[url]http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1195031&tstart=0[/url]
So much for the "superior" quality of apple software
They are every bit as incompetent as their Redmond counterparts
--
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware
Printable View
[url]http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1195031&tstart=0[/url]
So much for the "superior" quality of apple software
They are every bit as incompetent as their Redmond counterparts
--
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware
Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
[color=blue]
> [url]http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1195031&tstart=0[/url]
>
> So much for the "superior" quality of apple software
>
> They are every bit as incompetent as their Redmond counterparts[/color]
sorry peter, it had nothing to do with apple.
the company Unsanity has now apologized:
[url]http://unsanity.org/[/url]
____/ Gene Jones on Monday 29 October 2007 06:05 : \____
[color=blue]
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> [url]http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1195031&tstart=0[/url]
>>
>> So much for the "superior" quality of apple software
>>
>> They are every bit as incompetent as their Redmond counterparts[/color]
>
> sorry peter, it had nothing to do with apple.
>
> the company Unsanity has now apologized:
>
> [url]http://unsanity.org/[/url][/color]
You're actually right on this one, but it's a shame that Apple did not test the
build sufficiently in order to identify the conflict and resolve it.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useful fact: close elevator button = Express Mode
[url]http://Schestowitz.com[/url] | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
[url]http://iuron.com[/url] - proposing a non-profit search engine
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
[color=blue]
> ____/ Gene Jones on Monday 29 October 2007 06:05 : \____
>[color=green]
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> [url]http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1195031&tstart=0[/url]
>>>
>>> So much for the "superior" quality of apple software
>>>
>>> They are every bit as incompetent as their Redmond counterparts[/color]
>>
>> sorry peter, it had nothing to do with apple.
>>
>> the company Unsanity has now apologized:
>>
>> [url]http://unsanity.org/[/url][/color]
>
> You're actually right on this one, but it's a shame that Apple did not
> test the build sufficiently in order to identify the conflict and resolve
> it.
>[/color]
It is a shame also that apparently they changed significant amounts of code
without providing the changes to 3rd-party developers to let them
test/change their products.
In either case, apple is responsible. They should make sure that
their "upgrade" does not cripple the machine just because a widely used
3rd-party "enhancer" is installed.
The "upgrade" should check for it and disable it or at least give a clearly
worded (it's apple users, after all) warning
--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means,
do not use a hammer. <from an IBM-Manual>
____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 09:35 : \____
[color=blue]
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>[color=green]
>> ____/ Gene Jones on Monday 29 October 2007 06:05 : \____
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [url]http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1195031&tstart=0[/url]
>>>>
>>>> So much for the "superior" quality of apple software
>>>>
>>>> They are every bit as incompetent as their Redmond counterparts
>>>
>>> sorry peter, it had nothing to do with apple.
>>>
>>> the company Unsanity has now apologized:
>>>
>>> [url]http://unsanity.org/[/url][/color]
>>
>> You're actually right on this one, but it's a shame that Apple did not
>> test the build sufficiently in order to identify the conflict and resolve
>> it.
>>[/color]
>
> It is a shame also that apparently they changed significant amounts of code
> without providing the changes to 3rd-party developers to let them
> test/change their products.
> In either case, apple is responsible. They should make sure that
> their "upgrade" does not cripple the machine just because a widely used
> 3rd-party "enhancer" is installed.
> The "upgrade" should check for it and disable it or at least give a clearly
> worded (it's apple users, after all) warning[/color]
I think there was an open test version (several even, distributed via Torrent).
How come nobody spotted this conflict before the release?
One might suggest that APIs/hooks were not sufficiently robust (well-designed)
in Tiger if a third-party application was able to cause some chaos without
simply being separated from the system, which should be modular and
self-correcting. It still doesn't give a decent excuse for those that 'hack'
around hooks (if it all). This might explain why Apple gave developers the
boot as far as iPhone is concerned. The phone was designed very poorly (it's
hard to see this because it's closed-source) if it runs as root _all the
time_. Apple was able to hide this fact for _months_, but the bonnet wasn't
think enough.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Anonymous posters are more frequently disregarded
[url]http://Schestowitz.com[/url] | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
run-level 2 2007-10-16 15:14 last=
[url]http://iuron.com[/url] - help build a non-profit search engine
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> espoused:[color=blue]
> ____/ Gene Jones on Monday 29 October 2007 06:05 : \____
>[color=green]
>> Peter K?hlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> [url]http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1195031&tstart=0[/url]
>>>
>>> So much for the "superior" quality of apple software
>>>
>>> They are every bit as incompetent as their Redmond counterparts[/color]
>>
>> sorry peter, it had nothing to do with apple.
>>
>> the company Unsanity has now apologized:
>>
>> [url]http://unsanity.org/[/url][/color]
>
> You're actually right on this one, but it's a shame that Apple did not test the
> build sufficiently in order to identify the conflict and resolve it.
>[/color]
Ie., it has everything to do with Apple, since they failed to integrate
properly, which is one of their major claims to fame. Still, it's good
to see that they're as willing to run away from responsibility as every
other proprietary vendor.
Advice? Stick with linux - people address problems and fix them, they
don't bother with the blame game.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: [url]http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/[/url] |
| Cola trolls: [url]http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/[/url] |
| My (new) blog: [url]http://www.thereisnomagic.org[/url] |
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
[color=blue]
> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 09:35 : \____
>[color=green]
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> ____/ Gene Jones on Monday 29 October 2007 06:05 : \____
>>>
>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [url]http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1195031&tstart=0[/url]
>>>>>
>>>>> So much for the "superior" quality of apple software
>>>>>
>>>>> They are every bit as incompetent as their Redmond counterparts
>>>>
>>>> sorry peter, it had nothing to do with apple.
>>>>
>>>> the company Unsanity has now apologized:
>>>>
>>>> [url]http://unsanity.org/[/url]
>>>
>>> You're actually right on this one, but it's a shame that Apple did not
>>> test the build sufficiently in order to identify the conflict and
>>> resolve it.
>>>[/color]
>>
>> It is a shame also that apparently they changed significant amounts of
>> code without providing the changes to 3rd-party developers to let them
>> test/change their products.
>> In either case, apple is responsible. They should make sure that
>> their "upgrade" does not cripple the machine just because a widely used
>> 3rd-party "enhancer" is installed.
>> The "upgrade" should check for it and disable it or at least give a
>> clearly worded (it's apple users, after all) warning[/color]
>
> I think there was an open test version (several even, distributed via
> Torrent). How come nobody spotted this conflict before the release?[/color]
Because apple changed so much between the last RC and the gold code
< snip >
--
"The number of Unix installations has grown to ten, with more expected"
-- The Unix programmers handbook, 1972
____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 10:41 : \____
[color=blue]
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>[color=green]
>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 09:35 : \____
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> ____/ Gene Jones on Monday 29 October 2007 06:05 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [url]http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1195031&tstart=0[/url]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So much for the "superior" quality of apple software
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are every bit as incompetent as their Redmond counterparts
>>>>>
>>>>> sorry peter, it had nothing to do with apple.
>>>>>
>>>>> the company Unsanity has now apologized:
>>>>>
>>>>> [url]http://unsanity.org/[/url]
>>>>
>>>> You're actually right on this one, but it's a shame that Apple did not
>>>> test the build sufficiently in order to identify the conflict and
>>>> resolve it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a shame also that apparently they changed significant amounts of
>>> code without providing the changes to 3rd-party developers to let them
>>> test/change their products.
>>> In either case, apple is responsible. They should make sure that
>>> their "upgrade" does not cripple the machine just because a widely used
>>> 3rd-party "enhancer" is installed.
>>> The "upgrade" should check for it and disable it or at least give a
>>> clearly worded (it's apple users, after all) warning[/color]
>>
>> I think there was an open test version (several even, distributed via
>> Torrent). How come nobody spotted this conflict before the release?[/color]
>
> Because apple changed so much between the last RC and the gold code
>
> < snip >[/color]
Or maybe no-one was willing to be the slave (tester) of a multi-billion dollar
company that is so arrogant...?
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 21978 x 4 = 21978 backwards
[url]http://Schestowitz.com[/url] | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
[url]http://iuron.com[/url] - proposing a non-profit search engine
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
[color=blue]
> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 10:41 : \____
>[color=green]
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 09:35 : \____
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ____/ Gene Jones on Monday 29 October 2007 06:05 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [url]http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1195031&tstart=0[/url]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So much for the "superior" quality of apple software
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are every bit as incompetent as their Redmond counterparts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sorry peter, it had nothing to do with apple.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the company Unsanity has now apologized:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [url]http://unsanity.org/[/url]
>>>>>
>>>>> You're actually right on this one, but it's a shame that Apple did not
>>>>> test the build sufficiently in order to identify the conflict and
>>>>> resolve it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a shame also that apparently they changed significant amounts of
>>>> code without providing the changes to 3rd-party developers to let them
>>>> test/change their products.
>>>> In either case, apple is responsible. They should make sure that
>>>> their "upgrade" does not cripple the machine just because a widely used
>>>> 3rd-party "enhancer" is installed.
>>>> The "upgrade" should check for it and disable it or at least give a
>>>> clearly worded (it's apple users, after all) warning
>>>
>>> I think there was an open test version (several even, distributed via
>>> Torrent). How come nobody spotted this conflict before the release?[/color]
>>
>> Because apple changed so much between the last RC and the gold code
>>
>> < snip >[/color]
>
> Or maybe no-one was willing to be the slave (tester) of a multi-billion
> dollar company that is so arrogant...?
>[/color]
Do you actually try sometimes to generate some coherent thoughts?
--
Try to be the best of whatever you are, even if what you are is
no good.
In article <ffv39v$9cl$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
Peter Kohlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:[color=blue]
> [url]http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1195031&tstart=0[/url]
>
> So much for the "superior" quality of apple software
>
> They are every bit as incompetent as their Redmond counterparts[/color]
Are you claiming that no Linux upgrade has ever got stuck?
Tim Smith wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <ffv39v$9cl$01$1@news.t-online.com>,
> Peter Kohlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:[color=green]
>> [url]http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1195031&tstart=0[/url]
>>
>> So much for the "superior" quality of apple software
>>
>> They are every bit as incompetent as their Redmond counterparts[/color]
>
> Are you claiming that no Linux upgrade has ever got stuck?[/color]
Show me where I implied that, Tim Hadron Funkenbusch
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:ffv39v$9cl$01$1@news.t-online.com...[color=blue]
> [url]http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1195031&tstart=0[/url]
>
> So much for the "superior" quality of apple software
>
> They are every bit as incompetent as their Redmond counterparts
> --
> Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware
>[/color]
"So much for the "superior" quality of OSS software"
[url]http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=3643308[/url]
October 2007
Ubuntu 7.10 Install - Stuck at Logo Screen
Hi,
Trying to install Ubuntu 7.10 but it fails. It basically just stops at the
Ubuntu logo screen with the orange progress bar, bouncing back and forth.
[url]http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/installation-stuck-at-irq-14-593703/[/url]
10-22-2007, 12:19 PM
Installation stuck at irq 14
I press <enter> to install in GUI mode.
In the half way. It stuck/hang at the line below:
'ide0 at 0x1f0-0x1f7,0x3f6 on irq 14'
[url]http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/redhat-fedora-linux-help/51338-fedora-core-4-installation-stuck-when-starting.html[/url]
Hi,
I have a P4 system having intel D915GAV board with 1GB RAM. I tried to
install Fedore Core 4. Just after I press Enter at the boot prompt, I get a
series of error codes and everything is stuck. Even the Ctrl-Alt-Del is not
responding.
[url]http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=84822[/url]
Install Stuck at 83% - ide-disk
Hello all, I just got this Ubuntu CD from my teacher and wanted to install
it onto an older computer for my cousin. I formatted the old os and wanted
to clean install this one. I've tried the disks on my current computer and
they work great. Here's the problem, when I try to install it onto my old
computer, it hangs at 83% - Loading module 'ide-disk' for 'Linux ATA
DISK'...
[url]http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=145577[/url]
2007-01-24, 09:45 AM PST
cannot install FC6, "DWARF2 unwinder stuck at error"
However, just after the installation started, the installation halted and I
got this message which I thought would give you an idea of what's happening:
DWARF2 unwinder stuck at error_code+0x39/0x40
Leftover inexact backtrace:
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]
____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 13:32 : \____
[color=blue]
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>[color=green]
>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 10:41 : \____
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 09:35 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ____/ Gene Jones on Monday 29 October 2007 06:05 : \____
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [url]http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1195031&tstart=0[/url]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So much for the "superior" quality of apple software
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They are every bit as incompetent as their Redmond counterparts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sorry peter, it had nothing to do with apple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the company Unsanity has now apologized:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [url]http://unsanity.org/[/url]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're actually right on this one, but it's a shame that Apple did not
>>>>>> test the build sufficiently in order to identify the conflict and
>>>>>> resolve it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a shame also that apparently they changed significant amounts of
>>>>> code without providing the changes to 3rd-party developers to let them
>>>>> test/change their products.
>>>>> In either case, apple is responsible. They should make sure that
>>>>> their "upgrade" does not cripple the machine just because a widely used
>>>>> 3rd-party "enhancer" is installed.
>>>>> The "upgrade" should check for it and disable it or at least give a
>>>>> clearly worded (it's apple users, after all) warning
>>>>
>>>> I think there was an open test version (several even, distributed via
>>>> Torrent). How come nobody spotted this conflict before the release?
>>>
>>> Because apple changed so much between the last RC and the gold code
>>>
>>> < snip >[/color]
>>
>> Or maybe no-one was willing to be the slave (tester) of a multi-billion
>> dollar company that is so arrogant...?
>>[/color]
>
> Do you actually try sometimes to generate some coherent thoughts?[/color]
Be specific, Peter. You're being rude.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux + tax = Mac OS = (Windows - functionality)
[url]http://Schestowitz.com[/url] | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
21:20:04 up 1:31, 2 users, load average: 1.67, 1.65, 1.63
[url]http://iuron.com[/url] - Open Source knowledge engine project
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
[color=blue]
> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 13:32 : \____
>[color=green]
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 10:41 : \____
>>>[/color][/color][/color]
< snip >
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>> I think there was an open test version (several even, distributed via
>>>>> Torrent). How come nobody spotted this conflict before the release?
>>>>
>>>> Because apple changed so much between the last RC and the gold code
>>>>
>>>> < snip >
>>>
>>> Or maybe no-one was willing to be the slave (tester) of a multi-billion
>>> dollar company that is so arrogant...?
>>>[/color]
>>
>> Do you actually try sometimes to generate some coherent thoughts?[/color]
>
> Be specific, Peter. You're being rude.
>[/color]
Do you actually think that assuming that apple has no beta testers is
amounting to something "coherent"?
It certainly has nothing to do with "thought", and even less
with "intelligence"
In fact, it is a sign of a stupidity until now only cretins like "linux-sux"
or OxRetard exhibited
So stop this display of being a dimwit and start to use what you have got as
a "brain", as useless as it may be
--
There are two kinds of people in this world: the kind that divides
everybody into two kinds of people, and everybody else
____/ Peter Köhlmann on Tuesday 30 October 2007 21:54 : \____
[color=blue]
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>[color=green]
>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 13:32 : \____
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 10:41 : \____
>>>>[/color][/color]
> < snip >
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>>> I think there was an open test version (several even, distributed via
>>>>>> Torrent). How come nobody spotted this conflict before the release?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because apple changed so much between the last RC and the gold code
>>>>>
>>>>> < snip >
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe no-one was willing to be the slave (tester) of a multi-billion
>>>> dollar company that is so arrogant...?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you actually try sometimes to generate some coherent thoughts?[/color]
>>
>> Be specific, Peter. You're being rude.
>>[/color]
>
> Do you actually think that assuming that apple has no beta testers is
> amounting to something "coherent"?
> It certainly has nothing to do with "thought", and even less
> with "intelligence"
>
> In fact, it is a sign of a stupidity until now only cretins like "linux-sux"
> or OxRetard exhibited
>
> So stop this display of being a dimwit and start to use what you have got as
> a "brain", as useless as it may be[/color]
Consider the fact that hundreds of Linux distributions have testers who
identify bugs in separate /packages/ and the fixes go upstream. There is a lot
going on in terms of feedback and it's fast. Mac OS X is not modular in the
sense that it comes in just a single form and public testers have no access to
the code.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | BadVista? I guess it makes Vista a dog.
[url]http://Schestowitz.com[/url] | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
[url]http://iuron.com[/url] - proposing a non-profit search engine
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:54:14 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
[color=blue]
> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Tuesday 30 October 2007 21:54 : \____
>[color=green]
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 13:32 : \____
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 10:41 : \____
>>>>>[/color]
>> < snip >
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>>>> I think there was an open test version (several even, distributed
>>>>>>> via Torrent). How come nobody spotted this conflict before the
>>>>>>> release?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because apple changed so much between the last RC and the gold code
>>>>>>
>>>>>> < snip >
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe no-one was willing to be the slave (tester) of a
>>>>> multi-billion dollar company that is so arrogant...?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Do you actually try sometimes to generate some coherent thoughts?
>>>
>>> Be specific, Peter. You're being rude.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> Do you actually think that assuming that apple has no beta testers is
>> amounting to something "coherent"?
>> It certainly has nothing to do with "thought", and even less with
>> "intelligence"
>>
>> In fact, it is a sign of a stupidity until now only cretins like
>> "linux-sux" or OxRetard exhibited
>>
>> So stop this display of being a dimwit and start to use what you have
>> got as a "brain", as useless as it may be[/color]
>
> Consider the fact that hundreds of Linux distributions have testers who
> identify bugs in separate /packages/ and the fixes go upstream. There is
> a lot going on in terms of feedback and it's fast. Mac OS X is not
> modular in the sense that it comes in just a single form and public
> testers have no access to the code.[/color]
SO why does Linux still suck?
The many eyes approach does not work any better than the closed source
beta test approach.
--
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
"Is this the year of Linux?"
"Linux is free only when your time has no value"
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, flatfish+++
<flatfish@linuxmail.org>
wrote
on Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:22:15 +0000 (UTC)
<fg8hrn$bfn$2@registered.motzarella.org>:[color=blue]
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:54:14 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>[color=green]
>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Tuesday 30 October 2007 21:54 : \____
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 13:32 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 10:41 : \____
>>>>>>
>>> < snip >
>>>
>>>>>>>> I think there was an open test version (several even, distributed
>>>>>>>> via Torrent). How come nobody spotted this conflict before the
>>>>>>>> release?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because apple changed so much between the last RC and the gold code
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> < snip >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe no-one was willing to be the slave (tester) of a
>>>>>> multi-billion dollar company that is so arrogant...?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Do you actually try sometimes to generate some coherent thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Be specific, Peter. You're being rude.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Do you actually think that assuming that apple has no beta testers is
>>> amounting to something "coherent"?
>>> It certainly has nothing to do with "thought", and even less with
>>> "intelligence"
>>>
>>> In fact, it is a sign of a stupidity until now only cretins like
>>> "linux-sux" or OxRetard exhibited
>>>
>>> So stop this display of being a dimwit and start to use what you have
>>> got as a "brain", as useless as it may be[/color]
>>
>> Consider the fact that hundreds of Linux distributions have testers who
>> identify bugs in separate /packages/ and the fixes go upstream. There is
>> a lot going on in terms of feedback and it's fast. Mac OS X is not
>> modular in the sense that it comes in just a single form and public
>> testers have no access to the code.[/color]
>
>
> SO why does Linux still suck?
> The many eyes approach does not work any better than the closed source
> beta test approach.
>[/color]
Of course Linux sucks; it doesn't implement Windows Vista
Aero. ;-) Clearly, that Beryl stuff is overrated, as it:
(a) is far prettier than Aero,
(b) is less resource-intensive,
(c) allows for more flexibility, and
(d) is easier to demo.
Or perhaps you can clarify as to why Linux, quote,
"sucks", end quote. Just want to be sure I've got my
Microsoft cue cards straight...
I do have a quibble or two about microphone audio, but
am not sure if it's hardware related, Linux related,
or ALSA related.
--
#191, [email]ewill3@earthlink.net[/email]
Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
[color=blue]
> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Tuesday 30 October 2007 21:54 : \____
>[color=green]
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 13:32 : \____
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 10:41 : \____
>>>>>[/color]
>> < snip >
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>>>> I think there was an open test version (several even, distributed
>>>>>>> via Torrent). How come nobody spotted this conflict before the
>>>>>>> release?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because apple changed so much between the last RC and the gold code
>>>>>>
>>>>>> < snip >
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe no-one was willing to be the slave (tester) of a
>>>>> multi-billion dollar company that is so arrogant...?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you actually try sometimes to generate some coherent thoughts?
>>>
>>> Be specific, Peter. You're being rude.
>>>[/color]
>>
>> Do you actually think that assuming that apple has no beta testers is
>> amounting to something "coherent"?
>> It certainly has nothing to do with "thought", and even less
>> with "intelligence"
>>
>> In fact, it is a sign of a stupidity until now only cretins like
>> "linux-sux" or OxRetard exhibited
>>
>> So stop this display of being a dimwit and start to use what you have got
>> as a "brain", as useless as it may be[/color]
>
> Consider the fact that hundreds of Linux distributions have testers who
> identify bugs in separate /packages/ and the fixes go upstream. There is a
> lot going on in terms of feedback and it's fast. Mac OS X is not modular
> in the sense that it comes in just a single form and public testers have
> no access to the code.
>[/color]
You can't even stick to a simple discussion.
This wasn't about "OSX not being modular" or "access to code"
It was about it having beta testers or not. You assumed it does not,
as "apple found no slave testers"
Idiot
You are not a tiny little bit better than flatfish. Or OxRetard
--
Tact, n.:
The unsaid part of what you're thinking.
____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 31 October 2007 06:50 : \____
[color=blue]
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>[color=green]
>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Tuesday 30 October 2007 21:54 : \____
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 13:32 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 10:41 : \____
>>>>>>
>>> < snip >
>>>
>>>>>>>> I think there was an open test version (several even, distributed
>>>>>>>> via Torrent). How come nobody spotted this conflict before the
>>>>>>>> release?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because apple changed so much between the last RC and the gold code
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> < snip >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe no-one was willing to be the slave (tester) of a
>>>>>> multi-billion dollar company that is so arrogant...?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you actually try sometimes to generate some coherent thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Be specific, Peter. You're being rude.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you actually think that assuming that apple has no beta testers is
>>> amounting to something "coherent"?
>>> It certainly has nothing to do with "thought", and even less
>>> with "intelligence"
>>>
>>> In fact, it is a sign of a stupidity until now only cretins like
>>> "linux-sux" or OxRetard exhibited
>>>
>>> So stop this display of being a dimwit and start to use what you have got
>>> as a "brain", as useless as it may be[/color]
>>
>> Consider the fact that hundreds of Linux distributions have testers who
>> identify bugs in separate /packages/ and the fixes go upstream. There is a
>> lot going on in terms of feedback and it's fast. Mac OS X is not modular
>> in the sense that it comes in just a single form and public testers have
>> no access to the code.
>>[/color]
>
> You can't even stick to a simple discussion.
> This wasn't about "OSX not being modular" or "access to code"
>
> It was about it having beta testers or not. You assumed it does not,
> as "apple found no slave testers"
>
> Idiot
>
> You are not a tiny little bit better than flatfish. Or OxRetard[/color]
No, you were just being unspecific with your accusation. Had you politely
pointed out the problem you were having with my arguments, my response would
have been more satisfactory.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | X-No-Archive: No. Stand behind what you say
[url]http://Schestowitz.com[/url] | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
08:00:01 up 12:11, 2 users, load average: 1.04, 1.21, 1.45
[url]http://iuron.com[/url] - help build a non-profit search engine
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
[color=blue]
> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Wednesday 31 October 2007 06:50 : \____
>[color=green]
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Tuesday 30 October 2007 21:54 : \____
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 13:32 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Monday 29 October 2007 10:41 : \____
>>>>>>>
>>>> < snip >
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think there was an open test version (several even, distributed
>>>>>>>>> via Torrent). How come nobody spotted this conflict before the
>>>>>>>>> release?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because apple changed so much between the last RC and the gold code
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> < snip >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or maybe no-one was willing to be the slave (tester) of a
>>>>>>> multi-billion dollar company that is so arrogant...?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you actually try sometimes to generate some coherent thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Be specific, Peter. You're being rude.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you actually think that assuming that apple has no beta testers is
>>>> amounting to something "coherent"?
>>>> It certainly has nothing to do with "thought", and even less
>>>> with "intelligence"
>>>>
>>>> In fact, it is a sign of a stupidity until now only cretins like
>>>> "linux-sux" or OxRetard exhibited
>>>>
>>>> So stop this display of being a dimwit and start to use what you have
>>>> got as a "brain", as useless as it may be
>>>
>>> Consider the fact that hundreds of Linux distributions have testers who
>>> identify bugs in separate /packages/ and the fixes go upstream. There is
>>> a lot going on in terms of feedback and it's fast. Mac OS X is not
>>> modular in the sense that it comes in just a single form and public
>>> testers have no access to the code.
>>>[/color]
>>
>> You can't even stick to a simple discussion.
>> This wasn't about "OSX not being modular" or "access to code"
>>
>> It was about it having beta testers or not. You assumed it does not,
>> as "apple found no slave testers"
>>
>> Idiot
>>
>> You are not a tiny little bit better than flatfish. Or OxRetard[/color]
>
> No, you were just being unspecific with your accusation.
>[/color]
So yes, you are an idiot
[color=blue]
> Had you politely pointed out the problem you were having with my
> arguments, my response would have been more satisfactory.[/color]
Like your last one?
By now you've lost nearly all my respect. I have difficulties to regard you
as a poster whose opinions I would consider. Same as Mark Kent, BTW
He too has lost all credibility in my book
Too bad. You both started with good intentions. And now you both are just
screeching GPL3-jihadis, without coherent thought worth mentioning
--
If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous.