Re: Micoshaft recommends Linux

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Simon Finnigan, May 22, 2009.

  1. "7" <> wrote in message
    news:8%nRl.32158$...
    > Micoshaft recommends Linux
    > --------------------------
    >
    > In an abject failure of marketing, Micoshaft
    > recommends Linux because PISTA has been dissed
    > by the likes of Gartner$ because its crap
    > and there are currently no offering of micoshaft
    > recommended OSen exists.
    >
    > If you see any recommended for PISTA dishonest paid for 'advert'
    > on laptops and computers, then its a marketing
    > lie and false advertising as micoshaft has paid Gartner$
    > and all its marketing shills to diss PISTA.
    >
    > WINDUMMY OSen 7 is just PISTA with a paint job and not
    > much better than PISTA. So in reality, micoshfat
    > has no OSen to sell for years to come.
    >
    > So install Ubuntu 9.04 - it takes only 9 to 20 minutes
    > to install on decent PCs.
    >
    > On netbooks like Asus EEE, you could have it running
    > with 3D translucent desktops.


    Really, nobody cares about Linux zealots with nothing productive to say. If
    you`re happy with an OS that hardly anyone else uses, then that`s fine. For
    those of us who want a mainstream OS, that runs the gaems and software we
    want to use, we`ll stick with Windows.

    But thanks for posting your gibberish about PISTA, it made me realise just
    how annoying 14 year old children are when they decide to go fan-boy.
    Simon Finnigan, May 22, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Simon Finnigan

    Rob Morley Guest

    On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:06:44 +0100
    "Simon Finnigan" <> wrote:

    > Really, nobody cares about Linux zealots with nothing productive to
    > say.


    How do you feel about trolls?
    Rob Morley, May 22, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>, Simon Finnigan
    <> writes

    >Really, nobody cares about Linux zealots with nothing productive to say. If
    >you`re happy with an OS that hardly anyone else uses, then that`s fine.


    I don't see it quite like that. An OS is a tool to get a job done. If
    one picks the correct tool for the job, there's no need for any fanboi-
    ism or mindless advocacy.

    I use Linux at work and Windows at home. Each has its own strengths and
    weaknesses. I tend to be anti-M$ because of their shonky marketing and
    restrictive business practices, not because of their products. *

    Mike

    * with the exception of Vista, which truly is an abortion. I'll never
    use it personally but good luck to those that get on OK with it.

    --
    (\__/)
    (='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
    (")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png
    Mike Tomlinson, May 22, 2009
    #3
  4. Simon Finnigan

    JEDIDIAH Guest

    On 2009-05-22, Mike Tomlinson <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Simon Finnigan
    ><> writes
    >
    >>Really, nobody cares about Linux zealots with nothing productive to say. If
    >>you`re happy with an OS that hardly anyone else uses, then that`s fine.

    >
    > I don't see it quite like that. An OS is a tool to get a job done. If
    > one picks the correct tool for the job, there's no need for any fanboi-
    > ism or mindless advocacy.
    >
    > I use Linux at work and Windows at home. Each has its own strengths and
    > weaknesses. I tend to be anti-M$ because of their shonky marketing and
    > restrictive business practices, not because of their products. *


    I tend to be anti-MS because their products are crap and on occasion
    even tend to be a menace to others (that don't use their product).

    It also doesn't help that Microsoft seeks to make it impossible for me
    to avoid them.

    I real market leader is something I am free to ignore.

    >
    > Mike
    >
    > * with the exception of Vista, which truly is an abortion. I'll never
    > use it personally but good luck to those that get on OK with it.
    >



    --
    "Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether
    the idea will move the industry forward, they ask, |||
    'how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?'" / | \

    -- Bill Gates
    JEDIDIAH, May 22, 2009
    #4
  5. "Mike Tomlinson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>, Simon Finnigan
    > <> writes
    >
    >>Really, nobody cares about Linux zealots with nothing productive to say.
    >>If
    >>you`re happy with an OS that hardly anyone else uses, then that`s fine.

    >
    > I don't see it quite like that. An OS is a tool to get a job done. If
    > one picks the correct tool for the job, there's no need for any fanboi-
    > ism or mindless advocacy.


    it is strange that people who get hung up on different OS`s al seem to have
    the same ideas about their product of choice. E.g. Linux zealots claiming
    that their OS is utterly secure, despite it having large numbers of security
    holes. Vista does everything I want a machine to do, is easier to support
    than any of the alternatives, hence its an easy choice.

    > I use Linux at work and Windows at home. Each has its own strengths and
    > weaknesses. I tend to be anti-M$ because of their shonky marketing and
    > restrictive business practices, not because of their products. *


    I`ve always found Linux to be slower on the same hardware, and a pain to do
    anything with.

    > * with the exception of Vista, which truly is an abortion. I'll never
    > use it personally but good luck to those that get on OK with it.


    I personally don`t mind Vista. it`s not perfect, but I`ve not replaced it
    with anything else on any of my machines that came with it.
    Simon Finnigan, May 23, 2009
    #5
  6. Simon Finnigan <> wrote:
    > it is strange that people who get hung up on different OS`s al seem to have
    > the same ideas about their product of choice. E.g. Linux zealots claiming
    > that their OS is utterly secure,


    No-one with clue ever claimed that.
    Only the wintrolls use that argument as a form of attack.
    Linux is fort knox compared to the windows wet paper bag though.

    > despite it having large numbers of security
    > holes.


    Most of which are plugged in less than a month. Again, unlike windows where
    some have remained for years.

    > Vista does everything I want a machine to do, is easier to support
    > than any of the alternatives, hence its an easy choice.


    It's a dog. Even microsoft admits it's a failure. If you like it then
    booyaaa, so what? who cares? Good for you.
    What you're crossposting to COLA for slagging off linux users is a different
    matter.

    --
    | |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
    | |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
    | |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
    | in |good to you so far... |
    | Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
    Andrew Halliwell, May 23, 2009
    #6
  7. "Andrew Halliwell" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Simon Finnigan <> wrote:
    >> it is strange that people who get hung up on different OS`s al seem to
    >> have
    >> the same ideas about their product of choice. E.g. Linux zealots
    >> claiming
    >> that their OS is utterly secure,

    >
    > No-one with clue ever claimed that.
    > Only the wintrolls use that argument as a form of attack.
    > Linux is fort knox compared to the windows wet paper bag though.


    So Wintrolls use the arguement that Linux is invulnerable as a form of
    attack? You sure about that?

    >> despite it having large numbers of security
    >> holes.

    >
    > Most of which are plugged in less than a month. Again, unlike windows
    > where
    > some have remained for years.


    You`re comparing apples and aranges here. You state that most Linux
    exploits are fixed in under a month, and then complain that Windows still
    has security holes that have existed for years. From the information given,
    it can also be equally argued that Windows has most holes patched within a
    month, and that Linux has some that exist for years.

    >> Vista does everything I want a machine to do, is easier to support
    >> than any of the alternatives, hence its an easy choice.

    >
    > It's a dog. Even microsoft admits it's a failure. If you like it then
    > booyaaa, so what? who cares? Good for you.
    > What you're crossposting to COLA for slagging off linux users is a
    > different
    > matter.


    I`m replying to a thread in a newsgroup I read, and I don`t trim groups when
    replying.
    Simon Finnigan, May 23, 2009
    #7
  8. Simon Finnigan <> wrote:
    >> No-one with clue ever claimed that.
    >> Only the wintrolls use that argument as a form of attack.
    >> Linux is fort knox compared to the windows wet paper bag though.

    >
    > So Wintrolls use the arguement that Linux is invulnerable as a form of
    > attack? You sure about that?


    As a form of attack against linux advocates by claiming that they said it,
    yes.

    > You`re comparing apples and aranges here. You state that most Linux
    > exploits are fixed in under a month, and then complain that Windows still
    > has security holes that have existed for years. From the information given,
    > it can also be equally argued that Windows has most holes patched within a
    > month, and that Linux has some that exist for years.


    Known ones?
    --
    | | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
    | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
    | in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
    | Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
    Andrew Halliwell, May 23, 2009
    #8
  9. "Terry Porter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Simon Finnigan wrote:
    > <snip>
    >
    >> I`m replying to a thread in a newsgroup I read, and I don`t trim groups
    >> when replying.

    >
    > It's always a good idea to trim, unless the Windows Advocates want to
    > argue
    > with the Linux Advocates from one group to another and play into the hands
    > of the OP ?


    That`s as maybe, but when you start trimming then people following the
    thread in one group or another miss out on other peoples posts.
    Simon Finnigan, May 23, 2009
    #9
  10. "Andrew Halliwell" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Simon Finnigan <> wrote:
    >>> No-one with clue ever claimed that.
    >>> Only the wintrolls use that argument as a form of attack.
    >>> Linux is fort knox compared to the windows wet paper bag though.

    >>
    >> So Wintrolls use the arguement that Linux is invulnerable as a form of
    >> attack? You sure about that?

    >
    > As a form of attack against linux advocates by claiming that they said it,
    > yes.
    >
    >> You`re comparing apples and aranges here. You state that most Linux
    >> exploits are fixed in under a month, and then complain that Windows still
    >> has security holes that have existed for years. From the information
    >> given,
    >> it can also be equally argued that Windows has most holes patched within
    >> a
    >> month, and that Linux has some that exist for years.

    >
    > Known ones?


    Now you`re changing the terms - your original arguement was utterly useless,
    you where comparing two things that are unrelated.
    Simon Finnigan, May 23, 2009
    #10
  11. Simon Finnigan

    Conor Guest

    In article <>, Andrew Halliwell says...
    >
    > and that Linux has some that exist for years.
    >
    > Known ones?


    How about the 25 year old BSD bug that carried on into Unix and then
    Linux?

    http://www.osnews.com/story/19731/The-25-Year-Old-UNIX-Bug

    FTA: ""Sorry that it took us almost twenty-five years to fix it,"
    Balmer adds, jokingly."


    Or the 33 year old overflow one:

    http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20080708155228

    FTA: " Funny thing is that I traced this back to Sixth Edition UNIX,
    released in 1975.""


    --
    Conor

    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
    looking good either. - Scott Adams
    Conor, May 23, 2009
    #11
  12. On Sat, 23 May 2009 17:18:59 +0100
    Conor <> wrote:

    > In article <>, Andrew Halliwell says...
    > >
    > > and that Linux has some that exist for years.
    > >
    > > Known ones?

    >
    > How about the 25 year old BSD bug that carried on into Unix and then
    > Linux?
    >
    > http://www.osnews.com/story/19731/The-25-Year-Old-UNIX-Bug
    >
    > FTA: ""Sorry that it took us almost twenty-five years to fix it,"
    > Balmer adds, jokingly."
    >
    >
    > Or the 33 year old overflow one:
    >
    > http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20080708155228
    >
    > FTA: " Funny thing is that I traced this back to Sixth Edition UNIX,
    > released in 1975.""


    That's because they're so obscure it took that long for anyone to find
    them. In stark contrast with Microsoft's RTC = localtime bug which they
    still haven't fixed in Windows 7.

    --
    TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
    Tony Houghton, May 23, 2009
    #12
  13. Simon Finnigan

    Aardvark Guest

    On Sat, 23 May 2009 14:21:02 +0100, Simon Finnigan wrote:

    > "Andrew Halliwell" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Simon Finnigan <> wrote:
    >>> it is strange that people who get hung up on different OS`s al seem to
    >>> have
    >>> the same ideas about their product of choice. E.g. Linux zealots
    >>> claiming
    >>> that their OS is utterly secure,

    >>
    >> No-one with clue ever claimed that.
    >> Only the wintrolls use that argument as a form of attack. Linux is fort
    >> knox compared to the windows wet paper bag though.

    >
    > So Wintrolls use the arguement that Linux is invulnerable as a form of
    > attack? You sure about that?
    >


    Where did he say that? Try READING what people write once in a while.

    >>> despite it having large numbers of security holes.

    >>
    >> Most of which are plugged in less than a month. Again, unlike windows
    >> where
    >> some have remained for years.

    >
    > You`re comparing apples and aranges here.


    Nope. Seems to me and exploit on one OS and another exploit on another OS
    are just that: exploits. Not apples and oranges, exploits and other
    exploits.

    > You state that most Linux
    > exploits are fixed in under a month, and then complain that Windows
    > still has security holes that have existed for years.


    He did indeed. And the statement is true.

    > From the
    > information given, it can also be equally argued that Windows has most
    > holes patched within a month,


    You think?

    > and that Linux has some that exist for
    > years.
    >


    Highly unlikely, if not totally improbable.

    >>> Vista does everything I want a machine to do, is easier to support
    >>> than any of the alternatives, hence its an easy choice.


    I'm so pleased for you.


    --
    Aardvark, May 23, 2009
    #13
  14. Simon Finnigan

    Conor Guest

    In article <>, Tony Houghton says...

    > That's because they're so obscure it took that long for anyone to find
    > them. In stark contrast with Microsoft's RTC = localtime bug which they
    > still haven't fixed in Windows 7.


    What RTC bug?


    --
    Conor

    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
    looking good either. - Scott Adams
    Conor, May 23, 2009
    #14
  15. On Sat, 23 May 2009 19:33:26 +0100
    Conor <> wrote:

    > In article <>, Tony Houghton says...
    >
    > > That's because they're so obscure it took that long for anyone to find
    > > them. In stark contrast with Microsoft's RTC = localtime bug which they
    > > still haven't fixed in Windows 7.

    >
    > What RTC bug?


    It insists on running with the RTC set to local time instead of using
    UTC and applying the timezone/DST setting on the fly.

    --
    TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
    Tony Houghton, May 23, 2009
    #15
  16. Simon Finnigan

    Conor Guest

    In article <>, Tony Houghton says...

    > It insists on running with the RTC set to local time instead of using
    > UTC and applying the timezone/DST setting on the fly.


    Well my computer is set to UTC...

    Change it by clicking on the time in the systray and altering it
    there...


    --
    Conor

    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
    looking good either. - Scott Adams
    Conor, May 23, 2009
    #16
  17. On Sat, 23 May 2009 22:44:56 +0100
    Conor <> wrote:

    > In article <>, Tony Houghton says...
    >
    > > It insists on running with the RTC set to local time instead of using
    > > UTC and applying the timezone/DST setting on the fly.

    >
    > Well my computer is set to UTC...
    >
    > Change it by clicking on the time in the systray and altering it
    > there...


    The computer you're posting from isn't set to UTC, it's set to BST. Did
    you honestly not realise? <Shakes head>.

    And because it's Windows the RTC (the one you see in the BIOS) is also
    set to BST [1]. That means if you dual boot you can't have both OS's
    automatically adjust between winter and summer time. If both OS's assume
    the RTC is in UTC they can both display whatever timezone they like
    without interfering with each other and there are no disadvantages I can
    think of. Except that Microsoft think their users are too stupid to cope
    with seeing the "wrong" time in the BIOS; perhaps you've proved them
    right.

    [1] Apparently there's a registry setting for Vista, but it's broken
    because they forgot to take it into account when resuming from sleep. If
    I remember, I'll check whether that's fixed in 7RC.

    --
    TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
    Tony Houghton, May 24, 2009
    #17
  18. Tony Houghton, ye depraved lunatic, thou is too mean to have thy name
    repeated, ye vacillated:

    > On Sat, 23 May 2009 22:44:56 +0100
    > Conor <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>, Tony Houghton
    >> says...
    >>
    >>> It insists on running with the RTC set to local time instead of
    >>> using UTC and applying the timezone/DST setting on the fly.

    >>
    >> Well my computer is set to UTC...
    >>
    >> Change it by clicking on the time in the systray and altering it
    >> there...

    >
    > The computer you're posting from isn't set to UTC, it's set to BST.
    > Did you honestly not realise? <Shakes head>.


    You complete and utter fuckwit. Some NNTP servers use the computer's
    timezone setting by virtue of the server not changing the datestamp of posts
    comong from a user's machine. Many others convert the user's timestamp to
    the NNTP server's local timezone.

    Hope that fucking helps, you stupidly gormless fuckrag.
    Hu Flung Dung, May 24, 2009
    #18
  19. Simon Finnigan

    Conor Guest

    In article <>, Tony Houghton says...
    >
    > On Sat, 23 May 2009 22:44:56 +0100
    > Conor <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>, Tony Houghton says...
    > >
    > > > It insists on running with the RTC set to local time instead of using
    > > > UTC and applying the timezone/DST setting on the fly.

    > >
    > > Well my computer is set to UTC...
    > >
    > > Change it by clicking on the time in the systray and altering it
    > > there...

    >
    > The computer you're posting from isn't set to UTC, it's set to BST. Did
    > you honestly not realise? <Shakes head>.


    From Windows:

    "Time Zone

    (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London"

    ....with the "Daylight saving" option box checked.
    >
    > And because it's Windows the RTC (the one you see in the BIOS) is also
    > set to BST [1]. That means if you dual boot you can't have both OS's
    > automatically adjust between winter and summer time. If both OS's assume
    > the RTC is in UTC they can both display whatever timezone they like
    > without interfering with each other and there are no disadvantages I can
    > think of. Except that Microsoft think their users are too stupid to cope
    > with seeing the "wrong" time in the BIOS; perhaps you've proved them
    > right.


    Different to my experience of dual booting.

    > [1] Apparently there's a registry setting for Vista, but it's broken
    > because they forgot to take it into account when resuming from sleep. If
    > I remember, I'll check whether that's fixed in 7RC.




    --
    Conor

    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
    looking good either. - Scott Adams
    Conor, May 24, 2009
    #19
  20. Conor wrote:

    > In article <>, Tony Houghton says...
    >>
    >> On Sat, 23 May 2009 22:44:56 +0100
    >> Conor <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > In article <>, Tony Houghton
    >> > says...
    >> >
    >> > > It insists on running with the RTC set to local time instead of
    >> > > using UTC and applying the timezone/DST setting on the fly.
    >> >
    >> > Well my computer is set to UTC...
    >> >
    >> > Change it by clicking on the time in the systray and altering it
    >> > there...

    >>
    >> The computer you're posting from isn't set to UTC, it's set to BST. Did
    >> you honestly not realise? <Shakes head>.

    >
    > From Windows:
    >
    > "Time Zone
    >
    > (UTC) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London"
    >
    > ...with the "Daylight saving" option box checked.


    Thats fine. Because you actually live in the UTC zone

    >> And because it's Windows the RTC (the one you see in the BIOS) is also
    >> set to BST [1]. That means if you dual boot you can't have both OS's
    >> automatically adjust between winter and summer time. If both OS's
    >> assume the RTC is in UTC they can both display whatever timezone they
    >> like without interfering with each other and there are no disadvantages
    >> I can think of. Except that Microsoft think their users are too stupid
    >> to cope with seeing the "wrong" time in the BIOS; perhaps you've proved
    >> them right.

    >
    > Different to my experience of dual booting.


    Because for you there is no difference

    --
    It's not about, 'Where do you want to go today?' It's more like,
    'Where am I allowed to go today?'
    Peter Köhlmann, May 24, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. --= Ö§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí =--

    Holey Moley! Micro$oft Recommends Linux?

    --= Ö§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí =--, Dec 29, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    741
    Edwin
    Jan 12, 2004
  2. Crash Gordon

    Printer recommends?

    Crash Gordon, Feb 13, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    320
    Michael Johnson, PE
    Feb 13, 2006
  3. JedMeister
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    273
    Patrick Bold
    Sep 2, 2004
  4. Tarkus
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    377
    Tarkus
    Feb 13, 2008
  5. Conor

    Re: Micoshaft recommends Linux

    Conor, May 22, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    47
    Views:
    1,361
    Conor
    May 24, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page