On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 09:19:37 -0400, DFS wrote:

> That's what they SAY, but the desktop share of paid distros (Zorin,
> elementaryOS, Red Hat) is virtually ZERO.

What’s happening is the definition of “desktop” keeps shrinking as Linux
gobbles more and more of the computing market.

On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 20:45:23 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <v9gun4$42dl$1@dont-email.me>:
>Chrisv:
>> Amazingly, he argues that the existence of "cheap" advocates supports
>> his claim that some advocates insist "Linux advocacy is never, ever,
>> about being a cheapskate".
>>
>> It does not. Obviously.
>
> Because that wasn't what was being said: comprehension failure.

That was what you implied.

<2045175628.745096309.945111.recscuba_google-huntzinger.com@news.eternal-
september.org>

You poisoned the well with BS.

Let's see an example of:

> "[Feeb is] also trolling the Linux fanboys who insist that Linux
> advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate!"

And where are these "Linux fanboys" that you claim that "Linux advocacy
is never, ever, about being a cheapskate(!)"?

Can you name three? Can you even name *one*?

I'm not saying you can't, I'm saying that your implication
that such a stance is mainstream isn't worth the effort to
argue -- because anybody actually saying such a thing
is an idiot.

This is an example of "poisoning the well".

Hugh, when you contemplate Linux, you seem to have a set of
blinders on. (This might be related to the blinders that DFS
wears, in which his discussion of "Linux advocacy" is always
framed in terms of desktop systems.)

> In the meantime, I do recall that there's been some COLA fans who have
> insinuated that they're using Linux because MS/Apple are so "evil" that
> they would never use MS/Apple. This position implies a value of "Linux
> even if it costs me more", but I can't recall if anyone has literally
> made that strong of a statement (maybe), but more to the point, I don't
> believe that there's ever been anyone who's actually demonstrated living
> up to such a position of paying more (eg, more than words: deeds).
> Instead, it seems that some have taken the (dare I say) "cheap" route of
> not buying used, but finding decade-old hardware in used shops, which
> means that they've not actually applied an "at any [equal/higher] cost"
> for their convictions. Probably the closest here is Scott, but as I've
> noted, that choice has clearly been influenced by his day job.
>
> -hh

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.11.0-rc2 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"Lead me not into temptation, I can find it myself."

vallor wrote:

> -highhorse wrote:
>>
>> (snipped, unread)

-highhorse still spewing garbage and attacking, of course, even though
he's *clearly* in the wrong.

>And where are these "Linux fanboys" that you claim that "Linux advocacy
>is never, ever, about being a cheapskate(!)"?
>
>Can you name three? Can you even name *one*?
>
>I'm not saying you can't,

I'm saying he can't. If he could have, he would have, by now.

>I'm saying that your implication
>that such a stance is mainstream isn't worth the effort to
>argue -- because anybody actually saying such a thing
>is an idiot.

There's that, too. Even *if* someone had said something so
ridiculous, it wouldn't reflect poorly on Linux advocates in general.

>This is an example of "poisoning the well".
>
>Hugh, when you contemplate Linux, you seem to have a set of
>blinders on.

He seems to be an asshole of mediocre intellect who has an inferiority
complex. No one else would for *years* attack a group of decent,
reasonable people, and *always* based upon his idiocy and his lies.

--
'"Vital"? Please.' - lying asshole "-hh", ridiculing the assertion
that the source being Free and Open is "vital" to Linux' success

rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 09:19:37 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> I can only imagine how few people would use Linux if it cost money from
>> the beginning.

I bought a couple of Red Hat distros, and a few books that came with
Linux distro disks.

But hell, the free cost makes it even easier to try!

> While trying to neaten up the shed I came across a SuSE Linux 8.1 box
> similar to this:
>
> https://www.linux-distros.com/suse-linux-8-2/
>
> The BestBuy sticker says $79.99 and I don't recall shoplifting it. 8.1
> came out in 2002. The Canonical ShipIt program was the first I know of
> where you could get free CDs mailed to you:
>
> https://canonical.com/blog/shipit-comes-to-an-end
>
> I suppose the Red Hat 5.2 CD that came with 'Red Hat Linux Unleashed' in
> '98 was 'free' but the book was $39.99.The inflation calculator says that
> would be $77.75 today. Thank you to all the maggots supposedly running the
> country.
>
> My first distro, Slackware 2.0 iirc, was free -- unless you count
> downloading 46 files from a ftp site over a slow connection, copying them
> to 3 1/4" floppies and spending forever loading them, keeping you fingers
> crossed all the while.
>
> Unless I built the box myself I was loading Linux on something that
> started life as a Windows box so I'd already paid the M$ tax.

Same here.

--
You will have a long and unpleasant discussion with your supervisor.

-hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> That was Munich .. and costs were very much part of their discussions.
> They had an ancient NT 4 architecture that was EOL'ing, so they were
> looking at Linux to avoid a ton of costs.
>
> Ultimately, they spent a ton of time (& money) to get 85-90% of the way
> there, and at one point claimed a €10M savings potential - but only
> realized €4M, before negative user feedback (& probably the ~10%
> remaining that they realized couldn't be adequately converted) and other
> things motivated them to go back to Microsoft. FYI, it doesn't help
> that their new hardware replacement costs got mixed in with OS/Software,
> as this very much muddies the waters on what the true "OS/Apps" costs
> actually were. More at Wiki:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux

IIRC, they had some Microsoft fanboy in Munich who insisted on killing LiMux
and returning to Windows. At a cost o 90 million euros, Then they went back to
the original plan to migrate to LiMux.

Where's it at now? I dunno.

--
Q: How can you tell if three elephants are in your refrigerator?
A: The door won't shut.

vallor wrote:

>I'm saying that your implication
>that such a stance is mainstream isn't worth the effort to
>argue -- because anybody actually saying such a thing
>is an idiot.

This brings up a point that I should have addressed earlier in the
thread, but missed.

-highhorse sneers that it would be "spin" to disregard the statements
of a silly person like Fabian. (If Fabian had said something that
supported -highhorse's attack, which Fabian had not.)

Err, no, it's perfectly fair to disregard the statements of a silly
person like Fabian, as not representative of the cola advocates.
There are countless opinions that he espouses that are not shared by
one single other person in here. Obviously.

Disparaging what is clearly fair and reasonable behavior as "spin" is
typical -highhorse disingenuous garbage.

Then there was his snotty claim that I would pedantically deny support
for his claim if it had an advocate speaking how "expensive" things
are, but did not contain the word "cheap". As if I'm so unreasable.

Then there was the straw man when he stated "Nor have I said it is
_exclusively_ about only costs either", as if anyone had claimed that
he had said anything like that. As if we're as snittish as he is, to
launch such a ridiculous attack.

And let's not forget the sheer *idiocy* of what he claimed was support
for his initial lying attack.

It's just *classic* -highhorse, where he immediately *explodes* the
argument into a huge mass of garbage.

So, you think to yourself, do you read it? Do you address the real
point and ignore all the distracting garbage attacks? Do you address
all his garbage points, upon which he can lie, deny, and conjure-up
even more garbage, like when Hercules cut-off the Hydra's head?

It should be no mystery why I so often just make my point and then
snip/ignore him.

--
-highhorse list of meaningless words:

afraid
angry
brag
frustrated
insecure
intimidated
jealous
pwned
running
surrender
translation
unable

On 8/12/2024 4:48 PM, Fabricating Farley wrote:

> However, there are users that perform math/physics simulations and
> video/audio encoding for which a FAST machine is absolutely imperative.

You aren't one of them.

On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:05:29 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> But hell, the free cost makes it even easier to try!

For sure. Sniffing at Mint was easy, didn't cost anything, and satisfied
my curiosity. Not my cup of tea but it has its merits. With modern distros
unless you're brain dead figuring out how it works takes minutes. I don't
miss the Linux distros of 25 or 30 years ago that required a lot of arcane
configuration and many of the apps had to be built from tarballs -- adter
you had built more tarballs to satisfy the dependencies of the first one.

Of course that option is still open if you're a masochist like Farley
Fudd.

On 2024-08-14 9:21 p.m., rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:05:29 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> But hell, the free cost makes it even easier to try!
>
> For sure. Sniffing at Mint was easy, didn't cost anything, and satisfied
> my curiosity. Not my cup of tea but it has its merits. With modern distros
> unless you're brain dead figuring out how it works takes minutes. I don't
> miss the Linux distros of 25 or 30 years ago that required a lot of arcane
> configuration and many of the apps had to be built from tarballs -- adter
> you had built more tarballs to satisfy the dependencies of the first one.
>
> Of course that option is still open if you're a masochist like Farley
> Fudd.

Why can't masochists like Farley Flud just opt for aggressive anal sex
like Joel Crump and Chris Ahlstrom do?

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:05:29 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> But hell, the free cost makes it even easier to try!
>
>For sure. Sniffing at Mint was easy, didn't cost anything, and satisfied
>my curiosity. Not my cup of tea but it has its merits. With modern distros
>unless you're brain dead figuring out how it works takes minutes. I don't
>miss the Linux distros of 25 or 30 years ago that required a lot of arcane
>configuration and many of the apps had to be built from tarballs -- adter
>you had built more tarballs to satisfy the dependencies of the first one.
>
>Of course that option is still open if you're a masochist like Farley
>Fudd.

Mint isn't bad, to be sure, but I'm finding out that I was missing
something in the comparison to openSUSE, efficiency.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

>Why can't masochists like Farley Flud just opt for aggressive anal sex
>like Joel Crump and Chris Ahlstrom do?

He publicly announces killfiling me, then says that. Just a
narcissistic guy.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Joel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>
>> <shitsnip>
>
> He publicly announces killfiling me, then says that. Just a
> narcissistic guy.

He's just a sick griefer. Touched in the head.

--
You are taking yourself far too seriously.

On 8/14/24 2:40 AM, vallor wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 20:45:23 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
> wrote in <v9gun4$42dl$1@dont-email.me>:
>> Chrisv:
>>> Amazingly, he argues that the existence of "cheap" advocates supports
>>> his claim that some advocates insist "Linux advocacy is never, ever,
>>> about being a cheapskate".
>>>
>>> It does not. Obviously.
>>
>> Because that wasn't what was being said: comprehension failure.
>
> That was what you implied.
>
> <2045175628.745096309.945111.recscuba_google-huntzinger.com@news.eternal-
> september.org>
>
> You poisoned the well with BS.
>
> Let's see an example of:
>
>> "[Feeb is] also trolling the Linux fanboys who insist that Linux
>> advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate!"
>
> And where are these "Linux fanboys" that you claim that "Linux advocacy
> is never, ever, about being a cheapskate(!)"?
>
> Can you name three? Can you even name *one*?

Feeb: as already mentioned, literally using the word "cheap".
RonB: "They're overpriced and constrictive." (& thift shop finds).
Chris Ahlstrom: bought a Windows laptops because it was cheaper than
sourcing a Linux laptop
Nux Vomica: "overpriced junk"
Joel: "Winblows, without the money, product key and bloat."
chrisv: "There is a financial reward to being part of a community that
is working for the common good, you dumb fsck." and "...many people
don't need the expensive product, and get a far better value with the
"good enough" product."

And see next:

> I'm not saying you can't, I'm saying that your implication
> that such a stance is mainstream isn't worth the effort to
> argue -- because anybody actually saying such a thing
> is an idiot.

How narrow are you trying to define "mainstream"? Because my point has
been that cost has _consistently_ been a point raised in many Linux
discussions over the decades.

And this is despite how behaviorally some portion of commenters are
invariably going to be reluctant to broach/invoke personal finances,
especially if they believe themselves to be weak/inferior vs others.

As I alluded to earlier, people can also flat out lie about their
motivations: this element is also well known in behavioral science.

Plus one can lie to yourself without you even realizing it: it is what
underlies the Placebo Effect (the "White Jacket" effect is similar too).

TL;DR: there's ample signs here that indicate that cost isn't some
minor/obscure factor: one merely needs to be open to recognizing them.

> This is an example of "poisoning the well".
>
> Hugh, when you contemplate Linux, you seem to have a set of
> blinders on. (This might be related to the blinders that DFS
> wears, in which his discussion of "Linux advocacy" is always
> framed in terms of desktop systems.)

Because this isn't really a newsgroup advocating for Server OS's.

But while we're including servers, your company chose Linux over other
Server OS's: why? Are you really going to try to suggest that costs
were never a consideration in the business's success?

>> In the meantime, I do recall that there's been some COLA fans who have
>> insinuated that they're using Linux because MS/Apple are so "evil" that
>> they would never use MS/Apple. This position implies a value of "Linux
>> even if it costs me more", but I can't recall if anyone has literally
>> made that strong of a statement (maybe), but more to the point, I don't
>> believe that there's ever been anyone who's actually demonstrated living
>> up to such a position of paying more (eg, more than words: deeds).
>> Instead, it seems that some have taken the (dare I say) "cheap" route of
>> not buying used, but finding decade-old hardware in used shops, which
>> means that they've not actually applied an "at any [equal/higher] cost"
>> for their convictions. Probably the closest here is Scott, but as I've
>> noted, that choice has clearly been influenced by his day job.
>>
>> -hh
>

-hh wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

When you attack with *lies*, you get into hot water, -highhorse.

Why, after all these years, do you think that you can win, with your
lies and your idiocy?

*Every one* of your attacks against the cola advocates failed.

--
"The hypocrisy stems from someone who does the opposite of what
they've preached." - lying asshole "-hh", shamelessly lying that
cola advocates have done "the opposite" of what they have "preached",
so that he can accuse them of "hypocrisy".

On 8/14/24 8:07 PM, DFS wrote:
> On 8/12/2024 4:48 PM, Fabricating Farley wrote:
>
>> However, there are users that perform math/physics simulations and
>> video/audio encoding for which a FAST machine is absolutely imperative.
>
>
> You aren't one of them.
>

As has been illustrated by Feeb trying to brag about an upgrade to a
half-decade old CPU.

And not that I really pay too much attention to benchmarks, but the ones
at...

<https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+W-2245+%40+3.90GHz&id=3691>

....indicate that my current daily driver's multithread bench is 13%
higher than Feeb's "brand new" (to him) Xeon W 2245 ... and in single
core is +40% higher.

That will be handy next week when I start to work through processing
around ~2K new images (25+MP & 4K), although it also leans on good
bandwidth too: at 400GB/s memory bandwidth, its ~4x more than his Xeon.

-hh

I clicked on vallor's post again, and saw the below -highhorse lie for
the first time. What a "surprise" to see that the asshole was on
attack!

vallor wrote:

> - highhorse wrote:
>>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Amazingly, he argues that the existence of "cheap" advocates supports
>>> his claim that some advocates insist "Linux advocacy is never, ever,
>>> about being a cheapskate".
>>>
>>> It does not. Obviously.
>>
>> Because that wasn't what was being said: comprehension failure.

What a liar. What happened, here, was clear.

I'd bet that no one else here thinks that there was a "comprehension
failure" on my part. It's a total nonsense, garbage attack from
-highhorse.

Lie and deny. Lie and deny. It's the -highhorse way. Make
assertions that are clearly false. Deny things that are clearly true.

>That was what you implied.
>
><2045175628.745096309.945111.recscuba_google-huntzinger.com@news.eternal-september.org>
>
>You poisoned the well with BS.
>
>Let's see an example of:
>
>> "[Feeb is] also trolling the Linux fanboys who insist that Linux
>> advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate!"
>
>And where are these "Linux fanboys" that you claim that "Linux advocacy
>is never, ever, about being a cheapskate(!)"?
>
>Can you name three? Can you even name *one*?

Still no answer to this.

Why won't -highhorse man-up and admit that he lied? Why won't he stop
attacking the Linux advocates based upon his snittish, brain-damaged
interpretations of what we think?

Better yet, why doesn't he apologize for the *mass* of garbage attacks
over the *years*, and maybe save his soul.

>> (remaining -highhorse garbage still unread, with the confidence that no one with a brain will be fooled.)

On 8/14/2024 9:32 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Why can't masochists like Farley Flud just opt for aggressive anal sex
> like Joel Crump and Chris Ahlstrom do?

LOL!

-hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 8/14/24 2:40 AM, vallor wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 20:45:23 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
>> wrote in <v9gun4$42dl$1@dont-email.me>:
>>> Chrisv:
>>>> Amazingly, he argues that the existence of "cheap" advocates supports
>>>> his claim that some advocates insist "Linux advocacy is never, ever,
>>>> about being a cheapskate".
>>>>
>>>> It does not. Obviously.
>>>
>>> Because that wasn't what was being said: comprehension failure.
>>
>> That was what you implied.
>>
>> <2045175628.745096309.945111.recscuba_google-huntzinger.com@news.eternal-
>> september.org>
>>
>> You poisoned the well with BS.
>>
>> Let's see an example of:
>>
>>> "[Feeb is] also trolling the Linux fanboys who insist that Linux
>>> advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate!"
>>
>> And where are these "Linux fanboys" that you claim that "Linux advocacy
>> is never, ever, about being a cheapskate(!)"?
>>
>> Can you name three? Can you even name *one*?
>
> Feeb: as already mentioned, literally using the word "cheap".
> RonB: "They're overpriced and constrictive." (& thift shop finds).
> Chris Ahlstrom: bought a Windows laptops because it was cheaper than
> sourcing a Linux laptop

You are confusing wanting less expensive hardware with wanting a
better operating system.

For my Lenovo laptop, the office-store sale made it an attractive purchase.

For my ASUS laptop, I decided to plunk some (for me) serious money to buy
a laptop from Xotic PC..

In either case, immediately (after verifying that it booted) junked the Windows
(already incorporated into the cost of the hardware dontchaknow), and installed
Linux.

Why? I prefer Linux by far. Cost is simply another one of its desirable
properties.

--
You will overcome the attacks of jealous associates.

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:53:00 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>
wrote in <v9l4oc$1004s$3@dont-email.me>:

> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 8/14/24 2:40 AM, vallor wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 20:45:23 -0400, -hh
>>> <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>>> <v9gun4$42dl$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>> Chrisv:
>>>>> Amazingly, he argues that the existence of "cheap" advocates
>>>>> supports his claim that some advocates insist "Linux advocacy is
>>>>> never, ever, about being a cheapskate".
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not. Obviously.
>>>>
>>>> Because that wasn't what was being said: comprehension failure.
>>>
>>> That was what you implied.
>>>
>>> <2045175628.745096309.945111.recscuba_google-
huntzinger.com@news.eternal-
>>> september.org>
>>>
>>> You poisoned the well with BS.
>>>
>>> Let's see an example of:
>>>
>>>> "[Feeb is] also trolling the Linux fanboys who insist that Linux
>>>> advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate!"
>>>
>>> And where are these "Linux fanboys" that you claim that "Linux
>>> advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate(!)"?
>>>
>>> Can you name three? Can you even name *one*?
>>
>> Feeb: as already mentioned, literally using the word "cheap".
>> RonB: "They're overpriced and constrictive." (& thift shop finds).
>> Chris Ahlstrom: bought a Windows laptops because it was cheaper than
>> sourcing a Linux laptop
>
> You are confusing wanting less expensive hardware with wanting a better
> operating system.
>
> For my Lenovo laptop, the office-store sale made it an attractive
> purchase.
>
> For my ASUS laptop, I decided to plunk some (for me) serious money to
> buy a laptop from Xotic PC..
>
> In either case, immediately (after verifying that it booted) junked the
> Windows (already incorporated into the cost of the hardware
> dontchaknow), and installed Linux.
>
> Why? I prefer Linux by far. Cost is simply another one of its desirable
> properties.

And he _still_ hasn't produced a quote from a "Linux fanboy" who says
Linux is _never_ (his word) selected because someone is a cheapskate.

Notice how he dances around the topic. I'm not sure who he thinks
he's fooling -- an honorable person would admit he misspoke.

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.11.0-rc3 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"Oxymoron: Silent Testimony."

vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:53:00 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>
>wrote in <v9l4oc$1004s$3@dont-email.me>:
>> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> Feeb: as already mentioned, literally using the word "cheap".
>>> RonB: "They're overpriced and constrictive." (& thift shop finds).
>>> Chris Ahlstrom: bought a Windows laptops because it was cheaper than
>>> sourcing a Linux laptop
>>
>> You are confusing wanting less expensive hardware with wanting a better
>> operating system.
>>
>> For my Lenovo laptop, the office-store sale made it an attractive
>> purchase.
>>
>> For my ASUS laptop, I decided to plunk some (for me) serious money to
>> buy a laptop from Xotic PC..
>>
>> In either case, immediately (after verifying that it booted) junked the
>> Windows (already incorporated into the cost of the hardware
>> dontchaknow), and installed Linux.
>>
>> Why? I prefer Linux by far. Cost is simply another one of its desirable
>> properties.
>
>And he _still_ hasn't produced a quote from a "Linux fanboy" who says
>Linux is _never_ (his word) selected because someone is a cheapskate.
>
>Notice how he dances around the topic. I'm not sure who he thinks
>he's fooling -- an honorable person would admit he misspoke.

If I wanted Windows, I had it, retail installation of Windows 11 Pro,
with months left of Photoshop. I overwrote it with Mint, and now
openSUSE, I told Microsoft to take their BS OS and shove it up their
asses. Win11 is a hellhole.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 07:52:20 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <v9kq5k$u3a9$2@dont-email.me>:

> On 8/14/24 2:40 AM, vallor wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 20:45:23 -0400, -hh
>> <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>> <v9gun4$42dl$1@dont-email.me>:
>>> Chrisv:
>>>> Amazingly, he argues that the existence of "cheap" advocates supports
>>>> his claim that some advocates insist "Linux advocacy is never, ever,
>>>> about being a cheapskate".
>>>>
>>>> It does not. Obviously.
>>>
>>> Because that wasn't what was being said: comprehension failure.
>>
>> That was what you implied.
>>
>> <2045175628.745096309.945111.recscuba_google-
huntzinger.com@news.eternal-
>> september.org>
>>
>> You poisoned the well with BS.
>>
>> Let's see an example of:
>>
>>> "[Feeb is] also trolling the Linux fanboys who insist that Linux
>>> advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate!"
>>
>> And where are these "Linux fanboys" that you claim that "Linux advocacy
>> is never, ever, about being a cheapskate(!)"?

I'll say it again, because I misspoke. What I mean to say:

....where are these "Linux fanboys" that you claim SAY that
"Linux advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate(!)"?

>>
>> Can you name three? Can you even name *one*?
>
> Feeb: as already mentioned, literally using the word "cheap".
> RonB: "They're overpriced and constrictive." (& thift shop finds).
> Chris Ahlstrom: bought a Windows laptops because it was cheaper than
> sourcing a Linux laptop Nux Vomica: "overpriced junk"
> Joel: "Winblows, without the money, product key and bloat."
> chrisv: "There is a financial reward to being part of a community that
> is working for the common good, you dumb fsck." and "...many people
> don't need the expensive product, and get a far better value with the
> "good enough" product."

None of these quotes say that "Linux advocacy is never, ever
about being a cheapskate." In fact, they say the exact opposite, since
each is an example to the contrary (for varying values of "cheapskate").

>> Hugh, when you contemplate Linux, you seem to have a set of blinders
>> on. (This might be related to the blinders that DFS wears, in which
>> his discussion of "Linux advocacy" is always framed in terms of desktop
>> systems.)
>
> Because this isn't really a newsgroup advocating for Server OS's.

SEZ WHO?

I know you'd _like_ that to be true, but that's not in the charter.

> But while we're including servers, your company chose Linux over other
> Server OS's: why? Are you really going to try to suggest that costs
> were never a consideration in the business's success?

Not just cost, but ability to perform the job. There's no way in 1994
that Windows could have done the job -- and in fact, UnixWARE wouldn't
have fit our needs, either. (We evaluated it.) Our first server
used a 486dx2 -- and we already had experience making Linux work on one,
reliably, for a multi-user system.

But again, your quotes and examples about cost are the opposite
of what you claim: you say that there are mythical
"Linux fanboys" that SAY "Linux advocacy is never,
ever, about being a cheapskate"?

And I won't even quibble about what "being a cheapskate" means, just
that you can't find someone who has said "never". You misspoke.
'Fess up.

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.11.0-rc3 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"Oxymoron: Rush hour."

On 8/15/24 10:53 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 8/14/24 2:40 AM, vallor wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 20:45:23 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
>>> wrote in <v9gun4$42dl$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>> Chrisv:
>>>>> Amazingly, he argues that the existence of "cheap" advocates supports
>>>>> his claim that some advocates insist "Linux advocacy is never, ever,
>>>>> about being a cheapskate".
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not. Obviously.
>>>>
>>>> Because that wasn't what was being said: comprehension failure.
>>>
>>> That was what you implied.
>>>
>>> <2045175628.745096309.945111.recscuba_google-huntzinger.com@news.eternal-
>>> september.org>
>>>
>>> You poisoned the well with BS.
>>>
>>> Let's see an example of:
>>>
>>>> "[Feeb is] also trolling the Linux fanboys who insist that Linux
>>>> advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate!"
>>>
>>> And where are these "Linux fanboys" that you claim that "Linux advocacy
>>> is never, ever, about being a cheapskate(!)"?
>>>
>>> Can you name three? Can you even name *one*?
>>
>> Feeb: as already mentioned, literally using the word "cheap".
>> RonB: "They're overpriced and constrictive." (& thift shop finds).
>> Chris Ahlstrom: bought a Windows laptops because it was cheaper than
>> sourcing a Linux laptop
>
> You are confusing wanting less expensive hardware with wanting a
> better operating system.

Not really, for I have no particular grief with going for best value.

I chose your example because it did support Microsoft financially, and
some hardcore Linux fanboys would've accused you of being a "traitor"
for allowing any of your personal dollars to be going to MS.

FWIW, I'm not agreeing with such a "traitor!" accusation - merely
acknowledging that some fanboys have been this intolerant.

-hh

On 8/15/24 9:30 PM, vallor wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:53:00 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>
> wrote in <v9l4oc$1004s$3@dont-email.me>:
>
>> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 8/14/24 2:40 AM, vallor wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 20:45:23 -0400, -hh
>>>> <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>>>> <v9gun4$42dl$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>> Chrisv:
>>>>>> Amazingly, he argues that the existence of "cheap" advocates
>>>>>> supports his claim that some advocates insist "Linux advocacy is
>>>>>> never, ever, about being a cheapskate".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does not. Obviously.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because that wasn't what was being said: comprehension failure.
>>>>
>>>> That was what you implied.
>>>>
>>>> <2045175628.745096309.945111.recscuba_google-
> huntzinger.com@news.eternal-
>>>> september.org>
>>>>
>>>> You poisoned the well with BS.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see an example of:
>>>>
>>>>> "[Feeb is] also trolling the Linux fanboys who insist that Linux
>>>>> advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate!"
>>>>
>>>> And where are these "Linux fanboys" that you claim that "Linux
>>>> advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate(!)"?
>>>>
>>>> Can you name three? Can you even name *one*?
>>>
>>> Feeb: as already mentioned, literally using the word "cheap".
>>> RonB: "They're overpriced and constrictive." (& thift shop finds).
>>> Chris Ahlstrom: bought a Windows laptops because it was cheaper than
>>> sourcing a Linux laptop
>>
>> You are confusing wanting less expensive hardware with wanting a better
>> operating system.
>>
>> For my Lenovo laptop, the office-store sale made it an attractive
>> purchase.
>>
>> For my ASUS laptop, I decided to plunk some (for me) serious money to
>> buy a laptop from Xotic PC..
>>
>> In either case, immediately (after verifying that it booted) junked the
>> Windows (already incorporated into the cost of the hardware
>> dontchaknow), and installed Linux.
>>
>> Why? I prefer Linux by far. Cost is simply another one of its desirable
>> properties.
>
> And he _still_ hasn't produced a quote from a "Linux fanboy" who says
> Linux is _never_ (his word) selected because someone is a cheapskate.

I've already provided more than three examples of the basic principle.

> Notice how he dances around the topic. I'm not sure who he thinks
> he's fooling -- an honorable person would admit he misspoke.

Except you're now goalpost-moving to quotes only from "Linux fanboys".

You'd better post a pre-approved list of names to define the subset of
posters that you want to see such sentiments expressed thereof. Or
honorably retract your change in terms.

-hh

On 8/15/24 10:31 PM, vallor wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 07:52:20 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
> wrote in <v9kq5k$u3a9$2@dont-email.me>:
>
>> On 8/14/24 2:40 AM, vallor wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 20:45:23 -0400, -hh
>>> <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>>> <v9gun4$42dl$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>> Chrisv:
>>>>> Amazingly, he argues that the existence of "cheap" advocates supports
>>>>> his claim that some advocates insist "Linux advocacy is never, ever,
>>>>> about being a cheapskate".
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not. Obviously.
>>>>
>>>> Because that wasn't what was being said: comprehension failure.
>>>
>>> That was what you implied.
>>>
>>> <2045175628.745096309.945111.recscuba_google-
> huntzinger.com@news.eternal-
>>> september.org>
>>>
>>> You poisoned the well with BS.
>>>
>>> Let's see an example of:
>>>
>>>> "[Feeb is] also trolling the Linux fanboys who insist that Linux
>>>> advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate!"
>>>
>>> And where are these "Linux fanboys" that you claim that "Linux advocacy
>>> is never, ever, about being a cheapskate(!)"?
>
> I'll say it again, because I misspoke. What I mean to say:
>
> ...where are these "Linux fanboys" that you claim SAY that
> "Linux advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate(!)"?
>
>>>
>>> Can you name three? Can you even name *one*?
>>
>> Feeb: as already mentioned, literally using the word "cheap".
>> RonB: "They're overpriced and constrictive." (& thift shop finds).
>> Chris Ahlstrom: bought a Windows laptops because it was cheaper than
>> sourcing a Linux laptop Nux Vomica: "overpriced junk"
>> Joel: "Winblows, without the money, product key and bloat."
>> chrisv: "There is a financial reward to being part of a community that
>> is working for the common good, you dumb fsck." and "...many people
>> don't need the expensive product, and get a far better value with the
>> "good enough" product."
>
> None of these quotes say that "Linux advocacy is never, ever
> about being a cheapskate." In fact, they say the exact opposite, since
> each is an example to the contrary (for varying values of "cheapskate").
>
>
>>> Hugh, when you contemplate Linux, you seem to have a set of blinders
>>> on. (This might be related to the blinders that DFS wears, in which
>>> his discussion of "Linux advocacy" is always framed in terms of desktop
>>> systems.)
>>
>> Because this isn't really a newsgroup advocating for Server OS's.
>
> SEZ WHO?
>
> I know you'd _like_ that to be true, but that's not in the charter.
>
>> But while we're including servers, your company chose Linux over other
>> Server OS's: why? Are you really going to try to suggest that costs
>> were never a consideration in the business's success?
>
> Not just cost, but ability to perform the job. There's no way in 1994
> that Windows could have done the job -- and in fact, UnixWARE wouldn't
> have fit our needs, either. (We evaluated it.) Our first server
> used a 486dx2 -- and we already had experience making Linux work on one,
> reliably, for a multi-user system.
>
> But again, your quotes and examples about cost are the opposite
> of what you claim: you say that there are mythical
> "Linux fanboys" that SAY "Linux advocacy is never,
> ever, about being a cheapskate"?
>
> And I won't even quibble about what "being a cheapskate" means, just
> that you can't find someone who has said "never". You misspoke.
> 'Fess up.
>

So your pedantic dodge attempt here is that people who whine about how
MS/etc are too expensive is utterly disassociated from that same person
possibly being identified as a 'cheapskate'? Riiiiight! /s

-hh

On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 09:54:21 -0400, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <v9nlmd$1epkg$2@dont-email.me>:

> On 8/15/24 9:30 PM, vallor wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:53:00 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
>> <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>
>> wrote in <v9l4oc$1004s$3@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 8/14/24 2:40 AM, vallor wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 20:45:23 -0400, -hh
>>>>> <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in
>>>>> <v9gun4$42dl$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>>> Chrisv:
>>>>>>> Amazingly, he argues that the existence of "cheap" advocates
>>>>>>> supports his claim that some advocates insist "Linux advocacy is
>>>>>>> never, ever, about being a cheapskate".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It does not. Obviously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because that wasn't what was being said: comprehension failure.
>>>>>
>>>>> That was what you implied.
>>>>>
>>>>> <2045175628.745096309.945111.recscuba_google-
>> huntzinger.com@news.eternal-
>>>>> september.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> You poisoned the well with BS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's see an example of:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "[Feeb is] also trolling the Linux fanboys who insist that Linux
>>>>>> advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate!"
>>>>>
>>>>> And where are these "Linux fanboys" that you claim that "Linux
>>>>> advocacy is never, ever, about being a cheapskate(!)"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you name three? Can you even name *one*?
>>>>
>>>> Feeb: as already mentioned, literally using the word "cheap".
>>>> RonB: "They're overpriced and constrictive." (& thift shop finds).
>>>> Chris Ahlstrom: bought a Windows laptops because it was cheaper than
>>>> sourcing a Linux laptop
>>>
>>> You are confusing wanting less expensive hardware with wanting a
>>> better operating system.
>>>
>>> For my Lenovo laptop, the office-store sale made it an attractive
>>> purchase.
>>>
>>> For my ASUS laptop, I decided to plunk some (for me) serious money to
>>> buy a laptop from Xotic PC..
>>>
>>> In either case, immediately (after verifying that it booted) junked
>>> the Windows (already incorporated into the cost of the hardware
>>> dontchaknow), and installed Linux.
>>>
>>> Why? I prefer Linux by far. Cost is simply another one of its
>>> desirable properties.
>>
>> And he _still_ hasn't produced a quote from a "Linux fanboy" who says
>> Linux is _never_ (his word) selected because someone is a cheapskate.
>
> I've already provided more than three examples of the basic principle.

Okay, at this point I think you're funning. Because there's no way
that you are this thick.

>
>
>> Notice how he dances around the topic. I'm not sure who he thinks he's
>> fooling -- an honorable person would admit he misspoke.
>
> Except you're now goalpost-moving to quotes only from "Linux fanboys".

No I'm not. You said that some alleged "Linux fanboys" have said
it is "*never* about being a cheapskate." [emph. added] You continue
to dance around your misspoken rhetoric. I fully expected you to, maybe,
find Feeb saying such a thing once -- but you haven't even done that.

Put up or shut up.

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.11.0-rc3 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
""There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." -Mark Twain"