Re: Top Left corner of my screen is "dead". WTF?????

Greg Russell wrote:
> In news:(E-Mail Removed),
> Bad Boy Charlie <(E-Mail Removed)> typed:
>
>>>> Gee...Maybe that has a bearing on why only 5% of the world-wide
>>>> user base bothers to run Linux...I have rambled on too long.....
>>>
>>> More bogus stats from out of your ass, and yes, you rambled on too
>>> long the instant you opened it.
>>
>> This is going to be too easy ...
>
> With an arsehole the size of yours ...

You've been had!!
Go into the bathroom and play with your Linux and don't tell us about your
experience.
Buffalo

In news:hn6lim$62k$(E-Mail Removed),
Buffalo <(E-Mail Removed)> typed:

> You've been had!!

You sound like yet another pedophile faggot.

Greg Russell wrote:
> In news:hn6lim$62k$(E-Mail Removed),
> Buffalo <(E-Mail Removed)> typed:
>
>> You've been had!!
>
> You sound like yet another pedophile faggot.

Damn, is that the best you can do?
Buffalo

In news:hn6o2o$pa4$(E-Mail Removed),
Buffalo <(E-Mail Removed)> typed:

> Damn, is that the best you can do?

It's all that you're worth.

"Wolf K" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4b96a122$0$2634$(E-Mail Removed) ...

> Might annoy some people who want to just turn on the machine, but
> there is no reason to let fools'
> desires for convenience endanger us all.

Hear! Hear!

ASLR and MIC may be new to Windows OSes, but they are not new to the
industry (nor to malware writers 'heap spraying' and the use of nop
sleds can *sometimes* get around the ASLR. Windows 7 was in part a
response to whining fools. Linux users are by and large resigned to the
use of non-admin accounts - Windows users by and large don't want to be
bothered by security crap.

By adhering to "security crap" - almost all of the type of lame malware
prevalent today would die out. The market for antispyware, antiadware,
antivirus, and antimalware would almost dry up completely. Only fairly
rare exploit based malware and somewhat less rare human based exploit
based malware would provide the "slipped through the cracks"
distribution channels for other types of malware (and thus the need to
detect them).

The *other* channel, not exploit based, is for the viruses that come
through trusted channels. Viruses don't have to ensure their execution,
they can "infect" source code on the off chance that someone will
compile and execute the resulting program. Linux provides all that is
needed for viruses to exist, and if *other* types of malware become less
prevalent we may well see more viruses which rely on the same
functionality that the average user enjoys.

Bad Boy Charlie <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 02:27:11 -0800, "Robbie Hatley"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Virus Guy" wrote:
>>
>>> The vast majority of people that use any version of Windows do so
>>> because it's what-ever version came pre-installed with their
>>> store-bought or corporate-bought PC / laptop / what-ever.
>>
>>Ok, I really shouldn't be jumping into week-old threads which
>>are either dead or should be, but the above paragraph is so
>>blatantly false, I can't resist.
>>
>>People use Microsoft Windows operating systems for a variety of
>>reasons. "Because it's what's there" is a reason only considered
>>by the bottom 20% or so of Windows users, computer-literacy-wise.
>>The other 80% have other reasons, else they'd replace it with
>>what they prefer. Duh.
>>
>>The 2 biggest reasons people use Microsoft Windows are:
>>
>>1. SOFTWARE AVAILABILITY. Other OSs may have their advantages over
>> Windows, but just try installing Quicken, Intuit, Quickbooks,
>> EasyTax, World-Of-Warcraft, Toontown, Photoshop, etc, etc, etc,
>> on any OS other than windows. Won't install. Look at the box.
>> What OSs does a typical software package support? Usually just 3:
>> a. Microsoft Windows XP.
>> b. Microsoft Windows Vista.
>> c. Microsoft Windows 7.
>> If you are using any other OS, you're **** out of luck.
>> (Note that, sadly, Windows 2000 is no longer on the list of
>> OSs supported by most modern software. Sigh.)
>>
>>2. FAMILIARITY. People would rather use what they're familiar
>> with than spend years struggling to learn something radically
>> different (such as Linux).
>>
>>So when I finally abandon Microsoft Windows 2000 as being
>>"obsolete", what will I go to? Micosoft Windows XP or 7.
>>(I may get Linux up and running, but not as my primary OS.)
>>Why? Software availability and familiarity.
>>
>>> (snip remainder)
>>
>>Your other paragraphs don't strike me as being true either,
>>but I grow weary of the whole topic. I couldn't withstand,
>>though, someone telling me the only reason I use Windows is
>>"it's what came with my computer". That's BS. I built my
>>computer from scratch and installed Windows 2000 because
>>I wanted to.
> +1 here Robbie. I have used Commodore 64 / Amiga 500 & 2000 / Ubuntu
> operating systems. I can and will install any OS I want. The OP
> disrespects folks that DO use Windows out of convenience (yes it came
> on their PC - and 99% likely on their last PC and ALL their friends
> PCs too!) Walmart and other retailers have recently tried selling PCs
> with LinuxOS but no longer because they did not sell well. Linux is
> foreign to 90% or more of the people. Anyway my point....is many,many
> folks who are legitimate PC users don't know nor need to know squat
> about them..too many folks, and MORE and MORE each day, a PC is just
> an appliance...say a souped-up interactive TV set. Linux nerds and
> geeks feel their ego-driven tech savvy and pride-driven kingdom being
> discounted..they panic and hurl baseless and disrespectful insults.
> They truly know that for all their 'geekness' and 'nerdom' that 99% of
> what they pride themselves able to do on their Linux boxes can and
> does get done by any 3rd grader with Windows XP (or 2000) It scalds
> their balls to learn but still reject that for all their tech savvy
> (which is a good thing) that at the end of the day Windows users have
> fulfilled all their PC tasks and interests without any struggle -and-
> without a degree in computer science. BTW I have a BSEE from Arizona
> State University and do posses a high degree of the aforementioned
> 'savvy' - I prefer to install and use Windows 7 ( I dual boot
> Ubuntu9.1 as a learning exercise to relieve boredom) So..Robbie +1 my
> friend

I somewhat? agree with you, in so far as the decision to use Windows; but
I don't consider those who use linux to be geeks. I don't think Linux is
a serious contender for windows in the home, due to the.. well, obvious
differences between it and something that individuals are more accustomed
too; which would be windows.

I know people who are geeks that use linux and windows, but I don't call
them geeks based on OS preference alone. It's those who can quote me
API calls in either of them who rightfully deserve the title. <G>

--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh..
nudge this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior

"Greg Russell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> In news:(E-Mail Removed) ,
> Robbie Hatley <(E-Mail Removed)> typed:
>
>> People use Microsoft Windows operating systems for a variety of
>> reasons.
>
> Your primary reason is that it's constantly crashing on you, as
> evidenced by your plaintive tone in several other threads? No wonder
> you love M$ so much ...

I'm not really defending windows or any posters when I say the following:

Windows doesn't normally just crash unless theres a hardware issue, or a
piece of software isn't playing nicely with another piece of software.

Windows itself imo, is unfairly blamed for many crashes which could be
blamed rightfully on the user. Funky software that's poorly written that
the individual just had to have. Oddball screen savers, poorly written
"skins" for programs people use. Lets not even count the obnoxious amount
of toolbars and other stupid gizmos and custom configuration tweaking
programs someone can download.

With regard to the malware situation. For the time being, I don't see
many linux machines infected, no. But that's really due to the intended
use of those systems that run it. Malware is usually written for the
widest possible audience, and whether people like this or not, for now,
that is Windows. If things change in the future, the malware authors will
change accordingly.

There is no such thing as a 100% secure OS. And there never will be. an
OS runs programs, follows instructions in those programs, some good,
others potentially harmful.


--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior

"FromTheRafters" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:hmj8ov$t6d$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> "Virus Guy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>>> and many users of the NTFS use Linux's support of that
>>> filesystem when making a bootable tools CD.
>>
>> NTFS is proprietary and any compatibility with NTFS while running
>> third-party boot CD's is still done with microsoft system files.
>
> NTFS support is only a part of the equation. Linux's feature rich
> command line blows away Windows' "Recovery Console" subset of NT's
> command line. The recovery console was minimalist in nature, while more
> recent versions are less so.
>
>
>

Hello. Apologies for responding so late in the thread, but wouldn't a Bart
PE disc be perfect for accessing a system that's down? Surely it's more
friendly than a linux console prompt?


--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior

"Dustin Cook" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9D3933236A2A0HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.247.. .
> "FromTheRafters" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:hmj8ov$t6d$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> "Virus Guy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>>> and many users of the NTFS use Linux's support of that
>>>> filesystem when making a bootable tools CD.
>>>
>>> NTFS is proprietary and any compatibility with NTFS while running
>>> third-party boot CD's is still done with microsoft system files.
>>
>> NTFS support is only a part of the equation. Linux's feature rich
>> command line blows away Windows' "Recovery Console" subset of NT's
>> command line. The recovery console was minimalist in nature, while
>> more
>> recent versions are less so.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Hello. Apologies for responding so late in the thread, but wouldn't a
> Bart
> PE disc be perfect for accessing a system that's down? Surely it's
> more
> friendly than a linux console prompt?

Yes, earlier in this thread I mused:

"The OP mentioned not being able to "fix" problems with "XP and above"
in the same manner as with 98 by using the command prompt. The recovery
console is as close as one can get to this functionality without a PE
disk."

Microsoft doesn't want full featured command line environments being
used as an OS for free, so they hobble their "maintenance OS" disks.
Linux OTOH doesn't mind. BART PE is an excellent idea - one should
create such a disk for later use after installation is complete -
include a toolkit.