Microsoft end of support dates

Joel
news 13:02:43 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Diesel wrote:
Joel
m Wed, 15 Jul 2020
17:09:19 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
"Apd" wrote:

There were a lot of changes in Vista and much code will have
been reworked/rewritten but it is still an incremental build
from NT 5.2 (Server 2003) to NT 6.0 (Vista) of the same NT OS as
conceived by Dave Cutler and friends. There has been redesign of
some nmajor components.

"building on the Windows Server 2003 codebase"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develo..._Windows_Vista

That, and a series of linked entries from there show how much
work and changes went into it over a long period.

Reading that does elucidate some of the timing aspects, but it's
still amazing that it was released with the quality of a beta,
and it took till the second service pack to change that. If it
wasn't a rewrite, they sure could've fooled me into thinking it
was.

They fooled you then. I'm just curious as to why you have a
different attitude with Apd than you do with me, despite both of
us telling you the same thing. Apd tells you one time, provides
nothing to support it, you accept it. I do the same, provide
supporting evidence, you continue to argue with me. What's the
deal?


I don't really accept that Vista wasn't a rewrite or close to it.
The point I was making in reply to Apd is that if it *wasn't* a
rewrite, it sure looked like one.

It doesn't matter if you accept it or not, the fact still remains
that Windows Vista is not a from scratch rewrite, as in starting
over, with the Windows NT family, no. It's based on Windows XP. It
still has a considerable amount of shared code base with Windows XP.




--
Currently awaiting aviatory porcine activity.

Snit
Thu, 16 Jul 2020 18:48:38 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 7/16/20 6:02 AM, Joel wrote:
Diesel wrote:
Joel
Wed, 15 Jul 2020
17:09:19 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
"Apd" wrote:

There were a lot of changes in Vista and much code will have
been reworked/rewritten but it is still an incremental build
from NT 5.2 (Server 2003) to NT 6.0 (Vista) of the same NT OS
as conceived by Dave Cutler and friends. There has been
redesign of some nmajor components.

"building on the Windows Server 2003 codebase"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develo..._Windows_Vista

That, and a series of linked entries from there show how much
work and changes went into it over a long period.

Reading that does elucidate some of the timing aspects, but
it's still amazing that it was released with the quality of a
beta, and it took till the second service pack to change that.
If it wasn't a rewrite, they sure could've fooled me into
thinking it was.

They fooled you then. I'm just curious as to why you have a
different attitude with Apd than you do with me, despite both of
us telling you the same thing. Apd tells you one time, provides
nothing to support it, you accept it. I do the same, provide
supporting evidence, you continue to argue with me. What's the
deal?


I don't really accept that Vista wasn't a rewrite or close to it.
The point I was making in reply to Apd is that if it *wasn't* a
rewrite, it sure looked like one.


I think MS tried to at least pass it off as one. As big as the
code base was, though, it was not a full re-write in the sense of
say moving from Classic Mac to Mac OS X / MacOS.

That's a marketing dept for you, if that's actually what happened. I
suspect someone misquoted something they were told and assumed that
Vista was a from scratch rewrite. It's not, not even close. It has a
****load of code shared with windows XP, and it should, it's based
off the XP codebase.




--
On Earth there is no reckoning.

Joel
Thu, 16 Jul 2020
13:20:10 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Diesel wrote:
Snit
Wed, 15 Jul 2020 19:31:58
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 7/15/20 3:18 AM, Diesel wrote:
Snit
Mon, 13 Jul 2020 00:01:34
GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

He already explained it to me ... and not quite as you did.

You found his explanation easier? It was rather generic.

Some people know how to be concise and clear. You might get
there some day.

Hmm.

Message-ID:

You wrote:
If you install from another source it wipes out your browsing
history?

And he responded with:

No, it would install to my /home directory, and run independently
of Ubuntu's version. Having to log into all the sites I use would
be a waste of effort, since Ubuntu will no doubt release an update
before long.

*** end snippit

Message-ID:
L4ldKhB34A3gm5omP5J


You wrote:
If you install from another source it wipes out your browsing
history?

And I responded with:

It can, bookmarks, cookies, etc, too. He's using the distro build.
He could copy the data and restore it, but he'd have to know where
his profile is being stored on his distro, since it's not using
his home folder.

** end snippit

How is what I wrote not as concise and clear as what he wrote to
you? Further, I provided you more specific information than he
did. He was of the mistaken impression that he couldn't load the
non distro version and copy all of his things over to it.


You have a strong tendency to put words in my mouth.

I wasn't sure I did that the last time you made the accusation, so I
errored on the side of caution and apologized for it regardless. This
time, I didn't do what you claimed, so I won't be apologizing for it.

You specifically told Snit no, and provided generic excuses for why
you wrote no. I wasn't putting any words in your mouth when I
compared the differences in what I told him vs what you told him.

Of course there should be a way to copy those files, but it
wouldn't be any less trouble than just putting in my Gmail
password, etc., to the various sites I use.

How do you figure that? I'm literally talking about cp one folder
contents to another here. Or using the DE if you'd prefer. You can
login to each of those sites faster than your computer can just
duplicate your entire configuration?

Bookmarks would just be a simple export and
import from the Ubuntu Firefox to the Mozilla generic Linux
Firefox. But neither method is worthwhile since Ubuntu releases
updates to Firefox regularly.

You don't even have to bother. You could just copy your profile over
to the other firefox, easily. That'll take care of your bookmarks,
logins, cookies, history, even your cache if you want to keep it,
assuming you don't clear it each time you close the browser. No
****ing around inside the browser to export/import things, just copy
the damn folder.

He doesn't
seem to know the folders location or the actual names of the files
he needs to copy.


I could find that out, though, if it were important to me.

Fact is, you don't currently know the location to your browsers
profile right?


I do, it's why I wrote what I did. It's how I keep
all my computers with the same bookmarks on them. They aren't all
even using the same OS, but since I know where the important files
are and what they are named, that doesn't matter.

Snit, cluebyfour, we disagreed with each other in our replies to
you. I don't see how that's more concise and clear for you. He
told you no, I told you yes and went onto tell you what else you
could copy over if you wanted to do so. He was concerned with
losing things - if he really knew what he was doing, he wouldn't
be losing anything, and wouldn't have told you no.


I never said anything about "losing" things, that's not at all
what I meant to say, either - it's just that the Ubuntu Firefox
already has all my sites logged in, etc., why would I need to get
the latest Firefox from Mozilla when I know Ubuntu will release it
within a few days?

You don't. I didn't say you had to, I simply said that you could, and
keep all of your things as you did so. Which is contradictory to what
you told Snit:

Message-ID:
Snit wrote:

I just checked for updates, nothing yet. I could download it
directly from Mozilla, but all my browsing history is in the
distro version, so it's kind of pointless.

If you install from another source it wipes out your browsing
history?

No, it would install to my /home directory, and run independently of
Ubuntu's version. Having to log into all the sites I use would be a
waste of effort, since Ubuntu will no doubt release an update before
long.

*** end

You wouldn't have to relogin to anything, if you just copied your
profile over. You could actually have two independent copies of your
browser that had the same information available to you, if you wanted
by doing that.

You can keep a complete backup of your entire profile with your
favorite archiving app, just process the folder and keep a safe copy
of it, in the event you trash your profile, you can restore it.


And, he'd know the non distro build doesn't have to be installed
into his /home folder, either. It could be installed to the same
location as the already existing one,


Not true. I don't have write access to where Ubuntu's Firefox is
stored. It's also not precisely the same version, so I'd risk
breaking something, trying to replace it. It's just better to get
updates from Ubuntu.

Actually, by default, the OS is hand holding you, but there's
absolutely nothing stopping you from changing the folder permissions
so that you can write to it, if you wanted to do so. Or, just temp
use the root account to do that, but you don't need write access to
that profile folder to copy it's contents to the non distro installed
one.

As for the slight differences in versions, it's not what you're
thinking, Typically the latest edition of firefox will accept the
profile from the previous version and versions going back a
considerable ways. It might 'convert' or otherwise update your
profile files to the current version though. Which means, you
wouldn't be able to use that profile with an older copy of firefox
anymore. But, that still doesn't matter, because it's the profile you
copied for that install of firefox anyway.

or his /home folder or damn
near any other place he wants. And he can, whenever he likes, copy
the distro browsers info to the non distro version. His history,
the cookies, bookmarks, even the ****ing cache itself if he
actually wanted it for some reason. Again, he wouldn't have told
you no and given you a lazy generic reason for why if he really
knew the OS as well as he lets on.


I don't claim to know Linux all that well, actually.

I can tell. Which is why I wrote what I did there, Joel...

I learn what I need to install and use it, but I knew a lot more
about Windows. I was a Windows fan, I was a poster in
aco.windows-10, one of the groups in this thread, before I
switched to Linux. Microsoft lost my support with their horrible
Windows 10 indefinite beta test.

Nothing wrong with that, Joel. Do you prefer CLI installations, or
one of the GUI package managers?

Hell Snit, as part of my data backup procedures, my browsers data
folder is also backed up. So I can easily restore my previous
browsing experience if something breaks. I've got a lot of custom
bookmarks, and logins for electronics related sites, so I too need
my browser to remember things for me. And like Joel, I take
advantage of browser history to quickly return to some site I
found interesting but didn't have the time on my last visit to
explore as much as I wanted.


I didn't mention doing that, but it is true that I use the history
to find sites again at times.

Yea, it's a very common thing that a lot of people do. Why do you
suppose the browser even retains a history? heh.

I'm not really into holding grudges at this point in my life. We
could argue over "whose fault it is", or we could just move on and
have some interesting discussions, and I'm glad we seem to prefer
the latter.

Sure, why not. You haven't as far as I know tried to pass off any
horse **** stories about me; so I have no issues with you. The same
obviously cannot be said of your friend, Snit, though. He told a hell
of a porkie, and hasn't been able to backup a single bit of it. I
confess, it's amusing watching him squirm and wiggle around so much.
It really is. David does it a lot too, for the same reasons. They
don't lie all that well.



--
It doesn't have to make sense. It just has to work.

On 7/16/20 4:28 PM, Diesel wrote:
Joel
Thu, 16 Jul 2020
13:00:21 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

Diesel wrote:

senile? Joel, umm, let's not even go there; I've yet to state
that I thought I was Jesus Christ himself at any point in time,
but I do recall you stating as such...

Not precisely, Jesus was a deity in the flesh, and still is
spiritually.

Point being, let's not be pointing fingers. I already let you
slide on your more than slightly crazy rants already in your first
reply to me. Quite uncalled for, and downright out of line for you
to have written to me in the manner in which you did;


I was replying in kind to the condescending tone you took. If I
was incorrect in what I was asserting, I apologize, but I'm not so
sure I was.

I wasn't being condescending intentionally.

At least you are becoming aware of your challenge here. I commend you
for it. Seriously -- no snark intended.

You often come across as very condescending and as if you really want to
promote yourself and impress others. Maybe I can just kindly let you
know when I see it -- that would be a better response from ME.

You know more about programming, it seems, but we weren't talking
about our relative skills, we were talking about what Microsoft
had done.

Yes, I do. and yes we were, specifically, what you incorrectly
thought they had done. They did not start over with Windows Vista.
You either mis remembered something, and/or read an article where
some users had asked/complained about why they hadn't done that.


That was just, entirely, stupid of you to have gone and
attacked me as you did in that post, Joel.

But, I'm not taking it personal; I don't even care. I just
reminded you of it so we don't point fingers in the future. As
well, if you don't have clean hands, you know, the hyprocrisy.


I'm not sure how my identity is relevant to a discussion of
operating systems.

Hmm. I know Snit has been trying hard to spin things as to my having
a reading comprehension problem here, but, I wasn't referencing your
identity in that comment.

I am noting examples where you do -- and there are many. And, yeah, I
admit I am tossing your insults back at you. As you attack me for
something you repeatedly demonstrate I admit to tossing it in your face
and watching you respond, shall we say, not exactly great.

I am happy to back off... but keep in mind I am mostly just using your
own attacks against you.

....

For what it is worth, and perhaps contrary to what you think you know of
me, I am happy to see you and Joel get along better. I have no interest
in encouraging others to get involved with whatever battle you want to
have with me.

I have no interest in such a battle. Can you move past it? Accept we had
a misunderstanding and just move forward without holding grudges? I can.
It is the adult thing to do. I hope you can.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 7/16/20 4:28 PM, Diesel wrote:
Snit
Thu, 16 Jul 2020 18:48:38 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 7/16/20 6:02 AM, Joel wrote:
Diesel wrote:
Joel
Wed, 15 Jul 2020
17:09:19 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
"Apd" wrote:

There were a lot of changes in Vista and much code will have
been reworked/rewritten but it is still an incremental build
from NT 5.2 (Server 2003) to NT 6.0 (Vista) of the same NT OS
as conceived by Dave Cutler and friends. There has been
redesign of some nmajor components.

"building on the Windows Server 2003 codebase"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develo..._Windows_Vista

That, and a series of linked entries from there show how much
work and changes went into it over a long period.

Reading that does elucidate some of the timing aspects, but
it's still amazing that it was released with the quality of a
beta, and it took till the second service pack to change that.
If it wasn't a rewrite, they sure could've fooled me into
thinking it was.

They fooled you then. I'm just curious as to why you have a
different attitude with Apd than you do with me, despite both of
us telling you the same thing. Apd tells you one time, provides
nothing to support it, you accept it. I do the same, provide
supporting evidence, you continue to argue with me. What's the
deal?


I don't really accept that Vista wasn't a rewrite or close to it.
The point I was making in reply to Apd is that if it *wasn't* a
rewrite, it sure looked like one.


I think MS tried to at least pass it off as one. As big as the
code base was, though, it was not a full re-write in the sense of
say moving from Classic Mac to Mac OS X / MacOS.

That's a marketing dept for you, if that's actually what happened.

I think it is -- but it is not like I have dug back to find old ads or
the like.

I
suspect someone misquoted something they were told and assumed that
Vista was a from scratch rewrite. It's not, not even close. It has a
****load of code shared with windows XP, and it should, it's based
off the XP codebase.

I would agree. It was not like Apple moving from Classic Mac to OS X /
macOS.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 7/16/20 4:28 PM, Diesel wrote:
....
You have a strong tendency to put words in my mouth.

I wasn't sure I did that the last time you made the accusation, so I
errored on the side of caution and apologized for it regardless. This
time, I didn't do what you claimed, so I won't be apologizing for it.

So you have a misunderstanding. You can focus on that or you can focus
on moving forward in peace. I trust Joel to do as I do, move forward in
peace EVEN IF you two never agree on, or even delve into, if you did or
did not do as he says.

You specifically told Snit no, and provided generic excuses for why
you wrote no. I wasn't putting any words in your mouth when I
compared the differences in what I told him vs what you told him.

His excuse was not "generic" -- it was specific to the question. He
showed he understood it and knew where my likely confusion might come from.

Of course there should be a way to copy those files, but it
wouldn't be any less trouble than just putting in my Gmail
password, etc., to the various sites I use.

How do you figure that? I'm literally talking about cp one folder
contents to another here. Or using the DE if you'd prefer. You can
login to each of those sites faster than your computer can just
duplicate your entire configuration?

Bookmarks would just be a simple export and
import from the Ubuntu Firefox to the Mozilla generic Linux
Firefox. But neither method is worthwhile since Ubuntu releases
updates to Firefox regularly.

You don't even have to bother. You could just copy your profile over
to the other firefox, easily. That'll take care of your bookmarks,
logins, cookies, history, even your cache if you want to keep it,
assuming you don't clear it each time you close the browser. No
****ing around inside the browser to export/import things, just copy
the damn folder.

OK, here he speaks of a different method and you suggest one that might
be better. And your method is fine. If Joel seems confused about what
you are saying it makes sense to be more specific with folder locations
and the like.

This is you being on topic and relevant in a suggestion when you have
some reason to think he might not know. I commend you for that.

He doesn't
seem to know the folders location or the actual names of the files
he needs to copy.

I could find that out, though, if it were important to me.

Fact is, you don't currently know the location to your browsers
profile right?

In case he does not, it will give him the direct path in Help
Troubleshooting under "Profile Folder".

See: this might be a better way to move things along faster -- there is
a good chance he DOES know, but in case he does not that right there
will tell him. Perhaps you did not know that method to quickly find it.
Maybe you did.

I do, it's why I wrote what I did. It's how I keep
all my computers with the same bookmarks on them. They aren't all
even using the same OS, but since I know where the important files
are and what they are named, that doesn't matter.

Snit, cluebyfour, we disagreed with each other in our replies to
you. I don't see how that's more concise and clear for you. He
told you no, I told you yes and went onto tell you what else you
could copy over if you wanted to do so. He was concerned with
losing things - if he really knew what he was doing, he wouldn't
be losing anything, and wouldn't have told you no.

I never said anything about "losing" things, that's not at all
what I meant to say, either - it's just that the Ubuntu Firefox
already has all my sites logged in, etc., why would I need to get
the latest Firefox from Mozilla when I know Ubuntu will release it
within a few days?

You don't. I didn't say you had to, I simply said that you could, and
keep all of your things as you did so. Which is contradictory to what
you told Snit:

Message-ID:
Snit wrote:

I was asking about it wiping the history -- with the context being in
the first copy. It would not... but it also would not copy it to the new
installation. The part I was missing was that the new installation would
not look at the same settings. He answered just fine.

But, sure, it make sense to let him know, just in case, that it is
pretty easy to transfer the settings over. If you wished to do that it
would make sense to speak of the profile folder and how to find it. I
*suspect* his response, given his level of concern, would be that even
that simple procedure would not be worth it to him (especially when he
will be likely switching back to the "main" version soon).

None of this needs to be drama.

....
And, he'd know the non distro build doesn't have to be installed
into his /home folder, either. It could be installed to the same
location as the already existing one,

Not true. I don't have write access to where Ubuntu's Firefox is
stored. It's also not precisely the same version, so I'd risk
breaking something, trying to replace it. It's just better to get
updates from Ubuntu.

Actually, by default, the OS is hand holding you, but there's
absolutely nothing stopping you from changing the folder permissions
so that you can write to it, if you wanted to do so. Or, just temp
use the root account to do that, but you don't need write access to
that profile folder to copy it's contents to the non distro installed
one.

As for the slight differences in versions, it's not what you're
thinking, Typically the latest edition of firefox will accept the
profile from the previous version and versions going back a
considerable ways. It might 'convert' or otherwise update your
profile files to the current version though. Which means, you
wouldn't be able to use that profile with an older copy of firefox
anymore. But, that still doesn't matter, because it's the profile you
copied for that install of firefox anyway.

When the distro updated its version would it copy over the already
installed one?

....
I didn't mention doing that, but it is true that I use the history
to find sites again at times.

Yea, it's a very common thing that a lot of people do. Why do you
suppose the browser even retains a history? heh.

Good to see you understood this... as I described to you recently:

Diesel:
-----
Hell Snit, as part of my data backup procedures, my
browsers data folder is also backed up. So I can easily
restore my previous browsing experience if something
breaks. I've got a lot of custom bookmarks, and logins for
electronics related sites, so I too need my browser to
remember things for me. And like Joel, I take advantage of
browser history to quickly return to some site I found
interesting but didn't have the time on my last visit to
explore as much as I wanted.
-----

Joel:
-----
I didn't mention doing that, but it is true that I use the
history to find sites again at times.
-----

Snit:
-----
Diesel is bragging he uses, sigh, his browser history.
Really? Does he not get that a large part of the reason
browsers keep such a history is to allow the very thing
being described? It is not like he has found some clever
use for it!

Now if he was merely showing his workflow and asking about
how others did things that would be fine -- but he assumes
he is doing something special. It is weird how he can know
so much about computers but be completely clueless as to
how they tend to be used.
-----

Now you seem to agree with what I noted. Excellent!

I'm not really into holding grudges at this point in my life. We
could argue over "whose fault it is", or we could just move on and
have some interesting discussions, and I'm glad we seem to prefer
the latter.

Sure, why not. You haven't as far as I know tried to pass off any
horse **** stories about me; so I have no issues with you. The same
obviously cannot be said of your friend, Snit, though. He told a hell
of a porkie, and hasn't been able to backup a single bit of it. I
confess, it's amusing watching him squirm and wiggle around so much.
It really is. David does it a lot too, for the same reasons. They
don't lie all that well.

You say I try to present you as not understanding what you read -- but
when I have gone into quite some detail no less than 14 times, and then
noted those 14 times several times as well, it is a clear sign of your
failure to understand (or at least pretend to fail) when you say I have
not backed up what I said. Fourteen times I have. At least.

I get that you might not AGREE. That is cool. But the fact you cannot
even understand, or pretend not to, does not speak well of you.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Diesel wrote:

senile? Joel, umm, let's not even go there; I've yet to state
that I thought I was Jesus Christ himself at any point in time,
but I do recall you stating as such...

Not precisely, Jesus was a deity in the flesh, and still is
spiritually.

Point being, let's not be pointing fingers. I already let you
slide on your more than slightly crazy rants already in your first
reply to me. Quite uncalled for, and downright out of line for you
to have written to me in the manner in which you did;

I was replying in kind to the condescending tone you took. If I
was incorrect in what I was asserting, I apologize, but I'm not so
sure I was.

I wasn't being condescending intentionally.

You know more about programming, it seems, but we weren't talking
about our relative skills, we were talking about what Microsoft
had done.

Yes, I do. and yes we were, specifically, what you incorrectly
thought they had done. They did not start over with Windows Vista.
You either mis remembered something, and/or read an article where
some users had asked/complained about why they hadn't done that.


No, I read an article saying quite plainly that that's what they
decided to do after Server 2003.


That was just, entirely, stupid of you to have gone and
attacked me as you did in that post, Joel.

But, I'm not taking it personal; I don't even care. I just
reminded you of it so we don't point fingers in the future. As
well, if you don't have clean hands, you know, the hyprocrisy.

I'm not sure how my identity is relevant to a discussion of
operating systems.

Hmm. I know Snit has been trying hard to spin things as to my having
a reading comprehension problem here, but, I wasn't referencing your
identity in that comment.


See the quoting at the beginning of this post. You had brought up my
identity in the section of the reply that turned into this among other
sections.


As I said, I left my potential career in programming behind when I
dropped out of college. I have casually studied some aspects of
it since then, but just out of curiosity, not to have hands on
experience. Then again, I've done some pretty cool stuff with
mIRC scripting, so my skills weren't entirely out of use.

mIRC was/still is an excellent client for Windows users. I tend to
run X-chat or, BitchX depending on my mood.


I still run mIRC under Wine, as I do Forte Agent. They are each the
best GUI programs for their purposes.


I don't disagree with you concerning that. My disagreement as you
well know is what you thought was going on concerning the legacy
code support.

But all I was saying is that it was a part of why Windows 2000
wasn't ready to replace the 95 branch at its release. There were
multiple reasons for that, but support of old games and such was
one of them. XP and 2000 SP2 did as much as possible to bring that
to fruition.

Supporting old games was not the primary focus. I'm glad things
worked out that way to a point, but that wasn't the primary focus.


I'm not doubting that there were numerous reasons for it, but it was a
reason, because they wanted XP to completely replace the 95 line. Even
as it was, there were people who continued using 9x for games that
just couldn't run well or at all on XP, but Microsoft did what they
could.


And well, your continued claims that you thought mistakenly,
that Windows vista was a from scratch total rewrite. It's not.

Well, I mean, maybe Notepad and all that weren't rewritten, I
don't see why they'd need to be, as they aren't really part of the
OS itself.

I wasn't writing about Notepad, and I think you know better than to
assume that...


I didn't say you were writing about it, I was just giving an example
of where it wouldn't need to be a rewrite.


But certainly the core OS was either rewritten or
overhauled so much that the RTM and even SP1 releases of Vista
weren't in good shape. I still have yet to hear an explanation
for that, if Vista wasn't a radical change from the XP/2003
codebase.

The core OS was not rewritten, it was modified to a great extent
though, but, not rewritten and not overhauled. You've been
misinformed.


That "great extent" was pretty damn great, given that it took two
service packs to make the product usable.


I would consider it unethical to look at leaked source code for
commercial software. It would be one thing if Microsoft
officially made it available, but as far as I know they did not
want any of that made public.

Well, I'm not in competition with MS in any way shape or form here,
so I didn't find any harm in having a peek. The code base in Vista
isn't a total rewrite, you are mistaken in thinking it was.


OK, but it still could've fooled me, given what I read and given the
quality of it before SP2.


Certainly there were brand new parts of the OS that were not part
of the rewrite of the internals, but the beta quality of Vista
before SP2 indicates more than that was going on.

The brand new parts is mostly related to the different interface in
Vista. That required some driver rework, as well as the underlying
video interface system. Otherwise, it's still mostly, XP codebase
under the hood. The followup service packs corrected bugs and other
issues with the modifications. They aren't introducing a new
codebase.

I was also a beta tester, via technet, as an oem. They kept us in the
loop so we could continue to support our business customers first and
home users second, until atleast sp1. I can't tell you how many hours
I've spent on the phone with a live MS technician going over
crashdumps helping to debug the damn thing. It was released way too
early.


Yeah, but it's funny how "too early" was still way behind their usual
schedule. Especially if you look at when SP2 was released alongside
Win7, since that was when it was really complete.


That's not what I wrote, Joel...

Not precisely, you're right, it's just that you hadn't
interpreted what I wrote fairly either. When I called 2000 an
"upgrade" to NT 4, I simply meant it was the next version of
that OS, built on its existing codebase.

I interpreted what you wrote, actually, just fine. The problem I
had with what you wrote is that code base comparisons via leaked
source code don't support your opinion.

The packaging for Windows 2000 literally said "built on NT
technology". It's not an opinion that 2000 is the successor to NT
4.

I didn't dispute that it's the successor to NT 4, Joel...


You took issue with me calling it an upgrade to NT 4. That's all I'm
discussing in this section.


Well, I just wanted a better OS. We needed a new computer in
general, but by insisting we go with 2000, I avoided dealing with
98 any longer. I was tired of having to reboot everyday, tired of
the clunky interface. I had seen that 2000 was ready enough for
our purposes, to move on to a more modern computing experience.

The actual interface between windows98 if you turned Activedesktop
off and windows 2000 weren't that much different...


The basic GUI was about the same, yeah, but what about comparing the
little toy box that popped up with Ctrl-Alt-Del under 98, to 2000's
Task Manager? That was a big upgrade for me.

--
Joel Crump

Diesel wrote:

I don't really accept that Vista wasn't a rewrite or close to it.
The point I was making in reply to Apd is that if it *wasn't* a
rewrite, it sure looked like one.

It doesn't matter if you accept it or not, the fact still remains
that Windows Vista is not a from scratch rewrite, as in starting
over, with the Windows NT family, no. It's based on Windows XP. It
still has a considerable amount of shared code base with Windows XP.


I'm beginning to believe you, at this point. But I still think my
basic points were correct, there's no way it could be *closely* based
on XP, and be delayed so much and so shoddy before SP2.

--
Joel Crump

Diesel wrote:

How is what I wrote not as concise and clear as what he wrote to
you? Further, I provided you more specific information than he
did. He was of the mistaken impression that he couldn't load the
non distro version and copy all of his things over to it.

You have a strong tendency to put words in my mouth.

I wasn't sure I did that the last time you made the accusation, so I
errored on the side of caution and apologized for it regardless. This
time, I didn't do what you claimed, so I won't be apologizing for it.

You specifically told Snit no, and provided generic excuses for why
you wrote no. I wasn't putting any words in your mouth when I
compared the differences in what I told him vs what you told him.


But you see, I never said that what you suggested couldn't be
done - the idea was that it wasn't how I would approach it. If I
wanted to stop using Ubuntu's Firefox, it wouldn't be that much
trouble to start over with Mozilla's generic Linux Firefox, although I
would export and import my bookmarks. But it's not something I really
need to do, because if there's a critical update to Firefox, Ubuntu
will release it ASAP, and other updates are released in a timely
manner.


Of course there should be a way to copy those files, but it
wouldn't be any less trouble than just putting in my Gmail
password, etc., to the various sites I use.

How do you figure that? I'm literally talking about cp one folder
contents to another here. Or using the DE if you'd prefer. You can
login to each of those sites faster than your computer can just
duplicate your entire configuration?


Well, what you're suggesting isn't necessarily a bad idea, but I
haven't bothered to do it when I switch distros, for example. I just
back up my bookmarks before I install the new distro.


Bookmarks would just be a simple export and
import from the Ubuntu Firefox to the Mozilla generic Linux
Firefox. But neither method is worthwhile since Ubuntu releases
updates to Firefox regularly.

You don't even have to bother. You could just copy your profile over
to the other firefox, easily. That'll take care of your bookmarks,
logins, cookies, history, even your cache if you want to keep it,
assuming you don't clear it each time you close the browser. No
****ing around inside the browser to export/import things, just copy
the damn folder.


It's not a bad idea.


He doesn't
seem to know the folders location or the actual names of the files
he needs to copy.

I could find that out, though, if it were important to me.

Fact is, you don't currently know the location to your browsers
profile right?


I haven't had a reason to investigate that, but it would be trivial to
do, I'm quite sure.


I do, it's why I wrote what I did. It's how I keep
all my computers with the same bookmarks on them. They aren't all
even using the same OS, but since I know where the important files
are and what they are named, that doesn't matter.

Snit, cluebyfour, we disagreed with each other in our replies to
you. I don't see how that's more concise and clear for you. He
told you no, I told you yes and went onto tell you what else you
could copy over if you wanted to do so. He was concerned with
losing things - if he really knew what he was doing, he wouldn't
be losing anything, and wouldn't have told you no.

I never said anything about "losing" things, that's not at all
what I meant to say, either - it's just that the Ubuntu Firefox
already has all my sites logged in, etc., why would I need to get
the latest Firefox from Mozilla when I know Ubuntu will release it
within a few days?

You don't. I didn't say you had to, I simply said that you could, and
keep all of your things as you did so. Which is contradictory to what
you told Snit:

Message-ID:
Snit wrote:

I just checked for updates, nothing yet. I could download it
directly from Mozilla, but all my browsing history is in the
distro version, so it's kind of pointless.

If you install from another source it wipes out your browsing
history?

No, it would install to my /home directory, and run independently of
Ubuntu's version. Having to log into all the sites I use would be a
waste of effort, since Ubuntu will no doubt release an update before
long.

*** end

You wouldn't have to relogin to anything, if you just copied your
profile over. You could actually have two independent copies of your
browser that had the same information available to you, if you wanted
by doing that.

You can keep a complete backup of your entire profile with your
favorite archiving app, just process the folder and keep a safe copy
of it, in the event you trash your profile, you can restore it.


I could see why some would take the trouble, but I don't really have a
use for doing that.


And, he'd know the non distro build doesn't have to be installed
into his /home folder, either. It could be installed to the same
location as the already existing one,

Not true. I don't have write access to where Ubuntu's Firefox is
stored. It's also not precisely the same version, so I'd risk
breaking something, trying to replace it. It's just better to get
updates from Ubuntu.

Actually, by default, the OS is hand holding you, but there's
absolutely nothing stopping you from changing the folder permissions
so that you can write to it, if you wanted to do so. Or, just temp
use the root account to do that,


But we're discussing the actual binaries themselves. Trying to
overwrite Ubuntu's Firefox with Mozilla's generic Linux Firefox might
break something.


but you don't need write access to
that profile folder to copy it's contents to the non distro installed
one.


The profile is one thing, but the binaries are another.


As for the slight differences in versions, it's not what you're
thinking, Typically the latest edition of firefox will accept the
profile from the previous version and versions going back a
considerable ways. It might 'convert' or otherwise update your
profile files to the current version though. Which means, you
wouldn't be able to use that profile with an older copy of firefox
anymore. But, that still doesn't matter, because it's the profile you
copied for that install of firefox anyway.


Again, we were discussing the binaries.


or his /home folder or damn
near any other place he wants. And he can, whenever he likes, copy
the distro browsers info to the non distro version. His history,
the cookies, bookmarks, even the ****ing cache itself if he
actually wanted it for some reason. Again, he wouldn't have told
you no and given you a lazy generic reason for why if he really
knew the OS as well as he lets on.

I don't claim to know Linux all that well, actually.

I can tell. Which is why I wrote what I did there, Joel...


But you were you talking about a hypothetical scenario, it didn't
actually contradict what I wrote to Snit.


I learn what I need to install and use it, but I knew a lot more
about Windows. I was a Windows fan, I was a poster in
aco.windows-10, one of the groups in this thread, before I
switched to Linux. Microsoft lost my support with their horrible
Windows 10 indefinite beta test.

Nothing wrong with that, Joel. Do you prefer CLI installations, or
one of the GUI package managers?


Depends on the software in question. When I ran Fedora, for example,
it came with Wine installed out of the box, but under Mint and Ubuntu
I found using the command line to install Wine was the only reliable
option. But for a simpler app that's available in the repository, I
just use Ubuntu's GUI software manager.


Hell Snit, as part of my data backup procedures, my browsers data
folder is also backed up. So I can easily restore my previous
browsing experience if something breaks. I've got a lot of custom
bookmarks, and logins for electronics related sites, so I too need
my browser to remember things for me. And like Joel, I take
advantage of browser history to quickly return to some site I
found interesting but didn't have the time on my last visit to
explore as much as I wanted.

I didn't mention doing that, but it is true that I use the history
to find sites again at times.

Yea, it's a very common thing that a lot of people do. Why do you
suppose the browser even retains a history? heh.


I know that, I was just responding to what you said, you inaccurately
said that I talked about using the history.


I'm not really into holding grudges at this point in my life. We
could argue over "whose fault it is", or we could just move on and
have some interesting discussions, and I'm glad we seem to prefer
the latter.

Sure, why not. You haven't as far as I know tried to pass off any
horse **** stories about me; so I have no issues with you. The same
obviously cannot be said of your friend, Snit, though. He told a hell
of a porkie, and hasn't been able to backup a single bit of it. I
confess, it's amusing watching him squirm and wiggle around so much.
It really is. David does it a lot too, for the same reasons. They
don't lie all that well.


I haven't followed the back-and-forth in those endless threads in ACW.
Life's too short. But at the same time, I've never once had someone
clearly explain why Snit is a "troll" and all the other accusations. I
also have gotten to know him apart from Usenet, and I know his
character.

--
Joel Crump

Snit wrote:
On 7/16/20 4:28 PM, Diesel wrote:

He doesn't
seem to know the folders location or the actual names of the files
he needs to copy.

I could find that out, though, if it were important to me.

Fact is, you don't currently know the location to your browsers
profile right?

In case he does not, it will give him the direct path in Help
Troubleshooting under "Profile Folder".

See: this might be a better way to move things along faster -- there is
a good chance he DOES know, but in case he does not that right there
will tell him. Perhaps you did not know that method to quickly find it.
Maybe you did.


Your method did work within seconds. This is a line in the
Troubleshooting Information page:

Profile Directory
/home/joel/.mozilla/firefox/ykx1bc5f.default-release

--
Joel Crump

On Jul 17, 2020 at 6:16:51 AM MST, "Joel" wrote:

Snit wrote:
On 7/16/20 4:28 PM, Diesel wrote:

He doesn't
seem to know the folders location or the actual names of the files
he needs to copy.

I could find that out, though, if it were important to me.

Fact is, you don't currently know the location to your browsers
profile right?

In case he does not, it will give him the direct path in Help
Troubleshooting under "Profile Folder".

See: this might be a better way to move things along faster -- there is
a good chance he DOES know, but in case he does not that right there
will tell him. Perhaps you did not know that method to quickly find it.
Maybe you did.


Your method did work within seconds. This is a line in the
Troubleshooting Information page:

Profile Directory
/home/joel/.mozilla/firefox/ykx1bc5f.default-release


From there, if you wanted, you could copy any and all files from the old
profile to the new one. This includes bookmarks, extensions, history, etc.

Just be sure that neither version of Firefox is running. And always a good
idea to back up the profile you are wiping out just in case, though it really
is quite safe (assuming no issues with the old version).

And that assumes you WANT to. There really is no need. If all you want are
bookmarks, for example, what you said with export / import works fine.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 7/19/20 7:30 AM, Joel wrote:
Diesel wrote:
Joel
Sat, 18 Jul 2020
20:35:41 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
"Commander Kinsey" wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 20:34:15 +0100, Joel
wrote:
"Commander Kinsey" wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 21:15:17 +0100, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

2000 is NT 5.

It combined NT and DOS-Windows.

DOS has never been a component of any version of NT.

I didn't say it had, re-read what I wrote more carefully.

What you wrote is quite clear and quite clearly wrong, Win2000 did
not "combine NT and DOS-Windows" (the "Windows" part is obviously
redundant, since NT is an implementation of Windows itself), there
is no DOS in Windows 2000.

It is quite clear, if read correctly, and not quite clearly wrong, if
read as intended.


"As intended"? What the hell else would it mean if not that DOS was
part of Win2000?


*shrug* I can see why some people claim you and
Snit are the same person, Joel.


I think you and Steve Carroll might be the same person, then.

Nah, Diesel is just one of these arrogant and naive "shills" Carroll
likes to speak of. Diesel really has no idea how much of his thinking
here has been influenced by Carroll and his socks. Look at how often,
for example, Diesel replies to Carroll's obvious socks AS IF they were
"new" people.

(And, yes, I know you were just shoving his nonsense back at him.)

A lot of people, including me, did have Win2000 before the release
of Me, but if you notice, there was no "Home" edition of 2000,
that didn't happen until XP. When 2000 was released, 98 SE was
still the current consumer Windows, and Me was such between its
release and the release of XP.

Home/Pro was a marketing ploy to further enrich MS coffers. The
actual discs had the same file contents for the OS itself, a simple
.ini file and your product key determined which one you actually got.
Home was a pile of **** and should never have been foisted on the
people. It should have went from win2k, to XP, etc. No home/pro
differences. (Home is stripped down, less features than 2000 for ****
sake)


I know that the product key determines the edition, that's not in
dispute. It has nothing to do with the fact that Microsoft sold
Win2000 as a business OS, that doesn't stop anyone from using it on a
home computer, but it wasn't the standard home user product.



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 7/19/20 7:19 AM, Joel wrote:
Snit wrote:
Snit wrote:

You can have a version of Firefox that has its settings as Joel said.

Based on his description I figured he meant something like this:

https://www.airaghi.net/en/2017/03/2...table-on-linux


I meant that I would just extract the binaries to my /home folder,
because that's what I have write access to.


Makes sense. In that case the profile would likely be in the same
Mozilla/Firefox folder as your primary version, but would have its own
profile.

But really not a big deal -- unless you planned on copying the version
from one system to another (or the like) -- which you have not suggested
you wish.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Snit wrote:

I meant that I would just extract the binaries to my /home folder,
because that's what I have write access to.

Makes sense. In that case the profile would likely be in the same
Mozilla/Firefox folder as your primary version, but would have its own
profile.


I think it would be in the same main Mozilla folder, but would create
a separate folder within it for the new profile.


But really not a big deal -- unless you planned on copying the version
from one system to another (or the like) -- which you have not suggested
you wish.


Yeah, I'm actually planning as of just a little bit ago to get rid of
Ubuntu, but I won't back up anything but the bookmarks.

--
Joel Crump

On 7/19/20 7:04 AM, Joel wrote:
Diesel wrote:
Snit
Fri, 17 Jul 2020 00:07:40 GMT
in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

This is you being on topic and relevant in a suggestion when you
have some reason to think he might not know. I commend you for
that.

I know he didn't know, we already discussed it. It became that much
more obvious when he mentioned the write protected folders where the
firefox binaries live. The binaries and the user profile(s) don't
exist in the same place. Joel didn't know this.

You're a liar.

When you spoke of installing the other version in your home directory I
had the same impression -- but it was my ASSUMPTION, and when you were
asked about it you clarified.

Joel told you the
profile wasn't in his home folder,

That's a lie.

Same thing -- I thought the version you were getting might be the
portable version or something akin to it -- but AGAIN you clarified.

Diesel jumps to conclusions and instead of looking for clarification he
assumes others just MUST believe what he misunderstood.

To make it worse for him, he goes off topic and makes implications he
does not intend, such as when he talked about having an executable in
response to comments about the flood bot. The obvious assumption --
which he later said was wrong -- is he was still talking about the flood
bot (he made no indication he was changing topics).

He later said that he did not intent for his comments to apply to what
he replied to (the flood bot). I accepted that -- but that somehow
means, in his twisted mind, that I lied even as I said I trusted what he
said.

but the non distro version would
want it there.

Never said that. I said the binaries would install to /home.

Yup.

Truth is, as always, the profile has been in his home
folder the entire time. There'd be one for each user account (each
home folder) on the machine, infact, if he has multiple accounts.

And, the profile folder doesn't have the binaries.

No one said otherwise. Stop lying.

Is he lying or just incapable of understanding what he reads? Either way
he will never back down.

In case he does not, it will give him the direct path in Help
Troubleshooting under "Profile Folder".

He doesn't. And, it's a hidden folder by default. You have to show
hidden files and folders first, or, just press F6 I think it is with
gnome (so you can manually enter location in address bar) and type
/home/joel/.firefox/profile/random xxx named folder. inside that is
your 'profile'

You think I don't know to show hidden files? Believe me, I did that
about as soon as I installed the first distro after dumping Win10. And
I could've found the profile folder in the file system, *IF I HAD ANY
****ING REASON TO BOTHER TO*.


He answered based on lack of knowledge. Nothing he told you was
accurate, so, no, he didn't answer you just fine.


You're a liar.



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.