Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot - Linux

This is a discussion on Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot - Linux ; Ben Miller-Jacobson writes: > Hadron wrote: >> flatfish writes: >> >>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:52:06 GMT, Dave wrote: >>> >>> >>>> According to Google, this is the newsgroup with the most instances >>>> of Ubuntu - by a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48

Thread: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

  1. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    Ben Miller-Jacobson writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> flatfish writes:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:52:06 GMT, Dave wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> According to Google, this is the newsgroup with the most instances
    >>>> of Ubuntu - by a lot. So in the future if you can't add anything
    >>>> positive to the discussion then don't waste our time with your
    >>>> crap.
    >>> It's also the first, or one of the first groups to show up in a
    >>> newsreader when searching for Linux groups.
    >>>
    >>> As for Ubuntu hits here, you can blame Roy Schestowitz for that.
    >>> He is the ultimate Ubuntu fanboi.

    >>
    >> Dan C. has a nice .sig in the Ubuntu newsgroup. It goes something like this:
    >>
    >> "Ubuntu is Swahili for someone too stupid to install Suse"
    >>

    > I've seen a variant of that that says "Ubuntu is an ancient African
    > word meaning 'I don't know how to configure Debian'" or something to
    > that effect. I tend to disagree, however: imho Ubuntu is just better,
    > that simple.


    How is Ubuntu "better" than Debian when according to the sycophants in
    Ubuntu group Debian is "rock solid". Of course they misunderstand what
    "rock solid" really means.

    --
    When I woke up this morning, my girlfriend asked if I had slept well.
    I said, "No, I made a few mistakes."
    -- Steven Wright

  2. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    * DFS fired off this tart reply:

    > bobbie wrote:
    >
    >> I thought that Ubuntu was African for " Person to smart to be caught
    >> up in the Microsoft Ponzi Scheme"

    >
    > It means "Freeloader of inferior software".


    No, that would be the Windows "pirates" that so concern Gates & Co.

    --
    Tux rox!

  3. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    * Hadron fired off this tart reply:

    > Ben Miller-Jacobson writes:
    >>>

    >> I've seen a variant of that that says "Ubuntu is an ancient African
    >> word meaning 'I don't know how to configure Debian'" or something to
    >> that effect. I tend to disagree, however: imho Ubuntu is just better,
    >> that simple.

    >
    > How is Ubuntu "better" than Debian when according to the sycophants in
    > Ubuntu group Debian is "rock solid". Of course they misunderstand what
    > "rock solid" really means.


    How could they, with your skull as an example?

    --
    Tux rox!

  4. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    Linonut writes:

    > * Hadron fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> Ben Miller-Jacobson writes:
    >>>>
    >>> I've seen a variant of that that says "Ubuntu is an ancient African
    >>> word meaning 'I don't know how to configure Debian'" or something to
    >>> that effect. I tend to disagree, however: imho Ubuntu is just better,
    >>> that simple.

    >>
    >> How is Ubuntu "better" than Debian when according to the sycophants in
    >> Ubuntu group Debian is "rock solid". Of course they misunderstand what
    >> "rock solid" really means.

    >
    > How could they, with your skull as an example?



    Not bad. Funniest post you made in a while.

  5. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 07:57:21 -0500, "DFS" wrote:

    >bobbie wrote:
    >
    >> I thought that Ubuntu was African for " Person to smart to be caught
    >> up in the Microsoft Ponzi Scheme"

    >
    >It means "Freeloader of inferior software".


    I thought it meant "The Cattle Are Dying"
    Oops, I think that was Horshack, as in "Arnold Horshack"

    I knew something was dying, either Linux or the cattle.

  6. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut

    wrote
    on Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:33:35 -0500
    :
    > * DFS fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> bobbie wrote:
    >>
    >>> I thought that Ubuntu was African for " Person to smart to be caught
    >>> up in the Microsoft Ponzi Scheme"

    >>
    >> It means "Freeloader of inferior software".

    >
    > No, that would be the Windows "pirates" that so concern Gates & Co.
    >


    The word predates Linux, apparently.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28philosophy%29

    Regrettably, I don't know Bantu.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #104392:
    for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) sleep(0);

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


  7. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    On Thursday 06 Dec 2007 3:33 pm, Linonut wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy:

    > * DFS fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> bobbie wrote:
    >>
    >>> I thought that Ubuntu was African for " Person to smart to be caught
    >>> up in the Microsoft Ponzi Scheme"

    >>
    >> It means "Freeloader of inferior software".

    >
    > No, that would be the Windows "pirates" that so concern Gates & Co.


    Yup, freeloader software is available at piratebay.org.
    Where there are 2,346,881 registered users. Seems DooFu$ was talking about
    windoze sw after all.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 3
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  8. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    On Thursday 06 Dec 2007 3:34 pm, Linonut wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy:

    > * Hadron fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> Ben Miller-Jacobson writes:
    >>>>
    >>> I've seen a variant of that that says "Ubuntu is an ancient African
    >>> word meaning 'I don't know how to configure Debian'" or something to
    >>> that effect. I tend to disagree, however: imho Ubuntu is just better,
    >>> that simple.

    >>
    >> How is Ubuntu "better" than Debian when according to the sycophants in
    >> Ubuntu group Debian is "rock solid". Of course they misunderstand what
    >> "rock solid" really means.

    >
    > How could they, with your skull as an example?


    He hasn't a bloody clue, has he....

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 3
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  9. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    * Hadron fired off this tart reply:

    > Linonut writes:
    >
    >> * Hadron fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >>> How is Ubuntu "better" than Debian when according to the sycophants in
    >>> Ubuntu group Debian is "rock solid". Of course they misunderstand what
    >>> "rock solid" really means.

    >>
    >> How could they, with your skull as an example?

    >
    > Not bad. Funniest post you made in a while.


    Thanks.

    All bollocks aside, I do try to inject some humor in here.

    One problem is it might be only myself that thinks it's funny.

    But that's okay, I get the same reaction from my dear family members.

    Sometimes it is worth it, though, to make a quip in front of my
    daughter's friends, just to hear them chuckle while she cringes.

    --
    Tux rox!

  10. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:47:24 +0000, William Poaster
    wrote:


    >He hasn't a bloody clue, has he....


    Isn't it time to refill your gasbag?

  11. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    >Hadron puked:
    >>
    >> How is Ubuntu "better" than Debian when according to the sycophants in
    >> Ubuntu group Debian is "rock solid".


    You get my "stupid question of the day" award, for that one, asshole.

    Umm, you see, stability is not the only measure of "goodness", you
    dumbsh*t.


  12. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    chrisv writes:

    >>Hadron puked:
    >>>
    >>> How is Ubuntu "better" than Debian when according to the sycophants in
    >>> Ubuntu group Debian is "rock solid".

    >
    > You get my "stupid question of the day" award, for that one, asshole.
    >
    > Umm, you see, stability is not the only measure of "goodness", you
    > dumbsh*t.
    >


    Since the number one issue you nutjobs harp on about is "uptime", then
    yes actually. They can all run the same shagging applications.

    --
    El diablo sabe mas por viejo, que por diablo.

  13. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron

    wrote
    on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:15:21 +0100
    :
    > chrisv writes:
    >
    >>>Hadron puked:
    >>>>
    >>>> How is Ubuntu "better" than Debian when according to the sycophants in
    >>>> Ubuntu group Debian is "rock solid".

    >>
    >> You get my "stupid question of the day" award, for that one, asshole.
    >>
    >> Umm, you see, stability is not the only measure of "goodness", you
    >> dumbsh*t.
    >>

    >
    > Since the number one issue you nutjobs harp on about is "uptime", then
    > yes actually. They can all run the same shagging applications.
    >


    Personally, I think the number one issue is usability,
    which is a highly personal issue. I find Gnome highly
    usable; KDE is adequate though Konqueror has some issues;
    Windows is IMO crap but still usable; even dung can
    make for something useful when properly processed.

    (www.cygwin.org helps.)

    The number two issue might be availability/reliability,
    and the most reliable hosting service (datapipe.net) runs
    FreeBSD, but godaddy.com runs Windows Server 2003 and is
    #5 on http://news.netcraft.com/ . #9 is nac.net, which
    also runs WS2003. For its part Linux occupies 4 spots in
    the list (which compares very favorably with FreeBSD's 3
    and WS2003's 2), and inetu.net is running something that
    could very well be Linux -- or FreeBSD -- or even MacOSX.

    Windows is therefore stable enough. (If one wants to get into
    comparative space, I'd have to dig a bit deeper.)

    There is also some good news on the Apache front; Apache
    now has a 3% uptick compared to last month, also according
    to the above site, so Microsoft's games have suffered
    a temporary setback at least. This is of course a very
    modest victory in what appears (and promises) to be a long
    and possibly bitter war.

    Make of all that what one will, especially since these
    are servers; desktops enjoy different dynamics (does one
    really care about uptime if one shuts off a laptop after
    8 hours of work?). However, I'd be hard pressed to use
    a phone or laptop which wants to download updates on a
    random basis; at most, I'd want to indicate whether it
    thinks it need such, and then with 1 click I can spend
    bandwidth charges...or plug the phone into a far cheaper
    wired network or switch WiFi providers if possible
    and as needed.

    Desktops, maybe, and only when I'm not around to be annoyed
    by the download antics -- but there's a few issues on that
    as well, mostly because if said antics are putting spyware
    and such on my machine I'd get very annoyed.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Insert random misquote here.

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


  14. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    >Hadron trolled:
    >>
    >> chrisv writes:
    >>
    >>>>Hadron puked:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How is Ubuntu "better" than Debian when according to the sycophants in
    >>>>> Ubuntu group Debian is "rock solid".
    >>>
    >>> You get my "stupid question of the day" award, for that one, asshole.
    >>>
    >>> Umm, you see, stability is not the only measure of "goodness", you
    >>> dumbsh*t.

    >>
    >> Since the number one issue you nutjobs harp on about is "uptime",


    Prove it, asshole.

    In any case, what some people think is the most important attribute is
    irrelevant to one person's (Ben, in this case) opinion that "Ubuntu is
    better".

    >> then yes actually.


    Yes what? I didn't ask you a question.

    Do you mean "yes, Hadron Quack is a stupid fscking troll who never
    tires of making an asshole of himself"?

    >>They can all run the same shagging applications.


    So what. dumbsh*t? That doesn't change the fact that there's other
    measures of "goodness", besides stability, that might cause someone to
    believe that one distro is better than the other. User friendliness,
    for example, is more important to some people than is ultimate
    stability, especially if an insignificant amount of stability loss is
    the only trade-off for a large gain in user-friendliness.

    Is the above not quite obvious, troll? Are you getting tired of
    getting slapped-around now, troll?

    >Personally, I think the number one issue is usability,
    >which is a highly personal issue.


    Why, then, did you ask 'How is Ubuntu "better" than Debian when
    according to the sycophants in Ubuntu group Debian is "rock solid"',
    when appears now that you might understand exactly when Ben was
    talking about!

    Just to be a snot-spewing asshole, I would say.

    >(snip more trolls)



  15. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    chrisv writes:

    >>Hadron trolled:
    >>>
    >>> chrisv writes:
    >>>
    >>>>>Hadron puked:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> How is Ubuntu "better" than Debian when according to the sycophants in
    >>>>>> Ubuntu group Debian is "rock solid".
    >>>>
    >>>> You get my "stupid question of the day" award, for that one, asshole.
    >>>>
    >>>> Umm, you see, stability is not the only measure of "goodness", you
    >>>> dumbsh*t.
    >>>
    >>> Since the number one issue you nutjobs harp on about is "uptime",

    >
    > Prove it, asshole.
    >
    > In any case, what some people think is the most important attribute is
    > irrelevant to one person's (Ben, in this case) opinion that "Ubuntu is
    > better".
    >
    >>> then yes actually.

    >
    > Yes what? I didn't ask you a question.
    >
    > Do you mean "yes, Hadron Quack is a stupid fscking troll who never
    > tires of making an asshole of himself"?


    Do you use liners or tampons or both at this time of the month?

  16. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    Oops! I mistakenly attributed some text to Quack that was actually
    written by Ghost. Sorry Ghost.


    chrisv wrote:

    >Ghost, not Quack, wrote:
    >>
    >>Personally, I think the number one issue is usability,
    >>which is a highly personal issue.


    I agree. The big distros all have sufficient stability so that it
    does not matter, for most users, if one the "most stable".

    I should have realized my mistake in attributing that line to Quack,
    as it is entirely free of snot.

    >>(snip more trolls)


    They weren't really trolls, to my knowledge. I didn't read the rest
    of the post, thinking that Quack was rambling.

    Sorry again, Ghost!


  17. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    chrisv wrote:

    >Oops! I mistakenly attributed some text to Quack that was actually
    >written by Ghost. Sorry Ghost.


    But I stand by my conclusion that the reason Quack asked 'How is
    Ubuntu "better" than Debian when according to the sycophants in Ubuntu
    group Debian is "rock solid"', was just to be a snot-spewing asshole.

    Amazing, really, that the troll is willing to make a complete jackass
    of himself, just so he can spew some snot.


  18. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    chrisv writes:

    >>Hadron trolled:

    >
    >>Personally, I think the number one issue is usability,
    >>which is a highly personal issue.

    >
    > Why, then, did you ask 'How is Ubuntu "better" than Debian when
    > according to the sycophants in Ubuntu group Debian is "rock solid"',
    > when appears now that you might understand exactly when Ben was
    > talking about!


    lets assume I HAD written the above :

    Fairly obvious I would have thought. But if you stopped cursing for a
    moment you might be able to better think through what is written.

    Hint : above it says that stability is very important. No where did
    I compare Ubuntu/Debian in that or any other regard which was the crux
    of the matter. Do try and read you obnoxious, foul mouthed wretch.

  19. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, chrisv

    wrote
    on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:23:02 -0600
    :
    >>Hadron trolled:
    >>>
    >>> chrisv writes:
    >>>
    >>>>>Hadron puked:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> How is Ubuntu "better" than Debian when according to the sycophants in
    >>>>>> Ubuntu group Debian is "rock solid".
    >>>>
    >>>> You get my "stupid question of the day" award, for that one, asshole.
    >>>>
    >>>> Umm, you see, stability is not the only measure of "goodness", you
    >>>> dumbsh*t.
    >>>
    >>> Since the number one issue you nutjobs harp on about is "uptime",

    >
    > Prove it, asshole.
    >
    > In any case, what some people think is the most important attribute is
    > irrelevant to one person's (Ben, in this case) opinion that "Ubuntu is
    > better".
    >
    >>> then yes actually.

    >
    > Yes what? I didn't ask you a question.
    >
    > Do you mean "yes, Hadron Quack is a stupid fscking troll who never
    > tires of making an asshole of himself"?
    >
    >>>They can all run the same shagging applications.

    >
    > So what. dumbsh*t? That doesn't change the fact that there's other
    > measures of "goodness", besides stability, that might cause someone to
    > believe that one distro is better than the other. User friendliness,
    > for example, is more important to some people than is ultimate
    > stability, especially if an insignificant amount of stability loss is
    > the only trade-off for a large gain in user-friendliness.
    >
    > Is the above not quite obvious, troll? Are you getting tired of
    > getting slapped-around now, troll?
    >
    >>Personally, I think the number one issue is usability,
    >>which is a highly personal issue.

    >
    > Why, then, did you ask 'How is Ubuntu "better" than Debian when
    > according to the sycophants in Ubuntu group Debian is "rock solid"',
    > when appears now that you might understand exactly when Ben was
    > talking about!
    >
    > Just to be a snot-spewing asshole, I would say.
    >
    >>(snip more trolls)

    >


    I think you're slightly confused. I am The Ghost In
    The Machine. Chevron '>>' refers to me.
    Chevron '>>>' refers to Hadron. For some reason you
    were naughty and deleted my attribution line. :-)

    Not sure if Debian or Ubuntu is better, at this point; I'm
    familiar with Debian (switched from it to Gentoo many moons
    ago) and have experimented with Ubuntu. I might redownload
    Debian if I can figure out where to get an ISO; apparently
    they've switched to some sort of torrent-like system.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #2239120:
    void f(char *p) {char *q = p; strcpy(p,q); }

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


  20. Re: Installing Ubuntu when livecd won't boot


    "chrisv" wrote in message
    news:uu3jl395ro9i424l103ohmtuhpb2favik1@4ax.com...
    > Oops! I mistakenly attributed some text to Quack that was actually
    > written by Ghost. Sorry Ghost.
    >
    >
    > chrisv wrote:
    >
    >>Ghost, not Quack, wrote:
    >>>
    >>>Personally, I think the number one issue is usability,
    >>>which is a highly personal issue.

    >
    > I agree. The big distros all have sufficient stability so that it
    > does not matter, for most users, if one the "most stable".
    >
    > I should have realized my mistake in attributing that line to Quack,
    > as it is entirely free of snot.
    >
    >>>(snip more trolls)

    >
    > They weren't really trolls, to my knowledge. I didn't read the rest
    > of the post, thinking that Quack was rambling.
    >
    > Sorry again, Ghost!


    Translation -

    I thought that "Hadron" wrote this so it was beyond stupid and the person
    who wrote this is a "snot spewing asshole."

    But now that I realize that it was "Ghost" and not "Hadron" who wrote this
    then suddenly the exact same words make perfect sense.


    So good to see that it's the "content" of posts that you base your response
    to and *not* the person who made the post. (cough-cough)








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


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