Bad Ubuntu

[Alias]

Bill Yanaire wrote:
> No it didn't go over my head at all. I have updated Ubuntu with those 81
> updates and they did install without a problem. I choose not to use Ubuntu
> for reasons we have already discussed. I read what you wrote but chose to
> say what I said. I guess you don't like the idea. You want to peddle
> Ubuntu to the people so maybe you should get out there.

I've been to South Central LA. Have you? Fortunately, I speak Spanish.
That said, being as I live in Spain, your suggestion that I "peddle
Ubuntu" there is absurd. I have convinced a friend who lives outside of
LA, though. She's switched all three of computers from XP on two and
from Vista, on one, to Ubuntu.


Alias
>
>
> "Bill Yanaire" <bill@yanaire.com> wrote in message
> news:eRDVGeWxHHA.3720@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Great idea. Go to South Central and peddle Ubuntu at 3 AM, but you should
>> include Monday thru Friday!
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
>> news:exTZCaWxHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> In article <lZmdncHHjvqqAQrbnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Here is the release policy:
>>>>>
>>>>> LTS Releases are supported for 3 years (5 years server). All other
>>>>> releases
>>>>> have 1 year support. When the current LTS expires, a new release is
>>>>> made
>>>>> available with LTS support.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's so terribly difficult to understand about this?
>>>> Nothing actually. What it means is Ubuntu is not something to run a
>>>> business on. 3 years?!?! 1 year?!?! Wow, and people complain
>>>> about the "MS upgrade treadmill"! MS is still supporting Windows 2000
>>>> after 8 years and XP after 6 years.
>>>>
>>>> No business wants OS upgrades forced on them every 3 years in order to
>>>> stay supported. If MS did that you would be screaming "monopoly"! Mike
>>> Ubuntu upgrades are totally painless. If you're a business, you back up
>>> your data. Installing a new version of Ubuntu is a nice walk in the park
>>> compared to Windows which could be likened to taking a walk in South
>>> Central LA at 3AM on a Sunday morning.
>>>
>>> Alias
>>
>
>

 

[Mr. Happy]

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>> In article <lZmdncHHjvqqAQrbnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>> Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Here is the release policy:
>>>>
>>>> LTS Releases are supported for 3 years (5 years server). All other
>>>> releases
>>>> have 1 year support. When the current LTS expires, a new release is
>>>> made available with LTS support.
>>>>
>>>> What's so terribly difficult to understand about this?
>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing actually. What it means is Ubuntu is not something to run a
>>> business on. 3 years?!?! 1 year?!?! Wow, and people complain
>>> about the "MS upgrade treadmill"! MS is still supporting Windows
>>> 2000 after 8 years and XP after 6 years.
>>>
>>> No business wants OS upgrades forced on them every 3 years in order to
>>> stay supported. If MS did that you would be screaming "monopoly"!
>>> Mike
>>
>>
>> Ubuntu upgrades are totally painless. If you're a business, you back up
>> your data. Installing a new version of Ubuntu is a nice walk in the park
>> compared to Windows which could be likened to taking a walk in South
>> Central LA at 3AM on a Sunday morning.
>>
>> Alias
>
> If you're a business (a real business) you're not using a toy os like
> linux. Period!
> Frank

Glad you cleared this up Frank. Guess Google should just stop using Linux so
that it can become a "real business", like you supposedly run. The same
could be said for IBM. And let's not forget Novell and all the rest of
those "real" businesses that just aren't getting it right, unless they
follow Frank's lead. Now tell us Frank, if you ran Google and had 1 million
servers to run like Google does, how you'd do it? I'm sure that company
would love to hear from you and have you share your expertise with them.

On second thought, never mind replying. You'll just sidestep the thing and
shovel out your abuse.

Shake Hands With,
Mr. Happy

 

[Frank]

Alias wrote:


>
> I've been to South Central LA. Have you? Fortunately, I speak Spanish.
----------------------------------------------

Sorry pal but South Central LA is predominately black.
East LA is where you'll find Spanish spoken.
Frank

 

[Frank]

Mr. Happy wrote:

>
>
> Glad you cleared this up Frank. Guess Google should just stop using Linux so
> that it can become a "real business", like you supposedly run.

I've yet to walk into an office where the desktops were linux.
Idiot!

The same
> could be said for IBM.

Oh yeah, that's working really good isn't it.
Especially since they're in the process of firing 150,000 employees.
That's half the company!
Wonderful how much they've saved using free linux.
Idiot.


And let's not forget Novell and all the rest of
> those "real" businesses that just aren't getting it right, unless they
> follow Frank's lead. Now tell us Frank, if you ran Google and had 1 million
> servers to run like Google does, how you'd do it? I'm sure that company
> would love to hear from you and have you share your expertise with them.

Don't change the subject...you're talking servers and the subject is
desktops.
Do you know the difference?
Idiot!

Grow up doris. The worlds desktops are running Windows OS's...not linux.
Live with it!
Idiot!
Frank

 

[Mike]

"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:lZmdncLHjvo8OQrbnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Well for one, as alias has stated, doing upgrades is far more painless
> than it is under windows. It comes down to clicking the "Upgrade" button
> and grabbing a cup of coffee while the system goes to do its thing and
> then continuing to use your system like nothing ever happened after a
> quick reboot. It's not like the windows world where in-place upgrades are
> a nightmare and you generally need to wipe the entire machine clean to do
> a reasonable windows upgrade.

But in the "Windows World" you are not forced into this every 3 years.
Besides, most companies don't upgrade OSes on existing machines anyway.
You get the new OS pre-installed on new machines, as needed. On MY
schedule. Makes your "click the Upgrade button and grab a cup of coffee"
seem like an incredible waste of time, particularly when multiplied by 500
(or 5000) machines.

> That said, there are also paid enterprise support packages available from
> Canonical for more support aimed particularly at businesses that I am sure
> will address such concerns as yours.

So you have to pay more in order to get a working solution. I thought
"It's Free" was a major advantage!?

Mike

 

[Gary]

Alias How to make windows into a Linux system in 10 easy steps

http://fun.sdinet.de/flash/howto_turn_windows_into_linux.swf

 

[Stephan Rose]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:48:27 -0400, Mike wrote:

> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:lZmdncLHjvo8OQrbnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Well for one, as alias has stated, doing upgrades is far more painless
>> than it is under windows. It comes down to clicking the "Upgrade" button
>> and grabbing a cup of coffee while the system goes to do its thing and
>> then continuing to use your system like nothing ever happened after a
>> quick reboot. It's not like the windows world where in-place upgrades are
>> a nightmare and you generally need to wipe the entire machine clean to do
>> a reasonable windows upgrade.
>
> But in the "Windows World" you are not forced into this every 3 years.
> Besides, most companies don't upgrade OSes on existing machines anyway.
> You get the new OS pre-installed on new machines, as needed. On MY
> schedule. Makes your "click the Upgrade button and grab a cup of coffee"
> seem like an incredible waste of time, particularly when multiplied by 500
> (or 5000) machines.

Well there's nothing stopping you from getting machines with Ubuntu
pre-installed and getting the same effect as you do from upgrading Windows
that way.

Nobody is forcing you to do OS upgrades. If you want to do so is entirely
your choice.

I mean sure, these guys don't have as slow as an upgrade cycle as
Microsoft does! They are a little faster...I don't see this as a
bad thing as it keeps my system up to date and I don't need to wait 5
years for new features.

And honestly, if I see someone "forcing" OS upgrades, it's Microsoft.
Visual studio comes to mind. VS2003, when it was released, "required"
Windows XP. It wouldn't even run on Win2000 even though there was no
reason why it couldn't. DirectX10 is another forced upgrade if you run a
business that depends on an application that will need DirectX10. CAD/CAM
and 3D Modeling comes to mind.

Microsoft also forced upgrades with their .Net Framework. Visual Studio
2003 does not support the .Net Framework 2.0, you *have* to upgrade to
2005. And what's more ironic, Visual Studio 2005 only supports the .Net
framework 2.0, does not support the .Net Framework 1.0 requiring you to
now run *both* on your machine. The headaches I've had with that,
especially if you accidentally open a 2003 project with 2005.

And just based on my own personal experiences, I won't be surprised to see
the next version of Visual Studio require Vista.

Microsoft does *plenty* to try to force upgrades where it can just based
on my personal experiences.

But agreed, if you have 5,000 systems sitting there you don't want to be
upgrading them every so often. So don't. Just get your usual security
update and be happy with it.

Though eventually, all those systems are going to need to be replaced or
updated anyway. Hardware failure, new software that it needs to run no
longer supports the current operating system, doesn't meet performance
needs anymore, and so on...

So eventually, every single one of those machines will need to be
replaced. So just do the OS upgrades at that point in time.

>
>> That said, there are also paid enterprise support packages available from
>> Canonical for more support aimed particularly at businesses that I am sure
>> will address such concerns as yours.
>
> So you have to pay more in order to get a working solution. I thought
> "It's Free" was a major advantage!?

Dunno about you but I personally wouldn't be likely to employ any OS on
hundreds or thousands of machines without having an appropriate service
and support contract. I mean Ubuntu *is* backed by a commercial company
and said company does need to pay its programmers somehow right?

MS does it by collecting license fees of almost all computers sold world
wide. These guys do it with enterprise support contract to support their
businesses.

And no, not everything in the linux world is free, that is a major
misconception. Though there are people who would like such a thing.

But there is plenty, and not exactly cheap either, commercial software for
linux that is anything but free.

The software I write sure isn't free either!!


--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Alias]

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I've been to South Central LA. Have you? Fortunately, I speak Spanish.
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Sorry pal but South Central LA is predominately black.
> East LA is where you'll find Spanish spoken.
> Frank

I've been there. Enough said.

Alias

 

[Alias]

Mike wrote:
> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
> news:exTZCaWxHHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> No business wants OS upgrades forced on them every 3 years in order
>>> to stay supported. If MS did that you would be screaming "monopoly"!
>>> Mike
>>
>> Ubuntu upgrades are totally painless.
>
> Sure it is. For hundreds or thousands of machines? Every 3 years?
> Whether you want to or not?
>
> Right. Now pull the other one.
>
> If MS did this you would be screaming "monopoly"!
>
> Mike

Please do some research before posting. Thank you.

Alias

 

[Frank]

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I've been to South Central LA. Have you? Fortunately, I speak Spanish.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>>
>> Sorry pal but South Central LA is predominately black.
>> East LA is where you'll find Spanish spoken.
>> Frank
>
>
> I've been there. Enough said.
>
> Alias

You never get tired of lying do you?
'Nuff said!
Frank

 

[Alias]

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've been to South Central LA. Have you? Fortunately, I speak Spanish.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Sorry pal but South Central LA is predominately black.
>>> East LA is where you'll find Spanish spoken.
>>> Frank
>>
>>
>> I've been there. Enough said.
>>
>> Alias
>
> You never get tired of lying do you?
> 'Nuff said!
> Frank

From:

http://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/davenportinstitute/reports/paths/paths7.html

"The majority of the population growth has originated from massive
immigration over the past thirty years from Mexico and Central America.
This immigration has profoundly shaped the ethnic character of South Los
Angeles. Consequently, the ethnic composition of South LA's population
has transformed from a predominantly African American population to a
burgeoning Latino presence. In many parts of South LA, Latino immigrants
have become the majority of the population base.

From 1980 to 1990, the percentage of African Americans in the area
shrank from 64 percent to 47 percent of the total population. The area
lost more than 72,000 people, or 14 percent of its African American
resident base. On the other hand, Hispanics rose from 23 percent to 42
percent of the area's total population in the same period. During that
time, the Hispanic community added more than 216,000 people to the area,
more than doubling its total population base."

Lies?

Alias

 

[Bill Yanaire]

Now if you get 50% of the Hispanic base in South LA to use Ubuntu (Yea,
right), then you will increase the market share of Ubuntu in the world 1%.
Incredible. GO for it


"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
news:%23EpyYcXxHHA.4436@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Frank wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been to South Central LA. Have you? Fortunately, I speak
>>>>> Spanish.
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Sorry pal but South Central LA is predominately black.
>>>> East LA is where you'll find Spanish spoken.
>>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>> I've been there. Enough said.
>>>
>>> Alias
>>
>> You never get tired of lying do you?
>> 'Nuff said!
>> Frank
>
> From:
>
> http://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/davenportinstitute/reports/paths/paths7.html
>
> "The majority of the population growth has originated from massive
> immigration over the past thirty years from Mexico and Central America.
> This immigration has profoundly shaped the ethnic character of South Los
> Angeles. Consequently, the ethnic composition of South LA's population has
> transformed from a predominantly African American population to a
> burgeoning Latino presence. In many parts of South LA, Latino immigrants
> have become the majority of the population base.
>
> From 1980 to 1990, the percentage of African Americans in the area shrank
> from 64 percent to 47 percent of the total population. The area lost more
> than 72,000 people, or 14 percent of its African American resident base.
> On the other hand, Hispanics rose from 23 percent to 42 percent of the
> area's total population in the same period. During that time, the Hispanic
> community added more than 216,000 people to the area, more than doubling
> its total population base."
>
> Lies?
>
> Alias

 

[Alias]

Bill Yanaire wrote:
> Now if you get 50% of the Hispanic base in South LA to use Ubuntu (Yea,
> right), then you will increase the market share of Ubuntu in the world 1%.
> Incredible. GO for it

Did you take a stupid pill today, Bill? I never said I would go to South
Central LA. Where did you get that from, your overused imagination?

Alias
>
>
> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
> news:%23EpyYcXxHHA.4436@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Frank wrote:
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been to South Central LA. Have you? Fortunately, I speak
>>>>>> Spanish.
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry pal but South Central LA is predominately black.
>>>>> East LA is where you'll find Spanish spoken.
>>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>> I've been there. Enough said.
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>>> You never get tired of lying do you?
>>> 'Nuff said!
>>> Frank
>> From:
>>
>> http://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/davenportinstitute/reports/paths/paths7.html
>>
>> "The majority of the population growth has originated from massive
>> immigration over the past thirty years from Mexico and Central America.
>> This immigration has profoundly shaped the ethnic character of South Los
>> Angeles. Consequently, the ethnic composition of South LA's population has
>> transformed from a predominantly African American population to a
>> burgeoning Latino presence. In many parts of South LA, Latino immigrants
>> have become the majority of the population base.
>>
>> From 1980 to 1990, the percentage of African Americans in the area shrank
>> from 64 percent to 47 percent of the total population. The area lost more
>> than 72,000 people, or 14 percent of its African American resident base.
>> On the other hand, Hispanics rose from 23 percent to 42 percent of the
>> area's total population in the same period. During that time, the Hispanic
>> community added more than 216,000 people to the area, more than doubling
>> its total population base."
>>
>> Lies?
>>
>> Alias
>
>

 

[Frank]

Alias wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been to South Central LA. Have you? Fortunately, I speak
>>>>> Spanish.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Sorry pal but South Central LA is predominately black.
>>>> East LA is where you'll find Spanish spoken.
>>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've been there. Enough said.
>>>
>>> Alias
>>
>>
>> You never get tired of lying do you?
>> 'Nuff said!
>> Frank
>
>
> From:
>
> http://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/davenportinstitute/reports/paths/paths7.html
>
>
> "The majority of the population growth has originated from massive
> immigration over the past thirty years from Mexico and Central America.
> This immigration has profoundly shaped the ethnic character of South Los
> Angeles. Consequently, the ethnic composition of South LA's population
> has transformed from a predominantly African American population to a
> burgeoning Latino presence. In many parts of South LA, Latino immigrants
> have become the majority of the population base.
>
> From 1980 to 1990, the percentage of African Americans in the area
> shrank from 64 percent to 47 percent of the total population. The area
> lost more than 72,000 people, or 14 percent of its African American
> resident base. On the other hand, Hispanics rose from 23 percent to 42
> percent of the area's total population in the same period. During that
> time, the Hispanic community added more than 216,000 people to the area,
> more than doubling its total population base."
>
> Lies?
>
> Alias
Can you read or what...scla is NOT repeat NOT where the majority of
spanish is spoken.
How f'in dumb are you?
Gaww...grow up you idiot!
Frank

 

[Gary]

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
news:OIv$ZyXxHHA.5068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Bill Yanaire wrote:
>> Now if you get 50% of the Hispanic base in South LA to use Ubuntu (Yea,
>> right), then you will increase the market share of Ubuntu in the world
>> 1%. Incredible. GO for it
>
> Did you take a stupid pill today, Bill? I never said I would go to South
> Central LA. Where did you get that from, your overused imagination?
>
> Alias
>>

Talk about stupid where did Bill say you would go to South Central LA?

 

[Ian Betts]

So if you write software and all you claim what the hell you doing writing
to this list. You talk just big,
Linux is based on the principle or free source so its free.



--
Ian

"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
news:lZmdnfzHjvrILgrbnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:48:27 -0400, Mike wrote:
>
>> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>> news:lZmdncLHjvo8OQrbnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> Well for one, as alias has stated, doing upgrades is far more painless
>>> than it is under windows. It comes down to clicking the "Upgrade" button
>>> and grabbing a cup of coffee while the system goes to do its thing and
>>> then continuing to use your system like nothing ever happened after a
>>> quick reboot. It's not like the windows world where in-place upgrades
>>> are
>>> a nightmare and you generally need to wipe the entire machine clean to
>>> do
>>> a reasonable windows upgrade.
>>
>> But in the "Windows World" you are not forced into this every 3 years.
>> Besides, most companies don't upgrade OSes on existing machines anyway.
>> You get the new OS pre-installed on new machines, as needed. On MY
>> schedule. Makes your "click the Upgrade button and grab a cup of
>> coffee"
>> seem like an incredible waste of time, particularly when multiplied by
>> 500
>> (or 5000) machines.
>
> Well there's nothing stopping you from getting machines with Ubuntu
> pre-installed and getting the same effect as you do from upgrading Windows
> that way.
>
> Nobody is forcing you to do OS upgrades. If you want to do so is entirely
> your choice.
>
> I mean sure, these guys don't have as slow as an upgrade cycle as
> Microsoft does! They are a little faster...I don't see this as a
> bad thing as it keeps my system up to date and I don't need to wait 5
> years for new features.
>
> And honestly, if I see someone "forcing" OS upgrades, it's Microsoft.
> Visual studio comes to mind. VS2003, when it was released, "required"
> Windows XP. It wouldn't even run on Win2000 even though there was no
> reason why it couldn't. DirectX10 is another forced upgrade if you run a
> business that depends on an application that will need DirectX10. CAD/CAM
> and 3D Modeling comes to mind.
>
> Microsoft also forced upgrades with their .Net Framework. Visual Studio
> 2003 does not support the .Net Framework 2.0, you *have* to upgrade to
> 2005. And what's more ironic, Visual Studio 2005 only supports the .Net
> framework 2.0, does not support the .Net Framework 1.0 requiring you to
> now run *both* on your machine. The headaches I've had with that,
> especially if you accidentally open a 2003 project with 2005.
>
> And just based on my own personal experiences, I won't be surprised to see
> the next version of Visual Studio require Vista.
>
> Microsoft does *plenty* to try to force upgrades where it can just based
> on my personal experiences.
>
> But agreed, if you have 5,000 systems sitting there you don't want to be
> upgrading them every so often. So don't. Just get your usual security
> update and be happy with it.
>
> Though eventually, all those systems are going to need to be replaced or
> updated anyway. Hardware failure, new software that it needs to run no
> longer supports the current operating system, doesn't meet performance
> needs anymore, and so on...
>
> So eventually, every single one of those machines will need to be
> replaced. So just do the OS upgrades at that point in time.
>
>>
>>> That said, there are also paid enterprise support packages available
>>> from
>>> Canonical for more support aimed particularly at businesses that I am
>>> sure
>>> will address such concerns as yours.
>>
>> So you have to pay more in order to get a working solution. I thought
>> "It's Free" was a major advantage!?
>
> Dunno about you but I personally wouldn't be likely to employ any OS on
> hundreds or thousands of machines without having an appropriate service
> and support contract. I mean Ubuntu *is* backed by a commercial company
> and said company does need to pay its programmers somehow right?
>
> MS does it by collecting license fees of almost all computers sold world
> wide. These guys do it with enterprise support contract to support their
> businesses.
>
> And no, not everything in the linux world is free, that is a major
> misconception. Though there are people who would like such a thing.
>
> But there is plenty, and not exactly cheap either, commercial software for
> linux that is anything but free\0\0\0>
> The software I write sure isn't free either!!
>
>
> --
> Stephan
> 2003 Yamaha R6
>
> å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
> å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Stephan Rose]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:44:55 +0100, Ian Betts wrote:

> So if you write software and all you claim what the hell you doing writing
> to this list. You talk just big,
> Linux is based on the principle or free source so its free.
>

I'm bored...I don't work 24 hours a day you know! And sure, it is based on
that principle but there is plenty stuff also out there for it that is not
open source and not free.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Alpha]

On Jul 13, 8:57 am, Alias <a...@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > In article <lZmdncHHjvqqAQrbnZ2dnUVZ8vidn...@giganews.com>,
> > Stephan Rose <nos...@spammer.com> wrote:
>
> >> Here is the release policy:
>
> >> LTS Releases are supported for 3 years (5 years server). All other releases
> >> have 1 year support. When the current LTS expires, a new release is made
> >> available with LTS support.
>
> >> What's so terribly difficult to understand about this?
>
> > Nothing actually. What it means is Ubuntu is not something to run a
> > business on. 3 years?!?! 1 year?!?! Wow, and people complain
> > about the "MS upgrade treadmill"! MS is still supporting Windows 2000
> > after 8 years and XP after 6 years.
>
> > No business wants OS upgrades forced on them every 3 years in order to
> > stay supported. If MS did that you would be screaming "monopoly"!
>
> > Mike
>
> Ubuntu upgrades are totally painless. If you're a business, you back up
> your data. Installing a new version of Ubuntu is a nice walk in the park
> compared to Windows which could be likened to taking a walk in South
> Central LA at 3AM on a Sunday morning.
>
> Alias- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Except that, on 10 PCs, it has FAILED to install every time.

 

[norm]

Alpha wrote:
> On Jul 13, 8:57 am, Alias <a...@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>> In article <lZmdncHHjvqqAQrbnZ2dnUVZ8vidn...@giganews.com>,
>>> Stephan Rose <nos...@spammer.com> wrote:
>>>> Here is the release policy:
>>>> LTS Releases are supported for 3 years (5 years server). All other releases
>>>> have 1 year support. When the current LTS expires, a new release is made
>>>> available with LTS support.
>>>> What's so terribly difficult to understand about this?
>>> Nothing actually. What it means is Ubuntu is not something to run a
>>> business on. 3 years?!?! 1 year?!?! Wow, and people complain
>>> about the "MS upgrade treadmill"! MS is still supporting Windows 2000
>>> after 8 years and XP after 6 years.
>>> No business wants OS upgrades forced on them every 3 years in order to
>>> stay supported. If MS did that you would be screaming "monopoly"!
>>> Mike
>> Ubuntu upgrades are totally painless. If you're a business, you back up
>> your data. Installing a new version of Ubuntu is a nice walk in the park
>> compared to Windows which could be likened to taking a walk in South
>> Central LA at 3AM on a Sunday morning.
>>
>> Alias- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Except that, on 10 PCs, it has FAILED to install every time.
>
That is too bad. You probably need to stick with what you currently use.
Hopefully, it won't fail on you.

--
norm

 

[Alpha]

On Jul 13, 2:05 pm, norm <no...@afakeddomain.net> wrote:
> Alpha wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 8:57 am, Alias <a...@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote:
> >> Mike wrote:
> >>> In article <lZmdncHHjvqqAQrbnZ2dnUVZ8vidn...@giganews.com>,
> >>> Stephan Rose <nos...@spammer.com> wrote:
> >>>> Here is the release policy:
> >>>> LTS Releases are supported for 3 years (5 years server). All other releases
> >>>> have 1 year support. When the current LTS expires, a new release is made
> >>>> available with LTS support.
> >>>> What's so terribly difficult to understand about this?
> >>> Nothing actually. What it means is Ubuntu is not something to run a
> >>> business on. 3 years?!?! 1 year?!?! Wow, and people complain
> >>> about the "MS upgrade treadmill"! MS is still supporting Windows 2000
> >>> after 8 years and XP after 6 years.
> >>> No business wants OS upgrades forced on them every 3 years in order to
> >>> stay supported. If MS did that you would be screaming "monopoly"!
> >>> Mike
> >> Ubuntu upgrades are totally painless. If you're a business, you back up
> >> your data. Installing a new version of Ubuntu is a nice walk in the park
> >> compared to Windows which could be likened to taking a walk in South
> >> Central LA at 3AM on a Sunday morning.
>
> >> Alias- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Except that, on 10 PCs, it has FAILED to install every time.
>
> That is too bad. You probably need to stick with what you currently use.
> Hopefully, it won't fail on you.
>
> --
> norm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It has never failed....it is called Windows XP Pro