From the horse's mouth - Linux

This is a discussion on From the horse's mouth - Linux ; * 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 * ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 102

Thread: From the horse's mouth

  1. From the horse's mouth

    * 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.

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




  2. Re: From the horse's mouth

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


    I disagree. I use plenty of compiled code and 3rd party software safely
    and stably.

    > * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that things will
    > eventually start to break


    Only if you're not paying attention. Even libs in Linux tend to be
    pretty smooth.

    > * wanton package installation will clog the smooth running of Linux


    Wait, I see a running theme here.

    > * third-party packages are often flawed


    I think I've answered this already.

    > * compiling new packages usually breaks the dependency database of the
    > package manager


    OK, just gonna go with 'nope' here.

    > * a reinstall of Linux will solve most problems (ROFL!... and f-u cola)


    Don't know where yer goin, buddy.

    > * 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.

    > * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
    > without the occasional purge


    Nope.

    > * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work


    Nope.

    > 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.

    --
    Most seminars have a happy ending. Everyone's glad when they're over.

    http://www.websterscafe.com

  3. Re: From the horse's mouth

    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.

    >> * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
    >> without the occasional purge


    > Nope.


    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.

    >> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work


    > Nope.


    Indeed. Especially with the deb based package management system.


    >> 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.
    --
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
    | in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
    | Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  4. Re: From the horse's mouth

    DooFuS wrote:

    > * Linux is only secure and stable if _______________ ct diet of official
    > packages and updates. M /| /| | |
    > ||__|| | Please do |
    > * the net effect [of in / O O\__ | NOT | s that things will
    > eventually start to br / \ | feed the |
    > / \ \ troll |
    > * wanton package ins / _ \ \ ______________| ng of Linux
    > / |\____\ \ ||
    > * third-party pack / | | | |\____/ ||
    > / \|_|_|/ \ __||
    > * compiling new / / \ |____| || ndency database of the
    > package manager / | | /| | --|
    > | | |// |____ --|
    > * a rein * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/ (ROFL!... and f-u cola)
    > *-- _--\ _ \ // |
    > * few L / _ \\ _ // | / stro for long
    > * / \_ /- | - | |
    > * all m * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ and stability issues
    > without the occasional purge



















  5. Re: From the horse's mouth

    Micoshaft's Asstroturfer DFS wrote on behalf of Micoshaft Corporation:

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


    Which book claims that?

    > * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that things will
    > eventually start to break


    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!

    YOU *STUPID* WINDUMMY!!!

    Its just sheer windummy approaches that cause all the problems!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Linux has about 20,000+ packages and they are all reasonably well built.
    If you need experimental stuff, its better to do it on some other machine.
    In any case, a well managed user base has reference installs and separate
    home directories that don't disintegrate like windummy environments.
    And once you build a new user environment, you can cleanly update
    a machine without disturbing user files. No need to worry about licenses
    when you do these things.

    Its just one of those things where Linux's superiorioty of windopws
    has Microshafties cringing and you (a windummy)
    can't accept that its your own faults. You rant and rave about breaking your
    systems because you a windummy running Linux labs in Micoshaft HQ try to
    managesoftware installs just like a windummies do and in the process come
    out with windummy perceptions about software and how it should be used.

    Its more clear reasons never to use deep sh*tty windummies on heavy handed
    Linux projects. They are going to bring their dirty baggage and perceptions
    with them and wreck your projects.



  6. Re: From the horse's mouth

    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/

    > * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that things will
    > eventually start to break


    Yes, you have to maintain the non-official packages.
    That's why it's better to stick to the distro packages.


    > * wanton package installation will clog the smooth running of Linux


    So don't be wanton.

    > * third-party packages are often flawed


    Everything human-built is flawed. Nobody's perfect.

    > * compiling new packages usually breaks the dependency database of the
    > package manager


    How? If you build in /usr/local and your package installs to /usr then
    there's no confusion.

    > * a reinstall of Linux will solve most problems (ROFL!... and f-u cola)


    It doesn't solve any problem. It attempts to avoid problems.

    My gentoo boxes have never been reinstalled.

    > * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long


    How does he know this? How long is "for long"?

    > * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
    > without the occasional purge


    Purge? WTF does he mean?

    WTF does he mean by "occasional purge"?

    > * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work


    He obviously doesn't run Gentoo.

    > This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
    > uncommon among Linux users.


    Either his guy probably doesn't really know linux that well or you've quoted
    out of context. I'll perhaps go with the latter.


    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  7. Re: From the horse's mouth

    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.

  8. Re: From the horse's mouth

    Gregory Shearman wrote:

    > My gentoo boxes have never been reinstalled.


    I kept my SuSE 6.4 Linux/KDE installation/partition for several
    years. The downloaded patches from YaST continued just fine,
    very user friendly. It even survived a crapped out Ampro PM9900
    mobo and AMD 450 MHz K6-2 processor. I replaced it with a Slot-1
    Pentium Celeron 333 MHz mobo. Did some minor hardware
    redetecting after booting from same partition, continued another
    year in that configuration, no reloading the OS.

    During the same time, I ended up reinstalling Windows 98 several
    times. I was lucky to get a year out of it.

    So far, I have had good luck with Ubuntu on my 2.9 GHz Pentium
    Celeron, 600 MHz Dell laptop and Debian on my 1.7 GHz Pentium
    Celeron.

    >> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work

    >
    > He obviously doesn't run Gentoo.


    nor SuSE Open, nor Debian, nor Ubuntu. No reinstallations
    required there even with upgrade to Fiesty in Ubuntu. It worked
    seamlessly.

    >> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties -
    >> something *very* uncommon among Linux users.

    >
    > Either his guy probably doesn't really know linux that well or
    > you've quoted out of context. I'll perhaps go with the latter.


    --
    HPT

  9. Re: From the horse's mouth

    On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:23:31 -0400, 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.


    Define "official". If he means getting Samab from "Bob's Samba page"
    instead of from Samab or your distro, then it may well be insecure.

    >
    > * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that things
    > will eventually start to break


    It depends on how you install these "non-official" packages. And yes,
    distros I have used usually suggest you use packages built to your
    distro, and/or from the distro's repository.

    >
    > * wanton package installation will clog the smooth running of Linux


    WHat is wanton package installation?

    >
    > * third-party packages are often flawed


    So?

    >
    > * compiling new packages usually breaks the dependency database of the
    > package manager


    I have never had this happen. Compiling packages on your system builds
    them to the packages on your system.

    >
    > * a reinstall of Linux will solve most problems


    it will? How will putting the same problem back solve the problem?

    > (ROFL!... and f-u cola)


    (ROFL!... and f-u DFS)

    >
    > * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long


    That may be true. So what. I used LniuxPPC and Yellow dog on Macs, then
    Mandrake (several versions) Fedora, Red Hat 9, Suse (several versions)
    and I'm on my second version of PCLinuxOS.

    .... as opposed to DOS (how many versions?) Windows 9x, NT(2k), XP,
    Vista ...

    >
    > * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
    > without the occasional purge


    I am assuming he is including WIndows and OS X ...

    >
    > * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work


    it does?

    >
    >
    > 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


    No, you just have your usual case of dishonesties.



    --
    Rick

  10. Re: From the horse's mouth

    On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:36:29 +0000, 7 wrote:

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

    >
    > Which book claims that?
    >
    >> * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that things
    >> will eventually start to break

    >
    > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!
    >
    > YOU *STUPID* WINDUMMY!!!
    >
    > Its just sheer windummy approaches that cause all the
    > problems!!!!!!!!!!!!
    >
    > Linux has about 20,000+ packages and they are all reasonably well built.
    > If you need experimental stuff, its better to do it on some other
    > machine. In any case, a well managed user base has reference installs
    > and separate home directories that don't disintegrate like windummy
    > environments. And once you build a new user environment, you can cleanly
    > update a machine without disturbing user files. No need to worry about
    > licenses when you do these things.
    >
    > Its just one of those things where Linux's superiorioty of windopws has
    > Microshafties cringing and you (a windummy) can't accept that its your
    > own faults. You rant and rave about breaking your systems because you a
    > windummy running Linux labs in Micoshaft HQ try to managesoftware
    > installs just like a windummies do and in the process come out with
    > windummy perceptions about software and how it should be used.
    >
    > Its more clear reasons never to use deep sh*tty windummies on heavy
    > handed Linux projects. They are going to bring their dirty baggage and
    > perceptions with them and wreck your projects.


    I think DFS is quoting a guy from Linux format. I guess I'm going to have
    to go see if this is out of context, or if the guy is axe grinding.



    --
    Rick

  11. Re: From the horse's mouth

    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.



    --
    Rick

  12. Re: From the horse's mouth

    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 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)

    >>> 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.

    --
    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

  13. Re: From the horse's mouth


    "William Poaster" wrote in message
    news:86h9u4-3s5.ln1@wp.leafnode.mc1...

    Willy Boaster - Straight from the horse's ass.



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  14. Re: From the horse's mouth

    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.
    >
    >
    >



    Was there any mention of the warning that all network computers with
    access to the internet must run behind a hardware firewall such as
    IPCOP.org or one of the commercial router/firewalls?

    What about the fact that all OSes today contain the option to turn on
    and run, an internal firewall?

    Those in the majority of users who run Mepis, Ubuntu, Fedora Core, and
    other OSes that include kSynaptic automatic updating tend to not futz
    with compiling or un-taring packages that are not in the repository, for
    at least their first year of use.


  15. Re: From the horse's mouth

    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).



    >
    >
    > 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.





  16. Re: From the horse's mouth

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

    >
    > Which book claims that?
    >
    >> * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that things will
    >> eventually start to break

    >
    > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!
    >
    > YOU *STUPID* WINDUMMY!!!
    >
    > Its just sheer windummy approaches that cause all the problems!!!!!!!!!!!!
    >
    > Linux has about 20,000+ packages and they are all reasonably well built.
    > If you need experimental stuff, its better to do it on some other machine.
    > In any case, a well managed user base has reference installs and separate
    > home directories that don't disintegrate like windummy environments.
    > And once you build a new user environment, you can cleanly update
    > a machine without disturbing user files. No need to worry about licenses
    > when you do these things.
    >
    > Its just one of those things where Linux's superiorioty of windopws
    > has Microshafties cringing and you (a windummy)
    > can't accept that its your own faults. You rant and rave about breaking your
    > systems because you a windummy running Linux labs in Micoshaft HQ try to
    > managesoftware installs just like a windummies do and in the process come
    > out with windummy perceptions about software and how it should be used.
    >
    > Its more clear reasons never to use deep sh*tty windummies on heavy handed
    > Linux projects. They are going to bring their dirty baggage and perceptions
    > with them and wreck your projects.
    >
    >



    Microsoft built a lab with a purported 400 GNU/Linux systems, where they
    attempt to break the systems. The fact that it has run for three years
    non-stop, fairly well proves the troll's theories false.

    The fact that all the hundreds of router/firewalls on Microsoft Corp.
    networks run Linux is a testament.

    The 15,000 Akamai Leased Linux servers in front of Microsoft.com,
    MSN.com is another testament.

    Even the attempt to discredit GNU/Linux by paid shills, trolls, and
    Steve Ballmer, are all testament to the power and stability of GNU/Linux.

  17. Re: From the horse's mouth

    On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:38:06 -0400, AHappyCamper wrote:

    > 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.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Was there any mention of the warning that all network computers with
    > access to the internet must run behind a hardware firewall such as
    > IPCOP.org or one of the commercial router/firewalls?
    >
    > What about the fact that all OSes today contain the option to turn on
    > and run, an internal firewall?
    >
    > Those in the majority of users who run Mepis, Ubuntu, Fedora Core, and
    > other OSes that include kSynaptic automatic updating tend to not futz
    > with compiling or un-taring packages that are not in the repository, for
    > at least their first year of use.


    All true enough... but why address this to me, and not DFS?



    --
    Rick

  18. Re: From the horse's mouth

    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?

    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> 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.






    --
    Rick

  19. Re: From the horse's mouth

    AHappyCamper wrote:

    > 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.
    >>
    >>

    > Was there any mention of the warning that all network computers with
    > access to the internet must run behind a hardware firewall such as
    > IPCOP.org or one of the commercial router/firewalls?
    >
    > What about the fact that all OSes today contain the option to turn on
    > and run, an internal firewall?
    >
    > Those in the majority of users who run Mepis, Ubuntu, Fedora Core, and
    > other OSes that include kSynaptic automatic updating tend to not futz
    > with compiling or un-taring packages that are not in the repository, for
    > at least their first year of use.


    As there are very few packages *not* in the repositories, IMO there is no
    need to bother compiling or un-taring *anything* from anywhere else. At
    least I've never found it necessary, whatever distro I've used.

    --
    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

  20. Re: From the horse's mouth

    High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >
    > I kept my SuSE 6.4 Linux/KDE installation/partition for several
    > years. The downloaded patches from YaST continued just fine,
    > very user friendly. It even survived a crapped out Ampro PM9900
    > mobo and AMD 450 MHz K6-2 processor. I replaced it with a Slot-1
    > Pentium Celeron 333 MHz mobo. Did some minor hardware
    > redetecting after booting from same partition, continued another
    > year in that configuration, no reloading the OS.
    >
    > During the same time, I ended up reinstalling Windows 98 several
    > times. I was lucky to get a year out of it.
    >
    > So far, I have had good luck with Ubuntu on my 2.9 GHz Pentium
    > Celeron, 600 MHz Dell laptop and Debian on my 1.7 GHz Pentium
    > Celeron.
    >
    > nor SuSE Open, nor Debian, nor Ubuntu. No reinstallations
    > required there even with upgrade to Fiesty in Ubuntu. It worked
    > seamlessly.



    Does Windows XP work seamlessly for you Wendy?


    --
    [ ] Check here if you trust content from HighPlainsRafael
    [x] Check here if you do not trust content from HighPlainsRafael



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