On Aug 15, 6:25 pm, proteanthread wrote:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...80809033233244

>
> put this article from Law.com's Legal Technology page, "Commentary:
> The Penguin Doesn't Fly, Avoid Linux" in News Picks because I found it
> hilarious, in the Rob Enderle kind of way. But then I thought I'd look
> up the author on Google, and lo and behold, I find he said something
> that appears to be not exactly true. I'm not talking about the FUD
> stuff. I'm talking about his assertion that he couldn't get any
> answers to a request for help from Mandriva Forum:
> And, Linux proponents claim that if there is any kind of problem, or a
> viral threat or other OS disaster, there is an army of Linux
> programmers standing by to remedy the situation.

Postig of a really ignorant WinTroll.

> But these claims do not reflect my experience. I tried to install
> Puppy Linux without success --

Puppy Linux was designed for the OLPC project, was designed to be
preinstalled, and works fine on the machine it was designed for.

There are planty of commercially supported Linux distributions, many
of whom depend on the good will based on their support of their
customers. SUSE, RHEL, Linspire, and Ubuntu/Cononical are good
examples.

> and my e-mails to the developers were ignored.

Not so surprising. New Linux users should purchase supported copies
of Linux if they don't have at least one or two friends who have used
Linux before. If you go to a community event, church, or much of any
other gatherings and ask "Does anybody know anythig about Linux" there
will be about 1 in 10 who would be happy to star that conversation
with you.

> Ark Linux developers could not explain why my computer’s Wi-
> Fi card didn’t work.

Perhaps you had an Atheros A/B/G/N card. This has been a problem for
Mac, Thinkpad, and Sony users. Atheros claimed that support would be
available by march of 2007, but binary-only drivers for Linux weren't
released until early 2008. Ironically, much of the module
configuration for the drivers had to be rewritten by an OSS
development group because the one guy who worked on the HAL driver
configurations was too busy tryig to fix problems in Vista and
problems caused by security fixes to XP.

> The Ubuntu forum could not explain why a DVD
> player would not eject.

A bit difficult to diagnose over the phone. Sticking a paper clip in
the little hole should help you determine whether the latch is working
properly. Ubuntu won't let you eject the CD or DVD if you have a
program that has opened the directory or a file on that directory/
device. This was done to keep from doing horrible things to
applications because some administrator tried to eject the CD or DVD
on a server while they were in the middle of running a program that
was interacting with a read/write file on the hard drive, such as
installation of software.

Make sure that you have nothing open on the DVD drive before you try
to eject it.

> The Mandriva support site did not respond to
> queries at all.

They will respond if you purchase a copy or license and register your
license. But they probably just laughed when you started asking them
about your puppy dog linux installation.

This is much like asking a heart surgeon about a wart on your foot.
It isn't his specialty, and he wouldn't want to give you advice
because he doesn't want to get sued later on. Instead, he gives you
the name of a qualified foot doctor and tells you to see him as soon
as possible.

>
>
> and the original article:
>
> http://legaltech.law.com/commentary-the-penguin-do.html
>
>
> Linux fans begin with this claim -- that freeware costs nothing. Next,
> that it is quicker, more flexible, more customizable and more
> resilient to crashes and headaches inherent to Windows, while less
> subject to attack, identity theft, adware, spyware and malware. And,
> that new life can be wrung from old computers staggering under the
> burden that Windows necessarily inflicts on them.
>
> Linux and freeware proponents also maintain that a free operating
> system and free software comes without the ethical and legal
> conundrums associated with Microsoft’s business practices. For
> example: preventing computer manufacturers from installing competing
> operating systems and software on new computers; providing OS upgrades
> that alter and/or nullify existing programs; and failing to provide
> sufficient information to allow competing free software distributors
> to inter-operate their wares with Windows.
>

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:46:55 -0700, Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:


> Lawyers do not like to re-learn things.

how to click on the "firefox" icon? The intricacies of a word processor?

> To do the same thing, a
> different way, is nuts to them.
>
> They also do not want to sit and figure out linux.


Well, all we need is one example to disprove that bigotry.


-Thufir

On Aug 15, 7:44*pm, thufir wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:46:55 -0700, Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
> > Lawyers do not like to re-learn things.
>
> how to click on the "firefox" icon? *The intricacies of a word processor?

You assume it is already set up and working.
Do you really think they know what an ISO is?

I am shocked by how may linux geeks things
the world knows all the geek stuff required
to get linux running and keep it running.

We have not even gotten into the Billing System,
which runs on MS. You really t hink he is gonna
mess with Wine or something like that?

I was married to a lawyer, and wrote legal software,
and what you say is not the way it is in a law office.

Maybe work there for a while.

>
> > To do the same thing, a
> > different way, is nuts to them.
>
> > They also do not want to sit and figure out linux.
>
> Well, all we need is one example to disprove that bigotry.
>
> -Thufir

Rex Ballard wrote:

> Fsckwit wrote:
>>
>> Lawyers do not like to re-learn things. To do the same thing, a
>> different way, is nuts to them.
>
> That's not necessarily true. Lots of lawyers get a sports car, and hawe
> to make the transition from automatic transmission to 5 speed stick
> shift. If they see value and satisfaction in it, they will do it.

Ask the fsckwit this:

Is it *really* his position that once one learns the nuances of a certain
OS, that, FOR THE REST OF ONE'S LIFE, it would not be worth the effort to
learn the somewhat different nuances of a different OS?

Remind the fsckwit that, even if one stayed with M$, learning new ways of
doing things is required.

Remind the fsckwit that a lifetime is a long time, with, hopefully, new
things being learned all the time.

Remind the fsckwit that people spend YEARS being educated and trained to
become proficient in what they do in their professional lives.

What is the effort required to learn to use Linux, compared with the
effort of Law School? Do professionals not go on seminars to learn new
things? Is learning a new, potentially-valuable skill RULED OUT because
because, well, it's "nuts" to learn a different way of doing things?

Does the fsckwit realize how incredibly God-damned STUPID he looks?
Professionals are ALWAYS needing to learn new things. Smart, competitive
businesses are ALWAYS rethinking their methods and training their
people.

Things change. Technology and methods change. The world is not standing-
still so that people can do things "the same way" their entire lives!

thufir wrote:

> fsckwit wrote:
>
>> Lawyers do not like to re-learn things.
>
> how to click on the "firefox" icon? The intricacies of a word
> processor?

Exactly. Professionals have IT people to do "the dirty work" of setup
and configuration. Actually using the computer is then point-and-click
easy, as we all know.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:25:17 -0700 (PDT), proteanthread wrote:

> Linux fans begin with this claim -- that freeware costs nothing.

See, that proves they are brilliant.
--
http://www.bushflash.com/idiot.html

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 08:37:08 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> thufir wrote:
>
>> fsckwit wrote:
>>
>>> Lawyers do not like to re-learn things.
>>
>> how to click on the "firefox" icon? The intricacies of a word
>> processor?
>
> Exactly. Professionals have IT people to do "the dirty work" of setup
> and configuration. Actually using the computer is then point-and-click
> easy, as we all know.


There was a point raised about billing systems, but as I think about
that, aren't they going to be server based? I dunno.


-Thufir

On 2008-08-16, Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
> On Aug 15, 7:44*pm, thufir wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:46:55 -0700, Psyc Geek (TAB) wrote:
>> > Lawyers do not like to re-learn things.
>>
>> how to click on the "firefox" icon? *The intricacies of a word processor?
>
> You assume it is already set up and working.
> Do you really think they know what an ISO is?

It's really not a problem under Linux. Why should it be
harder under Windows? I mean, the GUI technology necessary
to make this seamless existed with the 1985 version of GEM
that the Atari ST used.

Nevermind Linux CDs what about disk images for MCE?

>
> I am shocked by how may linux geeks things
> the world knows all the geek stuff required
> to get linux running and keep it running.

Same goes for Windows.

Although this is just part of the "big lie" anyways.

Ubuntu is not hard. You can even try it just by booting
the DVD if you like. You don't even have to risk changing your
system.

Or you could just buy something pre-configured.

>
> We have not even gotten into the Billing System,
> which runs on MS. You really t hink he is gonna
> mess with Wine or something like that?

Vertical apps are another matter entirely.

The only valid point in his entire obviously biased rant.

>
> I was married to a lawyer, and wrote legal software,
> and what you say is not the way it is in a law office.
>
> Maybe work there for a while.

Big fat liar.

The older lawyers don't even touch the computers. Someone who
graduated when this guy did probably fits into that category.

[deletia]

--
Sophocles wants his cut. |||
/ | \

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

On 2008-08-16, thufir wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 08:37:08 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>
>> thufir wrote:
>>
>>> fsckwit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawyers do not like to re-learn things.
>>>
>>> how to click on the "firefox" icon? The intricacies of a word
>>> processor?
>>
>> Exactly. Professionals have IT people to do "the dirty work" of setup
>> and configuration. Actually using the computer is then point-and-click
>> easy, as we all know.
>
>
> There was a point raised about billing systems, but as I think about
> that, aren't they going to be server based? I dunno.

There's going to be a desktop client probably.

Think Lotus Notes.

Groupwise is big in some law firms.

--
Sophocles wants his cut. |||
/ | \

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

"Rex Ballard" wrote in message
news:828444f7-4646-42e3-88ca-2135068f0120@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 15, 6:25 pm, proteanthread wrote:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...80809033233244

> Postig of a really ignorant WinTroll.

We'll see in a few seconds who the ignorant one is.



>> But these claims do not reflect my experience. I tried to install
>> Puppy Linux without success --
>
>Puppy Linux was designed for the OLPC project, was designed to be
>preinstalled, and works fine on the machine it was designed for.


Puppy linux version 0.1 was released by Barry Kauler on June 18, 2003.
Both the OLPC project and organization were first announced at the World
Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January 2005.


But sure Rex.... Puppy Linux was designed for the OLPC which was announced
two years later.

Any more "stories" that you'd like to share with us? How about the one
where you invented the web-browser, or where you invented Java or where you
invented SSL or where Martin Marietta broke into your high school locker to
steal plans for a military weapon.








** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:47:08 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> "Rex Ballard" wrote in message
> news:828444f7-4646-42e3-88ca-2135068f0120@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 15, 6:25 pm, proteanthread wrote:
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...80809033233244
>
>> Postig of a really ignorant WinTroll.
>
> We'll see in a few seconds who the ignorant one is.
>
>
>
>>> But these claims do not reflect my experience. I tried to install
>>> Puppy Linux without success --
>>
>>Puppy Linux was designed for the OLPC project, was designed to be
>>preinstalled, and works fine on the machine it was designed for.
>
>
> Puppy linux version 0.1 was released by Barry Kauler on June 18, 2003.
> Both the OLPC project and organization were first announced at the World
> Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January 2005.
>
>
> But sure Rex.... Puppy Linux was designed for the OLPC which was announced
> two years later.
>
> Any more "stories" that you'd like to share with us? How about the one
> where you invented the web-browser, or where you invented Java or where you
> invented SSL or where Martin Marietta broke into your high school locker to
> steal plans for a military weapon.

Rex is on a roll!

Tell me the one about "RMS and the Three Compilers" Rex
Please!
That's my all time fav!!
I'll be good and drink my milk and go right to sleep!



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

Linux is free. Lawyers don't like that.

nospamatall wrote:
> Linux is free. Lawyers don't like that.

Lawyers are just WILD about the concept of free... free for them.

* § peremptorily fired off this memo:

> Lawyers are just WILD about the concept of free... free for them.

Say, how do you pronounce your name?

--
There is a natural hootchy-kootchy to a goldfish.
-- Walt Disney

Linonut wrote:

>* § peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Lawyers are just WILD about the concept of free... free for them.
>
>Say, how do you pronounce your name?

"Idiot"

chrisv wrote:
> Linonut wrote:
>
>> * § peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> Lawyers are just WILD about the concept of free... free for them.
>> Say, how do you pronounce your name?
>
> "Idiot"
>

So chrisv, your a lawyer?