Re: Microsoft admits users will be able to turn off IE 8 in Windows 7

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:32:53 +0100, Borne Aching wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:05:15 +0200, Gigagefalos wrote:
>
>> Thank God, Microsoft
>>SNIP begging
>
> Thank god for MS...
> If left to linux, you would type a series of obtuse commands to connect
> to the internet.

Well, you can (though I'd hardly consider the commands to be 'obtuse'
they're really quite simple and straightforward) but you could use a GUI
tool if you need to reconfigure it. Generally when you install Linux, the
network is simply on.


>
> Tali would be seen as a graphics intense game.
>
> If left to linux, an update would be 9 months in the making...and then
> all fudged up...cause linux boy tested it on his 386 PC.

Generally, I seem to see Linux updates coming in a much more timely
manner than MS's. It usually does not take six months for them to fix a
simple problem - generally done with in a few days of a trouble report.

>
> Dude, linux is playing scavenger to MS...who won long ago.
>
> Give it a rest.
>
> MS made the bouquet, don't gripe about dead bugs.

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:27:08 -0500, Borne Aching wrote:

> "ray" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:32:53 +0100, Borne Aching wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:05:15 +0200, Gigagefalos wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank God, Microsoft
>>>>SNIP begging
>>>
>>> Thank god for MS...
>>> If left to linux, you would type a series of obtuse commands to
>>> connect to the internet.
>>
>> Well, you can (though I'd hardly consider the commands to be 'obtuse'
>> they're really quite simple and straightforward) but you could use a
>> GUI tool if you need to reconfigure it. Generally when you install
>> Linux, the network is simply on.
>>
>>
>>
> The current distros are copying MS.
> If it wasn't for MS .... IN THE FIRST PLACE....linux would be no where.
> The douche linux nerds would have kept it CLI.

Right. You're blissfuly unaware that X windows was running on Unix
systems before windows 1.0 ever saw the light of day.

>
> Generally, with linux...wireless is friggen IMPOSSIBLE. ubuntoot makes
> it easier with windows wireless drivers. the rest use ndiswrapper....or
> self compile.

I see that you've never actually tried it. I don't use any MS drivers
with my wireless at all - they are much more robust that way. Did an
install of Debian (on which Ubuntu - it's correct name - is based) using
the net install from a flash drive. I booted it up and the wireless was
working perfectly to finsh the install.


>
>
>>> Tali would be seen as a graphics intense game.
>>>
>>> If left to linux, an update would be 9 months in the making...and then
>>> all fudged up...cause linux boy tested it on his 386 PC.
>>
>> Generally, I seem to see Linux updates coming in a much more timely
>> manner than MS's. It usually does not take six months for them to fix a
>> simple problem - generally done with in a few days of a trouble report.
>>
>>
> Yeah...AWN gets an almost daily update...for no visable reason....and
> the details tab never has details.
> Just a link to an out of date launchpad page.
>
> MS usually offers REAL updates.
> Not just some douche-bag package maintainer mis-spelled his name.

A claim so absurd it deserves no comment.


>
>
>>> Dude, linux is playing scavenger to MS...who won long ago.
>>>
>>> Give it a rest.
>>>
>>> MS made the bouquet, don't gripe about dead bugs.
>>

ray wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:27:08 -0500, Borne Aching wrote:
>
>> "ray" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:32:53 +0100, Borne Aching wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:05:15 +0200, Gigagefalos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank God, Microsoft
>>>>> SNIP begging
>>>> Thank god for MS...
>>>> If left to linux, you would type a series of obtuse commands to
>>>> connect to the internet.
>>> Well, you can (though I'd hardly consider the commands to be 'obtuse'
>>> they're really quite simple and straightforward) but you could use a
>>> GUI tool if you need to reconfigure it. Generally when you install
>>> Linux, the network is simply on.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The current distros are copying MS.
>> If it wasn't for MS .... IN THE FIRST PLACE....linux would be no where.
>> The douche linux nerds would have kept it CLI.


Actually the Amiga with Amigados and Intuition were way ahead of MS...

Charlie Tame <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The current distros are copying MS.
>>> If it wasn't for MS .... IN THE FIRST PLACE....linux would be no where.
>>> The douche linux nerds would have kept it CLI.
>

I'm not sure who this Borne Aching cretin is, as it seems to be a slightly
different flavour of brain damage. 'Not really worth debating with.

>
> Actually the Amiga with Amigados and Intuition were way ahead of MS...


Yeah, out of tall the 16-bit machines, Amiga should have been the
architecture that the world standardised on. It was better than all the
others, apart from the Acorn Archimedes. With multitasking and a colour
GUI, it left PCs and Macs in the dust (not to mention excellent sound).

ss.

On 7 Mar 2009 03:41:19 GMT, ray <> wrote:

>> The current distros are copying MS.
>> If it wasn't for MS .... IN THE FIRST PLACE....linux would be no where.
>> The douche linux nerds would have kept it CLI.
>
>Right. You're blissfuly unaware that X windows was running on Unix
>systems before windows 1.0 ever saw the light of day.


Well, to be fair, the timing for X-windows and Win 1.0 was close.
However, you could actually use X-windows for work back when MS was
still trying to figure out how to let two processes share the CPU.

But, you'll just confuse the newbies with an accurate history of
computing. They think windowing interfaces started in 1995.