Fargin' Sneaky Bastages

T

Tim Weaver

Guest
mimus wrote:


> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>


>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>


> Typical.


>


> Including the secrecy.


>


> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.

Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. Not to start

a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It works for me.

--

Tim Weaver

I know you believe you understand what you think I said,

but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not

what I meant.

 
M

mimus

Guest
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


> mimus wrote:


>


>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>


>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>>


>> Typical.


>>


>> Including the secrecy.


>>


>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.


>


> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. Not to start


> a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It works for me.

Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.

I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along with my

beloved Paste-'n'-Go).

Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for

Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .

--

tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

When a system is set up to accomplish some goal, a

new entity has come into being--the system itself.

Now the system itself has to be dealt with.

< _Systemantics_

 
T

Tim Weaver

Guest
mimus wrote:


> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>


>> mimus wrote:


>>


>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>


>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>>>


>>> Typical.


>>>


>>> Including the secrecy.


>>>


>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.


>>


>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. Not to


>> start a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It works for me.


>


> Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.


>


> I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along with


> my beloved Paste-'n'-Go).


>


> Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for


> Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .

I know you like your vintage stuff, but in this case you should upgrade.

And don't forget Filterset.G.

--

Tim Weaver

I know you believe you understand what you think I said,

but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not

what I meant.

 
M

mimus

Guest
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:26 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


> mimus wrote:


>


>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>


>>> mimus wrote:


>>>


>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>


>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>>>>


>>>> Typical.


>>>>


>>>> Including the secrecy.


>>>>


>>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.


>>>


>>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. Not to


>>> start a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It works for me.


>>


>> Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.


>>


>> I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along with


>> my beloved Paste-'n'-Go).


>>


>> Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for


>> Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .


>


> I know you like your vintage stuff, but in this case you should upgrade.

Which would require me to upgrade my whole goddam system just to upgrade

the browser, libc and all . . . .

**** that.

--

tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

"You are either insane or a fool."

"I am a sanitary inspector."

< _Maske: Thaery_

 
D

david hillstrom

Guest
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:21:54 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>

wrote:


>On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>


>> mimus wrote:


>>


>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>


>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>>>


>>> Typical.


>>>


>>> Including the secrecy.


>>>


>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.


>>


>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. Not to start


>> a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It works for me.


>


>Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.


>


>I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along with my


>beloved Paste-'n'-Go).


>


>Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for


>Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .

gads. im using v 3.0.5 on firefox. <giggle>

--

dave hillstrom xrbj

 
D

david hillstrom

Guest
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:56:34 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>

wrote:


>On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:26 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>


>> mimus wrote:


>>


>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>


>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>


>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>


>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>>>>>


>>>>> Typical.


>>>>>


>>>>> Including the secrecy.


>>>>>


>>>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.


>>>>


>>>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. Not to


>>>> start a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It works for me.


>>>


>>> Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.


>>>


>>> I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along with


>>> my beloved Paste-'n'-Go).


>>>


>>> Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for


>>> Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .


>>


>> I know you like your vintage stuff, but in this case you should upgrade.


>


>Which would require me to upgrade my whole goddam system just to upgrade


>the browser, libc and all . . . .


>


>**** that.

freakish throwback

you should be able to make money on that, btw.

--

dave hillstrom xrbj

 
M

mimus

Guest
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:06:48 -0500, david hillstrom wrote:


> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:56:34 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>


> wrote:


>


>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:26 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>


>>> mimus wrote:


>>>


>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>


>>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>>


>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>>


>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>>>>>>


>>>>>> Typical.


>>>>>>


>>>>>> Including the secrecy.


>>>>>>


>>>>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.


>>>>>


>>>>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. Not to


>>>>> start a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It works for me.


>>>>


>>>> Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.


>>>>


>>>> I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along with


>>>> my beloved Paste-'n'-Go).


>>>>


>>>> Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for


>>>> Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .


>>>


>>> I know you like your vintage stuff, but in this case you should upgrade.


>>


>> Which would require me to upgrade my whole goddam system just to


>> upgrade the browser, libc and all . . . .


>>


>> **** that.


>


> freakish throwback


>


> you should be able to make money on that, btw.

On what? expecting a system to be stable for maybe five years or so,

without undergoing the hazards and hassle (moving all personal/business

files to safety) of an upgrade? ****.

(I will say that Ubuntu put the old package archives back up, presumably

by popular demand, and I honor and revere 'em for that.)

--

tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

+++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot. +++

< Hex

 
M

mimus

Guest
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:04:48 -0500, david hillstrom wrote:


> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:21:54 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>


> wrote:


>


>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>


>>> mimus wrote:


>>>


>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>


>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>>>>


>>>> Typical.


>>>>


>>>> Including the secrecy.


>>>>


>>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.


>>>


>>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. Not to start


>>> a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It works for me.


>>


>> Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.


>>


>> I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along with


>> my beloved Paste-'n'-Go).


>>


>> Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for


>> Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .


>


> gads. im using v 3.0.5 on firefox. <giggle>

I'm an inveterate Last Adopter.

--

tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

"Ah ooh ah ooh ah ooh ah ooh ah."

< _Shaun of the Dead_

 
D

david hillstrom

Guest
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:12:41 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>

wrote:


>On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:06:48 -0500, david hillstrom wrote:


>


>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:56:34 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>


>> wrote:


>>


>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:26 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>


>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>


>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>


>>>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>>>


>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> Typical.


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> Including the secrecy.


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.


>>>>>>


>>>>>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. Not to


>>>>>> start a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It works for me.


>>>>>


>>>>> Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.


>>>>>


>>>>> I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along with


>>>>> my beloved Paste-'n'-Go).


>>>>>


>>>>> Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for


>>>>> Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .


>>>>


>>>> I know you like your vintage stuff, but in this case you should upgrade.


>>>


>>> Which would require me to upgrade my whole goddam system just to


>>> upgrade the browser, libc and all . . . .


>>>


>>> **** that.


>>


>> freakish throwback


>>


>> you should be able to make money on that, btw.


>


>On what? expecting a system to be stable for maybe five years or so,


>without undergoing the hazards and hassle (moving all personal/business


>files to safety) of an upgrade? ****.


>


>(I will say that Ubuntu put the old package archives back up, presumably


>by popular demand, and I honor and revere 'em for that.)

it aint a big deal now to upgrade in windows. neener.

--

dave hillstrom xrbj

 
M

mimus

Guest
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:17:49 -0500, david hillstrom wrote:


> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:12:41 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>


> wrote:


>


>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:06:48 -0500, david hillstrom wrote:


>>


>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:56:34 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>


>>> wrote:


>>>


>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:26 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>


>>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>>


>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>>


>>>>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>> Typical.


>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>> Including the secrecy.


>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. Not to


>>>>>>> start a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It works for me.


>>>>>>


>>>>>> Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.


>>>>>>


>>>>>> I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along with


>>>>>> my beloved Paste-'n'-Go).


>>>>>>


>>>>>> Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for


>>>>>> Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .


>>>>>


>>>>> I know you like your vintage stuff, but in this case you should upgrade.


>>>>


>>>> Which would require me to upgrade my whole goddam system just to


>>>> upgrade the browser, libc and all . . . .


>>>>


>>>> **** that.


>>>


>>> freakish throwback


>>>


>>> you should be able to make money on that, btw.


>>


>> On what? expecting a system to be stable for maybe five years or so,


>> without undergoing the hazards and hassle (moving all personal/business


>> files to safety) of an upgrade? ****.


>>


>> (I will say that Ubuntu put the old package archives back up,


>> presumably by popular demand, and I honor and revere 'em for that.)


>


> it aint a big deal now to upgrade in windows. neener.

Put not your faith in those who promise data-safe upgrades.

--

tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

"The math is easy," said Chaos.

< _Thief of Time_

 
D

david hillstrom

Guest
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:24:41 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>

wrote:


>On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:17:49 -0500, david hillstrom wrote:


>


>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:12:41 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>


>> wrote:


>>


>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:06:48 -0500, david hillstrom wrote:


>>>


>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:56:34 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>


>>>> wrote:


>>>>


>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:26 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>


>>>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>>>


>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>> Typical.


>>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>> Including the secrecy.


>>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.


>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. Not to


>>>>>>>> start a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It works for me.


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along with


>>>>>>> my beloved Paste-'n'-Go).


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for


>>>>>>> Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .


>>>>>>


>>>>>> I know you like your vintage stuff, but in this case you should upgrade.


>>>>>


>>>>> Which would require me to upgrade my whole goddam system just to


>>>>> upgrade the browser, libc and all . . . .


>>>>>


>>>>> **** that.


>>>>


>>>> freakish throwback


>>>>


>>>> you should be able to make money on that, btw.


>>>


>>> On what? expecting a system to be stable for maybe five years or so,


>>> without undergoing the hazards and hassle (moving all personal/business


>>> files to safety) of an upgrade? ****.


>>>


>>> (I will say that Ubuntu put the old package archives back up,


>>> presumably by popular demand, and I honor and revere 'em for that.)


>>


>> it aint a big deal now to upgrade in windows. neener.


>


>Put not your faith in those who promise data-safe upgrades.

i dont think even microsoft is willing to say that.

<...>

having two RAIDS helps, i suppose...

--

dave hillstrom xrbj

 
T

Tim Weaver

Guest
mimus wrote:


> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:26 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>


>> mimus wrote:


>>


>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>


>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>


>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>


>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>>>>>


>>>>> Typical.


>>>>>


>>>>> Including the secrecy.


>>>>>


>>>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.


>>>>


>>>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. Not to


>>>> start a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It works for me.


>>>


>>> Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.


>>>


>>> I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along with


>>> my beloved Paste-'n'-Go).


>>>


>>> Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for


>>> Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .


>>


>> I know you like your vintage stuff, but in this case you should upgrade.


>


> Which would require me to upgrade my whole goddam system just to upgrade


> the browser, libc and all . . . .


>


> **** that.

Really? That's a linux thing, I'm guessing. Is this a thing like needing

to have a certain kernel version xx.xx (or whatever) in order to compile

properly?

--

Tim Weaver

I know you believe you understand what you think I said,

but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not

what I meant.

 
T

Tim Weaver

Guest
mimus wrote:


> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:06:48 -0500, david hillstrom wrote:


>


>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:56:34 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>


>> wrote:


>>


>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:26 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>


>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>


>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>


>>>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>>>


>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> Typical.


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> Including the secrecy.


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.


>>>>>>


>>>>>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. Not


>>>>>> to start a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It works for


>>>>>> me.


>>>>>


>>>>> Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.


>>>>>


>>>>> I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along


>>>>> with my beloved Paste-'n'-Go).


>>>>>


>>>>> Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for


>>>>> Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .


>>>>


>>>> I know you like your vintage stuff, but in this case you should


>>>> upgrade.


>>>


>>> Which would require me to upgrade my whole goddam system just to


>>> upgrade the browser, libc and all . . . .


>>>


>>> **** that.


>>


>> freakish throwback


>>


>> you should be able to make money on that, btw.


>


> On what? expecting a system to be stable for maybe five years or so,


> without undergoing the hazards and hassle (moving all personal/business


> files to safety) of an upgrade? ****.


>


> (I will say that Ubuntu put the old package archives back up, presumably


> by popular demand, and I honor and revere 'em for that.)

But, look at all the stuff you can't run because your system is outdated.

Every now and then it'd be a good thing to upgrade, yes? More often than

once every five years, I mean.

An idea: Get the latest Ubuntu and jump right into it. You'll be all up to

date, which will carry you for a long time, and you'll have the benefit of

being able to upgrade all of your old software.

Yes. Yes, this is a good plan. You will use this plan. You will use it

now. You will make it work.

Give us a yell when you're all done, OK? Later...

--

Tim Weaver

I know you believe you understand what you think I said,

but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not

what I meant.

 
M

mimus

Guest
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:32:05 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


> mimus wrote:


>


>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:26 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>


>>> mimus wrote:


>>>


>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>


>>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>>


>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>>


>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>>>>>>


>>>>>> Typical.


>>>>>>


>>>>>> Including the secrecy.


>>>>>>


>>>>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.


>>>>>


>>>>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. Not to


>>>>> start a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It works for me.


>>>>


>>>> Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.


>>>>


>>>> I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along with


>>>> my beloved Paste-'n'-Go).


>>>>


>>>> Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for


>>>> Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .


>>>


>>> I know you like your vintage stuff, but in this case you should upgrade.


>>


>> Which would require me to upgrade my whole goddam system just to upgrade


>> the browser, libc and all . . . .


>>


>> **** that.


>


> Really? That's a linux thing, I'm guessing. Is this a thing like needing


> to have a certain kernel version xx.xx (or whatever) in order to compile


> properly?

I think it's usually more a libc (C Runtime Library) version thing than

anything else, although certainly other lib s (Microsoft = DLLs) come into

play as well.

I think I hate RTLs, DLLs, etc.

The use of which should be quite convenient to malicious hackers as well.

--

tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

When a system is set up to accomplish some goal, a

new entity has come into being--the system itself.

Now the system itself has to be dealt with.

< _Systemantics_

 
M

mimus

Guest
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:39:48 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


> mimus wrote:


>


>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:06:48 -0500, david hillstrom wrote:


>>


>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:56:34 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>


>>> wrote:


>>>


>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:26 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>


>>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>>


>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>>


>>>>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>> Typical.


>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>> Including the secrecy.


>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. Not


>>>>>>> to start a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It works for


>>>>>>> me.


>>>>>>


>>>>>> Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.


>>>>>>


>>>>>> I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along


>>>>>> with my beloved Paste-'n'-Go).


>>>>>>


>>>>>> Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for


>>>>>> Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .


>>>>>


>>>>> I know you like your vintage stuff, but in this case you should


>>>>> upgrade.


>>>>


>>>> Which would require me to upgrade my whole goddam system just to


>>>> upgrade the browser, libc and all . . . .


>>>>


>>>> **** that.


>>>


>>> freakish throwback


>>>


>>> you should be able to make money on that, btw.


>>


>> On what? expecting a system to be stable for maybe five years or so,


>> without undergoing the hazards and hassle (moving all personal/business


>> files to safety) of an upgrade? ****.


>>


>> (I will say that Ubuntu put the old package archives back up, presumably


>> by popular demand, and I honor and revere 'em for that.)


>


> But, look at all the stuff you can't run because your system is outdated.


> Every now and then it'd be a good thing to upgrade, yes? More often than


> once every five years, I mean.


>


> An idea: Get the latest Ubuntu and jump right into it. You'll be all up to


> date, which will carry you for a long time, and you'll have the benefit of


> being able to upgrade all of your old software.


>


> Yes. Yes, this is a good plan. You will use this plan. You will use it


> now. You will make it work.


>


> Give us a yell when you're all done, OK? Later...

Actually, my next upgrade will probably be to either Minix 3 or Linux SE.

Although by then mainstream Linux may well have adopted, since it ought

to, the salient features of both (timeouts on everything with Minix 3,

avoiding lockups, and a whole extra layer of internal security--

basically, a security server with clients managing all processes,

directories and files-- with Linux SE).

Robustness and security!

--

tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

When a system is set up to accomplish some goal, a

new entity has come into being--the system itself.

Now the system itself has to be dealt with.

< _Systemantics_

 
T

Tim Weaver

Guest
mimus wrote:


> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:32:05 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>


>> mimus wrote:


>>


>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:26 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>


>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>


>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>


>>>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>>>


>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> Typical.


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> Including the secrecy.


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.


>>>>>>


>>>>>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox. Not


>>>>>> to start a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It works for


>>>>>> me.


>>>>>


>>>>> Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.


>>>>>


>>>>> I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along


>>>>> with my beloved Paste-'n'-Go).


>>>>>


>>>>> Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest, for


>>>>> Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .


>>>>


>>>> I know you like your vintage stuff, but in this case you should


>>>> upgrade.


>>>


>>> Which would require me to upgrade my whole goddam system just to


>>> upgrade the browser, libc and all . . . .


>>>


>>> **** that.


>>


>> Really? That's a linux thing, I'm guessing. Is this a thing like


>> needing to have a certain kernel version xx.xx (or whatever) in order


>> to compile properly?


>


> I think it's usually more a libc (C Runtime Library) version thing than


> anything else, although certainly other lib s (Microsoft = DLLs) come


> into play as well.


>


> I think I hate RTLs, DLLs, etc.

Total agreement.


> The use of which should be quite convenient to malicious hackers as


> well.

I've always thought the OS should stand alone and no app can touch it either

on disc or in memory. Device drivers on top of that. Apps on top of that

and a shared space for data swapping and such. The biggest thing that I

believe any decent OS should have are stand alone apps. EVERYTHING for the

application called "whateverapp" gets installed into ONE folder (and any

subfolders) and that's it! You want something off your system? Delete the

folder. Done. Does anyone do that? Nope. Too easy and simple.

--

Tim Weaver

I know you believe you understand what you think I said,

but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not

what I meant.

 
T

Tim Weaver

Guest
mimus wrote:


> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:39:48 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>


>> mimus wrote:


>>


>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:06:48 -0500, david hillstrom wrote:


>>>


>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:56:34 -0500, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>


>>>> wrote:


>>>>


>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:17:26 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>


>>>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>>>


>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:06:45 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>> mimus wrote:


>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:09:55 +0000, Tim Weaver wrote:


>>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/business/28digi.html?_r=1


>>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>> Typical.


>>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>> Including the secrecy.


>>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>>> And the ads I had to fish through to get to the article.


>>>>>>>>


>>>>>>>> Ads wouldn't be an issue if you use Adblock Plus with Firefox.


>>>>>>>> Not to start a Firefox vs *** debate, I'm just saying... It


>>>>>>>> works for me.


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> Hmf, I thought I had it, but just now looked and I don't.


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> I do have pop-ups blocked and NoScript installed, of course (along


>>>>>>> with my beloved Paste-'n'-Go).


>>>>>>>


>>>>>>> Unfortunately, the Adblock extensions are all, even the oldest,


>>>>>>> for Firefox 1.5+, whereas I'm using 1.0.7 . . . .


>>>>>>


>>>>>> I know you like your vintage stuff, but in this case you should


>>>>>> upgrade.


>>>>>>


>>>>>


>>>>> Which would require me to upgrade my whole goddam system just to


>>>>> upgrade the browser, libc and all . . . .


>>>>>


>>>>> **** that.


>>>>


>>>> freakish throwback


>>>>


>>>> you should be able to make money on that, btw.


>>>


>>> On what? expecting a system to be stable for maybe five years or so,


>>> without undergoing the hazards and hassle (moving all


>>> personal/business files to safety) of an upgrade? ****.


>>>


>>> (I will say that Ubuntu put the old package archives back up,


>>> presumably by popular demand, and I honor and revere 'em for that.)


>>


>> But, look at all the stuff you can't run because your system is


>> outdated. Every now and then it'd be a good thing to upgrade, yes?


>> More often than once every five years, I mean.


>>


>> An idea: Get the latest Ubuntu and jump right into it. You'll be all


>> up to date, which will carry you for a long time, and you'll have the


>> benefit of being able to upgrade all of your old software.


>>


>> Yes. Yes, this is a good plan. You will use this plan. You will use


>> it now. You will make it work.


>>


>> Give us a yell when you're all done, OK? Later...


>


> Actually, my next upgrade will probably be to either Minix 3 or Linux


> SE.


>


> Although by then mainstream Linux may well have adopted, since it ought


> to, the salient features of both (timeouts on everything with Minix 3,


> avoiding lockups, and a whole extra layer of internal security--


> basically, a security server with clients managing all processes,


> directories and files-- with Linux SE).


>


> Robustness and security!

Excellent. Get on with it. I just want you to upgrade. I don't know why,

I just do. I've got a copy of XP that's not doing anything. You want that?

I'll give you the license. It won't cost you a penny.

mimus, the Windows user!

bwa-HAAHAA!!!

--

Tim Weaver

I know you believe you understand what you think I said,

but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not

what I meant.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom