Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words - Linux ; Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > After takin' a swig o' grog, Tattoo Vampire belched out this bit o' wisdom: > >> Llanzlan Klazmon wrote: >> >>> DFS Credibility = ZERO. >> DFS Sex Life = ZERO. > > As in "no ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 57

Thread: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

  1. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

    Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Tattoo Vampire belched out this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
    >>
    >>> DFS Credibility = ZERO.

    >> DFS Sex Life = ZERO.

    >
    > As in "no pooty for you until you get off that goddamn newsgroup and
    > start bringing home the bacon"?
    >


    He's too busy slapping the ham atm

  2. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

    Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    > Please provide evidence I want to copy everyone's ideas for free. I
    > merely state that my ideas should be my ideas and nobody else's.



    Perhaps a bad choice of grammar here that pedantic arseholes would make
    a lot of. The inference is that other people's ideas are theirs to do
    with as they will as well, and if there's a crossover so what? They're
    ideas. Its the implementation of those ideas that is important and
    deserving of protection. If you protect the idea itself you're creating
    mini monopolies all over the place and in fact holding back the state of
    the art.

  3. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

    Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    > Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >> Please provide evidence I want to copy everyone's ideas for free. I
    >> merely state that my ideas should be my ideas and nobody else's.

    >
    >
    > Perhaps a bad choice of grammar here that pedantic arseholes would make
    > a lot of. The inference is that other people's ideas are theirs to do
    > with as they will as well, and if there's a crossover so what? They're
    > ideas. Its the implementation of those ideas that is important and
    > deserving of protection. If you protect the idea itself you're creating
    > mini monopolies all over the place and in fact holding back the state of
    > the art.


    And again, for the pedantic arsewipes - I'm referring specifically to
    the pure software industry. Other industries play well with the patent
    system; pure software does not.

  4. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

    Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    > Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >> Please provide evidence I want to copy everyone's ideas for free. I
    >> merely state that my ideas should be my ideas and nobody else's.

    >
    >
    > Perhaps a bad choice of grammar here that pedantic arseholes would make
    > a lot of. The inference is that other people's ideas are theirs to do
    > with as they will as well, and if there's a crossover so what? They're
    > ideas. Its the implementation of those ideas that is important and
    > deserving of protection. If you protect the idea itself you're creating
    > mini monopolies all over the place and in fact holding back the state of
    > the art.


    You're the only ass-hole I see here responding to yourself.

  5. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

    Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    > Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >>> Please provide evidence I want to copy everyone's ideas for free. I
    >>> merely state that my ideas should be my ideas and nobody else's.

    >>
    >>
    >> Perhaps a bad choice of grammar here that pedantic arseholes would
    >> make a lot of. The inference is that other people's ideas are theirs
    >> to do with as they will as well, and if there's a crossover so what?
    >> They're ideas. Its the implementation of those ideas that is important
    >> and deserving of protection. If you protect the idea itself you're
    >> creating mini monopolies all over the place and in fact holding back
    >> the state of the art.

    >
    > And again, for the pedantic arsewipes - I'm referring specifically to
    > the pure software industry. Other industries play well with the patent
    > system; pure software does not.


    You're the only ass-hole I see here responding to yourself.

  6. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

    Paul Montgumdrop wrote:
    > Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >>>> Please provide evidence I want to copy everyone's ideas for free. I
    >>>> merely state that my ideas should be my ideas and nobody else's.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps a bad choice of grammar here that pedantic arseholes would
    >>> make a lot of. The inference is that other people's ideas are theirs
    >>> to do with as they will as well, and if there's a crossover so what?
    >>> They're ideas. Its the implementation of those ideas that is
    >>> important and deserving of protection. If you protect the idea itself
    >>> you're creating mini monopolies all over the place and in fact
    >>> holding back the state of the art.

    >>
    >> And again, for the pedantic arsewipes - I'm referring specifically to
    >> the pure software industry. Other industries play well with the patent
    >> system; pure software does not.

    >
    > You're the only ass-hole I see here responding to yourself.


    You really think that post was good enough to be done twice?

  7. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

    "Phil Da Lick!" writes:

    > Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >> Please provide evidence I want to copy everyone's ideas for free. I
    >> merely state that my ideas should be my ideas and nobody else's.

    >
    >
    > Perhaps a bad choice of grammar here that pedantic arseholes would


    No. Bad choice of crusade.

    > make a lot of. The inference is that other people's ideas are theirs
    > to do with as they will as well, and if there's a crossover so what?


    Thats nice of you. Other people can keep their ideas? Wow!

    > They're ideas. Its the implementation of those ideas that is important
    > and deserving of protection. If you protect the idea itself you're
    > creating mini monopolies all over the place and in fact holding back
    > the state of the art.


    You're an idiot. Invention is idea. Invention has worth. To force the
    opening of peoples ideas is aking to some sort of brain big brother. You
    really are insane if you really believe what you are saying here.

    Once more for the truly ****ing dense (you) : a BIG company can
    implement and market that idea in a fraction of the time that the small
    guy can at a fraction of the investment risk. What is so DAMN hard for
    you to understand here?

    You're a freetard of the worst order (as DFS would say).

    --
    "Your Ref header shows bt.com. The "kustomkomputer" troll nymshifted again?"
    -- William Poaster boring people to death with his header compulsion in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  8. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

    Hadron wrote:
    > "Phil Da Lick!" writes:
    >
    >> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >>> Please provide evidence I want to copy everyone's ideas for free. I
    >>> merely state that my ideas should be my ideas and nobody else's.

    >>
    >> Perhaps a bad choice of grammar here that pedantic arseholes would

    >
    > No. Bad choice of crusade.
    >
    >> make a lot of. The inference is that other people's ideas are theirs
    >> to do with as they will as well, and if there's a crossover so what?

    >
    > Thats nice of you. Other people can keep their ideas? Wow!
    >
    >> They're ideas. Its the implementation of those ideas that is important
    >> and deserving of protection. If you protect the idea itself you're
    >> creating mini monopolies all over the place and in fact holding back
    >> the state of the art.

    >
    > You're an idiot. Invention is idea. Invention has worth. To force the


    Invention is expression, or implementation, of one or more ideas.


    > opening of peoples ideas is aking to some sort of brain big brother. You


    What on earth do you think the purpose of the patent office is? To get
    knowledge into the public domain, a "brain big brother" indeed.


    > Once more for the truly ****ing dense (you) : a BIG company can
    > implement and market that idea in a fraction of the time that the small
    > guy can at a fraction of the investment risk. What is so DAMN hard for
    > you to understand here?


    Once more this is not relevant to the patent process. The patent process
    is either good or bad for an industry as a whole. It is bad for the pure
    software industry. Lots of people are now coming to that conclusion,
    including Bill Gates in 1991. It may be good for a small section of that
    industry but thats neither here nor there. The purpose of the patent
    system is to advance the state of the art - nothing more. Funny how
    small businesses are against software patents.


    > You're a freetard of the worst order (as DFS would say).


    And you're a draconianist of the worst order. I'd rather stand for
    freedom than communism any day of the week.

  9. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

    Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    > Paul Montgumdrop wrote:
    >> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >>>> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
    >>>>> Please provide evidence I want to copy everyone's ideas for free. I
    >>>>> merely state that my ideas should be my ideas and nobody else's.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Perhaps a bad choice of grammar here that pedantic arseholes would
    >>>> make a lot of. The inference is that other people's ideas are theirs
    >>>> to do with as they will as well, and if there's a crossover so what?
    >>>> They're ideas. Its the implementation of those ideas that is
    >>>> important and deserving of protection. If you protect the idea
    >>>> itself you're creating mini monopolies all over the place and in
    >>>> fact holding back the state of the art.
    >>>
    >>> And again, for the pedantic arsewipes - I'm referring specifically to
    >>> the pure software industry. Other industries play well with the
    >>> patent system; pure software does not.

    >>
    >> You're the only ass-hole I see here responding to yourself.

    >
    > You really think that post was good enough to be done twice?


    Who cares?

  10. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

    On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:57:20 -0400, DFS wrote:

    blah, blah, blah

    For something "too ridiculous for words" you certainly never run out of
    them. Just more of the WinTroll crank's 24/7 obsession with something that
    is "no threat to Windows" anyhow.

    Pretty damned ridiculous.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  11. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

    Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
    > On Sep 25, 4:57 pm, "DFS" wrote:
    >> "I noticed today that before installing xserver-xgl the memory usage
    >> in system monitor was normal.
    >> After installing xserver-xgl the memory usage immediately went up to
    >> 17179869180.0 GB for several packages."
    >>
    >> #28
    >> athttp://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=587905&highlight=freeze&page=3
    >>
    >> The slopware is out of control - but as long as it's not Windows
    >> it's OK by Linux lusers.

    >
    > 17179869180.0 GB!
    >
    > ROFLol


    Incredibly silly, I know! What kind of lousy, amateurish,
    basement-developed, untested code would report such numbers?



    > DFS Credibility = ZERO.


    What's wrong, Llanzlan - did you develop the slop?




  12. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

    >Hadron quacked:
    >>
    >> Once more for the truly ****ing dense (you) : a BIG company can
    >> implement and market that idea in a fraction of the time that the small
    >> guy can at a fraction of the investment risk. What is so DAMN hard for
    >> you to understand here?


    Oh, it's not hard at all to understand that you just pulled another
    "fact" out your ass, Quack. And even if true, you "point" is
    irrelevant to the issue of software patents.

    You are a dumb****, Quack.

    >Once more this is not relevant to the patent process.


    Once again, for software, inventors are sufficiently protected by
    existing copyright law and available trade secret protections.

    What is so DAMN hard for Quack to understand here?


  13. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

    chrisv wrote:
    >> Hadron quacked:
    >>> Once more for the truly ****ing dense (you) : a BIG company can
    >>> implement and market that idea in a fraction of the time that the small
    >>> guy can at a fraction of the investment risk. What is so DAMN hard for
    >>> you to understand here?

    >
    > Oh, it's not hard at all to understand that you just pulled another
    > "fact" out your ass, Quack. And even if true, you "point" is
    > irrelevant to the issue of software patents.
    >
    > You are a dumb****, Quack.
    >
    >> Once more this is not relevant to the patent process.

    >
    > Once again, for software, inventors are sufficiently protected by
    > existing copyright law and available trade secret protections.
    >
    > What is so DAMN hard for Quack to understand here?
    >


    Dunno. Its not like its rocket science or anything. There's enough
    clarification and backup of the detriment of sw patenting out there from
    some real movers and shakers in the industry as well as renowned
    economists. We also have a confession from the Lord Mayor of Microsoft
    circa 1991. But that's not enough for our Hardon apparently.

  14. Re: Too ridiculous for words

    On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:19:18 -0500, RonB wrote:

    > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:57:20 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >
    > blah, blah, blah
    >
    > For something "too ridiculous for words" you certainly never run out of
    > them. Just more of the WinTroll crank's 24/7 obsession with something that
    > is "no threat to Windows" anyhow.
    >
    > Pretty damned ridiculous.


    Maybe the subject should be changed to:
    "DFS is just too ridiculous for words"


    --
    "If it weren't for Windows, you wouldn't
    be posting anything right now."
    DFS - comp.os.linux.advocacy
    Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004



  15. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

    On 2008-09-25, Tattoo Vampire claimed:
    > Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
    >
    >> DFS Credibility = ZERO.

    >
    > DFS Sex Life = ZERO.


    DFS Brain = ZERO

    --
    Frontpage: Better than sticking a red hot poker in your eye.

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

  16. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

    Sinister Midget writes:

    > On 2008-09-25, Tattoo Vampire claimed:
    >> Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
    >>
    >>> DFS Credibility = ZERO.

    >>
    >> DFS Sex Life = ZERO.

    >
    > DFS Brain = ZERO


    Sweet.

    He burns you bozos with facts each every time you start your COLA dance.

    The gang up is truly pathetic. But of course you will not discuss the
    points. Oh no.

    --
    "Poor fishfarb! Pissed because s/h/it doesn't get all the attention s/h/it craves due to wise use of filtering."
    -- Sinister Midget trying to impress Willy Filters in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  17. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

    chrisv wrote:
    >>Hadron quacked:
    >>>
    >>> Once more for the truly ****ing dense (you) : a BIG company can
    >>> implement and market that idea in a fraction of the time that the small
    >>> guy can at a fraction of the investment risk. What is so DAMN hard for
    >>> you to understand here?

    >
    > Oh, it's not hard at all to understand that you just pulled another
    > "fact" out your ass, Quack. And even if true, you "point" is
    > irrelevant to the issue of software patents.
    >
    > You are a dumb****, Quack.
    >
    >>Once more this is not relevant to the patent process.

    >
    > Once again, for software, inventors are sufficiently protected by
    > existing copyright law and available trade secret protections.
    >
    > What is so DAMN hard for Quack to understand here?
    >


    troll feeding frenzy?
    *plonk*

  18. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

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

    > On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:57:20 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >
    > blah, blah, blah
    >
    > For something "too ridiculous for words" you certainly never run out of
    > them. Just more of the WinTroll crank's 24/7 obsession with something that
    > is "no threat to Windows" anyhow.
    >
    > Pretty damned ridiculous.


    What's ridiculous is DFS is referring to a post from some user who is
    upset that Linux is using most of his RAM (almost the whole 2 Gb).

    Uhhh, DFS, and user, that's kind of the whole point of how Linux works.

    Keep everything recently used in RAM as long as possible. Don't flush
    it periodically. Avoid disk usage as much as possible.

    --
    To see you is to sympathize.

  19. Re: Linux: it's just too ridiculous for words

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

    > On 2008-09-25, Tattoo Vampire claimed:
    >> Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
    >>
    >>> DFS Credibility = ZERO.

    >>
    >> DFS Sex Life = ZERO.

    >
    > DFS Brain = ZERO
    >
    > --
    > Frontpage: Better than sticking a red hot poker in your eye.


    Actually, Frontpage is the same thing as the poker in your eye.

    --
    3990 N Apr 15 Cute Girlfriend ( 45) Erotic Amateur Girlfriends
    I wasn't aware you had professional girlfriends as well

  20. Re: DFS, just too ridiculous for words

    On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:33:02 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, RonB belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:57:20 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >> blah, blah, blah
    >>
    >> For something "too ridiculous for words" you certainly never run out of
    >> them. Just more of the WinTroll crank's 24/7 obsession with something that
    >> is "no threat to Windows" anyhow.
    >>
    >> Pretty damned ridiculous.

    >
    > What's ridiculous is DFS is referring to a post from some user who is
    > upset that Linux is using most of his RAM (almost the whole 2 Gb).
    >
    > Uhhh, DFS, and user, that's kind of the whole point of how Linux works.
    >
    > Keep everything recently used in RAM as long as possible. Don't flush
    > it periodically. Avoid disk usage as much as possible.


    Linux uses as much RAM as it can get. Windows XP *appears* to use memory
    more efficiently, because more is reported to be free, but this is false.

    The truth is that by using all of your memory right from the start and
    shuffling this around as needed, Linux is much more efficient while
    Windows does not make use of all the free ram.

    M$ says that for *XP* the recommended minimum size is equivalent to 1.5
    times the RAM on your computer, and 3 times that figure for the maximum
    size!

    The *minimum* for Fista is 2.5 times the RAM!

    The maximum recommended size for a Linux swap space *regardless* of how
    much RAM is installed is 2GB. 'Course you can make it bigger if you
    wish, but it doesn't really do anything. I have a minimum 4GB on my
    machines, & the swap space is hardly touched.

    In short, Linux uses memory *more* efficiently than windoze because it
    uses a different management system.

    --
    "If it weren't for Windows, you wouldn't
    be posting anything right now."
    DFS - comp.os.linux.advocacy
    Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004



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