I deleted Open Office today - Linux

This is a discussion on I deleted Open Office today - Linux ; Roger Wilco wrote: > > "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in > message news:0j9d55-2bs.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net... >>> Smart move. Open Office (Oo) is a basically spyware from former Soviet >>> block countries. The claim that you can look at the source ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 57

Thread: I deleted Open Office today

  1. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    Roger Wilco wrote:

    >
    > "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
    > message news:0j9d55-2bs.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...


    >>> Smart move. Open Office (Oo) is a basically spyware from former Soviet
    >>> block countries. The claim that you can look at the source is BS because
    >>> the binaries that people download and install are NOT the same as the
    >>> source people get.

    >>
    >> So build it from source, instead. Duh.

    >
    > Those who do will not have the spyware version. But hardly anyone builts
    > OO from source. Nearly everyone downloads the binary and the binary
    > version of Open Office contains spyware.


    I run Gentoo. OO is built from source. Takes about 6 hours. It runs very
    fast on my Pentium4 2.4GHz 1G mem machine. Other Gentoo users also build it
    from source since it only takes one command:

    GentooPenguin# emerge openoffice

    [deleted a few irrelevant bug reports]

    If you keep your version up-to-date then what's the problem? I run OO
    version 2.3.1 (Gentoo x86 stable latest version).

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  2. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    On Jan 9, 6:04*pm, Gregory Shearman wrote:

    > I run Gentoo. OO is built from source. Takes about 6 hours. It runs very
    > fast on my Pentium4 2.4GHz 1G mem machine. Other Gentoo users also build it
    > from source since it only takes one


    That's interesting. Compiling a simple word processor on a relatively
    fast machine takes 6 hours. So if I have over 100 programs, which I
    do, that's 600 hours for compiling, or running my machine 24 hours a
    day, that's 25 days or 1 month downtime compiling programs, before I
    even start using them.

    Thanks Genpoo for that (negative) testimonial. I'll stick to Windows.

    You know, you Linux "advocates" are your worse enemy.

    RL

  3. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    So anyway, it was like, 10:02 CET Jan 10 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
    raylopez99 was all like, "Dude,
    > On Jan 9, 6:04*pm, Gregory Shearman wrote:


    >> I run Gentoo. OO is built from source. Takes about 6 hours. It runs
    >> very fast on my Pentium4 2.4GHz 1G mem machine. Other Gentoo users
    >> also build it from source since it only takes one

    >
    > That's interesting. Compiling a simple word processor on a
    > relatively fast machine takes 6 hours.


    Compiling a huge bundle written in c++ on any machine takes quite some
    time, at least compared to almost any other piece of software.

    > So if I have over 100 programs, which I do, that's 600 hours for
    > compiling, or running my machine 24 hours a day, that's 25 days or 1
    > month downtime compiling programs, before I even start using them.


    Proof positive that alittle knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    > Thanks Genpoo for that (negative) testimonial. I'll stick to
    > Windows.
    >
    > You know, you Linux "advocates" are your worse enemy.


    Worse than who? Trolls like yourself?

    Yeah, yeah. IHBT, IHL.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
    10:18:24 up 17:29, 2 users, load average: 0.63, 0.74, 0.76
    Linux 2.6.23.12 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

  4. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > On Jan 9, 6:04*pm, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >
    >> I run Gentoo. OO is built from source. Takes about 6 hours. It runs very
    >> fast on my Pentium4 2.4GHz 1G mem machine. Other Gentoo users also build
    >> it from source since it only takes one

    >
    > That's interesting. Compiling a simple word processor on a relatively
    > fast machine takes 6 hours. So if I have over 100 programs, which I
    > do, that's 600 hours for compiling, or running my machine 24 hours a
    > day, that's 25 days or 1 month downtime compiling programs, before I
    > even start using them.
    >
    > Thanks Genpoo for that (negative) testimonial. I'll stick to Windows.
    >
    > You know, you Linux "advocates" are your worse enemy.
    >
    > RL


    So you assume that all apps are "monsters" like OO?

    Way to go, ray-boi
    --
    Subtlety is the art of saying what you think and getting out of the way
    before it is understood.


  5. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    On Jan 10, 1:22*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:

    >
    > > That's interesting. Compiling a simple word processor on a
    > > relatively fast machine takes 6 hours.

    >
    > Compiling a huge bundle written in c++ on any machine takes quite some
    > time, at least compared to almost any other piece of software.


    OK, my point exactly.

    >
    > > So if I have over 100 programs, which I do, that's 600 hours for
    > > compiling, or running my machine 24 hours a day, that's 25 days or 1
    > > month downtime compiling programs, before I even start using them.

    >
    > Proof positive that alittle knowledge is a dangerous thing.


    Well tell us the counterproof then Einstein? Or has a blue bottle
    stung your arse, dumbo?

    What an idiot.

    RL

  6. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    So anyway, it was like, 10:35 CET Jan 10 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
    raylopez99 was all like, "Dude,
    > On Jan 10, 1:22*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:


    >> > That's interesting. Compiling a simple word processor on a
    >> > relatively fast machine takes 6 hours.

    >>
    >> Compiling a huge bundle written in c++ on any machine takes quite
    >> some time, at least compared to almost any other piece of software.

    >
    > OK, my point exactly.


    You're making the incorrect assumption that the time to compile a
    particular software package is enough statistical data to extrapolate
    the average time to compile any software package on the same hardware.

    But you knew that.

    >> > So if I have over 100 programs, which I do, that's 600 hours for
    >> > compiling, or running my machine 24 hours a day, that's 25 days
    >> > or 1 month downtime compiling programs, before I even start using
    >> > them.

    >>
    >> Proof positive that alittle knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    >
    > Well tell us the counterproof then Einstein?


    Yeah.. I don't think I'll need to actually prove to you, or anyone,
    that the average time to compile a software package is not six hours.

    > Or has a blue bottle stung your arse, dumbo?


    I have no idea what that gibberish means. Go on though, I could use
    alittle entertainment right now.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
    10:42:29 up 17:53, 2 users, load average: 0.63, 0.71, 0.80
    Linux 2.6.23.12 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

  7. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    On Jan 10, 1:47*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:

    > You're making the incorrect assumption that the time to compile a
    > particular software package is enough statistical data to extrapolate
    > the average time to compile any software package on the same hardware.
    >
    > But you knew that.


    No, I still have no idea what you're talking about. I know that
    compiling stuff takes time, that's why some s/w engineers leave the
    servers on 24/7, to compile stuff that takes days. The poster said it
    takes 6 hours for a simple word processor, so, you do the math.

    >
    > >> > So if I have over 100 programs, which I do, that's 600 hours for
    > >> > compiling, or running my machine 24 hours a day, that's 25 days
    > >> > or 1 month downtime compiling programs, before I even start using
    > >> > them.

    >
    > >> Proof positive that alittle knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    >
    > > Well tell us the counterproof then Einstein?

    >
    > Yeah.. I don't think I'll need to actually prove to you, or anyone,
    > that the average time to compile a software package is not six hours.


    Then what is it? You done a survey? The poster said 6 hours for Open
    Office. You can do it quicker? Better hardware? You're talking to
    somebody who knows a thing or two about 'puters Mister.

    >
    > > Or has a blue bottle stung your arse, dumbo?

    >
    > I have no idea what that gibberish means. Go on though, I could use
    > alittle entertainment right now.
    >


    I though you were in Perth, but I guess that's the name of your
    server. In Australia they have venomous jellyfish called blue
    bottles.

    RL

  8. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    So anyway, it was like, 20:36 CET Jan 10 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
    raylopez99 was all like, "Dude,
    > On Jan 10, 1:47*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:


    >> You're making the incorrect assumption that the time to compile
    >> a particular software package is enough statistical data to
    >> extrapolate the average time to compile any software package on the
    >> same hardware.
    >>
    >> But you knew that.

    >
    > No, I still have no idea what you're talking about.


    I suspect you have no idea what you're talking about either.

    > I know that compiling stuff takes time, that's why some s/w
    > engineers leave the servers on 24/7, to compile stuff that takes
    > days. The poster said it takes 6 hours for a simple word processor,
    > so, you do the math.


    What he said was that it takes six hours to compile the openoffice.org
    suit, not "a simple word processor". But you knew that.

    >> >> > So if I have over 100 programs, which I do, that's 600 hours
    >> >> > for compiling, or running my machine 24 hours a day, that's
    >> >> > 25 days or 1 month downtime compiling programs, before I even
    >> >> > start using them.

    >>
    >> >> Proof positive that alittle knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    >>
    >> > Well tell us the counterproof then Einstein?

    >>
    >> Yeah.. I don't think I'll need to actually prove to you, or anyone,
    >> that the average time to compile a software package is not six
    >> hours.

    >
    > Then what is it? You done a survey?


    It doesn't take a survey. Personal experience is enough to tell me
    that the compile time of one piece of software is different from
    another. Logic tells me that you can't take a single data point and
    call it an average, and then extrapolate it to 100 values to boot.

    > The poster said 6 hours for Open Office. You can do it quicker?


    I don't quite recall how long it used to take me, these days I use
    the binary package of openoffice.org since it was the decidedly
    longest compile of all the software on my gentoo desktop. That's all
    rather beside the point, though, your particular misunderstanding
    seems to be that you think every package takes as long as the entire
    openoffice.org suite to compile, no matter how big or small it is.

    > Better hardware? You're talking to somebody who knows a thing or two
    > about 'puters Mister.


    So you have 100 word processors installed, is that what you're saying?

    >> > Or has a blue bottle stung your arse, dumbo?

    >>
    >> I have no idea what that gibberish means. Go on though, I could use
    >> alittle entertainment right now.

    >
    > I though you were in Perth, but I guess that's the name of your
    > server.


    I don't quite know where you got that name from, but I'd be interested
    to find out.

    > In Australia they have venomous jellyfish called blue bottles.


    Interesting, to be sure. Does their bite make you somehow less
    intelligent? I think that was what you were trying to infer with
    your suggestion.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
    23:09:45 up 1 day, 6:21, 3 users, load average: 0.76, 0.85, 0.82
    Linux 2.6.23.12 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

  9. Re: I deleted Open Office today


    "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    news:5295546.BiJFBse1jO@netscape.net...
    > Roger Wilco wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
    >> message news:0j9d55-2bs.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

    >
    >>>> Smart move. Open Office (Oo) is a basically spyware from former Soviet
    >>>> block countries. The claim that you can look at the source is BS
    >>>> because
    >>>> the binaries that people download and install are NOT the same as the
    >>>> source people get.
    >>>
    >>> So build it from source, instead. Duh.

    >>
    >> Those who do will not have the spyware version. But hardly anyone builts
    >> OO from source. Nearly everyone downloads the binary and the binary
    >> version of Open Office contains spyware.

    >
    > I run Gentoo. OO is built from source. Takes about 6 hours. It runs very
    > fast on my Pentium4 2.4GHz 1G mem machine. Other Gentoo users also build
    > it
    > from source since it only takes one command:
    >
    > GentooPenguin# emerge openoffice


    So what percentage of linux users run Gentoo as opposed to all of the other
    distros where compiling your own apps is NOT the norm?

    And what percentage of Gentoo people compile all of their own apps
    (especially something as big as OO) vs getting the pre-built binaries?

    Suppose that linux made it to the average household desktop (I'm talking
    about school teachers, mechanics, widget salesmen, etc). Do you honestly
    believe Susan the seamstress is going to be compiling her own applications
    from the sources in some repository?



    > [deleted a few irrelevant bug reports]
    >
    > If you keep your version up-to-date then what's the problem? I run OO
    > version 2.3.1 (Gentoo x86 stable latest version).




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


  10. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:02:35 -0800, raylopez99 wrote:

    > On Jan 9, 6:04*pm, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >
    >> I run Gentoo. OO is built from source. Takes about 6 hours. It runs
    >> very fast on my Pentium4 2.4GHz 1G mem machine. Other Gentoo users also
    >> build it from source since it only takes one

    >
    > That's interesting. Compiling a simple word processor on a relatively
    > fast machine takes 6 hours.


    You show you stupidity. OO.o is not a simple word processor. It is an
    integrated suite.

    > So if I have over 100 programs, which I do,
    > that's 600 hours for compiling, or running my machine 24 hours a day,
    > that's 25 days or 1 month downtime compiling programs, before I even
    > start using them.
    >
    > Thanks Genpoo for that (negative) testimonial. I'll stick to Windows.
    >
    > You know, you Linux "advocates" are your worse enemy.
    >

    Go buy a clue.



    --
    Rick

  11. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:36:55 -0800, raylopez99 wrote:

    > On Jan 10, 1:47*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:
    >
    >> You're making the incorrect assumption that the time to compile a
    >> particular software package is enough statistical data to extrapolate
    >> the average time to compile any software package on the same hardware.
    >>
    >> But you knew that.

    >
    > No, I still have no idea what you're talking about. I know that
    > compiling stuff takes time, that's why some s/w engineers leave the
    > servers on 24/7, to compile stuff that takes days. The poster said it
    > takes 6 hours for a simple word processor, so, you do the math.


    No, he did not say it took 6 hours to compile a simple word processor.

    >
    >
    >> >> > So if I have over 100 programs, which I do, that's 600 hours for
    >> >> > compiling, or running my machine 24 hours a day, that's 25 days or
    >> >> > 1 month downtime compiling programs, before I even start using
    >> >> > them.

    >>
    >> >> Proof positive that alittle knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    >>
    >> > Well tell us the counterproof then Einstein?

    >>
    >> Yeah.. I don't think I'll need to actually prove to you, or anyone,
    >> that the average time to compile a software package is not six hours.

    >
    > Then what is it?


    It depends on the app/package.

    > You done a survey? The poster said 6 hours for Open
    > Office. You can do it quicker? Better hardware? You're talking to
    > somebody who knows a thing or two about 'puters Mister.
    >
    >
    >> > Or has a blue bottle stung your arse, dumbo?

    >>
    >> I have no idea what that gibberish means. Go on though, I could use
    >> alittle entertainment right now.
    >>
    >>

    > I though you were in Perth, but I guess that's the name of your server.
    > In Australia they have venomous jellyfish called blue bottles.
    >

    Why do you act so stupid and dishonest?



    --
    Rick

  12. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:33:39 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    >> On Jan 9, 6:04*pm, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>
    >>> I run Gentoo. OO is built from source. Takes about 6 hours. It runs
    >>> very fast on my Pentium4 2.4GHz 1G mem machine. Other Gentoo users
    >>> also build it from source since it only takes one

    >>
    >> That's interesting. Compiling a simple word processor on a relatively
    >> fast machine takes 6 hours. So if I have over 100 programs, which I
    >> do, that's 600 hours for compiling, or running my machine 24 hours a
    >> day, that's 25 days or 1 month downtime compiling programs, before I
    >> even start using them.
    >>
    >> Thanks Genpoo for that (negative) testimonial. I'll stick to Windows.
    >>
    >> You know, you Linux "advocates" are your worse enemy.
    >>
    >> RL

    >
    > So you assume that all apps are "monsters" like OO?
    >
    > Way to go, ray-boi


    Why not ... he doesn't know the difference between "a simple word
    processor" and OO.o.

    --
    Rick

  13. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:02:35 -0800, raylopez99 wrote:

    > On Jan 9, 6:04*pm, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >
    >> I run Gentoo. OO is built from source. Takes about 6 hours. It runs very
    >> fast on my Pentium4 2.4GHz 1G mem machine. Other Gentoo users also build it
    >> from source since it only takes one

    >
    > That's interesting. Compiling a simple word processor on a relatively
    > fast machine takes 6 hours.


    Simple? SIMPLE? You complete ****ing retard, there is nothing *simple*
    about OpenOffice. It is a *very* complex piece of software.

    The core tarball - as a bzip2 compress tar file - is almost 140MB. That's
    compressed, bonehead. Uncompressed, it is some 832MB. 832 million bytes
    and change.

    288 .c files. 8459 cxx files. 933 .h files. 8511 .hxx files. 167 .cpp
    files. 6,995,435 lines of source code, not counting makefiles,
    configuration files, batch files, anything produced by those or repeated
    inclusion of files.

    And that's *still* only counting the core, not the whole schmeer.

    Hmm. Assuming that each of those files gets processed exactly once, that
    would mean compiling and optimizing 1165905 lines per hour, or some 324
    lines per second.

    That's pretty freaking decent speed, and here's a tip: ain't a bit of it
    "simple", you drooling, festering asswipe.

  14. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    raylopez99 writes:

    > On Jan 10, 1:47*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:
    >
    >> You're making the incorrect assumption that the time to compile a
    >> particular software package is enough statistical data to extrapolate
    >> the average time to compile any software package on the same hardware.
    >>
    >> But you knew that.

    >
    > No, I still have no idea what you're talking about. I know that
    > compiling stuff takes time, that's why some s/w engineers leave the
    > servers on 24/7, to compile stuff that takes days. The poster said it
    > takes 6 hours for a simple word processor, so, you do the math.
    >
    >>
    >> >> > So if I have over 100 programs, which I do, that's 600 hours for
    >> >> > compiling, or running my machine 24 hours a day, that's 25 days
    >> >> > or 1 month downtime compiling programs, before I even start using
    >> >> > them.

    >>
    >> >> Proof positive that alittle knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    >>
    >> > Well tell us the counterproof then Einstein?

    >>
    >> Yeah.. I don't think I'll need to actually prove to you, or anyone,
    >> that the average time to compile a software package is not six hours.

    >
    > Then what is it? You done a survey? The poster said 6 hours for Open
    > Office. You can do it quicker? Better hardware? You're talking to
    > somebody who knows a thing or two about 'puters Mister.



    You have to remember that JL's idea of "compiling" is adding an alias to
    his .bashrc,


  15. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    Kelsey Bjarnason writes:

    > On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 01:02:35 -0800, raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    >> On Jan 9, 6:04*pm, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >>
    >>> I run Gentoo. OO is built from source. Takes about 6 hours. It runs very
    >>> fast on my Pentium4 2.4GHz 1G mem machine. Other Gentoo users also build it
    >>> from source since it only takes one

    >>
    >> That's interesting. Compiling a simple word processor on a relatively
    >> fast machine takes 6 hours.

    >
    > Simple? SIMPLE? You complete ****ing retard, there is nothing *simple*
    > about OpenOffice. It is a *very* complex piece of software.



    And Kelsey should know.

    *chortle*

    Which begs the question : why would you compile it?

    Library hell? Sure. Why not.

  16. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    So anyway, it was like, 07:37 CET Jan 11 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
    Hadron was all like, "Dude,
    > raylopez99 writes:
    >> On Jan 10, 1:47*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:


    >>> Yeah.. I don't think I'll need to actually prove to you, or
    >>> anyone, that the average time to compile a software package is not
    >>> six hours.

    >>
    >> Then what is it? You done a survey? The poster said 6 hours for
    >> Open Office. You can do it quicker? Better hardware? You're talking
    >> to somebody who knows a thing or two about 'puters Mister.

    >
    > You have to remember that JL's idea of "compiling" is adding an
    > alias to his .bashrc,


    Another cowardly snipe from the usenet professional hadron quark.

    So tell me, "hadron", you pitiful wanker, do you agree with the
    sentiments "raylopez99" is putting forward in this thread since you're
    not calling him on it but instead choose to take his side in the
    ****-flinging contest?

    --
    Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
    10:07:58 up 1 day, 17:19, 1 user, load average: 0.64, 0.84, 0.84
    Linux 2.6.23.12 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

  17. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > No, I still have no idea what you're talking about. *I know that
    > compiling stuff takes time, that's why some s/w engineers leave the
    > servers on 24/7, to compile stuff that takes days. *The poster said it
    > takes 6 hours for a simple word processor, so, you do the math.


    OpenOffice is NOT a simple word processor. It's a complete office suite.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  18. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    Hadron wrote:

    > Which begs the question : why would you compile it?


    Why not?

    It is all automatic, it's done in the background, you can continue to use
    openoffice while compiling the new version?

    No reason not to, but if you don't want to compile it you can install the
    binary:

    instead of:

    GentooPenguin# emerge openoffice

    you do:

    GentooPenguin# emerge openoffice-bin

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  19. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    Cletus Spencer wrote:

    >
    > "Gregory Shearman" wrote in message
    > news:5295546.BiJFBse1jO@netscape.net...
    >> Roger Wilco wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
    >>> message news:0j9d55-2bs.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

    >>
    >>>>> Smart move. Open Office (Oo) is a basically spyware from former Soviet
    >>>>> block countries. The claim that you can look at the source is BS
    >>>>> because
    >>>>> the binaries that people download and install are NOT the same as the
    >>>>> source people get.
    >>>>
    >>>> So build it from source, instead. Duh.
    >>>
    >>> Those who do will not have the spyware version. But hardly anyone builts
    >>> OO from source. Nearly everyone downloads the binary and the binary
    >>> version of Open Office contains spyware.

    >>
    >> I run Gentoo. OO is built from source. Takes about 6 hours. It runs very
    >> fast on my Pentium4 2.4GHz 1G mem machine. Other Gentoo users also build
    >> it
    >> from source since it only takes one command:
    >>
    >> GentooPenguin# emerge openoffice

    >
    > So what percentage of linux users run Gentoo as opposed to all of the
    > other distros where compiling your own apps is NOT the norm?


    Don't know, don't care. I do it because I like it that way and it is just as
    easy as getting the binary.

    > And what percentage of Gentoo people compile all of their own apps
    > (especially something as big as OO) vs getting the pre-built binaries?


    Don't know, don't care.

    > Suppose that linux made it to the average household desktop (I'm talking
    > about school teachers, mechanics, widget salesmen, etc). Do you honestly
    > believe Susan the seamstress is going to be compiling her own applications
    > from the sources in some repository?


    Why not? If not, she can get someone else to update... but Gentoo is not for
    the newbie.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  20. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    * Cletus Spencer fired off this tart reply:

    > Suppose that linux made it to the average household desktop (I'm talking
    > about school teachers, mechanics, widget salesmen, etc). Do you honestly
    > believe Susan the seamstress is going to be compiling her own applications
    > from the sources in some repository?


    Yes. Because Gentoo does it /all/ for her. All she does is select an
    app and "go".

    --
    The increasing percentage of Vista isn't growth -- it's molting.

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