Linux Hater's Blog: progress

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

progress

In true open source fashion, the community debates the most important issue of the day

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678775

I for one, think we should remove the kernel version number from dmesg output. I mean, it's changing all the time anyways.

2702 flames:

«Oldest ‹Older 2601 – 2702 of 2702 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: Is it just me or are most Google ads just scams?

I never seem to get ads to actual useful things, it's always just "Rid of wrinkles fast!" or "Internet has blessed me with $$$$ income!"

Never something actually useful.e; September 17, 2011 at 6:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Compare to the number of desktop windows versions after XP.. nothing until Vista.. 6 long years.. unless you count the service packs which were free downloads anyways.; September 17, 2011 at 6:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Mea culpa.

Also left out Windows ME. But that's prolly for the best.; September 17, 2011 at 6:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Is it just me or are most Google ads just scams?

I never seem to get ads to actual useful things, it's always just "Rid of wrinkles fast!" or "Internet has blessed me with $$$$ income!"

Never something actually useful.

I think I clicked on a Google ad only once in my entire life.

Scary how many people seem to click on those, otherwise Google would be broke.; September 17, 2011 at 6:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Also left out Windows ME. But that's prolly for the best.

ME was there.; September 17, 2011 at 6:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Web 2.0..

What the fuck is "the semantic web"?

That stupid term seems to be the "new" web 2.0

It's already grossing me out. The only difference is that I have _zero_ idea what they talk about here.

I've read the wikipedia page about it.. I could literally feel a question mark forming in my head. That page looked was as if someone wanted to win a price on the most convoluted language.; September 17, 2011 at 6:48 PM
Anonymous said...: What the fuck is "the semantic web"?

semantic web == adding insane amounts of metadata to sites to make it easier for Googlebots to pwn your stuff.; September 17, 2011 at 7:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Scary how many people seem to click on those, otherwise Google would be broke.

Good thing Google releases statistics and have an open and fair ad pricing policy!

Oh wait..; September 17, 2011 at 7:04 PM
Anonymous said...: @September 17, 2011 7:03 PM

Finally understood.

First line on wikipedia on this topic:

The Semantic Web is a "man-made woven web of data" that facilitates machines to understand the semantics, or meaning, of information on the World Wide Web[1][2]. The concept of Semantic Web applies methods beyond linear presentation of information (Web 1.0) and multi-linear presentation of information (Web 2.0) to make use of hyper-structures leading to entities of hypertext.

Followed by:

The Semantic Web as originally envisioned is a system that enables machines to understand and respond to complex human requests based on their meaning. It has remained in a permanent state of improvement of its framework of standards. It is understood today that understanding by machines within the available repositories of information requires prior systematic structuring of the contents and strategic proliferation of tools for performing such structuring in a layered approach. There is no escaping the fact, the availability of understandable and intelligible information, even in automated processing, needs time for preparation.

That's like word-masturbation.

I think we could rewrite every web 2.0 article there within 5 minutes and it would be easier for everyone.; September 17, 2011 at 7:10 PM
linky said...: semantic web == adding insane amounts of metadata to sites to make it easier for Googlebots to pwn your stuff.

In true 2.0 fashion I copy and pasted it to wikipedia.; September 17, 2011 at 7:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Good thing Google releases statistics and have an open and fair ad pricing policy!

Thought about this once too. Not only about Google, but about Bing and Yahoo as well.

You can't really control whether those "clicked-at" statistics are real, can you?

And there is no third party who checks them, right?

What stops someone at forging them?; September 17, 2011 at 7:17 PM
Anonymous said...: That's like word-masturbation.

That's the way the profs. talked in college.

All "framework of information in a machine-structure" blah blah blah.

When in fact they were talking about eBay bid-bots.

But they gotta dress it up in academic moonspeak so they get their papers published.; September 17, 2011 at 7:20 PM
Anonymous said...: @September 17, 2011 7:14 PM

LOL you are a true LHB hero!; September 17, 2011 at 7:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Blogger Spam Filter said...

poo

Go right through, Sir! *salute*

+5 Much lulz in this post.; September 17, 2011 at 7:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Same thing with Vista and 7. I am not saying 7 is just a SP to Vista, but it is based in large parts on it.

Nope you have it backwards. Vista was a branch off of Blackcomb which was a codename of the codebase that became Windows 7. You have your order backwards.; September 17, 2011 at 7:49 PM
Trash talking web 2.0 said...: Bruce Sterling trashes web 2.0 and other internet phenomena in this video. You'll like it.

Found the link on Wikipedia, heya!; September 17, 2011 at 8:06 PM
Anonymous said...: What stops someone at forging them?

Absolutely nothing.

And you too can get on the money wagon!

Just become an "SEO consultant" and watch the dollars tumble in!; September 17, 2011 at 8:41 PM
Anonymous said...: What stops someone at forging them?

Google use a range of heuristics that, having been a victim of them, I'm pretty sure they're based on the Google spam filter.

One great example I heard was of a forum about dirt-biking in New Zealand that was banned from AdSense for ... *dun dun duuuuun!* ... having too many visitors from New Zealand.; September 17, 2011 at 9:14 PM
Sacked by a computer said...: "After reviewing our records, we've determined that your AdSense account poses a risk of generating invalid activity. Because we have a responsibility to protect our AdWords advertisers from inflated costs due to invalid activity, we've found it necessary to disable your AdSense account. Your outstanding balance and Google's share of the revenue will both be fully refunded to the affected advertisers."; September 17, 2011 at 9:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't get the Vista thing at all.

I was still a semi-freetard when Vista came out. I was annoyed that Microsoft moved everything around for seemingly good reason. I never did really figure it out...but that's because I discovered how good Windows Desktop Search is and that I really don't need to know where stuff is. Within a few months it seemed I was the only one who didn't have a problem with it. Crazy, a basic MS-hater and I'm the only one around that likes the thing.

Most of the other negative stuff revolves around marginal hardware, which was an issue with every OS upgrade until Windows 7, where finally 3+ year old hardware met the bare minimum.

OS X had the same problem but no one really noticed since Apple made it really difficult or even impossible to install onto anything really old. Windows 7 will agree to install on something that could barely support Windows 98. The farthest back OS X Lion will go back is 2007 or so.; September 17, 2011 at 9:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Sure it did - if people liked Vista, it would have been the hardware vendors' fault; because they hated it, it was Vista/Microsoft's fault.

Weak trolling or possibly you're sniffing model glue. I never said that. Microsoft didn't make it all that easy at the time to write drivers for it. They were late to come out with specs - some have suggested it was due to the rewrite, some say due to a bit of arrogance, no one but the top brass can answer this if they would dare.

XP was slow as fuck compared to 98

Now you're exposing your indeptitude. XP broke ground. It was anything but slow. It had precaching - something that 98 didn't have. But hey, while you're doing your Ohio Ham thing, why not say some more stupid shit.

old drivers didn't work with it and sometimes new drivers were out of the picture since the product manufacturer went bust - ever heard of 3Dfx, if not, just "Google it".

Again, you're doing a great impression of Pogson, perhaps his alter ego? Anyway, poor trolling, piss poor Strawman.

FAIL troll fails.; September 17, 2011 at 9:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Bernie Madoff is behind bars for the same shit that GroupOn is pulling right now.

I work for a marketing firm that's chasing the Groupon "deals". It amazes me how much traction this idea has. Even Google (or, maybe, "especially") is in on it. It really is like a reverse pyramid scheme; instead of rapid inflation there's rapid deflation. If this works correctly (i.e. it doesn't collapse the entire economy), the most a business will get out of this is either it will sell the final, undesirable, 20% at the last minute or it runs once or twice at a promotion. Anything more than that and all they accomplish is setting a new price baseline, and, unlike inflation (2%) or even hyperinflation (26%), the Groupon model basically demands at least s 75% drop in revenue! That's fuckin insane and completely unsustainable unless GDP is to return to 1940s levels.; September 17, 2011 at 9:39 PM
Anonymous said...: What the fuck is "the semantic web"?

That stupid term seems to be the "new" web 2.0

The Semantic web was anything but 'web 2.0'; it came much before web 2.0 by about six years.

The semantic web was the idea - back in about 2000 - where different markup syntaxes would be used on the web (i.e. HTTP) with an emphasis on 'semantics'.

So, WTF does that mean? Well, HTML is piss poor at defining things like meta data and so the W3C groups moaned and groaned, and attempted to put together a relational data model (including semantic markup) that would allow automated apps to go looking for information for human consumers.

That was the idea anyway. The problem was: The W3C. They spent months in their user forums arguing over stupid shit like whether or not a URI represented an actual resource or simply just a virtual proxy of it. I know, stupid.

It consisted of RDF (pre RSS days), HTTP (or not, but probably), DAML (from DARPA net), and the Dublin Core to name a few markup formats.

It was a great concept but part of the reason why it failed was due to:
a) the bureaucratic idiocy of the W3C (not like much has changed)
b) the concept being ahead of its time
c) not enough adopters
d) H/W as possibly not ready (e.g. mobile); September 17, 2011 at 9:42 PM
Another AdSense ban example said...: This Week in Linux got himself banned from AdSense. His great crime was:

YOUR ACCOUNT MAY AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE GENERATE INVALID ACTIVITY. PLEASE SEE THE TRIAL BY FRANZ KAFKA FOR INSTRUCTIONS HOW TO APPEAL.; September 17, 2011 at 9:43 PM
Anonymous said...: @September 17, 2011 9:39 PM

Got a link to a decent description of how the heck Groupon works?

The thing worries me, since it seems to be premised on printing money out of thin air.; September 17, 2011 at 9:48 PM
Anonymous said...: The thing worries me, since it seems to be premised on printing money out of thin air.

I think the original poster of this is bang on: It really is like a reverse pyramid scheme

If Groupon is anything, it is a perfect example of:

¿MiguelSoft?; September 17, 2011 at 9:51 PM
Anonymous said...: It would be like if Ion Storm was developing a Wolfenstein 3D clone.

They produced some good stuff, like Deus Ex and Thief, but their flagship product, Daikatana, was as hackneyed as could be. It was the original Duke Nukem Forever, with outdated graphics and gameplay.

If Ion Storm didn't spend all their money on pool tables and strippers they could have been the next Looking Glass Studios, but management still would have doomed it.; September 17, 2011 at 9:52 PM
Anonymous said...: I guess this is an appeal to the 30+ crowd, but "social networking", especially Facebook, seems like just another iteration in the ytalk -> IRC -> Geocities -> ICQ -> etc chain. I mean, sure, it's an improvement in accessibility and appeal, but it's not revolutionary. If anything, it's just a shift away from real-time back to asynchronous, which is almost a step backwards. I know Facebook has chat, but that's not what it's known for. Most "live chat" Facebook users I've met use MSN or something as well.; September 17, 2011 at 9:58 PM
Anonymous said...: ever heard of 3Dfx, if not, just "Google it".

3Dfx was almost "dead man walking" since its inception. They started off with an API that didn't have a chance at mainstream acceptance, failed to adopt either of the market leaders, GL or DX, and failed to update either their hardware or drivers to meet rising demand, e.g. higher screen resolutions, higher polygon counts, higher bitdepths, etc. As soon as 1998 3Dfx should have enslaved GLIDE to either GL or DX. They didn't see at all that GLIDE was some 6-month "glue" that would launch their product at not much else.; September 17, 2011 at 10:03 PM
Groupon explanation said...: Reverse pyramid scheme is exactly right. The people at the bottom voluntarily fuck themselves to funnel huge profits to Groupon.

I can't imagine many businesses being able to give a 75% discount, but businesses appear to be using it.

the most a business will get out of this is either it will sell the final, undesirable, 20% at the last minute or it runs once or twice at a promotion. Anything more than that and all they accomplish is setting a new price baseline,

I agree that setting a new price baseline at 75% beneath a product's/service's actual value is extremely dangerous, but I'm not sure how that can happen. These are just deals after all, they can't be running deals on everything at all times. Can they?; September 17, 2011 at 10:04 PM
Anonymous said...: @September 17, 2011 10:03 PM

Thank you, that was a trip through the past.; September 17, 2011 at 10:09 PM
Anonymous said...: If Groupon is anything, it is a perfect example of:

¿MiguelSoft?

When two debt collector mans kick down door at three in morning, with a warrant to rape your azz, because you destroy your business selling all your stuff with 75 percent dizzcount on Groupon. And they take turns on you and you think, "No! Debt collector mans with big penis will tear my little bottom apart!" But then you enjoy it, so much that you take all they have to offer, and post experience on your blog? -- that is MiguelSoft!; September 17, 2011 at 10:09 PM
Anonymous said...: It's like they have taken decade old shit and renamed it.

Basically. Web 2.0 is about monetization, which I guess needs new terms. Now they're onto "Web 3.0" which again needs new terms like "cloud" and "crowdsourcing" to basically refer to the same base concepts.

The backlash against the dotcom bubble formed pretty fast, I have no idea why there is none against the web 2.0 hype.

It's moving slower this time. What no one realizes is that, like ICQ and IRC, Facebook is a fad and will be replaced by something else. Everyone says it's impossible, but look at the list of previous "failures that couldn't fail": MySpace, Friendster, LiveJournal, MSN, Yahoo!, AOL/AIM, ICQ, IRC. This shit has a shelf life of 5 years max, and hardly anyone remembers the last generation five years later. Just ask some high school student about ICQ. He won't know what you're talking about, despite the shit being positioned to take over the world.; September 17, 2011 at 10:11 PM
Anonymous said...: 3.1 -> 3.11 -> 95a -> 95b -> NT -> 98 -> 98SE -> ME -> W2K -> XP -> NOTHING FOR 6 YEARS

Ehhh... if you're going to break it down into groups:

3.0 -> 3.11 (maybe even WFW)
95 (a,b,c)
98, 98SE, ME
2000
XP (RTM, SP1, SP2)

That last grouping is tough because there's almost as much difference in there as there is between separate groupings. What made XP special was MS' commitment to Windows Update.; September 17, 2011 at 10:18 PM
Anonymous said...: There is some sort of "Major release curse" going on with Windows since 2000.

It's true that Microsoft did its best to kill W2k, but diehards persisted until 2006 or so.

Windows 2000 was killed pretty quickly, the very similiar XP, which was based on 2000, lives on.

Agree that the continuing love for XP yet the near forgotteness of 2000 is somewhat baffling. Even today there's probably a 90% application compatibility rate. Also, assuming that one operates behind a firewall/NAT (as nearly everyone does), whatever "holes" W2K has hardly applies.

It seems that the "pioneering" Windows has less success than the immediate successor which is based on the architecture and groundwork of the preceding "game changer" version.

That's fair:

Windows/386 > 2.0
3.1x > 3.0
98[SE/ME] > 95
XP > 2000
7 > Vista; September 17, 2011 at 10:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Is it just me or are most Google ads just scams?

I actually clicked on ads some years ago but today it's either what I'm looking for already, or it's, as you say, really scammy and ignored. Because of the latter, I'm more likely to ignore the sponsored result, even though it may be identical to the first non-sponsored result.; September 17, 2011 at 10:28 PM
Pedantic said...: 3.0 -> 3.11 (maybe even WFW)
95 (a,b,c)
98, 98SE, ME,

Like this:

1.x -> 2.x -> 3.x -> 95 -> 98 -> ME

NT 3.x -> NT 4.x -> 2k -> XP -> Vista -> 7 -> 8 ...; September 17, 2011 at 10:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Windows 2000 was killed pretty quickly, the very similiar XP, which was based on 2000, lives on

But that was only Microsoft offering a new version quickly. That wasn't any failing of 2k. Both were stable/reliable releases.

I remember going from NT 4 to 2K and almost wetting myself when apps wouldn't actually take down the video driver when they crashed.; September 17, 2011 at 10:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Also left out Windows ME. But that's prolly for the best.

Never understood the hate for ME. By then the only people using DOS were "classic gamers", who knew what they were doing and had a raw DOS boot, and lawyers, who had locked-down setups with WordPerfect 5.1 and HP LaserJet 4 printers.; September 17, 2011 at 10:30 PM
Anonymous said...: semantic web == adding insane amounts of metadata to sites to make it easier for Googlebots to pwn your stuff.

Isn't that SEO?

It's alarming how all the SEO "experts" are 45+ year old used car salesmen who never heard of "the Internet" before 2006.; September 17, 2011 at 10:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Never understood the hate for ME.

Me was 98 with a 2k UI and if you were already exposed to NT 4.x and 2K, ME was a step backward.; September 17, 2011 at 10:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Got a link to a decent description of how the heck Groupon works?

Sorry, I've been drinking, but it works like this.

"The deal"

50% off on something that is (supposedly) a sunk cost, e.g. a restaurant with full wait staff, a cruise boat, an "arcade" type venue, a fitness class.

Of that 50%, it's split in half between the propitiator and the "dealmaker". This means the business gets 25%.

The sales pitch is that you've sold X amount but have Y left over. Anything sold in Y is "found" money. The problem is with so many "deals" going on and the bad economy so many people have become coupon/deal hunters do that any reduction in Y threatens cash-cow X thereby establishing a new, lower price baseline, exactly the opposite of what the (struggling) business wants.

Groupon's specific problem is that it employs over 9000 high pressure sales people and that its advertising budget exceeds its revenue. At a deeper level, businesses willing to take 25% or less on established operating costs are a vanishing commodity.

The thing worries me, since it seems to be premised on printing money out of thin air.

Yes, reverse-inflation, basically.

Fortunately, what many businesses (intuitively) realize is that it's more efficient to sell 50% and leave the rest rather than accept 25% or less on the remainder. The ones going into the "deals" are desperate or will only do it once or twice.; September 17, 2011 at 10:46 PM
His name is Robert Pogson said...: More into the twisted life of Poggy:

"wife does destroy tech. Her desk is littered with coffee cups and snack trays. I have to reach over stuff if I use her machine…"
(A good cuck cleans after his master Robert, you should know this by now.)

"She is little, about 5′ 0″."
(Helicopter chick, fun for teh brothas.)

"I did not purchase that box. It was a gift for my wife."
(Gift from Tyrone?)

"She has two notebooks which she uses wirelessly."
(Sex chats with more interesting men that are more interested in her than Pogson. Pogson's beast - see quotes later, he refers to his computer as his beast apparently shows more appeal.)

"The second thin client station was her idea because at certain times of the day she would like to work in other rooms."
(Yep, definitely sex chats with other men.

"Robert, don't mind the vibrating sound from "my computer", it's just running a little loud, that's all honey" - as her G-spot vibrator tickles her fancy.)

"We have cabled the whole house and it is not difficult to put in another copper line."
(Don't forget the tinfoil hats Robert)

"The only complication with her chosen site is that it will be on an outer wall and we have to work around thermal insulation."
(Yeah, and the fact that the window seems to be left open so she can sneak out and get some 8" black cock while you dicker around with dumpster dived H/W and Oombbooboo Anal Aardvark)

"We might add a USB wireless dongle to the thin client."
(Yeah, I think she's already added an external dongle to her thin client there buddy); September 17, 2011 at 10:57 PM
Anonymous said...: The people at the bottom voluntarily fuck themselves to funnel huge profits to Groupon.

Understand that while the "vendor" takes a cut on both fixed and variable costs to meet a volume target, "dealmakers" only need to meet promotional costs, which are variable. Funny, though, how Groupon can't make a profit despite absorbing 50% out of thin air.

These are just deals after all, they can't be running deals on everything at all times. Can they?

I can only speak for a (traditional) marketing firm that's chasing the "Groupon" money, but, being from a traditional marketing company, there are heavy incentives for going in for 13/26/52 week deals. After going into a "deal" for that long your low price might as well be your regular price.

The Catch-22 is that a business with the wherewithal to realize that deals should be transient probably does its own marketing via Facebook or AdSense and doesn't subscribe to Groupon or similar service. "Deals" are a bottom-feeding service that prey on unsophisticated businesses.; September 17, 2011 at 10:58 PM
Anonymous said...: As soon as 1998 3Dfx should have enslaved GLIDE to either GL or DX. They didn't see at all that GLIDE was some 6-month "glue

The best thing that happened to 3Dfx was the (open source?) drivers that wrapped it around OpenGL or whatever and thus allowed GLIDE games from the 90s to be played on today's NVIDIA/ATI cards. Like you said this is what 3Dfx should have done with their own API but they were too delusional in assuming that they'd conquer both GL and Direct3D despite not providing a path to high-resolution textures or bit-depths above 16-bit.

Voodoo2 absolutely killed them. Consumers were expecting a reponse to GL/D3D and what they got was an overclocked Voodoo1 card. Voodoo 3/4/5 just continued the madness while NVIDIA and even ATI, despite their horrendous blue-screening drivers, ate their lunch.; September 17, 2011 at 11:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Me was 98 with a 2k UI

Agree.

if you were already exposed to NT 4.x and 2K, ME was a step backward.

Don't agree.

Problem was that the RAM market hadn't crashed yet and NT wasn't quite "there" for the masses yet, especially with regard to 9x compatibility, which was XP's unheralded specialty. ME was a decent 6-month interim for OEMs and vendors looking for Y2K indemnification. Everyone else knew that NT would be here within a year, even though it was supposed to be ready by 2000. I don't really see what Microsoft could have done differently, especially with regards to Y2K indemnification with consumer equipment, which included Pentium IIs with 32-128 MB RAM.

Despite the RAM market bottoming out, OEMs insisted on shipping 64-128 MB despite 1 GB DIMMs selling for $30 or so. As Microsoft is really an OEM company and not a retail one, they had no choice but to accommodate OEM whims and thus support RAM-limited scenarios, for which NT was unsuitable. Thus resulted the temporary ME/2000 pronged strategy. By 2001 Microsoft wised up and forced the issue: ship at least 128MB and preferably 512 or be left behind. A mighty backlash from the freetards but truth be told KDE2 couldn't be run in less.; September 17, 2011 at 11:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Also: naggers; September 17, 2011 at 11:31 PM
Anonymous said...: The "RAM crash" just slightly missed DDR. The $30/1GB scenario(s) involved PC133 DIMMs or possibly non-JEDEC standards like PC150. By the time of DDR prices had risen a bit but it was still like $30/512MB and thus still cheap despite a 50% "loss" in value, even though much of the pre-crash market were shady mis-labeled parts, like 66/100 parts being sold as 133.; September 17, 2011 at 11:38 PM
Anonymous said...: First off, it was the anticipation of something great, so the build up was sort of against it.

Second off, we went from needing 256 MB RAM in XP to suddenly a Gig. That annoyed consumers and large business alike.

Third, the UAC thing was a real pain both in implementation (fucking screen goes black) as well as every single fucking thing it was freaking out on.

Vista's problem was that people wanted gradual change, and Microsoft couldn't realistically deliver on that. Remember, Apple had just rewritten their entire OS recently and had the advantage of dropping all the really old stuff. Vista was an attempt to rewrite Windows to make it do all the things Microsoft's techs had come up with recently, but couldn't realistically build onto the XP kernel without turning it into a huge mess of workarounds and one-off exceptions for compatibility.

Of course, when you suddenly have this vastly-more-capable kernel, you need more RAM and more disk space and a faster CPU. Really, you need a whole new computer. People didn't want to accept that, so everyone got all shocked that Vista wouldn't run properly on hardware which was OK with XP. Once they made the jump, they didn't have to demand more resources again right away, which is why the minimum system requirements for Vista and 7 are identical.

At the same time, Vista's improved security model exposed a seldom-admitted fact: most software is badly-written. Software for XP which is well-written from a security standpoint would not trigger lots of UAC warnings in Vista. But outside of Microsoft's own code, there isn't a lot of that. Adobe in particular had (and still has, to a certain extent) an attitude that their software should be able to do anything at all at any time. (And a lot of drivers had similar stupidities.) So Vista got a reputation for overplaying UACs when really it was just that most programmers are morons who make bad assumptions.

(Apple had a similar problem -- there were some major software packages which wouldn't work properly on OS X unless the user was an administrator -- but for historical reasons the problem was less common. Even back in the System 6 days, it was quite common for Mac users to run a program when the program disk or the OS boot disk (or both) were read-only, so most programmers were already expecting not to have arbitrary write access. Adobe, of course, was an exception.); September 17, 2011 at 11:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Groupon's specific problem is that it employs over 9000 high pressure sales people and that its advertising budget exceeds its revenue.

That any it's business model is highly copyable.

Google has propriety search algorithms and the hardware to pull it off. Facebook has people signed in and committed to their accounts.

GroupOn has.. a mailing list. And a bunch of salespeople.; September 18, 2011 at 1:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Me, the Millennium Edition, was hoped to provide Y2K compatibility, but they still fucked it up, and things like System Restore failed to work after a certain date.

Then there was the loss of hibernate support on notebooks, unless you moved over the to new WDM audio driver model and modem drivers, many of which were not ready for the prime time and frequently blue screened (even though support was there since 98SE). Granted, this was once again the hardware vendors fucking things up, but there's no wonder people hated Me.; September 18, 2011 at 1:08 AM
Anonymous said...: It's ironic that the freetards complained about Windows Vista UAC, yet it is still less intrusive than the constant bullshit in Ubuntu.

At least UAC doesn't ask for a password if you're logged on with an administrator account.

Has anyone tried the Ubuntu startup disk creator? You get asked to elevate three times, every time requiring a password.; September 18, 2011 at 1:10 AM
Anonymous said...: You get asked to elevate three times, every time requiring a password.

Does Ubuntu lock the screen when it asks for the password, like with Windows?

If not, what's to stop someone writing a fake Ubuntu UAC screen?; September 18, 2011 at 1:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Does Ubuntu lock the screen when it asks for the password, like with Windows?

If not, what's to stop someone writing a fake Ubuntu UAC screen?

Not certain about this, but I know it appears to lock the screen.

Whether that's actually possible on X remains to be seen. Writing a screen-saver that obscures what's on the screen is apparently impossible, for example.; September 18, 2011 at 8:08 AM
Anonymous said...: "The second thin client station was her idea because at certain times of the day she would like to work in other rooms

So Poggy's wife needs to be in other rooms? I wonder if it's his smell or his lack of interest in her.; September 18, 2011 at 9:13 AM
Anonymous said...: It's his micropeen. She needs more than 2".; September 18, 2011 at 9:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Has anyone tried the Ubuntu startup disk creator? You get asked to elevate three times, every time requiring a password.

It does this on MacOS X, too, especially with componentized installs. Every piece asks for elevation. I guess there's no way to pass authentication around. After dealing with this for several years before Vista came out I had to wonder what the big deal was with UAC. Even though it, too, needed multiple elevations, especially at first, at least you didn't need to put your password in every time.; September 18, 2011 at 11:00 AM
Anonymous said...: @ September 18, 2011 9:44 AM

You're projecting again.; September 18, 2011 at 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...: You're projecting again.

Damn you, yes! I've been hiding it all along, I belong on Jerry Springer or worse: Howard Stern.; September 18, 2011 at 12:22 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't really see what Microsoft could have done differently, especially with regards to Y2K indemnification with consumer equipment, which included Pentium IIs with 32-128 MB RAM.

Nothing really, they were just responding the current situation. Perhaps my perspective was distorted due to having been accustomed to NT and its stability. I took a hit on the gaming but then again I was never into it for the games. It was a development platform for me that was stable and that offered a secure environment. Linux at the time was still a joke (not that it's not now) and Mac was a toy.; September 18, 2011 at 12:28 PM
His name is Robert Pogson said...: Uh oh. Backlash from a Pogson supporter. The only problem is that he has incorrectly attributed the trolling to Ubuntu forums.

So does this mean that we are not the only ones trolling Pogson? Ubuntu forums is now as well?; September 18, 2011 at 12:43 PM
Moronix Lulz said...: Amd told by novell to write a new driver because the old one sucks.

Freetards go insane because the new driver still sucks.; September 18, 2011 at 12:56 PM
Anonymous said...: @ September 18, 2011 12:43 PM

The hell? One obvious troll about Linux and everyone assumes it's Ubuntu. Jesus fuckin' H-I-just-sat-on-my-testicals Christ, the world does not revolve around Shuttlecock or FuUbuntu.; September 18, 2011 at 1:05 PM
Anonymous said...: And I mean I keep thinking, are there Pogson haters over at Oombooboo forums? Or have we been slighted?

It doesn't make sense.; September 18, 2011 at 2:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Uh oh. Backlash from a Pogson supporter. The only problem is that he has incorrectly attributed the trolling to Ubuntu forums.

Incorrectly?

Aren't you guys Ubuntu forums castouts?; September 18, 2011 at 2:16 PM
Anonymous said...: leave pogface alone; September 18, 2011 at 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Aren't you guys Ubuntu forums castouts?

A long time ago I used Ubuntu forums but was never 'cast out'. I left because of the freetard zealotry.

However, this doesn't have anything to do with what was implied. It wasn't "Ubuntu forum castouts" it was "trolls [having] descended from Ubuntu forums"

We are clearly not descending from Ubuntu forums, we are descending from LHB.; September 18, 2011 at 2:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Aren't you guys Ubuntu forums castouts?

Speak for yourself, buddy. I'm a Gentoo Forum castout that grew disillusioned with the stochastic API unit testing that occurs naturally with all of the different configurations.; September 18, 2011 at 2:30 PM
Anonymous said...: UF castoffs mostly congregated at Linsux/OMG Cheesecake. It's a lot like a Linux-influenced 4chan.

P.S. new top post.

CAPCHA: retars.; September 18, 2011 at 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: we are descending from LHB

Technically we ascend, there are very few hives of scum and villainy that are worse.; September 18, 2011 at 2:35 PM
Anonymous said...: @September 17, 2011 9:34 PM

It didn't matter who was at fault (MS or driver/software vendors) people blamed MS; they did so because they didn't like Vista.

The question is "why didn't they like Vista in the first place".

If driver issues were the cause, XP should have failed as well.

If it was too slow, then XP should have failed three times more.
(Vista worked well on 2003 hardware, provided you had 1.5 GB of ram, XP sucked on 1998 hardware no matter how much memory it had.)

I claim that the hate was caused by Vista's ugly visual style; further, I claim all of the "rational complaints" were just a way to explain away the "irrational" decision - they couldn't stand the unsightly visuals, so they didn't want Vista on their machine.; September 18, 2011 at 2:46 PM
Anonymous said...: XP broke ground. It was anything but slow. It had precaching - something that 98 didn't have.

And yet 98 flew like a supersonic jet, while XP dragged along like a slug.

Have you ever used either one? Because I have - on an entry level Pentium II, on a P4 2 GHz and on a P4 3.4GHz - XP was only "fast" on the last machine.

Yes, for XP to feel fluid one needed a machine from early to mid 2003 - a year and a half after XP launched.

Perhaps you could check some facts, before you open your troll-mouth again.; September 18, 2011 at 2:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Perhaps you could check some facts, before you open your troll-mouth again.

Sure Queef, just for you babe.; September 18, 2011 at 2:54 PM
Anonymous said...: XP barely ran on fresh equipment of the time. 128 MB machines were still sold and while that amount would make for a reasonably comfortable 9x setup with XP it was like going three years backwards in performance. It'd be fine 6-12 months later with the Athlon XP or Pentium 4 Northwood combined with 256-512 MB DDR RAM, but 512MB was an amount generally not achievable with pre-2000 PCs.; September 18, 2011 at 2:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, for XP to feel fluid one needed a machine from early to mid 2003 - a year and a half after XP launched.

- Award for best impression of Robert Pogson's 'my personal limited experiences trump reality and what you say so I win'.

Good job sir, will you be doing a Dr. Loser long and drawn out counter using colorful words?; September 18, 2011 at 2:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Good job sir, will you be doing a Dr. Loser long and drawn out counter using colorful words?

Wait one minute; I'll get DrLoser on this right swift.

....

....

Screw it, I'm not getting an account on TMR...; September 18, 2011 at 3:00 PM
Anonymous said...: "- Award for best impression of Robert Pogson's 'my personal limited experiences trump reality and what you say so I win'."

Sadly (for you) your trolling was preceeded by:

XP barely ran on fresh equipment of the time. 128 MB machines were still sold and while that amount would make for a reasonably comfortable 9x setup with XP it was like going three years backwards in performance...

Could it be, that XP actually was slow?

Who knows, who could tell... oh wait, those of us who actually used it can tell -- trolls who never saw a computer before 2005 however, are best advised to keep their crap to themselves.

I'm looking at you September 17, 2011 9:34 PM; September 18, 2011 at 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Could it be, that XP actually was slow?

While the bleating went on for far too long, the "W2K Foreva!" crowd had a point at the time. XP needed 32-64 MB more to achieve the same performance level, which at the time was a big deal. I don't know if it was the window theming, 9x compatibility bits or whatever. By 2003 it wouldn't be a big deal anymore, though XP still had yet to really differentiate itself from 2000, which wouldn't happen until SP2.; September 18, 2011 at 3:15 PM
Anonymous said...: ...By 2003 [low performance of XP] wouldn't be a big deal anymore...

Indeed, XP however wasn't hated and was a total success before 2003.

Vista on the other hand (and this is what I was getting at) worked relatively well on three years old hardware - yet it failed, the hate had a completely irrational base.

Were it rational, then by the same logic, XP should have been a complete and total failure as well.; September 18, 2011 at 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Yeah, if you had more than 512M of RAM, XP was snappy even on a 700Mhz AMD Moron chip. If you were a cheap bastard that never bothered with upgrading beyond 256M of RAM, it was slow but still faster than 2000 on the same machine.

But you didn't have random processes being killed, as in Linux.; September 18, 2011 at 4:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Yeah, if you had more than 512M of RAM, XP was snappy even on a 700Mhz AMD Moron chip.

No. It was still slow on a P4 2GHz with 1GB of RAM.

Now let's hear the "AMD IS BETAR THAN INTEL HURR DURR" crowd.; September 18, 2011 at 4:07 PM
Anonymous said...: But you didn't have random processes being killed, as in Linux.

Linux was always better - I hate random processes - kill'em all!!; September 18, 2011 at 4:09 PM
Anonymous said...: So Sarah Palin had some black cock during an affair. Maybe you guys are right after all.; September 18, 2011 at 4:25 PM
Anonymous said...: No. It was still slow on a P4 2GHz with 1GB of RAM.

It was clearly the latency between your chair and keyboard that was causing your slowness, Queef.; September 18, 2011 at 4:25 PM
Anonymous said...: @September 18, 2011 12:43 PM

I'm annoyed they didn't let my rating about Pogson teaching me MiguelSoft stay.

Those were formative years of life!; September 18, 2011 at 5:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Perhaps you could check some facts, before you open your troll-mouth again.

Get your arguments straight from Groklaw, eh?; September 18, 2011 at 5:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Good job sir, will you be doing a Dr. Loser long and drawn out counter using colorful words?

Don't forget the convoluted references to medieval theologians.; September 18, 2011 at 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Who knows, who could tell... oh wait, those of us who actually used it can tell -- trolls who never saw a computer before 2005 however, are best advised to keep their crap to themselves.

Welcome back Queefer!; September 18, 2011 at 5:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Now let's hear the "AMD IS BETAR THAN INTEL HURR DURR" crowd.

Back then, sure. Since 2006, not so much.; September 18, 2011 at 5:38 PM
His name is Robert Pogson said...: I'm annoyed they didn't let my rating about Pogson teaching me MiguelSoft stay.

Those were formative years of life!

I see now that Pogson use to wear aviator clothing (minus the pants). More lulz.; September 18, 2011 at 5:39 PM
Anonymous said...: I see now that Pogson use to wear aviator clothing (minus the pants). More lulz.

Fuck. I've just been trying to submit that for the last ten minutes because it kept erroring out.

Turns out it actually did submit, HURR DURRR.

Also: he used to smoke Marlborough cigarettes through a cigarette holder and listen to the blues on an old cassette player. And when one of us kids would say something about rock-n-roll, he'd pin us up against the bike shed wall, lilly-white legs quivering in the freezing Saskatchewan morning, and say, 'Rock-n-roll comes from the blues, kid.'; September 18, 2011 at 5:59 PM
His name is Robert Pogson said...: Oh dear!!!; September 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM
Anonymous said...: YOUR WIFE IS FUCKING NIGGERS!

Yes, we get it, you did it last time.

Anything new?; September 18, 2011 at 9:04 PM
Anonymous said...: I like how Pogson quoting the manifesto broke formatting on subsequent comments.; September 18, 2011 at 9:26 PM
Anonymous said...: I like how "POGGY, YOUR WIFE’S FUCKING NIGGERS!!!" will be up all night because Poggy has gone to sleep and the name that was used was trusted and now - BAM, expletives about his wife and men of color appear.; September 18, 2011 at 9:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Poggy has gone to sleep

But the Googlebots never sleep.

Try a Google image search for "pogson's wife" in the morning lol.; September 18, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Poggy has gone to sleep

He's not asleep. He's outside watering his plants.; September 18, 2011 at 10:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Try a Google image search for "pogson's wife" in the morning lol.

Did, nothing interesting. What were we suppose to see?; September 19, 2011 at 9:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Wow, it's just so predictable. Pogson fires off about the success of Android because it's FLOSS

Opposing posters state that Android is no longer FLOSS because it is not closed source

Pogson retorts with how the code will be released eventually

Opposing posters state that Android is closed source in the mean time.

Pogson changes focus and points out how "restrictive" Microsoft's licensing is

Opposing posters call Pogson back to the original statement of Android not being FLOSS

Pogson goes into random trance mode with statements about how customers want Android and how the OS matters

Pogson appears to be mentally about 14 years old. Not surprising he lost his job.; September 19, 2011 at 9:34 AM
Anonymous said...: because it is not closed source

Should read:

because it is closed source; September 19, 2011 at 9:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Did, nothing interesting. What were we suppose to see?

http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2011/09/gold.html?showComment=1316444040676#c2896175021981928976; September 19, 2011 at 9:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Goodfish and thanks for all the night.; October 7, 2011 at 4:24 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 2601 – 2702 of 2702 Newer› Newest»

Linux Hater's Blog

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

progress

2702 flames:

Got anything rant-worthy? or just plain stupid?

Hater Merch

Greatest Hates

Old grudges (archive)

Linkydinks

Hater Wannabes

Offshoots