>>> distros over the years and I'm pretty sure you have never installed

>>>> Vista or 7.

>>>

>>> So now you're telling me that you have tried numerous Linux

>>> distributions and I have not.

>>>

>>> Yeah, sure.

>>

>> You are that stupid huh?

>> Too bad.

>

> I will believe that you have installed a couple of Linux systems. Your

> comments, however, show that you have never seriously TRIED one. There is

> a difference. For the record, I had a subscription to Linux Pro for a few

> years and generally tried the 'distro of the month' as it came with each

> issue - often in a VM - sometimes on one or two dedicated partitions of

> my 'testing' machine. Most of them I did not do a detailed analysis on -

> I simply attempted to get a sense of the flavor. I doubt you did that

> much.

>



CORRECTION: You had a subscription to Hustler and told your wife it was a

subscription to Linux Pro!