Linux: the high cost of low prices - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux: the high cost of low prices - Linux ; Lintard wrote: >Your nym is *plonk*...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 51 of 51

Thread: Linux: the high cost of low prices

  1. Re: Anonymising Remailing orange.nl Nym-thief lies.

    Lintard wrote:

    >Your nym is


    *plonk*


  2. Re: Anonymising Remailing orange.nl Nym-thief lies.

    * High Plains Thumper peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Nym-thief using "High Plains Thumper"
    >
    > Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com
    >
    >> Only ****suckers change subject lines.

    >
    > Really sad that a cowardly anonymising remailer troll must steal
    > my nym to post his gob****e.


    And then to complain about changing a subject line.

    What a hypocritical putz.

    --
    We don't have the user centricity. Until we understand context, which is way
    beyond presence -- presence is the most trivial notion, just am I on this
    device or not; it doesn't say am I meeting with something, am I focused on
    writing something.
    -- Bill Gates, .NET Briefing Day Speech (24 July 2002)

  3. Re: Anonymising Remailing orange.nl Nym-thief lies.

    Linonut wrote:

    >* High Plains Thumper peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Nym-thief using "High Plains Thumper"
    >>
    >> Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@dizum.com
    >>
    >>> Only ****suckers change subject lines.

    >>
    >> Really sad that a cowardly anonymising remailer troll must steal
    >> my nym to post his gob****e.

    >
    >And then to complain about changing a subject line.
    >
    >What a hypocritical putz.


    Can you say "mental illness"?


  4. Re: Linux: the high cost of low prices

    thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:

    > DFS wrote:




    >>> What other answer do you really expect in a Linux
    >>> advocacy group?

    >>
    >> The truth.

    >
    > No, you are not interested in the truth. You are just
    > here to pick a fight.
    >
    >>> Why even ask?

    >>
    >> To see how many nuts would have the balls to speak their conscience. So
    >> far, none have.

    >
    > Bull**** again.


    Quite. And does Doofu$ know *why* no one has answered him? Because most have
    binned him as a troll & lying POS, is why.



    --
    Mandriva - 2008.1 - RC2 - 64bit OS.
    COLA trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/

  5. Re: Linux: the high cost of low prices

    On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:02:46 +0000, William Poaster wrote:

    > thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
    >
    >> DFS wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >>>> What other answer do you really expect in a Linux
    >>>> advocacy group?
    >>>
    >>> The truth.

    >>
    >> No, you are not interested in the truth. You are just
    >> here to pick a fight.
    >>
    >>>> Why even ask?
    >>>
    >>> To see how many nuts would have the balls to speak their conscience. So
    >>> far, none have.

    >>
    >> Bull**** again.

    >
    > Quite. And does Doofu$ know *why* no one has answered him? Because most have
    > binned him as a troll & lying POS, is why.
    >
    >


    Yea sure...

    And how many replies does Roy Schestowitz get considering the amount of
    crap he floods into COLA each day.

    With the exception of Mark Kent and [OhNo], he gets very few replies.

    Interesting that his *work* gets the same reaction on digg.com.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  6. Re: Linux: the high cost of low prices

    William Poaster wrote:

    > Quite. And does Doofu$ know *why* no one has answered him? Because
    > most have binned him as a troll & lying POS, is why.


    Then you can produce the lies, fool.




  7. Re: Linux: the high cost of low prices

    On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:17:22 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

    > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:02:46 +0000, William Poaster wrote:
    >
    >> thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
    >>
    >>> DFS wrote:

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>> What other answer do you really expect in a Linux advocacy group?
    >>>>
    >>>> The truth.
    >>>
    >>> No, you are not interested in the truth. You are just here to pick a
    >>> fight.
    >>>
    >>>>> Why even ask?
    >>>>
    >>>> To see how many nuts would have the balls to speak their conscience.
    >>>> So far, none have.
    >>>
    >>> Bull**** again.

    >>
    >> Quite. And does Doofu$ know *why* no one has answered him? Because most
    >> have binned him as a troll & lying POS, is why.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Yea sure...
    >
    > And how many replies does Roy Schestowitz get considering the amount of
    > crap he floods into COLA each day.
    >
    > With the exception of Mark Kent and [OhNo], he gets very few replies.
    >
    > Interesting that his *work* gets the same reaction on digg.com.


    Still obsessed with Roy, I see.

    --
    Rick

  8. Re: Linux: the high cost of low prices

    On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:26:19 -0500, DFS wrote:

    > William Poaster wrote:
    >
    >> Quite. And does Doofu$ know *why* no one has answered him? Because
    >> most have binned him as a troll & lying POS, is why.

    >
    > Then you can produce the lies, fool.


    You haven't lied at all DFS.
    I did not read every single post, but the ones I read certainly have links
    related to the topic.

    Your tactic was brilliant!


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  9. Re: Linux: the high cost of low prices

    On 2008-03-27, DFS wrote:
    > thad05@tux.glaci.delete-this.com wrote:
    >> DFS wrote:
    >>> Ubuntu\OpenOffice\gnucash\Gambas\MySQL\Nexuiz ($0)
    >>>
    >>> Vista Home Premium\Office Pro\Quicken\Visual Studio Express\SQL
    >>> Server Dev\BioShock (~$475)
    >>>
    >>> Which would you rather use?

    >>
    >> Ubuntu of course.

    >
    > Why? You can't do anything with Ubuntu. OpenOffice and gnucash are 2nd
    > rate. Gambas is just a sad joke next to Visual Studio. MySQL is decent for
    > being free, but not nearly up to the standard of SQL Server. And Nexuiz is


    You don't even want to go there.

    If you are willing to pay for RDBMS software then SQL Server doesn't
    even deserve to sit at the adult table. It needs to sit at the kiddie
    table along with mysql.

    > a 10-year old gaming experience, while BioShock is Game of the Year
    > material.


    Personally Quicken never suited me. Although I could run it in
    Linux if I really wanted to. To me it's more about the vendor/bank
    tie in. Beyond that it's worth about 10 lines of php.

    >
    > You have to know all this - if not then you don't keep up with the world of
    > software.


    [deletia]


    --
    NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
    / | \
    That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  10. Re: Linux: the high cost of low prices

    JEDIDIAH wrote:

    > You don't even want to go there.
    >
    > If you are willing to pay for RDBMS software then SQL Server
    > doesn't even deserve to sit at the adult table. It needs to sit at
    > the kiddie table along with mysql.


    cola "advocates": always wrong

    http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc...rf_results.asp
    http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp
    http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/tpch_perf_results.asp

    You'll like this SQL Server bashing article, but if you read to the end
    you'll be more informed than you were
    http://searchoracle.techtarget.com/t...910543,00.html

    btw, I prefer Oracle, but the mgmt and administration and reporting tools in
    SQL Server are much better.



  11. Re: Linux: the high cost of low prices

    On 2008-04-01, DFS wrote:
    > JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >
    >> You don't even want to go there.
    >>
    >> If you are willing to pay for RDBMS software then SQL Server
    >> doesn't even deserve to sit at the adult table. It needs to sit at
    >> the kiddie table along with mysql.

    >
    > cola "advocates": always wrong
    >
    > http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc...rf_results.asp
    > http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp
    > http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/tpch_perf_results.asp
    >
    > You'll like this SQL Server bashing article, but if you read to the end
    > you'll be more informed than you were
    > http://searchoracle.techtarget.com/t...910543,00.html
    >
    > btw, I prefer Oracle, but the mgmt and administration and reporting tools in
    > SQL Server are much better.


    ....which means squat if you have a big job.

    Appealing to the RDBMS equivalent of the Norton SI benchmark really
    doesn't change that.


    --

    Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
    who has pirated their music / | \


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

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