Ivan Tisljar wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:25:05 +0100, Yrrah
> <Yrrah.YrrahYrrah.Yrrah********.com> wrote:
>
>> Anthony Irwin <nospam@noemailhere.nowhere>:
>>
>>> It is the a way of structuring the system so you know where things are
>>> and is similar to the program files directory in windows.
>> Which I don't use. I install applications on a separate partition with
>> my own directory/folder structure.
>
> Why, on earth's name? I can't think of any reason for that. Those
> green apps (which don't use registry) can be instaled wherever you
> want; but others... when you reinstall, you'd have to reinstall most
> of them, because you don't have nececary registry keys.

He wants to live dangerously and see if hew can hit that magical max direcory
depth in microsoft ;)


--

//Aho

Ivan Tisljar <_system_hlloyge******.co.uk>:

> There is a problem here, and it is not Linux. It's you and your
> unwillingness to learn something new and totally different. For people
> like you, there is Microsoft.

That's the typical reply of a sectarian who refuses to acknowledge
there are weaknesses in his belief.

Contrary to what some sectarian weirdos think I am an experienced PC
user, hell I've even worked with DOS for 9 years and have done
countles custom installations of Window$ (in all its variants), and
was willing to change form Window$ to Linux. But the Linux situation
is too chaotic. Linux something for hobbyists who love playing with an
OS. As long as the Linux sectarians refuse to understand that, Linux
will remain what it is now: an OS for sectarian hobbyists. If a
developer comes up with someting as good as Apple's OS (Unix based
iiaic) I may have a second look at Linux.

Yrrah

* Yrrah wrote in alt.os.linux:
> Ivan Tisljar <_system_hlloyge******.co.uk>:

>> There is a problem here, and it is not Linux. It's you and your
>> unwillingness to learn something new and totally different. For people
>> like you, there is Microsoft.

> That's the typical reply of a sectarian who refuses to acknowledge
> there are weaknesses in his belief.

Ohhh The Irony...

Lets see, You attempt to hide tha fact that you are using Agent, use XNA
and crosspost to an unrelateed group.

If it walks like a duck...

--
David
To teach is to learn twice.
-- Joseph Joubert

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:52:07 +0100, Ivan Tisljar wrote:

> Linux? I had Fedora Core 6, and with 3D desktop turned on, and with
> system fully booted up, it took 120 megs of memory.

120 megas, and you think that's small memory footprint!
Bill Gates told us that 640 KB is enough :-)

Yrrah wrote:
> Ivan Tisljar <_system_hlloyge******.co.uk>:
>
>> There is a problem here, and it is not Linux. It's you and your
>> unwillingness to learn something new and totally different. For people
>> like you, there is Microsoft.
>
> That's the typical reply of a sectarian who refuses to acknowledge
> there are weaknesses in his belief.
>
> Contrary to what some sectarian weirdos think I am an experienced PC
> user, hell I've even worked with DOS for 9 years and have done
> countles custom installations of Window$ (in all its variants), and
> was willing to change form Window$ to Linux. But the Linux situation
> is too chaotic. Linux something for hobbyists who love playing with an
> OS.

Over 30% of the web servers you encounter on the net are running GNU/Linux, to
be a hobbyist OS, there are quite many hobbyists around.

When it comes to file placements in GNU/Linux, there are a hierarchy how files
are to be stored for system to work, in the same way as microsoft has decided
where all dll files should be and the main files in their OS.
If you don't like the default placements of files, you are free to tell the
package manager to store them somewhere else, but then it's up to you to
ensure that it will be added to the search path and tell other programs that
depends on that moved program where to find the libraries.

For you, who ain't used to operating systems made by others than microsoft, it
may look chaotic, but it's really more structure to the whole than you get in
microsoft. There aren't any difference in this point between GNU/Linux or any
certified Unix that you can set your hands on. You will also see this in OSX
(including OSx86).


As long as the Linux sectarians refuse to understand that, Linux
> will remain what it is now: an OS for sectarian hobbyists. If a
> developer comes up with someting as good as Apple's OS (Unix based
> iiaic) I may have a second look at Linux.

If you like OSx86, so why don't you use it then? Or what about QNX, which has
a longer history behind it than OSX has. Keep in mind that Apple only supports
hardware they have set together in their machines, while for x86 there are no
limit on multitude of hardware to pick from, which causes problems even for
microsoft and some hardware needs extra software to work properly with
microsoft (this software not included in the standard microsoft).



> It comes with a lot of unwanted sofware which is installed
> automatically and has to be removed, but that applies to all
> disctributions afaik.

In all distributions I have installed (quite many so far), I have had the
option to select exactly which packages to install, this you can't do in
microsoft (the microsoft custom install is a joke). Of course if you select to
install KDE, Xorg will automatically be installed as it's one of KDE's
dependencies.

People here won't take you seriously as we see these outburst from time to
time, a microsoft user makes up a post in a weired attempt to scare away
people thinking of trying out GNU/Linux, telling more in detail about the
problems you got and give all relevant information, then people would take you
seriously and you would get help to fix it (if there would be some trouble in
the default installer).

Keep in mind that not all hardware manufacturers provide drivers for Linux,
those has to be made by third party persons, sometimes it may take some time
before there is a working driver, but in the end, todays Linux does support
more hardware than microsoft-windows-xp. I'm glad I use, as there aren't any
microsoft driver for my graphics card, but there is one for Linux.

If you don't want to use chaotic operating systems like OSx86, QNX, GNU/Linux,
Hurd, BeOS, HaikuOS, BSD, Darwin, OSX, OpenSolaris, SunOS, HPUX, AIX and so
on, then it's your decision, I won't blame you or curse you for that, and you
won't see me post on a microsoft newsgroup and trash it for I don't like it's
chaotic and random functionality.


--

//Aho

Susan Bugher <sebugher******.com> wrote in
news:518a5eF1gotcpU1@mid.individual.net:

> A triple negative. . . arghhhh. . . I can't hardly not disagree
> with what you didn't seem to say. . . ;)
>

Aaaaaaaaaghhhhhhhh!!!!! running screaming from room ;-)

--
dee

Yrrah <Yrrah.YrrahYrrah.Yrrah********.com> wrote in
news:s2puq21kqktut0vf7lor1s717frjcifoka@4ax.com:

>
> That's the typical reply of a sectarian who refuses to acknowledge
> there are weaknesses in his belief.

Bwah har har harrr!!! Bollox. You must be a n00b. The 1st rule of
trolling is not to respond to your own threads. Your follow-up posts
shows just how inexperienced and amateurish a troll you really are.

> Contrary to what some sectarian weirdos think I am an experienced
> PC user, hell I've even worked with DOS for 9 years and have done
> countles custom installations of Window$ (in all its variants),
> and was willing to change form Window$ to Linux. But the Linux
> situation is too chaotic. Linux something for hobbyists who love
> playing with an OS. As long as the Linux sectarians refuse to
> understand that, Linux will remain what it is now: an OS for
> sectarian hobbyists. If a developer comes up with someting as good
> as Apple's OS (Unix based iiaic) I may have a second look at
> Linux.

What a laugh. Anyone with more that 2 months of computing experience
will know that you are just full of pee and don't know where to
displace it, other than swimming in your own filth that floats between
you left and right ear lobes.

Who gives a scatty splat whether you "have a second look at Linux"????
Linux costs ZERO $$$$$$ to look at - AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY!!!!

Windows [OT] OTOH costs real $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ no matter how you look at
it and it just gets worse with every new release, especially when you
look at how it's (ahem) "developing". You, OTOH deserve MS Windows and
all of it's DRM future...

Good luck sunshine, I hope you really enjoy the MS future (that I don't
need to explore).

--
dee

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:55:41 +0100, Mario wrote:

>> Linux? I had Fedora Core 6, and with 3D desktop turned on, and with
>> system fully booted up, it took 120 megs of memory.

> 120 megas, and you think that's small memory footprint!
> Bill Gates told us that 640 KB is enough :-)

Run along, boy. We've got enough Win-trolls in this thread already.

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Ivan Tisljar wrote:
> Yrrah wrote:
>>
>> I've given up on Linux for now, after having tried for a few weeks.
>> Back to Window$ :-(
>
> There is a problem here, and it is not Linux. It's you and your
> unwillingness to learn something new and totally different. For people
> like you, there is Microsoft.

Take a look at the original post again. Whaddaya bet he's squawking
about the Live CD, and hasn't even done an actual installation?

--
Mark Warner
lose .inhibitions when replying

Mark Warner <mhwarner.inhibitions@insightbb.com>

> Take a look at the original post again. Whaddaya bet he's squawking
> about the Live CD, and hasn't even done an actual installation?

He has done an actual installation, as you could have known if you had
done what you recommend others to do.

Yrrah

* Yrrah wrote in alt.os.linux:
> Mark Warner <mhwarner.inhibitions@insightbb.com>

>> Take a look at the original post again. Whaddaya bet he's squawking
>> about the Live CD, and hasn't even done an actual installation?

> He has done an actual installation, as you could have known if you had
> done what you recommend others to do.

Please do post the text from your OP that states you did an actual
install of the OS v running the LiveCD.

I'll wait...

--
David
Hindsight is an exact science.

SINNER <99nesorjd@gates_of_hell.invalid>:

> Please do post the text from your OP that states you did an actual
> install of the OS v running the LiveCD.

???

Yrrah

Yrrah wrote:

> As things stand now Linux is not a serious competitor.

No. You've got it /entirely/ the wrong way round. Windows is now playing
catch-up to Linux. "Vista" is about 6 years behind any current Linux
distro. Windows is *not* a serious competitor - it's a poorly written
computer game.

You're also looking at your "problems" from a distorted perspective. You
received your computer with a pre-installed Windows. When it came time to
upgrade to Linux, you actually had to do some work yourself!

When it comes to re-formatting your hard drive and re-installing Windows,
you'll have *more* problems than you'll _ever_ find with a modern Linux
distro. You probably won't have all the driver disks for your hardware.
So you'll be bitching and complaining to some Windows newsgroup about how
hard Windows is to install, and most of your hardware doesn't work
properly... Won't you?

"What a maroon!"

C.

J.O. Aho wrote:

> Over 30% of the web servers you encounter on the net are running
> GNU/Linux, to be a hobbyist OS, there are quite many hobbyists around.

You should re-write that: *90%* of web-servers use a Unix-derived operating
system. Quick analysis of the top 20 websites worldwide shows that *all*
of them (except Microsoft themselves) use other than MS products!

C.

Christopher Hunter writes:
> You probably won't have all the driver disks for your hardware. So
> you'll be bitching and complaining to some Windows newsgroup about how
> hard Windows is to install, and most of your hardware doesn't work
> properly... Won't you?

No. He'll blame Linux.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA