Re: The Linux Advocacy Bible
From: Liam Slider (liam_at_NOSPAM.liamslider.com)
Date: 01/31/05
- Next message: Mark Hobley: "How do I configure my email sender address ?"
- Previous message: Elementary Penguin: "Re: The Linux Advocacy Bible"
- In reply to: flatfish+++: "Re: The Linux Advocacy Bible"
- Next in thread: Sven Lossman: "Re: The Linux Advocacy Bible"
- Reply: Sven Lossman: "Re: The Linux Advocacy Bible"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:14:21 -0600
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:42:10 -0500, flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:26:41 -0600, Liam Slider wrote:
>
>> This isn't a switcheroo, it's a suggestion that if one isn't right for
>> them, they might try another. Rarely though are the two "Mandrake and
>> Suse." More often the one with trouble is Red Hat (a sysadmin's system,
>> not a users system really), or a more "expert" distro like Slackware or
>> Gentoo...and the user is a complete newbie. Either that, or a Mac user
>> screaming about Yellow Dog.
>
> It doesn't matter which distribution it is, they all have problems and
> the Linux community denies this and claims that the user is at fault.
> Ty it yourself and see what happens.
> Lindows=noobs and it has security problems
The problem isn't "noobs" it's the fact that the company is one giant
con-job, *plus* it has massive security problems...plus you *don't* get
what you pay for.
> Mandrake=cutting edge, untested applications=unstable
That's not true last I heard.
> Suse = Yast and
> non GPL stuff.
YaST *is* GPL you twit. You hadn't heard that it got open sourced? LONG
ago. As for non-GPL stuff, not in the OS itself.
> Gentoo=geek distro..
Well, I've given my opinion on gentoo, not for newbies unless someone else
does the install.
> Debian=prehistoric, old packages.
Depends on which Debian doesn't it.
> Yoper = cutting edge stuff.
The Yoper developers tell you *themselves* that it's a distro specifically
for enthusiasts who like high performance, heavily tweaked systems.
>
> There are a 1000 excuses and the the Linux community knows each and
> every one of them. The bottom line is that all of these distros suck
> just in different ways.
Bullshit. They are all *great* in different ways. Some of them just aren't
meant for *average* users.
>
> You dorks expect people to dedicate their lives to trying Linux
> distributions until they find one that works.
No, we expect people to go with an admin's distro if they are an admin, a
desktop distro if they are a desktop user, and a high performance
tweaker's distro if they are an enthusiast who likes to tinker. We expect
people to *read* before they buy.
>
>
>> Actually, what's pointed out is that dependencies are mostly a problem
>> for the past, with *any* modern distro. If you're having dependency
>> problems...something is *really* wrong, you are using one of the few
>> (probably outdated) distros that doesn't handle them, or you are an
>> idiot.
>
> Baloney....
> Try installing Audacity/Ardour from source under Suse 9.2 and see what
> happens. I just tried it and got a list as long as the constitution. Try
> Pan for that matter.
Goalpost moving. Why this sudden emphasis on installing from *source* now?
I'm using pan, on SuSE. It was no trouble for me to install. I also have
Audacity, also no trouble. I *didn't* install from source though.
>
>
>>> 3. The old hardware routine. Make certain to tell these wild stories
>>> about Linux running on P2 systems with 64m of memory and playing 20
>>> videos at once without a skip.
>>
>> I don't think anyone has ever claimed that.
>
> Talk to Rapskat, the ultimate bullshit artist.
I've seen his posts, and you are exaggerating.
>
>
>
>>> 4. Discredit the user. Make fun of him posting with OE. Call him
>>> flatfish.
>>
>> They often *are* you, or post using your exact style...and no, not just
>> the writing style.
>
> Maybe,
Good to see you admit they are you Flatty.
> but maybe they are telling the truth. It's convenient to deny
> because it is much easier than addressing the points.
We do address the points. Often they are *completely* made up and
non-existant.
>
>
>
>>> Do anything that your buddies can back you up on without a shred of
>>> evidence.
>>
>> Sure, sure...
> Fact, fact fact...
Proof?
If anything it sounds like what *you* do.
>
> Read COLA instead of spamming it with announcements of lame games nobody
> is ever going to try let alone purchase.
Yeah, nobody will *ever* buy Neverwinter Nights...
And nobody will ever play Lux (a huge indie hit at the moment...)
>>
>>> Make fun of posting with x-no-archive while ignoring that William
>>> Poaster, an idiot by anyone's account, uses it all the time.
>>
>>
>> Nobody likes x-no-archive posts.
>
> Then apply the criticism equally to your own.
...I never make x-no-archive posts.
>
>
>>> Ignore all the troll posts from comcast and rr.com despite the fact
>>> that it is obvious who these people are.
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. Claim Linux can do x y and z without any proof at all.
>>
>> Like what? I've never seen any evidence of this.
>
> Talk to Rapskat.
I have never seen him claim a feature that was completely non-existant.
>
>
>>> Claim Windows
>>> does not work for you, again without any proof at all.
>>
>>
>> My own eyes is enough proof. The fact that people are literally
>> *unplugging their machines in frustration and giving up computers* due
>> to Windows is proof enough.
>
>
> So you are an idiot?
No, no, quite intelligent. You?
> Is that my fault.
Well, between you, and your Macintroll counterpart Oxford one can be
inspired to ram your head into a wall repeatedly. I suppose that can't be
good for the IQ... So if I ever do become an idiot I'm sure it'll be at
least partly your fault yes.
> Windows has 95 percent or more of the market place. Are you calling 95
> percent of the computer users idiots?
Did I actually say that there? Let me scroll up and check.
...
Nope, never said that. I do however, think they are victims.
Windows doesn't have 95 percent of the market due to quality, or due to
people *wanting* it.
>
>
>
>>> 6. Blame the hardware vendors for Linux's short comings. This works
>>> well with printers, scanners and video cards. All of which have shit
>>> support under Linux.
>>
>>
>> Actually, most of them *work* in Linux....certain shitty ones, produced
>> by crapware companies like ATI and Lexmark don't, or don't work well.
>
> No they don't.
>
> Go look at linuxprinting.org and you will se a years old, dated list of
> supported printers.
> It's like a huge blast from the past.
I think linuxprinting.org might be a little out of date actually. I know
most Brother printers work, Epson printers are well supported, and HP
printers are *very* well supported now.
>
> Scanners?
Ok, not *so* sure about scanners, but I'm sure there are quite a few that
work. I just don't know a lot about that particular area of hardware.
>
> Same thing....
>
> How about the hot new iPod or that hot new shuffle? It's already been
> determined that the shuffle does NOT work with Linux
Blame Apple. Besides...who needs the iPod shuffle, any *other* cheap flash
based media player will just as well for most of us.
> and making the
> iPod HALF work is a PITA assuming you can make it work at all.
"Half work"? As I understand, once it's set up it works quite well...not
that I'd buy such a low-featured, expensive POS anyway.
>
> Time to get a reality check Liam, Linux sucks and the advocates in COLA
> confirm this on a daily basis.
Time to get a reality check Flatfish, you are smoking crack.
- Next message: Mark Hobley: "How do I configure my email sender address ?"
- Previous message: Elementary Penguin: "Re: The Linux Advocacy Bible"
- In reply to: flatfish+++: "Re: The Linux Advocacy Bible"
- Next in thread: Sven Lossman: "Re: The Linux Advocacy Bible"
- Reply: Sven Lossman: "Re: The Linux Advocacy Bible"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
