I deleted Open Office today - Linux

This is a discussion on I deleted Open Office today - Linux ; On Jan 11, 1:16*am, Johan Lindquist wrote: > > 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 57 of 57

Thread: I deleted Open Office today

  1. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    On Jan 11, 1:16*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:
    >
    > 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?
    >
    > --


    You showed your true colors Bozo. You just want to flame people. I'm
    here to learn more about LInux so I can flame Linux users more
    effectively; you're just here for flaming, pure and simple. Big
    difference.

    Dishonest, that's you.

    RL

  2. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    raylopez99 writes:

    > On Jan 11, 1:16*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:
    >>
    >> 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?


    Where did I take his side? As usual, with the rest of the low brows, you
    are playing the man and not the points made. I don#t "take sides" based
    on the poster. I take sides based on the issue at hand.

    And the one currently at hand is that you're trying to weasel the thread
    in true COLA "advocate" fashion.

  3. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:27:25 -0800, raylopez99 wrote:

    > On Jan 11, 1:16*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:
    >>
    >> 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?
    >>
    >> --

    >
    > You showed your true colors Bozo. You just want to flame people. I'm
    > here to learn more about LInux so I can flame Linux users more
    > effectively;


    Were you lying when you said you were here to troll, or are you lying now?

    > you're just here for flaming, pure and simple. Big
    > difference.
    >
    > Dishonest, that's you.
    >

    No, you're just looking into a mirror.


    --
    Rick

  4. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    So anyway, it was like, 18:27 CET Jan 11 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
    raylopez99 was all like, "Dude,
    > On Jan 11, 1:16*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:


    >> 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?

    >
    > You showed your true colors Bozo. You just want to flame people.
    > I'm here to learn more about LInux so I can flame Linux users more
    > effectively; you're just here for flaming, pure and simple. Big
    > difference.


    Yeah, calling hadron a pitiful wanker, however true it may be, and
    accurately it describes him, might have been alittle rude of me. It's
    not like it makes your ideas about statistics or package compilation
    right, though, but I'm sure you feel that it gives you a way out of
    that embarrassment.

    > Dishonest, that's you.


    Where was I ever dishonest? I never claimed I wasn't going to call
    hadron a pitiful wanker, to the best of my knowledge.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
    15:58:55 up 22:36, 1 user, load average: 0.08, 0.03, 0.00
    Linux 2.6.23.12 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

  5. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    So anyway, it was like, 19:20 CET Jan 11 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
    Hadron was all like, "Dude,
    > raylopez99 writes:
    >> On Jan 11, 1:16*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:


    >>> 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?

    >
    > Where did I take his side?


    When you started making comments, in response to him, about me, you
    certainly didn't make your point clear that you were disagreeing with
    him. Maybe you did, and I just missed the post where you said so.

    > As usual, with the rest of the low brows, you are playing the man
    > and not the points made. I don#t "take sides" based on the poster. I
    > take sides based on the issue at hand.


    So what do you think about his ideas then, in this thread? Do tell.

    > And the one currently at hand is that you're trying to weasel the
    > thread in true COLA "advocate" fashion.


    Feel free to point out exactly how I'm weaseling in any way at all.
    Be specific.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
    16:02:22 up 22:40, 1 user, load average: 0.01, 0.03, 0.00
    Linux 2.6.23.12 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

  6. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    Johan Lindquist writes:

    > So anyway, it was like, 18:27 CET Jan 11 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
    > raylopez99 was all like, "Dude,
    >> On Jan 11, 1:16*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:

    >
    >>> 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?

    >>
    >> You showed your true colors Bozo. You just want to flame people.
    >> I'm here to learn more about LInux so I can flame Linux users more
    >> effectively; you're just here for flaming, pure and simple. Big
    >> difference.

    >
    > Yeah, calling hadron a pitiful wanker, however true it may be, and
    > accurately it describes him, might have been alittle rude of me. It's
    > not like it makes your ideas about statistics or package compilation
    > right, though, but I'm sure you feel that it gives you a way out of
    > that embarrassment.
    >
    >> Dishonest, that's you.

    >
    > Where was I ever dishonest? I never claimed I wasn't going to call
    > hadron a pitiful wanker, to the best of my knowledge.


    LOL, I really have your number. I can tell.

  7. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    Johan Lindquist writes:

    > So anyway, it was like, 19:20 CET Jan 11 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
    > Hadron was all like, "Dude,
    >> raylopez99 writes:
    >>> On Jan 11, 1:16*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:

    >
    >>>> 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?

    >>
    >> Where did I take his side?

    >
    > When you started making comments, in response to him, about me, you
    > certainly didn't make your point clear that you were disagreeing with
    > him. Maybe you did, and I just missed the post where you said so.


    "Maybe". You're just another paranoid Linux tit who thinks Linux
    elevates him above the great unwashed. You're the WORST kind since you
    actually have a brain and use it unlike Peter Koehlmann and his ilk who
    are all professional Windows users.

    >
    >> As usual, with the rest of the low brows, you are playing the man
    >> and not the points made. I don#t "take sides" based on the poster. I
    >> take sides based on the issue at hand.

    >
    > So what do you think about his ideas then, in this thread? Do tell.


    Did I offer an opinion on that?

    >
    >> And the one currently at hand is that you're trying to weasel the
    >> thread in true COLA "advocate" fashion.

    >
    > Feel free to point out exactly how I'm weaseling in any way at all.
    > Be specific.


    It is apparent. See above where suddenly you are asking me things. I
    never commented on these things. I never supported the other poster. In
    your haste to play the man you lost sight of the ball. Poor you. Next
    time old son, next time.

  8. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    So anyway, it was like, 16:16 CET Jan 12 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
    Hadron was all like, "Dude,
    > Johan Lindquist writes:
    >> So anyway, it was like, 19:20 CET Jan 11 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
    >> Hadron was all like, "Dude,
    >>> raylopez99 writes:
    >>>> On Jan 11, 1:16*am, Johan Lindquist wrote:


    >>>>> 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?
    >>>
    >>> Where did I take his side?

    >>
    >> When you started making comments, in response to him, about me, you
    >> certainly didn't make your point clear that you were disagreeing
    >> with him. Maybe you did, and I just missed the post where you said
    >> so.

    >
    > "Maybe". You're just another paranoid Linux tit who thinks Linux
    > elevates him above the great unwashed. You're the WORST kind since
    > you actually have a brain and use it unlike Peter Koehlmann and his
    > ilk who are all professional Windows users.


    Yeah, you have my number alright. After all this time, you still
    haven't managed to learn what I do for a living, have you?

    >>> And the one currently at hand is that you're trying to weasel the
    >>> thread in true COLA "advocate" fashion.

    >>
    >> Feel free to point out exactly how I'm weaseling in any way at all.
    >> Be specific.

    >
    > It is apparent.


    That's not svery pecific, is it?

    > See above where suddenly you are asking me things.


    That's right, I'm asking /you/ things. Things you are unable to
    answer, apparently. That "raylopez99" took it as a reason to bail out
    of the argument makes it pretty obvious who's the weasel.

    > I never commented on these things. I never supported the other
    > poster.


    Your playful comment about my skills makes it apparent you were
    cheering him on, so stop playing the fool.

    --
    Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
    17:33:53 up 1 day, 11 min, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
    Linux 2.6.23.12 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

  9. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    So anyway, it was like, 16:13 CET Jan 12 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
    Hadron was all like, "Dude,
    > Johan Lindquist writes:


    >> Where was I ever dishonest? I never claimed I wasn't going to call
    >> hadron a pitiful wanker, to the best of my knowledge.

    >
    > LOL, I really have your number. I can tell.


    Wow, you really are an idiot. I must commend you on not rising to the
    challenge though, I was certain you'd start calling me names back.
    Maybe you like it better when you go first?

    --
    Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
    17:39:06 up 1 day, 17 min, 1 user, load average: 0.10, 0.04, 0.01
    Linux 2.6.23.12 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

  10. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:40:24 +1100, Gregory Shearman wrote:

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

    >
    > Why not?


    When I was using Gentoo, the thing I discovered was that if I compiled the
    apps, using settings appropriate to my machine, the resulting binaries
    tended to be smaller, load faster and run faster than the shipped binaries
    - which isn't surprising, as the shipped binaries are "generic", intended
    to run on a wide variety of setups, whereas the ones I built were specific
    to the machine I was using.

    Being able to do that is nice. *Having* to do it isn't so nice, and
    Gentoo thoughtfully makes it possible to get binaries for most things,
    then use 'em while you're producing the new versions specific for your
    setup.

    Best of both worlds, in short.

  11. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    [snips]

    On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:30:21 -0500, Cletus Spencer wrote:

    > 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?


    Who cares? Linux is about choice. You have the choice to build from
    source if you like. If you don't like, then use the binaries. Your
    choice.

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


    As *opposed* to? Probably zero. In *addition* to? Probably well over
    50%. General approach is to install the binaries, then tailor.

    > 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?


    If typing "emerge appname" is beyond her, chances are simply turning on
    the computer will be beyond her as well.

    Hmm? What's "emerge appname"? That's the command to download the source,
    the dependencies, launch the build process and ultimately install the
    application. Gee, wasn't that tough.

  12. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    Kelsey Bjarnason writes:

    > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:40:24 +1100, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Which begs the question : why would you compile it?

    >>
    >> Why not?

    >
    > When I was using Gentoo, the thing I discovered was that if I compiled the
    > apps, using settings appropriate to my machine, the resulting binaries
    > tended to be smaller, load faster and run faster than the shipped binaries
    > - which isn't surprising, as the shipped binaries are "generic", intended
    > to run on a wide variety of setups, whereas the ones I built were specific
    > to the machine I was using.


    I doubt if in 99.9999% of the cases you were able to measure it. But in
    true "advocate" style, the snipping has been done.

    NO ONE is saying there are NO benefits to compiling. The issue here is
    why bother with Gentoo when it's as easy to do with other distros
    too. It's distro hell. That's why.

    >
    > Being able to do that is nice. *Having* to do it isn't so nice, and
    > Gentoo thoughtfully makes it possible to get binaries for most things,
    > then use 'em while you're producing the new versions specific for your
    > setup.


    As do all other Distros afaik.

    >
    > Best of both worlds, in short.


    You seem to totally miss the point. Whether in purpose or not I am not
    sure.

    Your comments above are totally 100% met by any other distro. It is
    trivial in Debian/Ubuntu to get the binaries and get the sources to
    tailor too.

  13. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    On Jan 14, 11:55 am, Hadron wrote:
    > Kelsey Bjarnason writes:
    > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:40:24 +1100, Gregory Shearman wrote:

    >
    > >> Hadron wrote:

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

    >
    > >> Why not?

    >
    > > When I was using Gentoo, the thing I discovered was that if I compiled the
    > > apps, using settings appropriate to my machine, the resulting binaries
    > > tended to be smaller, load faster and run faster than the shipped binaries
    > > - which isn't surprising, as the shipped binaries are "generic", intended
    > > to run on a wide variety of setups, whereas the ones I built were specific
    > > to the machine I was using.

    >
    > I doubt if in 99.9999% of the cases you were able to measure it. But in
    > true "advocate" style, the snipping has been done.
    >


    That is probably true. For example, this box I'm on is a dual boot -
    between Gentoo and Kubuntu. I compiled OOo from source on the Gentoo
    side, the Kubuntu side is pre-built binaries. Their startup times are
    almost identical on both partitions.

    > NO ONE is saying there are NO benefits to compiling. The issue here is
    > why bother with Gentoo when it's as easy to do with other distros
    > too. It's distro hell. That's why.
    >
    >


    See that's where your wrong - it's not just as easy on other distros.
    On gentoo, getting the source for the app + all it's missing
    dependencies, unpacking the source, configuring, compiling, and
    installing is as simple as:

    emerge openoffice

    most other distros require a few more steps then that. I'm not saying
    installing from source on other distro's is rocket science or
    anything, but at the same time I wouldn't call compiling something
    like kde or openoffice exactly trivial either.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  14. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

    >If typing "emerge appname" is beyond her, chances are simply turning on
    >the computer will be beyond her as well.
    >
    >Hmm? What's "emerge appname"? That's the command to download the source,
    >the dependencies, launch the build process and ultimately install the
    >application. Gee, wasn't that tough.


    Well, that big "keyboard" thingy sitting in front of the monitor is
    quite a scary thing, you know. Rather than having to type an
    "archaic" two-word command like what you propose, it's much better to
    be pointy-clicky-tabby-wizardy all over the place.


  15. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:22:33 -0600, chrisv wrote:
    >Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:


    >>If typing "emerge appname" is beyond her, chances are simply turning on
    >>the computer will be beyond her as well.
    >>
    >>Hmm? What's "emerge appname"? That's the command to download the source,
    >>the dependencies, launch the build process and ultimately install the
    >>application. Gee, wasn't that tough.


    >Well, that big "keyboard" thingy sitting in front of the monitor is
    >quite a scary thing, you know. Rather than having to type an
    >"archaic" two-word command like what you propose, it's much better to
    >be pointy-clicky-tabby-wizardy all over the place.


    Yeah. You can launch the web browser, search google, find the software.
    But with windows, you're going to have to enter your credit card information
    type in your address, and then wait for an email. Open that email, launch
    the setup program, watch it stop on licence information. Type in your name
    again, go back to the email to get your license key, back to the setup
    program to enter it.... Meanwhile, with this electronic medium, you've wasted
    a good thirty minutes and are out between $30 and the-sky-is-the-limit.

    I'd rather just type "emerge appname".

  16. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > See that's where your wrong - it's not just as easy on other distros.
    > On gentoo, getting the source for the app + all it's missing
    > dependencies, unpacking the source, configuring, compiling, and
    > installing is as simple as:
    >
    > emerge openoffice
    >
    > most other distros require a few more steps then that.


    Debian doesn't. I'll bet the same is true of Ubuntu.

    > I'm not saying
    > installing from source on other distro's is rocket science or
    > anything, but at the same time I wouldn't call compiling something
    > like kde or openoffice exactly trivial either.


    Oh, you're talking about building from source, not just installing the
    app. My bad.

    Yeah, OpenOffice probably takes some effort to build properly. Anyone
    know for sure? Little help?

    --
    if (cb) ((cb->obj)->*(cb->ui_func))();
    tausq: who the HELL wrote that ?
    me
    * knghtbrd flogs tausq

  17. Re: I deleted Open Office today

    [snips]

    On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:16:47 -0800, Tom Shelton wrote:

    > That is probably true. For example, this box I'm on is a dual boot -
    > between Gentoo and Kubuntu. I compiled OOo from source on the Gentoo
    > side, the Kubuntu side is pre-built binaries. Their startup times are
    > almost identical on both partitions.


    When I was using Gentoo, I noticed a fairly significant - enough so to be
    obvious _without_ seeing if you shaved off a microsecond here and there -
    difference in load times between it and the other distros I'd been using
    (prolly Mandrake, at the time, mostly).

    I also found that where the other distros tended to build everything under
    the sun (eg let's bundled Gnome libs, even if you're just using KDE), with
    Gentoo I could effectively "lock out" stuff I didn't want, pretty
    trivially.

    The net result of that was that I ended up with fewer things being loaded,
    fewer libraries accessed, overall reduced overhead, but still had the
    functionality I wanted.

    It's not that Gentoo does anything particularly novel, it simply makes it
    easy to build a system _exactly_ as you want it, and no more. The results
    tend to be "lean and mean" compared to generic distros.

    On a more modern machine, contrasted to a more modern distro (eg repeating
    the experiment _today_) may well have different results. When I was doing
    it, the differences were very noticeable. Not huge - I'm not talking
    about going from boot to desktop in 1.2 seconds or some such, but if you
    do something like, say, launching firefox and one system takes seven
    seconds, the other takes four, you notice.

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