Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure. - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure. - Linux ; On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:43:01 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Erik Funkenbusch wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:56:46 -0700, Night0wl wrote: >> >>> I have serious issues with any new OS that demands greater resources >>> ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 92

Thread: Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

  1. Re: A question of Vista...

    On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:43:01 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:56:46 -0700, Night0wl wrote:
    >>
    >>> I have serious issues with any new OS that demands greater resources
    >>> both for itself (OS cost), for the hardware it runs on (upgrade or
    >>> replacement costs), and doesn't come equipped to run currently existing
    >>> applications and expansion hardware (replacement costs and headaches).

    >>
    >> I hate to break it to you, buddy, but *EVERY* OS is like that. Each new
    >> version requires more resources, makes more use of the hardware, and
    >> typically drops support for at least some hardware (Yes, even Linux).

    >
    > This is blatantly false
    > New versions of KDE for example run *faster* than the older versions, not
    > slower


    Where did I say run slower? KDE today uses more memory than it did 2 years
    ago, because it does more. It may be more efficient code, but more
    efficient doesn't mean it's smaller (though it can be).

    > New kernels don't run slower just because they have new features. On older
    > hardware which has no need for those, they are not used or loaded.
    > If you want to trim down a new kernel to old hardware, it is just a
    > recompile away anyways


    I didn't say they run slower. And, each new version of the kernel is
    typically larger than the last.

    > Don't try to claim that just because Vista is a heap of dung and the worst
    > pile of **** ever disguised as "software", linux has the same problems.
    > It does not, Erik "FUDdingmuch" Funkenbusch


    Maybe you might try arguing a point I actually made instead.

  2. Re: A question of Vista...

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

    > I didn't say they run slower. And, each new version of the kernel is
    > typically larger than the last.


    Not quite correct. The body of /code/ for the kernel is larger, and
    usually due to new drivers. But no system uses all the new drivers or
    functionality, although generic systems will provide it as loadable
    modules.

    The final size of the kernel is determined at run-time, by what modules
    actually get loaded. And that is controlled by udev and hotplug (IIRC)
    nowadays.

    --
    Tux rox!

  3. Re: A question of Vista...

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:43:01 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:56:46 -0700, Night0wl wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I have serious issues with any new OS that demands greater resources
    >>>> both for itself (OS cost), for the hardware it runs on (upgrade or
    >>>> replacement costs), and doesn't come equipped to run currently existing
    >>>> applications and expansion hardware (replacement costs and headaches).
    >>>
    >>> I hate to break it to you, buddy, but *EVERY* OS is like that. Each new
    >>> version requires more resources, makes more use of the hardware, and
    >>> typically drops support for at least some hardware (Yes, even Linux).

    >>
    >> This is blatantly false
    >> New versions of KDE for example run *faster* than the older versions, not
    >> slower

    >
    > Where did I say run slower? KDE today uses more memory than it did 2 years
    > ago, because it does more. It may be more efficient code, but more
    > efficient doesn't mean it's smaller (though it can be).


    Certainly. And you think that I will take *your* word for that, liar?
    I run KDE all day, since years. Since it is very modular, only the needed
    parts are in memory. And that footprint has not increased by any value
    really worth mentioning since several versions, despite its doing more

    You are clueless. And a liar. Guess what to make of your "assertions"?

    >
    >> New kernels don't run slower just because they have new features. On
    >> older hardware which has no need for those, they are not used or loaded.
    >> If you want to trim down a new kernel to old hardware, it is just a
    >> recompile away anyways

    >
    > I didn't say they run slower. And, each new version of the kernel is
    > typically larger than the last.


    What part of "configure a kernel, recompile" needs to be explöained to you
    in detail?
    A new kernel with the features removed which can't be supported by the old
    hardware is not in any way much larger than the old one

    >> Don't try to claim that just because Vista is a heap of dung and the
    >> worst pile of **** ever disguised as "software", linux has the same
    >> problems. It does not, Erik "FUDdingmuch" Funkenbusch

    >
    > Maybe you might try arguing a point I actually made instead.


    Maybe you should actually /have/ a point worth arguing
    --
    Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice which can be equally well
    explained by stupidity


  4. Re: A question of Vista...

    Linonut wrote:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o'
    > wisdom:
    >
    >> I didn't say they run slower. And, each new version of the kernel is
    >> typically larger than the last.

    >
    > Not quite correct. The body of /code/ for the kernel is larger, and
    > usually due to new drivers. But no system uses all the new drivers or
    > functionality, although generic systems will provide it as loadable
    > modules.
    >
    > The final size of the kernel is determined at run-time, by what modules
    > actually get loaded. And that is controlled by udev and hotplug (IIRC)
    > nowadays.
    >


    You can make the kernel size /slightly/ smaller by excluding several options
    and then compiling your own.
    If your hardware does not support that stuff, you save a little memory and a
    tiny smidget of exec time by excluding/recompiling

    But you are right, the memory footprint of a kernel has not increased that
    much in the last years

    One needs an Erik F to FUD a little about that subject. After all, he is
    such an avid "linux user". Strange that he is so constantly wrong about it
    --
    Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
    It could be worse, but it'll take time.


  5. Re: A question of Vista...

    On 16 Nov 2007 13:11:31 GMT, Roger Blake wrote:

    > In article <1s2k60uh5ifmc$.dlg@funkenbusch.com>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> I hate to break it to you, buddy, but *EVERY* OS is like that. Each new
    >> version requires more resources, makes more use of the hardware, and

    >
    > A large part of the increased appetite that Vista has for hardware
    > resources over and above XP is due to the schemes used to protect
    > "premium" high-definition video content as demanded by Hollywood.
    > I have no interest in using an operating system that is going to
    > waste CPU, memory, etc. in this manner.


    And this deduction is based on what evidence?

    And don't say Peter Gutman's essay, since that involved no analysis of
    Vista itself and doesn't talk about increased hardware resources, other
    than CPU cycles and the DRM compliant hardware itself (ie, it doesn't
    mention memory or disk space)

  6. Re: A question of Vista...

    On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:14:50 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >> A large part of the increased appetite that Vista has for hardware
    >> resources over and above XP is due to the schemes used to protect
    >> "premium" high-definition video content as demanded by Hollywood.
    >> I have no interest in using an operating system that is going to
    >> waste CPU, memory, etc. in this manner.

    >
    > And this deduction is based on what evidence?


    The fact that you are questioning it is excellent evidence.

  7. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    Hadron wrote:



    > Its why I support Ubuntu and hope it comes out on top and crushes the
    > minority opposition.
    >

    "crushes"? Fsck, I think you've totally lost it!

    > There is a limited audience. The more of them using the same Distro then
    > stronger that distro becomes. The easier it will be to approximate
    > usage. The more appealing Linux will become to professional SW houses
    > who develop the leading desktop applications. Until that happens Linux
    > will always stay a tiny minority install base.


    Oh, so now we want "professional" proprietary software. You really are a
    Wintard.

    Cheers.

    --
    Sometimes, I Wake Up Grumpy.
    Sometimes, I Just Let Him Sleep In.
    -- My Wife


  8. Re: A question of Vista...

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

    > But you are right, the memory footprint of a kernel has not increased that
    > much in the last years
    >
    > One needs an Erik F to FUD a little about that subject. After all, he is
    > such an avid "linux user". Strange that he is so constantly wrong about it


    That's the beauty of FUD. You don't have to be correct. In fact,
    sometimes you can be dead wrong, and the FUD still works.

    --
    Tux rox!

  9. Re: A question of Vista...

    Hadron wrote:

    > Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
    > writes:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:56:46 -0700, Night0wl wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I have serious issues with any new OS that demands greater resources
    >>>> both for itself (OS cost), for the hardware it runs on (upgrade or
    >>>> replacement costs), and doesn't come equipped to run currently existing
    >>>> applications and expansion hardware (replacement costs and headaches).
    >>>
    >>> I hate to break it to you, buddy, but *EVERY* OS is like that. Each new

    >>
    >> Nope. Many Linux distributions run faster in less resources as they
    >> increase in version number. Not unusual at all.

    >
    > Not the main desktop ones competing with XP/Vista.
    >

    "competing with XP/Vista"? Get a life Hadron, you haven't a ****ing clue
    what you're mouthing off about.

    Cheers.

    --
    Sometimes, I Wake Up Grumpy.
    Sometimes, I Just Let Him Sleep In.
    -- My Wife


  10. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    NoStop wrote:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >> Its why I support Ubuntu and hope it comes out on top and crushes the
    >> minority opposition.
    >>

    > "crushes"? Fsck, I think you've totally lost it!


    No, he is showing his true colors again. What has changed is that it is not
    just confined to COLA
    Hadron Quark absolutely *needs* just one linux distro. Otherwise MS does not
    stand a chance to destroy them all

    >> There is a limited audience. The more of them using the same Distro then
    >> stronger that distro becomes. The easier it will be to approximate
    >> usage. The more appealing Linux will become to professional SW houses
    >> who develop the leading desktop applications. Until that happens Linux
    >> will always stay a tiny minority install base.

    >
    > Oh, so now we want "professional" proprietary software. You really are a
    > Wintard.
    >


    He has never been something else. His protestations that he is a "linux
    user" are just claims without merit

    Besides, he has not yet learned that it is fairly easy to install software
    for one distro on the other ones. Tools like "alien" exist since the age of
    the dinosaurs

    If the suppliers of such ""professional" proprietary software" really want
    to cater to the needs of different distros, they will reach better then 90%
    of them by doing a RPM- and a DEB-based version.
    That way even clueless twits like Hadron Quark will be able to "just click
    install" it

    --
    Warning: You have moved the mouse.
    Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent


  11. Re: A question of Vista...

    NoStop wrote:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
    >> writes:
    >>
    >>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:56:46 -0700, Night0wl wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I have serious issues with any new OS that demands greater resources
    >>>>> both for itself (OS cost), for the hardware it runs on (upgrade or
    >>>>> replacement costs), and doesn't come equipped to run currently
    >>>>> existing applications and expansion hardware (replacement costs and
    >>>>> headaches).
    >>>>
    >>>> I hate to break it to you, buddy, but *EVERY* OS is like that. Each
    >>>> new
    >>>
    >>> Nope. Many Linux distributions run faster in less resources as they
    >>> increase in version number. Not unusual at all.

    >>
    >> Not the main desktop ones competing with XP/Vista.
    >>

    > "competing with XP/Vista"? Get a life Hadron, you haven't a ****ing clue
    > what you're mouthing off about.
    >
    > Cheers.
    >


    Haven't you heard? All the "big distros" need at least 1 GByte of mem, just
    to boot.
    So Hadron and his mentor Erik F assert
    --
    There are two kinds of people in this world: the kind that divides
    everybody into two kinds of people, and everybody else


  12. Re: A question of Vista...

    NoStop wrote:

    >Get a life Hadron,


    He's got a life, as a lying asshole.

    >you haven't a ****ing cluewhat you're mouthing off about.


    Having a clue is not a job requirement.


  13. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    >"Hadron" Quack puked:
    >>
    >> It's plain ridiculous.


    What's ridiculous is how vile a POS you are, Quack.


  14. Re: 2007 The greatest defeat in LinTard history.

    HangEveryRepubliKKKan wrote:
    > "Hadron" wrote
    >> Actually, no it hasn't. Ubuntu was build on Debian which has been around
    >> for 11 years.

    >
    > I tried to install debian last summer.
    >
    > Didn't support my sound card
    > Didn't support my network card
    > Ran my HD in comatibility mode
    > No hardware accelerated video
    >
    > Didn't provide me with a mouse pointer.
    >
    > On about the 20'th reboot it had a kernel panic and failed to run at that
    > point
    >
    > It was then ERASED FROM EXISTANCE.
    >
    > 11 years old ay? Impressive.
    >
    > Impressive something so worthless could survive that long.
    >


    You should have installed it on a computer, instead of pushing the cd in
    a wooden drawer ...

    Impressive, that such a linux hater like you keeps trying too install linux.

    Had a bigger disaster with Vista?
    --

    Xubunt6

    "Xubuntu 6 - (bubbling around, sometimes ...)."
    Less gui, less icons, more speed ... (^-^)

  15. Re: A question of Vista...

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > NoStop wrote:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
    >>> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:56:46 -0700, Night0wl wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I have serious issues with any new OS that demands greater resources
    >>>>>> both for itself (OS cost), for the hardware it runs on (upgrade or
    >>>>>> replacement costs), and doesn't come equipped to run currently
    >>>>>> existing applications and expansion hardware (replacement costs and
    >>>>>> headaches).


    > Haven't you heard? All the "big distros" need at least 1 GByte of mem, just
    > to boot.
    > So Hadron and his mentor Erik F assert


    Funny, my xubuntu 6 lts starts up in 80 seconds, from power on till
    including logging on.
    Having 1.25 GB ram, using about 100 MB when just logged on ...
    My second, pc runs on just 192 MB ram. A bit slower PC, but it runs fine.

    --

    Xubunt6

    "Xubuntu 6 - (bubbling around, sometimes ...)."
    Less gui, less icons, more speed ... (^-^)

  16. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    HangEveryRepubliKKKan wrote:

    >
    > "Hadron" wrote
    >> We have a lot to thank certain distros for thats for sure. Mainly
    >> PCLinuxOS and Ubuntu IMO. They have taken the geek out of Linux to a
    >> degree.

    >
    > Not nearly enough. It's all there in it's full Geekdumb but hidden by
    > layers upon layers of half working CRAP.


    Fix your ****ing clock!

    Cheers.

    --
    Ubuntu 7.10 ... wow!
    http;//www.ubuntu.com

  17. Re: A question of Vista...

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > All software that runs on Vista
    > Home Basic runs on Vista Home Premium, and the smae software runs on
    > Business or Ultimate.


    Perhaps. However, software that runs on NT4, 2000 and XP /should/ run on
    Vista, but it mostly doesn't. Vista is /very/ badly broken.

    >> Case in point: I saw a $500 Acer/Vista-Home mid-tower machine
    >> in Walmart, today, that has no file access for the user,

    >
    > It's an application called Media Center. If you want to use the PC, you
    > quit the media center app and all that stuff is there.


    Not on the machine I saw today - it was a Sony "Home Media Centre"
    and /only/ runs "media centre" and /nothing/ /else./

    > Let's see how much memory your Linux box uses when you've got Apache,
    > Lotus Notes Server, A big honking java based CMS, OpenOffice, KDE, Oracle,
    > Tomcat, etc.. running.


    It takes less than one quarter of the RAM that Vista requires for the same
    usage! Vista also chokes on more than two or three large applications
    simultaneously.

    C.


  18. Re: A question of Vista...

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > NoStop wrote:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
    >>> writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:56:46 -0700, Night0wl wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I have serious issues with any new OS that demands greater resources
    >>>>>> both for itself (OS cost), for the hardware it runs on (upgrade or
    >>>>>> replacement costs), and doesn't come equipped to run currently
    >>>>>> existing applications and expansion hardware (replacement costs and
    >>>>>> headaches).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I hate to break it to you, buddy, but *EVERY* OS is like that. Each
    >>>>> new
    >>>>
    >>>> Nope. Many Linux distributions run faster in less resources as they
    >>>> increase in version number. Not unusual at all.
    >>>
    >>> Not the main desktop ones competing with XP/Vista.
    >>>

    >> "competing with XP/Vista"? Get a life Hadron, you haven't a ****ing clue
    >> what you're mouthing off about.
    >>
    >> Cheers.
    >>

    >
    > Haven't you heard? All the "big distros" need at least 1 GByte of mem, just
    > to boot.


    Eh? Two of my machines have only 512MB RAM, & they boot up & run very well. In
    fact they *hardly* use the swap space! One runs Debian 4.0, the other runs
    Kubuntu 6.06 LTS & both use the KDE desktop.

    > So Hadron and his mentor Erik F assert


    They're wrong, as usual.

    --
    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. (Not all are listed).

  19. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    In <473cdefb$0$24312$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, on 11/15/07
    at 06:04 PM, Night0wl said:

    >Sorry guy. Can't defend you here. Ubu 7.10 is a great improvement over
    >a very short life span, much shorter than it took Windoze to get where
    >they are now. I use and teach all the OSs I can, from DOS 2.1 to Vista,
    >and Linux from raw core through Red Hat/Fedora and Ubuntu. Vista is a
    >giant step backwards, whereas Ubuntu is still shooting for the sky.
    >They'll make it, to, and long before Vista is ready for grandma, I
    >think...


    Do you use OS/2? I'm looking forward to seeing what eComStation 2.0
    offers, compared with 1.2R. Thanks to IBM and its non-support, now
    killing, of a quality OS, its base remains OS/2 Warp 4.52, as has been the
    case since eCS 1.0, but Serenity Systems (the OEM provider) has managed to
    improve it with each release. Unfortunately, they can't do anything to
    the base system.


    Alan

    --

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    ** Please use address alanh77[at]comcast.net to reply via e-mail. **

    Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.21

    BBS - The Nerve Center Telnet FidoNet 261/1000 tncbbs.no-ip.com
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------


  20. Re: A question of Vista...

    On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:43:03 GMT, Christopher Hunter wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> All software that runs on Vista
    >> Home Basic runs on Vista Home Premium, and the smae software runs on
    >> Business or Ultimate.

    >
    > Perhaps. However, software that runs on NT4, 2000 and XP /should/ run on
    > Vista, but it mostly doesn't. Vista is /very/ badly broken.


    That's completely bogus. Very little software doesn't run on Vista, not
    "mostly". I'd say that the software that doesn't run on Vista is what's
    broken, because it's making assumptions that Microsoft has warned about for
    close to a decade.

    >>> Case in point: I saw a $500 Acer/Vista-Home mid-tower machine
    >>> in Walmart, today, that has no file access for the user,

    >>
    >> It's an application called Media Center. If you want to use the PC, you
    >> quit the media center app and all that stuff is there.

    >
    > Not on the machine I saw today - it was a Sony "Home Media Centre"
    > and /only/ runs "media centre" and /nothing/ /else./


    Bull. That's absolutely false. Especially considering that (right up
    there, it's still in the quotes) you called it an Acer. There is no such
    thing as a computer that only runs media center.

    >> Let's see how much memory your Linux box uses when you've got Apache,
    >> Lotus Notes Server, A big honking java based CMS, OpenOffice, KDE, Oracle,
    >> Tomcat, etc.. running.

    >
    > It takes less than one quarter of the RAM that Vista requires for the same
    > usage! Vista also chokes on more than two or three large applications
    > simultaneously.


    Bull, again. I use Vista every day. I currently have over 30 applications
    running, several of them quite large (Photoshop, Visual Studio,
    Dreamweaver, etc..)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast