From the horse's mouth - Linux

This is a discussion on From the horse's mouth - Linux ; On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:57:19 +0000, Rick wrote: > On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:00:08 +0100, SomeBloke wrote: > >> DFS lied: >> >> >> >> Strange, I have Linux Format September 2007 page 56 in front of me ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 102

Thread: From the horse's mouth

  1. Re: From the horse's mouth

    On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:57:19 +0000, Rick wrote:

    > On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:00:08 +0100, SomeBloke wrote:
    >
    >> DFS lied:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Strange, I have Linux Format September 2007 page 56 in front of me as I
    >> write this and nothing you have claimed is true.
    >>
    >> Lets take this one step at a time so that a slow minded twat like you
    >> will understand.
    >>
    >> The articles author is Mike Saunders not Graham Morrison. Graham is a
    >> staff writer but not of this piece.
    >>
    >> None of the comments you highlight appear in the article, and yes I have
    >> read it unlike you.
    >>
    >> The article takes 3 people, 2 of them LXF's employees. A publishers
    >> assistant who has only used windows at a very basic level (Word and
    >> Outlook mostly), the mags art editor a Mac fanboy and finally the disc
    >> editor of LXF's sister magazine PC Answers a long time windows user. It
    >> asks them to carry out 3 tasks, Basic usage, Administration and
    >> Installation.
    >>
    >> The conclusion was that and I quote..
    >>
    >> "These are good times. We were gleefully surprised that all three
    >> participants had no major quibbles with the installation process, and
    >> that they managed to grasp Gnome's workings with a few exploratory
    >> attempts. Clearly there were some glitches that need ironing out.... but
    >> otherwise Linux did not pose any huge obstacles."
    >>
    >> Is this clear enough for you? Or shall I beat you around the head a bit
    >> more you lying moron.

    >
    > Look for "Detox Your Linux Box", Graham Greene. According to the Linux
    > Format webiste archive. Apparently, "Linux is only secure and stable if
    > you keepo to a strict diet of official packages and updates. Most of us
    > don't" is a direct quote from the magazine.


    Agreed. I just turned to the article in the mag, and it is quite
    definitely Graham Morrison who wrote it. SomeBloke is talking about a
    completely different article from the one DFS is quoting. And yes, DFS
    *has* quoted it correctly.

    --
    Kier


  2. Re: From the horse's mouth

    On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:52:22 +0100, Kier wrote:

    > On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:57:19 +0000, Rick wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:00:08 +0100, SomeBloke wrote:
    >>
    >>> DFS lied:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Strange, I have Linux Format September 2007 page 56 in front of me as
    >>> I write this and nothing you have claimed is true.
    >>>
    >>> Lets take this one step at a time so that a slow minded twat like you
    >>> will understand.
    >>>
    >>> The articles author is Mike Saunders not Graham Morrison. Graham is a
    >>> staff writer but not of this piece.
    >>>
    >>> None of the comments you highlight appear in the article, and yes I
    >>> have read it unlike you.
    >>>
    >>> The article takes 3 people, 2 of them LXF's employees. A publishers
    >>> assistant who has only used windows at a very basic level (Word and
    >>> Outlook mostly), the mags art editor a Mac fanboy and finally the
    >>> disc editor of LXF's sister magazine PC Answers a long time windows
    >>> user. It asks them to carry out 3 tasks, Basic usage, Administration
    >>> and Installation.
    >>>
    >>> The conclusion was that and I quote..
    >>>
    >>> "These are good times. We were gleefully surprised that all three
    >>> participants had no major quibbles with the installation process, and
    >>> that they managed to grasp Gnome's workings with a few exploratory
    >>> attempts. Clearly there were some glitches that need ironing out....
    >>> but otherwise Linux did not pose any huge obstacles."
    >>>
    >>> Is this clear enough for you? Or shall I beat you around the head a
    >>> bit more you lying moron.

    >>
    >> Look for "Detox Your Linux Box", Graham Greene. According to the Linux
    >> Format webiste archive. Apparently, "Linux is only secure and stable if
    >> you keepo to a strict diet of official packages and updates. Most of us
    >> don't" is a direct quote from the magazine.

    >
    > Agreed. I just turned to the article in the mag, and it is quite
    > definitely Graham Morrison who wrote it. SomeBloke is talking about a
    > completely different article from the one DFS is quoting. And yes, DFS
    > *has* quoted it correctly.


    But has he quoted it in context?

    Some of the quotes are fairly strange.



    --
    Rick

  3. Re: From the horse's mouth

    On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:55:47 +0000, Rick wrote:

    > On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:52:22 +0100, Kier wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:57:19 +0000, Rick wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:00:08 +0100, SomeBloke wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> DFS lied:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Strange, I have Linux Format September 2007 page 56 in front of me as
    >>>> I write this and nothing you have claimed is true.
    >>>>
    >>>> Lets take this one step at a time so that a slow minded twat like you
    >>>> will understand.
    >>>>
    >>>> The articles author is Mike Saunders not Graham Morrison. Graham is a
    >>>> staff writer but not of this piece.
    >>>>
    >>>> None of the comments you highlight appear in the article, and yes I
    >>>> have read it unlike you.
    >>>>
    >>>> The article takes 3 people, 2 of them LXF's employees. A publishers
    >>>> assistant who has only used windows at a very basic level (Word and
    >>>> Outlook mostly), the mags art editor a Mac fanboy and finally the
    >>>> disc editor of LXF's sister magazine PC Answers a long time windows
    >>>> user. It asks them to carry out 3 tasks, Basic usage, Administration
    >>>> and Installation.
    >>>>
    >>>> The conclusion was that and I quote..
    >>>>
    >>>> "These are good times. We were gleefully surprised that all three
    >>>> participants had no major quibbles with the installation process, and
    >>>> that they managed to grasp Gnome's workings with a few exploratory
    >>>> attempts. Clearly there were some glitches that need ironing out....
    >>>> but otherwise Linux did not pose any huge obstacles."
    >>>>
    >>>> Is this clear enough for you? Or shall I beat you around the head a
    >>>> bit more you lying moron.
    >>>
    >>> Look for "Detox Your Linux Box", Graham Greene. According to the Linux
    >>> Format webiste archive. Apparently, "Linux is only secure and stable if
    >>> you keepo to a strict diet of official packages and updates. Most of us
    >>> don't" is a direct quote from the magazine.

    >>
    >> Agreed. I just turned to the article in the mag, and it is quite
    >> definitely Graham Morrison who wrote it. SomeBloke is talking about a
    >> completely different article from the one DFS is quoting. And yes, DFS
    >> *has* quoted it correctly.

    >
    > But has he quoted it in context?


    To a degree, yes. But of course there is much more to the article than
    the comments that DFS has quoted, and by only quoting what suits his
    biased view, he distorts the intent and tone of the piece.

    >
    > Some of the quotes are fairly strange.


    The article certainly goes out of its way to state that Linux is stable,
    and that the writer is not claiming otherwise. It also makes clear that
    eventually, even the best Linux installation may break or begin to slow
    down, mainly due to software conflicts - third party pakcages, bleeding
    edge software which is sometimes unstagble, etc.

    It goes on to talk about how a complete reinstallation is often the
    easiest and best way to remedy many issues of this kind once they've built
    up over a long period of time, and sets out the most efficient ways in
    which to do so without losing all the useful configuration and
    customisation users have also built up.

    "All modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
    without the occasional purge, we should just count ourselves lucky that we
    don't need to start completely from scratch with Linux", says the writer.

    It explains why "most of the time, a simple distribution upgrade fails to
    work and why a hand-picked selection of config files is better than
    arbitrarily copying every file you can find" (config files get out of
    date, can become corrupted, or the software itself has changed so that it
    no longer accesses that file, new settings conflict with old, etc) before
    going on to detail why leaving your home partition untouched during an
    install is possible, but not always the best method of preserving
    important data and config files.

    --
    Kier


  4. Re: From the horse's mouth

    On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:24:58 +0100, Kier wrote:

    > To a degree, yes. But of course there is much more to the article than
    > the comments that DFS has quoted, and by only quoting what suits his
    > biased view, he distorts the intent and tone of the piece.


    Gee.. now whose [News] snippets does that remind me of?

    I don't see you complaining about Roy.

  5. Re: From the horse's mouth

    On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:43:14 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:24:58 +0100, Kier wrote:
    >
    >> To a degree, yes. But of course there is much more to the article than
    >> the comments that DFS has quoted, and by only quoting what suits his
    >> biased view, he distorts the intent and tone of the piece.

    >
    > Gee.. now whose [News] snippets does that remind me of?
    >
    > I don't see you complaining about Roy.


    I don't read the NEWS posts unless they're replied to, and yes, I have
    criticised Roy on several occasions for not being more accurate and
    careful in his posts. And you know it.

    --
    Kier


  6. Re: From the horse's mouth

    Kier wrote:

    > Agreed. I just turned to the article in the mag, and it is quite
    > definitely Graham Morrison who wrote it. SomeBloke is talking about a
    > completely different article from the one DFS is quoting. And yes, DFS
    > *has* quoted it correctly.


    Are your pages misnumbered? Mine go ...38,39,56,57,58,59,60,61,46,47...

    Far as I know it's the same mag in both markets.



  7. Re: From the horse's mouth

    On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 13:02:03 -0400, DFS wrote:

    > Kier wrote:
    >
    >> Agreed. I just turned to the article in the mag, and it is quite
    >> definitely Graham Morrison who wrote it. SomeBloke is talking about a
    >> completely different article from the one DFS is quoting. And yes, DFS
    >> *has* quoted it correctly.

    >
    > Are your pages misnumbered? Mine go ...38,39,56,57,58,59,60,61,46,47...
    >
    > Far as I know it's the same mag in both markets.


    Yes, mine are buggered up in that issue too - though to be honest it took
    me a while to notice. I think they had a lot of staff off at once at LXF
    Towers that month and whoever stood in for that job got things mixed up.

    --
    Kier


  8. Re: From the horse's mouth

    Rick wrote:

    > On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:38:35 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >
    > > SomeBloke wrote:
    > >> DFS lied:

    > >
    > > I see they numbered the pages wrong, and there are two sets of page
    > > 56-61. The article you reference is "The Ultimate Linux Newbie
    > > Test" and it starts on the real page 54. The article I reference
    > > is "Detox Your Linux Box" and goes from real page 40-45, but is
    > > labeled 56-61. Then the numbering goes back to 46.
    > >
    > > Apology accepted (even though a Linux loser like yourself hasn't the
    > > grace or humility or maturity to apologize).

    >
    > Why are you SUCH an ass? Why are you even here? Why do you care about
    > Linux and OSS so much?


    Never heard of an evangelical alcoholic?

    At some point in his life DooFy had to come to terms with the fact that
    something about Linux was out of his reach. Maybe it was severe
    wintardedness and an inherent ability to memorize new menu structures.
    Or maybe to poor sot just never could figure out how to get a machine
    to boot from an optical device.



    Regardless of the cause, the effect is the same. Just like some drunk
    who can't quite acknowledge the fact that he's the abnormal one and
    undertakes a lifetime of bible thumping about the evils of alcohol
    consumption, our village idiot DooFy has immersed himself in his own
    little crusade against something he ultimately knows he can never have.

    Except DuuFus is a lot weirder than any bible thumping evangelist...


  9. Re: From the horse's mouth

    William Poaster :
    > spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
    >
    >> Handover Phist did eloquently scribble:
    >>>> * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long

    >>
    >>> I stuck with Mandrake for about three years before I discovered the
    >>> wonder that is Slackware. I've been using Linux since 1999.

    >>
    >> Indeed. After a 1 day fling with redhat 5.2, I've been with SuSE since
    >> then. Hardly say 8 years isn't "for long".
    >> Though I am considering ubuntu.


    I've tested Ubuntu and My wife and son (NOT linux users!) have had no
    problem adjusting to using it.

    > I used SuSE from 1997 to May 2006. Because I didn't like the way Novel was
    > going, I then used Kubuntu which I'd been testing for about 4/5 months.
    > Meanwhile I'd also been testing *BSD, & have now got them on my main
    > machines while keeping Kubuntu as a fallback OS.
    >
    >>>> * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
    >>>> without the occasional purge

    >>
    >>> Nope.

    >
    > Nope, I've had neither performance nor stability issues.
    >
    >> Indeed, but when was the last time DFS said something that WASN'T
    >> bull****? This machine was last re-installed due to hard disk degradation.
    >> That was well over a year ago. Performance and stability issues?
    >> Bull.

    >
    > Yup, it's bull.
    >
    >>>> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work

    >>
    >>> Nope.

    >>
    >> Indeed. Especially with the deb based package management system.

    >
    > I found it very easy to do, on Kubuntu & Debian installs. No problem
    > upgrading anything, even to a complete new version (Kubuntu 6.10 to 7.04)


    Both Debian and Ubuntu have made upgrades really simple. I still find
    that I appreciate Slackware more even though upgrades are more
    difficult. What really gets me here is that even with a 'difficult'
    distro to upgrade, the instructions for upgrading are clearly and
    concisely printed in the HOWTO and backing up my home dir means I still
    have all the settings for my programs backed up too. Not such a simple
    task using other, say registry based, systems. It's actually *easier* to
    save a user (user being me) screw up.

    >>>> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
    >>>> uncommon among Linux users.
    >>>>
    >>>> Author: Graham Morrison, Linux Format magazine, Sep 2007 issue, pg 56

    >>
    >>> I disagree completely, as a long time Linux user.

    >>
    >> Indeed. Seems this bloke was just another troll with a few gripes.
    >> Just like doofus in fact.

    >
    > I read the article, & wondered if the writer was a newbie.....
    > If I want to clean an existing distro, I just use Kleansweep.


    Many authors out there havent used Linux to it's full potential, and
    many who have used Linux to that potential aren't writers. Those who can
    accoplish both tasks are exceptional indeed. I know, I'm trying.

    --
    YOU'RE A SEXIST

    http://www.websterscafe.com

  10. Re: From the horse's mouth

    Handover Phist wrote:

    > William Poaster :
    >> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
    >>
    >>> Handover Phist did eloquently scribble:
    >>>>> * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long
    >>>
    >>>> I stuck with Mandrake for about three years before I discovered the
    >>>> wonder that is Slackware. I've been using Linux since 1999.
    >>>
    >>> Indeed. After a 1 day fling with redhat 5.2, I've been with SuSE since
    >>> then. Hardly say 8 years isn't "for long".
    >>> Though I am considering ubuntu.

    >
    > I've tested Ubuntu and My wife and son (NOT linux users!) have had no
    > problem adjusting to using it.
    >
    >> I used SuSE from 1997 to May 2006. Because I didn't like the way Novel
    >> was going, I then used Kubuntu which I'd been testing for about 4/5
    >> months. Meanwhile I'd also been testing *BSD, & have now got them on my
    >> main machines while keeping Kubuntu as a fallback OS.
    >>
    >>>>> * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability
    >>>>> issues without the occasional purge
    >>>
    >>>> Nope.

    >>
    >> Nope, I've had neither performance nor stability issues.
    >>
    >>> Indeed, but when was the last time DFS said something that WASN'T
    >>> bull****? This machine was last re-installed due to hard disk
    >>> degradation. That was well over a year ago. Performance and stability
    >>> issues? Bull.

    >>
    >> Yup, it's bull.
    >>
    >>>>> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work
    >>>
    >>>> Nope.
    >>>
    >>> Indeed. Especially with the deb based package management system.

    >>
    >> I found it very easy to do, on Kubuntu & Debian installs. No problem
    >> upgrading anything, even to a complete new version (Kubuntu 6.10 to 7.04)

    >
    > Both Debian and Ubuntu have made upgrades really simple. I still find
    > that I appreciate Slackware more even though upgrades are more
    > difficult. What really gets me here is that even with a 'difficult'
    > distro to upgrade, the instructions for upgrading are clearly and
    > concisely printed in the HOWTO and backing up my home dir means I still
    > have all the settings for my programs backed up too. Not such a simple
    > task using other, say registry based, systems. It's actually *easier* to
    > save a user (user being me) screw up.


    Yes, it is.
    However in my *BSD installations, I keep my /home partition (& back it up)
    but do a completely fresh install of the new version release, rather than
    an upgrade.

    >>>>> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
    >>>>> uncommon among Linux users.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Author: Graham Morrison, Linux Format magazine, Sep 2007 issue, pg 56
    >>>
    >>>> I disagree completely, as a long time Linux user.
    >>>
    >>> Indeed. Seems this bloke was just another troll with a few gripes.
    >>> Just like doofus in fact.

    >>
    >> I read the article, & wondered if the writer was a newbie.....
    >> If I want to clean an existing distro, I just use Kleansweep.

    >
    > Many authors out there havent used Linux to it's full potential, and
    > many who have used Linux to that potential aren't writers. Those who can
    > accoplish both tasks are exceptional indeed. I know, I'm trying.


    Good luck. :-)

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0
    Linux systems: Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007,
    (K)Ubuntu 7.04. Testing: Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" beta

  11. Re: From the horse's mouth

    William Poaster :
    > Handover Phist wrote:
    >>
    >> Many authors out there havent used Linux to it's full potential, and
    >> many who have used Linux to that potential aren't writers. Those who can
    >> accoplish both tasks are exceptional indeed. I know, I'm trying.

    >
    > Good luck. :-)


    Thanks, I could use it. It requires a lot of time and research, but I
    think I can crank something out that's useful to people.

    --
    for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!

    http://www.websterscafe.com

  12. Re: From the horse's mouth

    Gregory Shearman wrote:

    > DFS wrote:
    >
    > > * Linux is only secure and stable if you keep to a strict diet of
    > > official packages and updates. Most Linux users don't.

    >
    > Rubbish. Install your unofficial packages to the default /usr/local/


    Not to mention the fact that Windows doesn't even HAVE any sort of
    official packages for most software, and even Microsoft's own updates
    can't make/keep Windows secure or stable.

    If there were any shred of truth to DooFy'S spew, it would apply to his
    beloved Microslop platform.

    Oh wait, it does.


  13. Re: From the horse's mouth

    After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > * Linux is only secure and stable if you keep to a strict diet of official
    > packages and updates. Most Linux users don't.
    >
    > * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that things will
    > eventually start to break
    >
    > * wanton package installation will clog the smooth running of Linux
    >
    > * third-party packages are often flawed
    >
    > * compiling new packages usually breaks the dependency database of the
    > package manager
    >
    > * a reinstall of Linux will solve most problems (ROFL!... and f-u cola)
    >
    > * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long
    >
    > * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
    > without the occasional purge
    >
    > * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work
    >
    > This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
    > uncommon among Linux users.


    Except for one thing. He is full of it. He sounds like one of those
    trolls who boots to a live CD now and then to pick up some good FUD.
    Guys such as yourself.

    > Author: Graham Morrison, Linux Format magazine, Sep 2007 issue, pg 56


    Whoever reads that mag should write back to disabuse this idiot of his
    idiocy.

    Hint, DFS: Quoting stupidity does not move your thesis forward.

    --
    Tux rox!

  14. Re: From the horse's mouth

    After takin' a swig o' grog, spike1@freenet.co.uk belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Indeed, but when was the last time DFS said something that WASN'T bull****?


    About 80% of what he says is bull****.

    Pure and simple.

    > Indeed. Seems this bloke was just another troll with a few gripes.
    > Just like doofus in fact.


    --
    Tux rox!

  15. Re: From the horse's mouth

    DFS wrote:

    > SomeBloke wrote:
    >> DFS lied:

    >
    > I see they numbered the pages wrong, and there are two sets of page 56-61.
    > The article you reference is "The Ultimate Linux Newbie Test" and it
    > starts
    > on the real page 54. The article I reference is "Detox Your Linux Box"
    > and
    > goes from real page 40-45, but is labeled 56-61. Then the numbering goes
    > back to 46.
    >
    > Apology accepted (even though a Linux loser like yourself hasn't the grace
    > or humility or maturity to apologize).
    >
    >


    Oh, how wrong you are. I do apologise for quoting the wrong article. As has
    been pointed out in this thread the page numbers are wrong. I am also a
    dual-booter so I know the benefits and advantages of Linux over Redmond's
    escapees.

    Now, when are you going to apologise for misquoting, misrepresenting and
    generally quoting out of context and acting like an ass for as long as you
    have been frequenting this newsgroup?


  16. Re: From the horse's mouth

    Linonut wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> * Linux is only secure and stable if you keep to a strict diet of
    >> official packages and updates. Most Linux users don't.
    >>
    >> * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that
    >> things will eventually start to break
    >>
    >> * wanton package installation will clog the smooth running of Linux
    >>
    >> * third-party packages are often flawed
    >>
    >> * compiling new packages usually breaks the dependency database of
    >> the package manager
    >>
    >> * a reinstall of Linux will solve most problems (ROFL!... and f-u
    >> cola)
    >>
    >> * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long
    >>
    >> * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability
    >> issues without the occasional purge
    >>
    >> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work
    >>
    >> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
    >> uncommon among Linux users.

    >
    > Except for one thing. He is full of it. He sounds like one of those
    > trolls who boots to a live CD now and then to pick up some good FUD.
    > Guys such as yourself.


    So he's willfully lying, eh? And the editorial team at the #1 Linux mag is
    all part of the conspiracy?




    >> Author: Graham Morrison, Linux Format magazine, Sep 2007 issue, pg 56

    >
    > Whoever reads that mag should write back to disabuse this idiot of his
    > idiocy.


    You should make that your pet project. While you're at it, make sure to
    accuse the Editor Nick Veitch of lying as well. In his Welcome statement in
    this issue, he agrees with Morrison and says "Installing apps outside of
    your distro's package manager can often come back to haunt you."





    > Hint, DFS: Quoting stupidity does not move your thesis forward.


    I expected the usual head-in-sand denials from the cola cabal. It happens
    every time someone tells the sordid truth about running Linux.

    Unfortunately for cola:

    * he's a staff writer for the #1 Linux mag - not a moronic blogger of the
    type often quoted by Linux "advocates"
    * the editors of Linux Format vetted his article and ran it, so it obviously
    has merit and passed muster among a set of very experienced Linux users who
    are much more trustworthy than the dregs who post here
    * even in my short time using Linux, I've experienced about half the issues
    he mentions
    * evidence of his claims is all over the Internet



  17. Re: From the horse's mouth

    Linonut wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, spike1@freenet.co.uk belched out this
    > bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Indeed, but when was the last time DFS said something that WASN'T
    >> bull****?

    >
    > About 80% of what he says is bull****.
    >
    > Pure and simple.


    I agree... if bull**** == painful truth about the wacky bizarro world of
    Linux/OSS.



    >> Indeed. Seems this bloke was just another troll with a few gripes.


    uh huh. A writer for the #1 Linux mag is a troll.



    >> Just like doofus in fact.


    Don't take it too hard. So installing 3rd party software on Linux can make
    it insecure and unstable, and break the dependency database, and distro
    upgrades often fail, and a full reinstall is best, and Linux users shuffle
    distros? cola knew all that long before I posted it.




  18. Re: From the horse's mouth

    On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:26:21 +0000, Linonut wrote:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> * Linux is only secure and stable if you keep to a strict diet of official
    >> packages and updates. Most Linux users don't.
    >>
    >> * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that things will
    >> eventually start to break
    >>
    >> * wanton package installation will clog the smooth running of Linux
    >>
    >> * third-party packages are often flawed
    >>
    >> * compiling new packages usually breaks the dependency database of the
    >> package manager
    >>
    >> * a reinstall of Linux will solve most problems (ROFL!... and f-u cola)
    >>
    >> * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long
    >>
    >> * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
    >> without the occasional purge
    >>
    >> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work
    >>
    >> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
    >> uncommon among Linux users.

    >
    > Except for one thing. He is full of it. He sounds like one of those
    > trolls who boots to a live CD now and then to pick up some good FUD.


    Come on Lino, I thought you were a man of sense. The quotes are not all
    teh article contains, and it's a useful guide about how to reinstall
    Linux without losing data or configurations.

    > Guys such as yourself.
    >
    >> Author: Graham Morrison, Linux Format magazine, Sep 2007 issue, pg 56

    >
    > Whoever reads that mag should write back to disabuse this idiot of his
    > idiocy.


    Maybe you'd do better to read the article before calling the man an idiot,
    since all of the above quotes are perfectly true. As good as it is, Linux
    can and will break sometimes, usually for some of the reasons stated above.

    --
    Kier



  19. Re: From the horse's mouth

    On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:11:39 -0400, DFS wrote:

    >
    > Don't take it too hard. So installing 3rd party software on Linux can make
    > it insecure and unstable, and break the dependency database, and distro
    > upgrades often fail, and a full reinstall is best, and Linux users shuffle
    > distros? cola knew all that long before I posted it.


    What you missed out is that fact that none of this is a huge problem with
    Linux, precisely because you can upgrade or reinstall it, often without
    even needing to touch your home directory. And Linux users don't need to
    worry about begging MS for permission to use their PC just because
    they've done a clean reinstall

    And exactly what is wrong with enjoying using various distros? SOme users
    like doing that, some don't (my brother doesn't, he's always stuck to Red
    Hat/Fedora/CentOS while I like a change now and then).

    As always, you don't really understand what it is you're complaining about.

    --
    Kier


  20. Re: From the horse's mouth

    After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Linonut wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >>

    > So he's willfully lying, eh? And the editorial team at the #1 Linux mag is
    > all part of the conspiracy?


    Who said anything about lying? I don't know where he gets that stuff,
    but it is bull****.

    >> Whoever reads that mag should write back to disabuse this idiot of his
    >> idiocy.

    >
    > You should make that your pet project. While you're at it, make sure to
    > accuse the Editor Nick Veitch of lying as well. In his Welcome statement in
    > this issue, he agrees with Morrison and says "Installing apps outside of
    > your distro's package manager can often come back to haunt you."


    No, it hardly /ever/ matters. And, if you think it does, at least in
    Debian, you simply mark the project as "manually installed" in the
    package manager's database.

    Look, I don't care WHO said it, or WHY they said it, or how much
    credence it is given by editors.

    The statements made are simply ignorant.

    Being a pundit, article author, or editor does not prevent one from
    being ignorant or stupid.

    >> Hint, DFS: Quoting stupidity does not move your thesis forward.

    >
    > I expected the usual head-in-sand denials from the cola cabal. It happens
    > every time someone tells the sordid truth about running Linux.
    >
    > Unfortunately for cola:
    >
    > * he's a staff writer for the #1 Linux mag - not a moronic blogger of the
    > type often quoted by Linux "advocates"
    > * the editors of Linux Format vetted his article and ran it, so it obviously
    > has merit and passed muster among a set of very experienced Linux users who
    > are much more trustworthy than the dregs who post here
    > * even in my short time using Linux, I've experienced about half the issues
    > he mentions
    > * evidence of his claims is all over the Internet


    So what? None of that matters in the least. It is simply WRONG.

    And your presentation of it is simply asinine.

    --
    Tux rox!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast