Linux

On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 17:16:19 -0400, Big Steel wrote:

> On 4/2/2011 2:25 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Alias wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 04/02/2011 07:03 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Really? As the tiny number of Linux users increase slightly, so does the
>>>> number of Linux viruses. Yet isn't Linux supposed to be safer today? And
>>>> to get the idea of how Linux can be infected, here is a good read.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mputer_viruses
>>>
>>> Yawn.
>>
>> Indeed. A handful of "issues" compared to "Typhoid Microsoft".
>>
>> Laughable in the extreme.
>>
>> I work at place that's pretty strict. Both Linux and Windows are required
>> to run a McAfee "Host based security system". However, Linux is exempt from
>> the "anti-virus" requirement.
>>
>> "BillW50"'s silly link shows why; he's not a very sharp tool, is he?
>>
>
> Oh, we have a chime-in from Ahlstrom the hypocrite that makes his living
> using MS solutions and he is talking smack as usual. He doesn't use
> Linux at all to make his living.
>
> Laughable.....

Ahlstrom is a boob.
The worst form of Linux advocate because he is just so petty and
unbelievable.

He just hasn't been the same since his master Roy left.

I think he needs to level set and start over again.
Maybe God will grant him a new life.

Anything has to be better than what he is living now.


--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...m_is_dead.html

On 4/2/2011 5:31 PM, flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 17:16:19 -0400, Big Steel wrote:
>
>> On 4/2/2011 2:25 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Alias wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 04/02/2011 07:03 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Really? As the tiny number of Linux users increase slightly, so does the
>>>>> number of Linux viruses. Yet isn't Linux supposed to be safer today? And
>>>>> to get the idea of how Linux can be infected, here is a good read.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mputer_viruses
>>>>
>>>> Yawn.
>>>
>>> Indeed. A handful of "issues" compared to "Typhoid Microsoft".
>>>
>>> Laughable in the extreme.
>>>
>>> I work at place that's pretty strict. Both Linux and Windows are required
>>> to run a McAfee "Host based security system". However, Linux is exempt from
>>> the "anti-virus" requirement.
>>>
>>> "BillW50"'s silly link shows why; he's not a very sharp tool, is he?
>>>
>>
>> Oh, we have a chime-in from Ahlstrom the hypocrite that makes his living
>> using MS solutions and he is talking smack as usual. He doesn't use
>> Linux at all to make his living.
>>
>> Laughable.....
>
> Ahlstrom is a boob.
> The worst form of Linux advocate because he is just so petty and
> unbelievable.
>
> He just hasn't been the same since his master Roy left.
>
> I think he needs to level set and start over again.
> Maybe God will grant him a new life.
>
> Anything has to be better than what he is living now.
>
>

It's just like when I got tired of Big Blue and decided to make my
conversion over the PC(s) and client/server using MS. I was able to do
it and didn't take a pay cut either. If he hates MS so much, why can't
he convert over to Linux and make a living from Linux?

If he was making a living from Linux and had completely converted over
from MS, that's one thing. But he can't even do it. He wants to run his
mouth about the very horse that feeds the clown?

He is totally ridiculous and laughable

On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 17:43:57 -0400, Big Steel wrote:

> On 4/2/2011 5:31 PM, flatfish+++ wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 17:16:19 -0400, Big Steel wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/2/2011 2:25 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> Alias wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> On 04/02/2011 07:03 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? As the tiny number of Linux users increase slightly, so does the
>>>>>> number of Linux viruses. Yet isn't Linux supposed to be safer today? And
>>>>>> to get the idea of how Linux can be infected, here is a good read.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mputer_viruses
>>>>>
>>>>> Yawn.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. A handful of "issues" compared to "Typhoid Microsoft".
>>>>
>>>> Laughable in the extreme.
>>>>
>>>> I work at place that's pretty strict. Both Linux and Windows are required
>>>> to run a McAfee "Host based security system". However, Linux is exempt from
>>>> the "anti-virus" requirement.
>>>>
>>>> "BillW50"'s silly link shows why; he's not a very sharp tool, is he?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, we have a chime-in from Ahlstrom the hypocrite that makes his living
>>> using MS solutions and he is talking smack as usual. He doesn't use
>>> Linux at all to make his living.
>>>
>>> Laughable.....
>>
>> Ahlstrom is a boob.
>> The worst form of Linux advocate because he is just so petty and
>> unbelievable.
>>
>> He just hasn't been the same since his master Roy left.
>>
>> I think he needs to level set and start over again.
>> Maybe God will grant him a new life.
>>
>> Anything has to be better than what he is living now.
>>
>>
>
> It's just like when I got tired of Big Blue and decided to make my
> conversion over the PC(s) and client/server using MS. I was able to do
> it and didn't take a pay cut either. If he hates MS so much, why can't
> he convert over to Linux and make a living from Linux?

Because he is a spineless, gormless wonder.
He is at a job he has probably had for 20 or more years, is comfortable
and doesn't want to rock the boat.

> If he was making a living from Linux and had completely converted over
> from MS, that's one thing. But he can't even do it. He wants to run his
> mouth about the very horse that feeds the clown?

Jayne wears the pants in the former Yaris now Ford Fiesta Ahlstrom
house.

Chris wears the skirts.

> He is totally ridiculous and laughable

Yep.
A complete hypocrite, just like the Reverand Flagel in the Porkey's
Movies.
Watching porn on Sat. nite and preaching of it's evils on Sun. morning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OD_zI4dib4


--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...m_is_dead.html

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Alias wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 04/02/2011 07:03 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>>
>>> Really? As the tiny number of Linux users increase slightly, so does the
>>> number of Linux viruses. Yet isn't Linux supposed to be safer today? And
>>> to get the idea of how Linux can be infected, here is a good read.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mputer_viruses
>> Yawn.
>
> Indeed. A handful of "issues" compared to "Typhoid Microsoft".

The claim was Linux doesn't get viruses. So I guess that was just a lie,
eh? So what else is new?

And what is even more laughable is considering the small number of
applications that runs under Linux. How many games can Linux run now?
About 300 isn't it?

> Laughable in the extreme.

What is even more laughable is the Commodore 64 was said to run 20,000
applications if I remember right. And was popular for 10 years before it
died out. And Linux has been around for 19 years (almost twice as long).
And I don't think it has caught up to the success of the Commodore 64 yet.

> I work at place that's pretty strict. Both Linux and Windows are required
> to run a McAfee "Host based security system". However, Linux is exempt from
> the "anti-virus" requirement.

McAfee is one of the worst. I guess the IT department isn't that bright
where you work at, eh?

> "BillW50"'s silly link shows why; he's not a very sharp tool, is he?

All I had to show was Linux can and does get viruses. Nothing more. If
you want more, I charge by the hour. ;-)

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 17:06:29 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Alias wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 04/02/2011 07:03 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Really? As the tiny number of Linux users increase slightly, so does the
>>>> number of Linux viruses. Yet isn't Linux supposed to be safer today? And
>>>> to get the idea of how Linux can be infected, here is a good read.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mputer_viruses
>>> Yawn.
>>
>> Indeed. A handful of "issues" compared to "Typhoid Microsoft".
>
> The claim was Linux doesn't get viruses. So I guess that was just a lie,
> eh? So what else is new?

Every OS can get viruses.
No exceptions.

Some are targeted more than others because they have more users and the
peripheral damage and publicity for the virus writer are greater.


> And what is even more laughable is considering the small number of
> applications that runs under Linux. How many games can Linux run now?
> About 300 isn't it?

Yea, and about 175 of them are variations on Tetris or Pacman.

>> Laughable in the extreme.
>
> What is even more laughable is the Commodore 64 was said to run 20,000
> applications if I remember right. And was popular for 10 years before it
> died out. And Linux has been around for 19 years (almost twice as long).
> And I don't think it has caught up to the success of the Commodore 64 yet.

The Commodore was an excellent machine.
It had one fault and that was it was percieved as a consumer game
machine
IBM capitalized on that stereotype and gave "credibility" to the PC as a
professional office device.

I laughed my ass off when the original IBMPC was announced.
No color graphics.
Add in boards for everything.
Ancient looking.

The Commodore had a SID chip, various ports to interface with external
devices and so forth.
It was light years ahead of the IBMPC in all but the name, IBM and that
is pretty much what killed it, and the Atari ST for that matter.

>> I work at place that's pretty strict. Both Linux and Windows are required
>> to run a McAfee "Host based security system". However, Linux is exempt from
>> the "anti-virus" requirement.
>
> McAfee is one of the worst. I guess the IT department isn't that bright
> where you work at, eh?

That absolute worst is McAfee.
Bloated, unstable and super control freak like.
It's even worse than Symantec which has cleaned up it's bloated act in
the last year or so.


>> "BillW50"'s silly link shows why; he's not a very sharp tool, is he?
>
> All I had to show was Linux can and does get viruses. Nothing more. If
> you want more, I charge by the hour. ;-)

Awww....good set up but I'll leave Liarmutt alone on this one.
He just hasn't been the same since his master Roy left COLA.

He's like a turd that used to be a floater but is now a sinker.


--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...m_is_dead.html

On 4/2/2011 6:01 PM, flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 17:43:57 -0400, Big Steel wrote:
>
>> On 4/2/2011 5:31 PM, flatfish+++ wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 17:16:19 -0400, Big Steel wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/2/2011 2:25 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> Alias wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/02/2011 07:03 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really? As the tiny number of Linux users increase slightly, so does the
>>>>>>> number of Linux viruses. Yet isn't Linux supposed to be safer today? And
>>>>>>> to get the idea of how Linux can be infected, here is a good read.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mputer_viruses
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed. A handful of "issues" compared to "Typhoid Microsoft".
>>>>>
>>>>> Laughable in the extreme.
>>>>>
>>>>> I work at place that's pretty strict. Both Linux and Windows are required
>>>>> to run a McAfee "Host based security system". However, Linux is exempt from
>>>>> the "anti-virus" requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> "BillW50"'s silly link shows why; he's not a very sharp tool, is he?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, we have a chime-in from Ahlstrom the hypocrite that makes his living
>>>> using MS solutions and he is talking smack as usual. He doesn't use
>>>> Linux at all to make his living.
>>>>
>>>> Laughable.....
>>>
>>> Ahlstrom is a boob.
>>> The worst form of Linux advocate because he is just so petty and
>>> unbelievable.
>>>
>>> He just hasn't been the same since his master Roy left.
>>>
>>> I think he needs to level set and start over again.
>>> Maybe God will grant him a new life.
>>>
>>> Anything has to be better than what he is living now.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's just like when I got tired of Big Blue and decided to make my
>> conversion over the PC(s) and client/server using MS. I was able to do
>> it and didn't take a pay cut either. If he hates MS so much, why can't
>> he convert over to Linux and make a living from Linux?
>
> Because he is a spineless, gormless wonder.
> He is at a job he has probably had for 20 or more years, is comfortable
> and doesn't want to rock the boat.

I was on Big Blue from 1971 to around 1996. However, I did some
contracts on the IBM Personal System 2, Integrated Business Computer
client/server, Apple and Novell server/MS workstation client/server
before I made my way completely off the mainframe.

The only excuse that he can possibly have for not going over to Linux is
that he doesn't ware the pants in his family like you say.

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On 4/02/11, Alias posted:
>> On 04/02/2011 12:09 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>>> I have at least a dozen computers right in this
>>> room alone.
>
>> Why do you have so many?
>
> His heating furnace is out of order.

Nope, many reasons except heat. And most of them only draw 25 watts
anyway. This one is currently drawing 14.2 watts (yes I have a watt
meter connected). Most of the time only one is running. Two running at
the same time happens every once in a while. ;-)

1) Beta testing (the more the better)

2) Many different OS (dualbooting is obsolete here)

3) Backups (never have to worry about a computer failure)

4) Some are the same except have different CPUs installed (great for
performance and beta checking)

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

In article <4d96f7fc$>, .¡
nval¡d says...
>
> On 04/02/2011 12:09 PM, BillW50 wrote:
> > I have at least a dozen computers right in this
> > room alone.
>
> Why do you have so many?

It's amazing how Alias, a self-professed computer support type person,
doesn't have any idea what someone would have a dozen computers in their
home/office.... Sheesh, I wish I only had a dozen, my electric bill
would be a lot cheaper.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
(remove 999 for proper email address)

On 4/2/2011 6:23 PM, Leythos wrote:
> In article<4d96f7fc$>, .¡
> nval¡d says...
>>
>> On 04/02/2011 12:09 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>>> I have at least a dozen computers right in this
>>> room alone.
>>
>> Why do you have so many?
>
> It's amazing how Alias, a self-professed computer support type person,
> doesn't have any idea what someone would have a dozen computers in their
> home/office.... Sheesh, I wish I only had a dozen, my electric bill
> would be a lot cheaper.
>

I use to have a collection myself. I have some computers in storage I am
going to give away. I am just down to a laptop, desktop and my Driod now.

Alias wrote:
> On 04/02/2011 07:03 PM, BillW50 wrote:
>> And if you didn't like EWF or something, there are also lots of other
>> things like sandboxes and the like.
>
> Yeah, like Linux.

No not like Linux. As Linux is weak in the knees and just doesn't have
the support that Windows has. Hell the Mac even has like 10 times more
support than Linux does. And Windows has like 10 times more support than
the Mac.

It is funny watching Linux fanatics brag. They think running a widely
unsupported and ignored OS is such a great thing. ;-)

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)