Le 09-08-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
>
> The Linux kernel needs to be compiled to accomodate the 6(12)
> cores,

No. The kernel is good enough to adapt by itself to the number of cores.
It can adapt to any changes. You can take your hard drive, put it in in
a new computer, boot on it and it will run. Except if you messed up
something. Which will happen, I trust you on this.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 10 Aug 2024 08:58:34 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> Le 09-08-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
>>
>> The Linux kernel needs to be compiled to accommodate the 6(12)
>> cores,
>
> No. The kernel is good enough to adapt by itself to the number of cores.
> It can adapt to any changes.
>

Totally false.

For best performance, the kernel needs to be tuned to the
particular processor.

All distros have GENERIC_CPU=y which allows distro kernels
to run on any processor. But it is possible to select
MCORE2=y and CPU_SUP_INTEL=y for Intel Core* and Xeon
to maximize performance.

The user can also set the maximum number of CPUs with
NR_CPUS=16. Otherwise the default maximum is 512 which
wastes memory. Each CPU requires 8 Kb of memory.

The user can also specify multi-core scheduler support,
SCHED_MC=y, which improves scheduling. Default is "no."

This is just the beginning. There are many other processor
optimizations that can be configured.

Also, distros are obsessed with security features that degrade
performance. The intelligent user, like me, completely
eliminates all security features.

>
> You can take your hard drive, put it in in
> a new computer, boot on it and it will run.
>

Also totally false.

Only cheap distro kernel will boot on most machines.
A highly tuned kernel will boot only on the target
machine or a very closely matched machine.

--
/root/News/000sig.txt

Le 10-08-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On 10 Aug 2024 08:58:34 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> Le 09-08-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
>>>
>>> The Linux kernel needs to be compiled to accommodate the 6(12)
>>> cores,
>>
>> No. The kernel is good enough to adapt by itself to the number of cores.
>> It can adapt to any changes.
>>
>
> Totally false.

Nope.

> For best performance, the kernel needs to be tuned to the
> particular processor.

You already proved you are unable to evaluate the impacts of your
configuration. So your claim is baseless.

> All distros have GENERIC_CPU=y which allows distro kernels
> to run on any processor. But it is possible to select
> MCORE2=y and CPU_SUP_INTEL=y for Intel Core* and Xeon
> to maximize performance.

Once again, you already proved you are unable tu evaluate the
performances. So you claim things without support for them.

> The user can also set the maximum number of CPUs with
> NR_CPUS=16. Otherwise the default maximum is 512 which
> wastes memory. Each CPU requires 8 Kb of memory.

If you really believe this crap, I can understand why you are so sure
the optimization is important. But it's false. The kernels and distro
maintainers won't waste memory for fun.

With this, you are only proving you don't understand what you are doing.
And as you are unable to mesure your changes, you proved, one again,
your optimizations are only in your mind.

> The user can also specify multi-core scheduler support,
> SCHED_MC=y, which improves scheduling. Default is "no."

That can become quite funny here. OK so:
- can you explain why the default is "no" on your distro?
- can you explain the drawback of changing that value?
- can you explain in which case changing that value is a god idea?
- can you explain in which case changing that value is a bad idea?
- can you explain why, in your case, you can change that default value?

OK, for the last case, the answer is obvious: as you don't use your
computer, you can change that value without noticing the side effect.
But for the other cases, I'd like to see your explanations.

I don't want a link explaining why the management of the cache for
multi-thread processes running on multi-core CPU is difficult. I want
your explanation to be able to see when it's a good idea to change the
default.

I'm going to fetch some pop-corn. It sounds promising.

> This is just the beginning. There are many other processor
> optimizations that can be configured.

Do you mean by that I should fetch more pop-corn?

> Also, distros are obsessed with security features that degrade
> performance. The intelligent user, like me, completely
> eliminates all security features.

Yes, I already know how incoherent you are. You can claim at the same
time that the debian and ubuntu users should shit in their pants for the
xz backdoor and that the security is stupid.

You are the master of the contradictions.

>> You can take your hard drive, put it in in
>> a new computer, boot on it and it will run.
>
> Also totally false.

OK, my bad. I can believe that. What I mean was a real hard drive for
anyone but you. I can believe you are able to manage your kernel so
badly it wont run anyway but on your actual computer.

So, what I mean is: anyone but you can install Linux on the hard drive
of any computer. And then, take the hard drive on another one and start
it without issue. And that's true. Because when you aren't involved
Linux runs smoothly.

Once again, it's a proof that when you claim you optimize, you do
nothing good.

> Only cheap distro kernel will boot on most machines.
> A highly tuned kernel will boot only on the target
> machine or a very closely matched machine.

I'd like to know why it's a good thing to have a kernel unable to run on
another machine. As you are unable to have data to prove performances,
you can't back your claims. And, by the way, don't come back with data,
I won't trust them. Just some explanation. It looks like I'll need a
shit load of pop-corn.

I know, thirty years ago, that answer would have been right. I also know
you are stuck in the past. So I don't want an obsolete explanation, but
an actual explanation, for modern a Linux kernel running on a modern
hardware machine.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 10 Aug 2024 13:00:08 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>>
>> Totally false.
>
> Nope.
>

I am not wasting my time with this argument. For you,
it's all sour grapes. That is, you wish that you could
optimize your system but you have not the expertise to
do it. As a compensation, you then deny that optimization
is effective.

You are just like Donald Trump. Trump wanted to win the
election but he could not do it. As a compensation, he
now denies that the election result was fair and accurate.

That's your philosophy. If you cannot do it, then deny,
deny, and deny.

Well, I *can* do it and I know damn well that unless you
build and configure your own system then you will have
a crippled kernel and user space. All GNU/Linux distros
are crippled.

Only Linux From Scratch and Gentoo can provide a worthwhile
system.

Software is like clothing. Unless one gets his suit specially
made by a competent tailor, he will look like shit. Unless
one builds his own system, it will perform like shit.

The case is closed.

Le 10-08-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On 10 Aug 2024 13:00:08 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Totally false.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>
> I am not wasting my time with this argument.

You have nothing else to do when you are waiting for the compilation of
your kernel to crash.

> That is, you wish that you could optimize your system but

My system is well optimized. Far better than yours. You proved it in
your videos. I'm ten time faster using it than you using the joke you
call a well designed system.

> you have not the expertise to do it.

In fact, I have and I did. I put some time to choose the right tools and
to automate what I do a lot. What I don't do is optimize the kernel.
It's a way different thing. Because it would require a lot of time to
improve by a very little margin the optimization don by the distro
maintainers and the kernel developers. It would be a waste of time.

> As a compensation, you then deny that optimization is effective.

I'm not saying optimization is ineffective. I'm saying it's difficult.
And I'm saying you don't know how to do it. And I'm saying the distro
maintainers are doing a great job. And I'm saying the kernel has greatly
improved and there is no need to optimize it for a given computer
anymore. It can be optimized for a need, which is different. It is well
optimized by people who do a better job than you.

> That's your philosophy. If you cannot do it, then deny,
> deny, and deny.

I'm denying only your capacity to optimize. And with all the evidence
you provided, it's only stating the obvious.

And by the way, you are the denier. You deny the capacities of the
distro maintainers and the kernel developers. Providing that Linux runs
everywhere it's a huge deny. They proved their worth everyday when you
prove you lack of it in every message.

> Well, I *can* do it

You can't because you are unable to estimate the impacts of your own
changes.

> and I know damn well

Just the rest of your sentence prove you know nothing:

> that unless you build and configure your own system then you will have
> a crippled kernel and user space.

If they ran everywhere it's because they are very well designed.

> All GNU/Linux distros are crippled.

You see: you deny. Once again. When the fact that they run everywhere
show you are wrong. If they were crippled, they wouldn't work, which is
just denying the obvious.

> Only Linux From Scratch and Gentoo can provide a worthwhile
> system.

Once again, you deny the obvious. Gentoo runs only on personal
computers. They are nowhere to be found in the industry. So there are
other distros worthwhile everywhere.

> Software is like clothing. Unless one gets his suit specially
> made by a competent tailor, he will look like shit. Unless
> one builds his own system, it will perform like shit.

You no nothing about the industry. If Linux is well spread, it's for a
reason. And it's because unlike your deny, the kernel is well conceived
and doesn't need tailoring. And unlike your deny the distro are well
done and are fit for the needs.

> The case is closed.

You proved it once again: you are a Windows fanboy pretending being a
Linux user to make Linux users looks like fools. It's very obvious here
where you insult the kernel developers and the distro maintainers.

You deny the obvious accusing me of denying. That's the only thing
you can do. It's funny, but it's a little short. I have a lot of
pop-corn remaining.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 10 Aug 2024 19:04:35 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>
> I'm not saying optimization is ineffective. I'm saying it's difficult.
>

It is certainly difficult for a phony like you.

>
> And I'm saying you don't know how to do it. And I'm saying the distro
> maintainers are doing a great job. And I'm saying the kernel has greatly
> improved and there is no need to optimize it for a given computer
> anymore. It can be optimized for a need, which is different. It is well
> optimized by people who do a better job than you.
>

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

It does not matter what YOU say. YOU are a technical ignoramus.

I have an academic background in both computer science and electrical
engineering. My expertise equals or exceeds that of any Linux
"developer."

The kernel is DESIGNED to be optimized, and that optimization is
incumbent on the USER.

Those who cannot optimize, like you, will depend on the distro.

Those who can optimize, like me, will optimize and enjoy a MUCH
better system.

YOU are a technical ignoramus. Your opinions on this matter are
totally worthless.

>
> Once again, you deny the obvious. Gentoo runs only on personal
> computers. They are nowhere to be found in the industry.
>

Guess again, retard.

Gentoo Portage is used by Google in their ChromeOS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChromiumOS

Gentoo has also become an SPI associated project:

https://www.gentoo.org/news/2024/04/10/SPI-associated-project.html

Gentoo is not widely used by industry because the incompetent
corporate developers need a "turn key" system like RedHat or
SuSe. Gentoo, like Linux, is designed to be customized and is
beyond the means of the overpaid corporate developer.

--
/root/News/000sig.txt

Le 10-08-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On 10 Aug 2024 19:04:35 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying optimization is ineffective. I'm saying it's difficult.
>
> It is certainly difficult for a phony like you.

Once again, I'm only stating the obvious: doing significantly better
than experts is difficult. It's not related with me or you. It's a fact.

>> And I'm saying you don't know how to do it. And I'm saying the distro
>> maintainers are doing a great job. And I'm saying the kernel has greatly
>> improved and there is no need to optimize it for a given computer
>> anymore. It can be optimized for a need, which is different. It is well
>> optimized by people who do a better job than you.
>
> It does not matter what YOU say.

In fact it does. It's the only important matter. What's important is not
who I am or who you are. What's matter is what is said. The most
intelligent man or woman on earth can say a stupid thing. It doesn't
mean the man or woman wasn't smart. It doesn't mean what has been said
wasn't stupid. It only means all that matter is what is said. Not who
said it.

Sometimes, for statistical reasons, you say smart things. It doesn't
mean you became smart. And it doesn't mean what you said wasn't smart.
It only means you said a smart thing by mistake and what's important is
what you said not who you are.

> YOU are a technical ignoramus.

Once again, it's irrelevant here. We are not speaking about me but about
optimization.

> I have an academic background in both computer science and electrical
> engineering.

I believe, you saw a youtube video, but I'm not impressed. Everything
you say is crap. So either you never understood what you
saw/read/learned (that's easy to believe) or you forgot everything
(that's easy to believe to) or you are lying (that's easy to believe to)
or you don't understand what you claim (taht is, guess what, easy to
believe, to). But either way, your claims are false.

> My expertise equals or exceeds that of any Linux "developer."

You never show anything like that here. When they proved by fact that
they provide a well designed kernel every week. Each week on earth they
provide more proof of their value than you in all your lifetime. So,
once again, what you pretend to be is irrelevant when facts arise.

> The kernel is DESIGNED to be optimized, and that optimization is
> incumbent on the USER.

Not anymore. The kernel is designed to be personalized when you have a
special need, not when you have a special computer. And for personalized
needs, the personalization can be done for every computer with the same
need.

> Those who can optimize, like me, will optimize and enjoy a MUCH
> better system.

As:
- you don't know how to estimate your changes,
- the kernel developers did a great job,
- the distro maintainers did a great job,
- the hardware improved more than the needs of the software,
you can end up with a worse kernel without being able to realize it. And
I'm pretty sure that's what you get. The only way you could improve your
kernel is with mere luck. And you can't be that lucky each week.

> YOU are a technical ignoramus. Your opinions on this matter are
> totally worthless.

Once again what I can do is irrelevant here. You are the one trying to
improve your kernel. You are the one proving you don't know the effects
of your optimization in pretence. So what is important is what is said.
And you fail miserably to convince you have any technical ability
required to do what you claim.

>> Once again, you deny the obvious. Gentoo runs only on personal
>> computers. They are nowhere to be found in the industry.
>>
>
> Guess again, retard.

You sounds like Joel. Does he inspire you?

> Gentoo Portage is used by Google in their ChromeOS:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChromiumOS

Thanks for the good laugh. You provided me two for the price of one.

So, first, portage is only a package manager. It's not a full distro.
Did you understand when I said that ubuntu and debian are almost the
same? And when I said the package managers are one of the most important
things that differentiate distro? It doesn't look that way, so I'll
explain.

So, for the package manager part, it's not only the name, but it's the
way it manages the dependencies. When you install something which depend
on something else, does it install that something else to or not? And
when you remove something, does it removes the useless dependencies?
Does it removes the config files? And how well does the package manager
does with lot of sources? There's a lot of things that differentiate the
package managers. It's a very important thing, but it's not enough to
say it's the same.

Now, for the part when I said ubuntu and debian are almost the same. In
fact ubuntu is based on debian. It means that when debian change
something, ubuntu take the changes coming from debian. And the choose
either tu use it, to discard it or to personalize it. Except for the
snap part which is owned by canonical and is a black box, the
differences between ubuntu and debian or more flavours than real
differences.

And second, ChromeOS is developed by Google. Not used by them. It's
developed by the industry, like every major distro. It doesn't mean it's
used in the industry.

> Gentoo has also become an SPI associated project:
>
> https://www.gentoo.org/news/2024/04/10/SPI-associated-project.html

So what?

> Gentoo is not widely used by industry

Exactly my point. It doesn't mean it's bad. It means there are other
good choices. When you are alone at home, you do with what you have.
When you are a big company with money, you pay what needs to be done and
if you chose the free way, it's not for lack of money it's for a reason.

> because the incompetent corporate developers need a "turn key" system
> like RedHat or SuSe.

Nope. Once again, you show your lack of knowledge and understanding.
What they need is help and long term support. If there is a major flow
somewhere, the industry needs it to be taken care of, and applied. When
there is an upgrade, they can't allow their computers to be down for
days. So, when upgrading, they need to test the impacts (for real, not
like you claiming one only needs to understand) and it takes time.
Because when you upgrade something, you have to upgrade everything
depending on it at the same time. That's what Red Hat and SuSe provide
when Gentoo can't. I'm not saying I agree, I'm saying I know and
understand, even if I disagree. But unlike you I know why I disagree.

> Gentoo, like Linux, is designed to be customized

Nope. They are designed to let people who know what they do customize it
if it's needed. It's not the same thing. And knowing when you don't need
to customize it goes far way from your knowledge. They don't change
things when it's not required. And I agree with that.

> and is beyond the means of the overpaid corporate developer.

It reminds me one of your previous message. It really looks like you
deny them capacities when you are jealous of their salary without having
their knowledge.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 10 Aug 2024 21:41:45 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>
> Once again, I'm only stating the obvious: doing significantly better
> than experts is difficult. It's not related with me or you. It's a fact.
>

I am an expert. You are not.

>
> But either way, your claims are false.
>

Prove it. Provide reliable benchmarks that show that an optimized
system does not perform better than a non-optimized system. Prove it
or else shut the fuck up.

I have, in the past, posted reliable benchmarks that show a 37%
improvement in speed with an optimized system versus a non-optimized
system on the same hardware.

Talk is cheap.

Prove your claims or else shut the fuck up.

On 8/10/2024 5:41 PM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 10-08-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
>> On 10 Aug 2024 19:04:35 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not saying optimization is ineffective. I'm saying it's difficult.
>>
>> It is certainly difficult for a phony like you.
>
> Once again, I'm only stating the obvious: doing significantly better
> than experts is difficult. It's not related with me or you. It's a fact.
>
>>> And I'm saying you don't know how to do it. And I'm saying the distro
>>> maintainers are doing a great job. And I'm saying the kernel has greatly
>>> improved and there is no need to optimize it for a given computer
>>> anymore. It can be optimized for a need, which is different. It is well
>>> optimized by people who do a better job than you.
>>
>> It does not matter what YOU say.
>
> In fact it does. It's the only important matter. What's important is not
> who I am or who you are. What's matter is what is said. The most
> intelligent man or woman on earth can say a stupid thing. It doesn't
> mean the man or woman wasn't smart. It doesn't mean what has been said
> wasn't stupid. It only means all that matter is what is said. Not who
> said it.
>
> Sometimes, for statistical reasons, you say smart things. It doesn't
> mean you became smart. And it doesn't mean what you said wasn't smart.
> It only means you said a smart thing by mistake and what's important is
> what you said not who you are.
>
>> YOU are a technical ignoramus.
>
> Once again, it's irrelevant here. We are not speaking about me but about
> optimization.
>
>> I have an academic background in both computer science and electrical
>> engineering.
>
> I believe, you saw a youtube video, but I'm not impressed. Everything
> you say is crap. So either you never understood what you
> saw/read/learned (that's easy to believe) or you forgot everything
> (that's easy to believe to) or you are lying (that's easy to believe to)
> or you don't understand what you claim (taht is, guess what, easy to
> believe, to). But either way, your claims are false.
>
>> My expertise equals or exceeds that of any Linux "developer."
>
> You never show anything like that here. When they proved by fact that
> they provide a well designed kernel every week. Each week on earth they
> provide more proof of their value than you in all your lifetime. So,
> once again, what you pretend to be is irrelevant when facts arise.
>
>> The kernel is DESIGNED to be optimized, and that optimization is
>> incumbent on the USER.
>
> Not anymore. The kernel is designed to be personalized when you have a
> special need, not when you have a special computer. And for personalized
> needs, the personalization can be done for every computer with the same
> need.
>
>> Those who can optimize, like me, will optimize and enjoy a MUCH
>> better system.
>
> As:
> - you don't know how to estimate your changes,
> - the kernel developers did a great job,
> - the distro maintainers did a great job,
> - the hardware improved more than the needs of the software,
> you can end up with a worse kernel without being able to realize it. And
> I'm pretty sure that's what you get. The only way you could improve your
> kernel is with mere luck. And you can't be that lucky each week.
>
>> YOU are a technical ignoramus. Your opinions on this matter are
>> totally worthless.
>
> Once again what I can do is irrelevant here. You are the one trying to
> improve your kernel. You are the one proving you don't know the effects
> of your optimization in pretence. So what is important is what is said.
> And you fail miserably to convince you have any technical ability
> required to do what you claim.
>
>>> Once again, you deny the obvious. Gentoo runs only on personal
>>> computers. They are nowhere to be found in the industry.
>>>
>>
>> Guess again, retard.
>
> You sounds like Joel. Does he inspire you?
>
>> Gentoo Portage is used by Google in their ChromeOS:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChromiumOS
>
> Thanks for the good laugh. You provided me two for the price of one.
>
> So, first, portage is only a package manager. It's not a full distro.
> Did you understand when I said that ubuntu and debian are almost the
> same? And when I said the package managers are one of the most important
> things that differentiate distro? It doesn't look that way, so I'll
> explain.
>
> So, for the package manager part, it's not only the name, but it's the
> way it manages the dependencies. When you install something which depend
> on something else, does it install that something else to or not? And
> when you remove something, does it removes the useless dependencies?
> Does it removes the config files? And how well does the package manager
> does with lot of sources? There's a lot of things that differentiate the
> package managers. It's a very important thing, but it's not enough to
> say it's the same.
>
> Now, for the part when I said ubuntu and debian are almost the same. In
> fact ubuntu is based on debian. It means that when debian change
> something, ubuntu take the changes coming from debian. And the choose
> either tu use it, to discard it or to personalize it. Except for the
> snap part which is owned by canonical and is a black box, the
> differences between ubuntu and debian or more flavours than real
> differences.
>
> And second, ChromeOS is developed by Google. Not used by them. It's
> developed by the industry, like every major distro. It doesn't mean it's
> used in the industry.
>
>> Gentoo has also become an SPI associated project:
>>
>> https://www.gentoo.org/news/2024/04/10/SPI-associated-project.html
>
> So what?
>
>> Gentoo is not widely used by industry
>
> Exactly my point. It doesn't mean it's bad. It means there are other
> good choices. When you are alone at home, you do with what you have.
> When you are a big company with money, you pay what needs to be done and
> if you chose the free way, it's not for lack of money it's for a reason.
>
>> because the incompetent corporate developers need a "turn key" system
>> like RedHat or SuSe.
>
> Nope. Once again, you show your lack of knowledge and understanding.
> What they need is help and long term support. If there is a major flow
> somewhere, the industry needs it to be taken care of, and applied. When
> there is an upgrade, they can't allow their computers to be down for
> days. So, when upgrading, they need to test the impacts (for real, not
> like you claiming one only needs to understand) and it takes time.
> Because when you upgrade something, you have to upgrade everything
> depending on it at the same time. That's what Red Hat and SuSe provide
> when Gentoo can't. I'm not saying I agree, I'm saying I know and
> understand, even if I disagree. But unlike you I know why I disagree.
>
>> Gentoo, like Linux, is designed to be customized
>
> Nope. They are designed to let people who know what they do customize it
> if it's needed. It's not the same thing. And knowing when you don't need
> to customize it goes far way from your knowledge. They don't change
> things when it's not required. And I agree with that.
>
>> and is beyond the means of the overpaid corporate developer.
>
> It reminds me one of your previous message. It really looks like you
> deny them capacities when you are jealous of their salary without having
> their knowledge.

These are masterful beatdowns. Feeb is way too closeminded to learn
from you (or anyone here), but I like your posts.

On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 10:19:36 -0400, DFS wrote:

> These are masterful beatdowns.

Spoken like a true master. I’ve seen what you’re capable of, against those
who are your intellectual superiors.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>
>> These are masterful beatdowns.
>
>Spoken like a true master. I’ve seen what you’re capable of, against those
>who are your intellectual superiors.

Heh. Yeah, DumFSck knows what it's like to get beat down, better than
anyone else here.

--
"You Linux/OSS wackjobs should be held liable for spreading viruses
and malware across the world, via your sendmail and postfix crapware."
- some dumb fsck

On 8/13/2024 3:42 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 10:19:36 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> These are masterful beatdowns.
>
> Spoken like a true master. I’ve seen what you’re capable of, against those
> who are your intellectual superiors.

ha!

You and shitv and Slimer share the same delusion, belied by the content
of your posts.

On 8/13/2024 7:42 AM, chrisv wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>> These are masterful beatdowns.
>> Spoken like a true master. I’ve seen what you’re capable of, against those
>> who are your intellectual superiors.
> Heh. Yeah, DumFSck knows what it's like to get beat down, better than
> anyone else here.

"Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining stability" is
not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact. The more negative
feedback there is, the greater the chance of *instability*." -
shitv, "BSEE"

> -- "You Linux/OSS wackjobs should be held liable for spreading viruses
> and malware across the world, via your sendmail and postfix crapware." -
> some dumb fsck

It's no surprise a libtard Linux luser like you refuses to accept that
FOSS crapware is responsible for helping spread malware willy-nilly.

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>On 8/13/2024 7:42 AM, chrisv wrote:
>
>> -- "You Linux/OSS wackjobs should be held liable for spreading viruses
>> and malware across the world, via your sendmail and postfix crapware." -
>> some dumb fsck
>
>It's no surprise a libtard Linux luser like you refuses to accept that
>FOSS crapware is responsible for helping spread malware willy-nilly.

Chris V. is not a "libtard", more like a Trump supporter.

--
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:

> some dumb fsck wrote:

(unread)

Joel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>On 8/13/2024 7:42 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> -- "You Linux/OSS wackjobs should be held liable for spreading viruses
>>> and malware across the world, via your sendmail and postfix crapware." -
>>> some dumb fsck
>>
>>It's no surprise a libtard Linux luser like you refuses to accept that
>>FOSS crapware is responsible for helping spread malware willy-nilly.

:-D

Look the Windows horse in the mouth, DFS.

You complain about the mote in Linux's eye, while ignoring the beam in
Microsoft's eys.

> Chris V. is not a "libtard", more like a Trump supporter.

He's kind of morphed into right-wing k00k, like RonB.

--
Writing is turning one's worst moments into money.
-- J.P. Donleavy

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>> Chris V. is not a "libtard", more like a Trump supporter.
>
> He's kind of morphed into right-wing k00k, like RonB.

Ironically, Chris A is one who claims that people are unfairly called
radical leftists if they are anywhere to the left of Trump (or
something like that).

"Right-wing k00k" indeed. In truth, I'm in the middle. I've never
argued that people should not have taken the vaccines. I've never
denied climate change. I don't believe in the outright banning of
abortions. I could go on.

Years afo, I argued a lot against RonB and Slimer. But the left got
far crazier since then, and I realized that RonB and Slimer, while not
always reasonable, were right about a lot of things.

In a nutshell, the leftists really do want to destroy western society
and replace it with socialism. I used to call that claim a lie, but I
was wrong.

LOL all you want at that, libtard. 8) It's true.

My God, look what's happening in England now. England!

On 2024-08-14 5:15 p.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Joel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/13/2024 7:42 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> -- "You Linux/OSS wackjobs should be held liable for spreading viruses
>>>> and malware across the world, via your sendmail and postfix crapware." -
>>>> some dumb fsck
>>>
>>> It's no surprise a libtard Linux luser like you refuses to accept that
>>> FOSS crapware is responsible for helping spread malware willy-nilly.
>
> :-D
>
> Look the Windows horse in the mouth, DFS.
>
> You complain about the mote in Linux's eye, while ignoring the beam in
> Microsoft's eys.
>
>> Chris V. is not a "libtard", more like a Trump supporter.
>
> He's kind of morphed into right-wing k00k, like RonB.

I think everyone here would rather be labelled a "right-wing k00k" than
actually be a left-wing cuck like you, Chris.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king

On 2024-08-14 5:58 p.m., chrisv wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>>> Chris V. is not a "libtard", more like a Trump supporter.
>>
>> He's kind of morphed into right-wing k00k, like RonB.
>
> Ironically, Chris A is one who claims that people are unfairly called
> radical leftists if they are anywhere to the left of Trump (or
> something like that).
>
> "Right-wing k00k" indeed. In truth, I'm in the middle. I've never
> argued that people should not have taken the vaccines. I've never
> denied climate change. I don't believe in the outright banning of
> abortions. I could go on.
>
> Years afo, I argued a lot against RonB and Slimer. But the left got
> far crazier since then, and I realized that RonB and Slimer, while not
> always reasonable, were right about a lot of things.
>
> In a nutshell, the leftists really do want to destroy western society
> and replace it with socialism. I used to call that claim a lie, but I
> was wrong.
>
> LOL all you want at that, libtard. 8) It's true.
>
> My God, look what's happening in England now. England!

Yep, and I recall tons of people calling me all sorts of things for
saying that this was going to happen to England and France a decade or
so ago. I don't even care about the labels as long as something changes
and saves Europe from the inevitable darkness to come.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king

On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:15:50 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Joel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>On 8/13/2024 7:42 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> -- "You Linux/OSS wackjobs should be held liable for spreading
>>>> viruses and malware across the world, via your sendmail and postfix
>>>> crapware." -
>>>> some dumb fsck
>>>
>>>It's no surprise a libtard Linux luser like you refuses to accept that
>>>FOSS crapware is responsible for helping spread malware willy-nilly.
>
> :-D
>
> Look the Windows horse in the mouth, DFS.
>
> You complain about the mote in Linux's eye, while ignoring the beam in
> Microsoft's eys.

DFS should look at yesterday's Patch Tuesday changelog. MS plugged a few
more holes in the sieve. So far I haven't read any reports of what they
broke this time.

On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:58:08 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> In a nutshell, the leftists really do want to destroy western society
> and replace it with socialism. I used to call that claim a lie, but I
> was wrong.

I think they want to expand the welfare state rather than replace it with
socialism. The earliest example of a modern welfare state was Bismarck's.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/bismarck-tried-end-socialisms-grip-
offering-government-healthcare-180964064/

https://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.html

The idea was to provide hoi polloi with bread and circuses so they didn't
burn the shit house down. The leftists, progressives, or whatever aren't
as stupid as they appear. They lead a comfortable existence in the system
as it is and don't want to destroy it. God forbid the masses take to the
barricades and their iPhones don't work anymore.

Even ol' Bernie is a bit confused when he calls himself a democratic
socialist. He wants to work within the system and make a few tweaks here
and there not tear it down.

On 2024-08-14 9:32 p.m., rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:15:50 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Joel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/13/2024 7:42 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -- "You Linux/OSS wackjobs should be held liable for spreading
>>>>> viruses and malware across the world, via your sendmail and postfix
>>>>> crapware." -
>>>>> some dumb fsck
>>>>
>>>> It's no surprise a libtard Linux luser like you refuses to accept that
>>>> FOSS crapware is responsible for helping spread malware willy-nilly.
>>
>> :-D
>>
>> Look the Windows horse in the mouth, DFS.
>>
>> You complain about the mote in Linux's eye, while ignoring the beam in
>> Microsoft's eys.
>
> DFS should look at yesterday's Patch Tuesday changelog. MS plugged a few
> more holes in the sieve. So far I haven't read any reports of what they
> broke this time.

They retired the patches which were causing the system to go into
recovery mode. I've dealt with this myself so this was good news. Other
than that, the patches were for an exploit which had to do with
SmartScreen, a function meant to increase web security.

The message here is that it is laughable to expect security when
browsing with Microsoft's software.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king