I'm a slob, and have had enough of it.



Mike Causer wrote:
>
> Lapdogs are a special case; the manufacturers modify even the Windoze
> hardware drivers to get them to operate, so that trying to install
> Windows from Microsoft's own CDs won't work. You must install everything
> that drives hardware from the lapdog creator's own CDs. No course in
> computer science (ain't science, it's still magic and requires sacrifice
> of chickens & goats) will fix the proprietary hardware / proprietary
> software problem.
>


Well that wipes out 35% of the PC market. I run Microsoft Windows on
laptops just fine - the generic drivers work most of the time and its
pretty easy to add the drivers for any proprietary stuff from the
manufacturer's CDs or website. Maybe its inexperience but I was no
closer doing that with just one driver after a day on Linux than I was
at the start.

Tony
 
half_pint wrote:
> And me.


?

> That you value the style of posting more than the content says something
> about how shallow, selfish and narrow minded some people are.


And when you start posting some content "some people" might start
commenting on that too. Sadly your rapidly earned misnomer of half-wit
suits you so well that most will probably play along for a while with
your latest barrage of gibberish before becoming bored and kill-filing
you. This is not bullying, this is applying priorities.

Do you display this level of misplaced arrogance in real life? How often
do you have your nose straightened back out?

Jon
 
half_pint dribbled:
> I disagree, I much prefer top posters it is much easier to read a thread.
> All I have to do is click on the post and I can see the text without the
> pain of locating and dragging the side bar.
>
> And it your attention span is so poor you cannot remember what the previous
> poster said all you have to do is click the previous message in the thread
> branch!!!


But by your own admission, your attention span is so poor that you can't
even go through "the pain of locating and dragging the side bar" to read
posts. This of course does explain the reason why your brief foray into
providing on-topic (But largely incorrect) information rapidly
deteriorated into this current strategy.

On the bright side, you do seem to have returned to using your old
address. Multiple personalities manifesting again?

Jon
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Well that wipes out 35% of the PC market. I run Microsoft Windows on
> laptops just fine - the generic drivers work most of the time and its
> pretty easy to add the drivers for any proprietary stuff from the
> manufacturer's CDs or website. Maybe its inexperience but I was no
> closer doing that with just one driver after a day on Linux than I was
> at the start.


It has improved, but it does often require a little more work than
Windows to get to a reasonably customised level. Of course the trade-off
is against long-term stability and reliability (Did I mention that XP
Pro recently committed Hari-Kiri on my machine?).

I've heard good things about Suse, but haven't tried it myself. Mandrake
10.0 appeared to be more than a little buggy, but that seemed to have
been ironed out for 10.1.

Jon
 
Mike Causer wrote:
> Or, if nostalgia is your thing, and you have the appropriate hardware,
> Stored Safely Somewhere (TM) (in the garage I think) I have QIC-11 tapes
> labelled "SunOs 1.0 Copyright 1983".


Nothing quite that old (Unix-wise anyway. I've got a Sinclair QL in deep
storage in my flat!), but while looking for a cd the other day I found
my original Linux Slackware installset; March 1995. Thinking back over
it, it's definitely come on a long way in the last ten years.

Jon
 
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:13:24 GMT, Mike Causer
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Easily solved! I have many magazine cover CDs and DVDs with full Linux
>distros on them.


I have complete installs for three Red Hat, one Susie and two other
versions. The problem is simply that the software I use for work does
not run under Wine.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales
 
half_pint wrote:
> It should be possible to unravel a post and have it arranged or
> formatted as you like, as either top or bottom posted.
> I could probably do this with a simple UNIX scriipt which
> I could write in a few minutes (a basic one anyway).
> Far harder to do in windows.


While you're writing it, perhaps you could write another one which
automagically removes the (now irrelevant because you top-posted) text
under your reply.

Although given your command of the English language, previously
demonstrated technical knowledge in other fields and the general
impression of stupidity that you give off, I find it hard to believe
that you could even create a file in Unix, let-alone carry out context
sensitive text processing.

Of course, that'd be quite a large project so feel free to prove me
wrong. :)

Jon
 
Paul Rudin wrote:
> No doubt it's terribly unfahsionable these days, but I sort of expect
> people to know how many pounds there are in a kilogramme, and to be
> able to convert between the two in their heads (to all the accuracy
> you need for these kinds of discussions) in considerably less time
> than it takes to use some web service to find the answer.


It is terribly unfashionable these days. Being ed-yew-katid after the
general shift to metric I find any attempt to translate from any
"traditional" measurements painful. After many years I've got estimates
for km to miles and pounds to kg, but I still don't know how many pounds
there are in a stone, so I can't perform the mental gymnastics required
to translate commonly given weights.

Building a bike jig recently required finding 2" x 4" wood. It is now
50mm x 100mm nominal size (a sold) but is actually 45mm x 88mm.

I really do despair. If only we'd dropped miles at the same time then
the old measurements could be allowed to die properly.

Jon
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> Tried that and finally gave up. Tried Knoppix, Mandrake and Linspire
> Laptop on my laptops. On the Toshiba they all gave an unreadable screen
> so I couldn't get any further as I couldn't read the screen. On my Sony
> Vaio the screen's fine but it didn't seem to find the inbuilt wireless
> card. I could not work out how to do the Linux equivalent of "add new
> hardware" to get it working. All the stuff I read involved going in and
> editing bits and pieces of code and required a level of research and
> understanding I did not have time to get. So I'm back with Windows
> which while maybe flawed, doesn't require a course in computer science
> to get it working.


I do have a certain amount of sympathy with that. Fortunately I have a
wife who can fix things up for me. Also, we have recently switched to
Macs (both at home and at work) which seem to have the best of both
worlds in that they have a very easy-to-use switch-on-and-it-works user
interface (seems much simpler than windows), but run on some variant of
linux under the hood so jules can fine-tune things as desired.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
 
Jon Senior wrote:
>
> It has improved, but it does often require a little more work than
> Windows to get to a reasonably customised level. Of course the trade-off
> is against long-term stability and reliability (Did I mention that XP
> Pro recently committed Hari-Kiri on my machine?).
>


I would have agreed with you under older versions of Windows but I must
say that since I switched to XP Pro things have been extremely stable.
Most of the time I just put the machine into hibernate and the only
times I reboot are when new software requires it. I've had programmes
fall over but not the OS in a long time. Haven't dared try SP2 because
its working so well at the moment and I don't want to disturb it!

Tony
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> I would have agreed with you under older versions of Windows but I must
> say that since I switched to XP Pro things have been extremely stable.
> Most of the time I just put the machine into hibernate and the only
> times I reboot are when new software requires it. I've had programmes
> fall over but not the OS in a long time. Haven't dared try SP2 because
> its working so well at the moment and I don't want to disturb it!


XP Pro is a vast improvement over previous. I found it hard to fine tune
though and it still suffers from MS standard bloat where it just gets
podgy over time.

I used to reckon on a life time of 6 months for a windows installation
(After which it usually needed re-installing). From my experience (And a
friend's), I would say that XP extends that to a little over a year.

WRT to SP2, I would say "If it ain't broke...".

Jon
 
Jon Senior wrote:
> It is terribly unfashionable these days. Being ed-yew-katid after the
> general shift to metric I find any attempt to translate from any
> "traditional" measurements painful.


I bet you suffered when you got to university and were told you had to
start using calories, rather than the joules that you were taught to use
at school but that don't really have any meaning in biological systems.
I know I did, never having used calories in my life before then.

SI units aren't always the best for any given purpose. Would you
measure enzyme activity in katals? I was told about them, then advised
not to use them.

> but I still don't know how many pounds there are in a stone


I find that shocking. It's 14, btw.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 00:20:10 +0000,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote:
> Mike Causer wrote:
>> Or, if nostalgia is your thing, and you have the appropriate hardware,
>> Stored Safely Somewhere (TM) (in the garage I think) I have QIC-11 tapes
>> labelled "SunOs 1.0 Copyright 1983".

>
> Nothing quite that old (Unix-wise anyway. I've got a Sinclair QL in deep
> storage in my flat!), but while looking for a cd the other day I found
> my original Linux Slackware installset; March 1995. Thinking back over
> it, it's definitely come on a long way in the last ten years.


I still have the SLS Linux install floppies (yes floppies - about 50 of them)
somewhere. The kernel still hadn't reached version 1.0 yet.

I've also got a QL as well.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
 
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 00:38:35 +0000,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote:
> I really do despair. If only we'd dropped miles at the same time then
> the old measurements could be allowed to die properly.


Note to self - Jon doesn't like pints. <g>

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
 
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I used to reckon on a life time of 6 months for a windows installation
> (After which it usually needed re-installing). From my experience (And a
> friend's), I would say that XP extends that to a little over a year.


Still using my old NT4 machine downstairs, going since 1998. The Win2K one
here has been going for a couple of years now. Even the 98 install managed
to last over a year before I abandoned it for other reasons. Our computers
aren't left on overnight though.

cheers,
clive
 
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:53:13 +0000, Danny Colyer wrote:

> Jon Senior wrote:
>> It is terribly unfashionable these days. Being ed-yew-katid after the
>> general shift to metric I find any attempt to translate from any
>> "traditional" measurements painful.

>
> I bet you suffered when you got to university and were told you had to
> start using calories, rather than the joules that you were taught to use
> at school but that don't really have any meaning in biological systems.
> I know I did, never having used calories in my life before then.


Having seen pictures of you I would have thought you were too old not to
have used calories in school.

--
Michael MacClancy
 
Evety point u made was wrong.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:13:27 -0000, "half_pint" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
> >WEll if you read the tread from the top, as is normal,
> >you will have read the item which was being responsed to
> >lass than a few seconds ago, it your short term memmory is
> >shorter than a couple of seconds then you should see a doctor,
> >you may also have a sense of deja vu.

>
> You display a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Usenet.
> It is not IRC, it is not real-time, and it is not uncommon to go days
> between post and reply. It is also common to search the archives
> years later for specific references.
>
> You also display a fundamental ignorance of the way many (probably
> most) Usenet users approach a thread. Those who use a newsreader will
> normally read unread posts, not follow the entire thread each time,
> and Google users will tend to see the newest replies. That's why we
> have quoted text in the first place, after all.
>
> Anyone would think you had mistaken uk.rec.cycling for one of the web
> forums which use it as a feed...
>
> Guy
> --
> "then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
> blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
> onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
> around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales
 
Attention span has nothing to do with efficient time and computer
usage.

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> half_pint dribbled:
> > I disagree, I much prefer top posters it is much easier to read a

thread.
> > All I have to do is click on the post and I can see the text without the
> > pain of locating and dragging the side bar.
> >
> > And it your attention span is so poor you cannot remember what the

previous
> > poster said all you have to do is click the previous message in the

thread
> > branch!!!

>
> But by your own admission, your attention span is so poor that you can't
> even go through "the pain of locating and dragging the side bar" to read
> posts. This of course does explain the reason why your brief foray into
> providing on-topic (But largely incorrect) information rapidly
> deteriorated into this current strategy.
>
> On the bright side, you do seem to have returned to using your old
> address. Multiple personalities manifesting again?
>
> Jon
 
sed s/\.>\.$//

might do it. probably better ways though.

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> half_pint wrote:
> > It should be possible to unravel a post and have it arranged or
> > formatted as you like, as either top or bottom posted.
> > I could probably do this with a simple UNIX scriipt which
> > I could write in a few minutes (a basic one anyway).
> > Far harder to do in windows.

>
> While you're writing it, perhaps you could write another one which
> automagically removes the (now irrelevant because you top-posted) text
> under your reply.
>
> Although given your command of the English language, previously
> demonstrated technical knowledge in other fields and the general
> impression of stupidity that you give off, I find it hard to believe
> that you could even create a file in Unix, let-alone carry out context
> sensitive text processing.
>
> Of course, that'd be quite a large project so feel free to prove me
> wrong. :)
>
> Jon
 

Similar threads

A
Replies
247
Views
8K
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J