Only 30 More Days To Go!

[DanS]

Re: alias, the asshole of the earth is at it again!

Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote in
news:4bb28b3b$1@news.x-privat.org:

I know I said I wasn't going to respond, but I have to just to
show you how much of a moron you totally are and how
completely right I was....again....



> On 3/30/2010 3:40 PM, DanS wrote:
>> Frank<fb@tbb.moz> wrote in
>> news:4bb25d0d$1@news.x-privat.org:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>> Last time I checked, I had as much right to be in any
>>>> usenet newsgroup as you have.
>>>
>>> You are only here to spam and troll.
>>
>> Pot, kettle there too !!!!!
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> (I've been ignoring you for a while now, because, face it,
>> you really aren't worth wasting my time on....
>
> hehehe...I see you've gotten your panties all in a
> bunch...again!...LOL!

Expected response #1.

I just wanted to once again show you, for the 100th, time at
least, how you are a loser hypocrite.


>
> you bore me, have zero
>> class, and your entire repertoire consists of almost
>> nothing more than vomiting obscenities like a 10 year-old
>> that thinks he's 'all grown up'....you're not.....but I
>> couldn't resist the obvious pot/kettle call on this one.)
>
> Then why bother responding...do I irritate your dumb,
> ignorant ass that much?
> I sure hope I do.

Expected response #2.

>>
>> Don't even bother replying...
>
> So why are posting to me huh? Out of control...or do I
> control you? Well...?

Out of control with one reply post to you in weeks ?

That's a pretty stupid claim Wank.

>
> ....I already know exactly what you
>> would say, and so does everyone else.
>
> Sorry dan-o, but your crystal ball isn't working and never
> will.

Expected response #3.

>>
>> (...if, of course, I wouldn't have said that last part.)
>
> Hey maybe you can share your stupid, incoherent, juvenile
> thoughts with alias!
> Oops!...LOL!

Expected response #4. (The ooops LOL.)

Now what were you saying about not knowing what you were going
to say......

 

[Alias]

Joel wrote:
> Alias <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote:
>
>>> You can install the generic Mozilla bits for Linux. I see no reason
>>> to limit oneself to the distro's customized/delayed release.
>> And many think like you do. I don't. I only update from the repository
>> and, as a result, I haven't had a problem since I got started with
>> Ubuntu in 06.
>
>
> Why would you have a problem because you installed something like
> Mozilla's own compile of Firefox, though? I mean, in its specific
> case, it's really six of one, half dozen of the other, since Canonical
> and virtually all if not all distros have a Firefox version available,
> but what if you want an application that the distro doesn't provide
> (perhaps a commercial one - they do exist for Linux)? If that will
> cause some kind of trouble with the OS, it doesn't seem very
> encouraging about its overall quality.
>

You can't install a Linux app in Windows, either. The repository has
thousands of programs to choose from. Which one do you have in mind? As
far as I know, you can only install Windows based commercial software
using Wine. As I don't need any of those programs, I just use what's in
the Software Center and Synaptic.

--
Alias

 

[Alias]

DanS wrote:
> Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:tpe6r5llcpdc177bknamnb4bkklr5uu99b@4ax.com:
>
>> Alias <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote:
>>
>>> In Windows, it's 3.6.2. In Ubuntu, it's the version you
>>> have.
>>
>> You can install the generic Mozilla bits for Linux. I see
>> no reason to limit oneself to the distro's
>> customized/delayed release.
>
> By the same token, I see no reason to install a newer version if
> it's unnecessary.
>
> At this stage in the game, what new feature could they possibly
> have in a web browser update that would make it a must have
> (other than anything security related).

Security with FF is more important if you're using Windows. With Ubuntu,
it's not a problem.

--
Alias

 

[Alias]

Re: alias, the asshole of the earth is at it again!

DanS wrote:
> Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote in
> news:4bb28b3b$1@news.x-privat.org:
>
> I know I said I wasn't going to respond, but I have to just to
> show you how much of a moron you totally are and how
> completely right I was....again....
>
>
>
>> On 3/30/2010 3:40 PM, DanS wrote:
>>> Frank<fb@tbb.moz> wrote in
>>> news:4bb25d0d$1@news.x-privat.org:
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>>> Last time I checked, I had as much right to be in any
>>>>> usenet newsgroup as you have.
>>>> You are only here to spam and troll.
>>> Pot, kettle there too !!!!!
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> (I've been ignoring you for a while now, because, face it,
>>> you really aren't worth wasting my time on....
>> hehehe...I see you've gotten your panties all in a
>> bunch...again!...LOL!
>
> Expected response #1.
>
> I just wanted to once again show you, for the 100th, time at
> least, how you are a loser hypocrite.
>
>
>> you bore me, have zero
>>> class, and your entire repertoire consists of almost
>>> nothing more than vomiting obscenities like a 10 year-old
>>> that thinks he's 'all grown up'....you're not.....but I
>>> couldn't resist the obvious pot/kettle call on this one.)
>> Then why bother responding...do I irritate your dumb,
>> ignorant ass that much?
>> I sure hope I do.
>
> Expected response #2.
>
>>> Don't even bother replying...
>> So why are posting to me huh? Out of control...or do I
>> control you? Well...?
>
> Out of control with one reply post to you in weeks ?
>
> That's a pretty stupid claim Wank.
>
>> ....I already know exactly what you
>>> would say, and so does everyone else.
>> Sorry dan-o, but your crystal ball isn't working and never
>> will.
>
> Expected response #3.
>
>>> (...if, of course, I wouldn't have said that last part.)
>> Hey maybe you can share your stupid, incoherent, juvenile
>> thoughts with alias!
>> Oops!...LOL!
>
> Expected response #4. (The ooops LOL.)
>
> Now what were you saying about not knowing what you were going
> to say......
>

Predicting what Frank will post is not exactly rocket science. He's a
one trick pony.

--
Alias

 

[Joel]

DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote:

>> You can install the generic Mozilla bits for Linux. I see
>> no reason to limit oneself to the distro's
>> customized/delayed release.
>
>By the same token, I see no reason to install a newer version if
>it's unnecessary.


That much I *tend* to agree with (although it would depend on the
nature of the update, and how long it took the distro to release their
package), although I didn't like the way it was modified, beyond just
being a slightly older version.


>At this stage in the game, what new feature could they possibly
>have in a web browser update that would make it a must have
>(other than anything security related).


3.6.2 did fix at least one critical bug in 3.6 - although i believe
3.5.x didn't have the bug, so I wouldn't say at least in this case
Canonical is missing anything.

--
Joel Crump

 

[Joel]

Alias <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote:

>You can't install a Linux app in Windows, either.


Not without MS's Unix subsystem (with Win7, using it requires
Enterprise/Ultimate) or Cygwin (pretty much recognized as better than
MS's, free, and will run on any version of Windows), at least, yes.


> The repository has
>thousands of programs to choose from. Which one do you have in mind? As
>far as I know, you can only install Windows based commercial software
>using Wine. As I don't need any of those programs, I just use what's in
>the Software Center and Synaptic.


There is a commercial version of Wine for Linux (and OS X), CrossOver
(http://www.codeweavers.com/products/). I used it under OS X, until I
decided to run Win7 on my MacBook. It's really worth looking into
even if you don't run Windows programs, because it's an intriguing
project - it gives a lot back to the free Wine project, while
providing support for some heavy Windows software under Linux and OS X
(including MS Office 2007, among others), and helping to manage the
Windows software installed (this was highly advantageous under OS X,
since it provided a native Mac GUI shell for Wine's X interface - but
Wine can be compiled without too much trouble under OS X, if one is
really that cheap not to pay a modest annual fee for CrossOver).

However, I don't mean to totally sidetrack into that one program.
There are other commercial programs for Linux, and there are
inevitably going to be free programs or specific versions thereof that
aren't in every distro's repository. It shouldn't cause problems to
install them - that wouldn't speak well of the distro.

--
Joel Crump

 

[Alias]

Joel wrote:
> Alias <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote:
>
>> You can't install a Linux app in Windows, either.
>
>
> Not without MS's Unix subsystem (with Win7, using it requires
> Enterprise/Ultimate) or Cygwin (pretty much recognized as better than
> MS's, free, and will run on any version of Windows), at least, yes.
>
>
>> The repository has
>> thousands of programs to choose from. Which one do you have in mind? As
>> far as I know, you can only install Windows based commercial software
>> using Wine. As I don't need any of those programs, I just use what's in
>> the Software Center and Synaptic.
>
>
> There is a commercial version of Wine for Linux (and OS X), CrossOver
> (http://www.codeweavers.com/products/). I used it under OS X, until I
> decided to run Win7 on my MacBook. It's really worth looking into
> even if you don't run Windows programs, because it's an intriguing
> project - it gives a lot back to the free Wine project, while
> providing support for some heavy Windows software under Linux and OS X
> (including MS Office 2007, among others), and helping to manage the
> Windows software installed (this was highly advantageous under OS X,
> since it provided a native Mac GUI shell for Wine's X interface - but
> Wine can be compiled without too much trouble under OS X, if one is
> really that cheap not to pay a modest annual fee for CrossOver).
>
> However, I don't mean to totally sidetrack into that one program.
> There are other commercial programs for Linux, and there are
> inevitably going to be free programs or specific versions thereof that
> aren't in every distro's repository. It shouldn't cause problems to
> install them - that wouldn't speak well of the distro.
>

I didn't say it would cause problems if you know what you're doing. For
the average user, only installing from the repositories will provide all
the programs most users will need.

--
Alias

 

[Joel]

Alias <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote:

>> However, I don't mean to totally sidetrack into that one program.
>> There are other commercial programs for Linux, and there are
>> inevitably going to be free programs or specific versions thereof that
>> aren't in every distro's repository. It shouldn't cause problems to
>> install them - that wouldn't speak well of the distro.
>
>I didn't say it would cause problems if you know what you're doing. For
>the average user, only installing from the repositories will provide all
>the programs most users will need.


Presumably that is true - but it's not all that different from
Windows, really, where most users will find all the software they need
from reputable sources (whether free or commercial).

--
Joel Crump

 

[Alias]

Joel wrote:
> Alias <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote:
>
>>> However, I don't mean to totally sidetrack into that one program.
>>> There are other commercial programs for Linux, and there are
>>> inevitably going to be free programs or specific versions thereof that
>>> aren't in every distro's repository. It shouldn't cause problems to
>>> install them - that wouldn't speak well of the distro.
>> I didn't say it would cause problems if you know what you're doing. For
>> the average user, only installing from the repositories will provide all
>> the programs most users will need.
>
>
> Presumably that is true - but it's not all that different from
> Windows, really, where most users will find all the software they need
> from reputable sources (whether free or commercial).
>

If you cut out the cost of Windows, PhotoShop, Adobe Acrobat and MS
Office, Linux saves a helluva lot of money. So, no, it isn't like
Windows cost-wise.

--
Alias

 

[Philo P. Shagnasty]

"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
news:hovhtt$2nm$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> DanS wrote:
>> Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:tpe6r5llcpdc177bknamnb4bkklr5uu99b@4ax.com:
>>> Alias <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In Windows, it's 3.6.2. In Ubuntu, it's the version you
>>>> have.
>>>
>>> You can install the generic Mozilla bits for Linux. I see
>>> no reason to limit oneself to the distro's
>>> customized/delayed release.
>>
>> By the same token, I see no reason to install a newer version if it's
>> unnecessary.
>>
>> At this stage in the game, what new feature could they possibly have in a
>> web browser update that would make it a must have (other than anything
>> security related).
>
> Security with FF is more important if you're using Windows. With Ubuntu,
> it's not a problem.
>
> --
> Alias

Of course security is not a problem with that SHITTY Ubuntu. Nobody uses
it! LOL!

 

[Philo P. Shagnasty]

"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
news:hov9mm$9u3$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> reagan wrote:
>> until ubuntu tries to get another step closer to Windows 7
>
> It's the other way round but you'd have to know something about Ubuntu to
> understand that, not just the FUD that MS spews and you, like a fool,
> believe.
>
> --
> Alias

What a crock of shit. Ubuntu is 10 years behind Windows. Their Open Sores
software is lacking also. Most think it's a joke and business uses what
works: Microsoft products.

Ubuntu has been free for years and is still on less than one percent of the
desktops. Most reject Ubuntu as a JOKE.

 

[Philo P. Shagnasty]

"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
news:hov9to$arg$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Muad'Dib wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>> On April 29th, the Long Term Support version of Ubuntu will be released,
>>> a release that Mark Shuttleworth devoted all his time to so that Ubuntu
>>> will finally shoot Windows out of the stratosphere. Get it at
>>> http://www.ubuntu.com/ You'll be glad you did.
>>>
>>> What can be done with Ubuntu:
>>>
>>> Email
>>> Surf the web
>>> Burn CDs.
>>> Rip CDs.
>>> Listen to music.
>>> Watch vidoes/DVDs.
>>> Scan and print.
>>> Spreadsheets.
>>> Presentations
>>> Newsgroups.
>>> HTML editing.
>>> Games like Chess, Tetris, all kinds of solitaire, etc.
>>> Make videos.
>>> Download photos from a camera and organize them.
>>> Translations.
>>> Use a dictionary
>>> Learn how to touch type.
>>> Edit images.
>>> Send and receive a fax.
>>> Take screenshots.
>>> Create .PDF files.
>>> Create and use a data base.
>>> Instant messaging with over 10 different programs in one including
>>> Windows Live Messenger.
>>> IRC.
>>> Bluetooth.
>>>
>>> and much more!
>>>
>>> What you can't do with Ubuntu:
>>>
>>> Worry about:
>>> WPA and WGA raising their ugly heads,
>>> DRM,
>>> Viruses,
>>> Root kits,
>>> Spyware,
>>> and
>>> Malware.
>>>
>>
>> Glad to see you are finally recommending an LTS version which is way more
>> sensible for newbies. (General user) I'm looking forward to updating to
>> the new LTS ver, although I'll wait a bit after the initial release as
>> always with ANY OS.
>>
>> G'day
>
> I'll clean install it the day it comes out. If you back up Home, what's
> the risk? This release is supposed to be a Windows breaker now that ext4
> and Grub 2 have matured.
>
> --
> Alias

You must be kidding, right? You think the next crippled version of that
SHITTY Ubuntu is a "Windows breaker"? HA HA HA HA HA.

Loser.

 

[Joel]

Alias <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote:

>>> I didn't say it would cause problems if you know what you're doing. For
>>> the average user, only installing from the repositories will provide all
>>> the programs most users will need.
>>
>> Presumably that is true - but it's not all that different from
>> Windows, really, where most users will find all the software they need
>> from reputable sources (whether free or commercial).
>
>If you cut out the cost of Windows, PhotoShop, Adobe Acrobat and MS
>Office, Linux saves a helluva lot of money. So, no, it isn't like
>Windows cost-wise.


I wasn't talking about cost. But how many people buy all three of
Photoshop, Acrobat and MS Office? I don't own any of them, myself. I
have two free versions of PSP
(an old NT4/9x-era freebie one I saved from my old dial-up modem's
driver CD, and the PSP9 installer that requires no serial or anything,
that they put out via a word to the wise right before PSP10 came
out - if anyone wants either of them, feel free to ask),
and OpenOffice.

I have bought several Windows programs, but they were all in the
$20-90 range (except Windows itself, of course, which I've paid over
$100 for each copy of - one XP, two 7).

--
Joel Crump

 

[Alias]

Joel wrote:
> Alias <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote:
>
>>>> I didn't say it would cause problems if you know what you're doing. For
>>>> the average user, only installing from the repositories will provide all
>>>> the programs most users will need.
>>> Presumably that is true - but it's not all that different from
>>> Windows, really, where most users will find all the software they need
>>> from reputable sources (whether free or commercial).
>> If you cut out the cost of Windows, PhotoShop, Adobe Acrobat and MS
>> Office, Linux saves a helluva lot of money. So, no, it isn't like
>> Windows cost-wise.
>
>
> I wasn't talking about cost. But how many people buy all three of
> Photoshop, Acrobat and MS Office? I don't own any of them, myself. I
> have two free versions of PSP
> (an old NT4/9x-era freebie one I saved from my old dial-up modem's
> driver CD, and the PSP9 installer that requires no serial or anything,
> that they put out via a word to the wise right before PSP10 came
> out - if anyone wants either of them, feel free to ask),
> and OpenOffice.
>
> I have bought several Windows programs, but they were all in the
> $20-90 range (except Windows itself, of course, which I've paid over
> $100 for each copy of - one XP, two 7).
>

My point is that Linux has comparable programs for these expensive
Windows based programs and is a good incentive -- along with Linux'
security -- to make the switch and go through the learning curve.

--
Alias

 

[Alias]

Philo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hovhtt$2nm$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>> DanS wrote:
>>> Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:tpe6r5llcpdc177bknamnb4bkklr5uu99b@4ax.com:
>>>> Alias <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In Windows, it's 3.6.2. In Ubuntu, it's the version you
>>>>> have.
>>>>
>>>> You can install the generic Mozilla bits for Linux. I see
>>>> no reason to limit oneself to the distro's
>>>> customized/delayed release.
>>>
>>> By the same token, I see no reason to install a newer version if it's
>>> unnecessary.
>>>
>>> At this stage in the game, what new feature could they possibly have
>>> in a web browser update that would make it a must have (other than
>>> anything security related).
>>
>> Security with FF is more important if you're using Windows. With
>> Ubuntu, it's not a problem.
>>
>> --
>> Alias
>
> Of course security is not a problem with that SHITTY Ubuntu. Nobody
> uses it! LOL!
>
>
>

13 million users say you're a blatant liar. Why are you so afraid of Ubuntu?

--
Alias

 

[Alias]

Philo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hov9mm$9u3$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>> reagan wrote:
>>> until ubuntu tries to get another step closer to Windows 7
>>
>> It's the other way round but you'd have to know something about Ubuntu
>> to understand that, not just the FUD that MS spews and you, like a
>> fool, believe.
>>
>> --
>> Alias
>
> What a crock of shit. Ubuntu is 10 years behind Windows. Their Open
> Sores software is lacking also. Most think it's a joke and business
> uses what works: Microsoft products.
>
> Ubuntu has been free for years and is still on less than one percent of
> the desktops. Most reject Ubuntu as a JOKE.
>
>
>

You're lying again. Why are you so afraid of Ubuntu?

--
Alias

 

[Alias]

Philo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
> news:hov9to$arg$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Muad'Dib wrote:
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> On April 29th, the Long Term Support version of Ubuntu will be
>>>> released, a release that Mark Shuttleworth devoted all his time to
>>>> so that Ubuntu will finally shoot Windows out of the stratosphere.
>>>> Get it at http://www.ubuntu.com/ You'll be glad you did.
>>>>
>>>> What can be done with Ubuntu:
>>>>
>>>> Email
>>>> Surf the web
>>>> Burn CDs.
>>>> Rip CDs.
>>>> Listen to music.
>>>> Watch vidoes/DVDs.
>>>> Scan and print.
>>>> Spreadsheets.
>>>> Presentations
>>>> Newsgroups.
>>>> HTML editing.
>>>> Games like Chess, Tetris, all kinds of solitaire, etc.
>>>> Make videos.
>>>> Download photos from a camera and organize them.
>>>> Translations.
>>>> Use a dictionary
>>>> Learn how to touch type.
>>>> Edit images.
>>>> Send and receive a fax.
>>>> Take screenshots.
>>>> Create .PDF files.
>>>> Create and use a data base.
>>>> Instant messaging with over 10 different programs in one including
>>>> Windows Live Messenger.
>>>> IRC.
>>>> Bluetooth.
>>>>
>>>> and much more!
>>>>
>>>> What you can't do with Ubuntu:
>>>>
>>>> Worry about:
>>>> WPA and WGA raising their ugly heads,
>>>> DRM,
>>>> Viruses,
>>>> Root kits,
>>>> Spyware,
>>>> and
>>>> Malware.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Glad to see you are finally recommending an LTS version which is way
>>> more sensible for newbies. (General user) I'm looking forward to
>>> updating to the new LTS ver, although I'll wait a bit after the
>>> initial release as always with ANY OS.
>>>
>>> G'day
>>
>> I'll clean install it the day it comes out. If you back up Home,
>> what's the risk? This release is supposed to be a Windows breaker now
>> that ext4 and Grub 2 have matured.
>>
>> --
>> Alias
>
> You must be kidding, right? You think the next crippled version of that
> SHITTY Ubuntu is a "Windows breaker"? HA HA HA HA HA.
>
> Loser.
>
>

Liar.

--
Alias

 

[Frank]

Re: alias, the asshole of the earth is at it again!

On 3/31/2010 6:14 AM, DanS wrote:
> Frank<fb@amk.cmo> wrote in
> news:4bb28b3b$1@news.x-privat.org:
>
> I know I said I wasn't going to respond, but I have to just to
> show you how much of a moron you totally are and how
> completely right I was....again....

You're as sick as your sheep-fucking butt-buddy alias is.
>
>
>
>> On 3/30/2010 3:40 PM, DanS wrote:
>>> Frank<fb@tbb.moz> wrote in
>>> news:4bb25d0d$1@news.x-privat.org:
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>>>
>>>>> Last time I checked, I had as much right to be in any
>>>>> usenet newsgroup as you have.
>>>>
>>>> You are only here to spam and troll.
>>>
>>> Pot, kettle there too !!!!!
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> (I've been ignoring you for a while now, because, face it,
>>> you really aren't worth wasting my time on....
>>
>> hehehe...I see you've gotten your panties all in a
>> bunch...again!...LOL!
>
> Expected response #1.
>
> I just wanted to once again show you, for the 100th, time at
> least, how you are a loser hypocrite.

Thanks for proving what a total asshole loser you are.
>
>
>>
>> you bore me, have zero
>>> class, and your entire repertoire consists of almost
>>> nothing more than vomiting obscenities like a 10 year-old
>>> that thinks he's 'all grown up'....you're not.....but I
>>> couldn't resist the obvious pot/kettle call on this one.)
>>
>> Then why bother responding...do I irritate your dumb,
>> ignorant ass that much?
>> I sure hope I do.
>
> Expected response #2.
>
>>>
>>> Don't even bother replying...
>>
>> So why are posting to me huh? Out of control...or do I
>> control you? Well...?
>
> Out of control with one reply post to you in weeks ?
>
> That's a pretty stupid claim Wank.

I say "jump" and you say "how high".
>
>>
>> ....I already know exactly what you
>>> would say, and so does everyone else.
>>
>> Sorry dan-o, but your crystal ball isn't working and never
>> will.
>
> Expected response #3.
>
>>>
>>> (...if, of course, I wouldn't have said that last part.)
>>
>> Hey maybe you can share your stupid, incoherent, juvenile
>> thoughts with alias!
>> Oops!...LOL!
>
> Expected response #4. (The ooops LOL.)
>
> Now what were you saying about not knowing what you were going
> to say......
>
hehehe...I see you still have your panties all in a bunch...HAHAHA!!!
Oops!

 

[Frank]

Re: alias, the asshole of the earth is at it again!

On 3/31/2010 6:18 AM, Alias wrote:
> DanS wrote:
>> Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote in
>> news:4bb28b3b$1@news.x-privat.org:
>> I know I said I wasn't going to respond, but I have to just to show
>> you how much of a moron you totally are and how completely right I
>> was....again....
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 3/30/2010 3:40 PM, DanS wrote:
>>>> Frank<fb@tbb.moz> wrote in
>>>> news:4bb25d0d$1@news.x-privat.org:
>>>>
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>>> Last time I checked, I had as much right to be in any
>>>>>> usenet newsgroup as you have.
>>>>> You are only here to spam and troll.
>>>> Pot, kettle there too !!!!!
>>>>
>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>
>>>> (I've been ignoring you for a while now, because, face it,
>>>> you really aren't worth wasting my time on....
>>> hehehe...I see you've gotten your panties all in a
>>> bunch...again!...LOL!
>>
>> Expected response #1.
>>
>> I just wanted to once again show you, for the 100th, time at least,
>> how you are a loser hypocrite.
>>
>>> you bore me, have zero
>>>> class, and your entire repertoire consists of almost
>>>> nothing more than vomiting obscenities like a 10 year-old
>>>> that thinks he's 'all grown up'....you're not.....but I
>>>> couldn't resist the obvious pot/kettle call on this one.)
>>> Then why bother responding...do I irritate your dumb,
>>> ignorant ass that much?
>>> I sure hope I do.
>>
>> Expected response #2.
>>
>>>> Don't even bother replying...
>>> So why are posting to me huh? Out of control...or do I
>>> control you? Well...?
>>
>> Out of control with one reply post to you in weeks ?
>>
>> That's a pretty stupid claim Wank.
>>
>>> ....I already know exactly what you
>>>> would say, and so does everyone else.
>>> Sorry dan-o, but your crystal ball isn't working and never
>>> will.
>>
>> Expected response #3.
>>
>>>> (...if, of course, I wouldn't have said that last part.)
>>> Hey maybe you can share your stupid, incoherent, juvenile
>>> thoughts with alias!
>>> Oops!...LOL!
>>
>> Expected response #4. (The ooops LOL.)
>>
>> Now what were you saying about not knowing what you were going to
>> say......
>>
>
> Predicting what Frank will post is not exactly rocket science. He's a
> one trick pony.
>
I see you're doing your "count down thing"...how predictable is that?
You are one sick fuck!
Oops!

 

[Joel]

Alias <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote:

>My point is that Linux has comparable programs for these expensive
>Windows based programs and is a good incentive -- along with Linux'
>security -- to make the switch and go through the learning curve.


Windows has comparable free programs, too. Windows can be used
securely. If people are genuinely interested in Linux, and genuinely
find that they prefer it, great - but Ubuntu simply can't be anywhere
near matching Windows, yet. It works decently for some machines, but
not for others, and isn't polished in any event. Other distros are
fairly polished, but they also don't go balls-out on bleeding-edge
hardware support - Linux remains a Catch-22, in that respect, but it
is improving, and I *do* believe it will gain usage in the coming
years.

--
Joel Crump