Fuck the RIAA, except for EMI [...] Now if they can just distance themselves from the suing of little old grandmothers, I might even be motivated to exclude them from my RIAA boycott, provided they have music I'm interested in...
EMI, as far as I know, has not been involved in suing anyone. (I'm probably wrong.) But then, they have tended to "get it" a bit more than the other labels, especially with regards to copy protection and the like.
And as stated earlier (BUT COMPLETELY IGNORED BY YOU), this has been refuted by Microsoft corp itself who has stated that code from 98 did make it into the NT kernel.
I didn't ignore it. I asked you for proof. Which you haven't given.
Please make your April Fools more funny. Right now a global nuclear holocaust would raise more chuckles. (Luckily, we're inching closer to that every day, so we haven't got long to wait for some laughs.)
f Mcrosoft buys DOS and bases Windows on DOS and then bases all future versions on past versions, ipso facto NT is based on DOS for without DOS, Windows would not exist.
No, you're being stupid here.
Windows 9x, as in Windows 95, 98, Me, was based on DOS. Windows NT, which begat 2000, XP and Vista, was developed seperately with an entirely new kernel.
There is no "logic of inheritance" here, because NT inherited next to nothing from DOS. A simple glance at Wikipedia would corroborate this. I'd love to hear where Microsoft claimed Windows NT was based on Windows 98 (especially when NT came out years before 98). Please, cite that source.
Fuck it, I've given conclusive fucking photographic proof that instead of being part of some Microsoft scheme to CONKER TEH INTERWEBS I am, in fact, a teenager working in a supermarket. But does twitter care? No.
No, I've said that long gnu/linux boot times are bullhit and that they don't matter.
They DO matter. Lots of people turn off their computers at night and switch them on again in the morning, sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Lalala use sleep lalalalala" isn't going to change the fact that Linux boots slowly.
Or is it that they only "don't matter" because they're one of Linux's flaws? Be honest. If it's good, it's good, if it's bad it doesn't matter. You in a nutshell.
Nothing boots faster for me than a default Etch desktop, not even your supposedly "fresh" XP install.
There's no such thing as a "default Etch desktop". Etch comes with no GUI to speak of and few services enabled. Of course a new install of a text-mode OS with no services will boot faster than a graphical OS with many services enabled.
Once you add on anti-virus and the inevitable mal and spyware, the Windoze system is a brick that takes forever to boot and has to be reinstalled, how convenient!
The page I linked to a while back said otherwise, and that even with antivirus or whatever XP still booted faster under most conditions. Try again.
(Not that I ran antivirus or ever got spyware of course. Seriously.)
I've never seen this happen. Reapeating this FUD does not convince me it is true.
"FUD" refers to something that is untrue. What you mean is "inconvenient truth". For instance, here's a comparison of Linux and Windows boot times; it shows that in all but ONE of the tests (Windows with antivirus software installed using 96MBs of RAM) Windows trounces OpenSUSE and Linspire in boot times.
You've got your head in the sand. What's wrong with just holding up your hands and saying "Yes, Linux boot times are shit, but we're working on it"? There's far less shame in that than in just making shit up.
That's an insult to everyone's intelligence. There is no such machine, unless you have serious hardware problems and the present article is the "more power to you" that I mentioned.
Anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. On my (old; I ditched it this morning for a Mac...that feeling, twitter, is called cognitive dissonance) PC, XP booted in about 20-25 seconds whereas Ubuntu took about 30-40 seconds. I'm not even going to start on the prepostorous LiveCD thing...how could a full Linux/GNOME desktop booting from a CD take less time to start up than Windows XP installed on a hard disk? That makes no sense. Every time I've tried an Ubuntu liveCD it's taken a few minutes to boot up.
Microsoft continues to design complex and "extensible" non standards for power management, so it's not easy. Comfort yourself by knowing that M$'s dirty tricks make things harder for their own users than they are for you.
You mean ACPI? The one developed by Microsoft, Toshiba, Intel, HP and Phoenix? The one that comes pretty much as standard on just about every motherboard? Please.
Now, you always go on about Microsoft "blaming the user". But the subtext to your posts in this thread is "You shouldn't have to boot up at all, silly person, you should be using sleep modes. Look at my l33t uptimes." What use is it to say that? Is it just trying to divert criticism from the fact that yes, fresh stock installs of popular Linux distros do actually tend to take more time to boot up than fresh installs of Windows XP on comparable hardware?
Especially not the kind of dorks who don't understand why people would rather use Macs than fuck around endlessly with AUTOEXEC.BAT.
I don't understand why anyone would fuck around with AUTOEXEC.BAT at all, to be honest, considering it hasn't been in much use since Windows 2000.;)
Anyway, back on topic; no parodies as such but this article is a hoot, even though I personally don't agree with it (I'll be picking up an iMac for myself in a few hours, wish me luck:D)
Mac: Hi, I'm a Mac. PC: And I'm a PC. Linux: (played by stereotypical nerd) Hi, I'm Linux. I don't like anyone. Go away. Ubuntu: And I'm Linux too. Mac: You're just the other Linux with a dress and some concealer. It's rather disturbing, actually. PC: PCs can dual boot Linux and Windows too, you know. Come, Ubuntu, let me extend an embrace to you. Mac: Are you going to put down the fire extinguisher first? PC: No. No I am not.
With that, BSD walks in and kicks everyone in the crotch. Fin.
eggdrop, from what I remember from telephone modem days, was a program that echoed nonsense into IRC channels so the phone company would not hang up the line.
More than 25% of Windoze computers are part of a bot net [slashdot.org] that's screwing everyone [slashdot.org]
Please, shut up.
The article (which you keep linking to) does not say "25% of all Windows installations in a botnet", it says "25 Percent of All Computers in a Botnet?". COMPUTERS. That includes Linux, Mac OS, the BSDs and, yes, Windows. Ever heard of IRC botnets twitter? Ones that tend to run on *nix shells using eggdrop and such? They're pretty large, by most measures.
That and the article isn't even definite. The 150 million/600 million figure was an estimate: to quote TFA, "150 million of them might be participants in a botnet". The figure was an estimate. No real measurement was done on it, it was just an estimate, not hard fact.
So kindly, stop using an article which doesn't even have the word "Windows" in it and refers to an estimate of 25% of all computers of all OSes connected to the Internet to bash Windows. It's stupid and nowhere near accurate. Not that I expect any more from you, twitter, but hey.
(I copied and pasted this from an old reply of mine to twitter after he, once again, started talking gibberish about botnets.)
Devils advocate: At least people have a choice to buy Microsoft products or not. They don't have the choice to not be subject to the EU or its laws. They won't even have the first choice if the EU stops Microsoft selling its products in Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck the RIAA, except for EMI [...] Now if they can just distance themselves from the suing of little old grandmothers, I might even be motivated to exclude them from my RIAA boycott, provided they have music I'm interested in...
EMI, as far as I know, has not been involved in suing anyone. (I'm probably wrong.) But then, they have tended to "get it" a bit more than the other labels, especially with regards to copy protection and the like.
Now...as for the music...
And as stated earlier (BUT COMPLETELY IGNORED BY YOU), this has been refuted by Microsoft corp itself who has stated that code from 98 did make it into the NT kernel.
I didn't ignore it. I asked you for proof. Which you haven't given.
Dear World,
Please make your April Fools more funny. Right now a global nuclear holocaust would raise more chuckles. (Luckily, we're inching closer to that every day, so we haven't got long to wait for some laughs.)
Love,
jb.hl.com
f Mcrosoft buys DOS and bases Windows on DOS and then bases all future versions on past versions, ipso facto NT is based on DOS for without DOS, Windows would not exist.
No, you're being stupid here.
Windows 9x, as in Windows 95, 98, Me, was based on DOS. Windows NT, which begat 2000, XP and Vista, was developed seperately with an entirely new kernel.
There is no "logic of inheritance" here, because NT inherited next to nothing from DOS. A simple glance at Wikipedia would corroborate this. I'd love to hear where Microsoft claimed Windows NT was based on Windows 98 (especially when NT came out years before 98). Please, cite that source.
(I'm sure I'm feeding a troll here...)
Or your doctor shoots you in the face.
Nothing to add.
Fuck it, I've given conclusive fucking photographic proof that instead of being part of some Microsoft scheme to CONKER TEH INTERWEBS I am, in fact, a teenager working in a supermarket. But does twitter care? No.
You really are a contemptible little man.
No, I mean NT wasn't based on DOS. Are you being intentionally moronic?
Regardless since it was based on DOS which was purchased ...erm, like I said, no it wasn't.
NT was based on DOS
No, it wasn't. NT was more or less an entirely new OS.
There never was such a thing. Free software users are serene.
This is the funniest thing I've ever read.
Didn't you once say Microsoft killed the fax machine? Jesus christ.
Now all we need is a 90 micron guitarist.
David Gil-less?
OK that was bad, even by my standards.
Well...one or the other. ;)
No, I've said that long gnu/linux boot times are bullhit and that they don't matter.
They DO matter. Lots of people turn off their computers at night and switch them on again in the morning, sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Lalala use sleep lalalalala" isn't going to change the fact that Linux boots slowly.
Or is it that they only "don't matter" because they're one of Linux's flaws? Be honest. If it's good, it's good, if it's bad it doesn't matter. You in a nutshell.
Nothing boots faster for me than a default Etch desktop, not even your supposedly "fresh" XP install.
There's no such thing as a "default Etch desktop". Etch comes with no GUI to speak of and few services enabled. Of course a new install of a text-mode OS with no services will boot faster than a graphical OS with many services enabled.
Once you add on anti-virus and the inevitable mal and spyware, the Windoze system is a brick that takes forever to boot and has to be reinstalled, how convenient!
The page I linked to a while back said otherwise, and that even with antivirus or whatever XP still booted faster under most conditions. Try again.
(Not that I ran antivirus or ever got spyware of course. Seriously.)
Mod parent up...one of the few intelligent comments I've read on the issue of RIAA lawsuits.
I've never seen this happen. Reapeating this FUD does not convince me it is true.
"FUD" refers to something that is untrue. What you mean is "inconvenient truth". For instance, here's a comparison of Linux and Windows boot times; it shows that in all but ONE of the tests (Windows with antivirus software installed using 96MBs of RAM) Windows trounces OpenSUSE and Linspire in boot times.
You've got your head in the sand. What's wrong with just holding up your hands and saying "Yes, Linux boot times are shit, but we're working on it"? There's far less shame in that than in just making shit up.
That's an insult to everyone's intelligence. There is no such machine, unless you have serious hardware problems and the present article is the "more power to you" that I mentioned.
Anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. On my (old; I ditched it this morning for a Mac...that feeling, twitter, is called cognitive dissonance) PC, XP booted in about 20-25 seconds whereas Ubuntu took about 30-40 seconds. I'm not even going to start on the prepostorous LiveCD thing...how could a full Linux/GNOME desktop booting from a CD take less time to start up than Windows XP installed on a hard disk? That makes no sense. Every time I've tried an Ubuntu liveCD it's taken a few minutes to boot up.
Microsoft continues to design complex and "extensible" non standards for power management, so it's not easy. Comfort yourself by knowing that M$'s dirty tricks make things harder for their own users than they are for you.
You mean ACPI? The one developed by Microsoft, Toshiba, Intel, HP and Phoenix? The one that comes pretty much as standard on just about every motherboard? Please.
Now, you always go on about Microsoft "blaming the user". But the subtext to your posts in this thread is "You shouldn't have to boot up at all, silly person, you should be using sleep modes. Look at my l33t uptimes." What use is it to say that? Is it just trying to divert criticism from the fact that yes, fresh stock installs of popular Linux distros do actually tend to take more time to boot up than fresh installs of Windows XP on comparable hardware?
Especially not the kind of dorks who don't understand why people would rather use Macs than fuck around endlessly with AUTOEXEC.BAT.
;)
:D)
I don't understand why anyone would fuck around with AUTOEXEC.BAT at all, to be honest, considering it hasn't been in much use since Windows 2000.
Anyway, back on topic; no parodies as such but this article is a hoot, even though I personally don't agree with it (I'll be picking up an iMac for myself in a few hours, wish me luck
Mac: Hi, I'm a Mac.
PC: And I'm a PC.
Linux: (played by stereotypical nerd) Hi, I'm Linux. I don't like anyone. Go away.
Ubuntu: And I'm Linux too.
Mac: You're just the other Linux with a dress and some concealer. It's rather disturbing, actually.
PC: PCs can dual boot Linux and Windows too, you know. Come, Ubuntu, let me extend an embrace to you.
Mac: Are you going to put down the fire extinguisher first?
PC: No. No I am not.
With that, BSD walks in and kicks everyone in the crotch. Fin.
You didn't talk about viruses. You talked about botnets. They are seperate things.
Now you're just stereotyping. ;)
By the way, I'm sorry if this is seen as flamebait. But for a statement that moronic I don't think there can be any other suitable reply.
eggdrop, from what I remember from telephone modem days, was a program that echoed nonsense into IRC channels so the phone company would not hang up the line.
You are an absolute moron.
More than 25% of Windoze computers are part of a bot net [slashdot.org] that's screwing everyone [slashdot.org]
Please, shut up.
The article (which you keep linking to) does not say "25% of all Windows installations in a botnet", it says "25 Percent of All Computers in a Botnet?". COMPUTERS. That includes Linux, Mac OS, the BSDs and, yes, Windows. Ever heard of IRC botnets twitter? Ones that tend to run on *nix shells using eggdrop and such? They're pretty large, by most measures.
That and the article isn't even definite. The 150 million/600 million figure was an estimate: to quote TFA, "150 million of them might be participants in a botnet". The figure was an estimate. No real measurement was done on it, it was just an estimate, not hard fact.
So kindly, stop using an article which doesn't even have the word "Windows" in it and refers to an estimate of 25% of all computers of all OSes connected to the Internet to bash Windows. It's stupid and nowhere near accurate. Not that I expect any more from you, twitter, but hey.
(I copied and pasted this from an old reply of mine to twitter after he, once again, started talking gibberish about botnets.)
Devils advocate: At least people have a choice to buy Microsoft products or not. They don't have the choice to not be subject to the EU or its laws. They won't even have the first choice if the EU stops Microsoft selling its products in Europe.