Linux really catching on - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux really catching on - Linux ; I went to Circuit City up in Hanover NJ, yesterday, in hopes of picking up one of those Acer Aspire Linux mini-laptops. It seems that the entire state of New Jersey was sold out, all stores. There was one store ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Linux really catching on

  1. Linux really catching on

    I went to Circuit City up in Hanover NJ, yesterday, in hopes of
    picking up one of those Acer Aspire Linux mini-laptops. It seems that
    the entire state of New Jersey was sold out, all stores. There was
    one store that had a display unit.

    Not bad considering that they had about 30 of them in each store 2
    weeks ago.

    And no mark-downs either. They got full retail price for all of the
    machines.

    They couldn't even back-order it, because Acer can't keep up with the
    demand.

    Not a bad start.


  2. Re: Linux really catching on

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Rex Ballard on Wednesday 17 September 2008 21:09 : \____

    > I went to Circuit City up in Hanover NJ, yesterday, in hopes of
    > picking up one of those Acer Aspire Linux mini-laptops. It seems that
    > the entire state of New Jersey was sold out, all stores. There was
    > one store that had a display unit.
    >
    > Not bad considering that they had about 30 of them in each store 2
    > weeks ago.
    >
    > And no mark-downs either. They got full retail price for all of the
    > machines.
    >
    > They couldn't even back-order it, because Acer can't keep up with the
    > demand.
    >
    > Not a bad start.


    Intel recently reported Atom shortages. The question is, why don't they fullow
    supply/demand rules and produce more Linpus-based Aspires?

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Linux is like a girlfriend; try to stick to one distribution for a lifetime
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Mem: 2075800k total, 1971468k used, 104332k free, 43288k buffers
    http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkjRdfQACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6ueACgsfF46S2ovW R0wZ0+qWwEXPvf
    MkcAnRu8+ir61B/hnlJ7NkronpE5Fwm6
    =WGlV
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  3. Re: Linux really catching on

    On 2008-09-17, Roy Schestowitz claimed:
    >
    > ____/ Rex Ballard on Wednesday 17 September 2008 21:09 : \____
    >
    >> I went to Circuit City up in Hanover NJ, yesterday, in hopes of
    >> picking up one of those Acer Aspire Linux mini-laptops. It seems that
    >> the entire state of New Jersey was sold out, all stores. There was
    >> one store that had a display unit.
    >>
    >> Not bad considering that they had about 30 of them in each store 2
    >> weeks ago.
    >>
    >> And no mark-downs either. They got full retail price for all of the
    >> machines.
    >>
    >> They couldn't even back-order it, because Acer can't keep up with the
    >> demand.
    >>
    >> Not a bad start.

    >
    > Intel recently reported Atom shortages. The question is, why don't they fullow
    > supply/demand rules and produce more Linpus-based Aspires?


    Maybe for the same reason App-Hole deliberately shorted the iFone, and
    Nintendo deliberately put out too few Wei: to keep a lot of hype going
    so demand remains high enough to generate greater shortages, leading to
    pumped-up sales.

    Then again, it might have been genuine miscalculation, not intentional
    creation of hyperbole. It's possible demand for linux (and these
    machines) is far greater than even the most optimistic person ever
    imagined, ever *could* imagine.

    --
    Exxon sponsored ecology videos, Kraft sponsored nutrition videos...
    I'd be surprised if Microsoft isn't sponsoring technology classes.

    ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
    http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

  4. Re: Linux really catching on

    Sinister Midget wrote:

    > Then again, it might have been genuine miscalculation, not intentional
    > creation of hyperbole. It's possible demand for linux (and these
    > machines) is far greater than even the most optimistic person ever
    > imagined, ever could imagine.


    I'm sure you are right!
    Certainly the whole concept seems to have wrong-footed MS, and one can well
    imagine that the manufacturers are a bit surprised by their own success as
    well!

    What was it that Bill Gates said about OLPC - "Jeez, get a proper platform" or
    something? These gadgets seem to me to be OLPC for the the developed world.

    One other thing strikes me, and would appreciate an informed response.
    I read somewhere that the original intention was that they'd be aimed at
    students and casual users, but that a lot were being bought now for
    professional use while travelling. The article went on to say something
    about XP Home not being suitable for linking to a corporate LAN.
    Can some kind soul explain that please?


  5. Re: Linux really catching on

    On Sep 17, 4:48 pm, bbgruff wrote:
    > Sinister Midget wrote:
    > > Then again, it might have been genuine miscalculation, not intentional
    > > creation of hyperbole. It's possible demand for linux (and these
    > > machines) is far greater than even the most optimistic person ever
    > > imagined, ever could imagine.

    >
    > I'm sure you are right!
    > Certainly the whole concept seems to have wrong-footed MS, and one can well
    > imagine that the manufacturers are a bit surprised by their own success as
    > well!
    >
    > What was it that Bill Gates said about OLPC - "Jeez, get a proper platform" or
    > something? These gadgets seem to me to be OLPC for the the developed world.
    >
    > One other thing strikes me, and would appreciate an informed response.
    > I read somewhere that the original intention was that they'd be aimed at
    > students and casual users, but that a lot were being bought now for
    > professional use while travelling. The article went on to say something
    > about XP Home not being suitable for linking to a corporate LAN.
    > Can some kind soul explain that please?


    Talking about the OLPC, my Acer Aspire One running Linux is actually
    made for Acer by the same Taiwanese company that builds the OLPC .
    That would be Quanta Computer.
    Best thing about the Aspire, LED backlight. No tubes and no high
    voltage inverters.


  6. Re: Linux really catching on

    On 2008-09-17, bbgruff claimed:
    > Sinister Midget wrote:
    >
    >> Then again, it might have been genuine miscalculation, not intentional
    >> creation of hyperbole. It's possible demand for linux (and these
    >> machines) is far greater than even the most optimistic person ever
    >> imagined, ever could imagine.

    >
    > I'm sure you are right!
    > Certainly the whole concept seems to have wrong-footed MS, and one can well
    > imagine that the manufacturers are a bit surprised by their own success as
    > well!
    >
    > What was it that Bill Gates said about OLPC - "Jeez, get a proper platform" or
    > something? These gadgets seem to me to be OLPC for the the developed world.
    >
    > One other thing strikes me, and would appreciate an informed response.
    > I read somewhere that the original intention was that they'd be aimed at
    > students and casual users, but that a lot were being bought now for
    > professional use while travelling. The article went on to say something
    > about XP Home not being suitable for linking to a corporate LAN.
    > Can some kind soul explain that please?


    XP Home /can't/ connect to a corpoate LAN. It was intentionally
    crippled so companies were forced to buy *snicker* "Professional".

    --
    Windows: Malware that doesn't do what it's claimed it will do.

    ---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
    http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups

  7. Re: Linux really catching on

    Sinister Midget writes:

    > On 2008-09-17, bbgruff claimed:
    >> Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>
    >>> Then again, it might have been genuine miscalculation, not intentional
    >>> creation of hyperbole. It's possible demand for linux (and these
    >>> machines) is far greater than even the most optimistic person ever
    >>> imagined, ever could imagine.

    >>
    >> I'm sure you are right!
    >> Certainly the whole concept seems to have wrong-footed MS, and one can well
    >> imagine that the manufacturers are a bit surprised by their own success as
    >> well!
    >>
    >> What was it that Bill Gates said about OLPC - "Jeez, get a proper platform" or
    >> something? These gadgets seem to me to be OLPC for the the developed world.
    >>
    >> One other thing strikes me, and would appreciate an informed response.
    >> I read somewhere that the original intention was that they'd be aimed at
    >> students and casual users, but that a lot were being bought now for
    >> professional use while travelling. The article went on to say something
    >> about XP Home not being suitable for linking to a corporate LAN.
    >> Can some kind soul explain that please?

    >
    > XP Home /can't/ connect to a corpoate LAN. It was intentionally
    > crippled so companies were forced to buy *snicker* "Professional".


    What a load of bull****.

    --
    This year with the release of XP, they are actually behind. The end days
    are near for the BIOS reading inferior OS. It is inevitable.
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

  8. Re: Linux really catching on

    Hadron wrote:

    > Sinister Midget writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-09-17, bbgruff claimed:
    >>> Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Then again, it might have been genuine miscalculation, not intentional
    >>>> creation of hyperbole. It's possible demand for linux (and these
    >>>> machines) is far greater than even the most optimistic person ever
    >>>> imagined, ever could imagine.
    >>>
    >>> I'm sure you are right!
    >>> Certainly the whole concept seems to have wrong-footed MS, and one can
    >>> well imagine that the manufacturers are a bit surprised by their own
    >>> success as well!
    >>>
    >>> What was it that Bill Gates said about OLPC - "Jeez, get a proper
    >>> platform" or
    >>> something? These gadgets seem to me to be OLPC for the the developed
    >>> world.
    >>>
    >>> One other thing strikes me, and would appreciate an informed response.
    >>> I read somewhere that the original intention was that they'd be aimed at
    >>> students and casual users, but that a lot were being bought now for
    >>> professional use while travelling. The article went on to say something
    >>> about XP Home not being suitable for linking to a corporate LAN.
    >>> Can some kind soul explain that please?

    >>
    >> XP Home /can't/ connect to a corpoate LAN. It was intentionally
    >> crippled so companies were forced to buy *snicker* "Professional".

    >
    > What a load of bull****.
    >


    Unfortunately, not at all.

    Explain the astounding audience how you connect a XP Home machine to a
    Domain.
    This is one of the reasons companies have to order their laptops with XP Pro
    instead of the standard XP Home.

    So "networking" is another thing you know nothing about,
    "true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X
    specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger
    professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time
    coordinator", "email sage" and "OSS culling committee chairman" Hadron
    Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian O'Leary

    --
    You are a shining example for the advances in artificial stupidity


  9. Re: Linux really catching on

    Peter Köhlmann writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Sinister Midget writes:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-09-17, bbgruff claimed:
    >>>> Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Then again, it might have been genuine miscalculation, not intentional
    >>>>> creation of hyperbole. It's possible demand for linux (and these
    >>>>> machines) is far greater than even the most optimistic person ever
    >>>>> imagined, ever could imagine.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm sure you are right!
    >>>> Certainly the whole concept seems to have wrong-footed MS, and one can
    >>>> well imagine that the manufacturers are a bit surprised by their own
    >>>> success as well!
    >>>>
    >>>> What was it that Bill Gates said about OLPC - "Jeez, get a proper
    >>>> platform" or
    >>>> something? These gadgets seem to me to be OLPC for the the developed
    >>>> world.
    >>>>
    >>>> One other thing strikes me, and would appreciate an informed response.
    >>>> I read somewhere that the original intention was that they'd be aimed at
    >>>> students and casual users, but that a lot were being bought now for
    >>>> professional use while travelling. The article went on to say something
    >>>> about XP Home not being suitable for linking to a corporate LAN.
    >>>> Can some kind soul explain that please?
    >>>
    >>> XP Home /can't/ connect to a corpoate LAN. It was intentionally
    >>> crippled so companies were forced to buy *snicker* "Professional".

    >>
    >> What a load of bull****.
    >>

    >
    > Unfortunately, not at all.
    >
    > Explain the astounding audience how you connect a XP Home machine to a
    > Domain.


    When did you decide to bring Domain into it?

    My god you're one sneaky little liar.

    The phrase was "connect to a corporate LAN".

  10. Re: Linux really catching on

    Hadron wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Sinister Midget writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2008-09-17, bbgruff claimed:
    >>>>> Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Then again, it might have been genuine miscalculation, not
    >>>>>> intentional creation of hyperbole. It's possible demand for linux
    >>>>>> (and these machines) is far greater than even the most optimistic
    >>>>>> person ever imagined, ever could imagine.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I'm sure you are right!
    >>>>> Certainly the whole concept seems to have wrong-footed MS, and one can
    >>>>> well imagine that the manufacturers are a bit surprised by their own
    >>>>> success as well!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What was it that Bill Gates said about OLPC - "Jeez, get a proper
    >>>>> platform" or
    >>>>> something? These gadgets seem to me to be OLPC for the the developed
    >>>>> world.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> One other thing strikes me, and would appreciate an informed response.
    >>>>> I read somewhere that the original intention was that they'd be aimed
    >>>>> at students and casual users, but that a lot were being bought now for
    >>>>> professional use while travelling. The article went on to say
    >>>>> something about XP Home not being suitable for linking to a corporate
    >>>>> LAN. Can some kind soul explain that please?
    >>>>
    >>>> XP Home /can't/ connect to a corpoate LAN. It was intentionally
    >>>> crippled so companies were forced to buy *snicker* "Professional".
    >>>
    >>> What a load of bull****.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Unfortunately, not at all.
    >>
    >> Explain the astounding audience how you connect a XP Home machine to a
    >> Domain.

    >
    > When did you decide to bring Domain into it?
    >
    > My god you're one sneaky little liar.
    >
    > The phrase was "connect to a corporate LAN".


    MY GOD!!! I agree with Hardon. Pass the bucket!

    --
    The years have been very kind to me.

    It's the weekends that have done all the damage!

  11. Re: Linux really catching on

    Hadron wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Sinister Midget writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2008-09-17, bbgruff claimed:
    >>>>> Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Then again, it might have been genuine miscalculation, not
    >>>>>> intentional creation of hyperbole. It's possible demand for linux
    >>>>>> (and these machines) is far greater than even the most optimistic
    >>>>>> person ever imagined, ever could imagine.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I'm sure you are right!
    >>>>> Certainly the whole concept seems to have wrong-footed MS, and one can
    >>>>> well imagine that the manufacturers are a bit surprised by their own
    >>>>> success as well!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What was it that Bill Gates said about OLPC - "Jeez, get a proper
    >>>>> platform" or
    >>>>> something? These gadgets seem to me to be OLPC for the the developed
    >>>>> world.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> One other thing strikes me, and would appreciate an informed response.
    >>>>> I read somewhere that the original intention was that they'd be aimed
    >>>>> at students and casual users, but that a lot were being bought now for
    >>>>> professional use while travelling. The article went on to say
    >>>>> something about XP Home not being suitable for linking to a corporate
    >>>>> LAN. Can some kind soul explain that please?
    >>>>
    >>>> XP Home /can't/ connect to a corpoate LAN. It was intentionally
    >>>> crippled so companies were forced to buy *snicker* "Professional".
    >>>
    >>> What a load of bull****.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Unfortunately, not at all.
    >>
    >> Explain the astounding audience how you connect a XP Home machine to a
    >> Domain.

    >
    > When did you decide to bring Domain into it?


    What part of "corporate LAN" needs some more explanation, Hadron Quark?

    > My god you're one sneaky little liar.
    >
    > The phrase was "connect to a corporate LAN".


    Right. Do you in your "professional" career (as parking lot sweeper) have
    ever encountered a windows "corporate LAN" without domain? That "network
    admin" would deserve to be shot at sight, no questions asked.

    So yes, XP Home is totally useless if you want connect such a machine to a
    corporate LAN. You have to buy another XP (Pro) just to do that, and throw
    away your paid for XP Home

    Face it, "network admin" Hadron Quark, you again showed in glorious colors
    that you know diddly squat about these things
    --
    Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.


  12. Re: Linux really catching on

    Peter Köhlmann writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Peter Köhlmann writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Sinister Midget writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2008-09-17, bbgruff claimed:
    >>>>>> Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Then again, it might have been genuine miscalculation, not
    >>>>>>> intentional creation of hyperbole. It's possible demand for linux
    >>>>>>> (and these machines) is far greater than even the most optimistic
    >>>>>>> person ever imagined, ever could imagine.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I'm sure you are right!
    >>>>>> Certainly the whole concept seems to have wrong-footed MS, and one can
    >>>>>> well imagine that the manufacturers are a bit surprised by their own
    >>>>>> success as well!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> What was it that Bill Gates said about OLPC - "Jeez, get a proper
    >>>>>> platform" or
    >>>>>> something? These gadgets seem to me to be OLPC for the the developed
    >>>>>> world.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> One other thing strikes me, and would appreciate an informed response.
    >>>>>> I read somewhere that the original intention was that they'd be aimed
    >>>>>> at students and casual users, but that a lot were being bought now for
    >>>>>> professional use while travelling. The article went on to say
    >>>>>> something about XP Home not being suitable for linking to a corporate
    >>>>>> LAN. Can some kind soul explain that please?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> XP Home /can't/ connect to a corpoate LAN. It was intentionally
    >>>>> crippled so companies were forced to buy *snicker* "Professional".
    >>>>
    >>>> What a load of bull****.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Unfortunately, not at all.
    >>>
    >>> Explain the astounding audience how you connect a XP Home machine to a
    >>> Domain.

    >>
    >> When did you decide to bring Domain into it?

    >
    > What part of "corporate LAN" needs some more explanation, Hadron Quark?
    >
    >> My god you're one sneaky little liar.
    >>
    >> The phrase was "connect to a corporate LAN".

    >
    > Right. Do you in your "professional" career (as parking lot sweeper) have
    > ever encountered a windows "corporate LAN" without domain? That "network
    > admin" would deserve to be shot at sight, no questions asked.


    Who mentioned Windows Corporate Lan you blithering idiot?

    >
    > So yes, XP Home is totally useless if you want connect such a machine to a
    > corporate LAN. You have to buy another XP (Pro) just to do that, and throw
    > away your paid for XP Home
    >
    > Face it, "network admin" Hadron Quark, you again showed in glorious colors
    > that you know diddly squat about these things


    Actually you have made a tit of yourself once again by not reading the
    posts properly and now you are trying to rewrite history.

    You should know it wont cut it Peter - you have made yourself look like
    the lying jerk you are - ONCE MORE.

  13. Re: Linux really catching on

    On 2008-09-18, Hadron wrote:
    > Peter Köhlmann writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Peter Köhlmann writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Sinister Midget writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2008-09-17, bbgruff claimed:
    >>>>>>> Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Then again, it might have been genuine miscalculation, not
    >>>>>>>> intentional creation of hyperbole. It's possible demand for linux
    >>>>>>>> (and these machines) is far greater than even the most optimistic
    >>>>>>>> person ever imagined, ever could imagine.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I'm sure you are right!
    >>>>>>> Certainly the whole concept seems to have wrong-footed MS, and one can
    >>>>>>> well imagine that the manufacturers are a bit surprised by their own
    >>>>>>> success as well!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> What was it that Bill Gates said about OLPC - "Jeez, get a proper
    >>>>>>> platform" or
    >>>>>>> something? These gadgets seem to me to be OLPC for the the developed
    >>>>>>> world.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> One other thing strikes me, and would appreciate an informed response.
    >>>>>>> I read somewhere that the original intention was that they'd be aimed
    >>>>>>> at students and casual users, but that a lot were being bought now for
    >>>>>>> professional use while travelling. The article went on to say
    >>>>>>> something about XP Home not being suitable for linking to a corporate
    >>>>>>> LAN. Can some kind soul explain that please?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> XP Home /can't/ connect to a corpoate LAN. It was intentionally
    >>>>>> crippled so companies were forced to buy *snicker* "Professional".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What a load of bull****.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Unfortunately, not at all.
    >>>>
    >>>> Explain the astounding audience how you connect a XP Home machine to a
    >>>> Domain.
    >>>
    >>> When did you decide to bring Domain into it?

    >>
    >> What part of "corporate LAN" needs some more explanation, Hadron Quark?
    >>
    >>> My god you're one sneaky little liar.
    >>>
    >>> The phrase was "connect to a corporate LAN".

    >>
    >> Right. Do you in your "professional" career (as parking lot sweeper) have
    >> ever encountered a windows "corporate LAN" without domain? That "network
    >> admin" would deserve to be shot at sight, no questions asked.

    >
    > Who mentioned Windows Corporate Lan you blithering idiot?


    ....which means anything that you might expect to need to hook
    yourself up completely to a typical corporate network.

    Pretending that the average corporate network is equivalent
    to what you might find in a power users house in the suburbs
    probably isn't going to cut it.

    --
    Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
    |||
    / | \

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

  14. Re: Linux really catching on

    On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:34:03 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Peter Khlmann writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Peter Khlmann writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Sinister Midget writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2008-09-17, bbgruff claimed:
    >>>>>>> Sinister Midget wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Then again, it might have been genuine miscalculation, not
    >>>>>>>> intentional creation of hyperbole. It's possible demand for linux
    >>>>>>>> (and these machines) is far greater than even the most optimistic
    >>>>>>>> person ever imagined, ever could imagine.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I'm sure you are right!
    >>>>>>> Certainly the whole concept seems to have wrong-footed MS, and one can
    >>>>>>> well imagine that the manufacturers are a bit surprised by their own
    >>>>>>> success as well!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> What was it that Bill Gates said about OLPC - "Jeez, get a proper
    >>>>>>> platform" or
    >>>>>>> something? These gadgets seem to me to be OLPC for the the developed
    >>>>>>> world.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> One other thing strikes me, and would appreciate an informed response.
    >>>>>>> I read somewhere that the original intention was that they'd be aimed
    >>>>>>> at students and casual users, but that a lot were being bought now for
    >>>>>>> professional use while travelling. The article went on to say
    >>>>>>> something about XP Home not being suitable for linking to a corporate
    >>>>>>> LAN. Can some kind soul explain that please?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> XP Home /can't/ connect to a corpoate LAN. It was intentionally
    >>>>>> crippled so companies were forced to buy *snicker* "Professional".
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What a load of bull****.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Unfortunately, not at all.
    >>>>
    >>>> Explain the astounding audience how you connect a XP Home machine to a
    >>>> Domain.
    >>>
    >>> When did you decide to bring Domain into it?

    >>
    >> What part of "corporate LAN" needs some more explanation, Hadron Quark?
    >>
    >>> My god you're one sneaky little liar.
    >>>
    >>> The phrase was "connect to a corporate LAN".

    >>
    >> Right. Do you in your "professional" career (as parking lot sweeper) have
    >> ever encountered a windows "corporate LAN" without domain? That "network
    >> admin" would deserve to be shot at sight, no questions asked.

    >
    > Who mentioned Windows Corporate Lan you blithering idiot?
    >
    >>
    >> So yes, XP Home is totally useless if you want connect such a machine to a
    >> corporate LAN. You have to buy another XP (Pro) just to do that, and throw
    >> away your paid for XP Home
    >>
    >> Face it, "network admin" Hadron Quark, you again showed in glorious colors
    >> that you know diddly squat about these things

    >
    > Actually you have made a tit of yourself once again by not reading the
    > posts properly and now you are trying to rewrite history.
    >
    > You should know it wont cut it Peter - you have made yourself look like
    > the lying jerk you are - ONCE MORE.


    Peter likes to dissect words from posts and make a big issue of them.
    It's nice to see him getting some of his own medicine.

    You can't have it both ways Kohlmann..


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

  15. Re: Linux really catching on

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Hadron wrote:

    Snip)
    >> When did you decide to bring Domain into it?

    >
    > What part of "corporate LAN" needs some more explanation, Hadron Quark?
    >
    >> My god you're one sneaky little liar.
    >>
    >> The phrase was "connect to a corporate LAN".

    >
    > Right. Do you in your "professional" career (as parking lot sweeper) have
    > ever encountered a windows "corporate LAN" without domain? That "network
    > admin" would deserve to be shot at sight, no questions asked.
    >
    > So yes, XP Home is totally useless if you want connect such a machine to a
    > corporate LAN. You have to buy another XP (Pro) just to do that, and throw
    > away your paid for XP Home


    Oh dear, I *do* hope that I haven't been the cause of any acrimony between you
    and your friend(!) Peter:-)

    I thought that I was being quite clear when I raised the point and admitted my
    ignorance, viz:-

    - My understanding is that many of these little laptops are being bought
    for "corporate use".

    - The (only?) version of Windows that they come with is XP Home.

    - My understanding is that XP Home cannot connect to a corporate LAN.

    - My understanding is that this is because a corporate LAN is usually
    (always?) a Domain.

    Phew! Two things:-

    1. Is what I wrote above substantially correct?

    2. I don't understand why it being a domain is a problem. I'd appreciate
    an "idiot's explanation". My Linux installs (home) just ask if I have a
    domain. I just don't understand the difference between LAN and
    LAN-which-is-a-domain. Help?

    Please don't let my ignorance come between you and your friend(!!)
    what's-his-name;-)

  16. Re: Linux really catching on

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

    > Peter Khlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:

    > Snip)
    >>> When did you decide to bring Domain into it?

    >>
    >> What part of "corporate LAN" needs some more explanation, Hadron Quark?
    >>
    >>> My god you're one sneaky little liar.


    Whaaaa! Whaaaaaaaaa!

    >>> The phrase was "connect to a corporate LAN".

    >>
    >> Right. Do you in your "professional" career (as parking lot sweeper) have
    >> ever encountered a windows "corporate LAN" without domain? That "network
    >> admin" would deserve to be shot at sight, no questions asked.
    >>
    >> So yes, XP Home is totally useless if you want connect such a machine to a
    >> corporate LAN. You have to buy another XP (Pro) just to do that, and throw
    >> away your paid for XP Home

    >
    > Oh dear, I *do* hope that I haven't been the cause of any acrimony between you
    > and your friend(!) Peter:-)
    >
    > I thought that I was being quite clear when I raised the point and admitted my
    > ignorance, viz:-
    >
    > - My understanding is that many of these little laptops are being bought
    > for "corporate use".
    > - The (only?) version of Windows that they come with is XP Home.
    > - My understanding is that XP Home cannot connect to a corporate LAN.
    > - My understanding is that this is because a corporate LAN is usually
    > (always?) a Domain.
    >
    > Phew! Two things:-
    >
    > 1. Is what I wrote above substantially correct?
    > 2. I don't understand why it being a domain is a problem. I'd appreciate
    > an "idiot's explanation". My Linux installs (home) just ask if I have a
    > domain. I just don't understand the difference between LAN and
    > LAN-which-is-a-domain. Help?
    >
    > Please don't let my ignorance come between you and your friend(!!)
    > what's-his-name;-)


    Hadron. He's the guy who, deliberately or not, acts thick as **** just
    so he can throw down the "liar" card again. What a pathological tosser.

    He must work in a pretty small place if it doesn't have a domain.

    --
    Suppose for a moment that the automobile industry had developed at the same
    rate as computers and over the same period: how much cheaper and more efficient
    would the current models be? If you have not already heard the analogy, the
    answer is shattering. Today you would be able to buy a Rolls-Royce for $2.75,
    it would do three million miles to the gallon, and it would deliver enough
    power to drive the Queen Elizabeth II. And if you were interested in
    miniaturization, you could place half a dozen of them on a pinhead.
    -- Christopher Evans

  17. Re: Linux really catching on

    Chris Ahlstrom writes:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, bbgruff belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:

    >> Snip)
    >>>> When did you decide to bring Domain into it?
    >>>
    >>> What part of "corporate LAN" needs some more explanation, Hadron Quark?
    >>>
    >>>> My god you're one sneaky little liar.

    >
    > Whaaaa! Whaaaaaaaaa!
    >
    >>>> The phrase was "connect to a corporate LAN".
    >>>
    >>> Right. Do you in your "professional" career (as parking lot sweeper) have
    >>> ever encountered a windows "corporate LAN" without domain? That "network
    >>> admin" would deserve to be shot at sight, no questions asked.
    >>>
    >>> So yes, XP Home is totally useless if you want connect such a machine to a
    >>> corporate LAN. You have to buy another XP (Pro) just to do that, and throw
    >>> away your paid for XP Home

    >>
    >> Oh dear, I *do* hope that I haven't been the cause of any acrimony between you
    >> and your friend(!) Peter:-)
    >>
    >> I thought that I was being quite clear when I raised the point and admitted my
    >> ignorance, viz:-
    >>
    >> - My understanding is that many of these little laptops are being bought
    >> for "corporate use".
    >> - The (only?) version of Windows that they come with is XP Home.
    >> - My understanding is that XP Home cannot connect to a corporate LAN.
    >> - My understanding is that this is because a corporate LAN is usually
    >> (always?) a Domain.
    >>
    >> Phew! Two things:-
    >>
    >> 1. Is what I wrote above substantially correct?
    >> 2. I don't understand why it being a domain is a problem. I'd appreciate
    >> an "idiot's explanation". My Linux installs (home) just ask if I have a
    >> domain. I just don't understand the difference between LAN and
    >> LAN-which-is-a-domain. Help?
    >>
    >> Please don't let my ignorance come between you and your friend(!!)
    >> what's-his-name;-)

    >
    > Hadron. He's the guy who, deliberately or not, acts thick as **** just
    > so he can throw down the "liar" card again. What a pathological tosser.
    >
    > He must work in a pretty small place if it doesn't have a domain.


    Ye gods. You dont get it either. It is piss easy to connect into a LAN
    and their are a plethora of ways to do it. No one mentioned Domain or
    Windows.

    --
    "I am not worthy to wipe your pee-pee "
    -- Liarnut in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  18. Re: Linux really catching on

    On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:41:08 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Chris Ahlstrom writes:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, bbgruff belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Peter Khlmann wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>> Snip)
    >>>>> When did you decide to bring Domain into it?
    >>>>
    >>>> What part of "corporate LAN" needs some more explanation, Hadron Quark?
    >>>>
    >>>>> My god you're one sneaky little liar.

    >>
    >> Whaaaa! Whaaaaaaaaa!
    >>
    >>>>> The phrase was "connect to a corporate LAN".
    >>>>
    >>>> Right. Do you in your "professional" career (as parking lot sweeper) have
    >>>> ever encountered a windows "corporate LAN" without domain? That "network
    >>>> admin" would deserve to be shot at sight, no questions asked.
    >>>>
    >>>> So yes, XP Home is totally useless if you want connect such a machine to a
    >>>> corporate LAN. You have to buy another XP (Pro) just to do that, and throw
    >>>> away your paid for XP Home
    >>>
    >>> Oh dear, I *do* hope that I haven't been the cause of any acrimony between you
    >>> and your friend(!) Peter:-)
    >>>
    >>> I thought that I was being quite clear when I raised the point and admitted my
    >>> ignorance, viz:-
    >>>
    >>> - My understanding is that many of these little laptops are being bought
    >>> for "corporate use".
    >>> - The (only?) version of Windows that they come with is XP Home.
    >>> - My understanding is that XP Home cannot connect to a corporate LAN.
    >>> - My understanding is that this is because a corporate LAN is usually
    >>> (always?) a Domain.
    >>>
    >>> Phew! Two things:-
    >>>
    >>> 1. Is what I wrote above substantially correct?
    >>> 2. I don't understand why it being a domain is a problem. I'd appreciate
    >>> an "idiot's explanation". My Linux installs (home) just ask if I have a
    >>> domain. I just don't understand the difference between LAN and
    >>> LAN-which-is-a-domain. Help?
    >>>
    >>> Please don't let my ignorance come between you and your friend(!!)
    >>> what's-his-name;-)

    >>
    >> Hadron. He's the guy who, deliberately or not, acts thick as **** just
    >> so he can throw down the "liar" card again. What a pathological tosser.
    >>
    >> He must work in a pretty small place if it doesn't have a domain.

    >
    > Ye gods. You dont get it either. It is piss easy to connect into a LAN
    > and their are a plethora of ways to do it. No one mentioned Domain or
    > Windows.


    If he meant connect to a Domain he should have stated it.

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

  19. Re: Linux really catching on

    "Peter Khlmann" stated in post
    48d21f80$0$6630$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net on 9/18/08 2:29 AM:

    >>> Unfortunately, not at all.
    >>>
    >>> Explain the astounding audience how you connect a XP Home machine to a
    >>> Domain.

    >>
    >> When did you decide to bring Domain into it?

    >
    > What part of "corporate LAN" needs some more explanation, Hadron Quark?
    >
    >> My god you're one sneaky little liar.
    >>
    >> The phrase was "connect to a corporate LAN".

    >
    > Right. Do you in your "professional" career (as parking lot sweeper) have
    > ever encountered a windows "corporate LAN" without domain? That "network
    > admin" would deserve to be shot at sight, no questions asked.
    >
    > So yes, XP Home is totally useless if you want connect such a machine to a
    > corporate LAN. You have to buy another XP (Pro) just to do that, and throw
    > away your paid for XP Home


    X-Setup Pro

    You are welcome.





    --
    Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21217782777472


  20. Re: Linux really catching on

    Verily I say unto thee, that Peter Köhlmann spake thusly:
    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Sinister Midget writes:


    >>> XP Home /can't/ connect to a corpoate LAN. It was intentionally
    >>> crippled so companies were forced to buy *snicker*
    >>> "Professional".

    >>
    >> What a load of bull****.

    >
    > Unfortunately, not at all.
    >
    > Explain the astounding audience how you connect a XP Home machine to
    > a Domain.
    > This is one of the reasons companies have to order their laptops with
    > XP Pro instead of the standard XP Home.


    It's not just about domain services either:

    Note For Windows XP Professional, the maximum number of other computers
    that are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network is ten.
    This limit includes all transports and resource sharing protocols
    combined. For Windows XP Home Edition, the maximum number of other
    computers that are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network
    is five.
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314882

    > So "networking" is another thing you know nothing about


    Big surprise.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | By bucking Microsoft for open source, says Gunderloy, "I'm no
    | longer contributing to the eventual death of programming."
    | ~ http://www.linux.com/feature/142083
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
    19:55:55 up 33 days, 17:08, 5 users, load average: 0.45, 0.39, 0.30

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast