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.

Death wrote:

 

> 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.

 

 

 

What credibility?

 

 

>

 

>

 

>> Snip drivel.

 

>>

 

>

 

> No snipping of the drivel.

 

> It's where the facts are.

 

 

 

Only in your twisted imagination. You're becoming more like Frank every day.

 

 

>

 

> 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.

 

 

 

Interesting but a false comparison. Try using a person who buys Win 7

 

retail (after pawning one of their kidneys) and pays the Geek Squad to

 

install it on their computer that's running Vista if you want a real

 

comparison.

 

 

>

 

> Me thinks what you like about ubuntool is a free supply of material that

 

> you get to bill for.

 

 

 

You and think aren't in sync today.

 

 

>

 

> Only a dumbass would pay for a free OS installed by a dim-witted baboon.

 

 

 

Considering none of my clients are dumbasses and I am not a dim-witted

 

baboon, your point, as usual, is absurd.

 

 

>

 

> 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.

 

>

 

 

 

And the amount you think I charge people for installing and teaching

 

them how to use Ubuntu is?

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

Death wrote:

 

> 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.

 

 

 

What credibility?

 

 

>

 

>

 

>> Snip drivel.

 

>>

 

>

 

> No snipping of the drivel.

 

> It's where the facts are.

 

 

 

Only in your twisted imagination. You're becoming more like Frank every day.

 

 

>

 

> 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.

 

 

 

Interesting but a false comparison. Try using a person who buys Win 7

 

retail (after pawning one of their kidneys) and pays the Geek Squad to

 

install it on their computer that's running Vista if you want a real

 

comparison.

 

 

>

 

> Me thinks what you like about ubuntool is a free supply of material that

 

> you get to bill for.

 

 

 

You and think aren't in sync today.

 

 

>

 

> Only a dumbass would pay for a free OS installed by a dim-witted baboon.

 

 

 

Considering none of my clients are dumbasses and I am not a dim-witted

 

baboon, your point, as usual, is absurd.

 

 

>

 

> 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.

 

>

 

 

 

And the amount you think I charge people for installing and teaching

 

them how to use Ubuntu is?

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

Alias wrote:

 

 

> Death wrote:

 

>> 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.

 

>

 

> What credibility?

 

>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>> Snip drivel.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> No snipping of the drivel.

 

>> It's where the facts are.

 

>

 

> Only in your twisted imagination. You're becoming more like Frank every day.

 

>

 

 

 

That turns you on?

 

 

>>

 

>> 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.

 

>

 

> Interesting but a false comparison. Try using a person who buys Win 7

 

> retail (after pawning one of their kidneys) and pays the Geek Squad to

 

> install it on their computer that's running Vista if you want a real

 

> comparison.

 

>

 

 

 

I would think they would just stick the fucking DVD in the tray...like

 

you do.

 

 

>>

 

>> Me thinks what you like about ubuntool is a free supply of material that

 

>> you get to bill for.

 

>

 

> You and think aren't in sync today.

 

>

 

 

 

That is why you like it.

 

You can download/copy that POS all the do-da-day.

 

 

>>

 

>> Only a dumbass would pay for a free OS installed by a dim-witted baboon.

 

>

 

> Considering none of my clients are dumbasses and I am not a dim-witted

 

> baboon, your point, as usual, is absurd.

 

>

 

 

 

They are dumbasses ... how fuckin hard is it to stick a Live-CD in a

 

tray?

 

 

>>

 

>> 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.

 

>>

 

>

 

> And the amount you think I charge people for installing and teaching

 

> them how to use Ubuntu is?

 

>

 

 

 

No idea...too much, I would imagine.

 

If it took you two hours...I'd give you a six-pack of cheap beer.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Alias wrote:

 

 

> Death wrote:

 

>> 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.

 

>

 

> What credibility?

 

>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>> Snip drivel.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> No snipping of the drivel.

 

>> It's where the facts are.

 

>

 

> Only in your twisted imagination. You're becoming more like Frank every day.

 

>

 

 

 

That turns you on?

 

 

>>

 

>> 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.

 

>

 

> Interesting but a false comparison. Try using a person who buys Win 7

 

> retail (after pawning one of their kidneys) and pays the Geek Squad to

 

> install it on their computer that's running Vista if you want a real

 

> comparison.

 

>

 

 

 

I would think they would just stick the fucking DVD in the tray...like

 

you do.

 

 

>>

 

>> Me thinks what you like about ubuntool is a free supply of material that

 

>> you get to bill for.

 

>

 

> You and think aren't in sync today.

 

>

 

 

 

That is why you like it.

 

You can download/copy that POS all the do-da-day.

 

 

>>

 

>> Only a dumbass would pay for a free OS installed by a dim-witted baboon.

 

>

 

> Considering none of my clients are dumbasses and I am not a dim-witted

 

> baboon, your point, as usual, is absurd.

 

>

 

 

 

They are dumbasses ... how fuckin hard is it to stick a Live-CD in a

 

tray?

 

 

>>

 

>> 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.

 

>>

 

>

 

> And the amount you think I charge people for installing and teaching

 

> them how to use Ubuntu is?

 

>

 

 

 

No idea...too much, I would imagine.

 

If it took you two hours...I'd give you a six-pack of cheap beer.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Death wrote:

 

> Alias wrote:

 

>

 

>> Death wrote:

 

>>> 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.

 

>>

 

>> What credibility?

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>> Snip drivel.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> No snipping of the drivel.

 

>>> It's where the facts are.

 

>>

 

>> Only in your twisted imagination. You're becoming more like Frank every day.

 

>>

 

>

 

> That turns you on?

 

 

 

Not at all. It's rather pathetic.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> 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.

 

>>

 

>> Interesting but a false comparison. Try using a person who buys Win 7

 

>> retail (after pawning one of their kidneys) and pays the Geek Squad to

 

>> install it on their computer that's running Vista if you want a real

 

>> comparison.

 

>>

 

>

 

> I would think they would just stick the fucking DVD in the tray...like

 

> you do.

 

 

 

You don't get out much, do you?

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> Me thinks what you like about ubuntool is a free supply of material that

 

>>> you get to bill for.

 

>>

 

>> You and think aren't in sync today.

 

>>

 

>

 

> That is why you like it.

 

> You can download/copy that POS all the do-da-day.

 

 

 

Yawn.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> Only a dumbass would pay for a free OS installed by a dim-witted baboon.

 

>>

 

>> Considering none of my clients are dumbasses and I am not a dim-witted

 

>> baboon, your point, as usual, is absurd.

 

>>

 

>

 

> They are dumbasses ... how fuckin hard is it to stick a Live-CD in a

 

> tray?

 

 

 

It's what happens after that that's important.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> 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.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> And the amount you think I charge people for installing and teaching

 

>> them how to use Ubuntu is?

 

>>

 

>

 

> No idea...too much, I would imagine.

 

 

 

But you comment as if you knew. What is that all about?

 

 

> If it took you two hours...I'd give you a six-pack of cheap beer.

 

>

 

 

 

Sorry, but I wouldn't let you lick the sweat off my balls if you were

 

dying of thirst, much less even touch your crumby, malware infested

 

computers.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

Death wrote:

 

> Alias wrote:

 

>

 

>> Death wrote:

 

>>> 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.

 

>>

 

>> What credibility?

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>> Snip drivel.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> No snipping of the drivel.

 

>>> It's where the facts are.

 

>>

 

>> Only in your twisted imagination. You're becoming more like Frank every day.

 

>>

 

>

 

> That turns you on?

 

 

 

Not at all. It's rather pathetic.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> 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.

 

>>

 

>> Interesting but a false comparison. Try using a person who buys Win 7

 

>> retail (after pawning one of their kidneys) and pays the Geek Squad to

 

>> install it on their computer that's running Vista if you want a real

 

>> comparison.

 

>>

 

>

 

> I would think they would just stick the fucking DVD in the tray...like

 

> you do.

 

 

 

You don't get out much, do you?

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> Me thinks what you like about ubuntool is a free supply of material that

 

>>> you get to bill for.

 

>>

 

>> You and think aren't in sync today.

 

>>

 

>

 

> That is why you like it.

 

> You can download/copy that POS all the do-da-day.

 

 

 

Yawn.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> Only a dumbass would pay for a free OS installed by a dim-witted baboon.

 

>>

 

>> Considering none of my clients are dumbasses and I am not a dim-witted

 

>> baboon, your point, as usual, is absurd.

 

>>

 

>

 

> They are dumbasses ... how fuckin hard is it to stick a Live-CD in a

 

> tray?

 

 

 

It's what happens after that that's important.

 

 

>

 

>>>

 

>>> 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.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> And the amount you think I charge people for installing and teaching

 

>> them how to use Ubuntu is?

 

>>

 

>

 

> No idea...too much, I would imagine.

 

 

 

But you comment as if you knew. What is that all about?

 

 

> If it took you two hours...I'd give you a six-pack of cheap beer.

 

>

 

 

 

Sorry, but I wouldn't let you lick the sweat off my balls if you were

 

dying of thirst, much less even touch your crumby, malware infested

 

computers.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

Alias wrote:

 

 

> Death wrote:

 

>> Alias wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> Death wrote:

 

>>>> 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.

 

>>>

 

>>> What credibility?

 

>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> Snip drivel.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> No snipping of the drivel.

 

>>>> It's where the facts are.

 

>>>

 

>>> Only in your twisted imagination. You're becoming more like Frank every day.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> That turns you on?

 

>

 

> Not at all. It's rather pathetic.

 

>

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> 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.

 

>>>

 

>>> Interesting but a false comparison. Try using a person who buys Win 7

 

>>> retail (after pawning one of their kidneys) and pays the Geek Squad to

 

>>> install it on their computer that's running Vista if you want a real

 

>>> comparison.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> I would think they would just stick the fucking DVD in the tray...like

 

>> you do.

 

>

 

> You don't get out much, do you?

 

>

 

 

 

Everyday.

 

Sometimes, without an escort.

 

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Me thinks what you like about ubuntool is a free supply of material that

 

>>>> you get to bill for.

 

>>>

 

>>> You and think aren't in sync today.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> That is why you like it.

 

>> You can download/copy that POS all the do-da-day.

 

>

 

> Yawn.

 

>

 

 

 

Belch.

 

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Only a dumbass would pay for a free OS installed by a dim-witted baboon.

 

>>>

 

>>> Considering none of my clients are dumbasses and I am not a dim-witted

 

>>> baboon, your point, as usual, is absurd.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> They are dumbasses ... how fuckin hard is it to stick a Live-CD in a

 

>> tray?

 

>

 

> It's what happens after that that's important.

 

>

 

 

 

You walk away at a fast pace?

 

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> 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.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> And the amount you think I charge people for installing and teaching

 

>>> them how to use Ubuntu is?

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> No idea...too much, I would imagine.

 

>

 

> But you comment as if you knew. What is that all about?

 

>

 

 

 

If you're selling ubuntool, it's too much.

 

Doesn't take a genius to comprehend that.

 

 

 

 

>> If it took you two hours...I'd give you a six-pack of cheap beer.

 

>>

 

>

 

> Sorry, but I wouldn't let you lick the sweat off my balls if you were

 

> dying of thirst, much less even touch your crumby, malware infested

 

> computers.

 

>

 

 

 

Strange how the installation of ubuntool brings sweaty balls into the

 

conversation.

 

If you weren't so nervous, your balls wouldn't be sweating.

 

Actually, as you are scamming people, they are probably drawn up

 

internally.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Alias wrote:

 

 

> Death wrote:

 

>> Alias wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> Death wrote:

 

>>>> 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.

 

>>>

 

>>> What credibility?

 

>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> Snip drivel.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> No snipping of the drivel.

 

>>>> It's where the facts are.

 

>>>

 

>>> Only in your twisted imagination. You're becoming more like Frank every day.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> That turns you on?

 

>

 

> Not at all. It's rather pathetic.

 

>

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> 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.

 

>>>

 

>>> Interesting but a false comparison. Try using a person who buys Win 7

 

>>> retail (after pawning one of their kidneys) and pays the Geek Squad to

 

>>> install it on their computer that's running Vista if you want a real

 

>>> comparison.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> I would think they would just stick the fucking DVD in the tray...like

 

>> you do.

 

>

 

> You don't get out much, do you?

 

>

 

 

 

Everyday.

 

Sometimes, without an escort.

 

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Me thinks what you like about ubuntool is a free supply of material that

 

>>>> you get to bill for.

 

>>>

 

>>> You and think aren't in sync today.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> That is why you like it.

 

>> You can download/copy that POS all the do-da-day.

 

>

 

> Yawn.

 

>

 

 

 

Belch.

 

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Only a dumbass would pay for a free OS installed by a dim-witted baboon.

 

>>>

 

>>> Considering none of my clients are dumbasses and I am not a dim-witted

 

>>> baboon, your point, as usual, is absurd.

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> They are dumbasses ... how fuckin hard is it to stick a Live-CD in a

 

>> tray?

 

>

 

> It's what happens after that that's important.

 

>

 

 

 

You walk away at a fast pace?

 

 

>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> 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.

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> And the amount you think I charge people for installing and teaching

 

>>> them how to use Ubuntu is?

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> No idea...too much, I would imagine.

 

>

 

> But you comment as if you knew. What is that all about?

 

>

 

 

 

If you're selling ubuntool, it's too much.

 

Doesn't take a genius to comprehend that.

 

 

 

 

>> If it took you two hours...I'd give you a six-pack of cheap beer.

 

>>

 

>

 

> Sorry, but I wouldn't let you lick the sweat off my balls if you were

 

> dying of thirst, much less even touch your crumby, malware infested

 

> computers.

 

>

 

 

 

Strange how the installation of ubuntool brings sweaty balls into the

 

conversation.

 

If you weren't so nervous, your balls wouldn't be sweating.

 

Actually, as you are scamming people, they are probably drawn up

 

internally.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Speeding up hard drives?

Speeding up hard drives?

Death wrote:

 

 

>

 

> If you're selling ubuntool, it's too much.

 

 

 

I've never sold Ubuntu and you know it.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

Death wrote:

 

 

>

 

> If you're selling ubuntool, it's too much.

 

 

 

I've never sold Ubuntu and you know it.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

John B. slocomb wrote:

 

> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:05:28 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> 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)

 

>

 

>

 

> You keep saying things like that but you never seem to be able to be

 

> very specific about things. Is that because I caught you lying about

 

> Ubuntu "telling you the copy rate", or because you don't know?

 

 

 

You didn't catch me lying and I do know.

 

 

>

 

> It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come

 

> back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking

 

> about...But you don't.

 

 

 

All it takes is doing it and being attentive. Do you have an attention

 

span problem?

 

 

>

 

> It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot

 

> produce proof of your statement.

 

 

 

Oh, but I did.

 

 

>

 

> It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?

 

> Cheers,

 

>

 

> John B.

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

With you, yes. You've lied with almost every one of your posts.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

John B. slocomb wrote:

 

> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:05:28 +0200, Alias

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> 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)

 

>

 

>

 

> You keep saying things like that but you never seem to be able to be

 

> very specific about things. Is that because I caught you lying about

 

> Ubuntu "telling you the copy rate", or because you don't know?

 

 

 

You didn't catch me lying and I do know.

 

 

>

 

> It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come

 

> back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking

 

> about...But you don't.

 

 

 

All it takes is doing it and being attentive. Do you have an attention

 

span problem?

 

 

>

 

> It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot

 

> produce proof of your statement.

 

 

 

Oh, but I did.

 

 

>

 

> It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?

 

> Cheers,

 

>

 

> John B.

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

With you, yes. You've lied with almost every one of your posts.

 

 

 

--

 

Alias

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 13:58:04 -0400, Leythos

 

wrote:

 

 

>In article ,

 

>johnbslocomb@invalid.com says...

 

>> I tried this with a 2.66 processor Dual core (4 processors) chip, 4

 

>> gig memory. Fedora 12 and Gnome 2.28.2.

 

>>

 

>> Copying a 1,569,816 byte file from file to file on the same disk and

 

>> in the same partition took 13.12 seconds with Linux and 30.91 with

 

>> Windows 7 - hand timed.

 

>>

 

>

 

>First, to ensure that you're actually testing the difference in each OS

 

>and File structure, you must ensure that the drives are not going to

 

>fragment the test files used.

 

 

 

No I don't think so. I was testing the time it required to copy a

 

file. If Windows breaks up files and Linux doesn't then that is simply

 

an attribute of the system and should be included in the test. If one

 

didn't both systems to do their own thing, whatever it might be, then

 

you are not testing normal operation.

 

 

>Second, you should do this under as close to the same conditions as

 

>possible for each OS - meaning that you either don't use Antivirus and

 

>other scanners during the test or you use the same vendors AV/Scanners

 

>on both platforms.

 

>

 

Err... O.K. I'll agree but how about the 213 processes that are

 

running on Linux, at the moment? Is it fair to turn off some of them

 

as I don't believe Windows is running that many?

 

 

>When testing with Windows, don't drag/drop the file using Explorer, use

 

>RoboCopy and it will provide the actual timing values for you.

 

 

 

No, I used the command line on both systems.

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

John B.

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 13:58:04 -0400, Leythos

 

wrote:

 

 

>In article ,

 

>johnbslocomb@invalid.com says...

 

>> I tried this with a 2.66 processor Dual core (4 processors) chip, 4

 

>> gig memory. Fedora 12 and Gnome 2.28.2.

 

>>

 

>> Copying a 1,569,816 byte file from file to file on the same disk and

 

>> in the same partition took 13.12 seconds with Linux and 30.91 with

 

>> Windows 7 - hand timed.

 

>>

 

>

 

>First, to ensure that you're actually testing the difference in each OS

 

>and File structure, you must ensure that the drives are not going to

 

>fragment the test files used.

 

 

 

No I don't think so. I was testing the time it required to copy a

 

file. If Windows breaks up files and Linux doesn't then that is simply

 

an attribute of the system and should be included in the test. If one

 

didn't both systems to do their own thing, whatever it might be, then

 

you are not testing normal operation.

 

 

>Second, you should do this under as close to the same conditions as

 

>possible for each OS - meaning that you either don't use Antivirus and

 

>other scanners during the test or you use the same vendors AV/Scanners

 

>on both platforms.

 

>

 

Err... O.K. I'll agree but how about the 213 processes that are

 

running on Linux, at the moment? Is it fair to turn off some of them

 

as I don't believe Windows is running that many?

 

 

>When testing with Windows, don't drag/drop the file using Explorer, use

 

>RoboCopy and it will provide the actual timing values for you.

 

 

 

No, I used the command line on both systems.

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

John B.

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:43:35 -0600, Canuck57

 

wrote:

 

 

>On 03/06/2010 9:15 AM, Thomas wrote:

 

>> I read in another post something about speeding up hard drives, or access to

 

>> the read write cycles. I have 2 drives installed on My Windows 7 64 bit

 

>> machine. I have a Gigabyte MB with a dual core Intel 3 gig processor. I

 

>> don't understand a whole lot about IEDE modes and some of the settings I

 

>> have seen seem to be missing or just not available. The drives are both

 

>> 7200 RPM, one is a 500 Gig (Primary) and the other is a 1 TB. Is there a

 

>> method of speeding up the access/read/write of these drives?

 

>

 

>I have spent many hours trying to improve it, to no avail. But if

 

>running Linux or Solaris in a VM or native out of another partition it

 

>copies much faster, go figure. Seems like Win7/Vista is just hog slow

 

>at file copy.

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder.

 

 

 

Years ago I was somewhat of a "C" fanatic. At the time I had two

 

compilers, Microsoft and Borland. The Borland not only compiled

 

quicker but their code ran faster. Which was a bit mystifying as I had

 

thought that "C" was "C". Finally I compiled the same utility with

 

both compilers and then disassembles them to see what was happening.

 

It turned out that the Borland code just did something, i.e., move

 

byte to A, move byte to B, do something. The Microsoft was doing this

 

and in addition it was checking for stack over flow every time it did

 

a push or pop. so while the Borland was faster the Microsoft was much

 

more robust.

 

 

 

I wonder whether the Linux code is just moving data while the Windows

 

is checking that it did it correctly. If the latter then that would

 

account for the slowness.

 

 

 

But then again it might just be Windows :-)

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

John B.

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:43:35 -0600, Canuck57

 

wrote:

 

 

>On 03/06/2010 9:15 AM, Thomas wrote:

 

>> I read in another post something about speeding up hard drives, or access to

 

>> the read write cycles. I have 2 drives installed on My Windows 7 64 bit

 

>> machine. I have a Gigabyte MB with a dual core Intel 3 gig processor. I

 

>> don't understand a whole lot about IEDE modes and some of the settings I

 

>> have seen seem to be missing or just not available. The drives are both

 

>> 7200 RPM, one is a 500 Gig (Primary) and the other is a 1 TB. Is there a

 

>> method of speeding up the access/read/write of these drives?

 

>

 

>I have spent many hours trying to improve it, to no avail. But if

 

>running Linux or Solaris in a VM or native out of another partition it

 

>copies much faster, go figure. Seems like Win7/Vista is just hog slow

 

>at file copy.

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder.

 

 

 

Years ago I was somewhat of a "C" fanatic. At the time I had two

 

compilers, Microsoft and Borland. The Borland not only compiled

 

quicker but their code ran faster. Which was a bit mystifying as I had

 

thought that "C" was "C". Finally I compiled the same utility with

 

both compilers and then disassembles them to see what was happening.

 

It turned out that the Borland code just did something, i.e., move

 

byte to A, move byte to B, do something. The Microsoft was doing this

 

and in addition it was checking for stack over flow every time it did

 

a push or pop. so while the Borland was faster the Microsoft was much

 

more robust.

 

 

 

I wonder whether the Linux code is just moving data while the Windows

 

is checking that it did it correctly. If the latter then that would

 

account for the slowness.

 

 

 

But then again it might just be Windows :-)

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

John B.

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:05:28 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

>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)

 

 

 

 

 

You keep saying things like that but you never seem to be able to be

 

very specific about things. Is that because I caught you lying about

 

Ubuntu "telling you the copy rate", or because you don't know?

 

 

 

It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come

 

back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking

 

about...But you don't.

 

 

 

It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot

 

produce proof of your statement.

 

 

 

It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

John B.

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:05:28 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

>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)

 

 

 

 

 

You keep saying things like that but you never seem to be able to be

 

very specific about things. Is that because I caught you lying about

 

Ubuntu "telling you the copy rate", or because you don't know?

 

 

 

It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come

 

back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking

 

about...But you don't.

 

 

 

It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot

 

produce proof of your statement.

 

 

 

It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

John B.

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On 6/6/2010 5:53 AM, Alias wrote:

 

> John B. slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:05:28 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> 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)

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> You keep saying things like that but you never seem to be able to be

 

>> very specific about things. Is that because I caught you lying about

 

>> Ubuntu "telling you the copy rate", or because you don't know?

 

>

 

> You didn't catch me lying and I do know.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come

 

>> back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking

 

>> about...But you don't.

 

>

 

> All it takes is doing it and being attentive. Do you have an attention

 

> span problem?

 

>

 

>>

 

>> It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot

 

>> produce proof of your statement.

 

>

 

> Oh, but I did.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?

 

>> Cheers,

 

>>

 

>> John B.

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

> With you, yes. You've lied with almost every one of your posts.

 

>

 

You are projecting...right...as usual?

On 6/6/2010 5:53 AM, Alias wrote:

 

> John B. slocomb wrote:

 

>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:05:28 +0200, Alias

 

>> wrote:

 

>>

 

>>> 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)

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> You keep saying things like that but you never seem to be able to be

 

>> very specific about things. Is that because I caught you lying about

 

>> Ubuntu "telling you the copy rate", or because you don't know?

 

>

 

> You didn't catch me lying and I do know.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come

 

>> back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking

 

>> about...But you don't.

 

>

 

> All it takes is doing it and being attentive. Do you have an attention

 

> span problem?

 

>

 

>>

 

>> It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot

 

>> produce proof of your statement.

 

>

 

> Oh, but I did.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?

 

>> Cheers,

 

>>

 

>> John B.

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

> With you, yes. You've lied with almost every one of your posts.

 

>

 

You are projecting...right...as usual?

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:53:07 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

 

snipped

 

 

>You didn't catch me lying and I do know.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come

 

>> back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking

 

>> about...But you don't.

 

>

 

>All it takes is doing it and being attentive. Do you have an attention

 

>span problem?

 

>

 

>>

 

>> It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot

 

>> produce proof of your statement.

 

>

 

>Oh, but I did.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?

 

>> Cheers,

 

>>

 

>> John B.

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

>With you, yes. You've lied with almost every one of your posts.

 

 

 

 

 

Hardly lies. I can provide evidence for nearly everything I write.

 

 

 

You on the other hand never seem to produce any evidence that you are

 

not lying. You simply cone back with some 3 rd year school yard taunt

 

-"yada, yada, yada, your mother wears army boots"

 

 

 

It is strange, you know, few people like to be known as a liar and

 

readily produce some verification for their statements when

 

challenged. You however, never do. You just shout school boy insults.

 

 

 

In short alias, the masked and anymous invalid, you appear to be

 

nothing but a lying fool. Lies as you can never verify any of your

 

statements and foolish for thinking anyone believes you.

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

John B.

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 14:53:07 +0200, Alias

 

wrote:

 

 

 

snipped

 

 

>You didn't catch me lying and I do know.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> It is very strange. Most people when accused of lying immediately come

 

>> back with pages of proof that they DID know what they were talking

 

>> about...But you don't.

 

>

 

>All it takes is doing it and being attentive. Do you have an attention

 

>span problem?

 

>

 

>>

 

>> It can only be assumed that you were caught lying again and cannot

 

>> produce proof of your statement.

 

>

 

>Oh, but I did.

 

>

 

>>

 

>> It seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it alias?

 

>> Cheers,

 

>>

 

>> John B.

 

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

>

 

>With you, yes. You've lied with almost every one of your posts.

 

 

 

 

 

Hardly lies. I can provide evidence for nearly everything I write.

 

 

 

You on the other hand never seem to produce any evidence that you are

 

not lying. You simply cone back with some 3 rd year school yard taunt

 

-"yada, yada, yada, your mother wears army boots"

 

 

 

It is strange, you know, few people like to be known as a liar and

 

readily produce some verification for their statements when

 

challenged. You however, never do. You just shout school boy insults.

 

 

 

In short alias, the masked and anymous invalid, you appear to be

 

nothing but a lying fool. Lies as you can never verify any of your

 

statements and foolish for thinking anyone believes you.

 

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

John B.

 

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)