Lying lusers at Linux Format tell more lies - Linux

This is a discussion on Lying lusers at Linux Format tell more lies - Linux ; On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:48:04 +0000, ray wrote: > On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:18:06 -0400, DFS wrote: > >> ray wrote: >>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:33:01 -0400, DFS wrote: >>> >>>> ray wrote: >>>>> On Sat, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: Lying lusers at Linux Format tell more lies

  1. Re: DFS troll lying again.

    On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:48:04 +0000, ray wrote:

    > On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:18:06 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> ray wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:33:01 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> ray wrote:
    >>>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:46:53 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> They produced a thick magazine on switching to Linux.
    >>>>>> http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/blog/?p=416s
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I flipped through it at Barnes & Noble today. Among the many snide
    >>>>>> references to Windows found throughout, one stood out:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Windows software takes ages to install and requires a half-dozen
    >>>>>> reboots."
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> hah! What lying bull****.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Stinking Linux liars can't open their mouths without foul lies
    >>>>>> spewing forth.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You're right. Generally, an installation of software on an MS system
    >>>>> usually only requires a couple of reboots.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> You're a liar too, raytard.
    >>>>
    >>>> Generally (I'd say at least 80% of the time), it requires no reboots.
    >>>
    >>> Ah, I see. Linux ONLY requires a reboot when you install a new kernel -
    >>> for general software - never at all.

    >>
    >> That's the lie you guys tell each other. The reality is Linux reboots
    >> are nearly constant - every few minutes - for some Ubuntu victims.
    >>

    >
    > That is B.S. and you know it.


    Absolutely! DFS is lying again, shrieking like a girl.

    > I've never seen a Linux install that was unstable in that way UNLESS
    > THERE WAS A HARDWARE MALFUNCTION.


    I've never seen a Linux distro as unstable as that, even in alpha & beta
    versions. I agree, it's more likely a hardware problem.


  2. Re: Lying lusers at Linux Format tell more lies

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

    > In article <9DmIk.48943$vX2.26726@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
    > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>
    >> By the way, which Vista?

    >
    > Home Premium 64-bit. Here's the (nearly) complete specs of the system:
    >
    > 750 GB Seagate Barracuda 32 MB cache SATA 3.0 GB/sec hard drive
    >
    > 8 GB of RAM
    > 2x
    > Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 Wolfdale 3 GHz
    >


    Well, although some might consider it off-topic, I wouldn't mind a
    little report now and then about the good and bad you find with your
    system.

    What made you go for Home Premium? For 64-bit?

    --
    This unit... must... survive.

  3. Re: Lying lusers at Linux Format tell more lies

    On 12 Oct 2008 20:48:04 GMT, ray wrote:

    > On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:18:06 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> ray wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:33:01 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> ray wrote:
    >>>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:46:53 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> They produced a thick magazine on switching to Linux.
    >>>>>> http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/blog/?p=416s
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I flipped through it at Barnes & Noble today. Among the many snide
    >>>>>> references to Windows found throughout, one stood out:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Windows software takes ages to install and requires a half-dozen
    >>>>>> reboots."
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> hah! What lying bull****.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Stinking Linux liars can't open their mouths without foul lies
    >>>>>> spewing forth.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You're right. Generally, an installation of software on an MS system
    >>>>> usually only requires a couple of reboots.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> You're a liar too, raytard.
    >>>>
    >>>> Generally (I'd say at least 80% of the time), it requires no reboots.
    >>>
    >>> Ah, I see. Linux ONLY requires a reboot when you install a new kernel -
    >>> for general software - never at all.

    >>
    >> That's the lie you guys tell each other. The reality is Linux reboots
    >> are nearly constant - every few minutes - for some Ubuntu victims.
    >>

    >
    > That is B.S. and you know it. I've never seen a Linux install that was
    > unstable in that way UNLESS THERE WAS A HARDWARE MALFUNCTION.


    I suggest you take a look in the Ubuntu forums.
    DFS posts links all the time.

    Are all these people lying?

    Or are they all Microsoft shills?

    --
    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

  4. Re: Lying lusers at Linux Format tell more lies

    ray wrote:
    > On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:18:06 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> ray wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:33:01 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> ray wrote:
    >>>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:46:53 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> They produced a thick magazine on switching to Linux.
    >>>>>> http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/blog/?p=416s
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I flipped through it at Barnes & Noble today. Among the many
    >>>>>> snide references to Windows found throughout, one stood out:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Windows software takes ages to install and requires a half-dozen
    >>>>>> reboots."
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> hah! What lying bull****.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Stinking Linux liars can't open their mouths without foul lies
    >>>>>> spewing forth.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You're right. Generally, an installation of software on an MS
    >>>>> system usually only requires a couple of reboots.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> You're a liar too, raytard.
    >>>>
    >>>> Generally (I'd say at least 80% of the time), it requires no
    >>>> reboots.
    >>>
    >>> Ah, I see. Linux ONLY requires a reboot when you install a new
    >>> kernel - for general software - never at all.

    >>
    >> That's the lie you guys tell each other. The reality is Linux
    >> reboots are nearly constant - every few minutes - for some Ubuntu
    >> victims.
    >>

    >
    > That is B.S. and you know it.


    "I can login, launch pidgin and that synergy gui, but after about 30-40sec
    the laptop freezes. Unresponsive, clock frozen and nothing working except
    rebooting, followed by the same thing again."

    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...freezes&page=2




    > I've never seen a Linux install that was
    > unstable in that way UNLESS THERE WAS A HARDWARE MALFUNCTION.


    Your sample of one is totally meaningless. Thousands of Linux victims
    endure unstable, freezing, locking, glitchy crapware problems that have
    nothing to do with hardware:

    www.ubuntuforums.org
    http://www.linuxmint.com/forum/
    http://forums.fedoraforum.org/
    http://forums.opensuse.org/




    "Linux is stable and reliable" is the biggest scam/lie you Linux lusers have
    perpetrated. The public finds out soon enough what they're in for with
    Linux - that's why its market share remains so low.










  5. Re: Lying lusers at Linux Format tell more lies

    On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:18:13 -0400, DFS wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:18:06 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> ray wrote:
    >>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:33:01 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> ray wrote:
    >>>>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:46:53 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> They produced a thick magazine on switching to Linux.
    >>>>>>> http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/blog/?p=416s
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I flipped through it at Barnes & Noble today. Among the many
    >>>>>>> snide references to Windows found throughout, one stood out:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Windows software takes ages to install and requires a half-dozen
    >>>>>>> reboots."
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> hah! What lying bull****.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Stinking Linux liars can't open their mouths without foul lies
    >>>>>>> spewing forth.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You're right. Generally, an installation of software on an MS
    >>>>>> system usually only requires a couple of reboots.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You're a liar too, raytard.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Generally (I'd say at least 80% of the time), it requires no
    >>>>> reboots.
    >>>>
    >>>> Ah, I see. Linux ONLY requires a reboot when you install a new kernel
    >>>> - for general software - never at all.
    >>>
    >>> That's the lie you guys tell each other. The reality is Linux reboots
    >>> are nearly constant - every few minutes - for some Ubuntu victims.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> That is B.S. and you know it.

    >
    > "I can login, launch pidgin and that synergy gui, but after about
    > 30-40sec the laptop freezes. Unresponsive, clock frozen and nothing
    > working except rebooting, followed by the same thing again."
    >
    > http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...freezes&page=2
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> I've never seen a Linux install that was unstable in that way UNLESS
    >> THERE WAS A HARDWARE MALFUNCTION.

    >
    > Your sample of one is totally meaningless. Thousands of Linux victims
    > endure unstable, freezing, locking, glitchy crapware problems that have
    > nothing to do with hardware:
    >
    > www.ubuntuforums.org
    > http://www.linuxmint.com/forum/
    > http://forums.fedoraforum.org/
    > http://forums.opensuse.org/
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Linux is stable and reliable" is the biggest scam/lie you Linux lusers
    > have perpetrated. The public finds out soon enough what they're in for
    > with Linux - that's why its market share remains so low.


    Linux like other OS's has it's share of problems. Stability in the absence
    of hardware malfunctions is not one of them.

  6. Re: Lying lusers at Linux Format tell more lies

    On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:18:47 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On 12 Oct 2008 20:48:04 GMT, ray wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:18:06 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> ray wrote:
    >>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:33:01 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> ray wrote:
    >>>>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:46:53 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> They produced a thick magazine on switching to Linux.
    >>>>>>> http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/blog/?p=416s
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I flipped through it at Barnes & Noble today. Among the many
    >>>>>>> snide references to Windows found throughout, one stood out:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Windows software takes ages to install and requires a half-dozen
    >>>>>>> reboots."
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> hah! What lying bull****.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Stinking Linux liars can't open their mouths without foul lies
    >>>>>>> spewing forth.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You're right. Generally, an installation of software on an MS
    >>>>>> system usually only requires a couple of reboots.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You're a liar too, raytard.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Generally (I'd say at least 80% of the time), it requires no
    >>>>> reboots.
    >>>>
    >>>> Ah, I see. Linux ONLY requires a reboot when you install a new kernel
    >>>> - for general software - never at all.
    >>>
    >>> That's the lie you guys tell each other. The reality is Linux reboots
    >>> are nearly constant - every few minutes - for some Ubuntu victims.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> That is B.S. and you know it. I've never seen a Linux install that was
    >> unstable in that way UNLESS THERE WAS A HARDWARE MALFUNCTION.

    >
    > I suggest you take a look in the Ubuntu forums. DFS posts links all the
    > time.
    >
    > Are all these people lying?
    >
    > Or are they all Microsoft shills?


    Most likely the latter.

  7. Re: Lying lusers at Linux Format tell more lies

    ray wrote:
    > On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:18:47 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    >> On 12 Oct 2008 20:48:04 GMT, ray wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:18:06 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> ray wrote:
    >>>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:33:01 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> ray wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:46:53 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> They produced a thick magazine on switching to Linux.
    >>>>>>>> http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/blog/?p=416s
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I flipped through it at Barnes & Noble today. Among the many
    >>>>>>>> snide references to Windows found throughout, one stood out:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "Windows software takes ages to install and requires a
    >>>>>>>> half-dozen reboots."
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> hah! What lying bull****.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Stinking Linux liars can't open their mouths without foul lies
    >>>>>>>> spewing forth.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You're right. Generally, an installation of software on an MS
    >>>>>>> system usually only requires a couple of reboots.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You're a liar too, raytard.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Generally (I'd say at least 80% of the time), it requires no
    >>>>>> reboots.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Ah, I see. Linux ONLY requires a reboot when you install a new
    >>>>> kernel - for general software - never at all.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's the lie you guys tell each other. The reality is Linux
    >>>> reboots are nearly constant - every few minutes - for some Ubuntu
    >>>> victims.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> That is B.S. and you know it. I've never seen a Linux install that
    >>> was unstable in that way UNLESS THERE WAS A HARDWARE MALFUNCTION.

    >>
    >> I suggest you take a look in the Ubuntu forums. DFS posts links all
    >> the time.
    >>
    >> Are all these people lying?
    >>
    >> Or are they all Microsoft shills?

    >
    > Most likely the latter.


    uh huh... at least 3 of the few "advocates*" here on cola have reported
    having the Ubuntu crapware freezing problem. I suppose they're lying to
    make Linux look bad.




  8. Re: Lying lusers at Linux Format tell more lies

    DFS wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:18:47 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 12 Oct 2008 20:48:04 GMT, ray wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:18:06 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> ray wrote:
    >>>>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:33:01 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> ray wrote:
    >>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:46:53 -0400, DFS wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> They produced a thick magazine on switching to Linux.
    >>>>>>>>> http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/blog/?p=416s
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> I flipped through it at Barnes & Noble today. Among the many
    >>>>>>>>> snide references to Windows found throughout, one stood out:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "Windows software takes ages to install and requires a
    >>>>>>>>> half-dozen reboots."
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> hah! What lying bull****.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Stinking Linux liars can't open their mouths without foul lies
    >>>>>>>>> spewing forth.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> You're right. Generally, an installation of software on an MS
    >>>>>>>> system usually only requires a couple of reboots.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You're a liar too, raytard.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Generally (I'd say at least 80% of the time), it requires no
    >>>>>>> reboots.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Ah, I see. Linux ONLY requires a reboot when you install a new
    >>>>>> kernel - for general software - never at all.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's the lie you guys tell each other. The reality is Linux
    >>>>> reboots are nearly constant - every few minutes - for some Ubuntu
    >>>>> victims.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> That is B.S. and you know it. I've never seen a Linux install that
    >>>> was unstable in that way UNLESS THERE WAS A HARDWARE MALFUNCTION.
    >>>
    >>> I suggest you take a look in the Ubuntu forums. DFS posts links all
    >>> the time.
    >>>
    >>> Are all these people lying?
    >>>
    >>> Or are they all Microsoft shills?

    >>
    >> Most likely the latter.

    >
    > uh huh... at least 3 of the few "advocates*" here on cola have reported
    > having the Ubuntu crapware freezing problem.


    They did? Really? Must have missed that completely

    > I suppose they're lying to make Linux look bad.


    I suppose you are lying. Far more likely than anything else
    --
    Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats
    you with experience...


  9. Re: Lying lusers at Linux Format tell more lies

    In article ,
    Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > Well, although some might consider it off-topic, I wouldn't mind a
    > little report now and then about the good and bad you find with your
    > system.
    >
    > What made you go for Home Premium? For 64-bit?


    My last gaming system was built in either late 2002 or early 2003. I'd
    like this one to have similar longevity. That's one of the reasons I
    picked a motherboard that has two PCI Express 2.0 x16 slots. That gives
    me the option of going to a dual video card setup someday. The
    motherboard also allows up to 16 meg of RAM (the specs at Newegg say 8
    GB, but it supports 16 GB). Finally, the motherboard supports up to
    quad core CPUs. So, I have several possible update paths over the next
    few years for the hardware.

    For software, I considered XP. All the negative press and posts about
    Vista were certainly a cause for concern. But, that seems to be
    changing. A few times recently, Leo on the TWiT podcast has asked his
    guests what they thought of Vista, and they almost all say that SP1
    resolved their issues, and they would accept Vista on a new PC now, or
    even would upgrade their existing XP.

    Vista seems to be widely accepted on pre-built gaming machines, and when
    I read recommendations on gaming forums on DIY rigs, Vista was commonly
    recommended. There doesn't seem to be any reason from a gaming point of
    view to avoid Vista, and undoubtedly Vista is going to get more gaming
    improvements going forward than XP is. Since this machine is meant to
    be a long term gaming machine, and I don't want to buy XP now, and then
    have to buy Vista later, Vista seemed an obvious choice.

    I picked a 64-bit version in order to be able to have 8 GB of RAM.
    (After checking in various gaming forums to see if there was some reason
    to avoid 64-bit). I picked Home Premium as opposed to Home Basic
    because it was only $10 more and supports twice as much physical RAM. I
    did not get Ultimate because I don't see any chance of needing any of
    the things Ultimate offers that Premium does not.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  10. Re: Lying lusers at Linux Format tell more lies

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

    > DFS wrote:
    >> ray wrote:
    >>> Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> I suggest you take a look in the Ubuntu forums. DFS posts links all
    >>>> the time.
    >>>>
    >>>> Are all these people lying?
    >>>>
    >>>> Or are they all Microsoft shills?
    >>>
    >>> Most likely the latter.

    >>
    >> uh huh... at least 3 of the few "advocates*" here on cola have reported
    >> having the Ubuntu crapware freezing problem.

    >
    > They did? Really? Must have missed that completely
    >
    >> I suppose they're lying to make Linux look bad.

    >
    > I suppose you are lying. Far more likely than anything else


    After seeing how the trolling infection is starting to touch on the
    ubuntu ng, and after seeing the comments posted at various blog and
    article sites, I'm convinced that one has almost no way of knowing,
    except perhaps by intuition, whether comments are legitimate, or just
    asstrollturfing.

    If DFS were honest (hint: he isn't), he would post equal numbers of
    complaints about Windows problems.

    Quite frankly, I think he's deranged when the topic is Linux. No
    offense, he's probably a decent fellow when his teeth are in fist range.

    --
    Phasers locked on target, Captain.

  11. Re: Lying lusers at Linux Format tell more lies

    Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    >If DFS were honest (hint: he isn't)


    *snort*


  12. Re: Lying lusers at Linux Format tell more lies

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > DFS wrote:


    >> uh huh... at least 3 of the few "advocates*" here on cola have
    >> reported having the Ubuntu crapware freezing problem.

    >
    > They did? Really? Must have missed that completely


    You were too busy being stupid, and developing crappy Windows programs.


    >> I suppose they're lying to make Linux look bad.

    >
    > I suppose you are lying. Far more likely than anything else


    If I show you the three, will you promise to open up the vein lengthwise?





+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2