Why I no Longer Use Windows 7.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:53:47 -0500, bd wrote:
chrisv wrote in
:

bd wrote:

Democrats control congress and have since 2007. Only democrats can stop
him from getting a bill to sign.

Wrong.

Are you so ignorant that you've not heard of a filibuster?


If that is the case, why didn't they filibuster the health care debacle?

they tried

In case you didn't know, it takes more than a simple majority to stop
a fillibuster. Not every republican votes with the same mind; nor does
every democrat.

You sure think in black and white terms. Do you have some insane
notion that all republicans always vote the same and all democrats
always vote the same?

On 10/25/2010 11:28 AM, RonB wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:01:18 -0500, Quantum Leaper wrote:

I agree Linux is growing in the backroom but not on the desktop,
advocates have been saying this is the Year of Desktop Linux,

What users have been saying this? The imaginary ones in your head?


You dumb ****, try google, it's been the linux mantra (wish/hope) for
the last 20 + odd years.
Face it linturd, linux will never be a major force in any market segment.
Live with it. Now get lost.

On 24/10/2010 17:55, Alias wrote:

Web stats are not reliable because they only monitor certain sites,
not the entire web.

they do not have to monitor "the entire web" - ever hear of something
called statistics? probably not since it involves math that is beyond
your ability.

Of course I have and I know they can be manipulated to tell you just
about anything. Some of my favorites were put out by the tobacco
companies, 9 out of 10 doctors recommend Kools.

So you note that statistics can be misrepresented and skewed to support
a particular claim.

Again, if you were to take the USA out of the picture, Linux usage
would be much higher.

and if there was no such thing as gravity we could all fly to work.

Unlike gravity, the USA could be taken out of the picture.

And then try to boost Linux reported usage by removing a country (in
your opinion) that has a high non-Linux usage from a statistical analysis.

Oh the irony!

--
Sixty zippers were quickly picked from the woven jute bag.

On 10/25/2010 11:25 AM, RonB wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:48:07 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

On 2010-10-24, wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 05:42:24 +0000 (UTC), Robin T Cockslee
wrote:

Linux just does everything I need[...]

Your needs must be very rudimentary.

That's true of a lot of people actually.

Although what's still unaddressed is just what am I supposed to be
missing exactly? I've got copies of Windows 7 and Snow Leopard and no
interest in running either one of them. Linux simply does not look bad
next to them (despite all the lies to the contrary).

Isn't it amazing how, when you ask these WinTrolls what exactly Windows
does that Linux doesn't, they only come up with snide nothing?

You ignorant pile of useless ****. Windows runs everything whereas linux
does not.
oops!
Now take your snide remark and shove it up your stinking lying linturd ass.

Just
Microsoft FUD, they don't even know why they are parroting it anymore.

GD, are you as stupid as you seem?
Figures.


Oh and stop cross posting asshole.

On 25/10/2010 10:21, Alias wrote:
On 10/25/2010 05:24 AM, RonB wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:33:33 -0700, Frank wrote:

Alright sheep-****er...tell us all what you use that toy POS linux for
and what you use Windows 7 for.

He probably uses Windows 7 to attract viruses. He uses Linux to destroy
them.


I use Windows 7 for gaming. I use Linux for everything else.

Is this an admission that Linux doesn't do games? Interesting that when
I said this recently, I was flamed...

So here's the deal... either the rest of the Linux advocates can admit
now that you are a liar, or admit that Linux simply cannot do games as
well as Windows.

I don't like your chances much!

--
Crazy Fredericka bought many very exquisite opal jewels.

On 10/25/2010 06:51 PM, Boscoe wrote:
On 25/10/2010 5:20 PM, Alias wrote:
On 10/25/2010 06:12 PM, Boscoe wrote:
On 25/10/2010 10:59 AM, RonB wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:21:41 +0200, Alias wrote:

On 10/25/2010 05:24 AM, RonB wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:33:33 -0700, Frank wrote:

Alright sheep-****er...tell us all what you use that toy POS linux
for
and what you use Windows 7 for.

He probably uses Windows 7 to attract viruses. He uses Linux to
destroy
them.


I use Windows 7 for gaming. I use Linux for everything else.

That works too. As long as you can limit Windows' access to the
Internet
it will probably be okay-ish.



Thicko. Just because you're an amateur is no excuse to spread FUD. Put
your own house in order first. Two of many...


http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/208452/two_vulnerabilities_provide_root_access_on_linux.h tml



From this site:

"could allow a local attacker" BFD. If I have local access to your
computer, I could hack it too.




http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/208305/attack_page_scam_lurks_in_firefox_and_chrome.html



Um, that only applies to Windows. You're 0 for 2, chum.


Nice snip, troll. Where's the other link gone? Never mind!! Linux trolls
always have an excuse. Strange that.

I didn't snip anything. Read your original post. Most everyone else can,
except maybe Frank and Valorie.

--
Alias

On 10/25/2010 11:50 PM, Zoolook wrote:
On 25/10/2010 10:21, Alias wrote:
On 10/25/2010 05:24 AM, RonB wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:33:33 -0700, Frank wrote:

Alright sheep-****er...tell us all what you use that toy POS linux for
and what you use Windows 7 for.

He probably uses Windows 7 to attract viruses. He uses Linux to destroy
them.


I use Windows 7 for gaming. I use Linux for everything else.

Is this an admission that Linux doesn't do games?

It does some.

Interesting that when
I said this recently, I was flamed...

Sounds like a personal problem.


So here's the deal... either the rest of the Linux advocates can admit
now that you are a liar, or admit that Linux simply cannot do games as
well as Windows.

It can do it as well. The gaming people don't port to Linux and a lot of
them only port to consoles. Shame, really.


I don't like your chances much!


Of winning what? Your approval?

--
Alias

On 10/25/2010 11:42 PM, Zoolook wrote:
On 24/10/2010 17:55, Alias wrote:

Web stats are not reliable because they only monitor certain sites,
not the entire web.

they do not have to monitor "the entire web" - ever hear of something
called statistics? probably not since it involves math that is beyond
your ability.

Of course I have and I know they can be manipulated to tell you just
about anything. Some of my favorites were put out by the tobacco
companies, 9 out of 10 doctors recommend Kools.

So you note that statistics can be misrepresented and skewed to support
a particular claim.

Precisely.


Again, if you were to take the USA out of the picture, Linux usage
would be much higher.

and if there was no such thing as gravity we could all fly to work.

Unlike gravity, the USA could be taken out of the picture.

And then try to boost Linux reported usage by removing a country (in
your opinion) that has a high non-Linux usage from a statistical analysis.

Yes, it would give a different picture.


Oh the irony!


What, that most Americans use Windows and are denizens in most of the
net bots that serve us spam?

--
Alias

On 10/25/2010 08:51 PM, Valorie *~ wrote:

"chrisv" wrote in message
...
bd wrote:

Democrats control congress and have since 2007. Only democrats can stop
him from getting a bill to sign.

Wrong.

Are you so ignorant that you've not heard of a filibuster?

The dems had 60 votes. How could a filibuster stop them?

59.

--
Alias

On 10/25/2010 10:12 PM, Valorie *~ wrote:

"bugbuster" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:51:26 -0700, Valorie *~ wrote:


"chrisv" wrote in message
...
bd wrote:

Democrats control congress and have since 2007. Only democrats can
stop
him from getting a bill to sign.

Wrong.

Are you so ignorant that you've not heard of a filibuster?

The dems had 60 votes. How could a filibuster stop them?

They only had 60 votes for a short time. And the Republicans used
blocks and secret blocks to bring the Senate to a halt. The crazy
Senate rules allow a single senator to block a vote (even a vote for
cloture) without having to identify himself.

A year and a half is a short time? They could have passed anything they
wanted. Their legislation was blocked or delayed by fellow democrats!
The kings of filibuster were the democrats during 6 of the Bush years.

Oh no, Valorie's morphed into a Christine O'Donnell! Bush raped the
land, lady, and you're lucky he wasn't allowed to pillage more for his
rich "base". Why was there a economic crisis? Two wars unpaid for.
Cheney. Wall Street allowed to run wild. Bush and his daddy's friends.
You're lucky there's a middle class left. Had McCain won, you'd see 30%
unemployment now with companies being very, very picky about who they
hire and how long they get to keep their job. Big business like to pick
employees and pay them as little as they can get away with.

--
Alias

"Alias" wrote in message
...
On 10/25/2010 08:51 PM, Valorie *~ wrote:

"chrisv" wrote in message
...
bd wrote:

Democrats control congress and have since 2007. Only democrats can stop
him from getting a bill to sign.

Wrong.

Are you so ignorant that you've not heard of a filibuster?

The dems had 60 votes. How could a filibuster stop them?

59.

Plus Leiberman.

On 10/26/2010 01:45 AM, chrisv wrote:

"Alias" wrote in message
...
On 10/25/2010 08:51 PM, Valorie *~ wrote:

"chrisv" wrote in message
...
bd wrote:

Democrats control congress and have since 2007. Only democrats can
stop
him from getting a bill to sign.

Wrong.

Are you so ignorant that you've not heard of a filibuster?

The dems had 60 votes. How could a filibuster stop them?

59.

Plus Leiberman.

Sometimes. Leiberman is a bought and paid for pussy.

--
Alias

"Alias" wrote in message
...
On 10/25/2010 10:12 PM, Valorie *~ wrote:

"bugbuster" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:51:26 -0700, Valorie *~ wrote:


"chrisv" wrote in message
...
bd wrote:

Democrats control congress and have since 2007. Only democrats can
stop
him from getting a bill to sign.

Wrong.

Are you so ignorant that you've not heard of a filibuster?

The dems had 60 votes. How could a filibuster stop them?

They only had 60 votes for a short time. And the Republicans used
blocks and secret blocks to bring the Senate to a halt. The crazy
Senate rules allow a single senator to block a vote (even a vote for
cloture) without having to identify himself.

A year and a half is a short time? They could have passed anything they
wanted. Their legislation was blocked or delayed by fellow democrats!
The kings of filibuster were the democrats during 6 of the Bush years.

Oh no, Valorie's morphed into a Christine O'Donnell! Bush raped the land,
lady, and you're lucky he wasn't allowed to pillage more for his rich
"base". Why was there a economic crisis? Two wars unpaid for. Cheney. Wall
Street allowed to run wild. Bush and his daddy's friends. You're lucky
there's a middle class left. Had McCain won, you'd see 30% unemployment
now with companies being very, very picky about who they hire and how long
they get to keep their job. Big business like to pick employees and pay
them as little as they can get away with.

That's an interesting rewrite of history.

AZ Nomad wrote in
:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:53:47 -0500, bd wrote:
chrisv wrote in
m:

bd wrote:

Democrats control congress and have since 2007. Only democrats can
stop him from getting a bill to sign.

Wrong.

Are you so ignorant that you've not heard of a filibuster?


If that is the case, why didn't they filibuster the health care
debacle?

they tried

In case you didn't know, it takes more than a simple majority to stop
a fillibuster. Not every republican votes with the same mind; nor
does every democrat.

You sure think in black and white terms. Do you have some insane
notion that all republicans always vote the same and all democrats
always vote the same?



Republicans don't, but democrats do. I've been watching them sice I
started voting 48 years ago. Although they didn't with the ERA, the
republicans carried it for the democrats that didn't.

On 26/10/2010 00:25, Alias wrote:
On 10/25/2010 11:42 PM, Zoolook wrote:
On 24/10/2010 17:55, Alias wrote:

Web stats are not reliable because they only monitor certain sites,
not the entire web.

they do not have to monitor "the entire web" - ever hear of something
called statistics? probably not since it involves math that is beyond
your ability.

Of course I have and I know they can be manipulated to tell you just
about anything. Some of my favorites were put out by the tobacco
companies, 9 out of 10 doctors recommend Kools.

So you note that statistics can be misrepresented and skewed to support
a particular claim.

Precisely.


Again, if you were to take the USA out of the picture, Linux usage
would be much higher.

and if there was no such thing as gravity we could all fly to work.

Unlike gravity, the USA could be taken out of the picture.

And then try to boost Linux reported usage by removing a country (in
your opinion) that has a high non-Linux usage from a statistical
analysis.

Yes, it would give a different picture.


Oh the irony!


What, that most Americans use Windows and are denizens in most of the
net bots that serve us spam?


Not so much that, but more that someone can suggest that statistics cant
be relied upon, then tries (openly) to skew statistics.

You might as well say that "100% of my Linux desktop machines run Linux,
so desktop Linux must obviously have a higher %age of usage then other OS's"

--
Will Major Douglas be expected to take this true-false quiz very soon?