Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows! - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows! - Linux ; After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Khlmann belched out this bit o' wisdom: > Hadron wrote: >> "DFS" writes: >>> Richard Rasker wrote: >>> >>>> Do they become unreadable all of a sudden? >>>> OK, the latter could be ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 58 of 58

Thread: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

  1. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

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

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> "DFS" writes:
    >>> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Do they become unreadable all of a sudden?
    >>>> OK, the latter could be the case, if I'd use MS Office -- heck, I've
    >>>> had this happen to me quite a few times in the distant past,
    >>>
    >>> Liar.

    >>
    >> He's getting worse.

    >
    > You both are, "true linux advocate" Hadron Quark and DumbFull****
    >
    > It actually happens all too often with MS Word files, when lots of images
    > and graphics are used. It can get to a point where you simply can't even
    > load the file any longer.


    I haven't had it (true document corruption) happen for quite awhile, but I
    no longer use Microsoft Office on a machine with 256 Mb or less RAM anymore.

    Notice that Richard noted that it happened in the "distant past", too.
    Accords quite well with my experience. We all used to make sure to save
    copies of the document into a temp directory periodically, just in case.

    Microsoft Word will still screw up numbering on occasion, even today.

    > Luckily OO comes to the rescue then


    Better to use it alone. Save in MSO format for people still chained to that
    product.

    --
    Extreme fear can neither fight nor fly.
    -- William Shakespeare, "The Rape of Lucrece"

  2. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

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

    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>
    >>> Sorry, you completely lost me there. Why on earth would I have to
    >>> 'maintain' documents I create? Do they break? Is their content
    >>> subject to degradation? Do they become unreadable all of a sudden?
    >>> OK, the latter could be the case, if I'd use MS Office -- heck, I've
    >>> had this happen to me quite a few times in the distant past,

    >>
    >> Liar.

    >
    >
    >
    > Hehe, just kidding. Just like the rest of Microsoft's products, MS Office
    > is the most unstable, buggy crapware of its kind. I've helped quite a few
    > people by using OpenOffice to recover .doc files they couldn't open in MS
    > Office any more. And I still have to see OpenOffice crash on me for the
    > first time.
    >
    > So here ya go:
    > http://www.velocityreviews.com/forum...-document.html
    > http://oreilly.com/pub/wlg/3154
    > http://www.brainbell.com/tutorials/m...er_A_Crash.htm
    > http://www.mealldubh.org/index.php/2...upt-word-docs/
    > http://www.officeformac.com/.59b5ed99/0
    > http://forums.thomsonscientific.com/...&thread.id=604
    > http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/...n-opening.aspx


    More:

    http://www.officearticles.com/word/r...d_document.htm

    Some of the indications that your document is corrupt is that you cannot
    open it, its file size has suddenly become huge, it will not stop
    repaginating, it crashes when you scroll or print.

    http://www.repairmyword.com/

    Repair My Word will allow you to obtain access to the contents of corrupt
    word documents. It will repair Microsoft Word 6.0, Word 95, 97, 2000, XP,
    and 2003 for Windows.

    http://articles.techrepublic.com.com...1-1032049.html

    (dated 2001)

    http://www.frsirt.com/english/advisories/2007/0607

    A vulnerability has been identified in Microsoft Word, which could be
    exploited by attackers to take complete control of an affected system.
    This issue is due to a memory corruption error when handling a malformed
    document, which could be exploited by attackers to execute arbitrary
    commands by tricking a user into opening a specially crafted Word
    document.

    (That one's 2007).

    Here's one from way in the past, from Microsoft itself:

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/187309

    Let's try a more specific search:

    "Microsoft word"+"document corruption"

    Results 1 - 10 of about 1,850

    And take note that these aren't posts from users posting in problem forums.
    There are apparently was and is a whole industry devoted to recovering
    corrupt Microsoft documents.

    I wonder if DFS and Hadron feel like a burnt biscuit.

    --
    In Memphis, Tennessee, it is illegal for a woman to drive a car unless
    there is a man either running or walking in front of it waving a red
    flag to warn approaching motorists and pedestrians.

  3. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    Chris Ahlstrom writes:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Richard Rasker belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Sorry, you completely lost me there. Why on earth would I have to
    >>>> 'maintain' documents I create? Do they break? Is their content
    >>>> subject to degradation? Do they become unreadable all of a sudden?
    >>>> OK, the latter could be the case, if I'd use MS Office -- heck, I've
    >>>> had this happen to me quite a few times in the distant past,
    >>>
    >>> Liar.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Hehe, just kidding. Just like the rest of Microsoft's products, MS Office
    >> is the most unstable, buggy crapware of its kind. I've helped quite a few
    >> people by using OpenOffice to recover .doc files they couldn't open in MS
    >> Office any more. And I still have to see OpenOffice crash on me for the
    >> first time.
    >>
    >> So here ya go:
    >> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forum...-document.html
    >> http://oreilly.com/pub/wlg/3154
    >> http://www.brainbell.com/tutorials/m...er_A_Crash.htm
    >> http://www.mealldubh.org/index.php/2...upt-word-docs/
    >> http://www.officeformac.com/.59b5ed99/0
    >> http://forums.thomsonscientific.com/...&thread.id=604
    >> http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/...n-opening.aspx

    >
    > More:
    >
    > http://www.officearticles.com/word/r...d_document.htm
    >
    > Some of the indications that your document is corrupt is that you cannot
    > open it, its file size has suddenly become huge, it will not stop
    > repaginating, it crashes when you scroll or print.
    >
    > http://www.repairmyword.com/
    >
    > Repair My Word will allow you to obtain access to the contents of corrupt
    > word documents. It will repair Microsoft Word 6.0, Word 95, 97, 2000, XP,
    > and 2003 for Windows.
    >
    > http://articles.techrepublic.com.com...1-1032049.html
    >
    > (dated 2001)
    >
    > http://www.frsirt.com/english/advisories/2007/0607
    >
    > A vulnerability has been identified in Microsoft Word, which could be
    > exploited by attackers to take complete control of an affected system.
    > This issue is due to a memory corruption error when handling a malformed
    > document, which could be exploited by attackers to execute arbitrary
    > commands by tricking a user into opening a specially crafted Word
    > document.
    >
    > (That one's 2007).
    >
    > Here's one from way in the past, from Microsoft itself:
    >
    > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/187309
    >
    > Let's try a more specific search:
    >
    > "Microsoft word"+"document corruption"
    >
    > Results 1 - 10 of about 1,850
    >
    > And take note that these aren't posts from users posting in problem forums.
    > There are apparently was and is a whole industry devoted to recovering
    > corrupt Microsoft documents.
    >
    > I wonder if DFS and Hadron feel like a burnt biscuit.


    No. I just wonder why you are such a hypocrite. You really are clueless.

    http://tinyurl.com/6gepk2

    ,----
    | #
    | Bug #57828 in OpenOffice: “[Upstream] [hardy] Imported RTF-file ...
    | [Upstream] [hardy] Imported RTF-file, saved as .odt is corrupt when loaded [edit ] ... OpenOffice shows a read error and tells me that the file is corrupt. ...
    | https://bugs.launchpad.net/openoffice/+bug/57828 - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
    | #
    | [sw-issues] [Issue 94251] Save RTF as ODT generate a corrupt ODT file
    | 23 Sep 2008 ... corrupt ODT file Component|Word processor Version|OOo 2.4.1 Platform|Unknown URL|http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=94248 ...
    | http://www.mail-archive.com/allbugs@...msg410793.html - 8k - Cached - Similar pages
    | #
    | Odt Corrupt - BKF file recovery tool to repair bkf file BKF ...
    | corrupt odt » office corrupt odt » repair xls openoffice » reparing odt files » odt zip » repair odt file » fix odt openoffice » recover odt documents ...
    | odt-corrupt.qarchive.org/ - 33k - Cached - Similar pages
    | #
    | Recovering data from corrupted files in OpenOffice documents
    | The file 'file.odt' is corrupt and therefore cannot be opened. Should OpenOffice .org repair the file? The file 'file.odt' could not be repaired and ...
    | http://www.andybrain.com/archive/mb/...a-recovery.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
    | #
    | Convert open office (odt) to word (doc) [Archive] - FILExt Forum
    | 21 posts - Last post: 3 Aug
    | [Archive] Convert open office (odt) to word (doc) File Extensions. ... format using OpenOffice software if the file is not somehow corrupt. ...
    | filext.com/info/archive/index.php/t-1716.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages
    | #
    | OpenOffice.org Forum :: Corrupt XML - please help
    | 8 posts - 4 authors - Last post: 21 Sep 2005
    | OpenOffice.org Forum at OOoForum.org The OpenOffice.org Forum ... I have an error on "styles.xml" and I can't open the odt document. ...
    | http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewto...=pspad+firefox - 37k - Cached - Similar pages
    | #
    | www: Mail reader
    | 29 Aug 2007 ... August 2007 12:20 > To: dev@openoffice.org > Subject: Re: [dev] ODT file created through XSL transformation is corrupt > > * PGP Signed by ...
    | http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/R...ev&msgNo=20651 - 17k - Cached - Similar pages
    | #
    | [Solved] Error opening odt output file from EndNote (View topic ...
    | 4 posts - 1 author - Last post: 13 Jul
    | User community support forum for OpenOffice.org, StarOffice and ... If you want, you can upload your corrupt file so that we try and explain ...
    | user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=6563 - 34k - Cached - Similar pages
    | #
    | How to Use software to odt corrupt - Search results
    | Search fordt corrupt. 1 - 10 of 508. Recovery for Writer Recovery for Writer 1.1.0829. Recovery for Writer is data recovery software for OpenOffice ...
    | www.brothersoft.com/downloads/odt-corrupt.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
    | #
    | Odt Corrupt Free Download
    | Odt Corrupt free software, shareware, trial downloads. ... WriterRecovery is data recovery program for OpenOffice Writer documents (.odt). ...
    | www.rocketdownload.com/software/odt-corrupt.html - 32k - Cached -
    | Similar pages
    `----


  4. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    Peter Khlmann wrote:

    >Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> "DFS" writes:
    >>
    >>> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Sorry, you completely lost me there. Why on earth would I have to
    >>>> 'maintain' documents I create? Do they break? Is their content
    >>>> subject to degradation? Do they become unreadable all of a sudden?
    >>>> OK, the latter could be the case, if I'd use MS Office -- heck, I've
    >>>> had this happen to me quite a few times in the distant past,
    >>>
    >>> Liar.

    >>
    >> He's getting worse.

    >
    >You both are, "true linux advocate" Hadron Quark and DumbFull****


    Those Wintrolls must be highly skilled, lucky, or dishonest. Windows
    never gets infected, and Word never corrupts a file, for them.


  5. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    On 2008-11-09, Hadron wrote:
    > Richard Rasker writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Homer wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
    >>>>>> amicus_curious wrote:

    [deletia]
    >> Excuse me? What is the dishonesty here?
    >>
    >>> 27 year old washing machine? Dont you CARE about the environment?!?!?!?

    >>
    >> Yes, I do. I repair stuff instead of throwing it in the bin. And I'm good at
    >> it.

    >
    > Oh dear me. You are clueless. Have you ANY idea how much more efficient
    > modern machines are?


    Do you? Really? Or are you just parroting other people's propaganda
    like you always do. What's the real environmental impact of tossing out
    an old machine that works perfectly well and replacing it with a new one?

    Give us some actual numbers.

    >
    >>
    >> You're not making a lot of sense today.
    >>
    >> Richard Rasker

    >
    > To you? I doubt it.


    Although it's probably not just the one single occurence that is
    the problem but rather the pattern of behaivor it represents. Are you
    in the habit of tossing perfectly functional durable goods on the scrap
    heap? Then you're probably remarkably wasteful in other ways.

    --
    "Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether
    the idea will move the industry forward, they ask, |||
    'how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?'" / | \

    -- Bill Gates

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

  6. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    JEDIDIAH writes:

    > On 2008-11-09, Hadron wrote:
    >> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Homer wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
    >>>>>>> amicus_curious wrote:

    > [deletia]
    >>> Excuse me? What is the dishonesty here?
    >>>
    >>>> 27 year old washing machine? Dont you CARE about the environment?!?!?!?
    >>>
    >>> Yes, I do. I repair stuff instead of throwing it in the bin. And I'm good at
    >>> it.

    >>
    >> Oh dear me. You are clueless. Have you ANY idea how much more efficient
    >> modern machines are?

    >
    > Do you? Really? Or are you just parroting other people's propaganda
    > like you always do. What's the real environmental impact of tossing out
    > an old machine that works perfectly well and replacing it with a new one?
    >
    > Give us some actual numbers.
    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>> You're not making a lot of sense today.
    >>>
    >>> Richard Rasker

    >>
    >> To you? I doubt it.

    >
    > Although it's probably not just the one single occurence that is
    > the problem but rather the pattern of behaivor it represents. Are you
    > in the habit of tossing perfectly functional durable goods on the scrap
    > heap? Then you're probably remarkably wasteful in other ways.


    No I am not. For example. I use ONE modern machine as email server, web
    server and database server. A machine about 2 years old. I COULD use my
    main development machine for all that but I dont want ANY external path
    way to that machine. So I have "reused" one machine at least.

    So I use two relatively powerful machines for all my work. Contrast that
    COLA loonies who run 20 486 machines to do near enough the same tasks
    ..... THAT is wastage from the power alone.

    Without the specs I can assure you that the efficiency of modern washing
    machines would very soon counter any "gain" you claim by using such an
    older washing machine.

    I DO applaud you for keeping it in use if only to be retro however.

    But back your request. Here is one report I read a while back (I too had
    an old washing machine which I replaced when I realised it was simply
    burning up too many resources:

    http://mail.mtprog.com/CD_Layout/Day...nger_final.pdf




  7. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

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

    > On 2008-11-09, Hadron wrote:
    >> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Homer wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
    >>>>>>> amicus_curious wrote:

    > [deletia]
    >>> Excuse me? What is the dishonesty here?
    >>>
    >>>> 27 year old washing machine? Dont you CARE about the environment?!?!?!?
    >>>
    >>> Yes, I do. I repair stuff instead of throwing it in the bin. And I'm good at
    >>> it.

    >>
    >> Oh dear me. You are clueless. Have you ANY idea how much more efficient
    >> modern machines are?

    >
    > Do you? Really? Or are you just parroting other people's propaganda
    > like you always do. What's the real environmental impact of tossing out
    > an old machine that works perfectly well and replacing it with a new one?
    >
    > Give us some actual numbers.


    You don't even need numbers.

    If you can keep an old machine running for an extra few years, that's one
    less new box that needs to be built. Hadron would have us believe that
    a few extra watts of power over a couple of years cost more than the watts
    of power needed to refine the metal and silicon that make up a new computer.

    >>> You're not making a lot of sense today.
    >>>
    >>> Richard Rasker

    >>
    >> To you? I doubt it.

    >
    > Although it's probably not just the one single occurence that is
    > the problem but rather the pattern of behaivor it represents. Are you
    > in the habit of tossing perfectly functional durable goods on the scrap
    > heap? Then you're probably remarkably wasteful in other ways.


    Such as wasting our time.

    Here's one guy's analysis of used-versus-new computers:

    http://www.stevehargadon.com/2006/05...rchase-of.html

    A Cost Analysis Comparing the Purchase of Used vs. New Computers for
    Schools

    So, based on the formula and posted pricing, the used computer proves to
    be a better value--a $30.93 savings per machine per year. That's 17.6%
    less than the new, or if you want to spin the numbers to best advantage,
    to purchase new would cost 21% more than new.

    Of course, the licensing costs of Windows can /still/ screw things up:

    Now, I would like to say that this is good news, but the truth of the
    matter is that we haven't discussed licensing, and this is the first real
    rub. Because most used computers in any quantity are coming back from
    leasing companies, they never had or have not retained the original
    Windows operating system license media and manual. Microsoft has long
    claimed, and secured through legislation, that the Certificate of
    Authenticity (COA) affixed to a computer is not the actual the license to
    use the Windows operating system--to be legally licensed you have to have
    the original CD, the manual, the EULA (End User License Agreement), and
    the COA. Let's just say that this is complicated enough that most people
    (including me) don't understand it, and that it pretty clearly has the
    effect of not allowing the reuse of the original operating system on
    almost any used PC you would purchase.

    Answer: Use something free, such as GNU/Linux.

    --
    To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
    -- Elbert Hubbard

  8. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    JEDIDIAH wrote:

    > On 2008-11-09, Hadron wrote:
    >> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Homer wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
    >>>>>>> amicus_curious wrote:

    > [deletia]
    >>> Excuse me? What is the dishonesty here?
    >>>
    >>>> 27 year old washing machine? Dont you CARE about the environment?!?!?!?
    >>>
    >>> Yes, I do. I repair stuff instead of throwing it in the bin. And I'm
    >>> good at it.

    >>
    >> Oh dear me. You are clueless. Have you ANY idea how much more efficient
    >> modern machines are?

    >
    > Do you? Really? Or are you just parroting other people's propaganda
    > like you always do. What's the real environmental impact of tossing out
    > an old machine that works perfectly well and replacing it with a new one?


    I already selected the old machine for efficiency, back in 1980. Also, I
    always wash at 30 degrees (no dirty people here ;-), and save up laundry
    until I have a maximum load.
    Our new one is some 30% more efficient in water (and thus energy) use.
    So instead of 35 litres of water it takes 25 per wash. With 2-3 runs a week,
    this saves 1000-1500 litres a year. Not exactly specutacular, with our
    household using over 200 litres per day, and our shower doing 10 litres per
    minute ...

    A new machine, some 75kg worth of steel requires at least 10 tons of water
    to manufacture, plus al lot of energy.
    This means that the break-even point is in the region of ten years of use of
    the old one. And ten years ago, washing machines weren't as efficient as
    they are today. So I guess this was the right moment for the old one to
    kick the bucket :-)

    But it all depends. I wouldn't use a second hand Pentium IV machine for my
    multiserver -- I've seen these beasts drawing almost 200 watts in idle
    mode. Instead, I have an old 233Mz PII-class machine, stripped down to its
    bare essentials, consuming just under 30 watts on average.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  9. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    Richard Rasker writes:

    > JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-11-09, Hadron wrote:
    >>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Homer wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
    >>>>>>>> amicus_curious wrote:

    >> [deletia]
    >>>> Excuse me? What is the dishonesty here?
    >>>>
    >>>>> 27 year old washing machine? Dont you CARE about the environment?!?!?!?
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, I do. I repair stuff instead of throwing it in the bin. And I'm
    >>>> good at it.
    >>>
    >>> Oh dear me. You are clueless. Have you ANY idea how much more efficient
    >>> modern machines are?

    >>
    >> Do you? Really? Or are you just parroting other people's propaganda
    >> like you always do. What's the real environmental impact of tossing out
    >> an old machine that works perfectly well and replacing it with a new one?

    >
    > I already selected the old machine for efficiency, back in 1980. Also, I
    > always wash at 30 degrees (no dirty people here ;-), and save up laundry
    > until I have a maximum load.


    Sounds very Linuxy. You wash your underwear at 30 degrees? Yuck.

    This gets more amusing.

    Jebediah, go read this:

    Old washing machines wash less efficient and consume more
    resources

    http://mail.mtprog.com/CD_Layout/Day...nger_final.pdf

    And I quote:

    ,----
    | Assuming that a household washes 5 cycles per week in a new washing
    | machine, its washing will consume about 76 € annually at average German
    | rates for water (3.96 €/m3) [8] and electricity (0.1719 € / kWh) [9]
    | (tab. 4). Accordingly, a 15 year old washing machine would cost about
    | twice as much (150 €/year) and a 30 year old machine about four times as
    | much (250 €/year) in water and energy running costs when the same
    | program mix is used as in a new one . If the effect of degrading
    | performance of older washing machines is taken into account, these costs
    | would additionally increase by about 20% for 15 year old and by about
    | 40% for 30 year old machines.
    `----

    Dont miss the degrade additions.

    Rasker is, as usual, talking through his backside. He did it about his
    train journeys brandishing his 1980 Linux laptop, he did it when telling
    porkies about Linux outselling Windows at Amazon and he's doing it now
    out of pure ignorance and unwillingness to accept the fact that he was
    wrong. He was working on a false economy and, to his horror I daresay,
    been bad to the environment as well as to his wallet.



  10. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    JEDIDIAH wrote:

    >Hadron quacked:
    >>
    >> Oh dear me. You are clueless. Have you ANY idea how much more efficient
    >> modern machines are?

    >
    > Do you? Really? Or are you just parroting other people's propaganda
    >like you always do. What's the real environmental impact of tossing out
    >an old machine that works perfectly well and replacing it with a new one?


    The front-loading wash machines are much more efficient than are
    top-loaders, using substantially less water (and soap). They're not
    cheap, however...


  11. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    Hadron wrote:

    > Richard Rasker writes:
    >
    >> JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-11-09, Hadron wrote:
    >>>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Homer wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
    >>>>>>>>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>> [deletia]
    >>>>> Excuse me? What is the dishonesty here?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> 27 year old washing machine? Dont you CARE about the
    >>>>>> environment?!?!?!?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yes, I do. I repair stuff instead of throwing it in the bin. And I'm
    >>>>> good at it.
    >>>>
    >>>> Oh dear me. You are clueless. Have you ANY idea how much more efficient
    >>>> modern machines are?
    >>>
    >>> Do you? Really? Or are you just parroting other people's propaganda
    >>> like you always do. What's the real environmental impact of tossing out
    >>> an old machine that works perfectly well and replacing it with a new
    >>> one?

    >>
    >> I already selected the old machine for efficiency, back in 1980. Also, I
    >> always wash at 30 degrees (no dirty people here ;-), and save up laundry
    >> until I have a maximum load.

    >
    > Sounds very Linuxy. You wash your underwear at 30 degrees? Yuck.
    >
    > This gets more amusing.
    >
    > Jebediah, go read this:
    >
    > Old washing machines wash less efficient and consume more
    > resources
    >
    >

    http://mail.mtprog.com/CD_Layout/Day...nger_final.pdf
    >
    > And I quote:
    >
    > ,----
    > | Assuming that a household washes 5 cycles per week in a new washing
    > | machine, its washing will consume about 76 € annually at average German
    > | rates for water (3.96 €/m3) [8] and electricity (0.1719 € / kWh) [9]
    > | (tab. 4). Accordingly, a 15 year old washing machine would cost about
    > | twice as much (150 €/year) and a 30 year old machine about four times as
    > | much (250 €/year) in water and energy running costs when the same
    > | program mix is used as in a new one . If the effect of degrading
    > | performance of older washing machines is taken into account, these costs
    > | would additionally increase by about 20% for 15 year old and by about
    > | 40% for 30 year old machines.
    > `----
    >
    > Dont miss the degrade additions.
    >
    > Rasker is, as usual, talking through his backside. He did it about his
    > train journeys brandishing his 1980 Linux laptop, he did it when telling
    > porkies about Linux outselling Windows at Amazon and he's doing it now
    > out of pure ignorance and unwillingness to accept the fact that he was
    > wrong. He was working on a false economy and, to his horror I daresay,
    > been bad to the environment as well as to his wallet.


    Yeah sure. You have god-like powers of Truth-Finding, and Knowing of All
    Machines, Washing and Otherwise. Ah well, lucky me, as all religion is just
    unimportant hogwash to me :-)

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  12. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    Richard Rasker writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>
    >>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2008-11-09, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Homer wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
    >>>>>>>>>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>> [deletia]
    >>>>>> Excuse me? What is the dishonesty here?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> 27 year old washing machine? Dont you CARE about the
    >>>>>>> environment?!?!?!?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yes, I do. I repair stuff instead of throwing it in the bin. And I'm
    >>>>>> good at it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Oh dear me. You are clueless. Have you ANY idea how much more efficient
    >>>>> modern machines are?
    >>>>
    >>>> Do you? Really? Or are you just parroting other people's propaganda
    >>>> like you always do. What's the real environmental impact of tossing out
    >>>> an old machine that works perfectly well and replacing it with a new
    >>>> one?
    >>>
    >>> I already selected the old machine for efficiency, back in 1980. Also, I
    >>> always wash at 30 degrees (no dirty people here ;-), and save up laundry
    >>> until I have a maximum load.

    >>
    >> Sounds very Linuxy. You wash your underwear at 30 degrees? Yuck.
    >>
    >> This gets more amusing.
    >>
    >> Jebediah, go read this:
    >>
    >> Old washing machines wash less efficient and consume more
    >> resources
    >>
    >>

    > http://mail.mtprog.com/CD_Layout/Day...nger_final.pdf
    >>
    >> And I quote:
    >>
    >> ,----
    >> | Assuming that a household washes 5 cycles per week in a new washing
    >> | machine, its washing will consume about 76 € annually at average German
    >> | rates for water (3.96 €/m3) [8] and electricity (0.1719 € / kWh) [9]
    >> | (tab. 4). Accordingly, a 15 year old washing machine would cost about
    >> | twice as much (150 €/year) and a 30 year old machine about four times as
    >> | much (250 €/year) in water and energy running costs when the same
    >> | program mix is used as in a new one . If the effect of degrading
    >> | performance of older washing machines is taken into account, these costs
    >> | would additionally increase by about 20% for 15 year old and by about
    >> | 40% for 30 year old machines.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> Dont miss the degrade additions.
    >>
    >> Rasker is, as usual, talking through his backside. He did it about his
    >> train journeys brandishing his 1980 Linux laptop, he did it when telling
    >> porkies about Linux outselling Windows at Amazon and he's doing it now
    >> out of pure ignorance and unwillingness to accept the fact that he was
    >> wrong. He was working on a false economy and, to his horror I daresay,
    >> been bad to the environment as well as to his wallet.

    >
    > Yeah sure. You have god-like powers of Truth-Finding, and Knowing of All
    > Machines, Washing and Otherwise. Ah well, lucky me, as all religion is just
    > unimportant hogwash to me :-)


    Religion? You think that report was guess work? You are beginning to act
    like Liarnut. Just dismiss the truth and links to real information with
    a shrug of your shoulders and an "I dont believe you". I thought you had
    learnt your lesson in the Amazon threads.

    >
    > Richard Rasker


    Well, of course I do not think all washing machines are the same
    efficiency. But I do know, as you do now, that massive improvements have
    been made in efficiency in the past 30 years.


  13. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

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

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Sounds very Linuxy. You wash your underwear at 30 degrees? Yuck.
    >>
    >> This gets more amusing.
    >>
    >> Jebediah, go read this:
    >>
    >> Old washing machines wash less efficient and consume more
    >> resources
    >>

    > http://mail.mtprog.com/CD_Layout/Day...nger_final.pdf
    >>
    >> ,----
    >> | Assuming that a household washes 5 cycles per week in a new washing
    >> | machine, its washing will consume about 76 ? annually at average German
    >> | rates for water (3.96 ?/m3) [8] and electricity (0.1719 ? / kWh) [9]
    >> | (tab. 4). Accordingly, a 15 year old washing machine would cost about
    >> | twice as much (150 ?/year) and a 30 year old machine about four times as
    >> | much (250 ?/year) in water and energy running costs when the same
    >> | program mix is used as in a new one . If the effect of degrading
    >> | performance of older washing machines is taken into account, these costs
    >> | would additionally increase by about 20% for 15 year old and by about
    >> | 40% for 30 year old machines.
    >> `----
    >>
    >> Dont miss the degrade additions.
    >>
    >> Rasker is, as usual, talking through his backside. He did it about his
    >> train journeys brandishing his 1980 Linux laptop, he did it when telling
    >> porkies about Linux outselling Windows at Amazon and he's doing it now
    >> out of pure ignorance and unwillingness to accept the fact that he was
    >> wrong. He was working on a false economy and, to his horror I daresay,
    >> been bad to the environment as well as to his wallet.

    >
    > Yeah sure. You have god-like powers of Truth-Finding, and Knowing of All
    > Machines, Washing and Otherwise. Ah well, lucky me, as all religion is just
    > unimportant hogwash to me :-)


    Well, we can add "washing machines" to the list of Hadron's expertise. That
    is, we could, if he didn't just Google up an article and wave it around as
    if he knew something about the topic of washing machines and their
    environmental impact, from /construction/ through end-of-life.

    --
    Voter's Block:
    The attempt, however futile, to register dissent with the
    current political system by simply not voting.
    -- Douglas Coupland, "Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated
    Culture"

  14. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    Hadron wrote:

    > Richard Rasker writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>
    >>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2008-11-09, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Homer wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
    >>>>>>>>>>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>> [deletia]
    >>>>>>> Excuse me? What is the dishonesty here?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> 27 year old washing machine? Dont you CARE about the
    >>>>>>>> environment?!?!?!?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yes, I do. I repair stuff instead of throwing it in the bin. And I'm
    >>>>>>> good at it.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Oh dear me. You are clueless. Have you ANY idea how much more
    >>>>>> efficient modern machines are?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Do you? Really? Or are you just parroting other people's
    >>>>> propaganda
    >>>>> like you always do. What's the real environmental impact of tossing
    >>>>> out an old machine that works perfectly well and replacing it with a
    >>>>> new one?
    >>>>
    >>>> I already selected the old machine for efficiency, back in 1980. Also,
    >>>> I always wash at 30 degrees (no dirty people here ;-), and save up
    >>>> laundry until I have a maximum load.
    >>>
    >>> Sounds very Linuxy. You wash your underwear at 30 degrees? Yuck.
    >>>
    >>> This gets more amusing.
    >>>
    >>> Jebediah, go read this:
    >>>
    >>> Old washing machines wash less efficient and consume more
    >>> resources
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    http://mail.mtprog.com/CD_Layout/Day...nger_final.pdf
    >>>
    >>> And I quote:
    >>>
    >>> ,----
    >>> | Assuming that a household washes 5 cycles per week in a new washing
    >>> | machine, its washing will consume about 76 € annually at average
    >>> | German rates for water (3.96 €/m3) [8] and electricity (0.1719 € /
    >>> | kWh) [9] (tab. 4). Accordingly, a 15 year old washing machine would
    >>> | cost about twice as much (150 €/year) and a 30 year old machine about
    >>> | four times as much (250 €/year) in water and energy running costs when
    >>> | the same program mix is used as in a new one . If the effect of
    >>> | degrading performance of older washing machines is taken into account,
    >>> | these costs would additionally increase by about 20% for 15 year old
    >>> | and by about 40% for 30 year old machines.
    >>> `----
    >>>
    >>> Dont miss the degrade additions.
    >>>
    >>> Rasker is, as usual, talking through his backside. He did it about his
    >>> train journeys brandishing his 1980 Linux laptop, he did it when telling
    >>> porkies about Linux outselling Windows at Amazon and he's doing it now
    >>> out of pure ignorance and unwillingness to accept the fact that he was
    >>> wrong. He was working on a false economy and, to his horror I daresay,
    >>> been bad to the environment as well as to his wallet.

    >>
    >> Yeah sure. You have god-like powers of Truth-Finding, and Knowing of All
    >> Machines, Washing and Otherwise. Ah well, lucky me, as all religion is
    >> just unimportant hogwash to me :-)

    >
    > Religion? You think that report was guess work?


    No.

    > You are beginning to act like Liarnut. Just dismiss the truth and links to
    > real information with a shrug of your shoulders and an "I dont believe
    > you".


    You mean the way Wintrolls act?

    > I thought you had learnt your lesson in the Amazon threads.


    I thought you had learnt to distinguish between something called "a
    mistake", and something called "a lie". But it appears that in your book,
    admitting a mistake doesn't do anything except branding the one admitting
    the mistake as a "liar". Ah well, so much for your credibility.

    > Well, of course I do not think all washing machines are the same
    > efficiency. But I do know, as you do now, that massive improvements have
    > been made in efficiency in the past 30 years.


    And I never denied that fact. And oh, those German researchers you so gladly
    quote, well, they didn't take into account the manufacturing cost and
    replacement frequency of a new machine, in any way, and how that relates to
    their conclusion. Bad research. Bad maths. So in reality, all they can
    claim as a truth is that, yes, older machines are less efficient, depending
    on the brand, type, and age of the machine in question. But nothing
    definite can be said about people still using their 20 or 30 year old
    machines in any way, other than that it would be more efficient if that old
    machine /would have been/ a brand new one, energy-efficient and all. Duh.

    And oh again, you may want to note that in spite of all of this, I didn't
    lower myself to calling you a "liar" -- you were merely misinformed, and
    drew misguided conclusions. As can happen to anyone. Nor did I resort to
    inappropriate language in other ways, e.g. suggesting your utterances
    issued from any other body part except your brain.
    But then again, I'm afraid this courtesy is all wasted on someone like you.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  15. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    On 2008-11-11, Richard Rasker wrote:
    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2008-11-09, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Homer wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>>> [deletia]

    [deletia]
    >>>>>>> Oh dear me. You are clueless. Have you ANY idea how much more
    >>>>>>> efficient modern machines are?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Do you? Really? Or are you just parroting other people's
    >>>>>> propaganda
    >>>>>> like you always do. What's the real environmental impact of tossing
    >>>>>> out an old machine that works perfectly well and replacing it with a
    >>>>>> new one?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I already selected the old machine for efficiency, back in 1980. Also,
    >>>>> I always wash at 30 degrees (no dirty people here ;-), and save up
    >>>>> laundry until I have a maximum load.
    >>>>
    >>>> Sounds very Linuxy. You wash your underwear at 30 degrees? Yuck.
    >>>>
    >>>> This gets more amusing.
    >>>>
    >>>> Jebediah, go read this:
    >>>>
    >>>> Old washing machines wash less efficient and consume more
    >>>> resources


    ...that only addresses part of the issue.

    Like I said... parotting the propaganda of others.

    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    > http://mail.mtprog.com/CD_Layout/Day...nger_final.pdf
    >>>>
    >>>> And I quote:
    >>>>
    >>>> ,----
    >>>> | Assuming that a household washes 5 cycles per week in a new washing
    >>>> | machine, its washing will consume about 76 € annually at average
    >>>> | German rates for water (3.96 €/m3) [8] and electricity (0.1719 € /
    >>>> | kWh) [9] (tab. 4). Accordingly, a 15 year old washing machine would
    >>>> | cost about twice as much (150 €/year) and a 30 year old machine about
    >>>> | four times as much (250 €/year) in water and energy running costs when
    >>>> | the same program mix is used as in a new one . If the effect of
    >>>> | degrading performance of older washing machines is taken into account,
    >>>> | these costs would additionally increase by about 20% for 15 year old
    >>>> | and by about 40% for 30 year old machines.

    [deletia]

    Washing machines don't just pop out of the ether like a pirated
    copy of Windows or msoffice. They also don't magically go back into
    the ether the same way.

    --

    Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to
    your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens |||
    rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal / | \
    affairs, government and business.


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

  16. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    JEDIDIAH wrote:
    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>> Richard Rasker writes:
    >>>
    >>>> 27 year old washing machine? Dont you CARE about the
    >>>> environment?!?!?!?
    >>> Yes, I do. I repair stuff instead of throwing it in the
    >>> bin. And I'm good at it.

    >>
    >> Oh dear me. You are clueless. Have you ANY idea how much
    >> more efficient modern machines are?

    >
    > Do you? Really? Or are you just parroting other people's
    > propaganda like you always do. What's the real environmental
    > impact of tossing out an old machine that works perfectly well
    > and replacing it with a new one?
    >
    > Give us some actual numbers.


    Actually, the argument of a single instance of efficiency reminds
    me of an obese person who requests a diet soft drink with his
    apple pie ala mode, because they are on a diet.

    Overall energy efficiency has to do with one's overall lifestyle
    of usage. One may have the most efficient furnace, appliances,
    electronics, light bulbs, etc. These help with inherent
    efficiencies without altering living habits. However, if one
    leaves all the lights on in the house, doors and windows open and
    water running, will end up consuming more energy than a single
    instance of a washer that may use 40 to 50 gallons per wash
    versus a newer one at 18 gallons per wash and 20 percent more
    electricity.

    And nothing eliminates the possibility that Richard owns a 27 YO
    horizontal axis washer that uses 25 gallons per wash.

    >>> You're not making a lot of sense today.

    >>
    >> To you? I doubt it.

    >
    > Although it's probably not just the one single occurrence that
    > is the problem but rather the pattern of behaviour it
    > represents. Are you in the habit of tossing perfectly
    > functional durable goods on the scrap heap? Then you're
    > probably remarkably wasteful in other ways.


    That 27 YO washer is probably more durable than the newer
    washers. We bought a Maytag top of the line horizontal axis
    washer in 2001. It needed a serious repair with the electronics
    5 years later, that cost about 1/3rd of what we paid for.

    OTOH, our Norge vertical axis washer lasted 14 years and was
    still working, we left it with the house we sold. It broke a
    hose about 12 years out.

    This is like Linux. It works forever, runs stably, works well on
    older hardware, making it moe efficient because of the greater
    efficiency in the code over Microsoft. It doesn't need an
    extended service warranty (anti-virus programme).

    --
    HPT
    Quando omni flunkus moritati
    (If all else fails, play dead)
    - "Red" Green

  17. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

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

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >>> Yeah sure. You have god-like powers of Truth-Finding, and Knowing of All
    >>> Machines, Washing and Otherwise. Ah well, lucky me, as all religion is
    >>> just unimportant hogwash to me :-)

    >>
    >> Religion? You think that report was guess work?

    >
    > No.
    >
    >> You are beginning to act like Liarnut. Just dismiss the truth and links to
    >> real information with a shrug of your shoulders and an "I dont believe
    >> you".


    Bull****. Present some real information for a change.

    > You mean the way Wintrolls act?
    >
    >> I thought you had learnt your lesson in the Amazon threads.

    >
    > I thought you had learnt to distinguish between something called "a
    > mistake", and something called "a lie". But it appears that in your book,
    > admitting a mistake doesn't do anything except branding the one admitting
    > the mistake as a "liar". Ah well, so much for your credibility.
    >
    >> Well, of course I do not think all washing machines are the same
    >> efficiency. But I do know, as you do now, that massive improvements have
    >> been made in efficiency in the past 30 years.

    >
    > And I never denied that fact. And oh, those German researchers you so gladly
    > quote, well, they didn't take into account the manufacturing cost and
    > replacement frequency of a new machine, in any way, and how that relates to
    > their conclusion. Bad research. Bad maths. So in reality, all they can
    > claim as a truth is that, yes, older machines are less efficient, depending
    > on the brand, type, and age of the machine in question. But nothing
    > definite can be said about people still using their 20 or 30 year old
    > machines in any way, other than that it would be more efficient if that old
    > machine /would have been/ a brand new one, energy-efficient and all. Duh.


    I found a PDF by some Japanese researches that went into it more deeply,
    full-life cycle, and including the effects on things like lead exposure.
    But even the conclusion had too much jargon (e.g. LAC) for my little brain
    to grok.

    > And oh again, you may want to note that in spite of all of this, I didn't
    > lower myself to calling you a "liar" -- you were merely misinformed, and
    > drew misguided conclusions. As can happen to anyone. Nor did I resort to
    > inappropriate language in other ways, e.g. suggesting your utterances
    > issued from any other body part except your brain.
    > But then again, I'm afraid this courtesy is all wasted on someone like you.


    Ya think?



    Look, Hadron is a troll. He'll stretch however much he has to in order to
    put you down. That's his job, that's what he does.

    --
    > If you don't need X then little VT-100 terminals are available for real
    > cheap. Should be able to find decent ones used for around $40 each.
    > For that price, they're a must for the kitchen, den, bathrooms, etc..

    You're right. Can you explain this to my wife?
    -- Seen on c.o.l.development.system, on the subject of extra terminals

  18. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:59:08 -0600, chrisv wrote:

    > JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >
    >>Hadron quacked:
    >>>
    >>> Oh dear me. You are clueless. Have you ANY idea how much more
    >>> efficient modern machines are?

    >>
    >> Do you? Really? Or are you just parroting other people's propaganda
    >>like you always do. What's the real environmental impact of tossing out
    >>an old machine that works perfectly well and replacing it with a new
    >>one?

    >
    > The front-loading wash machines are much more efficient than are
    > top-loaders, using substantially less water (and soap). They're not
    > cheap, however...


    True.

    I've just bought a new LG 1000rpm (tub) front loader, paid for 100% by
    the profits of my WiFi business that runs 100% on Linux.

    Not a bad machine, nice and quiet.


    --
    If we wish to reduce our ignorance, there are people we will
    indeed listen to. Trolls are not among those people, as trolls, more or
    less by definition, *promote* ignorance.
    Kelsey Bjarnason, C.O.L.A. 2008

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