Linux works - If you ignore the rough edges. - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux works - If you ignore the rough edges. - Linux ; Hadron wrote: > Ian Hilliard writes: > >> Hadron wrote: >> >>>> I choose the OS based on the requirements and constraints. My >>>> requirement is to have a reliable OS with good support for >>>> off-the-shelf hardware, that is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 61 to 71 of 71

Thread: Linux works - If you ignore the rough edges.

  1. Re: Linux works - If you ignore the rough edges.

    Hadron wrote:

    > Ian Hilliard writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>>> I choose the OS based on the requirements and constraints. My
    >>>> requirement is to have a reliable OS with good support for
    >>>> off-the-shelf hardware, that is safe in uncontrolled environments.
    >>>> Linux meets those requirements and meets them well.
    >>>>
    >>>> Ian
    >>>
    >>> Which "off the shelf HW" could you not get working with Windows?

    >>
    >> Windows fails the "safe in uncontrolled environments" criteria.
    >>
    >> Ian

    >
    > You did not answer the question. Now define a controlled environment.


    I answered the question. You just chose to play dumb.

    A controlled environment is one, such as a corporate environment where all
    access to the network is limited to only a couple of services, which are
    then filtered. Mail is filtered to stop virus mails from being received.
    The computers are locked down to limit which software is permitted to be
    run. Access to the internet is only through a filtering proxy to stop
    Internet Explorer from being a virus funnel. USB is disabled to stop
    infections from USB sticks.

    In other words, all the things that corporations have to do to stop their
    machines joining the ranks of the Windows Zombies which flood the web.

    Ian

  2. Re: Linux works - If you ignore the rough edges.

    Ian Hilliard writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Ian Hilliard writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> I choose the OS based on the requirements and constraints. My
    >>>>> requirement is to have a reliable OS with good support for
    >>>>> off-the-shelf hardware, that is safe in uncontrolled environments.
    >>>>> Linux meets those requirements and meets them well.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Ian
    >>>>
    >>>> Which "off the shelf HW" could you not get working with Windows?
    >>>
    >>> Windows fails the "safe in uncontrolled environments" criteria.
    >>>
    >>> Ian

    >>
    >> You did not answer the question. Now define a controlled environment.

    >
    > I answered the question. You just chose to play dumb.


    So we can deduce from that that you think Windows is a reliable OS with
    good support for off the shelf HW?

    >
    > A controlled environment is one, such as a corporate environment where all
    > access to the network is limited to only a couple of services, which are
    > then filtered. Mail is filtered to stop virus mails from being received.
    > The computers are locked down to limit which software is permitted to be
    > run. Access to the internet is only through a filtering proxy to stop
    > Internet Explorer from being a virus funnel. USB is disabled to stop
    > infections from USB sticks.
    >
    > In other words, all the things that corporations have to do to stop their
    > machines joining the ranks of the Windows Zombies which flood the web.


    All corporations should do that anyway. Any corporation which allows
    each and every desktop access to the wild should be prosecuted for gross
    negligence. Linux desktops too.

    >
    > Ian


    I think you have drunk the COLA-aid.

    I must admit that I DO feel smug and secure booting up debian on my
    thinkpad. And it causes some interest from the savvy. That is the way to
    advocate an OS. Not handing out DVDs. use it. In the wild.

    --
    "By your and your buddies references, marketshare.hitslink.com, it has
    moved from .43 to .68 over the last year. Increasing by 58% over the last
    year doesn't seem to me like it hasn't changed much in 16 years."
    -- Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  3. Re: Linux works - If you ignore the rough edges.

    On 2008-09-19, Hadron wrote:
    > Chris Ahlstrom writes:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, chrisv belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I dub him "Roger Dodger".
    >>>>
    >>>> An absolutely transparent troll, following the script to a T, including
    >>>> the gradual descent into insult.
    >>>
    >>> Gradual?

    >>
    >> Okay, a couple posts.
    >>
    >> What's really funny is those people who say that the presence of
    >> problems on forums such as Ubuntu is a bad thing for Linux.

    >
    > Huh? Wrong. What some of say in COLA is "SW is SW and there are many
    > issues with Linux which need fixing". Unfortunately the COLA loons reply
    > with "works fine for me Quack, you could **** up a boiled egg". And yes,


    We can also provide gory details regarding precisely what works.

    We are quite able and willing to provide enough information such
    that any potentially interested part that manages to wander by can
    also try for themselves. THIS sort of sincerity and williness to
    cooperate is conspicuously absent the typical troll. It's also a
    problem with many n00bs that have problems in general.

    Those that are serious about their problem cooperate with those
    willing to give help and get it in return.

    [deletia]


    --
    My macintosh runs Ubuntu. |||
    / | \

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

  4. Re: Linux works - If you ignore the rough edges.

    JEDIDIAH writes:

    > On 2008-09-19, Hadron wrote:
    >> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
    >>
    >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, chrisv belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >>>
    >>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I dub him "Roger Dodger".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> An absolutely transparent troll, following the script to a T, including
    >>>>> the gradual descent into insult.
    >>>>
    >>>> Gradual?
    >>>
    >>> Okay, a couple posts.
    >>>
    >>> What's really funny is those people who say that the presence of
    >>> problems on forums such as Ubuntu is a bad thing for Linux.

    >>
    >> Huh? Wrong. What some of say in COLA is "SW is SW and there are many
    >> issues with Linux which need fixing". Unfortunately the COLA loons reply
    >> with "works fine for me Quack, you could **** up a boiled egg". And yes,

    >
    > We can also provide gory details regarding precisely what works.


    No one is interested in what *works*. People assume things will
    work. Its when things to NOT work that people get pissed off and head
    back to their old installations.
    >
    > We are quite able and willing to provide enough information such


    Who is "we"? Not you and COLA I hope?

    > that any potentially interested part that manages to wander by can
    > also try for themselves. THIS sort of sincerity and williness to
    > cooperate is conspicuously absent the typical troll. It's also a
    > problem with many n00bs that have problems in general.


    What are you talking about? The people who most generally do NOT help
    are the COLA faithful since it "just works" for them.

    >
    > Those that are serious about their problem cooperate with those
    > willing to give help and get it in return.


    I agree with that.

    >
    > [deletia]


    --
    "Let the body stay buried wherever he put it, maybe it'll get
    found some day, maybe not. "
    -- "Bo Raxo" in alt.true-crime, comp.os.linux.advocacy

  5. Re: Linux works - If you ignore the rough edges.

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Chris Ahlstrom writes:
    >
    >> What's really funny is those people who say that the presence of
    >> problems on forums such as Ubuntu is a bad thing for Linux.

    >
    > Huh? Wrong. What some of say in COLA is "SW is SW and there are many
    > issues with Linux which need fixing". Unfortunately the COLA loons reply
    > with "works fine for me Quack, you could **** up a boiled egg". And yes,
    > you do too.


    Wrong again, Hadron! I said "You could **** up a steel ball".

    >> Far from it! The presence of active problem-solving forums is a great
    >> sign of life for any technology. Especially one with some many
    >> variations in implementation, GNU/Linux.

    >
    > Exactly. We agree. And you implicitly agree that more variations in
    > implementation (distros and branches) leads to more problems. We agree.


    Nope. You take it even further, and condemn choice and freedom of
    implementation.

    I don't. Not in the least.

    >> Another point, too: Why do people decry the increasing number of
    >> distributions? It is simply /another/ indicator that, not only /can/
    >> people take this technology, tweak it to their preference, and share it
    >> with like-minded souls, they actually take the time to /do/ it!

    >
    > It should be obvious. You are a SW developer. You know full well that if
    > your team breaks up into 5 teams and then generates their own version
    > then there will be issues.


    So what? No one is going to stop the entire open-source development
    community from splitting into as many teams as they can handle.

    And even in our own team, we have sub-teams consisting of two, maybe
    even just one, person who knows a particular area of the project best.

    For example, although I know how to use our database classes to some
    degree, I know very little about those classes, and certainly don't
    trouble-shoot most database problems myself.

    >> You might as well quibble about all the hundreds of models of
    >> automobiles and trucks out there.

    >
    > Not the same thing at all. There WOULD be a quibble if there were 10000
    > versions of the Ford Escort for example with each having slightly
    > different fuel lines or spark plugs or whatever.


    I think you kind of self-nuked your argument with that one.

    Shall we try for computer vendors instead?

    --
    HUGH BEAUMONT died in 1982!!

  6. Re: Linux works - If you ignore the rough edges.

    Chris Ahlstrom writes:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
    >>> You might as well quibble about all the hundreds of models of
    >>> automobiles and trucks out there.

    >>
    >> Not the same thing at all. There WOULD be a quibble if there were 10000
    >> versions of the Ford Escort for example with each having slightly
    >> different fuel lines or spark plugs or whatever.

    >
    > I think you kind of self-nuked your argument with that one.


    Err, no I didn't.

    >
    > Shall we try for computer vendors instead?


    --
    XP is a flop and when users are still asking for W98 it shows that they
    aren't all taken in with the MS hype.
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  7. Re: Linux works - If you ignore the rough edges.

    Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    > So what? No one is going to stop the entire open-source development
    > community from splitting into as many teams as they can handle.


    You're never going to convince the Quack Wintroll that "choice is good".
    He's pro-M$ all the way, and that means anti-choice all the way.


  8. Re: Linux works - If you ignore the rough edges.

    On 2008-09-22, Hadron wrote:
    > JEDIDIAH writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-09-19, Hadron wrote:
    >>> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
    >>>
    >>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, chrisv belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I dub him "Roger Dodger".
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> An absolutely transparent troll, following the script to a T, including
    >>>>>> the gradual descent into insult.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Gradual?
    >>>>
    >>>> Okay, a couple posts.
    >>>>
    >>>> What's really funny is those people who say that the presence of
    >>>> problems on forums such as Ubuntu is a bad thing for Linux.
    >>>
    >>> Huh? Wrong. What some of say in COLA is "SW is SW and there are many
    >>> issues with Linux which need fixing". Unfortunately the COLA loons reply
    >>> with "works fine for me Quack, you could **** up a boiled egg". And yes,

    >>
    >> We can also provide gory details regarding precisely what works.

    >
    > No one is interested in what *works*. People assume things will
    > work. Its when things to NOT work that people get pissed off and head


    Then people will be gravely disappointed.

    > back to their old installations.


    That's not a problem. Many of us have been suggesting that for years.
    We're not the Borg here. Neither are we a bunch of MS-DOS Lemmings. We
    will even try to make the attempt as painless as possible.

    >>
    >> We are quite able and willing to provide enough information such

    >
    > Who is "we"? Not you and COLA I hope?
    >
    >> that any potentially interested part that manages to wander by can
    >> also try for themselves. THIS sort of sincerity and williness to
    >> cooperate is conspicuously absent the typical troll. It's also a
    >> problem with many n00bs that have problems in general.

    >
    > What are you talking about? The people who most generally do NOT help
    > are the COLA faithful since it "just works" for them.


    It helps if you aren't mistaken for a troll.

    In a trolling group, that's very likely.

    [deletia]

    --
    My macintosh runs Ubuntu. |||
    / | \

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

  9. Re: Linux works - If you ignore the rough edges.

    After takin' a swig o' grog, chrisv belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    >> So what? No one is going to stop the entire open-source development
    >> community from splitting into as many teams as they can handle.

    >
    > You're never going to convince the Quack Wintroll that "choice is good".
    > He's pro-M$ all the way, and that means anti-choice all the way.


    The jury is out on whether he's pro-M$ or not. He could be a stealth
    Microsoft supporter, using Linux enough to give himself a "credibility
    innoculation". Or he could be an ex-UNIX guy who secretly despises
    Linux but knows he has to get used to using it.

    Doesn't matter. It's clear that he is here to troll, to ridicule, and,
    worst of all, either to promulgate his own feelings of self-importance
    or to over-compensate for his self-esteem problem.

    Or, as Tattoo notes, feed his own delusions of grandeur and exercise his
    paranoia.

    My God, I'm wasting too much time talking about that jerk. Even
    killfiled, we're still feeding the beast.

    --
    Life is a biochemical reaction to the stimulus of the surrounding
    environment in a stable ecosphere, while a bowl of cherries is a
    round container filled with little red fruits on sticks.

  10. Re: Linux works - If you ignore the rough edges.

    nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu espoused:

    >
    > That's what I thought, too. He turned awfully nasty awfully quickly,
    > for someone who has never posted here (or apparently anywhere else)
    > before. He's right, though: I do eat granola.


    Not tried it. I quite like muesli, though, which has a broadly similar
    appearance. Maybe I'll try it on my next trip to Canada, which is quite
    soon.

    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


  11. Re: Linux works - If you ignore the rough edges.

    nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu espoused:
    > On Sep 19, 8:10 am, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, JEDIDIAH belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >> > On 2008-09-19, Roger wrote:
    >> >>> Roger wrote:

    >>
    >> >>>> ***** Suddenly I notice that the cooling fan on the laptop is roaring.

    >>
    >> >>>> Absolutely terrible!!!!

    >>
    >> >> By overwhelming majority most people in the world feel the other way
    >> >> around. If Ubuntu can't even get a simple "File-Open" dialog to work right

    >>
    >> > The overwhelming majority of most people in the world simply don't
    >> > care and would perhaps think you a basement dwelling troll for bringing
    >> > this sort of stuff up.

    >>
    >> I dub him "Roger Dodger".
    >>
    >> An absolutely transparent troll, following the script to a T, including
    >> the gradual descent into insult.

    >
    > Gradual? His first post was reasonably decent, I'll grant you---in
    > the mold of "I love Linux but it hosed my hard disk so regretfully
    > I'll have to go back to Windows(tm)"---but as soon as anyone called
    > him on it, he turned into the same nasty little troll as all the other
    > thousands of nyms that have posted stories like that here over the
    > last 15 years.


    My feeling it that there are no more than a handful of them. I suspect
    that they are hangovers left over from the 1970s/1980s kewl h4x0r
    kultur, perhaps looking for any fora remaining which are not moderated.

    Gary Stewart, as an example, uses pretty much all of the tricks suggested
    for disrupting discussion groups, given in the h4x0r boards, as they
    were then. Of course, one would normally expect most people to grow out
    of that kind of behaviour by the time they hit their 20s, or even late
    teens, but in Gary's case, clearly this has not happened. I've spoken
    before about my concerns regarding his general state of mind, and the
    often-demonstrated immaturity is another issue with him.

    This general behaviour is common, though, take a look at this:

    http://www.holymeatballs.org/2006/05/

    Presumably, for every 100 of them disrupting now, maybe 1 of them will
    never grow out of it, and in 20 years time, these virtual worlds will
    have a few Gary Stewarts of their own, still mentally stuck in
    childhood, attempting to get attention by disrupting discussion.


    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


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