Discussion:
I don't usually, but...
(too old to reply)
Kier
2005-07-31 22:46:17 UTC
Permalink
I'm afraid I couldn't resist it...

Usually you don't find me saying how WinXP sucks, because on the whole,
it's been okay for me. However, for my brother it sucks like the
proverbial Electrolux.

He's had a laptop since just before Christmas, and obviously, it had XP on
it, 'cause that's what they come with. He bought it with a view to
installing Linux when he was ready to. Today he comes down to lunch with
me and our remaining Aged P and a couple of friends, bringing said laptop
with him. Pretty much the first thing he did when he arrived was ask for a
Live CD, because his XP installation had totally shat its drawers the
night before, while he was in the process of doing some administration of
his new email server. It was so bad that Knoppix 3.9 couldn't even access
the worst affected partition when we booted it up - something which has
never happened in my experience of Knoppix. It was utterly fucked, and he
decided to write off Windows altogether and install FC4, which was his
intention anyway. So that's what we did.

He'd been using Cygwin to run X on this laptop, and doing no more than
setting up some stuff on his server, yet it went tits-up. He's smart
enough not to leave it wide open to malware and such - after all, he runs
Linux - so what happened? Who knows? Whatever it was, he could barely even
get it to boot properly in XP afterwards.

Needless to say, it won't have to worry about booting Windows now - it'll
be FC4 from now on.

Wintrolls like to pretend that XP doesn't do this sort of thing. But it
does. Maybe not to everyone, but to some.

As a small postcript, our friends have between them a Mac (OSX) and a
laptop running XP. The laptop hardly gets used, because my friend hates
XP, finds it almost unusable and always giving trouble. She prefers
hubby's Mac for its simplicaty and lack of worries about security. Brother
and I mentioned Linux as a good alternative to XP, and she was definitely
interested in giving that route some thought, if the laptop proves to be
suitable.

To round it off, she and husband both have to use Access a fair bit in
their work (lab tech and teacher) and both utterly despise it as an
unstable piece of crap that gives them more trouble than it's worth.

What does this prove? IMO, that not everyone loves XP, or thinks MS apps
are wonderful. Some people have very negative experiences of them. Neither
of my friends are techy types, just users.
--
Kier
Rich Bell
2005-07-31 23:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Kier wrote:
<SNIP a bunch of Anti MS crap>
Post by Kier
What does this prove?
Nothing, except you and your brother are both clueless.
Sinister Midget
2005-08-01 00:42:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
<SNIP a bunch of Anti MS crap>
Post by Kier
What does this prove?
Nothing, except you and your brother are both clueless.
Poor, poor Dick! Can't even bear the truth when told by someone who
ordinarily goes out of his way to avoid giving voice to it.
--
Dogs crawl under fences. Software crawls under Windows.
Kier
2005-08-01 08:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
<SNIP a bunch of Anti MS crap>
Now isn't it funny that if anyone writes anything remotely against MS,
types like you crawl out of the woodwork and start yelling. Did you read
the subject line. I don't usually, but... because I haven't had,
personally, many problems with XP. He, on the other had, had a brand new
laptop shit itself for no good reason
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
What does this prove?
Nothing, except you and your brother are both clueless.
Fuck you, Rich. Why should he be expected to know XP? He doesn't use it
normally, and doesn't want to. So he got rid of it. Wasn't interested in
keeping it, wasn't ever intending to keep it. Was glad to see the back of
it, in fact. He now has a functioning laptop again, and is quite happy.

I just thought I'd tell his experience, because so many of you wintrolls
say Windows never falls over and Linnux is so terribly bad, and *we know
different*. It doesn't prove everyone has the same problems, nor did I say
that it did. But don't try claiming such things never occur, because I
know thay did.

I don't care how 'clueless' you think he was or is - I know he's smarter
than you'll ever be.
--
Kier
Linønut
2005-08-01 11:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
What does this prove?
Nothing, except you and your brother are both clueless.
Fuck you, Rich. Why should he be expected to know XP? He doesn't use it
normally, and doesn't want to. So he got rid of it. Wasn't interested in
keeping it, wasn't ever intending to keep it. Was glad to see the back of
it, in fact. He now has a functioning laptop again, and is quite happy.
It is indeed funny how, on one hand, the Windows zealots claim that
Windows is easy to use, yet, on the other hand, if you claim to have
problems with it, you're clueless.

Can't have it both ways, Rich.
--
Tux rox!
Rich Bell
2005-08-01 14:19:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linønut
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
What does this prove?
Nothing, except you and your brother are both clueless.
Fuck you, Rich. Why should he be expected to know XP? He doesn't use
it normally, and doesn't want to. So he got rid of it. Wasn't
interested in keeping it, wasn't ever intending to keep it. Was glad
to see the back of it, in fact. He now has a functioning laptop
again, and is quite happy.
It is indeed funny how, on one hand, the Windows zealots claim that
Windows is easy to use, yet, on the other hand, if you claim to have
problems with it, you're clueless.
Can't have it both ways, Rich.
It is easy to use. Most of the people on the planet are able to use it every
day. Why do you COLAnuts have so much trouble with it? He didn't even try to
fix it. He never intended to use it, yet he purchased the laptop with XP
installed, installed Cygwin on it and used it for seven months. This story
just doesn't make any sense. Me thinks the COLAnut saw an opportunity to
spread some FUD and couldn't pass it up.
Linønut
2005-08-01 15:27:39 UTC
Permalink
.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Linønut
It is indeed funny how, on one hand, the Windows zealots claim that
Windows is easy to use, yet, on the other hand, if you claim to have
problems with it, you're clueless.
Can't have it both ways, Rich.
It is easy to use. Most of the people on the planet are able to use it every
day.
You need to provide proof of that assertion. I know plenty of people
who can't use their computers because they're so dirty.
Post by Rich Bell
Why do you COLAnuts have so much trouble with it?
Uh, because we actually use Windows?

Hell, I just had to restart my XP box because Visual Studio's
file-dialog is taking 1/2-minute to respond to each change of directory.

Crapware, pure and simple.

Pathetic.

Absolutely pathetic. What a waste of time.
Post by Rich Bell
He didn't even try to
fix it. He never intended to use it, yet he purchased the laptop with XP
installed, installed Cygwin on it and used it for seven months. This story
just doesn't make any sense. Me thinks the COLAnut saw an opportunity to
spread some FUD and couldn't pass it up.
Not like you eh sunshine?
--
Tux rox!
DFS
2005-08-01 16:53:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linønut
Hell, I just had to restart my XP box because Visual Studio's
file-dialog is taking 1/2-minute to respond to each change of
directory.
Crapware, pure and simple.
Sounds like your network might be to blame.
amosf
2005-08-01 21:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Linønut
Hell, I just had to restart my XP box because Visual Studio's
file-dialog is taking 1/2-minute to respond to each change of
directory.
Crapware, pure and simple.
Sounds like your network might be to blame.
Blame Canada.
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
Kier
2005-08-01 22:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Linønut
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
What does this prove?
Nothing, except you and your brother are both clueless.
Fuck you, Rich. Why should he be expected to know XP? He doesn't use
it normally, and doesn't want to. So he got rid of it. Wasn't
interested in keeping it, wasn't ever intending to keep it. Was glad
to see the back of it, in fact. He now has a functioning laptop
again, and is quite happy.
It is indeed funny how, on one hand, the Windows zealots claim that
Windows is easy to use, yet, on the other hand, if you claim to have
problems with it, you're clueless.
Can't have it both ways, Rich.
It is easy to use. Most of the people on the planet are able to use it every
day. Why do you COLAnuts have so much trouble with it? He didn't even try to
fix it. He never intended to use it, yet he purchased the laptop with XP
installed, installed Cygwin on it and used it for seven months. This story
just doesn't make any sense. Me thinks the COLAnut saw an opportunity to
spread some FUD and couldn't pass it up.
What FUD, arsehole? I told exactly the truth. He bought the laptop with
the intention of running Linux on it. But in the meantime, he used Cygwin
and X. he is a committed Linux user. He had no intention of keeping XP on
that laptop, and any suggestion otherwise is a lie on your part. I should
fucking know my own brother better than you, right?

Up until Saturday night he'd *had* no problems with it. Then without
warning, it shit its pants, which gave him the last nudge he needed to get
moving on installing Linux *as was always his intention*.
--
Kier
Rich Bell
2005-08-02 01:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Linønut
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
What does this prove?
Nothing, except you and your brother are both clueless.
Fuck you, Rich. Why should he be expected to know XP? He doesn't
use it normally, and doesn't want to. So he got rid of it. Wasn't
interested in keeping it, wasn't ever intending to keep it. Was
glad to see the back of it, in fact. He now has a functioning
laptop again, and is quite happy.
It is indeed funny how, on one hand, the Windows zealots claim that
Windows is easy to use, yet, on the other hand, if you claim to have
problems with it, you're clueless.
Can't have it both ways, Rich.
It is easy to use. Most of the people on the planet are able to use
it every day. Why do you COLAnuts have so much trouble with it? He
didn't even try to fix it. He never intended to use it, yet he
purchased the laptop with XP installed, installed Cygwin on it and
used it for seven months. This story just doesn't make any sense. Me
thinks the COLAnut saw an opportunity to spread some FUD and
couldn't pass it up.
What FUD, arsehole? I told exactly the truth. He bought the laptop
with the intention of running Linux on it. But in the meantime, he
used Cygwin and X. he is a committed Linux user. He had no intention
of keeping XP on that laptop, and any suggestion otherwise is a lie
on your part. I should fucking know my own brother better than you,
right?
Up until Saturday night he'd *had* no problems with it. Then without
warning, it shit its pants, which gave him the last nudge he needed
to get moving on installing Linux *as was always his intention*.
Let's see. He is a committed Linux user. He buys a laptop so he can run
Linux on it. He takes the time to install Cygwin on it instead of just
installing Linux. He uses it for seven months and can't find the time to
install Linux, even though you nutcases claim it is so easy and fast to
install. The system fails, he makes no attempt to fix it or troubleshoot it
and you aren't sure what caused it but that doesn't stop you from blaming it
on XP. Sounds like you and your brother are cut from the same mold.
Hopefully the mold has been destroyed.
rapskat
2005-08-02 07:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Up until Saturday night he'd *had* no problems with it. Then without
warning, it shit its pants, which gave him the last nudge he needed
to get moving on installing Linux *as was always his intention*.
Let's see. He is a committed Linux user. He buys a laptop so he can run
Linux on it. He takes the time to install Cygwin on it instead of just
installing Linux. He uses it for seven months and can't find the time to
install Linux, even though you nutcases claim it is so easy and fast to
install. The system fails, he makes no attempt to fix it or troubleshoot it
and you aren't sure what caused it but that doesn't stop you from blaming it
on XP. Sounds like you and your brother are cut from the same mold.
Hopefully the mold has been destroyed.
So, by the same token, you being a committed Windows user, purchase
hardware to run Windows on it. Then you take the time to attempt
to install Linux on this hardware that you orginally purchased
specifically for Windows and find it doesn't work and yet it somehow
Linux's fault, right?

You don't make any attempt to fix it or troubleshoot it, but immediately
post your problems here on COLA for the sole purposes of bitching and
whining about problems that you facilitated.

Yeah, that sounds about right.
--
rapskat - 03:49:59 up 5 days, 13:05, 5 users, load average: 0.35, 0.34, 0.34
"This is the *NIX version of the 'ILOVEYOU' worm. It runs on
the honor system. Forward this to everyone in your address book, and
randomly delete some of your files."
Rich Bell
2005-08-03 01:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by rapskat
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Up until Saturday night he'd *had* no problems with it. Then without
warning, it shit its pants, which gave him the last nudge he needed
to get moving on installing Linux *as was always his intention*.
Let's see. He is a committed Linux user. He buys a laptop so he can
run Linux on it. He takes the time to install Cygwin on it instead
of just installing Linux. He uses it for seven months and can't find
the time to install Linux, even though you nutcases claim it is so
easy and fast to install. The system fails, he makes no attempt to
fix it or troubleshoot it and you aren't sure what caused it but
that doesn't stop you from blaming it on XP. Sounds like you and
your brother are cut from the same mold. Hopefully the mold has been
destroyed.
So, by the same token, you being a committed Windows user, purchase
hardware to run Windows on it. Then you take the time to attempt
to install Linux on this hardware that you orginally purchased
specifically for Windows and find it doesn't work and yet it somehow
Linux's fault, right?
I didn't buy my hardware "specifically for Windows". I didn't have to. I
KNEW it would all work. You nutcases are always claiming that hardware
support under Linux is better than Windows, therefore I should expect
everything I own to work with Linux as well. When I tried to install and use
several Linux distros I found that all of my hardware was NOT supported. So
yeah, I think it is a problem with Linux.
Post by rapskat
You don't make any attempt to fix it or troubleshoot it, but
immediately post your problems here on COLA for the sole purposes of
bitching and whining about problems that you facilitated.
No, I posted my problems to call you nutjobs on your claims of Linux
superiority.
Post by rapskat
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Not really.
Linønut
2005-08-03 02:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
No, I posted my problems to call you nutjobs on your claims of Linux
superiority.
One problem is, one side is thinking only of consumer hardware, and the
other side is thinking only of server hardware.

There's no doubt that Linux supports a much wider range of hardware
architectures, and scales through a wider range of equipment, from
devices not much bigger than an Rj-45 connector, on up to at least one
line of IBM mainframes.

There's also no doubt that some manufacturers not only do not provide
Linux drivers for their hardware, they don't even provide sufficient
specifications to allow a coder to write a decent driver without a lot
of time-consuming debugging and reverse-engineering.

However, even Windows is not immune to the occasional shitty driver
written by a vendors. For example, I've seen one version of Cisco's
"deterministic network enhancer" cause XP to blue-screen.

My feeling is, if you already have hardware, and it runs only on
Windows, and you have Windows, go ahead and use it. If you really want
it to run on another OS, and can afford it, buy new hardware.

I had to do this years ago with Win NT 4, when a stupid vendor provided
the system I bought from them with what I later learned was a
"Winmodem". I never did get that sucker to work. I bought another
modem that said it would work with NT, and it did. On that same system,
I also made the mistake of buying a "Winprinter". Luckily, HP had
provided an NT driver in the interim, so I was able to use the thing.

Anyway, it is your choice. And it is your responsibility to make sure
your choice will work.

I've been pretty lucky with Linux. I buy it, and it works. Or I have
it already, and try it, and it works. I haven't tried the Winprinter,
though. Since I bought a nice laser printer, I never will, either.
--
Tux rox!
Kier
2005-08-03 08:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
Post by rapskat
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Up until Saturday night he'd *had* no problems with it. Then without
warning, it shit its pants, which gave him the last nudge he needed
to get moving on installing Linux *as was always his intention*.
Let's see. He is a committed Linux user. He buys a laptop so he can
run Linux on it. He takes the time to install Cygwin on it instead
of just installing Linux. He uses it for seven months and can't find
the time to install Linux, even though you nutcases claim it is so
easy and fast to install. The system fails, he makes no attempt to
fix it or troubleshoot it and you aren't sure what caused it but
that doesn't stop you from blaming it on XP. Sounds like you and
your brother are cut from the same mold. Hopefully the mold has been
destroyed.
So, by the same token, you being a committed Windows user, purchase
hardware to run Windows on it. Then you take the time to attempt
to install Linux on this hardware that you orginally purchased
specifically for Windows and find it doesn't work and yet it somehow
Linux's fault, right?
I didn't buy my hardware "specifically for Windows". I didn't have to. I
KNEW it would all work. You nutcases are always claiming that hardware
support under Linux is better than Windows, therefore I should expect
everything I own to work with Linux as well. When I tried to install and use
several Linux distros I found that all of my hardware was NOT supported. So
yeah, I think it is a problem with Linux.
I think you're a liar. *All* of your hardware unsupported by Linux? Every
single little bit? Do come off it. I've got three computers and a laptop,
and only a couple of things among the whole lot have failed to work
completely.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by rapskat
You don't make any attempt to fix it or troubleshoot it, but
immediately post your problems here on COLA for the sole purposes of
bitching and whining about problems that you facilitated.
No, I posted my problems to call you nutjobs on your claims of Linux
superiority.
You're the nutjob here, not us.

The reason Windows works so well on any hardware, is that the hardware is
designed *for it*, and specs for it are frequently withheld so that Linux
and other open source developers can't write drivers for it. The
manufacturers may have legitimate reasons for witholding specs, from their
business point of view, but it is *not* a falt of Linux. The developers do
their very best to write drivers and software compatible with a huge range
of hardware which is changing and being added to constantly. And you, in
your sneering, nasty, arrogant way, decide to blame Linux and its
developers for a situation over which they have little or no control.

Linux won't run on your hardware? Either get some other hardware, or stop
trying to install it and whining about your failures here. We don't want
to know.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by rapskat
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Not really.
So you say. We disagree.
--
Kier
Rich Bell
2005-08-04 02:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by rapskat
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Up until Saturday night he'd *had* no problems with it. Then
without warning, it shit its pants, which gave him the last nudge
he needed to get moving on installing Linux *as was always his
intention*.
Let's see. He is a committed Linux user. He buys a laptop so he
can run Linux on it. He takes the time to install Cygwin on it
instead of just installing Linux. He uses it for seven months and
can't find the time to install Linux, even though you nutcases
claim it is so easy and fast to install. The system fails, he
makes no attempt to fix it or troubleshoot it and you aren't sure
what caused it but that doesn't stop you from blaming it on XP.
Sounds like you and your brother are cut from the same mold.
Hopefully the mold has been destroyed.
So, by the same token, you being a committed Windows user, purchase
hardware to run Windows on it. Then you take the time to attempt
to install Linux on this hardware that you orginally purchased
specifically for Windows and find it doesn't work and yet it somehow
Linux's fault, right?
I didn't buy my hardware "specifically for Windows". I didn't have
to. I KNEW it would all work. You nutcases are always claiming that
hardware support under Linux is better than Windows, therefore I
should expect everything I own to work with Linux as well. When I
tried to install and use several Linux distros I found that all of
my hardware was NOT supported. So yeah, I think it is a problem with
Linux.
I think you're a liar. *All* of your hardware unsupported by Linux?
Every single little bit? Do come off it. I've got three computers and
a laptop, and only a couple of things among the whole lot have failed
to work completely.
Let me clarify it for you. How about, "Not all of my hardware was
supported".
I bet those 'couple of things' were fully supported under Windows, right?
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by rapskat
You don't make any attempt to fix it or troubleshoot it, but
immediately post your problems here on COLA for the sole purposes of
bitching and whining about problems that you facilitated.
No, I posted my problems to call you nutjobs on your claims of Linux
superiority.
You're the nutjob here, not us.
The reason Windows works so well on any hardware, is that the
hardware is designed *for it*, and specs for it are frequently
withheld so that Linux and other open source developers can't write
drivers for it. The manufacturers may have legitimate reasons for
witholding specs, from their business point of view, but it is *not*
a falt of Linux. The developers do their very best to write drivers
and software compatible with a huge range of hardware which is
changing and being added to constantly. And you, in your sneering,
nasty, arrogant way, decide to blame Linux and its developers for a
situation over which they have little or no control.
Once again for the brain dead COLAnuts:

End users don't care WHY their hardware is not supported by Linux. They
don't care WHY their favorite software won't run on Linux. They just know
that Linux doesn't work for them. You guys can whine, complain and blame
vendors for not handing their IP over to a bunch of people who expect
everything for free, but that won't change things. You are right. Linux and
it's developers have no control over the situation, which is why it
continues to be a problem and I don't see that changing much.
Post by Kier
Linux won't run on your hardware? Either get some other hardware, or
stop trying to install it and whining about your failures here. We
don't want to know.
You want to claim that Linux hardware support is better than Windows
hardware support and if anyone says anything to contradict your claims, you
don't want to know about it. You expect someone to waste money replacing
perfectly good hardware just so they can run a free OS that has nothing to
offer in return. You weenies are always claiming that Windows forces users
to buy new hardware and yet that is the first thing you suggest when Linux
fails.
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by rapskat
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Not really.
So you say. We disagree.
Who is 'we'? You and the turd in your pocket?
Kier
2005-08-04 09:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by rapskat
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Up until Saturday night he'd *had* no problems with it. Then
without warning, it shit its pants, which gave him the last nudge
he needed to get moving on installing Linux *as was always his
intention*.
Let's see. He is a committed Linux user. He buys a laptop so he
can run Linux on it. He takes the time to install Cygwin on it
instead of just installing Linux. He uses it for seven months and
can't find the time to install Linux, even though you nutcases
claim it is so easy and fast to install. The system fails, he
makes no attempt to fix it or troubleshoot it and you aren't sure
what caused it but that doesn't stop you from blaming it on XP.
Sounds like you and your brother are cut from the same mold.
Hopefully the mold has been destroyed.
So, by the same token, you being a committed Windows user, purchase
hardware to run Windows on it. Then you take the time to attempt
to install Linux on this hardware that you orginally purchased
specifically for Windows and find it doesn't work and yet it somehow
Linux's fault, right?
I didn't buy my hardware "specifically for Windows". I didn't have
to. I KNEW it would all work. You nutcases are always claiming that
hardware support under Linux is better than Windows, therefore I
should expect everything I own to work with Linux as well. When I
tried to install and use several Linux distros I found that all of
my hardware was NOT supported. So yeah, I think it is a problem with
Linux.
I think you're a liar. *All* of your hardware unsupported by Linux?
Every single little bit? Do come off it. I've got three computers and
a laptop, and only a couple of things among the whole lot have failed
to work completely.
Let me clarify it for you. How about, "Not all of my hardware was
supported".
I bet those 'couple of things' were fully supported under Windows, right?
Yes. What's your point?

You still claim all of your hardware is unsupported? I still don't believe
you.

What was unsupported in Linux for me? A scanner and a camera. That was in
Mdk 9.1. They were fine now. (I don't count the Pinnacle capture card,
since I knw that was never going to work, that's *why* I have one Windows
dual booter still, for video capture. The other TV card is a supported on,
I just never had it working until now).
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by rapskat
You don't make any attempt to fix it or troubleshoot it, but
immediately post your problems here on COLA for the sole purposes of
bitching and whining about problems that you facilitated.
No, I posted my problems to call you nutjobs on your claims of Linux
superiority.
You're the nutjob here, not us.
The reason Windows works so well on any hardware, is that the
hardware is designed *for it*, and specs for it are frequently
withheld so that Linux and other open source developers can't write
drivers for it. The manufacturers may have legitimate reasons for
witholding specs, from their business point of view, but it is *not*
a falt of Linux. The developers do their very best to write drivers
and software compatible with a huge range of hardware which is
changing and being added to constantly. And you, in your sneering,
nasty, arrogant way, decide to blame Linux and its developers for a
situation over which they have little or no control.
End users don't care WHY their hardware is not supported by Linux. They
don't care WHY their favorite software won't run on Linux. They just know
that Linux doesn't work for them.
Some do, some don't . Depends on the user and how knowledgeable he is,
nhow willing to look up a few things, and learn. Don't brand all users
with your ignorance and stupidity.

You guys can whine, complain and blame
Post by Rich Bell
vendors for not handing their IP over to a bunch of people who expect
everything for free, but that won't change things. You are right. Linux and
it's developers have no control over the situation, which is why it
continues to be a problem and I don't see that changing much.
You admit the problem is beyond the developers' control. Yet you *still*
blame them, insult them, and assume it's all Linux's fault. You really are
a stupid brainwashed dickhead, dickyboy.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Linux won't run on your hardware? Either get some other hardware, or
stop trying to install it and whining about your failures here. We
don't want to know.
You want to claim that Linux hardware support is better than Windows
hardware support and if anyone says anything to contradict your claims, you
don't want to know about it.
No one here, to my knowledge, has ever said it will support *all*
hardware. But it does support a huge and much greater range than Windows
ever will. The drawback with Windows is that it is tied to one hardware
platform. Linux is far more adaptable.

Funny thing. I have a TV card in my 'FrankenPC'. Up to now, I couldn't get
it going with Mandrake 9.1 (although it's a supported card). Yesterday I
installed Mandriva LE 2005 (the free version). It showed immediately when
I reached the configuration stage of the install. That's what happens with
open source. Things improve.
Post by Rich Bell
You expect someone to waste money replacing
perfectly good hardware just so they can run a free OS that has nothing to
offer in return. You weenies are always claiming that Windows forces users
to buy new hardware and yet that is the first thing you suggest when Linux
fails.
It offers plenty. If it offers nothing to you, fine, go away, you have
zero reason for remaining here.

You call us weenies and silly names like that, thinking it will make you
look big and adult. Actually, it just makes you look like a whining loser.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by rapskat
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Not really.
So you say. We disagree.
Who is 'we'? You and the turd in your pocket?
I don't have a turd in my pocket, dickyboy. I mean, 'we', as advocates in
this group.
--
Kier
Kier
2005-08-02 09:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Linønut
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
What does this prove?
Nothing, except you and your brother are both clueless.
Fuck you, Rich. Why should he be expected to know XP? He doesn't
use it normally, and doesn't want to. So he got rid of it. Wasn't
interested in keeping it, wasn't ever intending to keep it. Was
glad to see the back of it, in fact. He now has a functioning
laptop again, and is quite happy.
It is indeed funny how, on one hand, the Windows zealots claim that
Windows is easy to use, yet, on the other hand, if you claim to have
problems with it, you're clueless.
Can't have it both ways, Rich.
It is easy to use. Most of the people on the planet are able to use
it every day. Why do you COLAnuts have so much trouble with it? He
didn't even try to fix it. He never intended to use it, yet he
purchased the laptop with XP installed, installed Cygwin on it and
used it for seven months. This story just doesn't make any sense. Me
thinks the COLAnut saw an opportunity to spread some FUD and
couldn't pass it up.
What FUD, arsehole? I told exactly the truth. He bought the laptop
with the intention of running Linux on it. But in the meantime, he
used Cygwin and X. he is a committed Linux user. He had no intention
of keeping XP on that laptop, and any suggestion otherwise is a lie
on your part. I should fucking know my own brother better than you,
right?
Up until Saturday night he'd *had* no problems with it. Then without
warning, it shit its pants, which gave him the last nudge he needed
to get moving on installing Linux *as was always his intention*.
Let's see. He is a committed Linux user. He buys a laptop so he can run
Linux on it. He takes the time to install Cygwin on it instead of just
installing Linux.
And? He ran X with it.
Post by Rich Bell
He uses it for seven months and can't find the time to
Did you miss the part about his being busy? My brother has a full-time job
and an active social life beyond sitting in front of a computer. Also, the
one area where he felt there might be a problem with a Linux install was
wireless, and since he was going to have to temporarily use the laptop as
his primary desktop (because he was changing his computer study back into
a spare bedroom, and thus had no room for his main system) he wanted to
wait until he could be sure of what he needed to do to get wireless
working.
Post by Rich Bell
install Linux, even though you nutcases claim it is so easy and fast to
install. The system fails, he makes no attempt to fix it or troubleshoot
it and you aren't sure what caused it but that doesn't stop you from
blaming it on XP.
You still can't read, can you? I said I wasn't sure, and nor was he, what
the root cause was. I suspect, myself, that Norton may have played a part.
But so must XP, as the base OS on which all programs were running. What
else am I supposed to blame? hin air? Scotch mist? The laptop is nw
working fine with Fedora. If anything happens to it, I'll let you know.
Post by Rich Bell
Sounds like you and your brother are cut from the same mold.
Yes. Honest Linux users who don't troll the group of a rival OS.
Post by Rich Bell
Hopefully the mold has been destroyed.
You are a nasty little creep, aren't you? My brother is a hundred times a
better man than you ever were in your wildest dreams. If you want to
insult me, fine, because I can insult you right back. If you insult him,
you had damn well better have some grounds on which to do it, dickyboy. So
far, you have *none*.
--
Kier
Rich Bell
2005-08-03 01:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Linønut
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
What does this prove?
Nothing, except you and your brother are both clueless.
Fuck you, Rich. Why should he be expected to know XP? He doesn't
use it normally, and doesn't want to. So he got rid of it. Wasn't
interested in keeping it, wasn't ever intending to keep it. Was
glad to see the back of it, in fact. He now has a functioning
laptop again, and is quite happy.
It is indeed funny how, on one hand, the Windows zealots claim
that Windows is easy to use, yet, on the other hand, if you claim
to have problems with it, you're clueless.
Can't have it both ways, Rich.
It is easy to use. Most of the people on the planet are able to use
it every day. Why do you COLAnuts have so much trouble with it? He
didn't even try to fix it. He never intended to use it, yet he
purchased the laptop with XP installed, installed Cygwin on it and
used it for seven months. This story just doesn't make any sense.
Me thinks the COLAnut saw an opportunity to spread some FUD and
couldn't pass it up.
What FUD, arsehole? I told exactly the truth. He bought the laptop
with the intention of running Linux on it. But in the meantime, he
used Cygwin and X. he is a committed Linux user. He had no intention
of keeping XP on that laptop, and any suggestion otherwise is a lie
on your part. I should fucking know my own brother better than you,
right?
Up until Saturday night he'd *had* no problems with it. Then without
warning, it shit its pants, which gave him the last nudge he needed
to get moving on installing Linux *as was always his intention*.
Let's see. He is a committed Linux user. He buys a laptop so he can
run Linux on it. He takes the time to install Cygwin on it instead
of just installing Linux.
And? He ran X with it.
Post by Rich Bell
He uses it for seven months and can't find the time to
Did you miss the part about his being busy? My brother has a
full-time job and an active social life beyond sitting in front of a
computer. Also, the one area where he felt there might be a problem
with a Linux install was wireless, and since he was going to have to
temporarily use the laptop as his primary desktop (because he was
changing his computer study back into a spare bedroom, and thus had
no room for his main system) he wanted to wait until he could be sure
of what he needed to do to get wireless working.
So he bought the system so he could run Linux on it but he didn't know if
the wireless would work with Linux? This story sounds more and more fishy.
Are we really supposed to believe that he would buy a laptop, have no idea
if it will work with Linux, yet "intend" to install Linux on it. He waits
for seven months, does something to trash the HD and they YOU decide to use
this story to claim XP had something to do with it.
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
install Linux, even though you nutcases claim it is so easy and fast
to install. The system fails, he makes no attempt to fix it or
troubleshoot it and you aren't sure what caused it but that doesn't
stop you from blaming it on XP.
You still can't read, can you? I said I wasn't sure, and nor was he,
what the root cause was. I suspect, myself, that Norton may have
played a part. But so must XP, as the base OS on which all programs
were running. What else am I supposed to blame? hin air? Scotch mist?
How about a power issue? Maybe something in Cygwin screwed his drive.
Post by Kier
The laptop is nw working fine with Fedora. If anything happens to it,
I'll let you know.
Post by Rich Bell
Sounds like you and your brother are cut from the same mold.
Yes. Honest Linux users who don't troll the group of a rival OS.
No, you just take a questionable story about your brother's hosed HD and use
it to claim XP had something to do with it.
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Hopefully the mold has been destroyed.
You are a nasty little creep, aren't you? My brother is a hundred
times a better man than you ever were in your wildest dreams. If you
want to insult me, fine, because I can insult you right back. If you
insult him, you had damn well better have some grounds on which to do
it, dickyboy. So far, you have *none*.
Sounds like you have issues with your brother. Is he your hero?
Sinister Midget
2005-08-03 01:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
So he bought the system so he could run Linux on it but he didn't know if
the wireless would work with Linux?
I did. I take chances like that all of the time. I've only rarely been
inconvenienced by it.
Post by Rich Bell
This story sounds more and more fishy.
No, Fishie is running around calling s/h/itself something_or_other
Farter.
Post by Rich Bell
Are we really supposed to believe that he would buy a laptop, have no idea
if it will work with Linux, yet "intend" to install Linux on it.
I did. It worked. Despite rumors of laptops being troublesome, and
uncertainty about video, and concerns about wireless. I knew, one way
or the other, it was going to work. Except the built-in modem, which is
a Windwoes-Modem. I didn't need that anyway, and I couldn't find a
similar model (READ: cheap) without one.
Post by Rich Bell
He waits for seven months, does something to trash the HD
CORRECTION: Something _happened_ to mess up the drive. My recollection
is that only Windwoes was installed at the time. Plus a couple of other
tools. You know, to make things bearable.
Post by Rich Bell
and they YOU decide to use this story to claim XP had something to do
with it.
Do you know that it didn't? If so, how do you know?

And, he didn't say Winders messed the drive up. He said it wasn't able
to boot. That could be caused by something as simple as a screwed-up
registry. Or a DLL getting corrupted during an install of an update or
something else. For that matter, it _could_ be caused by some virus or
worm that none of you Windummies ever get, despite there being
approximately 54,000 infections per hour (KC Star, 20050802, page 1).
--
Locknut: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
Kier
2005-08-03 08:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Linønut
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
What does this prove?
Nothing, except you and your brother are both clueless.
Fuck you, Rich. Why should he be expected to know XP? He doesn't
use it normally, and doesn't want to. So he got rid of it. Wasn't
interested in keeping it, wasn't ever intending to keep it. Was
glad to see the back of it, in fact. He now has a functioning
laptop again, and is quite happy.
It is indeed funny how, on one hand, the Windows zealots claim
that Windows is easy to use, yet, on the other hand, if you claim
to have problems with it, you're clueless.
Can't have it both ways, Rich.
It is easy to use. Most of the people on the planet are able to use
it every day. Why do you COLAnuts have so much trouble with it? He
didn't even try to fix it. He never intended to use it, yet he
purchased the laptop with XP installed, installed Cygwin on it and
used it for seven months. This story just doesn't make any sense.
Me thinks the COLAnut saw an opportunity to spread some FUD and
couldn't pass it up.
What FUD, arsehole? I told exactly the truth. He bought the laptop
with the intention of running Linux on it. But in the meantime, he
used Cygwin and X. he is a committed Linux user. He had no intention
of keeping XP on that laptop, and any suggestion otherwise is a lie
on your part. I should fucking know my own brother better than you,
right?
Up until Saturday night he'd *had* no problems with it. Then without
warning, it shit its pants, which gave him the last nudge he needed
to get moving on installing Linux *as was always his intention*.
Let's see. He is a committed Linux user. He buys a laptop so he can
run Linux on it. He takes the time to install Cygwin on it instead
of just installing Linux.
And? He ran X with it.
Post by Rich Bell
He uses it for seven months and can't find the time to
Did you miss the part about his being busy? My brother has a
full-time job and an active social life beyond sitting in front of a
computer. Also, the one area where he felt there might be a problem
with a Linux install was wireless, and since he was going to have to
temporarily use the laptop as his primary desktop (because he was
changing his computer study back into a spare bedroom, and thus had
no room for his main system) he wanted to wait until he could be sure
of what he needed to do to get wireless working.
So he bought the system so he could run Linux on it but he didn't know if
the wireless would work with Linux? This story sounds more and more fishy.
You reall are a stupid fool, Rich. Like he's going to spend the best part
of thousand pounds on something he can't use.
Post by Rich Bell
Are we really supposed to believe that he would buy a laptop, have no idea
if it will work with Linux, yet "intend" to install Linux on it. He waits
for seven months, does something to trash the HD and they YOU decide to use
this story to claim XP had something to do with it.
You really are a stupid fool, Rich.

Once again, he bought it for Linux - he'd read reviews that said it should
work with Fedora, and in fact it also works fine with Mandrake, because I
persuaded him to try that first, but he still likes FC4 better - but the
only questionable area was getting wireless going. In fact, it's only a
matter of getting some firmware downloaded.

As a temporary expediency, he installed Cygwin to run X. Why? Ask him.
Because he could, it's fun, and he wanted to. He wasn't particularly
interested in using XP - though he did have some emulator arcade games he
sometimes played.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
install Linux, even though you nutcases claim it is so easy and fast
to install. The system fails, he makes no attempt to fix it or
troubleshoot it and you aren't sure what caused it but that doesn't
stop you from blaming it on XP.
You still can't read, can you? I said I wasn't sure, and nor was he,
what the root cause was. I suspect, myself, that Norton may have
played a part. But so must XP, as the base OS on which all programs
were running. What else am I supposed to blame? hin air? Scotch mist?
How about a power issue? Maybe something in Cygwin screwed his drive.
Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. We don't know. Frankly, we don't care.
Seems to me you don't mind a bit when someone accuses Linux of screwing
their equipment, but the minute someone suggests XP might have fucked up,
you get all bent out of shape. Why is that?
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
The laptop is nw working fine with Fedora. If anything happens to it,
I'll let you know.
Post by Rich Bell
Sounds like you and your brother are cut from the same mold.
Yes. Honest Linux users who don't troll the group of a rival OS.
No, you just take a questionable story about your brother's hosed HD and use
it to claim XP had something to do with it.
Questionable only by you - it happened, exactly as I described. I should
know when my brother is telling the truth, seeing as he's my brother, and
you have no clue as to his character. By definition, XP *must* have had
something to do with it, since XP was the OS upon which all the software
was funning. It may not have been the root cause, but so what?

See, it wasn't the whole hard drive that went, just the partition XP was
on. So that would suggest to anyone sensible that XP had some measure of
the blame.

But who cares? He now has a working laptop with Linux on, which is what he
intended from the start. You can say otherwise, you can jump up and down
and scream 'liar!' and clench you little fists, but it will still be what
he intended to do with it from the start, and nothing you say can change
that fact.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Hopefully the mold has been destroyed.
You are a nasty little creep, aren't you? My brother is a hundred
times a better man than you ever were in your wildest dreams. If you
want to insult me, fine, because I can insult you right back. If you
insult him, you had damn well better have some grounds on which to do
it, dickyboy. So far, you have *none*.
Sounds like you have issues with your brother. Is he your hero?
Issues? Are you a mental case or something? He's my brother. I admire and
like him, because he's both admirable and likable, a decent human being.
You, on the other hand, seem happy to insult and denigrate someone you
know nothing about. Sounds like you are the one with the 'issues',
dickyboy.
--
Kier
Tukla Ratte
2005-08-03 17:06:23 UTC
Permalink
< snip >
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Sounds like you have issues with your brother. Is he your hero?
Issues? Are you a mental case or something? He's my brother. I admire and
like him, because he's both admirable and likable, a decent human being.
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
Post by Kier
You, on the other hand, seem happy to insult and denigrate someone you
know nothing about. Sounds like you are the one with the 'issues',
dickyboy.
There's the problem, Kier. You keep using words beyond Rich's comprehension.
--
Tukla, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
There are too many stupid people and nobody to eat them.
- Carlos Mencia
Rich Bell
2005-08-04 02:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Linønut
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
What does this prove?
Nothing, except you and your brother are both clueless.
Fuck you, Rich. Why should he be expected to know XP? He
doesn't use it normally, and doesn't want to. So he got rid of
it. Wasn't interested in keeping it, wasn't ever intending to
keep it. Was glad to see the back of it, in fact. He now has a
functioning laptop again, and is quite happy.
It is indeed funny how, on one hand, the Windows zealots claim
that Windows is easy to use, yet, on the other hand, if you
claim to have problems with it, you're clueless.
Can't have it both ways, Rich.
It is easy to use. Most of the people on the planet are able to
use it every day. Why do you COLAnuts have so much trouble with
it? He didn't even try to fix it. He never intended to use it,
yet he purchased the laptop with XP installed, installed Cygwin
on it and used it for seven months. This story just doesn't make
any sense. Me thinks the COLAnut saw an opportunity to spread
some FUD and couldn't pass it up.
What FUD, arsehole? I told exactly the truth. He bought the laptop
with the intention of running Linux on it. But in the meantime, he
used Cygwin and X. he is a committed Linux user. He had no
intention of keeping XP on that laptop, and any suggestion
otherwise is a lie on your part. I should fucking know my own
brother better than you, right?
Up until Saturday night he'd *had* no problems with it. Then
without warning, it shit its pants, which gave him the last nudge
he needed to get moving on installing Linux *as was always his
intention*.
Let's see. He is a committed Linux user. He buys a laptop so he
can run Linux on it. He takes the time to install Cygwin on it
instead of just installing Linux.
And? He ran X with it.
Post by Rich Bell
He uses it for seven months and can't find the time to
Did you miss the part about his being busy? My brother has a
full-time job and an active social life beyond sitting in front of a
computer. Also, the one area where he felt there might be a problem
with a Linux install was wireless, and since he was going to have to
temporarily use the laptop as his primary desktop (because he was
changing his computer study back into a spare bedroom, and thus had
no room for his main system) he wanted to wait until he could be
sure of what he needed to do to get wireless working.
So he bought the system so he could run Linux on it but he didn't
know if the wireless would work with Linux? This story sounds more
and more fishy.
You reall are a stupid fool, Rich. Like he's going to spend the best
part of thousand pounds on something he can't use.
I am pretty sure it was YOU who said he bought a laptop for Linux but
thought "there might be a problem with wireless". Who is the fool?
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Are we really supposed to believe that he would buy a laptop, have
no idea if it will work with Linux, yet "intend" to install Linux on
it. He waits for seven months, does something to trash the HD and
they YOU decide to use this story to claim XP had something to do
with it.
You really are a stupid fool, Rich.
Once again, he bought it for Linux - he'd read reviews that said it
should work with Fedora, and in fact it also works fine with
Mandrake, because I persuaded him to try that first, but he still
likes FC4 better - but the only questionable area was getting
wireless going. In fact, it's only a matter of getting some firmware
downloaded.
As a temporary expediency, he installed Cygwin to run X. Why? Ask him.
Because he could, it's fun, and he wanted to. He wasn't particularly
interested in using XP - though he did have some emulator arcade
games he sometimes played.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
install Linux, even though you nutcases claim it is so easy and
fast to install. The system fails, he makes no attempt to fix it or
troubleshoot it and you aren't sure what caused it but that doesn't
stop you from blaming it on XP.
You still can't read, can you? I said I wasn't sure, and nor was he,
what the root cause was. I suspect, myself, that Norton may have
played a part. But so must XP, as the base OS on which all programs
were running. What else am I supposed to blame? hin air? Scotch mist?
How about a power issue? Maybe something in Cygwin screwed his drive.
Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. We don't know. Frankly, we don't care.
Seems to me you don't mind a bit when someone accuses Linux of
screwing their equipment, but the minute someone suggests XP might
have fucked up, you get all bent out of shape. Why is that?
The problems people have had with Linux screwing their system are well
documented. Your story about this laptop was just a bunch of crap and I
called you on it.
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
The laptop is nw working fine with Fedora. If anything happens to
it, I'll let you know.
Post by Rich Bell
Sounds like you and your brother are cut from the same mold.
Yes. Honest Linux users who don't troll the group of a rival OS.
No, you just take a questionable story about your brother's hosed HD
and use it to claim XP had something to do with it.
Questionable only by you - it happened, exactly as I described.
Perhaps it did but YOU are the one who claimed it was XP that caused the
problem. What exactly was the point of your post if it wasn't to spread FUD
about XP when you had no clue what really caused the problem.
Post by Kier
I should know when my brother is telling the truth, seeing as he's my
brother, and you have no clue as to his character. By definition, XP
*must* have had something to do with it, since XP was the OS upon
which all the software was funning. It may not have been the root
cause, but so what?
So if the system was running Linux and there was a power issue that trashed
the HD would you say that Linux was at fault?
Post by Kier
See, it wasn't the whole hard drive that went, just the partition XP
was on. So that would suggest to anyone sensible that XP had some
measure of the blame.
What other partitions were on the drive? I am not aware of many systems that
come partitioned from the vendor other than a recovery partition on some
systems. How do you know these other partitions were OK? Also, if it
happened to be writing to the XP partition at the time the problem occurred
then yes I would expect only that partition to be affected. Any 'sensible'
person would understand that.
Post by Kier
But who cares? He now has a working laptop with Linux on, which is
what he intended from the start. You can say otherwise, you can jump
up and down and scream 'liar!' and clench you little fists, but it
will still be what he intended to do with it from the start, and
nothing you say can change that fact.
I really don't care if he wants to install Linux on his laptop. I only care
that you tried to use his story to spread FUD about XP with absolutely
nothing to back it up.
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Hopefully the mold has been destroyed.
You are a nasty little creep, aren't you? My brother is a hundred
times a better man than you ever were in your wildest dreams. If you
want to insult me, fine, because I can insult you right back. If you
insult him, you had damn well better have some grounds on which to
do it, dickyboy. So far, you have *none*.
Sounds like you have issues with your brother. Is he your hero?
Issues? Are you a mental case or something? He's my brother. I admire
and like him, because he's both admirable and likable, a decent human
being. You, on the other hand, seem happy to insult and denigrate
someone you know nothing about. Sounds like you are the one with the
'issues', dickyboy.
How does he like it on the pedestal you have placed him on?
Kier
2005-08-04 08:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Linønut
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
What does this prove?
Nothing, except you and your brother are both clueless.
Fuck you, Rich. Why should he be expected to know XP? He
doesn't use it normally, and doesn't want to. So he got rid of
it. Wasn't interested in keeping it, wasn't ever intending to
keep it. Was glad to see the back of it, in fact. He now has a
functioning laptop again, and is quite happy.
It is indeed funny how, on one hand, the Windows zealots claim
that Windows is easy to use, yet, on the other hand, if you
claim to have problems with it, you're clueless.
Can't have it both ways, Rich.
It is easy to use. Most of the people on the planet are able to
use it every day. Why do you COLAnuts have so much trouble with
it? He didn't even try to fix it. He never intended to use it,
yet he purchased the laptop with XP installed, installed Cygwin
on it and used it for seven months. This story just doesn't make
any sense. Me thinks the COLAnut saw an opportunity to spread
some FUD and couldn't pass it up.
What FUD, arsehole? I told exactly the truth. He bought the laptop
with the intention of running Linux on it. But in the meantime, he
used Cygwin and X. he is a committed Linux user. He had no
intention of keeping XP on that laptop, and any suggestion
otherwise is a lie on your part. I should fucking know my own
brother better than you, right?
Up until Saturday night he'd *had* no problems with it. Then
without warning, it shit its pants, which gave him the last nudge
he needed to get moving on installing Linux *as was always his
intention*.
Let's see. He is a committed Linux user. He buys a laptop so he
can run Linux on it. He takes the time to install Cygwin on it
instead of just installing Linux.
And? He ran X with it.
Post by Rich Bell
He uses it for seven months and can't find the time to
Did you miss the part about his being busy? My brother has a
full-time job and an active social life beyond sitting in front of a
computer. Also, the one area where he felt there might be a problem
with a Linux install was wireless, and since he was going to have to
temporarily use the laptop as his primary desktop (because he was
changing his computer study back into a spare bedroom, and thus had
no room for his main system) he wanted to wait until he could be
sure of what he needed to do to get wireless working.
So he bought the system so he could run Linux on it but he didn't
know if the wireless would work with Linux? This story sounds more
and more fishy.
You reall are a stupid fool, Rich. Like he's going to spend the best
part of thousand pounds on something he can't use.
I am pretty sure it was YOU who said he bought a laptop for Linux but
thought "there might be a problem with wireless". Who is the fool?
You are. He was sure enough. The great thing about open source is that
problems get fixed, very quickly.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Are we really supposed to believe that he would buy a laptop, have
no idea if it will work with Linux, yet "intend" to install Linux on
it. He waits for seven months, does something to trash the HD and
they YOU decide to use this story to claim XP had something to do
with it.
You really are a stupid fool, Rich.
Once again, he bought it for Linux - he'd read reviews that said it
should work with Fedora, and in fact it also works fine with
Mandrake, because I persuaded him to try that first, but he still
likes FC4 better - but the only questionable area was getting
wireless going. In fact, it's only a matter of getting some firmware
downloaded.
As a temporary expediency, he installed Cygwin to run X. Why? Ask him.
Because he could, it's fun, and he wanted to. He wasn't particularly
interested in using XP - though he did have some emulator arcade
games he sometimes played.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
install Linux, even though you nutcases claim it is so easy and
fast to install. The system fails, he makes no attempt to fix it or
troubleshoot it and you aren't sure what caused it but that doesn't
stop you from blaming it on XP.
You still can't read, can you? I said I wasn't sure, and nor was he,
what the root cause was. I suspect, myself, that Norton may have
played a part. But so must XP, as the base OS on which all programs
were running. What else am I supposed to blame? hin air? Scotch mist?
How about a power issue? Maybe something in Cygwin screwed his drive.
Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. We don't know. Frankly, we don't care.
Seems to me you don't mind a bit when someone accuses Linux of
screwing their equipment, but the minute someone suggests XP might
have fucked up, you get all bent out of shape. Why is that?
The problems people have had with Linux screwing their system are well
documented. Your story about this laptop was just a bunch of crap and I
called you on it.
No you didn't. You called my brother a liar on no evidecnce whatever. You
even failed to read what I had written, and accused him of trashing his
drive by installing Linux on it, which was absoultely not the case, since
the machine still had XP on it when he came to mine on Sunday, and he
installed Fedora on it *in my presence*. So, you are both a liar and a
fool.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
The laptop is nw working fine with Fedora. If anything happens to
it, I'll let you know.
Post by Rich Bell
Sounds like you and your brother are cut from the same mold.
Yes. Honest Linux users who don't troll the group of a rival OS.
No, you just take a questionable story about your brother's hosed HD
and use it to claim XP had something to do with it.
Questionable only by you - it happened, exactly as I described.
Perhaps it did but YOU are the one who claimed it was XP that caused the
problem. What exactly was the point of your post if it wasn't to spread FUD
about XP when you had no clue what really caused the problem.
To give you trolls a whack upside the head, that's why. I thought it'd be
amusing to see the reaction, knowing how you twats always claim Linux is
to blame for everything bar global warming.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
I should know when my brother is telling the truth, seeing as he's my
brother, and you have no clue as to his character. By definition, XP
*must* have had something to do with it, since XP was the OS upon
which all the software was funning. It may not have been the root
cause, but so what?
So if the system was running Linux and there was a power issue that trashed
the HD would you say that Linux was at fault?
There was no power issue. Tell me, is it normal for a single app to screw
an entire laptop so badly it refused to work thereafter? The OS was XP.
Therefore, XP bears some measure of the blame. At least if an app on Linux
fucks up, you don't usually lose the entire OS.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
See, it wasn't the whole hard drive that went, just the partition XP
was on. So that would suggest to anyone sensible that XP had some
measure of the blame.
What other partitions were on the drive? I am not aware of many systems that
come partitioned from the vendor other than a recovery partition on some
systems. How do you know these other partitions were OK?
We checked them with Knoppix, you pillock, that's how.
Post by Rich Bell
Also, if it
happened to be writing to the XP partition at the time the problem occurred
then yes I would expect only that partition to be affected. Any 'sensible'
person would understand that.
Hey, noodle-brain, did you miss where I said what he was doing?
Administering his email server via ssh. So if any writing occurred, it was
on his other machine.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
But who cares? He now has a working laptop with Linux on, which is
what he intended from the start. You can say otherwise, you can jump
up and down and scream 'liar!' and clench you little fists, but it
will still be what he intended to do with it from the start, and
nothing you say can change that fact.
I really don't care if he wants to install Linux on his laptop. I only care
that you tried to use his story to spread FUD about XP with absolutely
nothing to back it up.
Bullshit. If it had been a story about how Linux went tit's up in the same
circumstances, you'd have lapped it up.

And yes, you do care whether he wanted to install Linux on his laptop or
not, since you accused him of not buying it for that purpose, which is a
lie.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Hopefully the mold has been destroyed.
You are a nasty little creep, aren't you? My brother is a hundred
times a better man than you ever were in your wildest dreams. If you
want to insult me, fine, because I can insult you right back. If you
insult him, you had damn well better have some grounds on which to
do it, dickyboy. So far, you have *none*.
Sounds like you have issues with your brother. Is he your hero?
Issues? Are you a mental case or something? He's my brother. I admire
and like him, because he's both admirable and likable, a decent human
being. You, on the other hand, seem happy to insult and denigrate
someone you know nothing about. Sounds like you are the one with the
'issues', dickyboy.
How does he like it on the pedestal you have placed him on?
Shove when the sun don't shine, boyo, you are off the mark by millions of
miles. I guess you don't like your siblings, do you? You sad fuck.
--
Kier
Linønut
2005-08-02 11:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
Let's see. He is a committed Linux user. He buys a laptop so he can run
Linux on it. He takes the time to install Cygwin on it instead of just
installing Linux. He uses it for seven months and can't find the time to
install Linux, even though you nutcases claim it is so easy and fast to
install. The system fails, he makes no attempt to fix it or troubleshoot it
and you aren't sure what caused it but that doesn't stop you from blaming it
on XP. Sounds like you and your brother are cut from the same mold.
Installing Cygwin does not involve partioning a hard drive. You click
an EXE, select a few things, and then go off an do something else.
Installing Cygwin is quite a bit less of an effort than installing
Linux.
Post by Rich Bell
Hopefully the mold has been destroyed.
You seem to have a moldy buildup between your ears, and in your soul.

You have a one-track mind.
--
Tux rox!
Sinister Midget
2005-08-02 00:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Linønut
It is indeed funny how, on one hand, the Windows zealots claim that
Windows is easy to use, yet, on the other hand, if you claim to have
problems with it, you're clueless.
Can't have it both ways, Rich.
It is easy to use. Most of the people on the planet are able to use it every
day. Why do you COLAnuts have so much trouble with it?
news:microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
news:microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support

They aren't most of the people on the planet. But they're _many_ of the
people on the planet. Here are some more:

http://boards.myway.com/jsp/boardview.jsp?bid=230

http://www.windowsbbs.com/

http://www.softwaretipsandtricks.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=a8beff43206314520dde666901f44bef&f=21
http://tinyurl.com/aq2p3

http://www.pcbanter.net/
(adds some groups I missed above)

http://www.computing.net/windowsxp/wwwboard/wwwboard.html

http://www.techsupportforum.com/forumdisplay.php?s=1ba013322e4314f1b9dc270ce8e2cb43&f=10
http://tinyurl.com/anbg6

http://www.pcsupportforums.com/

Mind you, that still doesn't represent millions of users. Rather, it
_might_ represent millions, but it doesn't represent a majority. It
_does_ represent a significant number, though. And I stopped looking
after just a few minutes.

BTW, you are incorrect. "Most of the people on the planet" don't even
own computers. I presume you were trying to claim that "most of the
people using Windwoes" do OK with it. The above certainly calls that
claim into question even if it doesn't exactly refute it.
Post by Rich Bell
He didn't even try to fix it.
See your next sentence.
Post by Rich Bell
He never intended to use it,
See your previous sentence.
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous.
Kelsey Bjarnason
2005-08-07 07:00:05 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Linønut
It is indeed funny how, on one hand, the Windows zealots claim that
Windows is easy to use, yet, on the other hand, if you claim to have
problems with it, you're clueless.
Can't have it both ways, Rich.
It is easy to use.
"Easy to use" is a relative thing. I just delivered a box back to a
client. The box had anti-virus, anti-spyware and other assorted
defensive tools installed, yet AdAware found over 100 "critical" spyware
items, not including cookies, and there were a couple of viruses on the
machine to boot.

On top of this, the owner was complaining that the system was running
very slowly. Indeed, it was, and a "refresh" (installing Windows
overtop itself) significantly improved performance.

Explain to us how a system which _has_ the defenses, still gets
infected, and, thanks primarily to the registry, tends to slow down more
and more as time goes on, to the point of being effectively unusable, is
"easy to use".

Yes, it's easy to get running - because it's usually sold pre-installed.
Sure, it's easy to launch your web browser or mail client or word
processor or game... using the exact same mechanics you would in Linux
or most other modern OSen. It's a little _too_ easy to install and
remove software, change system settings and the like, for obvious
reasons, and it is virtually impossible to protect from malware, or even
the effects of cumulative clutter from installation and removal of
programs.

Linux and Unix and, as far as I'm aware, OSX don't have these problems.
In fact, about the only bad thing one can say about Linux from an "ease
of use" perspective is that plugins can be a bit of a pain, sometimes,
to get working... but that has nothing to do with the OS, it is the
plugin vendor's shortcomings.

Easy to use, eh? My Linux systems, I don't use AV software, and I don't
get viruses. In Windows, I see machine after machine that does use AV
software, keeps it up to date... but still gets viruses. And the same
for spyware, adware and the like.

Here's a chuckle. Earlier today, I downloaded a file. Not a large
file, it was something on the order of a couple megs, zipped. The
machine, prior to running the contained program, was reported clean by
AdAware and AVG. After running the program - which did what it claimed
to do, BTW, it just took several minutes - a subsequent scan revealed
zero viruses but over 100 items found by AdAware.

One program, 100+ bits of malware as a result. Most rated "critical".
So yes, Windows is, in fact, easy to use - for the malware developers.
It's not nearly so easy to use for the honest users.
Rich Bell
2005-08-07 17:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Linønut
It is indeed funny how, on one hand, the Windows zealots claim that
Windows is easy to use, yet, on the other hand, if you claim to have
problems with it, you're clueless.
Can't have it both ways, Rich.
It is easy to use.
"Easy to use" is a relative thing. I just delivered a box back to a
client. The box had anti-virus, anti-spyware and other assorted
defensive tools installed, yet AdAware found over 100 "critical"
spyware items, not including cookies, and there were a couple of
viruses on the machine to boot.
On top of this, the owner was complaining that the system was running
very slowly. Indeed, it was, and a "refresh" (installing Windows
overtop itself) significantly improved performance.
Explain to us how a system which _has_ the defenses, still gets
infected, and, thanks primarily to the registry, tends to slow down
more and more as time goes on, to the point of being effectively
unusable, is "easy to use".
It can still get infected if they don't install critical updates, don't keep
their security apps up to date or if they do stupid things like letting it
run email attachements, just like on any OS. One of my coworkers bought a
system a while back that came with a 90 version of Norton. When it ran out
he was too cheap to pay for it so he is now running unprotected. You can't
always compensate for laziness and stupidity.

There are free registry cleaners that will help with registry bloat. A
'refresh' install won't delete anything from the registry. It might repair
something that was broken. I haven't experienced much of that with my
system. It certainly will slow down if they have a bunch of malware running
on it.

The thing is, my systems don't get infected. It helps to be behind a router
with firewall. I recommend that to everyone. System slowdown due to malware
has nothing to do with ease of use. It takes very little effort and expense
to maintain a Windows PC.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Yes, it's easy to get running - because it's usually sold
pre-installed. Sure, it's easy to launch your web browser or mail
client or word processor or game... using the exact same mechanics
you would in Linux or most other modern OSen. It's a little _too_
easy to install and remove software, change system settings and the
like, for obvious reasons, and it is virtually impossible to protect
from malware, or even the effects of cumulative clutter from
installation and removal of programs.
Not impossible, not even hard.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Linux and Unix and, as far as I'm aware, OSX don't have these
problems. In fact, about the only bad thing one can say about Linux
from an "ease of use" perspective is that plugins can be a bit of a
pain, sometimes, to get working... but that has nothing to do with
the OS, it is the plugin vendor's shortcomings.
You live in a fantasy world. We have all been over this many times before. I
don't feel like wasting my time explaining things to you again.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Easy to use, eh? My Linux systems, I don't use AV software, and I
don't get viruses. In Windows, I see machine after machine that does
use AV software, keeps it up to date... but still gets viruses. And
the same for spyware, adware and the like.
I don't get infected, my wife doesn't, my brother doesn't, my friends (even
the cheap, lazy one) don't. It really isn't hard. A little common sense goes
a long way.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Here's a chuckle. Earlier today, I downloaded a file. Not a large
file, it was something on the order of a couple megs, zipped. The
machine, prior to running the contained program, was reported clean by
AdAware and AVG. After running the program - which did what it
claimed to do, BTW, it just took several minutes - a subsequent scan
revealed zero viruses but over 100 items found by AdAware.
One program, 100+ bits of malware as a result. Most rated "critical".
So yes, Windows is, in fact, easy to use - for the malware developers.
It's not nearly so easy to use for the honest users.
So YOU installed a program that YOU downloaded and YOU let it installed a
bunch of crap on the system and somehow that is Windows's fault? If you
downloaded and installed a program on your Linux system that had a bunch of
malware with it, you would have the same problem. You really are clueless,
aren't you? To install on either OS you will have to have admin privileges.
The installer can do whatever it wants after that. What was this program you
downloaded and installed? I would like to experiment with it and see if your
claims are true. I will download it and install it on my system and see what
happens. Don't try to weasle out of it. Let's see a link to this file you
downloaded. I suspect that you are making it up and will find some reason
that you can't post the link. Prove me wrong.
Kelsey Bjarnason
2005-08-08 00:00:09 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Explain to us how a system which _has_ the defenses, still gets
infected, and, thanks primarily to the registry, tends to slow down
more and more as time goes on, to the point of being effectively
unusable, is "easy to use".
It can still get infected if they don't install critical updates, don't keep
their security apps up to date or if they do stupid things like letting it
run email attachements, just like on any OS.
You can send me file attachments from now until the end of time, and not
a *single* one of them will *ever* execute on my Linux boxen. Ever.
Linux simply *does not work that way*.

I don't run AV tools in Linux for a very simple reason: I don't _need_
to. Mail attachments _do not execute_. Period. Emails with active
content _do not execute_. Period. The really unsafe web content,
notably ActiveX controls _do not execute_. Period. The somewhat risky
web content, such as scripting, is readily controlled. Word processor
and other documents don't automagically spawn active code. Users don't
run as administrators, as a rule. Getting a program to run, which
wasn't delivered by a proper install package, is not terribly difficult,
but isn't going to be easy enough to make it useful for a virus.

"just like any OS" is a load of crap. Linux doesn't do this. Unix
doesn't. OSX, as far as I'm aware, doesn't. It is *Windows* that acts
like a $2 whore, screaming far and wide "I'll open up for anybody".
Post by Rich Bell
One of my coworkers bought a
system a while back that came with a 90 version of Norton. When it ran out
he was too cheap to pay for it so he is now running unprotected. You can't
always compensate for laziness and stupidity.
So? I'm talking about machines that have _current_ and _up to date_ AV,
anti-spyware and other tools... yet _still_ get infected. You cannot
eliminate the risk caused by a poor design simply by running such tools;
at most you can reduce the risk somewhat. The correct approach is to
fix the design.
Post by Rich Bell
There are free registry cleaners that will help with registry bloat. A
'refresh' install won't delete anything from the registry. It might repair
something that was broken. I haven't experienced much of that with my
system. It certainly will slow down if they have a bunch of malware running
on it.
Registry cleaners. Broken registry. Slowdowns. AV tools, yet still
getting viruses. Antispyware apps, but still getting spyware.

Sorry, wasn't it you making noises about this crap being "easy to use"?
Hell, even when it *is* protected, it *still* gets hosed.

Thankfully, in Linux, nether AV nor AntiSpyware are needed, and since
there _is_ no registry, you don't need cleaner and fixer tools, either.
You just _use_ it. Easy. Hmm, whaddaya know, that makes it _easy to
use_. Certainly easier than that other crap that needs constant
handholding and _still_ gets munged on a regular basis.
Rich Bell
2005-08-08 02:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Explain to us how a system which _has_ the defenses, still gets
infected, and, thanks primarily to the registry, tends to slow down
more and more as time goes on, to the point of being effectively
unusable, is "easy to use".
It can still get infected if they don't install critical updates,
don't keep their security apps up to date or if they do stupid
things like letting it run email attachements, just like on any OS.
You can send me file attachments from now until the end of time, and
not a *single* one of them will *ever* execute on my Linux boxen.
Ever. Linux simply *does not work that way*.
Sure, you have to make it executable, but do you honestly believe that
people won't do it?
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
I don't run AV tools in Linux for a very simple reason: I don't _need_
to. Mail attachments _do not execute_. Period. Emails with active
content _do not execute_. Period. The really unsafe web content,
notably ActiveX controls _do not execute_. Period. The somewhat
risky web content, such as scripting, is readily controlled. Word
processor and other documents don't automagically spawn active code.
Users don't run as administrators, as a rule. Getting a program to
run, which wasn't delivered by a proper install package, is not
terribly difficult, but isn't going to be easy enough to make it
useful for a virus.
"just like any OS" is a load of crap. Linux doesn't do this. Unix
doesn't. OSX, as far as I'm aware, doesn't. It is *Windows* that
acts like a $2 whore, screaming far and wide "I'll open up for
anybody".
Once again, users will take the extra step to make an attachment executable.
They will screw themselves with Linux too if it ever gets a large enough
user base to attract the malware writers.

I have never had an email attachment do anything on my XP machine unless I
chose to do it.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by Rich Bell
One of my coworkers bought a
system a while back that came with a 90 version of Norton. When it
ran out he was too cheap to pay for it so he is now running
unprotected. You can't always compensate for laziness and stupidity.
So? I'm talking about machines that have _current_ and _up to date_
AV, anti-spyware and other tools... yet _still_ get infected. You
cannot eliminate the risk caused by a poor design simply by running
such tools; at most you can reduce the risk somewhat. The correct
approach is to fix the design.
I am not getting infected so it is a user problem. Yes, it is too easy for
careless people to screw themselves, but it isn't that difficult to use a
little common sense have no problems with Windows.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by Rich Bell
There are free registry cleaners that will help with registry bloat.
A 'refresh' install won't delete anything from the registry. It
might repair something that was broken. I haven't experienced much
of that with my system. It certainly will slow down if they have a
bunch of malware running on it.
Registry cleaners. Broken registry. Slowdowns. AV tools, yet still
getting viruses. Antispyware apps, but still getting spyware.
Sorry, wasn't it you making noises about this crap being "easy to
use"? Hell, even when it *is* protected, it *still* gets hosed.
No, it gets hosed when people do stupid things. I don't have problems with
my registry. My system runs fast, my AV software is set to delete anything
that has a virus. I just check my logs and nothing has been found. I run an
antispyware app once in a while and the only thing it occasionally finds is
a few cookies. It is easy to have a malware free system. Once again, ease of
use has nothing to do with malware.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Thankfully, in Linux, nether AV nor AntiSpyware are needed, and since
there _is_ no registry, you don't need cleaner and fixer tools,
either. You just _use_ it. Easy. Hmm, whaddaya know, that makes it
_easy to use_. Certainly easier than that other crap that needs
constant handholding and _still_ gets munged on a regular basis.
It doesn't need constant hand holding. Those apps take care of themselves.

You can't "just use Linux" for many things. I can't just use it with my
scanner, printer, digital camera or MP3 player. Go install MythTV and tell
me how easy it is to use. Compare the install instructions for programs that
are available for both Windows and Linux and tell me which is easier.

I see you snipped the part about the download you claimed hosed the Windows
system.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Here's a chuckle. Earlier today, I downloaded a file. Not a large
file, it was something on the order of a couple megs, zipped. The
machine, prior to running the contained program, was reported clean by
AdAware and AVG. After running the program - which did what it
claimed to do, BTW, it just took several minutes - a subsequent scan
revealed zero viruses but over 100 items found by AdAware.
One program, 100+ bits of malware as a result. Most rated "critical".
So yes, Windows is, in fact, easy to use - for the malware developers.
It's not nearly so easy to use for the honest users.
I knew you were just making it up. What a liar! You got called on your FUD
and you didn't even have the balls to include it in your response. Typical
COLAnut tactic. Make wild claims and then crawl back under your rock when
your lies are exposed.
Kelsey Bjarnason
2005-08-08 06:49:34 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Explain to us how a system which _has_ the defenses, still gets
infected, and, thanks primarily to the registry, tends to slow down
more and more as time goes on, to the point of being effectively
unusable, is "easy to use".
It can still get infected if they don't install critical updates,
don't keep their security apps up to date or if they do stupid
things like letting it run email attachements, just like on any OS.
You can send me file attachments from now until the end of time, and
not a *single* one of them will *ever* execute on my Linux boxen.
Ever. Linux simply *does not work that way*.
Sure, you have to make it executable, but do you honestly believe that
people won't do it?
Some, undoubtedly, will. So what?

Windows is effectively a monoculture; this is why things such as viruses
are so damned effective. Well, that, and it has at best crippled
concepts of security.

Linux isn't a monoculture. Even assuming I do decide to save the file,
browse to it, mark it executable and then run it, what's it going to do?

If I target, say, Windows XP, I know a few things right off the bat.
Let's see:

1) I know the files and registry settings that'll let me auto-run.
2) I know the key applications (explorer, say) which are guaranteed to
be there, as targets for infection should I want to avoid the usual
auto-run areas.
3) I know that barring a few oddball systems, retrieving address books,
mailer settings and the like is trivial, as they're pretty much always
going to be in the same place.
4) I know what anti-intrusion measures are in place, namely none, except
for very odd setups, which I can simply ignore.
5) I know the underlying chipset - x86 - so I can code my virus to a
known architecture.
6) I know the typical firewalling setup, which is either no firewall, or
the XP built-in one, which doesn't track outbound connections.

Contrast that to Linux:

1) The only certain "startup" areas are in /etc/init.d and its
derivatives... but linking in there is pretty easily seen.

2) One could, presumably, also tie in via the user's shell startup
script... but that involves knowing the format of a whole mess of such
things, as there's a whole mess of different shells.

3) Address books, mailer settings and the like are _not_ all in the same
place, nor even the same format, so I'll have to know say the half-dozen
most common ones, at least.

4) I have no idea what anti-intrusion measures are in place, so I'll
have to have the code deal with pretty much all of them, just in case.

5) For all I know, the system is running on a PPC chip. Or something
weirder. Looks like I'm going to have to rely on scripting, rather than
binary coding... and then I'll have to simply hope that the system
supports the particular form of scripting I'm using.

6) The typical firewall setup logs pretty much everything and may or may
not allow me to make outbound connections; worse, what controls the
firewall (shorewall, guarddog, another app, a custom script, whatever)
may or may not be known to me, so I can't very well alter it directly...
and I'll have to deal with logging to hide my tracks if the firewall
records changes in its state (such as adding rules). Which means I'll
have to also be able to do database updates, since ulogd, at least,
allows the firewall to record log entries to a MySQL or Postgres
database. Possibly others.

7) I'll have to deal with items such as applets whose sole purpose is to
allow - or disallow - applications from making or accepting connections,
again possibly with logging in multiple formats.

Now, assuming I've managed to do all this, I'l _also_ have to do it in
such a way that the script is neither excessively large, nor _obviously_
a virus, despite being, at this point, simple script code. And then, I
_still_ have to rely on users actually saving, browsing, marking as
executable and executing.

All that, contrasted to the Windows approach, which, until very
recently, was "deliver a binary attachment, tell 'em 'Look at the sexy
babe'" and have 'em click "open attachment".

You figure out which approach is more likely to cause widespread
problems.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
"just like any OS" is a load of crap. Linux doesn't do this. Unix
doesn't. OSX, as far as I'm aware, doesn't. It is *Windows* that
acts like a $2 whore, screaming far and wide "I'll open up for
anybody".
Once again, users will take the extra step to make an attachment executable.
Some will, sure. As noted, however... so what? You persist in seeing
but one tiny aspect of the process... but even that tiny aspect is, in
itself, sufficient to seriously impact the functionality of a virus.
Post by Rich Bell
I have never had an email attachment do anything on my XP machine unless I
chose to do it.
MS apparently learned its lesson, finally. It wasn't so long ago that
all you needed to do was click the attachment and select "open
attachment" and *blooie*. All because MS doesn't grasp the difference
between "open" and "execute", a distinction which every computer person
in the history of man has had no problem with _except_ those employed by
MS. Where they find these people isn't clear.

Of course, they've also made things even more fun. It was within the
last year or two that emails were going around where you didn't need to
even open the attachment to get infected; simply viewing the email in
the preview pane was sufficient - because Windows, as per usual, does
the $2 whore bit of opening up to and running anything and everything -
including emails.

By contrast, Linux mail readers tend to fall into one of two categories;
those that don't even render the HTML, or those that do, but sanitize it
first. Neither, generally, will retrieve remote items by default -
images, web bugs, etc - and even when you choose to do this, not a
single one I'm aware of will allow _anything_ in the email to execute.
Net result, it is nigh-on impossible to use email in Linux as an
infection mechanism, compared to Windows, where it has been used again
and again and again, in a variety of ways, for exactly that purpose.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
So? I'm talking about machines that have _current_ and _up to date_
AV, anti-spyware and other tools... yet _still_ get infected. You
cannot eliminate the risk caused by a poor design simply by running
such tools; at most you can reduce the risk somewhat. The correct
approach is to fix the design.
I am not getting infected so it is a user problem.
Sure. The user installs the AV software, the anti-spyware stuff, goes
off and does his thing and still gets infected... but it's _his_ fault.
Rich Bell
2005-08-08 14:25:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Explain to us how a system which _has_ the defenses, still gets
infected, and, thanks primarily to the registry, tends to slow
down more and more as time goes on, to the point of being
effectively unusable, is "easy to use".
It can still get infected if they don't install critical updates,
don't keep their security apps up to date or if they do stupid
things like letting it run email attachements, just like on any OS.
You can send me file attachments from now until the end of time, and
not a *single* one of them will *ever* execute on my Linux boxen.
Ever. Linux simply *does not work that way*.
Sure, you have to make it executable, but do you honestly believe
that people won't do it?
Some, undoubtedly, will. So what?
So what? You think that running a nasty on Linux can't do damage? What color
is the sky in your world?
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Windows is effectively a monoculture; this is why things such as
viruses are so damned effective. Well, that, and it has at best
crippled concepts of security.
Yes, Windows installations are more consistent than Linux. Like the Mac, it
is one of the reasons for ease of use. Linux is so fragmented that hardware
and software developers don't want to waste time trying to support it.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Linux isn't a monoculture. Even assuming I do decide to save the
file, browse to it, mark it executable and then run it, what's it
going to do?
How about delete everything on your system? Most distros have a lot of
common applications. They can target the common stuff. You know, like
Firefox, that has multiple security issues recently.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by Rich Bell
I am not getting infected so it is a user problem.
Sure. The user installs the AV software, the anti-spyware stuff, goes
off and does his thing and still gets infected... but it's _his_ fault.
Yes, it is his fault if he installs some program he downloaded and it puts
100+ malware items on his computer.

Speaking of which, I see you are still not willing to admit to your lies
about this alleged program you installed. Step up to the plate. Either
produce the link or admit you made it up. I think we all know the truth.
It's right in the COLAnut manual. Make outrageous claims and lie your ass
off. Linux can't stand on it's own merits so you must constantly attack the
infidel Microsoft. COLAnuts - we're not afraid to lie.
Kier
2005-08-08 16:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Explain to us how a system which _has_ the defenses, still gets
infected, and, thanks primarily to the registry, tends to slow
down more and more as time goes on, to the point of being
effectively unusable, is "easy to use".
It can still get infected if they don't install critical updates,
don't keep their security apps up to date or if they do stupid
things like letting it run email attachements, just like on any OS.
You can send me file attachments from now until the end of time, and
not a *single* one of them will *ever* execute on my Linux boxen.
Ever. Linux simply *does not work that way*.
Sure, you have to make it executable, but do you honestly believe
that people won't do it?
Some, undoubtedly, will. So what?
So what? You think that running a nasty on Linux can't do damage? What color
is the sky in your world?
Same as it is in yours.

The difference in, in Linux, you have to go out f your way ot make the
nasty thing run. With Windows, it can bite you without any effort on your
part at all.

If you make something executable and it turns out to be malware, is it
your fault or Linux's?

To quote you:
"Yes, it is his fault if he installs some program he downloaded and it
puts 100+ malware items on his computer."

So, when it's Linux we're talking about, why do you blame Linux and not
the user?
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Windows is effectively a monoculture; this is why things such as
viruses are so damned effective. Well, that, and it has at best
crippled concepts of security.
Yes, Windows installations are more consistent than Linux. Like the Mac,
it is one of the reasons for ease of use. Linux is so fragmented that
hardware and software developers don't want to waste time trying to
support it.
What does that have to do with security or the lack of it?
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Linux isn't a monoculture. Even assuming I do decide to save the
file, browse to it, mark it executable and then run it, what's it
going to do?
How about delete everything on your system? Most distros have a lot of
common applications. They can target the common stuff. You know, like
Firefox, that has multiple security issues recently.
And just how many security issues has IE had over the years?

Firefox gets patched as early as possible. IE sometimes isn't patched at
all. Which is the better way?
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by Rich Bell
I am not getting infected so it is a user problem.
Sure. The user installs the AV software, the anti-spyware stuff, goes
off and does his thing and still gets infected... but it's _his_ fault.
Yes, it is his fault if he installs some program he downloaded and it puts
100+ malware items on his computer.
Speaking of which, I see you are still not willing to admit to your lies
about this alleged program you installed. Step up to the plate. Either
produce the link or admit you made it up. I think we all know the truth.
I like the way you always come out with this lie. No, 'we' don't all know
the 'truth'.
Post by Rich Bell
It's right in the COLAnut manual. Make outrageous claims and lie your
ass off. Linux can't stand on it's own merits so you must constantly
attack the infidel Microsoft. COLAnuts - we're not afraid to lie.
Wintrolls certainly aren't. You lie in every post you write.
--
Kier
l***@uku.co.uk
2005-08-08 17:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Explain to us how a system which _has_ the defenses, still gets
infected, and, thanks primarily to the registry, tends to slow
down more and more as time goes on, to the point of being
effectively unusable, is "easy to use".
It can still get infected if they don't install critical updates,
don't keep their security apps up to date or if they do stupid
things like letting it run email attachements, just like on any OS.
You can send me file attachments from now until the end of time, and
not a *single* one of them will *ever* execute on my Linux boxen.
Ever. Linux simply *does not work that way*.
Sure, you have to make it executable, but do you honestly believe
that people won't do it?
Some, undoubtedly, will. So what?
So what? You think that running a nasty on Linux can't do damage? What color
is the sky in your world?
Same as it is in yours.
The difference in, in Linux, you have to go out f your way ot make the
nasty thing run. With Windows, it can bite you without any effort on your
part at all.
If you make something executable and it turns out to be malware, is it
your fault or Linux's?
"Yes, it is his fault if he installs some program he downloaded and it
puts 100+ malware items on his computer."
So, when it's Linux we're talking about, why do you blame Linux and not
the user?
I was out of state this past weekend attending a funeral. We were over
some relatives and my brother-in-law asked me to take a quick look at
his computer (XP-Home) because he had a problem with "pop-ups" invading
his system.

Sure enough, he had a bunch of crap/malware on there that I removed.
Similar to how I removed crap 6 months ago when we were last over
there.

He has a firewall/router and his XP automatic updates are enabled so I
was a bit curious how he got all this stuff. One problem is that he has
teenagers (younger teenagers) who download a lot of crap from the web.
The other problem is that somewhere along the way somebody downloaded
and installed a very suspicous Active-X control.

I changed the "user permission" for his kids to only be "Users" and not
Admins which should solve the kid side of the problem. I suspect that
the Active-X control was some sort of crap that allowed the control to
automatically download and install apps from certain web-sites. I
deleted this control which will solve the problem... for now at least.
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
How about delete everything on your system? Most distros have a lot of
common applications. They can target the common stuff. You know, like
Firefox, that has multiple security issues recently.
And just how many security issues has IE had over the years?
Firefox gets patched as early as possible. IE sometimes isn't patched at
all. Which is the better way?
The problem with most users is that they don't keep current with
updates and patches. They get something, install it and then assume
that they are permanently done.
Kier
2005-08-08 19:18:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@uku.co.uk
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Explain to us how a system which _has_ the defenses, still gets
infected, and, thanks primarily to the registry, tends to slow
down more and more as time goes on, to the point of being
effectively unusable, is "easy to use".
It can still get infected if they don't install critical updates,
don't keep their security apps up to date or if they do stupid
things like letting it run email attachements, just like on any OS.
You can send me file attachments from now until the end of time, and
not a *single* one of them will *ever* execute on my Linux boxen.
Ever. Linux simply *does not work that way*.
Sure, you have to make it executable, but do you honestly believe
that people won't do it?
Some, undoubtedly, will. So what?
So what? You think that running a nasty on Linux can't do damage? What color
is the sky in your world?
Same as it is in yours.
The difference in, in Linux, you have to go out f your way ot make the
nasty thing run. With Windows, it can bite you without any effort on your
part at all.
If you make something executable and it turns out to be malware, is it
your fault or Linux's?
"Yes, it is his fault if he installs some program he downloaded and it
puts 100+ malware items on his computer."
So, when it's Linux we're talking about, why do you blame Linux and not
the user?
I was out of state this past weekend attending a funeral. We were over
some relatives and my brother-in-law asked me to take a quick look at
his computer (XP-Home) because he had a problem with "pop-ups" invading
his system.
Sure enough, he had a bunch of crap/malware on there that I removed.
Similar to how I removed crap 6 months ago when we were last over
there.
He has a firewall/router and his XP automatic updates are enabled so I
was a bit curious how he got all this stuff. One problem is that he has
teenagers (younger teenagers) who download a lot of crap from the web.
The other problem is that somewhere along the way somebody downloaded
and installed a very suspicous Active-X control.
I changed the "user permission" for his kids to only be "Users" and not
Admins which should solve the kid side of the problem. I suspect that
the Active-X control was some sort of crap that allowed the control to
automatically download and install apps from certain web-sites. I
deleted this control which will solve the problem... for now at least.
This Active-X stuff does seem to be a real nuisence, doesn't it? Wasn't
intended to be, no doubt, when first thought up, but there we are :-) the
bad guys do love to exploit things of this kind.
Post by l***@uku.co.uk
Post by Kier
Post by Rich Bell
How about delete everything on your system? Most distros have a lot of
common applications. They can target the common stuff. You know, like
Firefox, that has multiple security issues recently.
And just how many security issues has IE had over the years?
Firefox gets patched as early as possible. IE sometimes isn't patched at
all. Which is the better way?
The problem with most users is that they don't keep current with
updates and patches. They get something, install it and then assume
that they are permanently done.
That's true enough. But is that the fault of the OS or the user? At least
with Linux, the chances of infection are considerably reduced. Even so,
it's always best to stay patched and up to date.

-
Kier
Mark Kent
2005-08-09 08:08:42 UTC
Permalink
begin oe_protect.scr
Post by Kier
Post by l***@uku.co.uk
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
He has a firewall/router and his XP automatic updates are enabled so I
was a bit curious how he got all this stuff. One problem is that he has
teenagers (younger teenagers) who download a lot of crap from the web.
The other problem is that somewhere along the way somebody downloaded
and installed a very suspicous Active-X control.
I changed the "user permission" for his kids to only be "Users" and not
Admins which should solve the kid side of the problem. I suspect that
the Active-X control was some sort of crap that allowed the control to
automatically download and install apps from certain web-sites. I
deleted this control which will solve the problem... for now at least.
This Active-X stuff does seem to be a real nuisence, doesn't it? Wasn't
intended to be, no doubt, when first thought up, but there we are :-) the
bad guys do love to exploit things of this kind.
There's a much more fundamental problem than this, though. These kids
will probably have to be changed back to admin, as so many applications
don't work properly and don't respect the ACL stuff in MS Windows.
Also, as windows executes from attachments, and has an unbelievable
number of security holes, its extremely unlikely that such a trivial
action as this will provide any kind of long-term protection. The
best way to get around this problem is to install Linux. Or BSD,
or even get a Mac if you have the cash.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Visit beautiful Vergas, Minnesota.
Larry Qualig
2005-08-09 12:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Kent
There's a much more fundamental problem than this, though.
These kids will probably have to be changed back to admin,
as so many applications don't work properly and don't respect
the ACL stuff in MS Windows.
I'll do the easy one first.. the "don't respect the ACL stuff in Windows."
It's not up to the application to respect the ACL (access control list). The
ACL is something that the OS enforces regardless of what the app wants to
do. Example: I have a file and the ACL on the file does not give you "read
perms" for the file. It's not a matter of the apps you run checking whether
you have read permission or not. They apps don't have to check and "respect"
the ACL, they simply can't read the file.

You've mentioned that "many apps don't work properly" in another thread and
I asked for examples. Surely if there are "many apps" it should be trivial
for you to come up with a sample list. I've run this way for years and have
yet to encounter a problem running apps from a non-admin account. There are
lots of apps out there so it's possible there may be some but I'd like to
see the list and not just a blanket statement that is yet to be proven.
Post by Mark Kent
Also, as windows executes from attachments, and has an
unbelievable number of security holes, its extremely unlikely
that such a trivial action as this will provide any kind of
long-term protection.
If you don't have permissions to do something then you don't have
permissions. It doesn't matter if you execute something from an email, or by
double-clicking or by running from the command line. You can only access and
modify the items you have permissions to modify. Again, I've have 3-kids and
a wife who use the computer constantly. They all run with relatively low
permissions. I have yet to have a single security problem after years of
use.
Kelsey Bjarnason
2005-08-10 04:00:23 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
Post by Larry Qualig
Post by Mark Kent
There's a much more fundamental problem than this, though.
These kids will probably have to be changed back to admin,
as so many applications don't work properly and don't respect
the ACL stuff in MS Windows.
I'll do the easy one first.. the "don't respect the ACL stuff in Windows."
It's not up to the application to respect the ACL (access control list). The
ACL is something that the OS enforces regardless of what the app wants to
do.
You're missing the point. The apps don't "respect" ACLs in that if you
have a locked-down system, a lot of apps won't work properly. They
simply demand higher privileges.

Contrast that to Linux where, to date, the only apps I've run across
which require that level of security are system maintenance apps and a
few security apps which require access to protected resource. Games,
office apps, development tools, etc, etc, etc, will happily run properly
in a normal user account.
Post by Larry Qualig
You've mentioned that "many apps don't work properly" in another thread and
I asked for examples. Surely if there are "many apps" it should be trivial
for you to come up with a sample list.
Corel WordPerfect was one such. Granted, this is going back, oh, two
years - but that's *long* past NT and 2K release dates, wot? - I was
called in to upgrade a mess of systems to Win2K. I did. Boom, WP
refused to work; it required admin privileges.
Mart van de Wege
2005-08-10 10:34:45 UTC
Permalink
"Larry Qualig" <***@uku.co.uk> writes:

<about running apps on a locked down Windows system>
Post by Larry Qualig
You've mentioned that "many apps don't work properly" in another thread and
I asked for examples. Surely if there are "many apps" it should be trivial
for you to come up with a sample list. I've run this way for years and have
yet to encounter a problem running apps from a non-admin account. There are
lots of apps out there so it's possible there may be some but I'd like to
see the list and not just a blanket statement that is yet to be proven.
Almost all games, including games published by Microsoft (Age of
Empires for example). Most recent example I saw was Knights of the Old
Republic I and II, which required admin to play on my gf's Win2k
system.

Palm Desktop, the Palm synchronisation software, requires write access
to restricted registry trees.

ActiveSync, requires admin access to (I believe) install USB drivers.

And that's only three examples.

No, you may be lucky, but there's quite a lot of software in Windows
land that quite simply does not function properly if it doesn't have
admin privileges or write permissions to global system files.

Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Bob Hauck
2005-08-09 20:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kier
This Active-X stuff does seem to be a real nuisence, doesn't it?
Wasn't intended to be, no doubt, when first thought up, but there we
are :-)
It was predicted to be a problem almost from the day it was announced.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| A proud member of the reality-based community.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
rapskat
2005-08-10 07:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Hauck
Post by Kier
This Active-X stuff does seem to be a real nuisence, doesn't it?
Wasn't intended to be, no doubt, when first thought up, but there we
are :-)
It was predicted to be a problem almost from the day it was announced.
I remember reading an article by some guy who demonstrated just how
damaging Active-X controls could potentially be. To date, every one of
his predictions was right on.

M$ response at the time was something like, "Well, you can turn it off".
HAH!
--
rapskat - 03:32:54 up 13 days, 12:48, 9 users, load average: 1.46, 0.88, 0.72
"Speak softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword."
Rei on slashdot.
Blood Money
2005-08-09 06:13:37 UTC
Permalink
Give it up, Dick. You've been completely out-maneuvered.
Your arguments have become non sequitur and desperate.
rapskat
2005-08-10 05:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Some, undoubtedly, will. So what?
So what? You think that running a nasty on Linux can't do damage? What
color is the sky in your world?
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Windows is effectively a monoculture; this is why things such as
viruses are so damned effective. Well, that, and it has at best
crippled concepts of security.
Yes, Windows installations are more consistent than Linux. Like the Mac,
it is one of the reasons for ease of use. Linux is so fragmented that
hardware and software developers don't want to waste time trying to
support it.
Most distros of Linux are more consistent between each other than versions
of Windows are between themselves. Consider that you could take a driver
from an x86 Mandriva system and use it on an x86 Debian system. Can the
same be said for a driver on Win98 and WinXP? Nope.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Linux isn't a monoculture. Even assuming I do decide to save the file,
browse to it, mark it executable and then run it, what's it going to do?
How about delete everything on your system?
Tell me, Dick, even if this unlikely situation were to occur, how exactly
would a process running with user privs start deleting stuff that this
user doesn't even have write privs to?
Post by Rich Bell
Most distros have a lot of common applications. They can target the
common stuff. You know, like Firefox, that has multiple security issues
recently.
Which are subsequently fixed before there is even talk of an active
exploit. And again, how is a process running with user privs going to
delete or modify a file it doesn't have write access to?

***@argus [~]$> ls -la /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/firefox
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 10608 Jul 30 03:04 /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/firefox
***@argus [~]$> rm -fv /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/firefox
rm: cannot remove `/usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/firefox': Permission denied
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by Rich Bell
I am not getting infected so it is a user problem.
Sure. The user installs the AV software, the anti-spyware stuff, goes
off and does his thing and still gets infected... but it's _his_ fault.
Yes, it is his fault if he installs some program he downloaded and it
puts 100+ malware items on his computer.
Speaking of which, I see you are still not willing to admit to your lies
about this alleged program you installed. Step up to the plate. Either
produce the link or admit you made it up. I think we all know the truth.
It's right in the COLAnut manual. Make outrageous claims and lie your
ass off. Linux can't stand on it's own merits so you must constantly
attack the infidel Microsoft. COLAnuts - we're not afraid to lie.
Yeah, right. Tell you what, launch IE and browse to astalavista or your
favorite porn site and tell us about it afterwards, ok?
--
rapskat - 00:51:18 up 13 days, 10:06, 9 users, load average: 0.05, 0.36, 0.55
"Where do you think you're going today?"
Sinister Midget
2005-08-08 08:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Explain to us how a system which _has_ the defenses, still gets
infected, and, thanks primarily to the registry, tends to slow down
more and more as time goes on, to the point of being effectively
unusable, is "easy to use".
It can still get infected if they don't install critical updates,
don't keep their security apps up to date or if they do stupid
things like letting it run email attachements, just like on any OS.
You can send me file attachments from now until the end of time, and
not a *single* one of them will *ever* execute on my Linux boxen.
Ever. Linux simply *does not work that way*.
Sure, you have to make it executable, but do you honestly believe that
people won't do it?
Hold on, Dick. I'll be right back with some more straws for you.
--
Microsoft's relationship to its users is that of the blue whale to
krill. Our only purpose is to breed, feed and get squeezed against its
giant tongue until every last drop of money is released.
-- Rupert Goodwins, ZDNet(UK)
rapskat
2005-08-10 04:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Registry cleaners. Broken registry. Slowdowns. AV tools, yet still
getting viruses. Antispyware apps, but still getting spyware.
Sorry, wasn't it you making noises about this crap being "easy to use"?
Hell, even when it *is* protected, it *still* gets hosed.
No, it gets hosed when people do stupid things. I don't have problems
with my registry. My system runs fast, my AV software is set to delete
anything that has a virus. I just check my logs and nothing has been
found. I run an antispyware app once in a while and the only thing it
occasionally finds is a few cookies. It is easy to have a malware free
system. Once again, ease of use has nothing to do with malware.
What you are not taking into consideration is the snowball effect. Suppose
a new peice of malware slips by the gatekeepers and ends up in some
clueless user's inbox. They execute (or have executed for them) the
subsequent attachment and all hell breaks loose. Now you have a
virus/worm/trojan/whatever running around *inside* the network, it in turn
takes advantage of some new found flaw in Windows to subsequently infect
as many systems on the network as possible, including servers. Then it
uses these compromised systems to send itself to a bunch of other persons
outside of the network.

Sound unbelievable? It's not, it's happened on more than one occassion.
So you see, you can't blame the vulnerability of Windows totally on
clueless users. With big outbreaks, all it takes is one clueless user to
bring the shitstorm.

Blame the admins for not keeping the systems up to date and avsigs
current? Fine, but what about when the malware is so new that the
signature files for it haven't even been propogated yet? What about if
the vulnerability in Windows hasn't been patched yet? This is all very
realistic.

What's not realistic is your attitude towards the inherent insecurities of
that platform as compared to Linux.
--
rapskat - 00:19:29 up 13 days, 9:34, 9 users, load average: 0.27, 0.58, 0.60
"Maybe is an Ambivalent Yet Beguiling Enigma"
Snit
2005-08-10 04:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by rapskat
What's not realistic is your attitude towards the inherent insecurities of
that platform as compared to Linux.
We can debate the reasons why Windows is the only OS with a significant risk
of malware, but the fact that both Linux and OS X are free of significant
malware while Windows is anything but is not worth debating.

Windows users are at risk - significant risk. This in itself is huge
weakness of the Windows platform.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Erik Funkenbusch
2005-08-08 21:14:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by Rich Bell
It can still get infected if they don't install critical updates, don't keep
their security apps up to date or if they do stupid things like letting it
run email attachements, just like on any OS.
You can send me file attachments from now until the end of time, and not
a *single* one of them will *ever* execute on my Linux boxen. Ever.
Linux simply *does not work that way*.
That's a dangerous frame of mind, and also highly unlikely to be true.
Linux, just like most other OS's, is susceptible to buffer overflow
vulnerabilities. Such vulnerabilities, if exploited, can result in
unexpected code execution.

For example, mutt has had several vulnerabiliites that could allow someone
to send you specially crafted email and have it execute the code without
you doing anything.

http://secunia.com/advisories/10846/

Other mailers that have had exploitable buffer overflows include
Thunderbird:

http://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/mfsa2005-30.html

Pine:

http://www.linuxsecurity.com/content/view/105344/101/

etc.. etc..

I understand that you were talking about executing attachments as programs,
but even that isn't guaranteed, since it's quite possible for email
programs to be written to do that. And, it's actually likely that it will
eventually happen if Linux keeps getting popular.
Kelsey Bjarnason
2005-08-09 04:00:16 UTC
Permalink
[snips]

In article <***@funkenbusch.com>, ***@despam-
funkenbusch.com says...
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I understand that you were talking about executing attachments as programs,
but even that isn't guaranteed, since it's quite possible for email
programs to be written to do that. And, it's actually likely that it will
eventually happen if Linux keeps getting popular.
Perhaps, but I rather expect such a mailer to be wildly unpopular.

A large part of the appeal of Linux, for many of us, is that it does
things *right*. Not perfectly, just right. By this I mean it doesn't
do asinine things like "the file has the right name, so it's magically
executable." Or "the user selected _Open_, so we'll _Execute_." Things
like that.

If people really want that sort of idiocy, there's already something
that will give it to them.
DFS
2005-08-09 05:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
funkenbusch.com says...
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I understand that you were talking about executing attachments as
programs, but even that isn't guaranteed, since it's quite possible
for email programs to be written to do that. And, it's actually
likely that it will eventually happen if Linux keeps getting popular.
Perhaps, but I rather expect such a mailer to be wildly unpopular.
A large part of the appeal of Linux, for many of us, is that it does
things *right*. Not perfectly, just right. By this I mean it doesn't
do asinine things like "the file has the right name, so it's magically
executable." Or "the user selected _Open_, so we'll _Execute_."
Things like that.
Are you effin' kidding? Both KDE and Gnome will do their best to install a
.txt file renamed as an .rpm.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
If people really want that sort of idiocy, there's already something
that will give it to them.
Peter Köhlmann
2005-08-09 05:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
funkenbusch.com says...
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I understand that you were talking about executing attachments as
programs, but even that isn't guaranteed, since it's quite possible
for email programs to be written to do that. And, it's actually
likely that it will eventually happen if Linux keeps getting popular.
Perhaps, but I rather expect such a mailer to be wildly unpopular.
A large part of the appeal of Linux, for many of us, is that it does
things *right*. Not perfectly, just right. By this I mean it doesn't
do asinine things like "the file has the right name, so it's magically
executable." Or "the user selected _Open_, so we'll _Execute_."
Things like that.
Are you effin' kidding? Both KDE and Gnome will do their best to install
a .txt file renamed as an .rpm.
You may now explain where it does "exec" them, instead of "open"
You aggain just show your immense stupidity with comments like that
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
If people really want that sort of idiocy, there's already something
that will give it to them.
--
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species
John Bailo
2005-08-09 07:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Are you effin' kidding? Both KDE and Gnome will do their best to install
a .txt file renamed as an .rpm.
***@texeme:~> cat myrpm.rpm
dfs
***@texeme:~> rpm -ivh myrpm.rpm
error: myrpm.rpm cannot be installed
***@texeme:~>
--
Texeme Construct
http://www.texeme.com
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
2005-08-09 08:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
funkenbusch.com says...
Post by Erik Funkenbusch
I understand that you were talking about executing attachments as
programs, but even that isn't guaranteed, since it's quite possible
for email programs to be written to do that. And, it's actually
likely that it will eventually happen if Linux keeps getting popular.
Perhaps, but I rather expect such a mailer to be wildly unpopular.
A large part of the appeal of Linux, for many of us, is that it does
things *right*. Not perfectly, just right. By this I mean it doesn't
do asinine things like "the file has the right name, so it's magically
executable." Or "the user selected _Open_, so we'll _Execute_."
Things like that.
Are you effin' kidding? Both KDE and Gnome will do their best to install
a .txt file renamed as an .rpm.
How about you rename all your windows dll's to .idiot
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
Kelsey Bjarnason
2005-08-10 04:00:23 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
A large part of the appeal of Linux, for many of us, is that it does
things *right*. Not perfectly, just right. By this I mean it doesn't
do asinine things like "the file has the right name, so it's magically
executable." Or "the user selected _Open_, so we'll _Execute_."
Things like that.
Are you effin' kidding? Both KDE and Gnome will do their best to install a
.txt file renamed as an .rpm.
No, they don't, since neither KDE nor Gnome have any concept of RPMs.
Once again, demonstrating a fundamental cluelessness about, well, pretty
much everything.

What they do, in fact, is hand off appropriately-extensioned files to
handler applications; jpg to the image viewer, html to the browser, rpm
to the package manager and so forth.

Of course, the helper application must then proceed to actually validate
the file. In the case of an html document, this means ensuring it can
be read and displayed. In the case of an rpm, it means parsing its
contents and attempting (if the contents are valid) to install it.

Hmm, I wonder what sort of message an *installer* application is going
to display during the *installation* process. Something like
"Installing package", perhaps? Makes sense. Hmm, validating the
package is _part_ of the installation process... so it's no surprise to
see that message during that phase, now is it? Guess not.

You do, of course, have documentation that "KDE" actually tried to
_install_ said broken package, right? We're quite sure it launched the
package manager; we're quite sure the PM started the package validation
process. Do you have any support for the notion that it subsequently
carried on and actually tried to perform the installation phase? Or did
it simply barf out and issue an "Install process completed" or some
such, which is, after all, exactly what happened?
Snit
2005-08-10 04:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
A large part of the appeal of Linux, for many of us, is that it does
things *right*. Not perfectly, just right. By this I mean it doesn't
do asinine things like "the file has the right name, so it's magically
executable." Or "the user selected _Open_, so we'll _Execute_."
Things like that.
Are you effin' kidding? Both KDE and Gnome will do their best to install a
.txt file renamed as an .rpm.
No, they don't, since neither KDE nor Gnome have any concept of RPMs.
Once again, demonstrating a fundamental cluelessness about, well, pretty
much everything.
What they do, in fact, is hand off appropriately-extensioned files to
handler applications; jpg to the image viewer, html to the browser, rpm
to the package manager and so forth.
Of course, the helper application must then proceed to actually validate
the file. In the case of an html document, this means ensuring it can
be read and displayed. In the case of an rpm, it means parsing its
contents and attempting (if the contents are valid) to install it.
Hmm, I wonder what sort of message an *installer* application is going
to display during the *installation* process. Something like
"Installing package", perhaps? Makes sense. Hmm, validating the
package is _part_ of the installation process... so it's no surprise to
see that message during that phase, now is it? Guess not.
You do, of course, have documentation that "KDE" actually tried to
_install_ said broken package, right? We're quite sure it launched the
package manager; we're quite sure the PM started the package validation
process. Do you have any support for the notion that it subsequently
carried on and actually tried to perform the installation phase? Or did
it simply barf out and issue an "Install process completed" or some
such, which is, after all, exactly what happened?
It is clear he meant a distro of Linux that uses KDE as its default WM.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.




_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
DFS
2005-08-10 05:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
A large part of the appeal of Linux, for many of us, is that it
does things *right*. Not perfectly, just right. By this I mean
it doesn't do asinine things like "the file has the right name, so
it's magically executable." Or "the user selected _Open_, so
we'll _Execute_." Things like that.
Are you effin' kidding? Both KDE and Gnome will do their best to
install a .txt file renamed as an .rpm.
No, they don't, since neither KDE nor Gnome have any concept of RPMs.
Once again, demonstrating a fundamental cluelessness about, well,
pretty much everything.
It is clear he meant a distro of Linux that uses KDE as its default WM.
Snit, let him have his fun. Playing word games like that is all he can do -
he certainly can't defend the slopware with anything approaching integrity
or reason.
Snit
2005-08-10 05:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Snit
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
A large part of the appeal of Linux, for many of us, is that it
does things *right*. Not perfectly, just right. By this I mean
it doesn't do asinine things like "the file has the right name, so
it's magically executable." Or "the user selected _Open_, so
we'll _Execute_." Things like that.
Are you effin' kidding? Both KDE and Gnome will do their best to
install a .txt file renamed as an .rpm.
No, they don't, since neither KDE nor Gnome have any concept of RPMs.
Once again, demonstrating a fundamental cluelessness about, well,
pretty much everything.
It is clear he meant a distro of Linux that uses KDE as its default WM.
Snit, let him have his fun. Playing word games like that is all he can do -
he certainly can't defend the slopware with anything approaching integrity
or reason.
The sad thing is that Linux *does* have a lot going for it - a reasonable
person who knows Linux well should be able to "defend" Linux without
resorting to such dishonesty.

Then again, if one wants to be honest one would also have to admit to Linux
weaknesses - and there are those in COLA who are very reluctant to do that.
--
BU__SH__



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
DFS
2005-08-10 06:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snit
The sad thing is that Linux *does* have a lot going for it
It's alright. It's fun and interesting to play with from time to time, but
as a day-to-day work and development and usable platform? Not even close to
Windows.
Post by Snit
a reasonable person who knows Linux well should be able to "defend"
Linux without resorting to such dishonesty.
You have to realize that cola nuts are at war with honesty.
Post by Snit
Then again, if one wants to be honest one would also have to admit to
Linux weaknesses - and there are those in COLA who are very reluctant
to do that.
I try to help them overcome their shyness.
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
2005-08-10 06:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Snit
The sad thing is that Linux *does* have a lot going for it
It's alright. It's fun and interesting to play with from time to time, but
as a day-to-day work and development and usable platform? Not even close
to Windows.
I find the opposite at times. I found a win machine useless for what I
wanted to do on the weekend, yet a default linux install did the job easy.
Post by DFS
Post by Snit
a reasonable person who knows Linux well should be able to "defend"
Linux without resorting to such dishonesty.
You have to realize that cola nuts are at war with honesty.
Funny coming from a racist troll.
Post by DFS
Post by Snit
Then again, if one wants to be honest one would also have to admit to
Linux weaknesses - and there are those in COLA who are very reluctant
to do that.
I try to help them overcome their shyness.
By being a racist troll?
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
2005-08-10 05:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Snit
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
A large part of the appeal of Linux, for many of us, is that it
does things *right*. Not perfectly, just right. By this I mean
it doesn't do asinine things like "the file has the right name, so
it's magically executable." Or "the user selected _Open_, so
we'll _Execute_." Things like that.
Are you effin' kidding? Both KDE and Gnome will do their best to
install a .txt file renamed as an .rpm.
No, they don't, since neither KDE nor Gnome have any concept of RPMs.
Once again, demonstrating a fundamental cluelessness about, well,
pretty much everything.
It is clear he meant a distro of Linux that uses KDE as its default WM.
Snit, let him have his fun. Playing word games like that is all he can do
- he certainly can't defend the slopware with anything approaching
integrity or reason.
speshly wen doof jus caim hear too krap onn enywae
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
DFS
2005-08-10 05:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
A large part of the appeal of Linux, for many of us, is that it does
things *right*. Not perfectly, just right. By this I mean it
doesn't do asinine things like "the file has the right name, so
it's magically executable." Or "the user selected _Open_, so we'll
_Execute_." Things like that.
Are you effin' kidding? Both KDE and Gnome will do their best to
install a .txt file renamed as an .rpm.
No, they don't, since neither KDE nor Gnome have any concept of RPMs.
Once again, demonstrating a fundamental cluelessness about, well,
pretty much everything.
Spare me your pedantics. They don't reduce the sheer stupidity of
Linux/KDE/.rpm installer reporting an empty text file results in "
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
What they do, in fact, is hand off appropriately-extensioned files to
handler applications; jpg to the image viewer, html to the browser,
rpm to the package manager and so forth.
No kidding? I thought the Linux kernel did all that.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Of course, the helper application must then proceed to actually
validate the file. In the case of an html document, this means
ensuring it can be read and displayed. In the case of an rpm, it
means parsing its contents and attempting (if the contents are valid)
to install it.
I think some Linux/OSS developers are reading cola and seeing my posts,
'cause they've slightly improved the txt-as-rpm installer. It's still
bogus, but it's better than before.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Hmm, I wonder what sort of message an *installer* application is going
to display during the *installation* process. Something like
"Installing package", perhaps? Makes sense. Hmm, validating the
package is _part_ of the installation process... so it's no surprise
to see that message during that phase, now is it? Guess not.
You do, of course, have documentation that "KDE" actually tried to
_install_ said broken package, right? We're quite sure it launched
the package manager; we're quite sure the PM started the package
validation process. Do you have any support for the notion that it
subsequently carried on and actually tried to perform the
installation phase?
According to the program it tried to perform it, but then it noticed "The
package(s) are already installed".

Well you could've fooled me, Linux. My text file didn't have any packages
in it to install.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Or did it simply barf out and issue an "Install
process completed" or some such, which is, after all, exactly what
happened?
Far from barfing out it actually says, and I quote, "The package(s) are
already installed".

LOL! Don't take it too hard - it's Linux. It's buggy and unpredictable.
You should know that by now.

I do see there's a slight improvement over Mandrake 10.1 CE. The installer
process now says "unable to register .rpm file" before saying everything's
installed. So it's not as sloppy as before. That's a bright spot.

btw, that's a very lame spin you put on the whole thing. Defending crapware
by attacking me is a sure sign of desperation.
Snit
2005-08-10 05:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
A large part of the appeal of Linux, for many of us, is that it does
things *right*. Not perfectly, just right. By this I mean it
doesn't do asinine things like "the file has the right name, so
it's magically executable." Or "the user selected _Open_, so we'll
_Execute_." Things like that.
Are you effin' kidding? Both KDE and Gnome will do their best to
install a .txt file renamed as an .rpm.
No, they don't, since neither KDE nor Gnome have any concept of RPMs.
Once again, demonstrating a fundamental cluelessness about, well,
pretty much everything.
Spare me your pedantics. They don't reduce the sheer stupidity of
Linux/KDE/.rpm installer reporting an empty text file results in "
Instead of arguing against your comments interpreted in a meaningful and
reasonable way, Kelsey opted to nit pick them and run from reasoned
conversation.

Does not speak highly of Kelsey.
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
What they do, in fact, is hand off appropriately-extensioned files to
handler applications; jpg to the image viewer, html to the browser,
rpm to the package manager and so forth.
No kidding? I thought the Linux kernel did all that.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Of course, the helper application must then proceed to actually
validate the file. In the case of an html document, this means
ensuring it can be read and displayed. In the case of an rpm, it
means parsing its contents and attempting (if the contents are valid)
to install it.
I think some Linux/OSS developers are reading cola and seeing my posts,
'cause they've slightly improved the txt-as-rpm installer. It's still
bogus, but it's better than before.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Hmm, I wonder what sort of message an *installer* application is going
to display during the *installation* process. Something like
"Installing package", perhaps? Makes sense. Hmm, validating the
package is _part_ of the installation process... so it's no surprise
to see that message during that phase, now is it? Guess not.
You do, of course, have documentation that "KDE" actually tried to
_install_ said broken package, right? We're quite sure it launched
the package manager; we're quite sure the PM started the package
validation process. Do you have any support for the notion that it
subsequently carried on and actually tried to perform the
installation phase?
According to the program it tried to perform it, but then it noticed "The
package(s) are already installed".
Well you could've fooled me, Linux. My text file didn't have any packages
in it to install.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Or did it simply barf out and issue an "Install
process completed" or some such, which is, after all, exactly what
happened?
Far from barfing out it actually says, and I quote, "The package(s) are
already installed".
LOL! Don't take it too hard - it's Linux. It's buggy and unpredictable.
You should know that by now.
I do see there's a slight improvement over Mandrake 10.1 CE. The installer
process now says "unable to register .rpm file" before saying everything's
installed. So it's not as sloppy as before. That's a bright spot.
btw, that's a very lame spin you put on the whole thing. Defending crapware
by attacking me is a sure sign of desperation.
If your comments are accurate then Linux is "broken" here.
--
BU__SH__




_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
2005-08-10 05:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
A large part of the appeal of Linux, for many of us, is that it does
things *right*. Not perfectly, just right. By this I mean it
doesn't do asinine things like "the file has the right name, so
it's magically executable." Or "the user selected _Open_, so we'll
_Execute_." Things like that.
Are you effin' kidding? Both KDE and Gnome will do their best to
install a .txt file renamed as an .rpm.
No, they don't, since neither KDE nor Gnome have any concept of RPMs.
Once again, demonstrating a fundamental cluelessness about, well,
pretty much everything.
Spare me your pedantics. They don't reduce the sheer stupidity of
Linux/KDE/.rpm installer reporting an empty text file results in "
Haven't renamed those dll's yet. Pity.
Post by DFS
btw, that's a very lame spin you put on the whole thing. Defending
crapware by attacking me is a sure sign of desperation.
Unlike racist trolls who come here only to attack anything and anyone.
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
DFS
2005-08-10 06:24:02 UTC
Permalink
amosf is back! Where'd you go again, Dim?
Post by amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Haven't renamed those dll's yet. Pity.
Have you installed your .txt file today, amosf?

Hey, I'm creating a new Linux package manager! Guess what it's called?
That's right: rpm2txt.

LOL!
Post by amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Unlike racist trolls who come here only to attack anything and anyone.
I attack Linux and lies, but not necessarily in that order. But the main
reason I attack Linux is because of the lies. Sort of recursive, isn't it?
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
2005-08-10 06:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
amosf is back! Where'd you go again, Dim?
I've been all over the place doing the stuff I like to do, and most of the
trip was paid for, which made it nice. You can get the details on the blog,
although it tends to be aimed at BC enthusiasts. Clocked up about 2200km
and saw about 200 BC's... Some nice choc tri's, but we're just getting a
plain choc. It will be a tri carrier anyway and we have other tri carriers
in the house... It's chipped and ready for an NCL test shortly and CEA down
the track...
Post by DFS
Post by amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Haven't renamed those dll's yet. Pity.
Have you installed your .txt file today, amosf?
Some of the 'bugs' you come up with are pretty funny, doof.
Post by DFS
Hey, I'm creating a new Linux package manager! Guess what it's called?
That's right: rpm2txt.
LOL!
What's the saying about small things?
Post by DFS
Post by amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Unlike racist trolls who come here only to attack anything and anyone.
I attack Linux and lies, but not necessarily in that order. But the main
reason I attack Linux is because of the lies. Sort of recursive, isn't it?
A racist troll knows a lot about lies.
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
DFS
2005-08-10 07:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Post by DFS
amosf is back! Where'd you go again, Dim?
I've been all over the place doing the stuff I like to do, and most
of the trip was paid for, which made it nice. You can get the details
on the blog, although it tends to be aimed at BC enthusiasts. Clocked
up about 2200km and saw about 200 BC's... Some nice choc tri's, but
we're just getting a plain choc. It will be a tri carrier anyway and
we have other tri carriers in the house... It's chipped and ready for
an NCL test shortly and CEA down the track...
BC = border collie
choc = chocolate
chipped = microchip in back of neck

(those I knew)

tri carrier = carries genes for three colors?
NCL = degenerative nerve disorder
CEA = collie eye anomaly (never heard of it)

I have a border collie mix. He's a great dog; very smart and friendly.
Mostly obedient, too.
Post by amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Post by DFS
Post by amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Haven't renamed those dll's yet. Pity.
Have you installed your .txt file today, amosf?
Some of the 'bugs' you come up with are pretty funny, doof.
Well, Linsux comes up with them first, and I find creative ways of revealing
them.
Post by amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Post by DFS
Hey, I'm creating a new Linux package manager! Guess what it's
called? That's right: rpm2txt.
LOL!
What's the saying about small things?
Don't know. Maybe emacs will tell you.
Post by amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Post by DFS
Post by amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Unlike racist trolls who come here only to attack anything and anyone.
I attack Linux and lies, but not necessarily in that order. But the
main reason I attack Linux is because of the lies. Sort of
recursive, isn't it?
A racist troll knows a lot about lies.
A fat racist freeloader knows a lot about buffets, people he considers
inferior to him, and Linux.
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
2005-08-10 07:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Post by DFS
amosf is back! Where'd you go again, Dim?
I've been all over the place doing the stuff I like to do, and most
of the trip was paid for, which made it nice. You can get the details
on the blog, although it tends to be aimed at BC enthusiasts. Clocked
up about 2200km and saw about 200 BC's... Some nice choc tri's, but
we're just getting a plain choc. It will be a tri carrier anyway and
we have other tri carriers in the house... It's chipped and ready for
an NCL test shortly and CEA down the track...
BC = border collie
choc = chocolate
chipped = microchip in back of neck
(those I knew)
tri carrier = carries genes for three colors?
It's a modifier in the agoiti series. It's the gene that brings out the tri
pattern on borders and other breeds - ie the tan face patches on a black
and white dog. Related to the sable gene...
Post by DFS
NCL = degenerative nerve disorder
Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis. Very nasty, but rare. Suddenly not such a
big problem due to a test available.
Post by DFS
CEA = collie eye anomaly (never heard of it)
I have a border collie mix. He's a great dog; very smart and friendly.
Mostly obedient, too.
The working breeds tend to be that way. We have pure and mixes.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Post by DFS
Post by amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Haven't renamed those dll's yet. Pity.
Have you installed your .txt file today, amosf?
Some of the 'bugs' you come up with are pretty funny, doof.
Well, Linsux comes up with them first, and I find creative ways of
revealing them.
You are very creative. Yep.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Post by DFS
Hey, I'm creating a new Linux package manager! Guess what it's
called? That's right: rpm2txt.
LOL!
What's the saying about small things?
Don't know. Maybe emacs will tell you.
Amusing. For a small mind.
Post by DFS
Post by amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Post by DFS
Post by amosf (Tim Fairchild)
Unlike racist trolls who come here only to attack anything and anyone.
I attack Linux and lies, but not necessarily in that order. But the
main reason I attack Linux is because of the lies. Sort of
recursive, isn't it?
A racist troll knows a lot about lies.
A fat racist freeloader knows a lot about buffets, people he considers
inferior to him, and Linux.
Close for doof, except for the linux part.
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
Panama Red
2005-08-09 14:43:02 UTC
Permalink
I believe it was Kelsey Bjarnason who said...
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Explain to us how a system which _has_ the defenses, still gets
infected, and, thanks primarily to the registry, tends to slow down
more and more as time goes on, to the point of being effectively
unusable, is "easy to use".
It can still get infected if they don't install critical updates, don't keep
their security apps up to date or if they do stupid things like letting it
run email attachements, just like on any OS.
You can send me file attachments from now until the end of time, and not
a *single* one of them will *ever* execute on my Linux boxen. Ever.
Linux simply *does not work that way*.
I wonder if you can mimic a Windows box using procmail and wine?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Usenet Poster
***@gnubin.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linønut
2005-08-01 11:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
<SNIP a bunch of Anti MS crap>
Post by Kier
What does this prove?
Nothing, except you and your brother are both clueless.
That's right, Rich, keep your patented Windows zealot blinders on.

Nothing ever goes wrong with Microsoft software...
Nothing ever goes wrong with Microsoft software...
Nothing ever goes wrong with Microsoft software...
Nothing ever goes wrong with Microsoft software...
--
Tux rox!
Kier
2005-08-01 12:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Linønut
Post by Rich Bell
<SNIP a bunch of Anti MS crap>
Post by Kier
What does this prove?
Nothing, except you and your brother are both clueless.
That's right, Rich, keep your patented Windows zealot blinders on.
Nothing ever goes wrong with Microsoft software...
Nothing ever goes wrong with Microsoft software...
Nothing ever goes wrong with Microsoft software...
Nothing ever goes wrong with Microsoft software...
Not to mention, I didn't say I was sure of the root cause of the problem.
It may have been Norton, or Cygwin, or XP, or whatever - but ultimately,
it ought not to have screwed things that badly, for which XP itself must
surely take some blame.

I was never a Windows expert even when I used it exclusively, and nor is
my brother - as I said, why should he be? The machine wasn't
supplied with anything but a rescue disk, which isn't a lot of help, IMO.
And he didn't buy it to keep XP, he bought it to install Linux. Maybe he
could have fixed it eventually, but why bother?

Rich calls us clueless - he should try looking in a mirror.
--
Kier
Rich Bell
2005-08-01 14:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kier
Post by Linønut
Post by Rich Bell
<SNIP a bunch of Anti MS crap>
Post by Kier
What does this prove?
Nothing, except you and your brother are both clueless.
That's right, Rich, keep your patented Windows zealot blinders on.
Nothing ever goes wrong with Microsoft software...
Nothing ever goes wrong with Microsoft software...
Nothing ever goes wrong with Microsoft software...
Nothing ever goes wrong with Microsoft software...
Not to mention, I didn't say I was sure of the root cause of the
problem. It may have been Norton, or Cygwin, or XP, or whatever - but
ultimately, it ought not to have screwed things that badly, for which
XP itself must surely take some blame.
If the drive was unreadable there is nothing to indicate that it had
anything to do with XP. It sounds a lot more like he tried to install Linux
and the bogus Linux installer trashed the drive. Maybe there was a hardware
issue or a power issue. If this would have happened with Linux installed you
can bet your ass you wouldn't have said a word about it.
Post by Kier
I was never a Windows expert even when I used it exclusively, and nor
is my brother - as I said, why should he be? The machine wasn't
supplied with anything but a rescue disk, which isn't a lot of help,
IMO. And he didn't buy it to keep XP, he bought it to install Linux.
Maybe he could have fixed it eventually, but why bother?
Let's see, he has had the laptop for seven months, and has been using it
with XP for all of that time, but he really never intended to do so. Right.
We believe you.

Why didn't you just pop in your Knoppix disk and fix it? You know, Linux to
the rescue and all of that crap you guys like to spew?Oh, thats right. The
drive isn't readable, even with Linux. Of course, it's XP's fault.
Post by Kier
Rich calls us clueless - he should try looking in a mirror.
You should try pulling your head out of the penguin ass.
Linønut
2005-08-01 15:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
If the drive was unreadable there is nothing to indicate that it had
anything to do with XP. It sounds a lot more like he tried to install Linux
and the bogus Linux installer trashed the drive. Maybe there was a hardware
issue or a power issue. If this would have happened with Linux installed you
can bet your ass you wouldn't have said a word about it.
Bullshit. All the way around.
Post by Rich Bell
Let's see, he has had the laptop for seven months, and has been using it
with XP for all of that time, but he really never intended to do so. Right.
We believe you.
Why didn't you just pop in your Knoppix disk and fix it? You know, Linux to
the rescue and all of that crap you guys like to spew?Oh, thats right. The
drive isn't readable, even with Linux. Of course, it's XP's fault.
Why jack off with XP when you can use a better OS?
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Rich calls us clueless - he should try looking in a mirror.
You should try pulling your head out of the penguin ass.
Nice fellow.
--
Tux rox!
Kier
2005-08-01 21:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Post by Linønut
Post by Rich Bell
<SNIP a bunch of Anti MS crap>
Post by Kier
What does this prove?
Nothing, except you and your brother are both clueless.
That's right, Rich, keep your patented Windows zealot blinders on.
Nothing ever goes wrong with Microsoft software...
Nothing ever goes wrong with Microsoft software...
Nothing ever goes wrong with Microsoft software...
Nothing ever goes wrong with Microsoft software...
Not to mention, I didn't say I was sure of the root cause of the
problem. It may have been Norton, or Cygwin, or XP, or whatever - but
ultimately, it ought not to have screwed things that badly, for which
XP itself must surely take some blame.
If the drive was unreadable there is nothing to indicate that it had
anything to do with XP. It sounds a lot more like he tried to install Linux
and the bogus Linux installer trashed the drive. Maybe there was a hardware
issue or a power issue. If this would have happened with Linux installed you
can bet your ass you wouldn't have said a word about it.
First, you are too stupid to live - you obviously didn't read what I
wrote. The laptop had XP on it when it went bad; he was using it to
administer his email server, via Cygwin, when it happened. He had not even
tried to install Linux on it at that point. He did not try to install
Linux on it until he came to my place for lunch the following day, ie
Sunday.
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
I was never a Windows expert even when I used it exclusively, and nor
is my brother - as I said, why should he be? The machine wasn't
supplied with anything but a rescue disk, which isn't a lot of help,
IMO. And he didn't buy it to keep XP, he bought it to install Linux.
Maybe he could have fixed it eventually, but why bother?
Let's see, he has had the laptop for seven months, and has been using it
with XP for all of that time, but he really never intended to do so. Right.
We believe you.
You'd better, arsehole. because it's the truth. Or are you calling my
brother, a better man than you will ever be in your life, a liar?

For the hard of understanding - in other words, you - he bought the laptop
with a view to installing Linux on it. He simply had not got round to
doing so before; he's been busy decorating his house, for one thing.
Post by Rich Bell
Why didn't you just pop in your Knoppix disk and fix it? You know, Linux to
the rescue and all of that crap you guys like to spew?Oh, thats right. The
drive isn't readable, even with Linux. Of course, it's XP's fault.
XP trashed the drive, then yes, it's XP's fault, to some extent. To what
exact extent, we don't know, and frankly, don't really care. It was always
his intention to run Linux on this laptop - he always wanted to put Fedora
on it, because his research had suggested it was fully compatible (several
other people had had good results with it, and he's till a committed
Fedora users as he was with Red Hat).

It certainly wasn't Linux's fault, that's for sure.

Did you miss the part where I said he was running X via Cygwin on this
laptop until the disaster happened, whatver it was? Does that sound to you
like he was much interested in keeping XP?

Sure, we could probably have fixed it with Knoppix, but why bother, when
he didn't really want XP anyway?
Post by Rich Bell
Post by Kier
Rich calls us clueless - he should try looking in a mirror.
You should try pulling your head out of the penguin ass.
Why don't you try understanding what is written by others before you go
screaming and shouting your nonsense.
--
Kier
Sinister Midget
2005-08-01 23:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Bell
If the drive was unreadable there is nothing to indicate that it had
anything to do with XP. It sounds a lot more like he tried to install Linux
and the bogus Linux installer trashed the drive.
I _KNEW_ you wouldn't disappoint me, Dick! That's as stupid as the
statement made by your brother, WJ "Ding Dong" Bell. He blamed his
screwed-up drive on hdparm.

I'm glad I don't have to meet the rest of the bloodline, Dick.
Obviously it's true that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
--
Exlife: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
DFS
2005-08-01 01:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kier
To round it off, she and husband both have to use Access a fair bit in
their work (lab tech and teacher) and both utterly despise it as an
unstable piece of crap that gives them more trouble than it's worth.
For moderate record counts and concurrent users, Access is very stable.
I've used it heavily for nearly 10 years, and rarely see data issues.

If their Access systems (version 97 and later) are unstable, by far the most
likely problem is the users are inexperienced and built bad table and
database and/or form designs. Tables without [proper or any] primary keys
are a common cause of problems. A table with no primary key, that also
contains memo fields, is an invitation to disaster. It's also important
that the fields be sized correctly according to the type and amount of data
being stored.

Flaky network connections can sometimes corrupt Access tables, too, but this
is rare in my experience.

If multiple users are opening the same .mdb from a shared drive, and
accessing data from forms in that .mdb, they might have problems - that's a
big no no. In that situation:

* put the data tables in their own "back-end" .mdb file
* leave the back-end database in place on the shared drive
* create a separate front-end .mdb and put the presentation objects (forms,
reports, queries) in it, and create table links to the back-end tables
* give each user a copy of the front-end .mdb to run on their own system
rapskat
2005-08-01 14:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
To round it off, she and husband both have to use Access a fair bit in
their work (lab tech and teacher) and both utterly despise it as an
unstable piece of crap that gives them more trouble than it's worth.
For moderate record counts and concurrent users, Access is very stable.
I've used it heavily for nearly 10 years, and rarely see data issues.
Haha! Funny.
Post by DFS
If their Access systems (version 97 and later) are unstable, by far the
most likely problem is the users are inexperienced and built bad table
and database and/or form designs. Tables without [proper or any]
primary keys are a common cause of problems. A table with no primary
key, that also contains memo fields, is an invitation to disaster.
Access used to default the first field in the table to be the Primary
anyway, unless it was explicitly told not to IIRC. Has this changed? Been
awhile since I used it.
Post by DFS
It's also important that the fields be sized correctly according to the
type and amount of data
being stored.
Flaky network connections can sometimes corrupt Access tables, too, but
this is rare in my experience.
Oplocks (which newer versions of Windows default to) would do this.
Post by DFS
If multiple users are opening the same .mdb from a shared drive, and
accessing data from forms in that .mdb, they might have problems -
* put the data tables in their own "back-end" .mdb file * leave the
back-end database in place on the shared drive * create a separate
front-end .mdb and put the presentation objects (forms, reports,
queries) in it, and create table links to the back-end tables * give
each user a copy of the front-end .mdb to run on their own system
Better solution - host the file from a properly setup Samba server on
Linux and stop using ass-backwards workarounds for mickey-mouse OS
limitations.
--
rapskat - 10:11:51 up 4 days, 19:27, 3 users, load average: 0.02, 0.04, 0.10
"Cogito ergo sum...cogito."
Beowulf TrollsHammer
2005-08-01 14:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
* put the data tables in their own "back-end" .mdb file * leave the
back-end database in place on the shared drive * create a separate
front-end .mdb and put the presentation objects (forms, reports,
queries) in it, and create table links to the back-end tables * give
each user a copy of the front-end .mdb to run on their own system
Better solution - host the file from a properly setup Samba server on
Linux and stop using ass-backwards workarounds for mickey-mouse OS
limitations.
Better yet: use a REAL small footprint database server like MySQL or
Firebird (preferably on a Linux server) instead of that shitty Jet
"Engine"
DFS
2005-08-01 14:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beowulf TrollsHammer
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
* put the data tables in their own "back-end" .mdb file * leave the
back-end database in place on the shared drive * create a separate
front-end .mdb and put the presentation objects (forms, reports,
queries) in it, and create table links to the back-end tables * give
each user a copy of the front-end .mdb to run on their own system
Better solution - host the file from a properly setup Samba server on
Linux and stop using ass-backwards workarounds for mickey-mouse OS
limitations.
Better yet: use a REAL small footprint database server like MySQL or
Firebird (preferably on a Linux server) instead of that shitty Jet
"Engine"
The companies I do work for won't allow MySQL or Firebird near their
servers. They use DB2, Oracle, SQL Server and Access.
DFS
2005-08-01 14:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
To round it off, she and husband both have to use Access a fair bit
in their work (lab tech and teacher) and both utterly despise it as
an unstable piece of crap that gives them more trouble than it's
worth.
For moderate record counts and concurrent users, Access is very
stable. I've used it heavily for nearly 10 years, and rarely see
data issues.
Haha! Funny.
The part where your ignorance is revealed?
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
If their Access systems (version 97 and later) are unstable, by far
the most likely problem is the users are inexperienced and built bad
table and database and/or form designs. Tables without [proper or
any] primary keys are a common cause of problems. A table with no
primary key, that also contains memo fields, is an invitation to
disaster.
Access used to default the first field in the table to be the Primary
anyway, unless it was explicitly told not to IIRC. Has this changed?
No - because it was never there. Maybe you're thinking of importing data
from spreadsheets or other sources - the wizard automatically creates an ID
column, but you can bypass it.

When you try to save a new table the first time, it prompts you to create a
PK and if you say yes it adds an identity column named ID. But there again,
you can opt out.
Post by rapskat
Been awhile since I used it.
Don't let that stop you from making stupid statements. You have a
reputation to uphold.
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
It's also important that the fields be sized correctly according to
the type and amount of data
being stored.
Flaky network connections can sometimes corrupt Access tables, too,
but this is rare in my experience.
Oplocks (which newer versions of Windows default to) would do this.
*could* do that.
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
If multiple users are opening the same .mdb from a shared drive, and
accessing data from forms in that .mdb, they might have problems -
* put the data tables in their own "back-end" .mdb file * leave the
back-end database in place on the shared drive * create a separate
front-end .mdb and put the presentation objects (forms, reports,
queries) in it, and create table links to the back-end tables * give
each user a copy of the front-end .mdb to run on their own system
Better solution - host the file from a properly setup Samba server on
Linux and stop using ass-backwards workarounds for mickey-mouse OS
limitations.
You don't know what you're talking about, of course. Didn't your parents
tell you to keep your mouth shut when you don't know the situation? (I guess
not, or you'd be silent as a mouse all the time)

Stick to what you know: running Linux and 9 copies of mplayer videos on old,
burned-out equipment, and lying about it besting XP on 3ghz machines.
rapskat
2005-08-02 06:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
To round it off, she and husband both have to use Access a fair bit
in their work (lab tech and teacher) and both utterly despise it as
an unstable piece of crap that gives them more trouble than it's
worth.
For moderate record counts and concurrent users, Access is very
stable. I've used it heavily for nearly 10 years, and rarely see
data issues.
Haha! Funny.
The part where your ignorance is revealed?
More like yours.
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
If their Access systems (version 97 and later) are unstable, by far
the most likely problem is the users are inexperienced and built bad
table and database and/or form designs. Tables without [proper or
any] primary keys are a common cause of problems. A table with no
primary key, that also contains memo fields, is an invitation to
disaster.
Access used to default the first field in the table to be the Primary
anyway, unless it was explicitly told not to IIRC. Has this changed?
No - because it was never there. Maybe you're thinking of importing data
from spreadsheets or other sources - the wizard automatically creates an ID
column, but you can bypass it.
When you try to save a new table the first time, it prompts you to create a
PK and if you say yes it adds an identity column named ID. But there again,
you can opt out.
So, let me get this straight...not having a Primary Key defined is,
according to you, a bad thing, and yet Access does nothing to faciliate
the creation of one?

Yeah, that's some high quality software right there...NOT! Even OOo Base
defaults to selecting a Primary field for you automatically.
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Been awhile since I used it.
Don't let that stop you from making stupid statements. You have a
reputation to uphold.
Thanks for confirming that the software you prefer is as retarded as you
are. You two are made for each other!
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
It's also important that the fields be sized correctly according to
the type and amount of data
being stored.
Flaky network connections can sometimes corrupt Access tables, too,
but this is rare in my experience.
Oplocks (which newer versions of Windows default to) would do this.
*could* do that.
Would do that, which is why oplocks are a bad thing especially for
multi-user shared files. For the relatively minor performance increase
they provide, you can end up paying big time if something happens where
the cached data can't get written back to the source. Of course, leave it
to M$ to choose speed over reliability.
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
If multiple users are opening the same .mdb from a shared drive, and
accessing data from forms in that .mdb, they might have problems -
* put the data tables in their own "back-end" .mdb file * leave the
back-end database in place on the shared drive * create a separate
front-end .mdb and put the presentation objects (forms, reports,
queries) in it, and create table links to the back-end tables * give
each user a copy of the front-end .mdb to run on their own system
Better solution - host the file from a properly setup Samba server on
Linux and stop using ass-backwards workarounds for mickey-mouse OS
limitations.
You don't know what you're talking about, of course.
I obviously know better than you. Look at that convoluted crap of a
"solution" you recounted above! You should be ashamed for yourself and
for the platform you use that something that ugly would ever even be a
consideration in a production environment!
Post by DFS
Didn't your parents tell you to keep your mouth shut when you don't know the situation? (I guess
not, or you'd be silent as a mouse all the time)
You don't know the situation if this is the backwards-ass fix you came up
with for the braindead file locking of your brian dead platform.
Post by DFS
Stick to what you know: running Linux and 9 copies of mplayer videos on old,
burned-out equipment, and lying about it besting XP on 3ghz machines.
And you keep on trucking with Office 97 running on Win98 on that P133 of
yours there that runs just as well as OOo on Linux, buddy!

Idiot.
--
rapskat - 02:41:15 up 5 days, 11:56, 5 users, load average: 0.55, 0.60, 0.53
"Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we
know where we can find information upon it."
- Dr Samuel Johnson (1775)
DFS
2005-08-02 07:03:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
If their Access systems (version 97 and later) are unstable, by far
the most likely problem is the users are inexperienced and built
bad table and database and/or form designs. Tables without
[proper or any] primary keys are a common cause of problems. A
table with no primary key, that also contains memo fields, is an
invitation to disaster.
Access used to default the first field in the table to be the
Primary anyway, unless it was explicitly told not to IIRC. Has
this changed?
No - because it was never there. Maybe you're thinking of importing data
from spreadsheets or other sources - the wizard automatically
creates an ID
column, but you can bypass it.
When you try to save a new table the first time, it prompts you to create a
PK and if you say yes it adds an identity column named ID. But there again,
you can opt out.
So, let me get this straight...not having a Primary Key defined is,
according to you, a bad thing, and yet Access does nothing to
faciliate the creation of one?
Yeah, that's some high quality software right there...NOT! Even OOo
Base defaults to selecting a Primary field for you automatically.
Read my reply again, bozo. Then open up a copy of Access 97, 2000 or 2003
and educate yourself.
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
It's also important that the fields be sized correctly according
to the type and amount of data
being stored.
Flaky network connections can sometimes corrupt Access tables, too,
but this is rare in my experience.
Oplocks (which newer versions of Windows default to) would do this.
*could* do that.
Would do that, which is why oplocks are a bad thing especially for
multi-user shared files. For the relatively minor performance
increase they provide, you can end up paying big time if something
happens where the cached data can't get written back to the source.
Of course, leave it to M$ to choose speed over reliability.
Make up your mind. First you say "would do that" then you say "can end up
paying if..."

Leave it to a Linux nutjob to sway his argument back and forth, whichever
way the wind blows.
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
If multiple users are opening the same .mdb from a shared drive,
and accessing data from forms in that .mdb, they might have
* put the data tables in their own "back-end" .mdb file * leave the
back-end database in place on the shared drive * create a separate
front-end .mdb and put the presentation objects (forms, reports,
queries) in it, and create table links to the back-end tables *
give each user a copy of the front-end .mdb to run on their own
system
Better solution - host the file from a properly setup Samba server
on Linux and stop using ass-backwards workarounds for mickey-mouse
OS limitations.
You don't know what you're talking about, of course.
I obviously know better than you. Look at that convoluted crap of a
"solution" you recounted above! You should be ashamed for yourself
and for the platform you use that something that ugly would ever even
be a consideration in a production environment!
You do not know what you're talking about. Go do some research of your own
to confirm. Call it the Path to Self-Enlightenment.
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Didn't your parents tell you to keep your mouth shut when you don't
know the situation? (I guess not, or you'd be silent as a mouse all
the time)
You don't know the situation if this is the backwards-ass fix you
came up with for the braindead file locking of your brian dead
platform.
Didn't you say the same thing twice already?
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Stick to what you know: running Linux and 9 copies of mplayer videos on old,
burned-out equipment, and lying about it besting XP on 3ghz machines.
And you keep on trucking with Office 97 running on Win98 on that P133
of yours there that runs just as well as OOo on Linux, buddy!
It's a P166/32mb RAM, and it definitely loads MS Office 97 apps faster than
a 2ghz P4/1gig RAM loads OO.o.
Post by rapskat
Idiot.
Liar.
rapskat
2005-08-02 07:48:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
When you try to save a new table the first time, it prompts you to create a
PK and if you say yes it adds an identity column named ID. But there again,
you can opt out.
So, let me get this straight...not having a Primary Key defined is,
according to you, a bad thing, and yet Access does nothing to faciliate
the creation of one?
Yeah, that's some high quality software right there...NOT! Even OOo
Base defaults to selecting a Primary field for you automatically.
Read my reply again, bozo. Then open up a copy of Access 97, 2000 or
2003 and educate yourself.
"Prompting for" and "defaulting to" are not the same thing, idjit. Don't
you actually know anything about software as you claim to develop it?

One requires an action for something to happen, then other will happen
unless you take actions to make it not happen, capisce nimwit? Which
gives the greater capacity for something that should happen not to happen?

No charge for the lesson.
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Oplocks (which newer versions of Windows default to) would do this.
*could* do that.
Would do that, which is why oplocks are a bad thing especially for
multi-user shared files. For the relatively minor performance increase
they provide, you can end up paying big time if something happens where
the cached data can't get written back to the source. Of course, leave
it to M$ to choose speed over reliability.
Make up your mind. First you say "would do that" then you say "can end
up paying if..."
Yeah "if", as if "if you lose network connectivity", duh!
Post by DFS
Leave it to a Linux nutjob to sway his argument back and forth,
whichever way the wind blows.
Leave it to a wintard to try and change the context of a response to try
and buoy their nonexistent point.
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Better solution - host the file from a properly setup Samba server on
Linux and stop using ass-backwards workarounds for mickey-mouse OS
limitations.
You don't know what you're talking about, of course.
I obviously know better than you. Look at that convoluted crap of a
"solution" you recounted above! You should be ashamed for yourself and
for the platform you use that something that ugly would ever even be a
consideration in a production environment!
You do not know what you're talking about. Go do some research of your
own to confirm. Call it the Path to Self-Enlightenment.
Go do some research on how Samba on Linux can handle multiple winclients
accessing a shared resources with r/w privs simultaneously without causing
cockups. I've implemented Linux file and print servers at various
businesses for exactly this purpose and they work multitudes better than
the Windows systems they replaced (sometimes even on the exact same
hardware!).
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Didn't your parents tell you to keep your mouth shut when you don't
know the situation? (I guess not, or you'd be silent as a mouse all
the time)
You don't know the situation if this is the backwards-ass fix you came
up with for the braindead file locking of your brian dead platform.
Didn't you say the same thing twice already?
So you admit that your "solution" is as stupid as you are then?
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Stick to what you know: running Linux and 9 copies of mplayer videos on old,
burned-out equipment, and lying about it besting XP on 3ghz machines.
And you keep on trucking with Office 97 running on Win98 on that P133
of yours there that runs just as well as OOo on Linux, buddy!
It's a P166/32mb RAM, and it definitely loads MS Office 97 apps faster
than a 2ghz P4/1gig RAM loads OO.o.
Look, I know we have our differences, but putting all that aside for
now...for your own good, please leave the drugs alone, ok?
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Idiot.
Liar.
After that statement above, yes you definitely are!
--
rapskat - 03:37:00 up 5 days, 12:52, 5 users, load average: 0.12, 0.36, 0.39
"Smile despite the circumstances and laugh throughout the pain.
Life is full of hardships but it is how you deal with them that will, in
the end, define your character."
DFS
2005-08-02 08:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
When you try to save a new table the first time, it prompts you to create a
PK and if you say yes it adds an identity column named ID. But there again,
you can opt out.
So, let me get this straight...not having a Primary Key defined is,
according to you, a bad thing, and yet Access does nothing to
faciliate the creation of one?
Yeah, that's some high quality software right there...NOT! Even OOo
Base defaults to selecting a Primary field for you automatically.
Read my reply again, bozo. Then open up a copy of Access 97, 2000 or
2003 and educate yourself.
"Prompting for" and "defaulting to" are not the same thing, idjit.
Don't you actually know anything about software as you claim to
develop it?
One requires an action for something to happen, then other will happen
unless you take actions to make it not happen, capisce nimwit? Which
gives the greater capacity for something that should happen not to happen?
No charge for the lesson.
I notice you make a lie about OO Base defaulting to a PK. The truth (which
you're not acquainted with) is OO does the same thing Access does: on first
table save it prompts you to create a PK but lets you say No.

Both prompt, neither default.

The difference afterwards is the OO (cr)app won't let you add records to the
table via opening it up. But it will let you import them with the "wizard"
(itself another ridiculous piece of code), but after that you can't delete
those records? It's a mess.

But don't worry, OO Base will be taking Access' place everywhere next month.
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Oplocks (which newer versions of Windows default to) would do this.
*could* do that.
Would do that, which is why oplocks are a bad thing especially for
multi-user shared files. For the relatively minor performance
increase they provide, you can end up paying big time if something
happens where the cached data can't get written back to the source.
Of course, leave it to M$ to choose speed over reliability.
Make up your mind. First you say "would do that" then you say "can
end up paying if..."
Yeah "if", as if "if you lose network connectivity", duh!
Post by DFS
Leave it to a Linux nutjob to sway his argument back and forth,
whichever way the wind blows.
Leave it to a wintard to try and change the context of a response to
try and buoy their nonexistent point.
My only point, ever, was flaky network connections can corrupt open Access
tables.
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Better solution - host the file from a properly setup Samba
server on Linux and stop using ass-backwards workarounds for
mickey-mouse OS limitations.
You don't know what you're talking about, of course.
I obviously know better than you. Look at that convoluted crap of a
"solution" you recounted above! You should be ashamed for yourself
and for the platform you use that something that ugly would ever
even be a consideration in a production environment!
You do not know what you're talking about. Go do some research of
your own to confirm. Call it the Path to Self-Enlightenment.
Go do some research on how Samba on Linux can handle multiple
winclients accessing a shared resources with r/w privs simultaneously
without causing cockups. I've implemented Linux file and print
servers at various businesses for exactly this purpose and they work
multitudes better than the Windows systems they replaced (sometimes
even on the exact same hardware!).
Apparently you can't read. The issue isn't sharing data tables in an Access
.mdb, it's the problem I described: multiple users opening the same shared
Access application .mdb and updating the samem tables via the same forms.

As I said, you do not know what you're talking about. The standard method
for distributing Access systems on networks is to split the data from the
code layer

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/162522/
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304932

"The most common reason to split a database is that you are sharing the
database with multiple users on a network. If you simply store the database
on a network share, when your users open a form, query, macro, module, or
report, these objects have to be sent across the network to each individual
who uses the database. If you split the database, each user has their own
copy of the forms, queries, macros, modules, and reports. Therefore, the
only data that must be sent across the network is the data in the tables."
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Didn't your parents tell you to keep your mouth shut when you
don't know the situation? (I guess not, or you'd be silent as a
mouse all the time)
You don't know the situation if this is the backwards-ass fix you
came up with for the braindead file locking of your brian dead
platform.
Didn't you say the same thing twice already?
So you admit that your "solution" is as stupid as you are then?
All I admit is you have no idea what you're talking about.

You don't use Access, and you know next to nothing about it, but you call my
solutions - recommended by MS - stupid.

Who's really the stupid one here?
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Stick to what you know: running Linux and 9 copies of mplayer videos on old,
burned-out equipment, and lying about it besting XP on 3ghz
machines.
And you keep on trucking with Office 97 running on Win98 on that
P133 of yours there that runs just as well as OOo on Linux, buddy!
It's a P166/32mb RAM, and it definitely loads MS Office 97 apps
faster than a 2ghz P4/1gig RAM loads OO.o.
Look, I know we have our differences, but putting all that aside for
now...for your own good, please leave the drugs alone, ok?
It opens Word 97 in about 6-8 seconds the first time, 4 seconds after that.
OO Writer takes 12-15 seconds to open the first time, 6 seconds
subsequently.

Windows wins again.
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Idiot.
Liar.
After that statement above, yes you definitely are!
I did inadvertently lie - when I suggested you got a conscience. My
mistake. It won't happen again.
rapskat
2005-08-02 09:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Read my reply again, bozo. Then open up a copy of Access 97, 2000 or
2003 and educate yourself.
"Prompting for" and "defaulting to" are not the same thing, idjit.
Don't you actually know anything about software as you claim to
develop it?
One requires an action for something to happen, then other will happen
unless you take actions to make it not happen, capisce nimwit? Which
gives the greater capacity for something that should happen not to happen?
No charge for the lesson.
I notice you make a lie about OO Base defaulting to a PK. The truth (which
you're not acquainted with) is OO does the same thing Access does: on first
table save it prompts you to create a PK but lets you say No.
Both prompt, neither default.
Lie. On creating a new table with the Wizard, Base defaults to
automatically assigning a primary in the dialog. To disable it, you have
to manually change it from the default option. I can provide a picture if
that would help you as you seem to have a problem with written words.
Post by DFS
The difference afterwards is the OO (cr)app won't let you add records to the
table via opening it up. But it will let you import them with the "wizard"
(itself another ridiculous piece of code), but after that you can't delete
those records? It's a mess.
What are you talking about? Of course it will let you add &
delete records, using a couple of different methods, it wouldn't be much
use if it didn't.
Post by DFS
But don't worry, OO Base will be taking Access' place everywhere next month.
Probably not, but considering it's still in pre release and this good so
far, it's looking very promising. Course IMO nothing beat Lotus Approach
for good quick db app development.
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Yeah "if", as if "if you lose network connectivity", duh!
Post by DFS
Leave it to a Linux nutjob to sway his argument back and forth,
whichever way the wind blows.
Leave it to a wintard to try and change the context of a response to
try and buoy their nonexistent point.
My only point, ever, was flaky network connections can corrupt open Access
tables.
And I said why this would be more likely so with oplocks enabled.
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
You do not know what you're talking about. Go do some research of
your own to confirm. Call it the Path to Self-Enlightenment.
Go do some research on how Samba on Linux can handle multiple
winclients accessing a shared resources with r/w privs simultaneously
without causing cockups. I've implemented Linux file and print
servers at various businesses for exactly this purpose and they work
multitudes better than the Windows systems they replaced (sometimes
even on the exact same hardware!).
Apparently you can't read. The issue isn't sharing data tables in an Access
.mdb, it's the problem I described: multiple users opening the same shared
Access application .mdb and updating the samem tables via the same forms.
As I said, you do not know what you're talking about. The standard method
for distributing Access systems on networks is to split the data from the
code layer
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/162522/
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304932
"The most common reason to split a database is that you are sharing the
database with multiple users on a network. If you simply store the database
on a network share, when your users open a form, query, macro, module, or
report, these objects have to be sent across the network to each individual
who uses the database. If you split the database, each user has their own
copy of the forms, queries, macros, modules, and reports. Therefore, the
only data that must be sent across the network is the data in the tables."
Bullshit. The only reason why this is even "necessary" is because of the
whole braindead Windows filelocking issue. I have entire sites sharing
whole applications from a Linux File server on both local and remote VPN
networks. Unless these files are hundreds of megabytes apiece, the
size of them is negligeable and speed is not a concern even on a 10BaseT.
The true concern is the issue of file locking, and that the whole reason
for this convoluted workaround.

If you were truly honest, you would admit this. Of course, neither you or
M$ will ever admit any fault with the core design of the system.
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Didn't you say the same thing twice already?
So you admit that your "solution" is as stupid as you are then?
All I admit is you have no idea what you're talking about.
You don't use Access, and you know next to nothing about it, but you call my
solutions - recommended by MS - stupid.
Yes, especially stupid *because* they were recommended by M$ and you
heeded them.
Post by DFS
Who's really the stupid one here?
Got a mirror handy?
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
It's a P166/32mb RAM, and it definitely loads MS Office 97 apps
faster than a 2ghz P4/1gig RAM loads OO.o.
Look, I know we have our differences, but putting all that aside for
now...for your own good, please leave the drugs alone, ok?
It opens Word 97 in about 6-8 seconds the first time, 4 seconds after that.
OO Writer takes 12-15 seconds to open the first time, 6 seconds
subsequently.
Windows wins again.
How is that Windows? Are you comparing OOo on Windows against OOo on
Linux or M$ Office against OOo on Linux?

Besides, what does it matter how long an app takes to load? That's
irrelevant crap that marketing monkeys use to sell more junk to idiots
like you that place stock in that sort of thing.

I could care less how long it takes to load up, what's really important is
how does it run, how stable is it and what features does it have?

We've been over this again and again, but you still want to come back to
the same old tired crap. If all M$ Office has going for it over OOo is
it's startup times, then it has already lost.
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Idiot.
Liar.
After that statement above, yes you definitely are!
I did inadvertently lie - when I suggested you got a conscience. My
mistake. It won't happen again.
Yes, you are defintely one to determine who is in possession of a
conscience, being so pure and all, right?
--
rapskat - 05:07:17 up 5 days, 14:22, 5 users, load average: 0.03, 0.09, 0.18
"Microsoft is betting that customers using 7-year-old Windows NT
4 Server--35 percent of the total--are ripe for an upgrade."
-- http://news.com.com/2100-1012-994437.html
DFS
2005-08-02 14:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Read my reply again, bozo. Then open up a copy of Access 97, 2000
or 2003 and educate yourself.
"Prompting for" and "defaulting to" are not the same thing, idjit.
Don't you actually know anything about software as you claim to
develop it?
One requires an action for something to happen, then other will
happen unless you take actions to make it not happen, capisce
nimwit? Which gives the greater capacity for something that should
happen not to happen?
No charge for the lesson.
I notice you make a lie about OO Base defaulting to a PK. The truth
(which you're not acquainted with) is OO does the same thing Access
does: on first table save it prompts you to create a PK but lets you
say No.
Both prompt, neither default.
Lie. On creating a new table with the Wizard, Base defaults to
automatically assigning a primary in the dialog. To disable it, you
have to manually change it from the default option. I can provide a
picture if that would help you as you seem to have a problem with
written words.
The Wizard? Access will hold your little uninformed paw and wizardly take
you through life, too. The default with the Access table design wizard is
also to create a PK.

So, we've established that both OO Base and Access prompt and default for
Primary Keys in the same manner, whether you're importing data via the
wizard, or building a table by hand or by wizard. And the reason they both
default and prompt in the same manner is OO Base is a spastic, totally
shameless copy, lamer wannabe of MS Access.

We've also established wizards are your only hope of using database
software, and thus we can't offer you employment. When we need someone who
can boot Knoppix and use dd we'll get back to you.
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
The difference afterwards is the OO (cr)app won't let you add
records to the table via opening it up. But it will let you import
them with the "wizard" (itself another ridiculous piece of code),
but after that you can't delete those records? It's a mess.
What are you talking about? Of course it will let you add &
delete records, using a couple of different methods, it wouldn't be
much use if it didn't.
Like I said, if you create an OO Base table without a primary key, you can't
afterwards add records to that table except via the import wizard. And then
you can't delete them. Not that anyone cares; all 3 users of OO Base will
be too busy cursing the (cr)app.
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
But don't worry, OO Base will be taking Access' place everywhere next month.
Probably not, but considering it's still in pre release and this good
so far, it's looking very promising.
It's looking very, very shitty so far. Clunky, slow, and weird is no way to
get started. It's nowhere near the db package Access was 10 years ago.
Post by rapskat
Course IMO nothing beat Lotus
Approach for good quick db app development.
Approach was quick and easy to use, but had nowhere near the programmability
and features of Access.
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Yeah "if", as if "if you lose network connectivity", duh!
Post by DFS
Leave it to a Linux nutjob to sway his argument back and forth,
whichever way the wind blows.
Leave it to a wintard to try and change the context of a response to
try and buoy their nonexistent point.
My only point, ever, was flaky network connections can corrupt open
Access tables.
And I said why this would be more likely so with oplocks enabled.
OK.
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
You do not know what you're talking about. Go do some research of
your own to confirm. Call it the Path to Self-Enlightenment.
Go do some research on how Samba on Linux can handle multiple
winclients accessing a shared resources with r/w privs
simultaneously without causing cockups. I've implemented Linux
file and print servers at various businesses for exactly this
purpose and they work multitudes better than the Windows systems
they replaced (sometimes even on the exact same hardware!).
Apparently you can't read. The issue isn't sharing data tables in
an Access .mdb, it's the problem I described: multiple users opening
the same shared Access application .mdb and updating the samem
tables via the same forms.
As I said, you do not know what you're talking about. The standard
method for distributing Access systems on networks is to split the
data from the code layer
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/162522/
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304932
"The most common reason to split a database is that you are sharing
the database with multiple users on a network. If you simply store
the database on a network share, when your users open a form, query,
macro, module, or report, these objects have to be sent across the
network to each individual who uses the database. If you split the
database, each user has their own copy of the forms, queries,
macros, modules, and reports. Therefore, the only data that must be
sent across the network is the data in the tables."
Bullshit. The only reason why this is even "necessary" is because of
the whole braindead Windows filelocking issue. I have entire sites
sharing whole applications from a Linux File server on both local and
remote VPN networks. Unless these files are hundreds of megabytes
apiece, the
size of them is negligeable and speed is not a concern even on a
10BaseT. The true concern is the issue of file locking, and that the
whole reason for this convoluted workaround.
If you were truly honest, you would admit this. Of course, neither
you or M$ will ever admit any fault with the core design of the
system.
The problem, clueless wonder, is multiple users opening the same Access form
onto the same table(s) from the same .mdb. It's a recipe for corruption.
I've seen it happen many times. It's not Windows file locking that's at
fault - it's something internal to Access. If Windows file locking was the
issue, none of the dozens of multi-user Access systems I've deployed would
work.
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Didn't you say the same thing twice already?
So you admit that your "solution" is as stupid as you are then?
All I admit is you have no idea what you're talking about.
You don't use Access, and you know next to nothing about it, but you
call my solutions - recommended by MS - stupid.
Yes, especially stupid *because* they were recommended by M$ and you
heeded them.
1) you don't know what you're talking about
2) you don't have any experience using Access
3) splitting the system has worked well for me and millions of other Access
developers/systems for years now
4) you're an idiot
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Who's really the stupid one here?
Got a mirror handy?
I do. Let me check... nope, it's not me.
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
It's a P166/32mb RAM, and it definitely loads MS Office 97 apps
faster than a 2ghz P4/1gig RAM loads OO.o.
Look, I know we have our differences, but putting all that aside for
now...for your own good, please leave the drugs alone, ok?
It opens Word 97 in about 6-8 seconds the first time, 4 seconds
after that. OO Writer takes 12-15 seconds to open the first time, 6
seconds subsequently.
Windows wins again.
How is that Windows? Are you comparing OOo on Windows against OOo on
Linux or M$ Office against OOo on Linux?
Like to like, but it doesn't matter which I compare. The Windows version of
Slow-O runs faster than the Linux version of Slow-O, but Slow-O for Windows
on the 2ghz/1ghz system gets beat by MS Office on the 166mhz/32mb system.
Post by rapskat
Besides, what does it matter how long an app takes to load? That's
irrelevant crap that marketing monkeys use to sell more junk to idiots
like you that place stock in that sort of thing.
While you're sitting there waiting for Slow-O to load, I'm working. All of
a sudden it's the end of the workday, and I've gotten half-an-hour more work
accomplished than you. That's why it matters.
Post by rapskat
I could care less how long it takes to load up, what's really
important is how does it run, how stable is it and what features does
it have?
MS Office 97 on that old machine runs great (as great as a P166/32mb system
can run), is stable and has tons of great features. I developed with it for
nearly 4 years.
Post by rapskat
We've been over this again and again, but you still want to come back
to the same old tired crap. If all M$ Office has going for it over
OOo is it's startup times, then it has already lost.
What has it lost? OO can barely be given away. For all practical purposes,
its market share is 0%. MS Office, on the other hand, still rules the land.
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Idiot.
Liar.
After that statement above, yes you definitely are!
I did inadvertently lie - when I suggested you got a conscience. My
mistake. It won't happen again.
Yes, you are defintely one to determine who is in possession of a
conscience, being so pure and all, right?
I can determine you still have none.
amosf (Tim Fairchild)
2005-08-02 08:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
Post by rapskat
Post by DFS
Stick to what you know: running Linux and 9 copies of mplayer videos on old,
burned-out equipment, and lying about it besting XP on 3ghz machines.
And you keep on trucking with Office 97 running on Win98 on that P133
of yours there that runs just as well as OOo on Linux, buddy!
It's a P166/32mb RAM, and it definitely loads MS Office 97 apps faster
than a 2ghz P4/1gig RAM loads OO.o.
It's very odd that I can't duplicate that here, isn't it. Of course, even if
true, Office 97 is very old and much lighter on resources than current
apps. And OOo is known to load slower due to the way that it is built and
the way it loads... Of course I'm running OOo on linux, so maybe that's it.
No point running OOo on windows tho.

The most I could possibly save myself on this box in load times, assuming
MSO was instant, is 6 seconds or so... I can live with that for the price.
--
-
I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
-
Beowulf TrollsHammer
2005-08-01 14:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by DFS
For moderate record counts and concurrent users, Access is very stable.
True. Just make sure to keep the number of records per table under 10
and the number of concurrent users under 2 and everything should be OK.
DFS
2005-08-01 14:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Beowulf TrollsHammer
Post by DFS
For moderate record counts and concurrent users, Access is very stable.
True. Just make sure to keep the number of records per table under 10
and the number of concurrent users under 2 and everything should be OK.
You shouldn't blame MS or Access for your incompetence.
Dave.J Eggleston
2005-08-02 00:51:32 UTC
Permalink
:set lurkmode=
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
To round it off, she and husband both have to use Access a fair bit in
their work (lab tech and teacher) and both utterly despise it as an
unstable piece of crap that gives them more trouble than it's worth.
For moderate record counts and concurrent users, Access is very stable.
I've used it heavily for nearly 10 years, and rarely see data issues.
Then you obviously haven't "used it very hard".

And before you regurgitate the word 'moderate', I mean anything more than:

10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
20 GOTO 10
Post by DFS
If their Access systems (version 97 and later) are unstable, by far the most
likely problem is the users are inexperienced and built bad table and
database and/or form designs. Tables without [proper or any] primary keys
are a common cause of problems. A table with no primary key, that also
contains memo fields, is an invitation to disaster. It's also important
that the fields be sized correctly according to the type and amount of data
being stored.
I can see you're an expert in the underated art of relational database
design.. And I hereby submit and bow to your comprehensive decade of 'Access
database' programming Prowest..
Post by DFS
Flaky network connections can sometimes corrupt Access tables, too, but this
is rare in my experience.
That's why /uncrippled software/ follows a /true/ client-server model..
Post by DFS
If multiple users are opening the same .mdb from a shared drive, and
accessing data from forms in that .mdb, they might have problems - that's a
Why suffer jets' record locking issues, when you can pay huge licence fees to
use sql-server?

(If you'd really been using Access for a decade DFS, you'd have learn't to
write your own "vba" ( <= I can't make the typeface any smaller in ASCII)
wrappers for practically everything Jet related by now)..
Post by DFS
* put the data tables in their own "back-end" .mdb file
* leave the back-end database in place on the shared drive
* create a separate front-end .mdb and put the presentation objects (forms,
reports, queries) in it, and create table links to the back-end tables
* give each user a copy of the front-end .mdb to run on their own system
If you've really been using access for a decade DFS, then you'll know that,
*THAT* particular *HACK* is to protect against losing *ALL* your customers
valuable data.. As well as 'pretending' you have at least some basic level
of encapsulation.. (I bet you use the Import/Export wizards for your
"backups" too)..


As an access database developer I'd like to sum up that perticular "RAD"
system in one sentence:


"If I didn't go home to FreeBSD, I'd swear I was already in hell.."


.
.
.


Sorry for the rant gang. access database *ALWAYS* brings out my dark
side..


:set lurkmode=a
--
() ASCII ribbon - against HTML email
/\ campaign: - against microsoft attachments
Larry Qualig
2005-08-02 01:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
:set lurkmode=
Post by DFS
Post by Kier
To round it off, she and husband both have to use Access a fair bit in
their work (lab tech and teacher) and both utterly despise it as an
unstable piece of crap that gives them more trouble than it's worth.
For moderate record counts and concurrent users, Access is very stable.
I've used it heavily for nearly 10 years, and rarely see data issues.
Then you obviously haven't "used it very hard".
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
20 GOTO 10
Post by DFS
If their Access systems (version 97 and later) are unstable, by far the most
likely problem is the users are inexperienced and built bad table and
database and/or form designs. Tables without [proper or any] primary keys
are a common cause of problems. A table with no primary key, that also
contains memo fields, is an invitation to disaster. It's also important
that the fields be sized correctly according to the type and amount of data
being stored.
I can see you're an expert in the underated art of relational database
design.. And I hereby submit and bow to your comprehensive decade of 'Access
database' programming Prowest..
Post by DFS
Flaky network connections can sometimes corrupt Access tables, too, but this
is rare in my experience.
That's why /uncrippled software/ follows a /true/ client-server model..
Post by DFS
If multiple users are opening the same .mdb from a shared drive, and
accessing data from forms in that .mdb, they might have problems - that's a
Why suffer jets' record locking issues, when you can pay huge licence fees to
use sql-server?
(If you'd really been using Access for a decade DFS, you'd have learn't to
write your own "vba" ( <= I can't make the typeface any smaller in ASCII)
wrappers for practically everything Jet related by now)..
Post by DFS
* put the data tables in their own "back-end" .mdb file
* leave the back-end database in place on the shared drive
* create a separate front-end .mdb and put the presentation objects (forms,
reports, queries) in it, and create table links to the back-end tables
* give each user a copy of the front-end .mdb to run on their own system
If you've really been using access for a decade DFS, then you'll know that,
*THAT* particular *HACK* is to protect against losing *ALL* your customers
valuable data.. As well as 'pretending' you have at least some basic level
of encapsulation.. (I bet you use the Import/Export wizards for your
"backups" too)..
As an access database developer I'd like to sum up that perticular "RAD"
"If I didn't go home to FreeBSD, I'd swear I was already in hell.."
.
.
.
Sorry for the rant gang. access database *ALWAYS* brings out my dark
side..
I don't use "MS-Access" but I have been using the "Jet" database engine for
several years. Would I trust it to store critical data at a Fortune-500
company? No way in hell.

But it is more the adequate for what it's intended to do. It's simply a
light weight database engine. I've used it that way and haven't had a single
problem with it. And for the few times when I do need DB functionality at
home or for small projects, it makes much more sense to use "Jet" instead of
installing SQL-Server or MySQL.
DFS
2005-08-02 03:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
set lurkmode=
Post by Kier
To round it off, she and husband both have to use Access a fair bit
in their work (lab tech and teacher) and both utterly despise it as
an unstable piece of crap that gives them more trouble than it's
worth.
For moderate record counts and concurrent users, Access is very
stable. I've used it heavily for nearly 10 years, and rarely see
data issues.
Then you obviously haven't "used it very hard".
But I have, and it rarely lets me down.
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
20 GOTO 10
Is that all you can do? No wonder you think so little of Access'
capabilities - you have none yourself. I, on the other hand, make it sing
arias with useful programs such as:

* a program to import and validate email addresses, auto-generate Outlook
emails and auto-attach documents to them. Simple but effective. This one
saved the client mucho money versus the old manual method of
navigate-find-attachment-cut-n-paste-hit-Send
* a web spider that uses the MS InternetTransferLib object
* a system to generate and parse XML queries and responses, using the MSXML
libraries
* a system used by a corporate legal department to produce charts and graphs
re: cases and lawyers and billable hours
* a system to manage the life-cycle process of new franchises, from license
agreement to opening day
* a restaurant decor specifications management system
* a food & beverage survey system
* a project-based time and billing system
* an airfare generator - start with contract data provided by carriers,
apply tariff rules, taxes, zones, markups, competing fares scraped by the
above XML system, etc, and spit out sets of fares posted later to the client
web site. Orbitz is using that one right now.
* an airline inventory program
* a system to manage contract labor, billing rates, project assignments
* various membership systems
* various survey systems
* a golf scoring and analysis system
* etc etc etc
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
If their Access systems (version 97 and later) are unstable, by far
the most likely problem is the users are inexperienced and built bad
table and database and/or form designs. Tables without [proper or
any] primary keys are a common cause of problems. A table with no
primary key, that also contains memo fields, is an invitation to
disaster. It's also important that the fields be sized correctly
according to the type and amount of data being stored.
I can see you're an expert in the underated art of relational database
design.. And I hereby submit and bow to your comprehensive decade of
'Access database' programming Prowest..
Those are common issues seen with inexperienced Access users. What else did
you want: a regurgitation of the MS Knowledge Base?

As for your sarcasm about my skills, put up or shut up. Propose a smallish
system and we'll both submit DDL/designs to cola and let the DFS-haters
judge.
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
Flaky network connections can sometimes corrupt Access tables, too,
but this is rare in my experience.
That's why /uncrippled software/ follows a /true/ client-server model..
I agree 100% that Access isn't a true client-server model. I never
represent it as such, and I don't deploy it as such, and depending on the
system size I actually recommend against it. I did last Friday, matter of
fact, proffering Oracle as the superior solution (even if Oracle is slight
overkill for the system).
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
If multiple users are opening the same .mdb from a shared drive, and
accessing data from forms in that .mdb, they might have problems -
Why suffer jets' record locking issues, when you can pay huge licence
fees to use sql-server?
It just depends, doesn't it? On who's paying the bill. On what resources
they have in place. On the size of the system.

btw, ever hear of discretion? That's where you don't give yourself away as
a cheap rube of an OSS devotee who claims SQL Server license costs are huge.
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
(If you'd really been using Access for a decade DFS, you'd have
learn't to write your own "vba" ( <= I can't make the typeface any
smaller in ASCII) wrappers for practically everything Jet related by
now)..
I really have been using Access for a decade, and I really do write my own
VB\VBA (notice the caps. Is it the most popular programming language, or
the 2nd most popular?).

But why would you think I need to write wrapper functions to process Jet
transactions? I write DAO and ADO code. Probably a million lines of it by
now - and that's no exaggeration.

The 'db.Execute (SQL), dbFailOnError' statement is my very best friend.
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
* put the data tables in their own "back-end" .mdb file
* leave the back-end database in place on the shared drive
* create a separate front-end .mdb and put the presentation objects
(forms, reports, queries) in it, and create table links to the
back-end tables * give each user a copy of the front-end .mdb to run
on their own system
If you've really been using access for a decade DFS, then you'll know
that, *THAT* particular *HACK* is to protect against losing *ALL*
your customers valuable data.
I don't get you. It's not a hack; it's a methodology for deploying
multi-user Access systems.

You MS-hating, anti-Access wackos are a curious bunch. You think your
experiences and incompetence with Access is universal. It's not.

In 10 years I've deployed probably 60 paid systems that used Access
databases (maybe 35 as the sole datasource), and I've lost only a handful of
records - 10 or 20 if I'm being generous. I've certainly seen corrupt
databases that needed repairing from time to time - maybe 5 of them. In 10
years. Across several dozen systems.
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
As well as 'pretending' you have at
least some basic level of encapsulation..
Splitting the front- and back-end is just the way it's done.
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
(I bet you use the Import/Export wizards for your "backups" too).
If you knew Access, you'd know it's a file-server system, and backups are as
simple as compress and copy to a backup medium.

When I do write import/ export routines I use TransferText or open the file
in code and read/write the contents line by line.
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
As an access database developer I'd like to sum up that perticular
"If I didn't go home to FreeBSD, I'd swear I was already in hell.."
You're obtuse. And very insulting considering the frailty of your
"knowledge."

What's your problem?
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
Sorry for the rant gang. access database *ALWAYS* brings out my dark
side..
Post by Dave.J Eggleston
set lurkmode=a
win_not_lin
2005-08-01 11:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Brother and I mentioned Linux as a good alternative to XP, and she was
definitely interested in giving that route some thought, if the laptop
proves to be suitable.
And if the laptop doesn't "prove to be suitable" (i.e. if Linux doesn't
work on it), you can post about it here and all your Linux advocate
buddies will deride the laptop and tell you the hardware sucks. That's
the pathetic tactic you Linux morons always stoop to when some hardware
isn't supported by Linux.
Kier
2005-08-01 12:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by win_not_lin
Brother and I mentioned Linux as a good alternative to XP, and she was
definitely interested in giving that route some thought, if the laptop
proves to be suitable.
And if the laptop doesn't "prove to be suitable" (i.e. if Linux doesn't
work on it), you can post about it here and all your Linux advocate
buddies will deride the laptop and tell you the hardware sucks. That's
the pathetic tactic you Linux morons always stoop to when some hardware
isn't supported by Linux.
I'm not a Linux 'moron', I'm a Linux user.

Maybe the laptop will be okay for Linux, maybe not. Laptops are
notoriously difficult in that respect, because they use such weird
non-standard internals. But of the two my brother and I have between us -
Linux works on them.

My laptop is nothing special, and second hard. My brother's is a decent
high-end model. So what's your point, if you have one?
--
Kier
rapskat
2005-08-01 13:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by win_not_lin
Brother and I mentioned Linux as a good alternative to XP, and she was
definitely interested in giving that route some thought, if the
laptop proves to be suitable.
And if the laptop doesn't "prove to be suitable" (i.e. if Linux doesn't
work on it), you can post about it here and all your Linux advocate
buddies will deride the laptop and tell you the hardware sucks. That's
the pathetic tactic you Linux morons always stoop to when some hardware
isn't supported by Linux.
It's a fact that Linux doesn't like cheap hardware. These crappy
throw-away components and peripherals like $5 winmodems, $25 printers, $10
vidcams, $5 wifi cards, $2 sound cards, $30 mobos, etc. are just not
optimal on Linux. And while they may work on Windows, they sure as hell
aren't the best options available.

My opinion is that if the platform requires you to upgrade to better
hardware, then it's not necessarily a bad thing in the long run.
--
rapskat - 09:49:54 up 4 days, 19:05, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.10, 0.29
"Windows is the answer, but only if the question was 'What is
the intellectual equivalent of being a galley slave?'"
-- Larry Smith, in comp.os.linux.misc
rapskat
2005-08-01 14:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by rapskat
My opinion is that if the platform requires you to upgrade to better
hardware, then it's not necessarily a bad thing in the long run.
Just to clarify this point, "better" in this case does not necessarily
mean "newer".
--
rapskat - 10:01:18 up 4 days, 19:16, 3 users, load average: 0.16, 0.09, 0.18
"Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken."
-- ***@netscape.net
Kelsey Bjarnason
2005-08-07 05:00:05 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
Post by rapskat
It's a fact that Linux doesn't like cheap hardware. These crappy
throw-away components and peripherals like $5 winmodems, $25 printers, $10
vidcams, $5 wifi cards, $2 sound cards, $30 mobos, etc. are just not
optimal on Linux. And while they may work on Windows, they sure as hell
aren't the best options available.
My opinion is that if the platform requires you to upgrade to better
hardware, then it's not necessarily a bad thing in the long run.
Yes and no...

Running any system on quality hardware is going to work better than
doing the same on crap hardware. That said, I have a real and
fundamental dislike of any software that requires that I replace the
hardware for no good reason.

Take as a simple example the requirement of, say, a pentium versus a 386
or 486. I may choose to switch machines purely for performance reasons;
trying to do large software builds on a 386/40 rather than on a P4
running at 2.5 Ghz is, well, kinda silly unless I'm really, really
strapped for cash.

On the other hand, if I _don't_ need that sort of performance, if all
I'm doing is email and word processing, that sort of thing, the 386 or
486 should be fine for my needs. If the software (notably the OS) tells
me I have to replace the hardware, there had better be a damned good
reason, or I'm gonna be *pissed*.

With Linux, I can get modern, up-to-date distros which will happily run
on that 386 or 486. With Windows, it's Win95 and _possibly_ the first
version of Win98, but forget 98OSR2, ME, 2K or XP.

Here's the question: why? No, not performance; my utilization of the
system isn't changing, so the performance requirements are exactly the
same. No, not some major architectural change such as happened from
pre-386 to 386 chips. Basically, there is absolutely no reason why the
OS would need anything beyond a 386. The *user* might, depending on his
use of the system, but the OS? Nope, sorry, forget it.

I remember trying to install Win98 on an old 486sx machine; you know
what its complaint was, why it refused to install? No coprocessor
installed.

Excuse? What possible requirement does the OS have for an FPU? On the
one hand, I suspect this is simply so they don't have to provide an
emulation layer, which is fine and dandy, no argument with that... but
if I don't plan to run anything that requires an FPU in the first place,
where's the problem? Why does the OS *require* an FPU before it will
even install?

This is the basic problem Windows suffers from, architecturally. It
could be much more modular, with the GUI removable, IE unlinked, etc,
etc, etc, and the user could actually tailor an installtion to his
actual needs; the system could then happily run on any 386 class system.
Instead, everything is effectively glued into one massive entity and the
only way to really get it to perform at all is to throw massive amounts
of hardware at it... all to do a task that, ultimately, that hardware is
completely wasted on.

So yes, running on quality hardware is a good idea... but requiring
hardware upgrades for no actual benefit isn't, especially if you've
already got high-quality equipment, just high quality equipment that's a
little slower than the stuff on the shelf today.
DFS
2005-08-07 05:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
[snips]
Post by rapskat
It's a fact that Linux doesn't like cheap hardware. These crappy
throw-away components and peripherals like $5 winmodems, $25
printers, $10 vidcams, $5 wifi cards, $2 sound cards, $30 mobos,
etc. are just not optimal on Linux. And while they may work on
Windows, they sure as hell aren't the best options available.
My opinion is that if the platform requires you to upgrade to better
hardware, then it's not necessarily a bad thing in the long run.
Yes and no...
With Linux, I can get modern, up-to-date distros which will happily
run on that 386 or 486.
Which ones? Name just one current Linux distro that runs happily on a 386.
(I know you'll now change the meaning of distro to "boots a kernel to a
command prompt" but to everyone else distro connotes a full installation:
kernel, apps, X server, window manager(s), printer support, etc)

Here's an article that should be right up your alley:
http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/486.html
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
With Windows, it's Win95 and _possibly_ the
first version of Win98, but forget 98OSR2, ME, 2K or XP.
Win98SE has a 486/66 minimum
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Here's the question: why?
The real question is this: what possible reason could you have for running a
386 or 486 class machine?
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Basically, there is absolutely no reason why
the OS would need anything beyond a 386.
ALL your friends in Linux la-la land missed that memo.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
This is the basic problem Windows suffers from, architecturally. It
could be much more modular, with the GUI removable, IE unlinked, etc,
etc, etc, and the user could actually tailor an installtion to his
actual needs; the system could then happily run on any 386 class system.
But who cares? Who would want to run agonizingly slow, 12-year old junk
like that?

It's unheard of, even amongst the Linux cognoscenti.
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Instead, everything is effectively glued into one massive
entity and the only way to really get it to perform at all is to
throw massive amounts of hardware at it... all to do a task that,
ultimately, that hardware is completely wasted on.
You're full of it. There's no "massive amounts of hardware" required to run
any version of Windows, up to and including Server 2003 DataCenter Edition.
Kelsey Bjarnason
2005-08-07 12:00:07 UTC
Permalink
[snips]
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
With Linux, I can get modern, up-to-date distros which will happily
run on that 386 or 486.
Which ones? Name just one current Linux distro that runs happily on a 386.
(I know you'll now change the meaning of distro to "boots a kernel to a
kernel, apps, X server, window manager(s), printer support, etc)
Debian.
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Here's the question: why?
The real question is this: what possible reason could you have for running a
386 or 486 class machine?
Because I have one, because it works, because there's no good reason
_not_ to? The machine has more than sufficient capability to do what I
expect it to do, so there's no reason not to use it. Except, of course,
that one particularly brain-dead OS vendor can't seem to grasp the idea
that a 386 and a pentium are, to most intents and purposes, the same
damned thing, just with different performance.
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Basically, there is absolutely no reason why
the OS would need anything beyond a 386.
ALL your friends in Linux la-la land missed that memo.
They did? Funny, Debian's HW requirements page doesn't say anything
about requiring a P4/600 with 480Mb of RAM.
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
This is the basic problem Windows suffers from, architecturally. It
could be much more modular, with the GUI removable, IE unlinked, etc,
etc, etc, and the user could actually tailor an installtion to his
actual needs; the system could then happily run on any 386 class system.
But who cares? Who would want to run agonizingly slow, 12-year old junk
like that?
I'll let you in on a little secret... not everyone in the world has
access to newer, more modern equipment.

As a simple example, I happen to know of a fair amount of computer
equipment going to third world countries. In fact, I actually _fix_ a
lot of systems destined for those countries, before it gets shipped.

Those folks simply can't afford to run out and buy a quad athlon with
2Gb of RAM. Or even a pocket calculator. Instead, several outfits
collect donated computers, fix 'em up, and deliver them to schools and
such in those countries.

So let's ponder this for a moment. We're going to deliver, say, 200
donated computers to a school somewhere. We have a couple of options
for them as far as software goes:

1) We can install Win95, maybe Win98... and if you're *lucky*, any
software you do get *might* actually still work - but don't bet on it;
Office2K3, for example, requires Windows 2000, which will _not_ install
on those machines.

2) We can simply throw the machines away, because folks like DFS are
convinced that everybody who deserves to use a computer is also
sufficiently wealthy to buy a modern machine. You can do without the
other little luxuries for a while, you know. Food. That sort of thing.

3) We can try to dig up truly ancient versions of the software for
them... I think we could get Office 97, at least for the 486 machines;
Office 95 only requires a 386DX. Hmm, better toss the SX class systems.

4) We can deliver something _current_ and _modern_ and _functional_.
Something that they can actually use. Something that they can get - or
simply don't need - AV and other such tools for.

So let's see. Of the options available, which actually gets them the
computers _and_ a usable selection of software? Oh, right, option four.
Of course, option four is simply *not freakin' possible* with Windows,
thanks to MS's blind idiocy in forcing pointless hardware requirements
on their users, for absolutely no technical reason whatsoever.

On the other hand... hey, what do you know? We can deliver usable,
functional, working, *current* Debian-based systems. Complete with GUI,
office tools, web tools and so on. Programming tools. Spell checkers.
Multiple-language support. All the things they need to actually use the
computers as something other than boat anchors.

Now, given the choice between having donated, working - if slow -
computers, having no computers, or buying new computers but not having
any budget for anything else, which option do you think they will take?

Hmm... imagine that. Only one slight problem... it means that Windows
isn't even on the menu - because of MS. Not because of any actual
technical issues, as is readily demonstrated by the fact that current
Linux distros can work on the systems. Nope, it's purely MS's inability
to grasp concepts such as modularity, flexibility and configurability.


Do feel free, however, to tell us such people don't deserve computers.
Or food. Or medicine. Or whatever else it is your white bread myopic
view of the universe thinks they shouldn't have unless they're pulling
in $50K per annum.
Tim Smith
2005-08-07 17:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
With Linux, I can get modern, up-to-date distros which will happily
run on that 386 or 486.
Which ones? Name just one current Linux distro that runs happily on a 386.
(I know you'll now change the meaning of distro to "boots a kernel to a
kernel, apps, X server, window manager(s), printer support, etc)
Debian.
Are you sure about that? The processor would be fine, but how about
memory? That seems to be the limiting factor on running current distros
with X and the usual desktop apps.

I have a P166 laptop with 16 MB of RAM, which happily can run Windows 95
and Redhat 4 or 5 (I forget which) with X and a browser.

I spent a while trying to get a modern distribution on it, because I
wanted to use it for some things that needed a more modern browser, and
found that 16 MB was not enough memory to support the current Netscape,
Firefox, Konqueror, or IE. (Well, unless "happily run" includes taking
30 minutes to display a page!)

Old 386/486 motherboards often had a maximum of 64 MB of RAM, and at the
time they were new, that would have been very expensive, so a typical
386 will most likely have 32 MB or 16 MB or less.
--
--Tim Smith
Kelsey Bjarnason
2005-08-08 00:00:10 UTC
Permalink
[snips]

In article <reply_in_group-675AF4.10575307082005
@news1.west.earthlink.net>, ***@mouse-potato.com says...
Post by Tim Smith
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Debian.
Are you sure about that?
Having done it more than once, yes.
Post by Tim Smith
The processor would be fine, but how about
memory? That seems to be the limiting factor on running current distros
with X and the usual desktop apps.
Depends. You want, say, Gnome or KDE, memory is going to be an issue -
or performance is. Generally speaking, in Linux, you can do pretty much
anything _on_ pretty much anything, if you're willing to take a
performance hit.

Now, switch that around a little, drop in icewm or some other
lightweight, and you get a quite happily functioning desktop with
minimal resource hogging. 48Mb is _quite_ usable for such a setup,
though some of the larger apps may take a while to load. Given the
inended use of the systems, though, the choice between slow and simply
doing without, entirely, slow wins hands down.
Post by Tim Smith
I have a P166 laptop with 16 MB of RAM, which happily can run Windows 95
and Redhat 4 or 5 (I forget which) with X and a browser.
16Mb is tight, to be sure, but should be doable. The big thing is to
avoid the heavy desktops and to ensure you're not running a lot of other
stuff you probably don't really need. Kill extraneous services, etc.

As an example of that, this machine I'm working on right now has 96Mb in
it, running Win2K. With the default settings and the few auto-loading
things I've got installed (AVG, basically), system load was well over
100Mb. Simply disabling unnecessary services reduced that to a little
over 80Mb. Right now, with AVG running and Gravity (the news client)
running, load is 88Mb.

Just by disabling the unnecessary crud, the system went from terminal
thrashing to actually usable. Same concept applies.
Post by Tim Smith
I spent a while trying to get a modern distribution on it, because I
wanted to use it for some things that needed a more modern browser, and
found that 16 MB was not enough memory to support the current Netscape,
Firefox, Konqueror, or IE. (Well, unless "happily run" includes taking
30 minutes to display a page!)
Depends what you're running, really. I wouldn't drop KDE on such a
system, then expect any performance. I _would_ drop, say, icewm or
sawfish, etc, on it and fully expect to be able to run FireFox, but then
I wouldn't be sucking up the entire system resources _just_ for the
desktop manager.

That said, even so, 16Mb is very tight. 32Mb is doable, 48Mb is a
realistic minimum. Nice thing about what we're doing is that for every
three or four machines we get in, we can produce two usable systems;
there's little benefit in shipping 4 16Mb machines rather than two 32Mb
machines. The cost of delivery alone mandates that we balance quantity
and quality, so we do make every system count... but we can still
deliver workable, usable machines with current software as long as we
don't try to use Windows.
Jim Richardson
2005-08-08 07:01:49 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:57:53 GMT,
Post by Tim Smith
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
Post by DFS
Post by Kelsey Bjarnason
With Linux, I can get modern, up-to-date distros which will happily
run on that 386 or 486.
Which ones? Name just one current Linux distro that runs happily on a 386.
(I know you'll now change the meaning of distro to "boots a kernel to a
kernel, apps, X server, window manager(s), printer support, etc)
Debian.
Are you sure about that? The processor would be fine, but how about
memory? That seems to be the limiting factor on running current distros
with X and the usual desktop apps.
I have a P166 laptop with 16 MB of RAM, which happily can run Windows 95
and Redhat 4 or 5 (I forget which) with X and a browser.
I spent a while trying to get a modern distribution on it, because I
wanted to use it for some things that needed a more modern browser, and
found that 16 MB was not enough memory to support the current Netscape,
Firefox, Konqueror, or IE. (Well, unless "happily run" includes taking
30 minutes to display a page!)
Did you try Dillo? features about comparable to an older version of
Netscape.

I've run Firefox/Galeon on 24MB 486/586 machines, bit sluggish, but far
from "30 minutes to display a page".
Post by Tim Smith
Old 386/486 motherboards often had a maximum of 64 MB of RAM, and at the
time they were new, that would have been very expensive, so a typical
386 will most likely have 32 MB or 16 MB or less.
32MB, no problem. 16MB is starting to get tight, but there are ways to
trim things down. Use a lightweight WM, Dillo for browsing, SIAG office
apps, (or Applixware, I *think* it's still available) There's also
Hancom suite, which was built for PDA class machines, which have about
the same power specs as an older pentium nowadays, it is commercial, as
is Applixware.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFC9wNdd90bcYOAWPYRAmE3AKCQONIx9L2W8VQr71VBmOtVzPVUsgCePO+E
bp/UQ9GaOQz4ZA2blf2gPa0=
=8riS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist
the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
H.l. Mencken
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...