ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > > Um... I think you'll find that Apple is very nearly as large as IBM

> > > these days. ($146B vs. $161B.)

> >

> > Fine, fine, I'll reword it your way...

> >

> > You're arguing about Linux, meathead. And IBM developers write Linux

> > and OSS software. If linux is a fairly big deal at a company as

> > large as Apple, how is it unheard of in the US?

>

> That better.

>

> Oxford really is the closest thing to a religious zealot I've ever seen

> in an advocacy group. Unless he's just a troll, of course.

 

i'm just more honest than most, don't mince words, and know the subject

matter inside and out. nuff said...

Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distrofor the general computer/device market.

 

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:34:21 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

>

>> > > Um... I think you'll find that Apple is very nearly as large as IBM

>> > > these days. ($146B vs. $161B.)

>> >

>> > Fine, fine, I'll reword it your way...

>> >

>> > You're arguing about Linux, meathead. And IBM developers write Linux

>> > and OSS software. If linux is a fairly big deal at a company as large

>> > as Apple, how is it unheard of in the US?

>>

>> That better.

>>

>> Oxford really is the closest thing to a religious zealot I've ever seen

>> in an advocacy group. Unless he's just a troll, of course.

>

> i'm just more honest than most, don't mince words, and know the subject

> matter inside and out. nuff said...

 

ah ahha ha haha hahah ahah aha a h...

 

oh, you were serious?

 

AHA HAHA hah HA ha ahHHA HA HAHa haA

 

 

 

--

Rick

On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:04:57 -0700, Rick wrote

(in article <13gogapr9084a5f@news.supernews.com>):

> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:47:07 -0700, George Graves wrote:

>

>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 03:56:16 -0700, Rick wrote (in article

>> <13gmnigar37km54@news.supernews.com>):

>>

>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:05:19 -0700, George Graves wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:57:41 -0700, Oxford wrote (in article

>>>> <colalovesmacs-24B109.19574108102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>):

>>>>

>>>>> why so angry Jesus?

>>>>>

>>>>> I thought you loved everyone?

>>>>>

>>>>> It's sad that even you have turned on the human race.

>>>>

>>>> It's pointless trying to have a discussion with these linux fanatics.

>>>> To them every comment is a challenge, a lie, or worse. You either

>>>> follow the party line or you are damned. It's real simple. Linux has

>>>> had years to achieve some sort of critical mass as a viable desktop

>>>> system and it hasn't moved very far in spite of being so much better

>>>> than Windows that it isn't even a contest. Yet if you tell these Linux

>>>> fanatics that one little fact, they go ballistic. Basically, I think

>>>> that they know its true, but the emperor's new suit of clothes....

>>>> well, you know.

>>>

>>> Explain to use why the city of Largo uses OpenOffice if it is not a

>>> professional level application.

>>

>> Please explain how your non sequitur remark, above, has anything

>> whatsoever to do with my comment.

>

> Yada, yada, yada...

>

> You said OO.o was not a pro-level app. Explain why Largo has deployed a

> non-pro-level app across the City.

 

Who knows? Who cares? maybe they're cheap or broke, or both. I'm not

responsible for what Largo does (wherever Largo is). I'm sure you can

exceptions to every "rule". That doesn't prove that OO is considered a

pro-level application anywhere. It might be someday. but this is not that

day.

Vigilante <kewlvigilante@hotmail.com> did eloquently scribble:

> The Queen is a butt ho

 

Yes... AND?

 

--

______________________________________________________________________________

| spike1@freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |

|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |

| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |

| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 03:56:54 +0000, Rick wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:34:21 -0600, Oxford wrote:

>

>> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

>>

>>> > > Um... I think you'll find that Apple is very nearly as large as IBM

>>> > > these days. ($146B vs. $161B.)

>>> >

>>> > Fine, fine, I'll reword it your way...

>>> >

>>> > You're arguing about Linux, meathead. And IBM developers write Linux

>>> > and OSS software. If linux is a fairly big deal at a company as large

>>> > as Apple, how is it unheard of in the US?

>>>

>>> That better.

>>>

>>> Oxford really is the closest thing to a religious zealot I've ever seen

>>> in an advocacy group. Unless he's just a troll, of course.

>>

>> i'm just more honest than most, don't mince words, and know the subject

>> matter inside and out. nuff said...

>

> ah ahha ha haha hahah ahah aha a h...

>

> oh, you were serious?

>

> AHA HAHA hah HA ha ahHHA HA HAHa haA

 

Seriously deluded, that's all that Oxford is.

 

--

Kier

TheLetterK <none@none.net> wrote:

> Peter Hayes wrote:

> > Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:

> >

> >> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> A decrease in the value of currency will usually decrease unemployment,

> in moderate amounts.

 

At present US unemployment is up, not up a lot, but the trend is there.

The dollar is gradually falling. This isn't a good combination.

 

<...>

> >> don't see much above $3 in "real-time"... thus you are wrong.

> >

> > The US average peaked at $3.24 on 17th May. It's fallen away a little

> > since but the overall trend is upwards. Expect to pay at least £3.50

> > next spring, unless something radical happens.

>

> That would be a 280% increase over current prices. That seems a little

> extreme for only a few months. Did you mean $3.50 USD?

 

Indeed - it was late, nearly past my bedtime...

> You also need to

> correct for inflation, which is becoming an increasingly more involved task.

 

Most economic indicators point to a downturn in the world economy in the

next few years. Perhaps not a recession, with negative growth, but

sufficient to make life difficult for many people.

 

The underlying health of each nation's economy will determine how badly

individuals are affected.

 

--

 

Immunity is better than innoculation.

 

Peter

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:

> notinuse2@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

>

> > > > You deal in forecasts all the time, so what's sauce for the goose is

> > > > sauce for the gander. Only problem is, mine are accurate.

> > >

> > > Incorrect. you CLEARLY goofed by using a link that was based on

> > > FORECASTS... while i CLEARLY corrected you by using real numbers

> > > straight from both governments. The UK has about .8% poorer employment

> > > of its people... that's a fact.

> >

> > You quoted a US unemployment figure, 4.6%, and I said it is rising,

> > which is correct. It's up to you to either agree a rise in US

> > unemployment, or to disagree, not to sidestep the comment with spurious

> > complaints about perfectly valid charts.

>

> but you quoted a link of a "forecast" by a non-governmental agency. my

> report was correct.

 

Your government tells the truth? That's a novelty.

> yours was not. the number is 4.7% not 4.6%.

 

So it's 0.1% worse. Fine, except for theose Bush has put on the

scrapheap.

> > > Actually, Gas prices in the States are declining and have been for

> > > awhile now. Let's look at the last 1 year... is that fair enough?

> >

> > If you like. Petrol was $2.14 a year ago and is $2.80 now, give or take

> > a cent, US average

>

> Sure, but that's per liter or whatever, the US still runs circles around

> other developed countries for the lowest fuel prices.

 

Most other developed countries levy extraordinary amounts of tax on

fuel. Most of the UK pump price is tax.

> The UK has practically no natural resources in this area

 

You've obviously never heard of North Sea oil. The UK has been

self-sufficient in oil and gas since the early 1980s.

> > > don't see much above $3 in "real-time"... thus you are wrong.

> >

> > The US average peaked at $3.24 on 17th May. It's fallen away a little

> > since but the overall trend is upwards. Expect to pay at least £3.50

> > next spring, unless something radical happens.

>

> the "average" has now fallen to $2.80 or less... what? £3.50 that would

> never happen. $4.93 per gallon?

 

$7 per gallon. $2 buys £1, near enough in this context, you should now

realise just how far the USD has plummeted in world markets.

> there would be riots in the streets.

> Please check your facts before you post such nonsense.

 

Yeah, typo, sorry. Should be $3.50. But that would have been

self-evident to the intelligent reader.

> > The wild fluctuations in price suggest an unstable market. Under these

> > circumstances it won't take much to trigger off a rapid increase in

> > price.

>

> it reflects Katrina wiping out several refineries, and the whole silly

> iraq war... once the war is over, and bush is gone, gas prices will drop

> back down to $1.59 or so.

 

I very much doubt it. What goes up very rarely comes down.

> > > > I ask again, who is Adele Goldberg, and what crucial role did she play

> > > > in Steve Jobs's world?

> > >

> > > She played a subservient hostess at PARC, serving Milk and Cookies

> > > before all the "talent" left for Apple.

> > >

> > > Ouch!

> > >

> > > Proving once again, she had nothing to do with Steve and Apple!

> >

> > She played a much more crucial role than that. Try again.

>

> Nothing that is documented. Try again.

 

Nothing documented where you've looked, you mean...

 

--

 

Immunity is better than innoculation.

 

Peter

Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

> Seems a lot of blockheads come from the UK. Interesting, I observed

> this FACT in just about every newsgroup I ever visited. Most of the

> clowns either are from the UK (can tell from their spelling of certain

> common words like ass

 

Ass is a wild donkey, or a fool. Seems you're an ass.

 

--

 

Immunity is better than innoculation.

 

Peter

George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 08:58:27 -0700, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote

> (in article <32lst4-91d.ln1@ridcully.ntlworld.com>):

>

> > In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.advocacy,

> > Adam Albright <AA@abc.net> didnst hastily scribble thusly:

> >> Seems a lot of blockheads come from the UK. Interesting, I observed

> >> this FACT in just about every newsgroup I ever visited. Most of the

> >> clowns either are from the UK (can tell from their spelling of certain

> >> common words like ass or color) or they still are there judging form

> >> their email address or posting header.

> >

> > Ahhhh good.

> > Not only a moron, but a racist moron.

>

> Racist? how do you get that? He has no way of knowing your race, only your

> nationality.

 

Unfortunately that idiot Blair has turned virtually anything to do with

nationality or religion into racism. Slag off the Welsh and you're a

"racist". Slag off Muslims and you're a "racist". Complain about

immigration and you're a "racist".

 

The errors in that deeply flawed individual's arguments are obvious for

all to see, unfortunately he has the thought police on his side.

 

--

 

Immunity is better than innoculation.

 

Peter

Adam Albright wrote:

>Seems a lot of blockheads come from the UK. Interesting, I observed

>this FACT in just about every newsgroup I ever visited. Most of the

>clowns either are from the UK (can tell from their spelling of certain

>common words like ass or color) or they still are there judging form

>their email address or posting header.

>

>ROTFLMAO!

 

Just be glad there's none of those lewd, crude Aussies in here!

 

J/K

Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distrofor the general computer/device market.

 

George Graves wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:04:57 -0700, Rick wrote

> (in article <13gogapr9084a5f@news.supernews.com>):

>

>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:47:07 -0700, George Graves wrote:

>>

>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 03:56:16 -0700, Rick wrote (in article

>>> <13gmnigar37km54@news.supernews.com>):

>>>

>>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:05:19 -0700, George Graves wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:57:41 -0700, Oxford wrote (in article

>>>>> <colalovesmacs-24B109.19574108102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>):

>>>>>

>>>>>> why so angry Jesus?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I thought you loved everyone?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> It's sad that even you have turned on the human race.

>>>>> It's pointless trying to have a discussion with these linux fanatics.

>>>>> To them every comment is a challenge, a lie, or worse. You either

>>>>> follow the party line or you are damned. It's real simple. Linux has

>>>>> had years to achieve some sort of critical mass as a viable desktop

>>>>> system and it hasn't moved very far in spite of being so much better

>>>>> than Windows that it isn't even a contest. Yet if you tell these Linux

>>>>> fanatics that one little fact, they go ballistic. Basically, I think

>>>>> that they know its true, but the emperor's new suit of clothes....

>>>>> well, you know.

>>>> Explain to use why the city of Largo uses OpenOffice if it is not a

>>>> professional level application.

>>> Please explain how your non sequitur remark, above, has anything

>>> whatsoever to do with my comment.

>> Yada, yada, yada...

>>

>> You said OO.o was not a pro-level app. Explain why Largo has deployed a

>> non-pro-level app across the City.

>

> Who knows? Who cares? maybe they're cheap or broke, or both. I'm not

> responsible for what Largo does (wherever Largo is). I'm sure you can

> exceptions to every "rule". That doesn't prove that OO is considered a

> pro-level application anywhere. It might be someday. but this is not that

> day.

 

Largo is not the only group that has either considered OOo, or has

adopted OOo. AFAIK, the main reason companies don't move to OOo is the

imperfect compatibility between it and MS Office.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:00:22 -0700, TheLetterK wrote

(in article <eV4Pi.189$va.18@bignews4.bellsouth.net>):

> George Graves wrote:

>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:04:57 -0700, Rick wrote

>> (in article <13gogapr9084a5f@news.supernews.com>):

>>

>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:47:07 -0700, George Graves wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 03:56:16 -0700, Rick wrote (in article

>>>> <13gmnigar37km54@news.supernews.com>):

>>>>

>>>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:05:19 -0700, George Graves wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:57:41 -0700, Oxford wrote (in article

>>>>>> <colalovesmacs-24B109.19574108102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>):

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> why so angry Jesus?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I thought you loved everyone?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> It's sad that even you have turned on the human race.

>>>>>> It's pointless trying to have a discussion with these linux fanatics.

>>>>>> To them every comment is a challenge, a lie, or worse. You either

>>>>>> follow the party line or you are damned. It's real simple. Linux has

>>>>>> had years to achieve some sort of critical mass as a viable desktop

>>>>>> system and it hasn't moved very far in spite of being so much better

>>>>>> than Windows that it isn't even a contest. Yet if you tell these Linux

>>>>>> fanatics that one little fact, they go ballistic. Basically, I think

>>>>>> that they know its true, but the emperor's new suit of clothes....

>>>>>> well, you know.

>>>>> Explain to use why the city of Largo uses OpenOffice if it is not a

>>>>> professional level application.

>>>> Please explain how your non sequitur remark, above, has anything

>>>> whatsoever to do with my comment.

>>> Yada, yada, yada...

>>>

>>> You said OO.o was not a pro-level app. Explain why Largo has deployed a

>>> non-pro-level app across the City.

>>

>> Who knows? Who cares? maybe they're cheap or broke, or both. I'm not

>> responsible for what Largo does (wherever Largo is). I'm sure you can

>> exceptions to every "rule". That doesn't prove that OO is considered a

>> pro-level application anywhere. It might be someday. but this is not that

>> day.

>

> Largo is not the only group that has either considered OOo, or has

> adopted OOo. AFAIK, the main reason companies don't move to OOo is the

> imperfect compatibility between it and MS Office.

 

That's certainly part of it (yet the fact that MS Office isn't particularly

compatible with itself doesn't seem to bother these same companies). The

other part is the perception that if it's free, it can't be worth very much

(I've heard IT managers actually SAY this).

Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distrofor the general computer/device market.

 

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:40:52 -0700, George Graves wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:04:57 -0700, Rick wrote (in article

> <13gogapr9084a5f@news.supernews.com>):

>

>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:47:07 -0700, George Graves wrote:

>>

>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 03:56:16 -0700, Rick wrote (in article

>>> <13gmnigar37km54@news.supernews.com>):

>>>

>>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:05:19 -0700, George Graves wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:57:41 -0700, Oxford wrote (in article

>>>>> <colalovesmacs-24B109.19574108102007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>):

>>>>>

>>>>>> why so angry Jesus?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I thought you loved everyone?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> It's sad that even you have turned on the human race.

>>>>>

>>>>> It's pointless trying to have a discussion with these linux

>>>>> fanatics. To them every comment is a challenge, a lie, or worse. You

>>>>> either follow the party line or you are damned. It's real simple.

>>>>> Linux has had years to achieve some sort of critical mass as a

>>>>> viable desktop system and it hasn't moved very far in spite of being

>>>>> so much better than Windows that it isn't even a contest. Yet if you

>>>>> tell these Linux fanatics that one little fact, they go ballistic.

>>>>> Basically, I think that they know its true, but the emperor's new

>>>>> suit of clothes.... well, you know.

>>>>

>>>> Explain to use why the city of Largo uses OpenOffice if it is not a

>>>> professional level application.

>>>

>>> Please explain how your non sequitur remark, above, has anything

>>> whatsoever to do with my comment.

>>

>> Yada, yada, yada...

>>

>> You said OO.o was not a pro-level app. Explain why Largo has deployed a

>> non-pro-level app across the City.

>

> Who knows? Who cares? maybe they're cheap or broke, or both. I'm not

 

They are nlt cheap or broke, although they DID want to save money. They

originally bought their workstations on eBay, but have since replaced

them withmore expensive machines

> responsible for what Largo does (wherever Largo is).

 

It is in Pinealls County, Florida, due west of Tamp. It is a metropolitan

area with a fairly large population.

> I'm sure you can

> exceptions to every "rule". That doesn't prove that OO is considered a

> pro-level application anywhere.

 

It is in many places.

> It might be someday. but this is notthat day.

 

It is in many places.

 

<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/

Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments>

 

 

 

 

 

--

Rick

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:07:10 -0600, Gene Jones wrote:

> TheLetterK <none@none.net> wrote:

>> Oh, and you think OS X doesn't have shared libraries?

>

> sure, but on OSX it's less "dependent", that's why people are switching

> in droves to OSX.

 

Where's your evidence for such a preposterous claim? And, no, I don't mean

your made-up speculations. Let's have hard facts for once.

 

--

Kier