(OS) The thing I hate most about Microsoft Windows.

Mike · External Since: Sep 19, 2006 Posts: 83

"Jim" <james DeleteThis @the-computer-shop.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PFPSg.42420$8V4.11565@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

> Nobody's forcing you to use Linux. What's being forced is Microsoft
> Windows
> and WGA extortion. I, like quite a few other individuals, have chosen to
> throw the babyfood and get my teeth into something solid. Ref: .sig

Nobody's forcing me to use Windows either. I have OS X on 3 machines here,
and Linux on 1. I use Windows because I *choose* to. I, like quite a few
others, have chosen to throw the toy, amateur OS and go with the Pros.

Mike

Linonut · External Since: Mar 31, 2006 Posts: 3492

After takin' a swig o' grog, Jim belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Mike came up with this when he headbutted the keyboard a moment ago in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>
>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann DeleteThis @t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:efgbf4$oot$02$2@news.t-online.com...
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>> < snip morons stuff >
>>>
>>> abuse DeleteThis @supernews.com
>>>
>>> Done
>>
>> Oooh, I am *so* scared.
>>
>>> Microsoft Windows - The art of incompetence.
>>
>> Linux - The art of "we can't even *give* it away".
>>
>> Mike
>
> Nobody's forcing you to use Linux. What's being forced is Microsoft Windows
> and WGA extortion. I, like quite a few other individuals, have chosen to
> throw the babyfood and get my teeth into something solid. Ref: .sig

"Mike" is too ignorant to bother with, Jim.

--
Windows XP is like a box of chocolates --
you never know when the steel bolts are going to spring out and
plunge straight through both cheeks.

Jim · External Since: Apr 21, 2005 Posts: 996

Mike came up with this when he headbutted the keyboard a moment ago in
comp.os.linux.advocacy:

> "Jim" <james DeleteThis @the-computer-shop.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:PFPSg.42420$8V4.11565@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
>> Nobody's forcing you to use Linux. What's being forced is Microsoft
>> Windows
>> and WGA extortion. I, like quite a few other individuals, have chosen to
>> throw the babyfood and get my teeth into something solid. Ref: .sig
>
> Nobody's forcing me to use Windows either. I have OS X on 3 machines
here,
> and Linux on 1. I use Windows because I *choose* to. I, like quite a
few
> others, have chosen to throw the toy, amateur OS and go with the Pros.
>
> Mike

Your choice, and your opinion. Like me, I made my choice and I have my
opinion.

I quite like Mac OS myself, only problem I have is that the hardware is a
bit out of my price bracket for the performance I demand (although I do
have a G3/400 powerbook with Tiger on it and a G3/350 iMac with OS9, and
I'm happy with them both - I paid less than £50 each for them). So, I go
with less expensive (read: x86/64) hardware and choose software that can
most efficiently make use of the processing power available to me on that
hardware (read: Linux). I won't use Linux on a Mac, because I know that the
marriage of PPC hardware and Mac OS is such that the optimum use is already
being made of the hardware. It's been that way from day one. Kudos to Apple
for that, now if they'd just drop their prices by oh, I don't know, 30%?
I'd certainly consider buying in a stack of Macs to use in cluster
configuration then, but not before.
--
-*- Linux: Because restarts are for upgrades.
-*- Some people are like Slinkies; they serve no specific purpose,
but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
-*- Linux Desktops & Clustering Solutions -*- http://dotware.co.uk
-*- Registered Linux user #426308 -*- http://counter.li.org
-*- We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.
-*- Contemplating Knife -*- Which end do the bullets go in again?
-*- I can't wait to get to heaven and meet seventy virgins - I've yet to
meet *one* on *Earth*!
-*- For sale: one (1) Fender Phantom air guitar. £500 ONO
-*- For sale: one (1) Italian WWII bolt-action rifle. .303cal, never fired,
only dropped once. Offers.
-*- Hit every key to continue.
-*- That's it. No more coffee for *that* man!

Mike · External Since: Sep 19, 2006 Posts: 83

"Jim" <james.TakeThisOut@the-computer-shop.co.uk> wrote in message
news:05QSg.14355$2g5.3785@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
> Your choice, and your opinion. Like me, I made my choice and I have my
> opinion.
>
> I quite like Mac OS myself, only problem I have is that the hardware is a
> bit out of my price bracket for the performance I demand (although I do
> have a G3/400 powerbook with Tiger on it and a G3/350 iMac with OS9, and
> I'm happy with them both - I paid less than Â£50 each for them).

Then do what I do - run OS X on a PC. I have it on a TinkPad T41 laptop
and this DIY box with an ASUS P4C800-E MB and ATI X800XT video card. Runs
fine on both. I also have a G4 500 "real Mac".

Mike

Jim · External Since: Apr 21, 2005 Posts: 996

Linonut came up with this when he headbutted the keyboard a moment ago in
comp.os.linux.advocacy:

> Windows XP is like a box of chocolates --
> you never know when the steel bolts are going to spring out and
> plunge straight through both cheeks.

Like it. Permission to steal it and add to my ever-growing .sig?
--
-*- Linux: Because restarts are for upgrades.
-*- Some people are like Slinkies; they serve no specific purpose,
but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
-*- Linux Desktops & Clustering Solutions -*- http://dotware.co.uk
-*- Registered Linux user #426308 -*- http://counter.li.org
-*- We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.
-*- Contemplating Knife -*- Which end do the bullets go in again?
-*- I can't wait to get to heaven and meet seventy virgins - I've yet to
meet *one* on *Earth*!
-*- For sale: one (1) Fender Phantom air guitar. £500 ONO
-*- For sale: one (1) Italian WWII bolt-action rifle. .303cal, never fired,
only dropped once. Offers.
-*- Hit every key to continue.
-*- That's it. No more coffee for *that* man!

Jim Richardson · External Since: Jan 15, 2005 Posts: 1227

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:18:28 GMT,
Jim <james DeleteThis @the-computer-shop.co.uk> wrote:
> Linonut came up with this when he headbutted the keyboard a moment ago in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>
>> WindowsÂ XPÂ isÂ likeÂ aÂ boxÂ ofÂ chocolatesÂ --
>> Â Â Â youÂ neverÂ knowÂ whenÂ theÂ steelÂ boltsÂ areÂ goingÂ toÂ springÂ outÂ and
>> Â Â Â plungeÂ straightÂ throughÂ bothÂ cheeks.
>
> Like it. Permission to steal it and add to my ever-growing .sig?

it's from a Monty Python sketch. Google for "crunchy frog"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFHCAFd90bcYOAWPYRAuURAJ4gwU8u0kyy0lStl6EXV63CvUFTcgCdGZZP
0YjV+GSVhRPZKlHuxw2Tn80=
=NiKD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If you don't know how to do something, you don't know how to do it with a
computer.

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory RemoveThis @netscape.net> writes:

> Mike wrote:
>
>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory RemoveThis @netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:r%_Rg.14691$b6.160949@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory RemoveThis @netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:a0IRg.14669$b6.160356@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gregory Shearman" <ZekeGregory RemoveThis @netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:tftRg.14565$b6.159700@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>>>>>>> Saturday's Newcastle Herald is not a source? That's a new one on me!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you telling the story here is not a source. Link please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah! Newspaper articles are "anecdotes" now?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You telling it here is an anecdote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet
>>>>
>>>> Ah yes, wikipedia, that unbiased bastion of truth and light. So you
>>>> couldn't find your source from Saturday's Newcastle Herald?
>>>
>>> I have a paper copy here in my hand. If you want an electronic copy then
>>> you'll have to pay for it... only two dollars and 20 cents. Here's the
>>> link:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/mlx7t
>>>
>>> You won't accept that there are winbots delivering spam? Where in hell do
>>> you think all this spam originates? Linux boxes?
>>
>> Why not? Is Linux not up to sending thousands of email mesages a day?
>
> Thousands? How about hundreds of millions?
>
>> Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since "Linux
>> controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines, right? Why
>> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?
>
> Spam IS being stopped, at GREAT cost to the WHOLE WORLD.... Thanks
> microsoft for this drain on communications.

Get a clue. Blaming MS for SPAM is like blaming the post office for
letter bombs.

Tell me, is MS responsible for the 30 odd flyers that get dropped in my
letter box every week?

Jim · External Since: Apr 21, 2005 Posts: 996

Linonut came up with this when he headbutted the keyboard a moment ago in
comp.os.linux.advocacy:

> After takin' a swig o' grog, Jim belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Mike came up with this when he headbutted the keyboard a moment ago in
>> comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>>
>>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann DeleteThis @t-online.de> wrote in message
>>> news:efgbf4$oot$02$2@news.t-online.com...
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>> < snip morons stuff >
>>>>
>>>> abuse DeleteThis @supernews.com
>>>>
>>>> Done
>>>
>>> Oooh, I am *so* scared.
>>>
>>>> Microsoft Windows - The art of incompetence.
>>>
>>> Linux - The art of "we can't even *give* it away".
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> Nobody's forcing you to use Linux. What's being forced is Microsoft
Windows
>> and WGA extortion. I, like quite a few other individuals, have chosen to
>> throw the babyfood and get my teeth into something solid. Ref: .sig
>
> "Mike" is too ignorant to bother with, Jim.
>

Yeah, I was getting to that conclusion myself. Use Mac OS on x86??? YGTBFKM.
There's that whole extra-emulation-layer stuff to deal with, which if
anyone tells me /isn't/ major system overhead, I'll call them bullshitters
to their face. We're talking about CISC emulating RISC here (OK, CISC is
RISC with a bigger instruction set and proprietery extensions like 3DNow
and SSE, but those are two extensions that Mac OS a: has no use for and b:
doesn't even know what they are). But even to that extent, they're
basically incompatible, otherwise I would be using Mac OS on x86 and not
worrying about performance hits because every instruction has to go through
an API that really doesn't need to be there.
And no, I'm not about to go out and buy a dual Opteron just so I can run Mac
OS/x86. Inexpensive tho they are.
--
-*- Linux: Because restarts are for upgrades.
-*- Some people are like Slinkies; they serve no specific purpose,
but they bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
-*- Linux Desktops & Clustering Solutions -*- http://dotware.co.uk
-*- Registered Linux user #426308 -*- http://counter.li.org
-*- We now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.
-*- Contemplating Knife -*- Which end do the bullets go in again?
-*- I can't wait to get to heaven and meet seventy virgins - I've yet to
meet *one* on *Earth*!
-*- For sale: one (1) Fender Phantom air guitar. £500 ONO
-*- For sale: one (1) Italian WWII bolt-action rifle. .303cal, never fired,
only dropped once. Offers.
-*- Hit every key to continue.
-*- That's it. No more coffee for *that* man!

Linonut · External Since: Mar 31, 2006 Posts: 3492

After takin' a swig o' grog, Jim belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Linonut came up with this when he headbutted the keyboard a moment ago in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>
>> Windows XP is like a box of chocolates --
>> you never know when the steel bolts are going to spring out and
>> plunge straight through both cheeks.
>
> Like it. Permission to steal it and add to my ever-growing .sig?

Of course!

This is a community show!

(Got the steel bolts from Monty Python's "Whizzo Chocolate Assortment"
sketch.)

--
"Spock, you're nothing but a damn computer!"
"Why, thank you, Doctor!"

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"Linonut" <linonut.TakeThisOut@bone.com> wrote in message
news:cPSdnUszxbIMbIfYnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Oliver Wong belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> By using your reasoning powers.
>>
>> How do you know that the formal rules of logic that you were taught
>> are
>> the "real" rules of logic? Sure, you might examine the rules and notice
>> they
>> are self consistent... but couldn't there be a different set of logical
>> rules and axiom which are also self consistent?
>
> You might want to read Russell and Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica".

Why?

I understand that the book is basically a proof of concept (not quite
sure what it was trying to prove at the meta level, above the fact that e.g.
1 + 1 = 2), in retaliation to Russel's own Paradox. They were trying to
"fix" mathematics, because in its prior incarnations, there seemed to exist
contradictions.

Is reading the book going to convince me that you can know whether
*logic itself* is correct/true/good/whatever?

>
>> Eventually, when you go back through all knowledge you've acquired
>> and
>> trying to find out how you can re-derive them from base principles,
>> you'll
>> hit an axiom which you just have to "believe in", without any way to
>> derive
>> it. How you were raised by your parents (if that's really who they are
>> Wink

)
>> can have a very strong influence in what these axioms are.
>
> Such axioms would have to pass muster in the domain that depends upon
> those axioms for action.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pass muster". If you believe something
without deriving it from some other knowledge you previously had, then that
thing is an axiom in your system. If you never encounter any evidence which
contradicts your beliefs, then you will never find out that your axiom was
"wrong". For example, you might decide to believe that there are *EXACTLY*
10^79 protons in the universe. The arguments about the *probability* of
landing on such a round number aside, probably neither you nor I will be
able to disprove that belief within our lifetimes. Doesn't mean it's a
factually true belief, though.

- Oliver

Linonut · External Since: Mar 31, 2006 Posts: 3492

After takin' a swig o' grog, Oliver Wong belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Is reading the book going to convince me that you can know whether
> *logic itself* is correct/true/good/whatever?

No. It will convince about the right way to understand logic, though.

If you can get through it.

I can't.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "pass muster". If you believe something
> without deriving it from some other knowledge you previously had, then that
> thing is an axiom in your system. If you never encounter any evidence which
> contradicts your beliefs, then you will never find out that your axiom was
> "wrong". For example, you might decide to believe that there are *EXACTLY*
> 10^79 protons in the universe. The arguments about the *probability* of
> landing on such a round number aside, probably neither you nor I will be
> able to disprove that belief within our lifetimes. Doesn't mean it's a
> factually true belief, though.

There is a difference between an axiom and a postulation.

--
It is easier to fix Unix than to live with NT.

[H]omer · External Since: Apr 21, 2006 Posts: 2134

Linonut wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Oliver Wong belched out this bit o' wisdom:

>> If you never encounter any evidence which contradicts your beliefs,
>> then you will never find out that your axiom was "wroqng".

You are right and wrong.

The purpose of an axiom is not to be proved or disproved; it is to
form the foundation for a course of analysis, and further proposition,
in order to understand the essence of a subject which exists within
the realms of that axiom.

Axioms are grounded in a frame of reference. If you choose to move
beyond that frame of reference, then the axiom loses meaning.

Your concern seems to revolve around the idea that "this axiom is
wrong", but if that is so, then it (by definition) is not the axiom;
rather it is the subject for analysis and must therefore exist within
the framework of another axiom.

Like all debates seeking "ultimate" proof, it inevitably spirals
towards proving the basis for an original concept, which requires
there to be a frame of reference that exists prior to that original
concept, thus it cannot be original (paradox).

So there cannot be any "ultimate" proof, only axioms within
axioms. Pick your frame of reference, and begin your deduction from
that point. The alternative is liable to cause insanity.

> There is a difference between an axiom and a postulation.

Yes, one is assumed, the other created.

With regards to the original question, which seemed to be about device
drivers and "trust", well how far back do you extend the analysis?

For the obsessive, all questions lead back to the Big Bang, and
beyond.

--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged

..----
| L.A. town is falling down, while the ground moves around.
| We won't let it get us down; we're Californians!
`----
- Animaniacs ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=XKcgTnfoM9Q )

Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5
00:54:58 up 103 days, 1:11, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00

"Shmuel · External Since: Mar 31, 2004 Posts: 292

begin In <1IOdnSr16ebA2oHYnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d RemoveThis @comcast.com>, on
09/28/2006
at 05:06 PM, Linonut <linonut RemoveThis @bone.com> said:

>No. It will convince about the right way to understand logic,
>though.

Stratification?

>There is a difference between an axiom and a postulation.

Not in logic. Euclid made such a distinction, but it didn't stand up
to close examination.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap RemoveThis @library.lspace.org

"Shmuel · External Since: Mar 31, 2004 Posts: 292

begin In <X92dnTU53I8FeYbYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d.DeleteThis@comcast.com>, on
09/28/2006
at 10:04 AM, Linonut <linonut.DeleteThis@bone.com> said:

>"Mike" is too ignorant to bother with, Jim.

Funny you should mention that. She/he/it made it into me twit list
shortly before I saw your article.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap.DeleteThis@library.lspace.org

Linonut · External Since: Mar 31, 2006 Posts: 3492

After takin' a swig o' grog, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> begin In <1IOdnSr16ebA2oHYnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d.RemoveThis@comcast.com>, on
> 09/28/2006
> at 05:06 PM, Linonut <linonut.RemoveThis@bone.com> said:
>
>>No. It will convince about the right way to understand logic,
>>though.
>
> Stratification?
>
>>There is a difference between an axiom and a postulation.
>
> Not in logic. Euclid made such a distinction, but it didn't stand up
> to close examination.

I'm sure I'm using "postulation" non-technically. "Surmise" might be a
better word.

But the last thing in the world I care about is carrying a basically
empirical argument into the realm of philosophy, which is what Wong
seems to be doing.

--
"Linux is a cancer!" -- Steve Ballmer, CEO Microsoft

Linonut · External Since: Mar 31, 2006 Posts: 3492

After takin' a swig o' grog, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> begin In <X92dnTU53I8FeYbYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d.DeleteThis@comcast.com>, on
> 09/28/2006
> at 10:04 AM, Linonut <linonut.DeleteThis@bone.com> said:
>
>>"Mike" is too ignorant to bother with, Jim.
>
> Funny you should mention that. She/he/it made it into me twit list
> shortly before I saw your article.

People like Eric and DFS stay out of my twit bin because they will
attempt to argue, as opposed to parroting.

--
Linux -- because it's *your* money, not Microsoft's

Kelsey Bjarnason · External Since: Sep 12, 2006 Posts: 1022

[snips]

In <12hh5quh5r4bu58.RemoveThis@news.supernews.com>, on 09/25/2006
at 10:58 PM, "Mike" <no.RemoveThis@where.man> said:

>>Is Linux not up to sending thousands of email mesages a day?

That bit is particularly cute. Thousands? Mere thousands? Per day?

Without any particular effort at performance tuning, my mailer is handling
around 100,000 incoming emails per hour, with a typical time to delivery
of mere seconds. That's from hitting our server, to being spam scanned,
to being delivered to the destination (or, for spams, being nuked).

This with a current average of 65% idle CPU time.

Multiple front ends, multiple delivery partitions on the back end, that
can easily scale to ten times that, or a million emails an hour.

Thousands per day. Yeesh. We do that in a minute, not a day.

thad01 · External Since: Apr 20, 2005 Posts: 812

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike <no.DeleteThis@where.man> wrote:
>
> Sure, there are Windows machines sending spam. So what? Since "Linux
> controls the internet", it's all going thru Linux machines, right? Why
> isn't the "superior" Linux catching it and stopping it?

Linux is certainly up to the task on my server. We receive a
helacious amount of spam, most of it chucked in the bit bucket
by procmail. As most of this email is being sent to my server
directly from malware infected Windows systems, there is not
much any other Linux system can do to prevent the wasteful
hijacking of my bandwidth.

So yes, linux can clean up most of the mess made by malware infected
windows spam zombies... I just wish it did not have to.

Thad

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"[H]omer" <spam.TakeThisOut@uce.gov> wrote in message news:v24uu3-ssv.ln1@sky.matrix...
> Linonut wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Oliver Wong belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> If you never encounter any evidence which contradicts your beliefs,
>>> then you will never find out that your axiom was "wrong".
>
[...]
>
> Your concern seems to revolve around the idea that "this axiom is
> wrong", but if that is so, then it (by definition) is not the axiom;
> rather it is the subject for analysis and must therefore exist within
> the framework of another axiom.

When I said "What if the axiom is wrong", I meant what if the axiom
leads to a self-contradictory system. It's not uncommon for someone to come
up with set of axioms, work through the implication of those axioms, and
then discard the set as unworkable. But thanks for the clarification, it was
insightful.

- Oliver

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"Linonut" <linonut DeleteThis @bone.com> wrote in message
news:xY-dnVrNzcTL2YDYnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> But the last thing in the world I care about is carrying a basically
> empirical argument into the realm of philosophy, which is what Wong
> seems to be doing.

Sorry. When we started arguing about whether one could "trust" the
compiler, I thought we were already in the realm of philosophy. FWIW, (in
case this is what the argument was about for you,) if trust were the primary
concern, I'd certainly favor open source over closed source.

- Oliver

(OS) The thing I *hate* most about Microsoft Windows.

(OS) The thing I hate most about Microsoft Windows.