"Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineer can't always get it to work." - Linux

This is a discussion on "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineer can't always get it to work." - Linux ; William Poaster wrote: > High Plains Thumper wrote: >> Book of Job wrote: >> >>> Oh, and another posted March 9, 2008. >>> >>> >> So, [....] it. They'll be running a 2003 version of >> Linux forever, because I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 83

Thread: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineer can't always get it to work."

  1. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineercan't always get it to work."

    William Poaster wrote:
    > High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >> Book of Job wrote:
    >>
    >>> Oh, and another posted March 9, 2008.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    So, [....] it. They'll be running a 2003 version of
    >> Linux forever, because I frankly have better things to do
    >> with my time (what, do you think this television is going to
    >> watch itself?)
    >>
    >> To paraphrase Homer Simpson, "Let that be a lesson to you,
    >> son: never upgrade."
    >>
    >> Of course, this is a fine point as to why one ought to run
    >> something like Debian Stable where ultra reliability is
    >> required. One does not need bleeding edge software to
    >> maintain reliability.

    >
    > I believe it was also said the guy was a Mac user. For all he
    > knew about Linux, he may as well have been a been a windoze
    > user.


    Well, so much for a "world class software engineer".

    Linux is so complex? That is the stupidest argument I have ever
    heard. Here is an example of how "hard" it is:

    http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...1100&CatId=927

    or http://tinyurl.com/6gvtzs

    Half way down there is a video, that gives a live demonstration
    of the Eee PC under Linux. Narrator gives an excellent view of
    Linux in action. Particularly of interest is his comments
    regarding the performance of Linux and its security. He even
    mentions that an Apple computer gets hacked quickly, but not Linux.

    Outdoes Mr. "Security is a binary condition". Linux is secure,
    Windows is not. Heh! That is binary. :-)

    --
    HPT

  2. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineer can't always get it to work."

    On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:14:14 -0600, High Plains Thumper wrote:

    > William Poaster wrote:
    >> High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>> Book of Job wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Oh, and another posted March 9, 2008.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    So, [....] it. They'll be running a 2003 version of Linux
    >>> forever, because I frankly have better things to do with my time (what,
    >>> do you think this television is going to watch itself?)
    >>>
    >>> To paraphrase Homer Simpson, "Let that be a lesson to you, son: never
    >>> upgrade."
    >>>
    >>> Of course, this is a fine point as to why one ought to run something
    >>> like Debian Stable where ultra reliability is required. One does not
    >>> need bleeding edge software to maintain reliability.

    >>
    >> I believe it was also said the guy was a Mac user. For all he knew about
    >> Linux, he may as well have been a been a windoze user.

    >
    > Well, so much for a "world class software engineer".
    >
    > Linux is so complex? That is the stupidest argument I have ever heard.
    > Here is an example of how "hard" it is:
    >
    > http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...1100&CatId=927
    >
    > or http://tinyurl.com/6gvtzs
    >
    > Half way down there is a video, that gives a live demonstration of the Eee
    > PC under Linux. Narrator gives an excellent view of Linux in action.
    > Particularly of interest is his comments regarding the performance of
    > Linux and its security. He even mentions that an Apple computer gets
    > hacked quickly, but not Linux.
    >
    > Outdoes Mr. "Security is a binary condition". Linux is secure, Windows is
    > not. Heh! That is binary. :-)


    So once again Mr FUDdenbusch built a house of straw. ;-)

    --
    This message was sent from a
    computer which is guaranteed
    100% free of the M$ Windoze virus.
    -- 64bit Mandriva 2008.1 --

  3. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineer can't always get it to work."

    On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:18:50 -0700 (PDT), Tom Shelton wrote:

    > On Apr 18, 11:00*pm, RonB wrote:
    >> ray wrote:
    >>> Linux is so complex, I know several retired old fogies and several junior
    >>> high school students who have no difficulty with it whatever.

    >>
    >>> Possibly one person's "world class software engineer" is another's
    >>> blithering incompetent.

    >>
    >> Or 100% pure liar, like the lying WinTrolls who allegedly quote him.
    >>

    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Zawinski


    It's the classic try and discredit the user tactic that the Linux Loons use
    all the time.

    This thread is proof that no matter who you are, if you don't agree 100
    percent with the Linux Loons, they will turn on you like a cornered rat.


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

  4. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineer can't always get it to work."


    "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    news:rm9qd5-i68.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
    > [snips]
    >
    > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:10:45 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> What I find extremely hypocritical from the "advocates" is how they
    >> always talk about Microsoft and "patch Tuesday" and how Windows users
    >> spend all their time installing fixes and service packs and other such
    >> nonsense.

    >
    >> Does anyone ever look at what linux makes you download????

    >
    > Nothing whatsoever; it's your choice whether to download anything at all.


    So freaking what? Are you actually that stupid to believe that Windows
    users don't have a choice whether or not to download updates?



    >> It seems
    >> that 2-3 times a week you have to download 50-60 megs of patches,

    >
    > Apples and oranges. Let us know when your updater in Windows updates not
    > just the OS, but every application installed as well - then tell us how
    > large the updates are. Assuming, that is, you can get the vendors to
    > roll out regular bug fixes, rather than just rolling them into their next
    > version.


    It's a bare minimum linux install. There aren't hundreds of apps/packages
    to update. The problem generally seems to be that there are dozens of linux
    utilities that all statically linked with some faulty library and when it's
    found that the library has a security bug then these dozens of utilities
    need to get rebuild with the new library and redistributed.

    And it's rare for a Windows update to be anywhere nearly as large as the
    linux "patches" are.


    > 50-60MB to update a several hundred packages covering the OS, the several
    > servers and all the desktop apps I run really isn't a big deal. It *is*
    > a big deal when I get that sort of size of update but it only encompasses
    > maybe 2% of what's installed.>


    Do a fresh install of Ubuntu. The very first thing it's going to want to do
    is to apply about 400 megs of updates. That's several times larger than
    what Windows will want to patch.



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  5. Re: fuddie lies in subject header ..

    On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:22:26 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:29:50 -0700 (PDT), Doug Mentohl wrote:
    >
    >> On 19 Apr, 17:05, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:55:50 -0700 (PDT), Doug Mentohl wrote:

    >>
    >>>> On 19 Apr, 16:37, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >>
    >>>>>> You test it on a a second system and then swap them out.

    >>
    >>>>> He used a different hard drive.

    >>
    >>>> Where does it say that ?

    >>
    >>> Read the F'in article.

    >>
    >> "after four days of this nonsense, I gave up, and just put the old
    >> drive back in"

    >
    > Duh! Duh!g. What else would someone do when they can't get the new install
    > to work right?


    In COLA?

    1. Try a different distribution until he discovers one that works. One
    down, nine hundred more to go!
    2. Blame it on everything but Linux.
    3. Claim it worked fine even when it didn't.

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

  6. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineer can't always get it to work."

    * High Plains Thumper peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Linux is so complex? That is the stupidest argument I have ever
    > heard. Here is an example of how "hard" it is:
    >
    > http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...1100&CatId=927
    >
    > or http://tinyurl.com/6gvtzs
    >
    > Half way down there is a video, that gives a live demonstration
    > of the Eee PC under Linux. Narrator gives an excellent view of
    > Linux in action. Particularly of interest is his comments
    > regarding the performance of Linux and its security. He even
    > mentions that an Apple computer gets hacked quickly, but not Linux.


    $300 US? Makes me wish I were in a buying cycle at the moment!

    --
    The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste, they have
    absolutely no taste, and what that means is -- I don't mean that in a small
    way I mean that in a big way -- in the sense that they they don't think of
    original ideas and they don't bring much culture into their product.
    -- Steve Jobs as quoted in the PBS documentary Triumph of the Nerds (1996)

  7. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineer can't always get it to work."

    * Rick peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:16:28 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >> I don't run it very often (but posting from XUbuntu/Thunderbird right
    >> now), but the one OSS package I do use on Windows - Firefox - pops up
    >> update windows with frightening frequency. Every few weeks it seems.
    >> They're quick to download and install, but it's not confidence-inspiring
    >> to get updates so often.
    >>
    >> Why does your OSS software have to be updated so often? What was wrong
    >> with it the first 27 updates?

    >
    > What's wrong with your CSS software? Why does it get updated?


    I hate when I look up at the Windows screen and see it telling me it is
    going to reboot in a few minutes unless I click a button. I get sorely
    tempted to disable automatic updates.

    As for the frequency of upates? I've been coding long enough to know
    that you will always find something to fix. So the frequency of updates
    is, to me, somewhat comforting. It shows someone is on top of things.

    And I have to say that, in the last year or so, updates to Debian
    unstable have brought up temporary issues with more frequency that I've
    experienced with XP.

    The big difference? They either get fixed quickly, or I can fix them
    quickly myself, for the most part.

    --
    When the PC was launched, people knew it was important.
    -- Bill Gates

  8. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineercan't always get it to work."

    [snips]

    On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:03:15 -0500, Rick wrote:

    >> Why does your OSS software have to be updated so often? What was wrong
    >> with it the first 27 updates?

    >
    > What's wrong with your CSS software? Why does it get updated?


    Let's recall, for starters, that "Patch Tuesday" was implemented because
    people were being inundated with endless "There are updates available for
    your system" notifications - meaning that in at least the case of the
    primary CSS vendor involved, the criticism offered by DFS, above, is seen
    to be rather amusing: he's whining that our OSS suffers the problem of
    frequent updates when his beloved CSS had to switch to an entirely
    different deployment model due to the frequency of its updates.

    Then we have the amusing situation that his beloved CSS vendor, having
    adopted this new model, is now in the position of either violating the
    model by rolling out security updates on a "whenever they're ready" basis
    instead of according to the schedule, or of having fixes for known
    security problems but leaving users vulnerable for up to a month, just to
    stick to the schedule. The latter option is about as bad as you can get,
    but the former simply makes the entire scheduled update notion look like
    a badly-thought-out accident.

    Meanwhile, this _still_ applies to only one vendor. Last I checked, it
    does _not_ include all the updates from all the software from all the
    vendors out there, many of whom simply _do not_ publish updates on a
    "whenever they're ready" basis, and the few who do do _not_ generally
    have anything akin to MS Update, adept notifier, etc, etc, etc.

    So what are we left with?

    We're left with Windows either violating its own update schedules, or
    leaving users out in the cold, vulnerable to known issues, with known but
    undeployed fixes, for up to a month. We're left with Windows having an
    update mechanism which essentially covers a single vendor's products.
    We're left with Windows software which is sometimes updated with Windows
    update, sometimes by auto-download (AV apps and the like), sometimes by
    the user browsing to the vendor's site and manually downloading and
    applying the updates. And we're left with a software culture in which
    regular updates are simply not the expected behaviour from a vendor,
    where the default expectation is to simply wait until the next version.


    And he has the gall to complain about how Linux deploys updates.


  9. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineercan't always get it to work."

    [snips]

    On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:47:45 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    > I hate when I look up at the Windows screen and see it telling me it is
    > going to reboot in a few minutes unless I click a button.


    Even worse are the updates which say "Your machine needs to be rebooted;
    close all your applications and press OK" - with absolutely no way out of
    it. Click OK, it reboots. Close the window, it reboots. Presumably one
    could fire up task manager, figure out which app has the dialog open and
    simply nuke the ****er, but really, gimme a break - rebooting should
    _never_ be something the _software_ mandates. It should certainly tell
    you you need to reboot in order to get the updates/fixes/whatever to
    work, but software should _never_ attempt to enforce a reboot in such a
    manner.

    > As for the frequency of upates? I've been coding long enough to know
    > that you will always find something to fix. So the frequency of updates
    > is, to me, somewhat comforting. It shows someone is on top of things.


    It also means you're not being *intentionally* left hanging with a
    vulnerability that has a known fix, just to adhere to some suit's
    schedule.


  10. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineercan't always get it to work."

    On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:14:59 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    > news:rm9qd5-i68.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
    >> [snips]
    >>
    >> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:10:45 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
    >>
    >>> What I find extremely hypocritical from the "advocates" is how they
    >>> always talk about Microsoft and "patch Tuesday" and how Windows users
    >>> spend all their time installing fixes and service packs and other such
    >>> nonsense.

    >>
    >>> Does anyone ever look at what linux makes you download????

    >>
    >> Nothing whatsoever; it's your choice whether to download anything at
    >> all.

    >
    > So freaking what? Are you actually that stupid to believe that Windows
    > users don't have a choice whether or not to download updates?


    Nope. I'm responding to the moron who suggested that Linux *makes* you
    download anything. Hmm. That moron would be you.

    >> Apples and oranges. Let us know when your updater in Windows updates
    >> not just the OS, but every application installed as well - then tell us
    >> how large the updates are. Assuming, that is, you can get the vendors
    >> to roll out regular bug fixes, rather than just rolling them into their
    >> next version.

    >
    > It's a bare minimum linux install.


    Then it's unlikely to be 50-60MB of downloads 2-3 times per week. Let's
    see... this machine has - count 'em - 68 repositories listed. It hasn't
    had an update in close to 72 hours, meaning it's due for a largish update
    according to you. There are some 1657 installed packages, far from a
    minimum install, so I should expect a large update list.

    Despite this, there are exactly two packages to be downloaded, totalling
    1.7MB of download data.

    So much for 50-60MB three times a week on a minimal install.


    > Do a fresh install of Ubuntu. The very first thing it's going to want to
    > do is to apply about 400 megs of updates. That's several times larger
    > than what Windows will want to patch.


    Honesty isn't your strong point, I see. Quick: a default install of
    Ubuntu includes *how* many applications from *how* many vendors? And a
    default install of Windows includes *how* many applications from *how*
    many vendors?

    Once you learn to count, thus become capable of figuring out _why_ your
    comparison is suitable only for morons such as yourself, you'll see why,
    exactly, we think you're a moron. Well, one of the reasons.


  11. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineer can't always get it to work."

    RonB wrote:

    >Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >(Nothing)
    >
    >Well, look what crawled out of Funkenbush's ass...


    LOL


  12. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineer can't always get it to work."

    Linonut wrote:

    >I run aptitude, and then do "u U g g" then sit back and light up a
    >cheroot.


    Aww... I though you were going to say "light up a cigar", which is
    one of my favorite things to do...


  13. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineer can't always get it to work."

    On 2008-04-18, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > "I think you'll agree that it's fair to call Jamie Zawinski a world class
    > software engineer."


    I always thought Jamie was an idiot and overrated.

    I've probably said so directly to him.

    Those exchanges are likely recorded in some Usenet archive some
    where. Jamie is really old news.

    > ...
    > "For years I've had it drummed into my head that you always have to keep
    > your systems patched, if you aren't running the latest security fixes, the
    > script kiddies will eat you alive, running a six month old OS is like
    > leaving your front door wide open, blah blah blah. Well you know what? F**k
    > that noise. I'm done upgrading anything ever. The next time I get this s**t
    > into a state that seems even remotely stable, I'm never touching it again.
    > If we get hacked, oh well. I have backups. It has got to be less work to
    > recover from than constantly dealing with this kind of nonsense."
    > ...
    > "So, f**k it. They'll be running a 2003 version of Linux forever, because I
    > frankly have better things to do with my time."
    > ...
    > "I find it highly disturbing that a software engineer of Jamie's caliber
    > would give up on upgrading software. Jamie lives and breathes Linux. It is


    An engineer of any "caliber" should know when it's appropriate to
    both the status quo. No one with any clue should find it the least bit
    shocking that a particular system should not be altered. It may not
    really need it. Gratuitous change should disturb any genuine engineer.

    > his platform of choice. If he throws in the towel on Linux upgrades, then
    > what possible hope do us mere mortals have?"
    >
    > http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001089.html


    What am I missing?

    What is Jamie? Really?

    Although I would quite strongly disagree with his assessment
    of the situations. Linux has always been pretty trivial to tear
    down and rebuild again. The modularity and multi-user heritage
    of Unix in general tends to make that so.

    --
    If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
    hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  14. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineer can't always get it to work."

    On 2008-04-18, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:54:49 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> "I find it highly disturbing that a software engineer of Jamie's caliber
    >> would give up on upgrading software. Jamie lives and breathes Linux. It is
    >> his platform of choice. If he throws in the towel on Linux upgrades, then
    >> what possible hope do us mere mortals have?"
    >>
    >> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001089.html

    >
    > By the way, I don't post the above to criticize Linux, because frankly all
    > software can have issues, even lots of them.
    >
    > I say the above to criticize Linux *ADVOCATES* who like to claim that Linux
    > just works, that if you can't make it work, you're an idiot, etc...


    It does just work. The fact that a programmer in the community is having
    a bad day, in a free ccmmunity where people don't get fired for taking
    photo's of insidious microsoft activities like stocking up on the
    competitions coputer systes, means that people openly air out their
    fustrations without fear. Your should try it sometime. It's called
    freedom and it results in superior creativity and product.

    products that just work

    --
    http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff
    http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software

    So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998

    http://fairuse.nylxs.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002

    "Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"

    "The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in our own society."

    "> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be damned.<
    You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st dynasty in Ancient Egypt. I guess you missed that one."

    © Copyright for the Digital Millennium

  15. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineer can't always get it to work."

    On Sun, 4 May 2008 16:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Ruben Safir wrote:

    > On 2008-04-18, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:54:49 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>> "I find it highly disturbing that a software engineer of Jamie's caliber
    >>> would give up on upgrading software. Jamie lives and breathes Linux. It is
    >>> his platform of choice. If he throws in the towel on Linux upgrades, then
    >>> what possible hope do us mere mortals have?"
    >>>
    >>> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001089.html

    >>
    >> By the way, I don't post the above to criticize Linux, because frankly all
    >> software can have issues, even lots of them.
    >>
    >> I say the above to criticize Linux *ADVOCATES* who like to claim that Linux
    >> just works, that if you can't make it work, you're an idiot, etc...

    >
    > It does just work. The fact that a programmer in the community is having
    > a bad day, in a free ccmmunity where people don't get fired for taking
    > photo's of insidious microsoft activities like stocking up on the
    > competitions coputer systes, means that people openly air out their
    > fustrations without fear. Your should try it sometime. It's called
    > freedom and it results in superior creativity and product.
    >
    > products that just work


    Oh, I thought you had plonked me.

    I guess you're a liar.

  16. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineer can't always get it to work."

    DFS wrote:

    > Ruben Safir wrote:
    >
    >>, means that people openly air out
    >> their fustrations without fear. Your should try it sometime. It's
    >> called freedom and it results in superior creativity and product.

    >
    > It's called crudware, and it's the *result* of inferior creativity and
    > intelligence and lack of dedication. cola idiots' denials and claims of
    > "works for me" and "it just works" amount to a fart in a hurricane of
    > slopware reports found on all Linux forums:


    Why do you waste so much time telling the world you you can't get Linux to
    work, it makes you look stupid, and gives you no credibility were computers
    are concerned.

    Jem..

    --
    news.sunsite.dk


  17. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineer can't always get it to work."

    Ruben Safir wrote:

    >, means that people openly air out
    > their fustrations without fear. Your should try it sometime. It's
    > called freedom and it results in superior creativity and product.


    It's called crudware, and it's the *result* of inferior creativity and
    intelligence and lack of dedication. cola idiots' denials and claims of
    "works for me" and "it just works" amount to a fart in a hurricane of
    slopware reports found on all Linux forums:

    Ubuntu formus
    Suse forums
    PCLinuxOS forums
    Mandriva forums
    Fedora forums
    Debian forums
    Gentoo forums
    Mepis forums
    Slackware forums
    CentOS forums
    etc
    etc
    etc




    > products that just work


    When they're not freezing up and requiring a hard boot every 15 minutes:

    "it's almost like clock work every 15-20 mins it freezes up right on the
    head." http://forums.suselinuxsupport.de/in...opic=61367&hl=


    "The system hangs from time to time (every 15 minutes or so). It's a
    complete system freeze, with no Ctrl-Alt-Backspace escape. Only the on/off
    button helps !"
    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...t=Hardy+freeze




  18. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineercan't always get it to work."

    On May 4, 12:54 pm, Erik Funkenbusch
    wrote:
    > On Sun, 4 May 2008 16:40:00 +0000 (UTC), Ruben Safir wrote:
    > > On 2008-04-18, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > >> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:54:49 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >
    > >>> "I find it highly disturbing that a software engineer of Jamie's caliber
    > >>> would give up on upgrading software. Jamie lives and breathes Linux. It is
    > >>> his platform of choice. If he throws in the towel on Linux upgrades, then
    > >>> what possible hope do us mere mortals have?"

    >
    > >>>http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001089.html

    >
    > >> By the way, I don't post the above to criticize Linux, because frankly all
    > >> software can have issues, even lots of them.

    >
    > >> I say the above to criticize Linux *ADVOCATES* who like to claim that Linux
    > >> just works, that if you can't make it work, you're an idiot, etc...

    >
    > > It does just work. The fact that a programmer in the community is having
    > > a bad day, in a free ccmmunity where people don't get fired for taking
    > > photo's of insidious microsoft activities like stocking up on the
    > > competitions coputer systes, means that people openly air out their
    > > fustrations without fear. Your should try it sometime. It's called
    > > freedom and it results in superior creativity and product.

    >
    > > products that just work

    >
    > Oh, I thought you had plonked me.
    >
    > I guess you're a liar.




    No, I was just using my remote account on Panix. Your still plunked,
    and still a shrilling ass.

    Ruben

  19. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineercan't always get it to work."

    On May 4, 4:47 pm, "DFS" wrote:
    > Ruben Safir wrote:
    > >, means that people openly air out
    > > their fustrations without fear. Your should try it sometime. It's
    > > called freedom and it results in superior creativity and product.

    >
    > It's called crudware,


    Unlike the 50 ,000,000 lines of code and 50 dependency layers built
    into windows that is so stupid that is can't keep Easter Eggs out of
    the code base, or prevent their senior vice-president from
    experiencing a blue screen of death in Vistas initial presentation.

    Do you really think everyone on earth is as stupid as the nameless
    troll from Microsoft.

    Do me a favor, go stick your head in an oven and turn on the gas.



    > and it's the *result* of inferior creativity and
    > intelligence and lack of dedication. cola idiots' denials and claims of
    > "works for me" and "it just works" amount to a fart in a hurricane of
    > slopware reports found on all Linux forums:
    >
    > Ubuntu formus
    > Suse forums
    > PCLinuxOS forums
    > Mandriva forums
    > Fedora forums
    > Debian forums
    > Gentoo forums
    > Mepis forums
    > Slackware forums
    > CentOS forums
    > etc
    > etc
    > etc
    >
    > > products that just work

    >
    > When they're not freezing up and requiring a hard boot every 15 minutes:
    >
    > "it's almost like clock work every 15-20 mins it freezes up right on the
    > head."http://forums.suselinuxsupport.de/index.php?showtopic=61367&hl=
    >
    > "The system hangs from time to time (every 15 minutes or so). It's a
    > complete system freeze, with no Ctrl-Alt-Backspace escape. Only the on/off
    > button helps !"http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=748560&highlight=Hardy+freeze



  20. Re: "Linux is so complex that even a world class software engineer can't always get it to work."

    On Sun, 04 May 2008 21:35:00 +0100, Jeremy Fisher wrote:

    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Ruben Safir wrote:
    >>
    >>>, means that people openly air out
    >>> their fustrations without fear. Your should try it sometime. It's
    >>> called freedom and it results in superior creativity and product.

    >>
    >> It's called crudware, and it's the *result* of inferior creativity and
    >> intelligence and lack of dedication. cola idiots' denials and claims of
    >> "works for me" and "it just works" amount to a fart in a hurricane of
    >> slopware reports found on all Linux forums:

    >
    > Why do you waste so much time telling the world you you can't get Linux to
    > work, it makes you look stupid, and gives you no credibility were
    > computers are concerned.
    >
    > Jem..


    Because DFS is the *result* of inferior creativity by his
    parents, & intelligence & lack of dedication on his behalf.
    He's an idiot wintroll.

    --
    This message was sent from a
    computer which is guaranteed
    100% free of the M$ Windoze virus.
    -- 64bit Mandriva 2008.1 --

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