In , Jolly Roger suggested:

You're nothing but an Apple-hating zealot who clearly
knows next to *nothing* about iOS; and your stupid trolls just point out
how huge a fool you really are. The world rightly laughs at idiots like
you. You're a joke, old fart. Be proud!

And yet, while I know nothing, I clearly know far more than you do.

Fancy that.

In , Jolly Roger suggested:

Keep eating your own words, dimwit. : )

If I'm a "dimwit", what does that make you?

In article , Tomos Davies
wrote:


"Derrr... How can I find a device on my own network without a static IP
address?" : D

The difference between you and nospam is that nospam *purposefully*
misunderstood everything stated in the linux thread you speak of.

i didn't misunderstand *anything* in that thread.

several people there, including you, do not understand the difference
between a static ip and reserved dhcp (which is sometimes called static
dhcp, a possible source of confusion because of the contradictory name,
something, which i mentioned early on) and even more who did not
realize that the device name via dhcp is all that's needed, which can
be set on the device and sometimes the router, no need for reserved
dhcp at all (although that is sometimes helpful anyway).

tl;dr there's little to configuration needed, certainly not setting a
static ip.

In article , Tomos Davies
wrote:

don't forget needing to set a static ip so that he can find the device.

The record will show that the Linux people had to tell you *multiple* times
that you were dead wrong in almost everything you said.

Do you want me to prove my statements with the cites to the thread?

the question is do *you* want to make a bigger fool of yourself than
you already have.

You know I only speak verifiable facts.

it looks like that answer to that is yes.

i also know that you continue to lie.

Nospam says (clueless):
he never said what the problem is, so nobody, including you, has any
idea.
Frank Slootweg replies (correctly)
He *has* said what the problem is.
Sofar the only one having no idea is you.

all frank does is argue.

he's the one who said that it's illegal to have an unswitched 12v power
outlet in a car.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
You don't want a fixed IP address on a phone.
Carlos replies (correctly):
Not true, he does.

carlos is wrong. you don't.

a fixed ip on a phone is very bad.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
his *guess* is that a static ip is the solution without realizing all
the problems it will cause for both himself and others.
Frank Slootweg replies:
There's no 'guessing' involved. A static IP *is* the solution.

he's wrong. there is no need for a static ip, and not only is it *not*
the solution, but it *creates* many problems.

the solution is to either use reserved dhcp or better yet, let dns
handle everything.

ftp myandroidphone (or whatever name you want). done. nothing to
configure, other than deciding what to name your phone.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
You want it in DHCP so it will work anywhere.
Carlos replies (correctly):
It will work everywhere perfectly as it is.

nope. it definitely won't everywhere. he's wrong, as are you.

the moment that phone with its fixed ip associates with a network other
than your own (i.e., *any* public hotspot) problems can (and likely
will) occur because there's no guarantee that its ip won't conflict
with one that is already in use. common sense.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
he might think he does, but he doesn't.
Carlos replies (giving up on nospam's idiocy):
Your opinion noted.

translated "i don't actually understand any of this stuff, so i'll just
call it an opinion and pretend i do."

carlos refuses to learn anything. he insists that it costs money to use
google voice. it doesn't.

This goes on for days on end, where nospam is dead wrong, doesn't
understand the question, doesn't like the solution, until the Linux people
just five up on him.

except for everyone who agreed with me, including jeff lieberman, who
can configure a network while blindfolded.

his reply (which was *very* long and detailed, as his posts often are)
went into gory detail why your idea is stupid and why reserved dhcp is
the way to go.

tl;dr reserved dhcp and/or dns. *not* static ip.

In article , Tomos Davies
wrote:


You're nothing but an Apple-hating zealot who clearly
knows next to *nothing* about iOS; and your stupid trolls just point out
how huge a fool you really are. The world rightly laughs at idiots like
you. You're a joke, old fart. Be proud!

And yet, while I know nothing,

true. you do not.

I clearly know far more than you do.

definitely wrong.

Tomos Davies wrote:
In , Jolly Roger suggested:

You're nothing but an Apple-hating zealot who clearly
knows next to *nothing* about iOS; and your stupid trolls just point out
how huge a fool you really are. The world rightly laughs at idiots like
you. You're a joke, old fart. Be proud!

And yet, while I know nothing, I clearly know far more than you do.

LOL! You're the complete ignoramus who said:

"And how, without anything but the native software one the PC, since it
works with *every* PC in the world (linux, mac, and windows), are *you*
going to wirelessly transfer files from both the Android & iOS device to
any computer nearby without putting them on the Internet?"

It's brain-dead easy to do *just* that, and I've been doing it with Linux,
Windows, macOS, and Solaris for *years*. No internet is required. No
installation of any software On the PC is required. The fact that you are
completely unaware of how to do this ultra simple thing tells all we need
to know about just how little you actually know. Pathetic!

Fancy that.

Indeed; you're a ****ing laughable joke of a troll.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In , nospam suggested:

i also know that you continue to lie.
all frank does is argue.
carlos is wrong. you don't.
he's wrong. there is no need for a static ip, and not only is it *not*
the solution, but it *creates* many problems.
nope. it definitely won't everywhere. he's wrong, as are you.


Your observation that everyone on the linux group cited is wrong, and
you're always correct (even sans a shred of fact), is duly noted.

In , nospam suggested:

i didn't misunderstand *anything* in that thread.

Do you really want me to quote again all the times in that thread where
respectable people handed you your head?

Constantly you misunderstood the OP and even finally admitted it,
reluctantly way later (because multiple people pointed it out to you).

Repeatedly when you made unsubstantiated claims, they handed you your head,
to the point that they just gave up and said "your opinion duly noted" time
and time and time again.

You don't know what that means?

Remember, I always speak verifiable fact.
You just make everything up.

You get away with it on the iOS newsgroups because they're a gullible lot.
But on the Linux newsgroup - they just hand you your head.

Proof is in the record.
Go ahead, challenge my facts.

In , Jolly Roger suggested:

Indeed; you're a ****ing laughable joke of a troll.

If only you traded in vitriol. what you obviously lack in IQ.

At least nospam knows when he's wrong.
He just fades away when he says things where the Linux newsgroup hands him
his head over and over (and over) again.

But you ...

You're just filled with vitriol such that there's no space left for your
brain.

In , nospam suggested:

And yet, while I know nothing,

true. you do not.

I clearly know far more than you do.

definitely wrong.

Why is it that I can list a score of functionality that Android does that
iOS can't hope to do without jailbreaking?

Absolutely none of which can you don on an Apple iOS device/

You know why?

It's not the hardware.
Apple hardware is in the top 10% of hardware out there.

While Apple is never going to be the best at anything, being in the top 10%
of mobile device hardware is pretty good.

But being in the bottom of functionality is pretty bad.
It's not the hardware that cripples what iOS can do.

It's Apple who cripples what iOS can do.

On 2017-05-03, Tomos Davies wrote:
In , Jolly Roger suggested:

Indeed; you're a ****ing laughable joke of a troll.

If only

*yawn*

You're an utterly *boring* joke of a troll, at that.

Bye now.

*poof*

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In article , Tomos Davies
wrote:


i also know that you continue to lie.
all frank does is argue.
carlos is wrong. you don't.
he's wrong. there is no need for a static ip, and not only is it *not*
the solution, but it *creates* many problems.
nope. it definitely won't everywhere. he's wrong, as are you.


Your observation that everyone on the linux group cited is wrong,

i didn't say everyone was wrong. stop lying

and
you're always correct

i didn't say that either but in this case i am.

(even sans a shred of fact), is duly noted.

plenty of evidence was provided. stop lying.

In article , Tomos Davies
wrote:

i didn't misunderstand *anything* in that thread.

Do you really want me to quote again all the times in that thread where
respectable people handed you your head?

actual respectable person, such as jeff lieberman, agreed with what i
said and even called you an idiot for your crazy plan.

Constantly you misunderstood the OP and even finally admitted it,

why do you talk about yourself in the third person?
the op was you, and i didn't misunderstand anything.
stop lying.



In article , Jeff
Liebermann wrote:
I won't question why you need a static IP address for your device.
Well, maybe I will a little. On the WAN side, the only device that
really needs an internet routeable static IP is a mail server. That's
because the DNS MX record requires an IP address and will not work
with domain style address. On the LAN side, it's convenient to have
static IP addresses for such things as routers, servers, switches,
print servers, modem servers, gateways, backup server, etc. Basically,
anything that is difficult to move around. Things like phones,
tablets, game boxes, gizmos, laptops, PC's, media players, etc work
nicely with DHCP assigned addresses.


In article , Jeff
Liebermann wrote:
The main goal is to "mount" any Android or iOS device, whether or not I
have an "account" on that device and without adding any additional
software.

Any? Please look in a mirror and check for signs of temporary
insanity. There must be a reason why you want to invite every drive
by smartphone onto your network. The problem is not in mounting the
device. It's that said device needs to first connect, associate,
authenticate, etc with your wireless AP. An inconvenient detail is
that the user of the smartphone has to configure their phone to do
this, along with knowing all the necessary pass phrases and
incantations to successfully connect, they are now on your network.
Please modify your "Any" to "One of my devices" so we can blunder
onwards.
....
This is easy to do, if we just think about the problem set, and use native
solutions. So I used native solutions.

Yep. Why did you totally ignore using a pre-assigned DHCP static
address? It does not add software, is quite automatic, does not
require anything more than the MAC address of the smartphone, and can
be fairly easily configured with your Linux router in dhcpd.conf:

In article , Tomos Davies
wrote:

And yet, while I know nothing,

true. you do not.

I clearly know far more than you do.

definitely wrong.

Why is it that I can list a score of functionality that Android does that
iOS can't hope to do without jailbreaking?

why is it that every time you do, it's refuted?
why is it you ignored the numerous things ios can do that android can't?

why does it matter? nobody but you gives a ****.

Absolutely none of which can you don on an Apple iOS device/

just about of it can be done, most with little to no effort, and
according to you, the amount of effort expended does not matter.

In , Jolly Roger suggested:

*poof*

Since you have never once added technical value to any conversation, it
would be a miracle if you mustered the brains to simply follow your own
advice.

In , nospam suggested:

plenty of evidence was provided. stop lying.

Everything I say is verifiable fact.
You?

You just make it all up.
http://i.cubeupload.com/sOFWCj.gif

In , nospam suggested:

actual respectable person, such as jeff lieberman, agreed with what i
said and even called you an idiot for your crazy plan.

You completely misunderstood the question (proved in the prior post) and
now you completely misrepresent what Jeff (and others) said.

What you forget (which was in the original post) is that it was a technical
question asking about why something so simple works so well - so it was
always known from the start that there could be technical issues (to flesh
out being the entire point of the thread).
https://u.cubeupload.com/wboAp1.gif

Dan Purgert responds to the setup explained in the original post:
totally agree this works.

Nospam insists the problem wasn't stated in the original post:
he has not stated the problem he needs to solve and has demonstrated
that he knows very little about networking.
Carlos E.R. corrected nospam:
Yes, he did say it. And it is a legitimate reason.
Nospam finally replied:
eventually, he did, and the reason is valid.

Nospam proves he doesn't understand how Android works:
On Android, the IP address on the phone is set "per access point"!

no it isn't.
Carlos E.R. responds:
Yes it is.
Look it up on your phone.

Jeff Liebermann agreed that it will work, and explained why:
In theory, if one sets a static IP address for some (mobile)
device on a network managed by a router, the router will be able
to detect the presence of that device, it's MAC address, and what
IP address it is using by one of the aforementioned methods.
It will then not assign in use addresses via DHCP.

Jeff Liebermann even explained why nospam's solution could be bad:
Of course, there's a security problem with sequentially assigning
IP addresses via DHCP.

Nospam continues to misunderstand the problem set:
yes, because whatever ip address he picks, it will almost certainly
conflict with something on another network.
Carlos E.R. corrects him time and time again:
The fixed IP setting applies only to a single SSID.
Does not affect other networks.
When he goes out, the phone will connect to a different SSID
and use the configuration for that different SSID, which is "auto",
ie, "DHCP".

Nospam insists:
it's a horrible idea because he'd have to change it every time he
leaves the house and back again when he returns.

Dan Purgert correctly responds:
Bear in mind that for android devices, you can set the IP address
settings on a per-SSID basis. Therefore, unless he connects to a
network with the same SSID, but a different addressing scheme, the
approach will cause him no grief.

Carlos E.R. says (correctly):
Notice that the way it is set currently it is static on his home only,
dynamic elsewhere.
To which nospam replies (incorrectly):
which means changing it every time he leaves/returns.
And to which Whiskers corrects nospam:
Why? He only needs to set the static IP for his home network, not for
any others. Once set, each network will be recognised automatically by
his phone and use the settings created specifically for it

Nospam says (incorrectly):
which means changing it every time he leaves/returns.
Carlos E.R. responds (correctly):
He doesn't have to change anything.
Just move and continue using the phone normally.

Nospam continues to say (incorrectly):
except when it doesn't.
Carlos E.R. (exaperated) simply replies:
Your wrong opinion noted.

In , nospam suggested:

Constantly you misunderstood the OP and even finally admitted it,

why do you talk about yourself in the third person?
the op was you, and i didn't misunderstand anything.
stop lying.

You're already misunderstanding the original post again.

You can get away with just making things up with the gullible iOS users,
but not with those on the linux and android newsgroups.

I only listed verifiable facts.
http://i.cubeupload.com/sOFWCj.gif

Nospam misses the entire question in the original post:
he has not stated the problem he needs to solve and has demonstrated
that he knows very little about networking.
Carlos ER responds (correctly):
Yes, he did say it. And it is a legitimate reason.

Nospam incorrectly stated:
he has not stated the problem he needs to solve and has demonstrated
that he knows very little about networking.
William Unruh correctly replied:
I am so sorry. I know it is a terrible thing to have your memory go.
He HAS said why.
Nospam finally admitted that the original question was always clear:
eventually he did, but not initially.

Nospam counters erroneously time and time again:
he has not stated the problem he needs to solve and has
demonstrated that he knows very little about networking.

Framk Slootweg correctly replies:
He *has* stated the problem he needs to solve.
And you'd better worry about your reading/comprehension problems
than about his alleged lack of networking knowledge.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
he hasn't said *why* he wants this

Frank Slootweg counters correctly:
He *has* said why he wants/needs this - a fixed ip address
on his phone while at home -, but as usual you spout all
kind of ******** without even knowing what the problem is.
And yes, his want/need *is* a legitimate one.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
Google "address reservation".
You don't want a fixed IP address on a phone.
Carlos replies (correctly):
Not true, he does.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
that's not a why.
Framk Slootweg responds:
Duh! I said "He *has* said". I.e. you said he hasn't, I say he has.

You might want to look up the concept of 'context'.

The "a fixed ip address on his phone while at home" is an elaboration
of "this", because it would be silly to talk about "this" if it
isn't clear what "this" refers to.

Nospam continues to say that the original post didn't ask the question:
he has not stated the problem he needs to solve and has demonstrated
that he knows very little about networking.

I am so sorry. I know it is a terrible thing to have your memory go.
He HAS said why.

eventually he did, but not initially.
Carlos E.R. responds again:
He did, on the first post:

Nospam then starts obsessing over semantics:
it's dynamically assigned. it's just that the dhcp server reserves
the same one each time.
Mark Lloyd responds, exasperated:
Strange use of the word "dynamic", for something that DOESN'T change.
Possibly theres confusion between a DYNAMIC process and a STATIC value.

Mark Lloyd says:
"Static is fixed, not changing.
Nospam replies:
technically true

Nospam opines:
it's a horrible idea because he'd have to change it every time he
leaves the house and back again when he returns.
Carlos E.R. responds:
Not at all.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
his *guess* is that a static ip is the solution without realizing all
the problems it will cause for both himself and others.

Frank Slootweg responds correctly:
There's no 'guessing' involved. A static IP *is* the solution.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
he never said what the problem is, so nobody, including you,
has any idea.

Frank Slootweg responds correctly:
He *has* said what the problem is.
Sofar the only one having no idea is you.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
there is no valid reason why a *phone* needs a static ip address.
Frank Slootweg responds correctly:
In your uninformed/pig-headed opinion.

Nospam retorts incorrectly:
You want it in DHCP so it will work anywhere.
Carlos replies correctly:
It will work everywhere perfectly as it is.

Pascal Hambourg agrees:
A static address for a device is set on the device, not on the router

Nospam erroneously responds:
it's a horrible idea because he'd have to change it every
time he leaves the house and back again when he returns.

Nospam says (incorrectly):
there is no valid reason why a *phone* needs a static ip address.
Frank Slootweg replies (correctly):
In your uninformed/pig-headed opinion.
To compensate for your extreme clue-resistance, I'll give you
two clue-by-fours:

Nospam says (incorrectly):
no it definitely is *not*. a static ip *will* cause problems,
both for him *and* others.
Frank Slootweg responds:
You seem to think that your use of terms is some kind of standard.
Guess what, it isn't!

Nospam repeatedly gets the original question wrong:
As such not having to figure out what the IP address of the phone is
each time he does so is a convenience and he wants that convenience.
William Unruh correctly responds:
if he was interested in convenience, he wouldn't be asking about static
ips. he'd be asking about dns so he doesn't need to remember any ips.

Nospam says his opinion:
it's the proposed solution that's bad.
Carlos E.R. (exasperated) replies:
Your opinion noted.

In , nospam suggested:

why is it you ignored the numerous things ios can do that android can't?

It has already been established that there is nothing functional or useful
that Apple iOS devices can do that Android doesn't already do.

If there were, someone (anyone) would be able to name just one.

Even the vaunted Apple iOS mobile device cameras provide no better output
than Android cameras already do.

And yet, that there is plenty of functionality (e.g., automatic call
recording, bit torrenting apps, launchers, app drawers, wifi and cellular
graphical scanners, ability to organize desktops, etc.) that Apple iOS
devices don't have.

Those are the facts (not your opinion).

In article , Tomos Davies
wrote:

why is it you ignored the numerous things ios can do that android can't?

It has already been established that there is nothing functional or useful
that Apple iOS devices can do that Android doesn't already do.

If there were, someone (anyone) would be able to name just one.

i gave a list of a dozen or so and you haven't refuted a single one and
there are several more i thought of after i posted those.

not that it matters. it's not a race. heck, some android phones can do
things other android phones can't, which you of course, ignore.

PAS wrote:
On 5/1/2017 2:13 PM, Erilar wrote:
PAS wrote:

Highest Android sco 89. Highest iPhone sco 86. A virtual tie.
Do you honestly think you could see any real difference in an actual
photo using the two phones?

You can easily see a difference between the result of a phone and a good
camera used by someone who knows how to use the latter, however!



Yes, but I'm addressing the differences between the highest scoring
Android phone and the highest scoring iPhone.



I know, but phones are pretty expensive poor cameras, so I had to defend
real photography! 8-)


--
biblioholic medievalist via iPad