On 8/13/2008 3:41 PM RLM spake thus:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:27:47 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

David Nebenzahl writes:

On 8/13/2008 1:36 PM Dan Espen spake thus:

David Nebenzahl writes:

I happen to agree with you here. However, don't let's forget that
Mac's OS X, which is on a significantly larger number of desktops
than any of the *nixes, is also Unix, but with an elegant front end
that doesn't require any command like geek knowledge.

OSX and Linux have XP beat too (if what you want is a slick interface).

There are a million of these on youtube, here's one chosen at random:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Fbk52Mk1w

Personally, I want my computer to work the way I want it to. I want to
be in control of every aspect of the interface. There, Linux is king.

Sure, but again, that's sometimes the wrong argument for the wrong
audience. Like how all the open-source geeks are always raving about
how superior things like Firefox and Thunderbird are (both of which I
use, by the way) for just that very reason: that the user has full
control over lots of aspects of the program's behavior.

Problem is, a vanishingly small proportion of the population is 1) able
to and 2) wants to control their software at this level.

Can't agree, just about anyone can install and configure Firefox.

To most
folks, dealing with Firefox and Thunderbird's hundreds of cryptic
configuration variables (with no good comprehensive documentation to
boot, unless you root around the web and happen to come upon some guy's
partial compilation by accident) is just a gigantic headache and a pain
in the ass that's just not worth the trouble. But I guess we should
blame *them* for not being computer-literate enough, right?

Not sure what you mean here.
I don't use Windows myself, but from what I've seen, Firefox and
Thunderbird are configured exactly the same way as IE and Outlook, thru
the menu dialogs.

If you really want something unusual you go into "about:config". The
same as IE and Outlook, except for them it's the registry.

Most think Linux is some wild ass system that is all command line. I'm
with you. Let them suffer their fate. Keep buying proprietary crap ware.

My Linux runs if I never shut it down. It stays up to date within hours of
a problem. Not weeks that run into years without repair like the most
popular system that has these folks trapped with malware. I don't waste
time constantly doing maintenance of scanning and defraging. If I break
it, which I would have to try to do any more, I can repair the damage.
When a newer version comes out I just install it and don't loose
everything that has been saved in the past.

Basically the computer has to have the house fall on it to ruin it but the
software will work if I can salvage just the hard drive. I don't use it as
a windows server so I don't need virus software because we both know the
true key is a unique password that protects /, and a proper firewall. (c;\=

Isn't that right Dan?

Registered Linux user 297687
http://counter.li.org/

Let me say first that I'm not picking a fight over which OS is better. I
concede that Linux is probably better than any of the "proprietary" OSes.

But you're missing the points, one of which is that the "superior OS" is
only used by a tiny fraction of computer users, despite it being so
all-fired better, but more importantly, that's really the OS of choice
of computer geeks, not most users.

Let me ask you in all sincerity: do you think the average user could
(assuming they knew about it, and assuming they wanted to) successfully
install Linux on a computer and keep it running? I ask out of ignorance,
having never installed it myself.

And even if they could do that, I doubt if they have the knowledge you
have which would let them recover from problems as easily as you do.

It may be a great OS, but face it, it's never going to be used by
anything but a tiny minority of those with computers.


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken

On 8/13/2008 5:01 PM spake thus:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:26:16 -0500, Chris wrote:

HeyBub wrote:

Chris wrote:
If you have more than one Windows machine try the Microsoft Live
OneCare deal. Has a free trial but after that will cost almost $60/year
for 3 PCs, I think. However has more than just anti-virus
protection.

Good advice.

Or switch to Linux and get rid of the virus treat for ever :)

Right. Switch to a knock-off of a 40-year old operating system designed by a
money-losing division of your local telephone company and enhanced my geeks
who think the DOS command line interface is insufficiently cryptic.

By so doing, you might raise the percentage of desktops using Linux from its
0.86% level to something beyond the "barely detectable" designation.

Having a bad day? Chill off.

Dear Heybub,

Please try to be gentle with folks such as Chris. They are extremely
frustrated already by their poor choice of an obtuse and arcane
operating system. They now have to fiercely defend that poor choice,
which stresses them out even further. They are, as a group, very thin
skinned, and if you persist, poor Chris's head may well explode. You
wouldn't want to be responsible for a tradgedy like that, would you?
WOULD YOU???

From what I've seen from HeyBub, he might get a chuckle out of that.
(Not saying *I* would; I'm agnostic on that part of it.)


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken

RLM writes:

Basically the computer has to have the house fall on it to ruin it but the
software will work if I can salvage just the hard drive. I don't use it as
a windows server so I don't need virus software because we both know the
true key is a unique password that protects /, and a proper firewall. (c;\=

Isn't that right Dan?

No argument here.

Man I'd hate to be running some kind of AV examining my emails, all my
inbound files. That has to slow the system to a crawl.

I sleep better knowing exactly what my machine is doing.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...


I am curious. What exactly is your relationship with Consumer
Reports?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



John,

I received a 1 year subscription to Consumers Reports as a wedding gift in
the late 1960s when I got married. Ever since then, I have renewed the
subscription, and used their reviews to assist me in making shopping
decisions. I have purchased many major items over nearly 40 years with their
input, and in many if not most cases, found their comparisons and data to be
accurate and generally valid. In cases where I have been disappointed, I can
often find a good reason which really explains why their choice and my
experience differ, typically my false assumption that they will compare
products using much the same discriminants which I would.

When I retrospectively look back upon items I have purchased for which they
collect and report reliability, my experiences are very much correlated with
their data. Obvious examples would be extreme satisfaction with my current
car's repair history, which matches their data to an uncanny extent, as well
as dissatisfaction with the repair history of a few home appliances which
they now report in the lower ranking repair data.

My only other connection was a single opportunity to perform certain testing
which fell under a non-disclosure agreement whose duration I cannot
accurately recall as a hired consulting engineering company employee in the
early 1990s. They impressed me tremendously with their very thorough, very
well informed, and very meticulous approach to the specific testing which
required lab facilities which they lacked and my employer possessed.

You asked a full disclosure and this is about all I can offer. There are,
and have been, specialized test facilities and labs whose opinions and
evaluations I would value as superior to CU. For many years as an avid
(rabid?) audiophile, I would not especially trust my selection of audio gear
to CU when better evaluations were being offered in the audiophile magazines
and from some distinguished engineers whose opinions I valued. To this day,
I would put more stock and value in reading lens evaluations and camera
evaluations from others on the Internet and elsewhere rather than depend on
CU. I do sincerely believe, however, that they act with integrity, very good
technical judgment, impartiality, and mostly correct metrics.

Incidentally, I have been briefly involved with the CPSC, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, in a consulting role. I won't elaborate except to
say that they are an extremely poor excuse for a testing organization.

Smarty

David Nebenzahl writes:

Let me say first that I'm not picking a fight over which OS is
better. I concede that Linux is probably better than any of the
"proprietary" OSes.

But you're missing the points, one of which is that the "superior OS"
is only used by a tiny fraction of computer users, despite it being so
all-fired better, but more importantly, that's really the OS of choice
of computer geeks, not most users.

I haven't missed that point. I concede that there are more people
running Windows.

I don't see how it's all that important to be using what everyone
else is using.

Let me ask you in all sincerity: do you think the average user could
(assuming they knew about it, and assuming they wanted to)
successfully install Linux on a computer and keep it running? I ask
out of ignorance, having never installed it myself.

Yes. Linux installs have gotten easier and easier.
If you can install XP, you'll find installing Linux is even easier
(without all the reboots).

If you can't install XP, you can run Linux without even doing a
proper install. There are "live CDs". Just put the CD in the drive and
reboot. You don't install anything it just runs Linux.
If you have a machine that can boot from USB there are versions that
run from a USB device.

And even if they could do that, I doubt if they have the knowledge you
have which would let them recover from problems as easily as you do.

How do you deal with Windows problems? Same technique works with
Linux.

For many people, it's not an either or type choice. Many people
run both. They set up their machines for dual boot. If you've got
to get something done and you can't figure out how to do it, boot into
the other OS. Many people claim they switch back and forth and eventually
find they don't need Windows after a while. For some it goes the other
way.

It may be a great OS, but face it, it's never going to be used by
anything but a tiny minority of those with computers.

If your goal is to run what everyone else runs, Linux isn't a good
choice.

If you have any curiosity burn a live CD and see how far you get.
It won't hurt anything.

I think what surprises most people is the massive amount of
free software available. The "Add/Remove Programs" feature
really works. In Windows, all it's good for is removing
stuff. With Linux there are thousands of free applications to
install and have fun with.

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
Smarty wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message


man, learn to trim! :^/

By 'self selected':
1. They only survey subscribers, who are by definition not regular
consumers, but rather people who consider themselves smart shoppers.
2. What reply rate do they get on their surveys? I'd be real surprised if
it is over 20-30 percent. Again, self selected.
3. I'm no expert, but I have written or evaluated a few customer surveys
over the years. I found 2 clusters of typical replies- people who are
****ed, and people who are still trying to justify their purchase (to
themselves, spouse, whatever. I dunno.) People who bought something to do
a job, and find that it works, are seldom motivated to report on their
experience, IMHO. What do you do with the pop-up surveys on vendor web
sites? You made your purchase already, or sent in your trouble ticket, or
whatever. What is the motivation to fill out the survey, unless you still
want to vent?

In this age of disposable products and essentially meaningless warranties,
I don't think there ARE any valid indicators of quality and reliability
for consumer goods, other than the shadow indicator of overall/ongoing
sales figures and repeat business. It isn't like industrial or commercial
equipment, where every service call and warranty claim are logged by
vendor and customer, and problem brands and vendors do not get the repeat
business. When I buy 20-30 K worth of hardware from a vendor, he REALLY
wants me to be happy, so I'll come back. Something doesn't work, I get a
swapout shipped overnight, or they send a tech out. When I buy a 20 dollar
item at Wally World, neither the manufacturer or reseller really care-
they already have my money. Any further contact with me is just an expense
to them.

How do I judge quality of consumer items? School of hard knocks, mainly. I
look real hard at the demo unit in the store, run my hands over it, see if
it feels like flimsy junk, look at the fit, finish, machining and plating
quality, so on and so forth. Once you have been buying things a few years,
junk usually announces itself pretty well, as does quality. (Best example
is hand tools- if it feels wrong in your hand, it is probably crap.) If I
an buying remotely, like on line, I'll go by what brands have served me
well in the past, as well as the informed opinions (however anecdotal) of
people I know and trust who have purchased from that manufacturer before.

--
aem sends, rant depleted....

I may be entirely atypical, but I consistently submit their survey each year
with the good, the bad, and the ugly all reported as honestly as I can. I
don't personally subscribe to the opinion that only self-selected and highly
opinionated replies with disgruntled consumers comprise their results. The
Lexus survey shows their car to be nearly perfect in terms of its aging
characteristics, and the opposite is true for some other brands, with every
type of good and bad in between.

I think there ***ARE*** valid indicators of quality and reliability, and I,
for one, would much rather buy a mattress which has withstood tens of
thousands of testing impacts without collapse rather than buy one which
falls apart in the same testing sequence. Ditto for most other items they
test. If anything, I would argue that a world of crappy products and even
crappier warrantees ***DEMANDS*** that consumers apply whatever selection
methods they can to make an informed decision. I categorically reject the
notion that complex and expensive items should be purchased ad hoc, or by
any "dumbed-down" method which entirely overlooks intrinsic design or build
quality.

For many items, the methods you recommend make a great deal of sense to me,
and I too use all of my own powers of observation to make the right choice.
The look, the feel, the heft, the fit, the finish, etc........ This
inspection approach is very useful, necessary, but not sufficient in many
cases however, since they are often far too superficial. I will entrust
somebody with good instruments to measure my future tires, mattresses, cars,
and many other items where the observations from eyes and hands are not
enough. Anecdotal opinions and past experience are both also very useful,
but again not enough to really answer the question for most purchases. As an
engineer, I will admit that I tend to sweat a lot of details and worry a lot
of nit-picking points, so I don't presume others have the time, inclination,
or technical interest / background to dissect and analyze some of this
stuff. And they are clearly entitled to their choices no more or no less
than I am.

Smarty

Smarty wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...


I am curious. What exactly is your relationship with Consumer
Reports?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



John,

I received a 1 year subscription to Consumers Reports as a wedding
gift in the late 1960s when I got married. Ever since then, I have
renewed the subscription, and used their reviews to assist me in
making shopping decisions. I have purchased many major items over
nearly 40 years with their input, and in many if not most cases,
found their comparisons and data to be accurate and generally valid.
In cases where I have been disappointed, I can often find a good
reason which really explains why their choice and my experience
differ, typically my false assumption that they will compare
products
using much the same discriminants which I would.

When I retrospectively look back upon items I have purchased for
which they collect and report reliability, my experiences are very
much correlated with their data. Obvious examples would be extreme
satisfaction with my current car's repair history, which matches
their data to an uncanny extent, as well as dissatisfaction with the
repair history of a few home appliances which they now report in the
lower ranking repair data.

My only other connection was a single opportunity to perform certain
testing which fell under a non-disclosure agreement whose duration I
cannot accurately recall as a hired consulting engineering company
employee in the early 1990s. They impressed me tremendously with
their very thorough, very well informed, and very meticulous
approach
to the specific testing which required lab facilities which they
lacked and my employer possessed.

You asked a full disclosure and this is about all I can offer. There
are, and have been, specialized test facilities and labs whose
opinions and evaluations I would value as superior to CU. For many
years as an avid (rabid?) audiophile, I would not especially trust
my
selection of audio gear to CU when better evaluations were being
offered in the audiophile magazines and from some distinguished
engineers whose opinions I valued. To this day, I would put more
stock and value in reading lens evaluations and camera evaluations
from others on the Internet and elsewhere rather than depend on CU.
I
do sincerely believe, however, that they act with integrity, very
good technical judgment, impartiality, and mostly correct metrics.

Incidentally, I have been briefly involved with the CPSC, the
Consumer
Product Safety Commission, in a consulting role. I won't elaborate
except to say that they are an extremely poor excuse for a testing
organization.

I figured you'd been on their payroll at some point. Glad to know I
was right.

plonk

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Aug 13, 6:30*pm, "David" wrote:

I'm having the same problem with Norton that you described, completely
removing all traces of their product. Did you find a way to do it? If so, I
would really appreciate hearing what you did to get rid of all the pieces of
this product.

Thanks,

David

Don't know if it work after the initial uninstall but here is what you
need.

http://service1.symantec.com/Support...05033108162039

You might also want download and try the Revo uninstaller. (it's
free)

http://www.revouninstaller.com/

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:26:16 -0500, Chris wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
Chris wrote:
If you have more than one Windows machine try the Microsoft Live
OneCare deal. Has a free trial but after that will cost almost $60/year
for 3 PCs, I think. However has more than just anti-virus
protection.
Good advice.

Or switch to Linux and get rid of the virus treat for ever :)
Right. Switch to a knock-off of a 40-year old operating system designed by a
money-losing division of your local telephone company and enhanced my geeks
who think the DOS command line interface is insufficiently cryptic.

By so doing, you might raise the percentage of desktops using Linux from its
0.86% level to something beyond the "barely detectable" designation.


Having a bad day? Chill off.

Dear Heybub,

Please try to be gentle with folks such as Chris. They are extremely
frustrated already by their poor choice of an obtuse and arcane
operating system. They now have to fiercely defend that poor choice,
which stresses them out even further. They are, as a group, very thin
skinned, and if you persist, poor Chris's head may well explode. You
wouldn't want to be responsible for a tradgedy like that, would you?
WOULD YOU???



So you have a sort of sense of humor? Miracles never end to surprise me.

On 8/13/2008 6:08 PM J. Clarke spake thus:

Smarty wrote:

Incidentally, I have been briefly involved with the CPSC, the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, in a consulting role. I won't
elaborate except to say that they are an extremely poor excuse for
a testing organization.

I figured you'd been on their payroll at some point. Glad to know I
was right.

plonk

This idjit obviously can't distinguish between Consumer's Union and the
CPSC. I wouldn't sweat being "plonk"ed by him.


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 8/13/2008 6:08 PM J. Clarke spake thus:

Smarty wrote:

Incidentally, I have been briefly involved with the CPSC, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, in a consulting role. I won't
elaborate except to say that they are an extremely poor excuse for
a testing organization.

I figured you'd been on their payroll at some point. Glad to know I was
right.

plonk

This idiot obviously can't distinguish between Consumer's Union and the
CPSC. I wouldn't sweat being "plonk"ed by him.


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken


Thanks David. It's clear to me that John needed a way to exit this dialog
while still saving face. Since the argument he raised was no longer
defendable, and he (thankfully) chose not to get into a name-calling escape
like Salty Dog, he chose the next obvious tactic, to attempt some "guilt by
association" strategy.

It entirely backfired, since the point he made is, as you state, idiotic and
specious.

Thanks for your support David. I have absolutely no hidden agenda here
except that I wanted to offer the original poster a source of very recent
(September 08) reviews of antivirus software, and I find Consumer Reports
and Consumers Union to be great resources, and originally recommended them
for that reason. Why somebody else needs to attack my suggestion in the
first place can only be explained by the myriad of weird people who show up
on the Internet with a need to criticize.

Smarty

Smarty

On 8/13/2008 11:39 PM Smarty spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

On 8/13/2008 6:08 PM J. Clarke spake thus:

Smarty wrote:

Incidentally, I have been briefly involved with the CPSC, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, in a consulting role. I won't
elaborate except to say that they are an extremely poor excuse for
a testing organization.

I figured you'd been on their payroll at some point. Glad to know I was
right.

plonk

This idjit obviously can't distinguish between Consumer's Union and the
CPSC. I wouldn't sweat being "plonk"ed by him.

Thanks David. It's clear to me that John needed a way to exit this dialog
while still saving face. Since the argument he raised was no longer
defendable, and he (thankfully) chose not to get into a name-calling escape
like Salty Dog, he chose the next obvious tactic, to attempt some "guilt by
association" strategy.

You're welcome.

Couple meta-things:

1) Why did you feel compelled to change my spelling in what you quoted?
When I wrote "idjit", I meant it.

2) You oughta learn how (or set up your mail/news program (Microsoft
Windows Mail 6.0 from the looks of things) to trim signatures from your
replies (the two hyphens in a row are the standard delimiter, and it
seems every other mail/news client in the world *except* Microsoft's
adhere to this time-honored tradition).


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
On 8/13/2008 11:39 PM Smarty spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

On 8/13/2008 6:08 PM J. Clarke spake thus:

Smarty wrote:

Incidentally, I have been briefly involved with the CPSC, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, in a consulting role. I won't
elaborate except to say that they are an extremely poor excuse for
a testing organization.

I figured you'd been on their payroll at some point. Glad to know I
was right.

plonk

This idjit obviously can't distinguish between Consumer's Union and the
CPSC. I wouldn't sweat being "plonk"ed by him.

Thanks David. It's clear to me that John needed a way to exit this dialog
while still saving face. Since the argument he raised was no longer
defendable, and he (thankfully) chose not to get into a name-calling
escape like Salty Dog, he chose the next obvious tactic, to attempt some
"guilt by association" strategy.

You're welcome.

Couple meta-things:

1) Why did you feel compelled to change my spelling in what you quoted?
When I wrote "idjit", I meant it.

2) You oughta learn how (or set up your mail/news program (Microsoft
Windows Mail 6.0 from the looks of things) to trim signatures from your
replies (the two hyphens in a row are the standard delimiter, and it seems
every other mail/news client in the world *except* Microsoft's adhere to
this time-honored tradition).


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken


My apologies for correcting the apparent mis-spelled word. I spell check
withot regard to who made the (apparent) error so it was not obvious where
it originated as I clicked through the spell checker.

Indeed my Windows Mail program does not offer any option to trim signatures
automatically, and my custom is to not particularly trim the thread exchange
heavily if at all. I agree that it is more easily read, transmitted, and
stored in an edited form. Mea culpa... ;-)

Smarty

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:01:47 -0500, Chris wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:26:16 -0500, Chris wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
Chris wrote:
If you have more than one Windows machine try the Microsoft Live
OneCare deal. Has a free trial but after that will cost almost $60/year
for 3 PCs, I think. However has more than just anti-virus
protection.
Good advice.

Or switch to Linux and get rid of the virus treat for ever :)
Right. Switch to a knock-off of a 40-year old operating system designed by a
money-losing division of your local telephone company and enhanced my geeks
who think the DOS command line interface is insufficiently cryptic.

By so doing, you might raise the percentage of desktops using Linux from its
0.86% level to something beyond the "barely detectable" designation.


Having a bad day? Chill off.

Dear Heybub,

Please try to be gentle with folks such as Chris. They are extremely
frustrated already by their poor choice of an obtuse and arcane
operating system. They now have to fiercely defend that poor choice,
which stresses them out even further. They are, as a group, very thin
skinned, and if you persist, poor Chris's head may well explode. You
wouldn't want to be responsible for a tradgedy like that, would you?
WOULD YOU???



So you have a sort of sense of humor? Miracles never end to surprise me.

If you knew more, you wouldn't get surprised so often by "miracles".

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 04:12:35 -0400, "Smarty"
wrote:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
rs.com...
On 8/13/2008 11:39 PM Smarty spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

On 8/13/2008 6:08 PM J. Clarke spake thus:

Smarty wrote:

Incidentally, I have been briefly involved with the CPSC, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, in a consulting role. I won't
elaborate except to say that they are an extremely poor excuse for
a testing organization.

I figured you'd been on their payroll at some point. Glad to know I
was right.

plonk

This idjit obviously can't distinguish between Consumer's Union and the
CPSC. I wouldn't sweat being "plonk"ed by him.

Thanks David. It's clear to me that John needed a way to exit this dialog
while still saving face. Since the argument he raised was no longer
defendable, and he (thankfully) chose not to get into a name-calling
escape like Salty Dog, he chose the next obvious tactic, to attempt some
"guilt by association" strategy.

You're welcome.

Couple meta-things:

1) Why did you feel compelled to change my spelling in what you quoted?
When I wrote "idjit", I meant it.

2) You oughta learn how (or set up your mail/news program (Microsoft
Windows Mail 6.0 from the looks of things) to trim signatures from your
replies (the two hyphens in a row are the standard delimiter, and it seems
every other mail/news client in the world *except* Microsoft's adhere to
this time-honored tradition).


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken


My apologies for correcting the apparent mis-spelled word. I spell check
withot regard to who made the (apparent) error so it was not obvious where
it originated as I clicked through the spell checker.

Indeed my Windows Mail program does not offer any option to trim signatures
automatically, and my custom is to not particularly trim the thread exchange
heavily if at all. I agree that it is more easily read, transmitted, and
stored in an edited form. Mea culpa... ;-)

Smarty

You two should get a room.

Dan Espen wrote:

Or switch to Linux and get rid of the virus treat for ever :)
Right. Switch to a knock-off of a 40-year old operating system
designed by a money-losing division of your local telephone company
and enhanced my geeks who think the DOS command line interface is
insufficiently cryptic.

Heh; good one.

No it's not. It's not any better than his "Linux
will give your cats warts" junk.
Linux hasn't relied on the command line interface for a long time now.

I never said "Linux will give your cat warts." You're thinking of Firefox.



I'm only reading this thread because of the humor content.
Anti Virus software...what a joke.

You guys really pay for that stuff?

If you mean XP/Vista vs. Linux? Sure.

It's the difference between dating a chorus girl compared to opening the
back door and screwing the whole world.

Dan Espen wrote:

OSX and Linux have XP beat too (if what you want is a slick
interface).


That's like the company that touts in boring detail the qualities of it's
1/4" drill bit [pardon the pun] and completely misses the fact that, in
spite of millions of 1/4" drill bits being sold each year, NO ONE WANTS A
1/4" DRILL BIT!

What they want is a 1/4" hole.

RLM wrote:

Basically the computer has to have the house fall on it to ruin it
but the software will work if I can salvage just the hard drive. I
don't use it as
a windows server so I don't need virus software because we both know
the true key is a unique password that protects /, and a proper
firewall. (c;\=

Isn't that right Dan?

Just keep on truckin', dude. I wish you well.

Ignore the fact that the most destructive virus in the history of computing
involved Unix (Linux) operating systems.

wrote:

Right. Switch to a knock-off of a 40-year old operating system
designed by a money-losing division of your local telephone company
and enhanced my geeks who think the DOS command line interface is
insufficiently cryptic.

By so doing, you might raise the percentage of desktops using Linux
from its
0.86% level to something beyond the "barely detectable" designation.


Having a bad day? Chill off.

Dear Heybub,

Please try to be gentle with folks such as Chris. They are extremely
frustrated already by their poor choice of an obtuse and arcane
operating system. They now have to fiercely defend that poor choice,
which stresses them out even further. They are, as a group, very thin
skinned, and if you persist, poor Chris's head may well explode. You
wouldn't want to be responsible for a tradgedy like that, would you?
WOULD YOU???

Linux is another Microsoft mistake!

I've held, for a long time, that the development of Linux was secretly
funded by Microsoft in an attempt to drain the nay-sayers, nit-pickers,
pettifogs, cut-purses, and athletes of the tongue from the ranks of serious
computer users so we normal folk could go about our computing experiences
unmolested.

Unfortunately, all the hirsute people who smell funny now gather together
electronically and bother the rest of us, much like another Microsoft
experiment involving a paper-clip.

"HeyBub" writes:

Dan Espen wrote:

OSX and Linux have XP beat too (if what you want is a slick
interface).

That's like the company that touts in boring detail the qualities of it's
1/4" drill bit [pardon the pun] and completely misses the fact that, in
spite of millions of 1/4" drill bits being sold each year, NO ONE WANTS A
1/4" DRILL BIT!

What they want is a 1/4" hole.

Hmm, trying to make sense of that analogy...
Nope.

A slick interface is a goal. Not my goal but why else would anyone
install Vista? The "Aero" interface managed to push the hardware
requirements up to 2gig of memory. Somehow OSX and Linux did just
as well or better without raising memory requirements. In fact,
newer versions run faster on the same hardware.

You guys really pay for that stuff?

If you mean XP/Vista vs. Linux? Sure.

It's the difference between dating a chorus girl compared to opening the
back door and screwing the whole world.

Another analogy...
Looks like you have a knack for it.

It should have been clear I was talking about paying for AV software.
First you rent an OS so full of holes that you then have to rent AV
software to prevent that OS from being eaten alive.

As far as this last analogy...
In one case you pay, in the other case it's free.
I don't think "dating a chorus girl" is the right term.

"Dan Espen" wrote:

Yes. Linux installs have gotten easier and easier.
If you can install XP, you'll find installing Linux is even easier
(without all the reboots).

If you can't install XP, you can run Linux without even doing a
proper install. There are "live CDs". Just put the CD in the drive
and
reboot. You don't install anything it just runs Linux.
If you have a machine that can boot from USB there are versions that
run from a USB device.

How do you deal with Windows problems? Same technique works with
Linux.

For many people, it's not an either or type choice. Many people
run both. They set up their machines for dual boot. If you've got
to get something done and you can't figure out how to do it, boot into
the other OS. Many people claim they switch back and forth and
eventually
find they don't need Windows after a while. For some it goes the
other
way.


If you have any curiosity burn a live CD and see how far you get.
It won't hurt anything.

I think what surprises most people is the massive amount of
free software available. The "Add/Remove Programs" feature
really works. In Windows, all it's good for is removing
stuff. With Linux there are thousands of free applications to
install and have fun with.

Dan, are you saying that installing and working with Linux is do-able
for someone at the novice (not newbie) level?

I hate Windows and am not fond of IE. I had to go back to IE after
upgrading Firefox screwed my computer up. I had been using it for years.
But every damn thing I have to install for windows eats up so much
resources. And I really don't know what I Need to install and what I can
skip. I also tried Thunderbird but wasn't crazy about it either. I use
OE.

Can I somehow install Linux over windows--I don't know what a dual boot
is. I will do a bit of research.

rose

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 04:12:35 -0400, "Smarty"
wrote:


You two should get a room.


Excellent point and articulately stated.......

"rose" writes:

"Dan Espen" wrote:

Dan, are you saying that installing and working with Linux is do-able
for someone at the novice (not newbie) level?

Yes.

I hate Windows and am not fond of IE. I had to go back to IE after
upgrading Firefox screwed my computer up. I had been using it for years.
But every damn thing I have to install for windows eats up so much
resources. And I really don't know what I Need to install and what I can
skip. I also tried Thunderbird but wasn't crazy about it either. I use
OE.

Can I somehow install Linux over windows--I don't know what a dual boot
is. I will do a bit of research.

You can install Linux over, beside or inside windows.

Over is very easy, boot from the CD. One of the first questions it
asks is do you want to install over.

Beside (dual boot) is a bit harder.
Mainly you have to decide how much space you
want to use for Linux (that's the harder part).
The installer will resize the Windows partition if necessary.
Next time you boot, it asks you want to boot Windows or Linux.

Inside can be done a couple of ways:

With WUBI Linux, you install Linux just like any other Windows application.
Next time you boot it asks if you want to boot Linux or Windows.
The difference is, Linux resides within the Windows file system.

There are a few Virtual Machines. I've used VMWare (which you can
now get for free) and Virtual Box. Both let you run Linux inside Windows
or Windows inside Linux. Both run at the same time. Also very simple
to install.

As I said previously, you don't even have to install it.
You can get a "live" CD or USB key. Then boot from the CD or
USB key. If you're afraid you'll mess something up, the live
CDs are really risk free.

Dan Espen wrote:
"rose" writes:

"Dan Espen" wrote:

Dan, are you saying that installing and working with Linux is
do-able
for someone at the novice (not newbie) level?

Yes.

I hate Windows and am not fond of IE. I had to go back to IE after
upgrading Firefox screwed my computer up. I had been using it for
years. But every damn thing I have to install for windows eats up
so
much resources. And I really don't know what I Need to install and
what I can skip. I also tried Thunderbird but wasn't crazy about it
either. I use OE.

Can I somehow install Linux over windows--I don't know what a dual
boot is. I will do a bit of research.

You can install Linux over, beside or inside windows.

Over is very easy, boot from the CD. One of the first questions it
asks is do you want to install over.

Beside (dual boot) is a bit harder.
Mainly you have to decide how much space you
want to use for Linux (that's the harder part).
The installer will resize the Windows partition if necessary.
Next time you boot, it asks you want to boot Windows or Linux.

Has the Linux community finally gotten a reliable read/write NTFS
driver working?

Inside can be done a couple of ways:

With WUBI Linux, you install Linux just like any other Windows
application. Next time you boot it asks if you want to boot Linux or
Windows.
The difference is, Linux resides within the Windows file system.

There are a few Virtual Machines. I've used VMWare (which you can
now get for free) and Virtual Box. Both let you run Linux inside
Windows or Windows inside Linux. Both run at the same time. Also
very simple
to install.

As I said previously, you don't even have to install it.
You can get a "live" CD or USB key. Then boot from the CD or
USB key. If you're afraid you'll mess something up, the live
CDs are really risk free.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" writes:

Has the Linux community finally gotten a reliable read/write NTFS
driver working?

Yes.

One reason to keep a Linux live CD around is for repairing Windows.
Just did that at work a while back.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:22:58 -0400, "Smarty"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 04:12:35 -0400, "Smarty"
wrote:


You two should get a room.


Excellent point and articulately stated.......


If you could articulate just a little better, you could get a room
with yourself.

Dan Espen wrote:

Can I somehow install Linux over windows--I don't know what a dual
boot is. I will do a bit of research.

You can install Linux over, beside or inside windows.


I am somehow reminded of Samuel Johnson's dictum:

"A woman in the pulpit is like a dog raised up on its hinder legs. It is not
well done, but you are surprised to find it done at all."

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:22:58 -0400, "Smarty"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 04:12:35 -0400, "Smarty"
wrote:


You two should get a room.


Excellent point and articulately stated.......


If you could articulate just a little better, you could get a room
with yourself.



If you could type a little slower, maybe I could understand what you are
trying to say.......

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:

Right. Switch to a knock-off of a 40-year old operating system
designed by a money-losing division of your local telephone company
and enhanced my geeks who think the DOS command line interface is
insufficiently cryptic.

By so doing, you might raise the percentage of desktops using Linux
from its
0.86% level to something beyond the "barely detectable" designation.


Having a bad day? Chill off.
Dear Heybub,

Please try to be gentle with folks such as Chris. They are extremely
frustrated already by their poor choice of an obtuse and arcane
....

Linux is another Microsoft mistake!

I've held, for a long time, that the development of Linux was secretly

Unfortunately, all the hirsute people who smell funny now gather together
electronically and bother the rest of us, much like another Microsoft
experiment involving a paper-clip.


You got that wrong too. I am not hirsute, shower regularly and couldn't
care less to talk to an incompetent person like you about computers.

I was helping the OP when you began your venomous pro-Windows spew,
remember? No, you won't.

In case you worry, I am not trying to convert you to Linux, honest. Stay
with Windows, someone has to pay the sucker price for software, and that
someone is you.

Chris wrote:

Unfortunately, all the hirsute people who smell funny now gather
together electronically and bother the rest of us, much like another
Microsoft experiment involving a paper-clip.


You got that wrong too. I am not hirsute, shower regularly and
couldn't care less to talk to an incompetent person like you about
computers.

Didn't say you were hairy. If you knew much about set theory, or even logic,
you'd see that the set I mentioned was not complete. In other words the set
of hairy people is not identical with the set of Linux users. As for
competence, you may be right. I teach computing science at the university
level and we academics have a well-deserved reputation for not living in the
real world. But I only teach part-time, some maybe you'll cut me some slack.


I was helping the OP when you began your venomous pro-Windows spew,
remember? No, you won't.

I didn't start it. Someone - it may have been you - began touting the
superiority of Linux when the original subject had nothing to do with Ubuntu
or some other incarnation of Linux. Many Linux users are like that -
proposing Linux as better than fish. "I use Windows." (get Linux!). "I need
an AV program for XP." (get Linux). "I have a flat!" (get Linux). "Isn't it
a shame about famine in Sudan?" (get Linux). "I have giant festering,
fungating boils all over my body. My dog, too!" (get Linux).

As for helping people way back when, I was employed as a programmer in 1964
and have been doing computer work since. You young whippersnappers just
don't get it.


In case you worry, I am not trying to convert you to Linux, honest.
Stay with Windows, someone has to pay the sucker price for software,
and that someone is you.

I own a software company. I develop software for a living. I expect to get
paid for it and I don't mind paying someone else for their efforts. Folks
who base their evaluation of a product or service entirely on price are
probably equally happy with a blow-up doll.

I also own a bag full of Microsoft stock, but that in no way influences my
opinion. No sir.

"HeyBub" writes:

Chris wrote:
I was helping the OP when you began your venomous pro-Windows spew,
remember? No, you won't.

I didn't start it. Someone - it may have been you - began touting the
superiority of Linux when the original subject had nothing to do with Ubuntu
or some other incarnation of Linux. Many Linux users are like that -
proposing Linux as better than fish. "I use Windows." (get Linux!). "I need
an AV program for XP." (get Linux). "I have a flat!" (get Linux). "Isn't it
a shame about famine in Sudan?" (get Linux). "I have giant festering,
fungating boils all over my body. My dog, too!" (get Linux).

The subject was a good AV program.

If you don't think Linux is a good suggestion,
your logical capabilities are failing you.

Running Linux is an excellent way to protect yourself from computer
viruses.

As for helping people way back when, I was employed as a programmer in 1964
and have been doing computer work since. You young whippersnappers just
don't get it.

This whippersnapper started in '64 too.

In case you worry, I am not trying to convert you to Linux, honest.
Stay with Windows, someone has to pay the sucker price for software,
and that someone is you.

I own a software company. I develop software for a living. I expect to get
paid for it and I don't mind paying someone else for their efforts. Folks
who base their evaluation of a product or service entirely on price are
probably equally happy with a blow-up doll.

Again those bad analogies...
now blow-up dolls are free?

I also own a bag full of Microsoft stock, but that in no way influences my
opinion. No sir.

Wow, you admit to owning MSFT?
How have the last 8 years been treating you?
Not so good huh?

Seriously, MSFT? Were you expecting them to increase their market share?
It doesn't pay to buy evil.

Not too late to grab some AAPL.
I got some in 2005. Sure wish I have a bag full.

On 8/14/2008 8:24 PM Dan Espen spake thus:

"HeyBub" writes:

Chris wrote:

I was helping the OP when you began your venomous pro-Windows spew,
remember? No, you won't.

I didn't start it. Someone - it may have been you - began touting the
superiority of Linux when the original subject had nothing to do with Ubuntu
or some other incarnation of Linux. Many Linux users are like that -
proposing Linux as better than fish. "I use Windows." (get Linux!). "I need
an AV program for XP." (get Linux). "I have a flat!" (get Linux). "Isn't it
a shame about famine in Sudan?" (get Linux). "I have giant festering,
fungating boils all over my body. My dog, too!" (get Linux).

The subject was a good AV program.

If you don't think Linux is a good suggestion,
your logical capabilities are failing you.

Running Linux is an excellent way to protect yourself from computer
viruses.

Speaking of bad analogies, that's a bit like saying "buying a Hummer is
an excellent way to protect you from crash injuries in an accident".


--
"In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I
will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the
population into concentration camps and turn the country into a
wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do
that. Let ME do it.'"

- Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson
presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost
Authority".

Dan Espen wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

Chris wrote:
I was helping the OP when you began your venomous pro-Windows spew,
remember? No, you won't.

I didn't start it. Someone - it may have been you - began touting the
superiority of Linux when the original subject had nothing to do
with Ubuntu or some other incarnation of Linux. Many Linux users are
like that - proposing Linux as better than fish. "I use Windows."
(get Linux!). "I need an AV program for XP." (get Linux). "I have a
flat!" (get Linux). "Isn't it a shame about famine in Sudan?" (get
Linux). "I have giant festering, fungating boils all over my body.
My dog, too!" (get Linux).

The subject was a good AV program.

If you don't think Linux is a good suggestion,
your logical capabilities are failing you.

You point is well taken. Should someone's goal - to the exclusion of most
everything else - be to avoid viruses, then I concede Linux to be a swell
solution. So is a stuffed bear paw.




I own a software company. I develop software for a living. I expect
to get paid for it and I don't mind paying someone else for their
efforts. Folks who base their evaluation of a product or service
entirely on price are probably equally happy with a blow-up doll.

Again those bad analogies...
now blow-up dolls are free?

Used ones that don't hold air can probably be had for that price. Does that
make the analogy more correct?


I also own a bag full of Microsoft stock, but that in no way
influences my opinion. No sir.

Wow, you admit to owning MSFT?
How have the last 8 years been treating you?
Not so good huh?

Everything is relative. Last week I got a little quarterly dividend
checkie-poo for $2,200.00.


Seriously, MSFT? Were you expecting them to increase their market
share? It doesn't pay to buy evil.

At 90+% of the desktop, it would be hard. Microsoft has more cash in the
bank (some 50-odd billion dollars) than the budget of California.


Not too late to grab some AAPL.
I got some in 2005. Sure wish I have a bag full.

Why take sloppy-seconds? Much of the software running on the Mac is written
by Microsoft.

HeyBub wrote:
Chris wrote:

Unfortunately, all the hirsute people who smell funny now gather
together electronically and bother the rest of us, much like another
Microsoft experiment involving a paper-clip.


You got that wrong too. I am not hirsute, shower regularly and
couldn't care less to talk to an incompetent person like you about
computers.

Didn't say you were hairy. If you knew much about set theory, or even logic,
you'd see that the set I mentioned was not complete. In other words ...

In other words you speak in half (assed) sentences. Thank you for
stating that, but was clear already


I was helping the OP when you began your venomous pro-Windows spew,
remember? No, you won't.

I didn't start it. Someone - it may have been you - began touting the
superiority of Linux when the original subject had nothing to do with Ubuntu
or some other incarnation of Linux. Many Linux users are like that -
proposing Linux as better than fish. "I use Windows." (get Linux!). "I need
an AV program for XP." (get Linux). "I have a flat!" (get Linux). "Isn't it
a shame about famine in Sudan?" (get Linux). "I have giant festering,
fungating boils all over my body. My dog, too!" (get Linux).

Nonsense! You took a jocular suggestion (ever heard of emoticons?) as an
attack to the value of your MS stock. What a pathetic little person!

As for helping people way back when, I was employed as a programmer in 1964
and have been doing computer work since. You young whippersnappers just
don't get it.

And you are still struggling to grasp the basics of computing?

In case you worry, I am not trying to convert you to Linux, honest.
Stay with Windows, someone has to pay the sucker price for software,
and that someone is you.

I own a software company. I develop software for a living. I expect to get
paid for it


Not if your "software" performs badly or not better than other software
that come with no invoice and no strangling user agreements.

Don't like me using Linux and other free software? Sue me.

Oh, wait, the company you own stock from already tried that, did they not?

"HeyBub" writes:

Dan Espen wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:
I also own a bag full of Microsoft stock, but that in no way
influences my opinion. No sir.

Wow, you admit to owning MSFT?
How have the last 8 years been treating you?
Not so good huh?

Everything is relative. Last week I got a little quarterly dividend
checkie-poo for $2,200.00.

Holy crap. The yield on MSFT is 1.6%. That's a pretty big bagful.
You're not keeping up with the rate of inflation. That's pretty
painful.

If a broker got you into that, you should sue him.

MSFT is trying to prop up their stock with buybacks and
dividends. You make 1.6% not counting the steady downward
trend of the price.

The AAPL I bought in 2005 is showing an unrealized capital gain
of 360%. I'll hold as long as Steve Jobs is around.

Seriously, MSFT? Were you expecting them to increase their market
share? It doesn't pay to buy evil.

At 90+% of the desktop, it would be hard. Microsoft has more cash in the
bank (some 50-odd billion dollars) than the budget of California.

None of that sounds like a good reason to buy MSFT.
AAPL is also cash rich. That's not a good reason to buy AAPL either.
IMO.

Look at what MSFT does with that cash. One money losing effort after
another.

Not too late to grab some AAPL.
I got some in 2005. Sure wish I have a bag full.

Why take sloppy-seconds? Much of the software running on the Mac is written
by Microsoft.

Yes, the Office suite is written by MSFT.
Smart users will go for Open Office unless it's for business purposes.

Dump that MSFT. You can easily do a LOT better than 1.6%.
For example:

PCU, BGF, EGLE, SFL, FDG, COSWF, PWE, HTE, IAF, FRO.

Do your own due diligence.
The bonus is, none of those companies are evil.

Dan Espen wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

Dan Espen wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:
I also own a bag full of Microsoft stock, but that in no way
influences my opinion. No sir.

Wow, you admit to owning MSFT?
How have the last 8 years been treating you?
Not so good huh?

Everything is relative. Last week I got a little quarterly dividend
checkie-poo for $2,200.00.

Holy crap. The yield on MSFT is 1.6%. That's a pretty big bagful.
You're not keeping up with the rate of inflation. That's pretty
painful.

If a broker got you into that, you should sue him.

MSFT is trying to prop up their stock with buybacks and
dividends. You make 1.6% not counting the steady downward
trend of the price.

The AAPL I bought in 2005 is showing an unrealized capital gain
of 360%. I'll hold as long as Steve Jobs is around.

Seriously, MSFT? Were you expecting them to increase their market
share? It doesn't pay to buy evil.

At 90+% of the desktop, it would be hard. Microsoft has more cash
in
the bank (some 50-odd billion dollars) than the budget of
California.

None of that sounds like a good reason to buy MSFT.
AAPL is also cash rich. That's not a good reason to buy AAPL
either.
IMO.

Look at what MSFT does with that cash. One money losing effort
after
another.

Not too late to grab some AAPL.
I got some in 2005. Sure wish I have a bag full.

Why take sloppy-seconds? Much of the software running on the Mac is
written by Microsoft.

Yes, the Office suite is written by MSFT.
Smart users will go for Open Office unless it's for business
purposes.

Dump that MSFT. You can easily do a LOT better than 1.6%.
For example:

PCU, BGF, EGLE, SFL, FDG, COSWF, PWE, HTE, IAF, FRO.

Do your own due diligence.
The bonus is, none of those companies are evil.

I'm hereby adding "MSFT", "AAPL", "Open Office", "Linux", and
everybody participating in this thread to the killfile.

One of these days you'll all discover sex and wonder why you ever gave
a damn about software companies.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Chris wrote:

I didn't start it. Someone - it may have been you - began touting the
superiority of Linux when the original subject had nothing to do
with Ubuntu or some other incarnation of Linux. Many Linux users are
like that - proposing Linux as better than fish. "I use Windows."
(get Linux!). "I need an AV program for XP." (get Linux). "I have a
flat!" (get Linux). "Isn't it a shame about famine in Sudan?" (get
Linux). "I have giant festering, fungating boils all over my body.
My dog, too!" (get Linux).

Nonsense! You took a jocular suggestion (ever heard of emoticons?) as
an attack to the value of your MS stock. What a pathetic little
person!

I've heard of emoticons, but I've never used one. Emoticons are for
inarticulate ****ers.



Not if your "software" performs badly or not better than other
software that come with no invoice and no strangling user agreements.

Don't like me using Linux and other free software? Sue me.

I prefer you used Linux. As I said before, there is some validity to the
claim that Linux was developed to siphon off the malcontents into their own
little padded room so we normal folk wouldn't have to be bothered by them.
This scheme has not worked as well as hoped.


Oh, wait, the company you own stock from already tried that, did they
not?

Uh, no. You're thinking of Sun Microsystems. Perhaps you could build a
database to keep up with things like that.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

I've heard of emoticons, but I've never used one. Emoticons are for
inarticulate ****ers.

Generally they are *FOR* inarticulate ****ers. Those who can't pick
up on the subtlties and get bent out of shape thinking you are whoofing
on them when you are actually supporting them. I use them because it is
easier than explaining things later.

On 8/15/2008 1:29 PM Kurt Ullman spake thus:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

I've heard of emoticons, but I've never used one. Emoticons are for
inarticulate ****ers.

Generally they are *FOR* inarticulate ****ers. Those who can't pick
up on the subtlties and get bent out of shape thinking you are whoofing
on them when you are actually supporting them. I use them because it is
easier than explaining things later.

I'm with 'Bub here; smileys are for those with poor reading
comprehension skills and who lack critical thinking ability. Let 'em
just be perplexed.


--
"In 1964 Barry Goldwater declared: 'Elect me president, and I
will bomb the cities of Vietnam, defoliate the jungles, herd the
population into concentration camps and turn the country into a
wasteland.' But Lyndon Johnson said: 'No! No! No! Don't you dare do
that. Let ME do it.'"

- Characterization (paraphrased) of the 1964 Goldwater/Johnson
presidential race by Professor Irwin Corey, "The World's Foremost
Authority".

J. Clarke wrote:
Dan Espen wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:

Dan Espen wrote:
"HeyBub" writes:
I also own a bag full of Microsoft stock, but that in no way
influences my opinion. No sir.
Wow, you admit to owning MSFT?
How have the last 8 years been treating you?
Not so good huh?
Everything is relative. Last week I got a little quarterly dividend
checkie-poo for $2,200.00.
Holy crap. The yield on MSFT is 1.6%. That's a pretty big bagful.
You're not keeping up with the rate of inflation. That's pretty
painful.

If a broker got you into that, you should sue him.

MSFT is trying to prop up their stock with buybacks and
dividends. You make 1.6% not counting the steady downward
trend of the price.

The AAPL I bought in 2005 is showing an unrealized capital gain
of 360%. I'll hold as long as Steve Jobs is around.

Seriously, MSFT? Were you expecting them to increase their market
share? It doesn't pay to buy evil.
At 90+% of the desktop, it would be hard. Microsoft has more cash
in
the bank (some 50-odd billion dollars) than the budget of
California.
None of that sounds like a good reason to buy MSFT.
AAPL is also cash rich. That's not a good reason to buy AAPL
either.
IMO.

Look at what MSFT does with that cash. One money losing effort
after
another.

Not too late to grab some AAPL.
I got some in 2005. Sure wish I have a bag full.
Why take sloppy-seconds? Much of the software running on the Mac is
written by Microsoft.
Yes, the Office suite is written by MSFT.
Smart users will go for Open Office unless it's for business
purposes.

Dump that MSFT. You can easily do a LOT better than 1.6%.
For example:

PCU, BGF, EGLE, SFL, FDG, COSWF, PWE, HTE, IAF, FRO.

Do your own due diligence.
The bonus is, none of those companies are evil.

I'm hereby adding "MSFT", "AAPL", "Open Office", "Linux", and
everybody participating in this thread to the killfile.

One of these days you'll all discover sex and wonder why you ever gave
a damn about software companies.

Nicely said!