DFS wrote:
> Only in crapware land.

Where you seem to spend most of your time.

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:08:16 +0100, Phil Da Lick! wrote:

> DFS wrote:
>> Only in crapware land.
>
> Where you seem to spend most of your time.

The DFS troll's getting desperate for attention.

William Poaster writes:

> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:08:16 +0100, Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>> Only in crapware land.
>>
>> Where you seem to spend most of your time.
>
> The DFS troll's getting desperate for attention.
>
>
>

Writing your own headers eh Willy?

Debian 5.0?

That's interesting. Debian 5.0 was due this month but has slipped to
probably 2009 because of stability issues. No big thing and better
to slip than release garbage into "Stable" but why are you telling lies
in your OS header?

There are simply too many critical bugs and 5.0 has wisely been
delayed.

http://blog.schmehl.info/Debian/releasing-lenny

So, the best you could have is a release candidate. Or trying to show
off to COLA did you think that "testing" prior to official release was
5.0?

Whoops!

Hadron wrote:
> William Poaster writes:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:08:16 +0100, Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>> Only in crapware land.
>>>
>>> Where you seem to spend most of your time.
>>
>> The DFS troll's getting desperate for attention.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Writing your own headers eh Willy?

Dumb Willie's org line says Linux BIKWTFID:

Because I Know Why The Freeware Is Dirt




> Debian 5.0?
>
> That's interesting. Debian 5.0 was due this month but has slipped to
> probably 2009 because of stability issues.

Linux has stability issues? Who'da thunk!



> No big thing and better
> to slip than release garbage into "Stable" but why are you telling
> lies in your OS header?
>
> There are simply too many critical bugs and 5.0 has wisely been
> delayed.
>
> http://blog.schmehl.info/Debian/releasing-lenny
>
> So, the best you could have is a release candidate. Or trying to show
> off to COLA did you think that "testing" prior to official release was
> 5.0?
>
> Whoops!

Dumb Willie is bottom of the cola barrel.

Phil Da Lick! wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>> Only in crapware land.
>
> Where you seem to spend most of your time.

What's wrong, Phil: you had to go back to one monitor because you couldn't
stand the 2nd click. But it was a free click! And I know how you cola
lusers like everything to be free.


"On a one-monitor setup the mouse works fine, but with two monitors
every mouse click is done twice, which is very annoying."

http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=29932

Only in crapware land.

"DFS" writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>> William Poaster writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:08:16 +0100, Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>>
>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>>> Only in crapware land.
>>>>
>>>> Where you seem to spend most of your time.
>>>
>>> The DFS troll's getting desperate for attention.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Writing your own headers eh Willy?
>
> Dumb Willie's org line says Linux BIKWTFID:
>
> Because I Know Why The Freeware Is Dirt
>
>
>
>
>> Debian 5.0?
>>
>> That's interesting. Debian 5.0 was due this month but has slipped to
>> probably 2009 because of stability issues.
>
> Linux has stability issues? Who'da thunk!

All SW does. The OS is rock though and I have had zero lenny issues for
a while now.
>> So, the best you could have is a release candidate. Or trying to show
>> off to COLA did you think that "testing" prior to official release was
>> 5.0?
>>
>> Whoops!
>
> Dumb Willie is bottom of the cola barrel.

I sometimes wonder if he's dumber than High Plains Hypocrite.

--
"Don't like Linux.. don't use it. Simple."
-- Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.os.windows-xp

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:56:03 -0400, DFS wrote:

> ...for sheer ineptitude:
>
> "On a one-monitor setup the mouse works fine, but with two monitors
> every mouse click is done twice, which is very annoying."
>
> http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=29932
>
>
> Only in crapware land.

The Linux loons will spin it and say something like:

"Double your performance with Linux".

--
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

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:46:07 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> William Poaster writes:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:08:16 +0100, Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>>
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>> Only in crapware land.
>>>
>>> Where you seem to spend most of your time.
>>
>> The DFS troll's getting desperate for attention.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Writing your own headers eh Willy?
>
> Debian 5.0?
>
> That's interesting. Debian 5.0 was due this month but has slipped to
> probably 2009 because of stability issues. No big thing and better
> to slip than release garbage into "Stable" but why are you telling lies
> in your OS header?
>
> There are simply too many critical bugs and 5.0 has wisely been
> delayed.
>
> http://blog.schmehl.info/Debian/releasing-lenny
>
> So, the best you could have is a release candidate. Or trying to show
> off to COLA did you think that "testing" prior to official release was
> 5.0?
>
> Whoops!

Good catch!

William Poaster is as dumb as bread.
A complete oxygen thief.

So now he is into header munging.
No surprise as it seems like a logical upgrade path from filter fiddling.



--
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

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:29:45 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>> Only in crapware land.
>>
>> Where you seem to spend most of your time.
>
> What's wrong, Phil: you had to go back to one monitor because you couldn't
> stand the 2nd click. But it was a free click! And I know how you cola
> lusers like everything to be free.
>
>
> "On a one-monitor setup the mouse works fine, but with two monitors
> every mouse click is done twice, which is very annoying."
>
> http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=29932
>
> Only in crapware land.

Either that or like many people, he gave up trying to make multiple
monitors work under Linux.

Plug them in and they work great with Windows XP.

Linux?

Get to know your xorg.conf file intimately.
It will become your *friend* before you finally give up.

--
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

Hadron wrote:
> "DFS" writes:

>> Linux has stability issues? Who'da thunk!
>
> All SW does. The OS is rock though and I have had zero lenny issues
> for a while now.

That's exactly how I feel about Windows Server 2003 (after installing a
video card) and my XP install at the office: neither have ever crashed.
Occasionally an MS Office app will freeze (I know how to lock up MS Access
on-demand), but Windows has been rock steady since Win2000. And all the
cola fools know it.




>> Dumb Willie is bottom of the cola barrel.
>
> I sometimes wonder if he's dumber than High Plains Hypocrite.

It's close. I'll have to post a quiz...

After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
this bit o' wisdom:

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
>
> wrote
> on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:59:47 -0400
> :
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> "DFS" writes:
>>
>>>> Linux has stability issues? Who'da thunk!
>>>
>>> All SW does. The OS is rock though and I have had zero lenny issues
>>> for a while now.
>>
>> That's exactly how I feel about Windows Server 2003 (after installing a
>> video card) and my XP install at the office: neither have ever crashed.
>> Occasionally an MS Office app will freeze (I know how to lock up MS Access
>> on-demand), but Windows has been rock steady since Win2000. And all the
>> cola fools know it.

Yeah, yeah, DFS knows exactly what we know and don't know. Pffft.

Win 2000, no service pack: I bought it myself. I found that if I did
not run Word the first thing after booting, it would not work properly,
and I'd have to reboot the system. Other than that, it was decent.
Susceptible to an RPC attack.

Win 2000, SP4: The desktop was prone to crashing.

Win XP, through SP2: Crashes only with hardware problems, though I've
had a few spontaneous reboots. Explorer is dog slow. Overall response
is less than snappy.

> [1] Is Winserver 2003 something to be expected on the
> average Joe's desktop? Most home users will probably
> get Vista Premium, [+] except perhaps on very high end
> game machines such as Dell's XPS 630. Even there, it
> defaults to Premium, with Ultimate being a +$150 extra.
>
> [2] Winserver 2003 is indeed rock solid, AFAIK, on
> known-good hardware that it supports.

We use Win 2003 in our product. It takes a lot of work to
set it up properly. We've had many issues: Active directory and DNS
screwups, TCP issues that causes unzipping a 20 Mb file to a SAN drive
to take nearly an hour (Registry tweak fixed that one), SQL Server
clients slow as hell, "clustering" that still leaves your application
without resources for minutes, clumsy deployment that depends heavily on
third-party tools.

And yet people still push this stuff as "great software". Amazing.

--
A little experience often upsets a lot of theory.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:23:57 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
>>
>> wrote
>> on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:59:47 -0400
>> :
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> "DFS" writes:
>>>
>>>>> Linux has stability issues? Who'da thunk!
>>>>
>>>> All SW does. The OS is rock though and I have had zero lenny issues
>>>> for a while now.
>>>
>>> That's exactly how I feel about Windows Server 2003 (after installing a
>>> video card) and my XP install at the office: neither have ever crashed.
>>> Occasionally an MS Office app will freeze (I know how to lock up MS Access
>>> on-demand), but Windows has been rock steady since Win2000. And all the
>>> cola fools know it.
>
> Yeah, yeah, DFS knows exactly what we know and don't know. Pffft.

He and Hadron sure seem to make an ass of you each time you attempt to talk
technical.

> Win 2000, no service pack: I bought it myself. I found that if I did
> not run Word the first thing after booting, it would not work properly,
> and I'd have to reboot the system. Other than that, it was decent.
> Susceptible to an RPC attack.

Yawwn.
Are you sure you aren't Kelsey?


> Win 2000, SP4: The desktop was prone to crashing.

You seem to have trouble making things work.

> Win XP, through SP2: Crashes only with hardware problems, though I've
> had a few spontaneous reboots. Explorer is dog slow. Overall response
> is less than snappy.

What are you running it on?
A 486?


>> [1] Is Winserver 2003 something to be expected on the
>> average Joe's desktop? Most home users will probably
>> get Vista Premium, [+] except perhaps on very high end
>> game machines such as Dell's XPS 630. Even there, it
>> defaults to Premium, with Ultimate being a +$150 extra.
>>
>> [2] Winserver 2003 is indeed rock solid, AFAIK, on
>> known-good hardware that it supports.
>
> We use Win 2003 in our product. It takes a lot of work to
> set it up properly. We've had many issues: Active directory and DNS
> screwups, TCP issues that causes unzipping a 20 Mb file to a SAN drive
> to take nearly an hour (Registry tweak fixed that one), SQL Server
> clients slow as hell, "clustering" that still leaves your application
> without resources for minutes, clumsy deployment that depends heavily on
> third-party tools.

Some people should not be allowed near computers.
You sound like one of them, LiarMutt.

> And yet people still push this stuff as "great software". Amazing.

And Linux is free, yet it's virtually ignored.
How can that be?
--
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

"Moshe Goldfarb." writes:

> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:23:57 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, The Ghost In The Machine belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
>>>
>>> wrote
>>> on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:59:47 -0400
>>> :
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>> "DFS" writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> Linux has stability issues? Who'da thunk!
>>>>>
>>>>> All SW does. The OS is rock though and I have had zero lenny issues
>>>>> for a while now.
>>>>
>>>> That's exactly how I feel about Windows Server 2003 (after installing a
>>>> video card) and my XP install at the office: neither have ever crashed.
>>>> Occasionally an MS Office app will freeze (I know how to lock up MS Access
>>>> on-demand), but Windows has been rock steady since Win2000. And all the
>>>> cola fools know it.
>>
>> Yeah, yeah, DFS knows exactly what we know and don't know. Pffft.
>
> He and Hadron sure seem to make an ass of you each time you attempt to talk
> technical.

Every time more or less. He is a fraud and a phony. All well and good
some of the "advocates" getting their panties moist when Liarmutt
mentions his "Vim usage" but he soon gets found out when he gets a bit
too carried away! "Messin' wid da code" indeed! And the admission to
using MS Office was a hoot.

>
>> Win 2000, no service pack: I bought it myself. I found that if I did
>> not run Word the first thing after booting, it would not work properly,
>> and I'd have to reboot the system. Other than that, it was decent.
>> Susceptible to an RPC attack.
>
> Yawwn.
> Are you sure you aren't Kelsey?

Astonishing how Liarmutt seems to screw up pretty much everything. Its
almost like he doesn't know what he is doing with Windows which as a
Windows programmer is quite inept. Possibly even more so than Kelsey.

>
>
>> Win 2000, SP4: The desktop was prone to crashing.
>
> You seem to have trouble making things work.

Amazing. What *was* he doing?!?!?!

>
>> Win XP, through SP2: Crashes only with hardware problems, though I've
>> had a few spontaneous reboots. Explorer is dog slow. Overall response
>> is less than snappy.
>
> What are you running it on?
> A 486?

Kelsey would have a rendering farm out of that copying DVDs no doubt.

>
>
>>> [1] Is Winserver 2003 something to be expected on the
>>> average Joe's desktop? Most home users will probably
>>> get Vista Premium, [+] except perhaps on very high end
>>> game machines such as Dell's XPS 630. Even there, it
>>> defaults to Premium, with Ultimate being a +$150 extra.
>>>
>>> [2] Winserver 2003 is indeed rock solid, AFAIK, on
>>> known-good hardware that it supports.
>>
>> We use Win 2003 in our product. It takes a lot of work to
>> set it up properly. We've had many issues: Active directory and DNS
>> screwups, TCP issues that causes unzipping a 20 Mb file to a SAN drive
>> to take nearly an hour (Registry tweak fixed that one), SQL Server
>> clients slow as hell, "clustering" that still leaves your application
>> without resources for minutes, clumsy deployment that depends heavily on
>> third-party tools.
>
> Some people should not be allowed near computers.
> You sound like one of them, LiarMutt.
>
>> And yet people still push this stuff as "great software". Amazing.

You should play with some of the modern Windows SW. Regardless of what
you think of the core OS there are some wonderful applications which
have zero or half arsed equivalents in the Linux realm.

>
> And Linux is free, yet it's virtually ignored.
> How can that be?

Because it didn't work when people had decisions to make. Simple.

--
"Who are you, ****knob?"
-- Tattoo Vampire in alt.realestate, alt.real-estate, alt.real-estate-agents,

DFS wrote:
> Phil Da Lick! wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>> Only in crapware land.
>> Where you seem to spend most of your time.
>
> What's wrong, Phil: you had to go back to one monitor because you couldn't
> stand the 2nd click. But it was a free click! And I know how you cola
> lusers like everything to be free.


Why does the amount of monitors on my desk give you such a boner?