J
John B. Slocomb
Flightless Bird
On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 160:14 +0200, Alias
<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>John B. Slocomb wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:05:45 +0200, Alias
>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>
>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 178:58 +0200, Alias
>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Alias"<aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 045 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive
>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or
>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk
>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all
>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy
>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run
>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but
>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch
>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux
>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may
>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the
>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.
>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time
>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with
>>>>> Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with
>>>>> Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and
>>>>> DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows
>>>>> has going for it is using it for gaming.
>>>>
>>>> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed".
>>>
>>> Mine does.
>>>
>>>> And I have used your
>>>> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you
>>>> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1
>>>
>>> Not how it works so you're obviously lying about having installed Ubuntu
>>> but what else is new?
>>
>>
>> That is what I just said - that Ubuntu does not pop up a message and
>> tell you how fast it just transferred that file.
>
>No, it doesn't but if you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu,
>you would know how it does tell you.
>
>>
>> If it does, then please give some examples, references or other means
>> of us knowing what you are talking about.
>
>If you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu, you would know how
>it tells you the speed. It's bloody fucking obvious.
>
Well, Oh Great Liar, I just fired up my net book running:
Ubuntu release 10.04(Lucid), Kernel 2.6.32-21=generic, and copied a
127,494,850 byte file back and forth, both from the desktop and from
the command line.
Guess what? You lied yet again as Ubuntu does not "tell you" the rate
at which the files are copied, i.e., transferred.
So, you've demonstrated, once again, that (1) you don't know what you
are talking about, and/or (2) you are a liar.
Or to put it in the school yard jargon that you are likely more
familiar with "Liar, Liar, pants on fire!"
John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>John B. Slocomb wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:05:45 +0200, Alias
>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>
>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 178:58 +0200, Alias
>>>> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Alias"<aka@hewhoismasked&anonymous.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 045 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Canuck57"<Canuck57@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...
>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive
>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or
>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk
>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all
>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy
>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run
>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but
>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch
>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux
>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may
>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the
>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.
>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time
>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less with
>>>>> Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops with
>>>>> Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs and
>>>>> DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing Windows
>>>>> has going for it is using it for gaming.
>>>>
>>>> Linux does not "tell you the transfer speed".
>>>
>>> Mine does.
>>>
>>>> And I have used your
>>>> Ubuntu and I never saw a message pop up saying "Hey, lucky guy, you
>>>> just transferred that file at a gazillion bytes a minute" - so Lie #1
>>>
>>> Not how it works so you're obviously lying about having installed Ubuntu
>>> but what else is new?
>>
>>
>> That is what I just said - that Ubuntu does not pop up a message and
>> tell you how fast it just transferred that file.
>
>No, it doesn't but if you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu,
>you would know how it does tell you.
>
>>
>> If it does, then please give some examples, references or other means
>> of us knowing what you are talking about.
>
>If you were to ever have transferred files in Ubuntu, you would know how
>it tells you the speed. It's bloody fucking obvious.
>
Well, Oh Great Liar, I just fired up my net book running:
Ubuntu release 10.04(Lucid), Kernel 2.6.32-21=generic, and copied a
127,494,850 byte file back and forth, both from the desktop and from
the command line.
Guess what? You lied yet again as Ubuntu does not "tell you" the rate
at which the files are copied, i.e., transferred.
So, you've demonstrated, once again, that (1) you don't know what you
are talking about, and/or (2) you are a liar.
Or to put it in the school yard jargon that you are likely more
familiar with "Liar, Liar, pants on fire!"
John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)