Re: New to this Linux lark - advice please - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: New to this Linux lark - advice please - Linux ; Peter Köhlmann wrote: > William Poaster wrote: > >> Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >>> Hadron wrote: >>> >>>> Peter Köhlmann writes: >>>> >>>>> Hadron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Central Scrutinizer writes: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> The actual facts, not the contrived ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: New to this Linux lark - advice please

  1. Re: New to this Linux lark - advice please

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > William Poaster wrote:
    >
    >> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Peter Köhlmann writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Central Scrutinizer writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> < snip >
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> The actual facts, not the contrived opinion you're trying to pass of
    >>>>>>> as such, are that no modern file systems used by Linux need to be
    >>>>>>> defragged while literally *every* file system that shipped with
    >>>>>>> *every* version of Windows does. Simple as that.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It is a lie to say that "Linux does not need to be defragged".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It is not a lie, you are making things up out of full cloth (again)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> *None* of the actual linux FS needs defragging. You can argue your new
    >>>>> idiocy until doomsday, it does not change that fact
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Even if your precious windows looks real bad compared to that
    >>>>
    >>>> What precious windows?
    >>>
    >>> Your precious windows. You see, the one you try to defend at even the
    >>> slightest hint that it might be somewhat ****ty
    >>>
    >>>> What parameter are YOU using to decide what
    >>>> others determine as needing reorganisation?
    >>>
    >>> The parameter that normal users don't have a clue about defragging or
    >>> not. The FS writers do, and if they do *not* provide a tool, it is
    >>> because they are aware there is no need
    >>>
    >>>> What part of "Linux does not need defragging" seems correct to you? What
    >>>> part of "filesystem" and "linux" confuses you?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> None of it, but you seem to be confused quite a bit, "true linux
    >>> advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X
    >>> specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger
    >>> professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven" and "time
    >>> coordinator" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Damian O'Leary
    >>>
    >>> *If* linux FS need defragging, as *you* claim, why then are there *no*
    >>> *defraggers* provided?
    >>> Come on, you raving liunatic, how can it happen that people write
    >>> extremely complex filesystems, but don't provide the tools needed to
    >>> maintain them?
    >>>
    >>> Gods, you are really a dishonest lying twit
    >>>
    >>> < snip, irrelevant >
    >>>
    >>>>>> How difficult is that for you to comprehend? Linux supports NTFS and
    >>>>>> VFAT/FAT32 too.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Are you actually claiming that because linux supports NTFS and VFAT it
    >>>>> should also defrag them?
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes. Are you that stupid?
    >>>> It might have huge share partitions on the server.
    >>>
    >>> What is that new idiocy? What "huge shared partitions"? Shared with what?
    >>> Windows?
    >>> Why not let windows defrag its ****ty FS itself? Why write defraggers
    >>> which are not needed in a linux only install?
    >>> After all, you would never use those FS on a linux only machine in the
    >>> first place
    >>>
    >>>> But lets stick to more native filesystems to keep it easier for you.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Which strangely enough don't need to be defragged
    >>>
    >>> < snip more Hadron Quark lunacy >

    >>
    >> Ye gods. Quack's off his nut. What a raving idiot.
    >>

    >
    > Yes, he certainly is
    >
    > But this is a prime example why one can't twits like him (or Erik
    > Funkenbusch, Tim Smith et al) let go unchecked.
    >
    > What Hadron Quark is trying to do here is "poisoning of the wells". He tries
    > to establish google records, which come up when people do a search
    > for "linux+defrag". He wants to put his misinformation permanently into
    > google. What better place to place such outrageous FUD?
    >
    > If it is not countered, people are going to be misinformed. So this kind of
    > ilk has got to be checked. People have a need to know what kind of crock
    > these twits fabricate
    >
    > It is a totally different matter with the run-off-the-mill wintroll ("all
    > linux users are gay"). Those are not quite as smart as a loaf of bread, and
    > they are doing more harm to windows than any real good argument ever could
    >
    >
    > FUP set to COLA now, as it is getting OT in the ubuntu group by now


    IMO Quack's as stupid as the "dennis@home" idiot & the MD5SUM thread.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 2
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  2. Re: New to this Linux lark - advice please

    William Poaster wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:


    < snip >

    >> But this is a prime example why one can't twits like him (or Erik
    >> Funkenbusch, Tim Smith et al) let go unchecked.
    >>
    >> What Hadron Quark is trying to do here is "poisoning of the wells". He
    >> tries to establish google records, which come up when people do a search
    >> for "linux+defrag". He wants to put his misinformation permanently into
    >> google. What better place to place such outrageous FUD?
    >>
    >> If it is not countered, people are going to be misinformed. So this kind
    >> of ilk has got to be checked. People have a need to know what kind of
    >> crock these twits fabricate
    >>
    >> It is a totally different matter with the run-off-the-mill wintroll ("all
    >> linux users are gay"). Those are not quite as smart as a loaf of bread,
    >> and they are doing more harm to windows than any real good argument ever
    >> could
    >>
    >>
    >> FUP set to COLA now, as it is getting OT in the ubuntu group by now

    >
    > IMO Quack's as stupid as the "dennis@home" idiot & the MD5SUM thread.
    >


    "dennis" was stupid, very much so. Rarely one could encounter such a
    dimwitted moron. DFS or the "linux-sux" idiot come close in their utter
    stupidity. The best "dennis" could do was serving as a bad example

    The problem with Hadron, Erik F or Tim Smith is that they are *not* really
    stupid.
    They are smart enough to post their false "information", and some of them
    are even smart enough to claim that they use linux (Erik or Hadron, for
    example) to make their cretinous claims appear more viable

    But they are not smart enough to post *real* stuff about linux. Practically
    all of the garbage Hadron Quark has claimed the last months was easy to
    identify as bull****

    Likewise with Erik F. The list of bull**** claims he is running from is
    getting longer and longer

    Still, these need to be addressed in order to expose them as what they
    really are. Just ignoring them will *not* make these bull****-artists go
    away
    --
    No matter what the anticipated result, there will always be
    someone eager to (a) misinterpret it, (b) fake it, or (c) believe
    it happened according to his own pet theory.


+ Reply to Thread