John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:38:58 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> --

 

>>>> Alias

 

>>>

 

>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>

 

>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>

 

>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>

 

>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with

 

>> Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with

 

>> Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and

 

>> DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows

 

>> has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>

 

> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed".

 

 

 

Mine does.

 

 

> And I have used your

 

> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you

 

> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

 

 

 

Not how it works so you're obviously lying about having installed Ubuntu

 

but what else is new?

 

 

>

 

> Yes, Linux includes a security feature called selinux, which was added

 

> at US government direction in order for Linux to be acceptable for

 

> government use. Windows is acceptable as it is. Lie #2

 

 

 

I don't recall having mentioned the government (I assume you mean US).

 

 

>

 

> Boot time is faster - that is undoubtedly the most fatuous argument I

 

> have heard for selecting an operating system. If that is really of

 

> interest try DOS. - lie #3

 

 

 

I said boot time is faster than XP, Vista and 7. You're weaseling around

 

again and being facetious.

 

 

>

 

> You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost

 

> exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in

 

> Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom

 

> of the screen - lie #4

 

 

 

Not the same thing.

 

 

>

 

> Cost - well yes, they give away the cheaper versions of Linux however

 

> price what are called the "enterprise versions" as the last time I

 

> checked that are more costly then Windows and they do not include free

 

> up dates - lie #5

 

 

 

We weren't discussing enterprise editions.

 

 

>

 

> Linux may very well burn CD's quickly but it sure does produce a lot

 

> of failed CD's. Mush of its speed comes from a failure to do proper

 

> checking of either the data or the process. lie #6

 

 

 

All my burns not only burned faster but were perfectly done. Course, as

 

you have admitted (above) that you've never installed Ubuntu, it figures

 

you wouldn't know squat.

 

 

>

 

> Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1

 

 

 

It is for now. Ubuntu and Mint now have 3D games.

 

 

>

 

> So at the end of the day you lied either directly or by innuendo 6

 

> times and told the truth once. I compliment you, a splendid record!

 

 

 

Course you had to lie to fabricate that I lied.

 

>

 

> Hooray for Alias - he once told the truth.

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

Fuck off, kid.

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:38:58 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> --

 

>>>> Alias

 

>>>

 

>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>

 

>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>

 

>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>

 

>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with

 

>> Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with

 

>> Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and

 

>> DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows

 

>> has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>

 

> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed".

 

 

 

Mine does.

 

 

> And I have used your

 

> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you

 

> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

 

 

 

Not how it works so you're obviously lying about having installed Ubuntu

 

but what else is new?

 

 

>

 

> Yes, Linux includes a security feature called selinux, which was added

 

> at US government direction in order for Linux to be acceptable for

 

> government use. Windows is acceptable as it is. Lie #2

 

 

 

I don't recall having mentioned the government (I assume you mean US).

 

 

>

 

> Boot time is faster - that is undoubtedly the most fatuous argument I

 

> have heard for selecting an operating system. If that is really of

 

> interest try DOS. - lie #3

 

 

 

I said boot time is faster than XP, Vista and 7. You're weaseling around

 

again and being facetious.

 

 

>

 

> You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost

 

> exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in

 

> Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom

 

> of the screen - lie #4

 

 

 

Not the same thing.

 

 

>

 

> Cost - well yes, they give away the cheaper versions of Linux however

 

> price what are called the "enterprise versions" as the last time I

 

> checked that are more costly then Windows and they do not include free

 

> up dates - lie #5

 

 

 

We weren't discussing enterprise editions.

 

 

>

 

> Linux may very well burn CD's quickly but it sure does produce a lot

 

> of failed CD's. Mush of its speed comes from a failure to do proper

 

> checking of either the data or the process. lie #6

 

 

 

All my burns not only burned faster but were perfectly done. Course, as

 

you have admitted (above) that you've never installed Ubuntu, it figures

 

you wouldn't know squat.

 

 

>

 

> Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1

 

 

 

It is for now. Ubuntu and Mint now have 3D games.

 

 

>

 

> So at the end of the day you lied either directly or by innuendo 6

 

> times and told the truth once. I compliment you, a splendid record!

 

 

 

Course you had to lie to fabricate that I lied.

 

>

 

> Hooray for Alias - he once told the truth.

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

Fuck off, kid.

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:28:56 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>

 

>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but you're

 

>> too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>

 

>

 

> For the average PC user disk access time is meaningless. For the

 

> server farmer it is a very critical factor.

 

>

 

> Having said that, I think it bears mentioning that you have repeatedly

 

> stated that you are preaching to the average PC user.

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

Opinions, opinions, opinions.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:28:56 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>

 

>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but you're

 

>> too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>

 

>

 

> For the average PC user disk access time is meaningless. For the

 

> server farmer it is a very critical factor.

 

>

 

> Having said that, I think it bears mentioning that you have repeatedly

 

> stated that you are preaching to the average PC user.

 

>

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

Opinions, opinions, opinions.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

 

>

 

> You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost

 

> exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in

 

> Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom

 

> of the screen - lie #4

 

 

 

If you want to pay for a third party app, sorta:

 

 

 

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/get-the-berylubuntu-desktop-cube-effect-for-windows/

 

 

 

From the article:

 

 

 

"If you are jealous of your geeky linux friends that have Beryl running

 

under linux, you should check out Yod’m 3D, a small application for

 

Windows XP / Vista that will give you a decent substitute for the

 

“Desktop Cube†effect."

 

 

 

LOL! Too bad the author is a clueless as John Slowcome and thinks that

 

Ubuntu still uses Beryl.

 

--

 

Alias

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

 

>

 

> You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost

 

> exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in

 

> Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom

 

> of the screen - lie #4

 

 

 

If you want to pay for a third party app, sorta:

 

 

 

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/get-the-berylubuntu-desktop-cube-effect-for-windows/

 

 

 

From the article:

 

 

 

"If you are jealous of your geeky linux friends that have Beryl running

 

under linux, you should check out Yod’m 3D, a small application for

 

Windows XP / Vista that will give you a decent substitute for the

 

“Desktop Cube†effect."

 

 

 

LOL! Too bad the author is a clueless as John Slowcome and thinks that

 

Ubuntu still uses Beryl.

 

--

 

Alias

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:05:45 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

>John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:38:58 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> --

 

>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>

 

>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>

 

>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>

 

>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>

 

>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with

 

>>> Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with

 

>>> Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and

 

>>> DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows

 

>>> has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>

 

>> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed".

 

>

 

>Mine does.

 

>

 

>> And I have used your

 

>> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you

 

>> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

 

>

 

>Not how it works so you're obviously lying about having installed Ubuntu

 

>but what else is new?

 

 

 

 

 

That is what I just said - that Ubuntu does not pop up a message and

 

tell you how fast it just transferred that file.

 

 

 

If it does, then please give some examples, references or other means

 

of us knowing what you are talking about.

 

 

>>

 

>> Yes, Linux includes a security feature called selinux, which was added

 

>> at US government direction in order for Linux to be acceptable for

 

>> government use. Windows is acceptable as it is. Lie #2

 

>

 

>I don't recall having mentioned the government (I assume you mean US).

 

>\

 

 

 

You probably didn't know how SELINUX came to be added to Linux. I just

 

told you - it was done because the US government refused to certify

 

Linux for use in government installations without it..

 

 

>>

 

>> Boot time is faster - that is undoubtedly the most fatuous argument I

 

>> have heard for selecting an operating system. If that is really of

 

>> interest try DOS. - lie #3

 

>

 

>I said boot time is faster than XP, Vista and 7. You're weaseling around

 

>again and being facetious.

 

 

 

 

 

Specifically you said, "Another is boot time which is much quicker

 

with Linux" and I don't see the words "vista, XP or 7" in that

 

sentence.

 

 

 

And I said that it that it was a fatuous argument. Unless you are one

 

of these people who keep switching the machine on and off. Just leave

 

it on.

 

 

>>

 

>> You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost

 

>> exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in

 

>> Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom

 

>> of the screen - lie #4

 

>

 

>Not the same thing.

 

 

 

Then tell us what is the difference?

 

 

>>

 

>> Cost - well yes, they give away the cheaper versions of Linux however

 

>> price what are called the "enterprise versions" as the last time I

 

>> checked that are more costly then Windows and they do not include free

 

>> up dates - lie #5

 

>

 

>We weren't discussing enterprise editions.

 

 

 

Well, put it this way then - if you want a real bullet proof version

 

of Linux go to Redhat or Suse enterprice versions. If you want the

 

latest cutting edge that likely will develop problems then take the

 

free stuff - you'll be running stuff that the company have released to

 

see whether it works or not.

 

 

>>

 

>> Linux may very well burn CD's quickly but it sure does produce a lot

 

>> of failed CD's. Mush of its speed comes from a failure to do proper

 

>> checking of either the data or the process. lie #6

 

>

 

>All my burns not only burned faster but were perfectly done. Course, as

 

>you have admitted (above) that you've never installed Ubuntu, it figures

 

>you wouldn't know squat.

 

>

 

Of course I have installed Ubuntu - how else would I know that it is

 

the newbee's wet dream?

 

 

 

 

>>

 

>> Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1

 

>

 

>It is for now. Ubuntu and Mint now have 3D games.

 

 

 

True, but can they run any of the popular games? Try booting up Spore

 

or My Sims, two of my grand kids favorites.

 

 

>

 

>>

 

>> So at the end of the day you lied either directly or by innuendo 6

 

>> times and told the truth once. I compliment you, a splendid record!

 

>

 

>Course you had to lie to fabricate that I lied.

 

>>

 

>> Hooray for Alias - he once told the truth.

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

>Fuck off, kid.

 

 

 

 

 

You see, you aren't even able to defend your own statements - you

 

can't say that in Ubuntu click on this and that to give =you a up to

 

date report of speed of transferring files. You can't qualify any of

 

your assertions, you just stand in the school yard shouting "yo mama

 

wears army boots!"

 

 

 

John B. Slocomb

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:05:45 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

>John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:38:58 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> --

 

>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>

 

>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>

 

>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>

 

>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>

 

>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with

 

>>> Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with

 

>>> Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and

 

>>> DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows

 

>>> has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>

 

>> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed".

 

>

 

>Mine does.

 

>

 

>> And I have used your

 

>> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you

 

>> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

 

>

 

>Not how it works so you're obviously lying about having installed Ubuntu

 

>but what else is new?

 

 

 

 

 

That is what I just said - that Ubuntu does not pop up a message and

 

tell you how fast it just transferred that file.

 

 

 

If it does, then please give some examples, references or other means

 

of us knowing what you are talking about.

 

 

>>

 

>> Yes, Linux includes a security feature called selinux, which was added

 

>> at US government direction in order for Linux to be acceptable for

 

>> government use. Windows is acceptable as it is. Lie #2

 

>

 

>I don't recall having mentioned the government (I assume you mean US).

 

>\

 

 

 

You probably didn't know how SELINUX came to be added to Linux. I just

 

told you - it was done because the US government refused to certify

 

Linux for use in government installations without it..

 

 

>>

 

>> Boot time is faster - that is undoubtedly the most fatuous argument I

 

>> have heard for selecting an operating system. If that is really of

 

>> interest try DOS. - lie #3

 

>

 

>I said boot time is faster than XP, Vista and 7. You're weaseling around

 

>again and being facetious.

 

 

 

 

 

Specifically you said, "Another is boot time which is much quicker

 

with Linux" and I don't see the words "vista, XP or 7" in that

 

sentence.

 

 

 

And I said that it that it was a fatuous argument. Unless you are one

 

of these people who keep switching the machine on and off. Just leave

 

it on.

 

 

>>

 

>> You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost

 

>> exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in

 

>> Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom

 

>> of the screen - lie #4

 

>

 

>Not the same thing.

 

 

 

Then tell us what is the difference?

 

 

>>

 

>> Cost - well yes, they give away the cheaper versions of Linux however

 

>> price what are called the "enterprise versions" as the last time I

 

>> checked that are more costly then Windows and they do not include free

 

>> up dates - lie #5

 

>

 

>We weren't discussing enterprise editions.

 

 

 

Well, put it this way then - if you want a real bullet proof version

 

of Linux go to Redhat or Suse enterprice versions. If you want the

 

latest cutting edge that likely will develop problems then take the

 

free stuff - you'll be running stuff that the company have released to

 

see whether it works or not.

 

 

>>

 

>> Linux may very well burn CD's quickly but it sure does produce a lot

 

>> of failed CD's. Mush of its speed comes from a failure to do proper

 

>> checking of either the data or the process. lie #6

 

>

 

>All my burns not only burned faster but were perfectly done. Course, as

 

>you have admitted (above) that you've never installed Ubuntu, it figures

 

>you wouldn't know squat.

 

>

 

Of course I have installed Ubuntu - how else would I know that it is

 

the newbee's wet dream?

 

 

 

 

>>

 

>> Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1

 

>

 

>It is for now. Ubuntu and Mint now have 3D games.

 

 

 

True, but can they run any of the popular games? Try booting up Spore

 

or My Sims, two of my grand kids favorites.

 

 

>

 

>>

 

>> So at the end of the day you lied either directly or by innuendo 6

 

>> times and told the truth once. I compliment you, a splendid record!

 

>

 

>Course you had to lie to fabricate that I lied.

 

>>

 

>> Hooray for Alias - he once told the truth.

 

>>

 

>> John B. Slocomb

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

>Fuck off, kid.

 

 

 

 

 

You see, you aren't even able to defend your own statements - you

 

can't say that in Ubuntu click on this and that to give =you a up to

 

date report of speed of transferring files. You can't qualify any of

 

your assertions, you just stand in the school yard shouting "yo mama

 

wears army boots!"

 

 

 

John B. Slocomb

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:05:45 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:38:58 +0200, Alias

 

>>> wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with

 

>>>> Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with

 

>>>> Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and

 

>>>> DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows

 

>>>> has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>

 

>>> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed".

 

>>

 

>> Mine does.

 

>>

 

>>> And I have used your

 

>>> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you

 

>>> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

 

>>

 

>> Not how it works so you're obviously lying about having installed Ubuntu

 

>> but what else is new?

 

>

 

>

 

> That is what I just said - that Ubuntu does not pop up a message and

 

> tell you how fast it just transferred that file.

 

 

 

No, it doesn't but if you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu,

 

you would know how it does tell you.

 

 

>

 

> If it does, then please give some examples, references or other means

 

> of us knowing what you are talking about.

 

 

 

If you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu, you would know how

 

it tells you the speed. It's bloody fucking obvious.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> Yes, Linux includes a security feature called selinux, which was added

 

>>> at US government direction in order for Linux to be acceptable for

 

>>> government use. Windows is acceptable as it is. Lie #2

 

>>

 

>> I don't recall having mentioned the government (I assume you mean US).

 

>> \

 

>

 

> You probably didn't know how SELINUX came to be added to Linux. I just

 

> told you - it was done because the US government refused to certify

 

> Linux for use in government installations without it..

 

 

 

So?

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> Boot time is faster - that is undoubtedly the most fatuous argument I

 

>>> have heard for selecting an operating system. If that is really of

 

>>> interest try DOS. - lie #3

 

>>

 

>> I said boot time is faster than XP, Vista and 7. You're weaseling around

 

>> again and being facetious.

 

>

 

>

 

> Specifically you said, "Another is boot time which is much quicker

 

> with Linux" and I don't see the words "vista, XP or 7" in that

 

> sentence.

 

 

 

How many people do you know that run a pre XP Windows, Mr. Picky Picky?

 

 

>

 

> And I said that it that it was a fatuous argument. Unless you are one

 

> of these people who keep switching the machine on and off. Just leave

 

> it on.

 

 

 

I turn off all my machines at night. By so doing I save on the wear and

 

tear of the machines and energy. Also, a number of machines are dual or

 

triple boot.

 

 

 

 

>>>

 

>>> You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost

 

>>> exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in

 

>>> Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom

 

>>> of the screen - lie #4

 

>>

 

>> Not the same thing.

 

>

 

> Then tell us what is the difference?

 

 

 

Windows 7 doesn't come with that feature. You gotta pay 25 bucks for a

 

third party program.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> Cost - well yes, they give away the cheaper versions of Linux however

 

>>> price what are called the "enterprise versions" as the last time I

 

>>> checked that are more costly then Windows and they do not include free

 

>>> up dates - lie #5

 

>>

 

>> We weren't discussing enterprise editions.

 

>

 

> Well, put it this way then - if you want a real bullet proof version

 

> of Linux go to Redhat or Suse enterprice versions. If you want the

 

> latest cutting edge that likely will develop problems then take the

 

> free stuff - you'll be running stuff that the company have released to

 

> see whether it works or not.

 

 

 

That would be and version of Windows before SP2. The LTS versions of

 

Ubuntu are much more stable than Windows, even with an SP3.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> Linux may very well burn CD's quickly but it sure does produce a lot

 

>>> of failed CD's. Mush of its speed comes from a failure to do proper

 

>>> checking of either the data or the process. lie #6

 

>>

 

>> All my burns not only burned faster but were perfectly done. Course, as

 

>> you have admitted (above) that you've never installed Ubuntu, it figures

 

>> you wouldn't know squat.

 

>>

 

> Of course I have installed Ubuntu - how else would I know that it is

 

> the newbee's wet dream?

 

 

 

If so, you would know by now how Ubuntu tells you the speed of file

 

transfers and you can't so I don't believe you.

 

 

>

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1

 

>>

 

>> It is for now. Ubuntu and Mint now have 3D games.

 

>

 

> True, but can they run any of the popular games? Try booting up Spore

 

> or My Sims, two of my grand kids favorites.

 

 

 

You let your grand kids play My Sims? LOL!

 

 

>

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> So at the end of the day you lied either directly or by innuendo 6

 

>>> times and told the truth once. I compliment you, a splendid record!

 

>>

 

>> Course you had to lie to fabricate that I lied.

 

>>>

 

>>> Hooray for Alias - he once told the truth.

 

>>>

 

>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>

 

>> Fuck off, kid.

 

>

 

>

 

> You see, you aren't even able to defend your own statements - you

 

> can't say that in Ubuntu click on this and that to give =you a up to

 

> date report of speed of transferring files.

 

 

 

No, I didn't.

 

 

> You can't qualify any of

 

> your assertions,

 

 

 

Install Ubuntu. Transfer a file. Be attentive.

 

 

> you just stand in the school yard shouting "yo mama

 

> wears army boots!"

 

 

 

Projecting again, eh?

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:05:45 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:38:58 +0200, Alias

 

>>> wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with

 

>>>> Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with

 

>>>> Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and

 

>>>> DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows

 

>>>> has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>

 

>>> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed".

 

>>

 

>> Mine does.

 

>>

 

>>> And I have used your

 

>>> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you

 

>>> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

 

>>

 

>> Not how it works so you're obviously lying about having installed Ubuntu

 

>> but what else is new?

 

>

 

>

 

> That is what I just said - that Ubuntu does not pop up a message and

 

> tell you how fast it just transferred that file.

 

 

 

No, it doesn't but if you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu,

 

you would know how it does tell you.

 

 

>

 

> If it does, then please give some examples, references or other means

 

> of us knowing what you are talking about.

 

 

 

If you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu, you would know how

 

it tells you the speed. It's bloody fucking obvious.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> Yes, Linux includes a security feature called selinux, which was added

 

>>> at US government direction in order for Linux to be acceptable for

 

>>> government use. Windows is acceptable as it is. Lie #2

 

>>

 

>> I don't recall having mentioned the government (I assume you mean US).

 

>> \

 

>

 

> You probably didn't know how SELINUX came to be added to Linux. I just

 

> told you - it was done because the US government refused to certify

 

> Linux for use in government installations without it..

 

 

 

So?

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> Boot time is faster - that is undoubtedly the most fatuous argument I

 

>>> have heard for selecting an operating system. If that is really of

 

>>> interest try DOS. - lie #3

 

>>

 

>> I said boot time is faster than XP, Vista and 7. You're weaseling around

 

>> again and being facetious.

 

>

 

>

 

> Specifically you said, "Another is boot time which is much quicker

 

> with Linux" and I don't see the words "vista, XP or 7" in that

 

> sentence.

 

 

 

How many people do you know that run a pre XP Windows, Mr. Picky Picky?

 

 

>

 

> And I said that it that it was a fatuous argument. Unless you are one

 

> of these people who keep switching the machine on and off. Just leave

 

> it on.

 

 

 

I turn off all my machines at night. By so doing I save on the wear and

 

tear of the machines and energy. Also, a number of machines are dual or

 

triple boot.

 

 

 

 

>>>

 

>>> You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost

 

>>> exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in

 

>>> Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom

 

>>> of the screen - lie #4

 

>>

 

>> Not the same thing.

 

>

 

> Then tell us what is the difference?

 

 

 

Windows 7 doesn't come with that feature. You gotta pay 25 bucks for a

 

third party program.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> Cost - well yes, they give away the cheaper versions of Linux however

 

>>> price what are called the "enterprise versions" as the last time I

 

>>> checked that are more costly then Windows and they do not include free

 

>>> up dates - lie #5

 

>>

 

>> We weren't discussing enterprise editions.

 

>

 

> Well, put it this way then - if you want a real bullet proof version

 

> of Linux go to Redhat or Suse enterprice versions. If you want the

 

> latest cutting edge that likely will develop problems then take the

 

> free stuff - you'll be running stuff that the company have released to

 

> see whether it works or not.

 

 

 

That would be and version of Windows before SP2. The LTS versions of

 

Ubuntu are much more stable than Windows, even with an SP3.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> Linux may very well burn CD's quickly but it sure does produce a lot

 

>>> of failed CD's. Mush of its speed comes from a failure to do proper

 

>>> checking of either the data or the process. lie #6

 

>>

 

>> All my burns not only burned faster but were perfectly done. Course, as

 

>> you have admitted (above) that you've never installed Ubuntu, it figures

 

>> you wouldn't know squat.

 

>>

 

> Of course I have installed Ubuntu - how else would I know that it is

 

> the newbee's wet dream?

 

 

 

If so, you would know by now how Ubuntu tells you the speed of file

 

transfers and you can't so I don't believe you.

 

 

>

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1

 

>>

 

>> It is for now. Ubuntu and Mint now have 3D games.

 

>

 

> True, but can they run any of the popular games? Try booting up Spore

 

> or My Sims, two of my grand kids favorites.

 

 

 

You let your grand kids play My Sims? LOL!

 

 

>

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> So at the end of the day you lied either directly or by innuendo 6

 

>>> times and told the truth once. I compliment you, a splendid record!

 

>>

 

>> Course you had to lie to fabricate that I lied.

 

>>>

 

>>> Hooray for Alias - he once told the truth.

 

>>>

 

>>> John B. Slocomb

 

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>>

 

>> Fuck off, kid.

 

>

 

>

 

> You see, you aren't even able to defend your own statements - you

 

> can't say that in Ubuntu click on this and that to give =you a up to

 

> date report of speed of transferring files.

 

 

 

No, I didn't.

 

 

> You can't qualify any of

 

> your assertions,

 

 

 

Install Ubuntu. Transfer a file. Be attentive.

 

 

> you just stand in the school yard shouting "yo mama

 

> wears army boots!"

 

 

 

Projecting again, eh?

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

"Canuck57" wrote in message

 

news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>> Thomas

 

>>

 

>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>

 

>

 

> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to

 

> disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>

 

> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy operations,

 

> especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

 

 

Snow Leopard beats them all hands down.

"Canuck57" wrote in message

 

news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>> Thomas

 

>>

 

>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>

 

>

 

> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to

 

> disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>

 

> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy operations,

 

> especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

 

 

Snow Leopard beats them all hands down.

"Alias" wrote in message

 

news:hud3l3$stc$9@news.eternal-september.org...

 

> Death wrote:

 

>

 

>> Ummm ... Alias would manage to screw up the install.

 

>> Not trusting him, the client would have to pay someone to get it right.

 

>> The tech, seeing an ubuntard, would charge that "dumbass" a little extra.

 

>> Win7 PCs are either priced the same, or cheaper than ubuntarded PCs.

 

>

 

> The fact that that's never happened won't let you enjoy your fantasy, now

 

> will it? The fact that you feel you have to LIE like this writes volumes

 

> about your credibility.

 

>

 

 

 

Whose credibility?

 

You claim to actually charge people for installing/maintaining ubuntool, and

 

Windows...and yet don't seem to know your ass from a hole in the ground.

 

 

 

Have you priced ubuntarded PCs versus Win7 PCs?

 

The claims made that ubuntool is free, saves one money are just untrue.

 

Preinstalled, both are priced about the same...no savings.

 

A dumbass paying *you* to install ubuntool got ripped by a moron.

 

 

 

The only way to save money is to build your own PC and install ubuntool

 

yourself.

 

Which can not only be a hassle, but can actually end up costing more in

 

money, time, and aggravation.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

"Alias" wrote in message

 

news:hud3l3$stc$9@news.eternal-september.org...

 

> Death wrote:

 

>

 

>> Ummm ... Alias would manage to screw up the install.

 

>> Not trusting him, the client would have to pay someone to get it right.

 

>> The tech, seeing an ubuntard, would charge that "dumbass" a little extra.

 

>> Win7 PCs are either priced the same, or cheaper than ubuntarded PCs.

 

>

 

> The fact that that's never happened won't let you enjoy your fantasy, now

 

> will it? The fact that you feel you have to LIE like this writes volumes

 

> about your credibility.

 

>

 

 

 

Whose credibility?

 

You claim to actually charge people for installing/maintaining ubuntool, and

 

Windows...and yet don't seem to know your ass from a hole in the ground.

 

 

 

Have you priced ubuntarded PCs versus Win7 PCs?

 

The claims made that ubuntool is free, saves one money are just untrue.

 

Preinstalled, both are priced about the same...no savings.

 

A dumbass paying *you* to install ubuntool got ripped by a moron.

 

 

 

The only way to save money is to build your own PC and install ubuntool

 

yourself.

 

Which can not only be a hassle, but can actually end up costing more in

 

money, time, and aggravation.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

On 04/06/2010 8:31 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

 

> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed". And I have used your

 

> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you

 

> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

 

 

 

It isn't rocket science to copy large 4-5 GB files and time them. Copy

 

is an end result test, hope long to copy bigfile from A to B.

 

 

 

And it isn't just Linux, Solaris and the BSDs show the same. Win7/Vista

 

is lethargic in copy performance.

 

 

> Yes, Linux includes a security feature called selinux, which was added

 

> at US government direction in order for Linux to be acceptable for

 

> government use. Windows is acceptable as it is. Lie #2

 

 

 

Sort of how I remember it. Not a lie. They wanted to take an already C

 

level security OS and make it good enough for A and B levels. MS can

 

only do C if you yank networking out of it last I heard.

 

 

> Boot time is faster - that is undoubtedly the most fatuous argument I

 

> have heard for selecting an operating system. If that is really of

 

> interest try DOS. - lie #3

 

 

 

I believe Linux is faster on the boot. Will often fir up two VMs at

 

once and Linux is alreays ready first.

 

 

> You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost

 

> exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in

 

> Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom

 

> of the screen - lie #4

 

 

 

Agreed. Windows 7 still needs work.

 

 

> Cost - well yes, they give away the cheaper versions of Linux however

 

> price what are called the "enterprise versions" as the last time I

 

> checked that are more costly then Windows and they do not include free

 

> up dates - lie #5

 

 

 

Some of the best things in life are free. You like buying hookers?

 

 

> Linux may very well burn CD's quickly but it sure does produce a lot

 

> of failed CD's. Mush of its speed comes from a failure to do proper

 

> checking of either the data or the process. lie #6

 

 

 

Say 10 years ago I would agree, today it isn't an issue. My Win 9x

 

systems sure made a lot of coasters too.

 

 

> Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1

 

 

 

Probably. But it was a toy hack to start with.

 

 

 

Probably ticks off you MS-Windows zealots that virtually every internet

 

protocol in use to day did not originate on MS-Windows and was pioneered

 

on a UNIX/Linux system.

 

 

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 04/06/2010 8:31 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

 

> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed". And I have used your

 

> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you

 

> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

 

 

 

It isn't rocket science to copy large 4-5 GB files and time them. Copy

 

is an end result test, hope long to copy bigfile from A to B.

 

 

 

And it isn't just Linux, Solaris and the BSDs show the same. Win7/Vista

 

is lethargic in copy performance.

 

 

> Yes, Linux includes a security feature called selinux, which was added

 

> at US government direction in order for Linux to be acceptable for

 

> government use. Windows is acceptable as it is. Lie #2

 

 

 

Sort of how I remember it. Not a lie. They wanted to take an already C

 

level security OS and make it good enough for A and B levels. MS can

 

only do C if you yank networking out of it last I heard.

 

 

> Boot time is faster - that is undoubtedly the most fatuous argument I

 

> have heard for selecting an operating system. If that is really of

 

> interest try DOS. - lie #3

 

 

 

I believe Linux is faster on the boot. Will often fir up two VMs at

 

once and Linux is alreays ready first.

 

 

> You can have multiple desk tops with windows 7 and they look almost

 

> exactly the same as they do in Linux. Just open them full screen in

 

> Windows and your Work Space selection bar is right there at the bottom

 

> of the screen - lie #4

 

 

 

Agreed. Windows 7 still needs work.

 

 

> Cost - well yes, they give away the cheaper versions of Linux however

 

> price what are called the "enterprise versions" as the last time I

 

> checked that are more costly then Windows and they do not include free

 

> up dates - lie #5

 

 

 

Some of the best things in life are free. You like buying hookers?

 

 

> Linux may very well burn CD's quickly but it sure does produce a lot

 

> of failed CD's. Mush of its speed comes from a failure to do proper

 

> checking of either the data or the process. lie #6

 

 

 

Say 10 years ago I would agree, today it isn't an issue. My Win 9x

 

systems sure made a lot of coasters too.

 

 

> Windows is a better game machine - Hooray the truth, 6 to 1

 

 

 

Probably. But it was a toy hack to start with.

 

 

 

Probably ticks off you MS-Windows zealots that virtually every internet

 

protocol in use to day did not originate on MS-Windows and was pioneered

 

on a UNIX/Linux system.

 

 

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 06/05/2010 04:42 PM, Death wrote:

 

>

 

> "Alias" wrote in message

 

> news:hud3l3$stc$9@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>> Death wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> Ummm ... Alias would manage to screw up the install.

 

>>> Not trusting him, the client would have to pay someone to get it right.

 

>>> The tech, seeing an ubuntard, would charge that "dumbass" a little

 

>>> extra.

 

>>> Win7 PCs are either priced the same, or cheaper than ubuntarded PCs.

 

>>

 

>> The fact that that's never happened won't let you enjoy your fantasy,

 

>> now will it? The fact that you feel you have to LIE like this writes

 

>> volumes about your credibility.

 

>>

 

>

 

> Whose credibility?

 

 

 

Yours.

 

 

 

Snip drivel.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On 06/05/2010 04:42 PM, Death wrote:

 

>

 

> "Alias" wrote in message

 

> news:hud3l3$stc$9@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>> Death wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> Ummm ... Alias would manage to screw up the install.

 

>>> Not trusting him, the client would have to pay someone to get it right.

 

>>> The tech, seeing an ubuntard, would charge that "dumbass" a little

 

>>> extra.

 

>>> Win7 PCs are either priced the same, or cheaper than ubuntarded PCs.

 

>>

 

>> The fact that that's never happened won't let you enjoy your fantasy,

 

>> now will it? The fact that you feel you have to LIE like this writes

 

>> volumes about your credibility.

 

>>

 

>

 

> Whose credibility?

 

 

 

Yours.

 

 

 

Snip drivel.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On 06/05/2010 04:33 PM, XX wrote:

 

> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>> Thomas

 

>>>

 

>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to

 

>> disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>

 

>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy operations,

 

>> especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>

 

> Snow Leopard beats them all hands down.

 

>

 

>

 

 

 

Really, what transfer speed do you get with your Mac?

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On 06/05/2010 04:33 PM, XX wrote:

 

> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>> Thomas

 

>>>

 

>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to

 

>> disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>

 

>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy operations,

 

>> especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>

 

> Snow Leopard beats them all hands down.

 

>

 

>

 

 

 

Really, what transfer speed do you get with your Mac?

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:30:14 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

>John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:05:45 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:38:58 +0200, Alias

 

>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with

 

>>>>> Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with

 

>>>>> Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and

 

>>>>> DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows

 

>>>>> has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed".

 

>>>

 

>>> Mine does.

 

>>>

 

>>>> And I have used your

 

>>>> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you

 

>>>> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

 

>>>

 

>>> Not how it works so you're obviously lying about having installed Ubuntu

 

>>> but what else is new?

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> That is what I just said - that Ubuntu does not pop up a message and

 

>> tell you how fast it just transferred that file.

 

>

 

>No, it doesn't but if you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu,

 

>you would know how it does tell you.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> If it does, then please give some examples, references or other means

 

>> of us knowing what you are talking about.

 

>

 

>If you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu, you would know how

 

>it tells you the speed. It's bloody fucking obvious.

 

>

 

 

 

Well, Oh Great Liar, I just fired up my net book running:

 

Ubuntu release 10.04(Lucid), Kernel 2.6.32-21=generic, and copied a

 

127,494,850 byte file back and forth, both from the desktop and from

 

the command line.

 

 

 

Guess what? You lied yet again as Ubuntu does not "tell you" the rate

 

at which the files are copied, i.e., transferred.

 

 

 

So, you've demonstrated, once again, that (1) you don't know what you

 

are talking about, and/or (2) you are a liar.

 

 

 

Or to put it in the school yard jargon that you are likely more

 

familiar with "Liar, Liar, pants on fire!"

 

 

 

John B. Slocomb

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:30:14 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

>John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:05:45 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:38:58 +0200, Alias

 

>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with

 

>>>>> Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with

 

>>>>> Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and

 

>>>>> DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows

 

>>>>> has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed".

 

>>>

 

>>> Mine does.

 

>>>

 

>>>> And I have used your

 

>>>> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you

 

>>>> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

 

>>>

 

>>> Not how it works so you're obviously lying about having installed Ubuntu

 

>>> but what else is new?

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> That is what I just said - that Ubuntu does not pop up a message and

 

>> tell you how fast it just transferred that file.

 

>

 

>No, it doesn't but if you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu,

 

>you would know how it does tell you.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> If it does, then please give some examples, references or other means

 

>> of us knowing what you are talking about.

 

>

 

>If you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu, you would know how

 

>it tells you the speed. It's bloody fucking obvious.

 

>

 

 

 

Well, Oh Great Liar, I just fired up my net book running:

 

Ubuntu release 10.04(Lucid), Kernel 2.6.32-21=generic, and copied a

 

127,494,850 byte file back and forth, both from the desktop and from

 

the command line.

 

 

 

Guess what? You lied yet again as Ubuntu does not "tell you" the rate

 

at which the files are copied, i.e., transferred.

 

 

 

So, you've demonstrated, once again, that (1) you don't know what you

 

are talking about, and/or (2) you are a liar.

 

 

 

Or to put it in the school yard jargon that you are likely more

 

familiar with "Liar, Liar, pants on fire!"

 

 

 

John B. Slocomb

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:30:14 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:05:45 +0200, Alias

 

>>> wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:38:58 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with

 

>>>>>> Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with

 

>>>>>> Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and

 

>>>>>> DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows

 

>>>>>> has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed".

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Mine does.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> And I have used your

 

>>>>> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you

 

>>>>> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Not how it works so you're obviously lying about having installed Ubuntu

 

>>>> but what else is new?

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> That is what I just said - that Ubuntu does not pop up a message and

 

>>> tell you how fast it just transferred that file.

 

>>

 

>> No, it doesn't but if you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu,

 

>> you would know how it does tell you.

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> If it does, then please give some examples, references or other means

 

>>> of us knowing what you are talking about.

 

>>

 

>> If you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu, you would know how

 

>> it tells you the speed. It's bloody fucking obvious.

 

>>

 

>

 

> Well, Oh Great Liar, I just fired up my net book running:

 

> Ubuntu release 10.04(Lucid), Kernel 2.6.32-21=generic, and copied a

 

> 127,494,850 byte file back and forth, both from the desktop and from

 

> the command line.

 

>

 

> Guess what? You lied yet again as Ubuntu does not "tell you" the rate

 

> at which the files are copied, i.e., transferred.

 

 

 

You must be blind.

 

 

 

Snip third grade drivel.

 

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 16:30:14 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:05:45 +0200, Alias

 

>>> wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:38:58 +0200, Alias

 

>>>>> wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with

 

>>>>>> Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with

 

>>>>>> Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and

 

>>>>>> DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows

 

>>>>>> has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed".

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Mine does.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> And I have used your

 

>>>>> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you

 

>>>>> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Not how it works so you're obviously lying about having installed Ubuntu

 

>>>> but what else is new?

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> That is what I just said - that Ubuntu does not pop up a message and

 

>>> tell you how fast it just transferred that file.

 

>>

 

>> No, it doesn't but if you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu,

 

>> you would know how it does tell you.

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> If it does, then please give some examples, references or other means

 

>>> of us knowing what you are talking about.

 

>>

 

>> If you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu, you would know how

 

>> it tells you the speed. It's bloody fucking obvious.

 

>>

 

>

 

> Well, Oh Great Liar, I just fired up my net book running:

 

> Ubuntu release 10.04(Lucid), Kernel 2.6.32-21=generic, and copied a

 

> 127,494,850 byte file back and forth, both from the desktop and from

 

> the command line.

 

>

 

> Guess what? You lied yet again as Ubuntu does not "tell you" the rate

 

> at which the files are copied, i.e., transferred.

 

 

 

You must be blind.

 

 

 

Snip third grade drivel.

 

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

Alias wrote:

 

 

> On 06/05/2010 04:42 PM, Death wrote:

 

>>

 

>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>> news:hud3l3$stc$9@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>> Death wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>> Ummm ... Alias would manage to screw up the install.

 

>>>> Not trusting him, the client would have to pay someone to get it right.

 

>>>> The tech, seeing an ubuntard, would charge that "dumbass" a little

 

>>>> extra.

 

>>>> Win7 PCs are either priced the same, or cheaper than ubuntarded PCs.

 

>>>

 

>>> The fact that that's never happened won't let you enjoy your fantasy,

 

>>> now will it? The fact that you feel you have to LIE like this writes

 

>>> volumes about your credibility.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> Whose credibility?

 

>

 

> Yours.

 

>

 

 

 

My credibility isn't in question, dumbass.

 

 

 

 

> Snip drivel.

 

>

 

 

 

No snipping of the drivel.

 

It's where the facts are.

 

 

 

So please tell...how does ubuntool save a user money by paying you to

 

install it?

 

I guarantee any big name OEM PC with Win7 is cheaper.

 

 

 

Me thinks what you like about ubuntool is a free supply of material that

 

you get to bill for.

 

 

 

Only a dumbass would pay for a free OS installed by a dim-witted baboon.

 

 

 

The only cost effective use of morons like yourself would be installing

 

ubuntool on Win98 PCs, keeping an otherwise obsolete PC barely capable

 

of doing web browsing and email.

 

For a mere $200 more than you probably gouge people, they could get a

 

modern PC with Windows7 and actually enjoy using it.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.