On 2008-03-13, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:24:29 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> http://wearenixed.blogspot.com/2008/03/you-only-know-good-when-youve-seen-bad.html
>
> Once again, Roy, you misrepresent an article. The article is *NOT*
> positive about linux, and in fact contains good examples of bad advocacy.
>
> 1) The vendor assured his client that Linux was immune to viruses, but lo
> and behold the customer got those viruses anyways running under Wine.
>
> 2) The vendor sold the system as simple and easy to use, but he got calls
> within hours because the customer had fucked up their system, then refused
> to help them with their problem (basically an RTFM response).
>
> 3) The customers only resort was to go out and buy a new computer, and when
> she fucked that up (based on the vendors statements to the customer that
> antivirus software was evil) he wants nothing to do with her.
>
> The title of the article might be "Viruses drive customer to Linux, but
> complexity and vendor arrogance drive them back to windows."
And /you/ needed to spread FUD, so /you/ mischaracterized what
happened.
I don't see where he told her linux can't get virusrs. I /did/ see
where he didn't believe her at first.
Where did you find that he told her it was "easy to use"? It is for
people with more sense than a brick, but I don't see where you found
that he told her that.
/SHE/ farted with her xorg.conf without a backup:
she called me a bit after 9 pm. Long story short, she decided to go
733t on me and hack her xorg file. While I was glad she got over her
fear of the command line, I wasn't particularly happy with the fact
that she hadn't backed up her original xorg.conf.
And yes...we provide explicit instructions on how to do so and the
importance of doing so.
Instructions she decided to ignore.
How is it complex when you ignore what you're told? I think you should
also call Windwoes "complex" because she had all of the viruses and
various bits of spyware on her Windoze box after the years and years of
being told to be careful about what you click on.
/SHE/ destroyed her backup:
"I want you to insert that disk I gave you...your back up disk. When
it boots we are going to copy over..."
"I don't have that disk anymore."
"What do you mean? Did you lose it?"
She was quiet for about two seconds longer than I was comfortable
with. I knew by the lapse that it was bad news.
It was.
"well, my boyfriend needed a copy of my music files and my thumb
drive isn't working so I thought I could use the space on that disk
to copy them over. Now all there is on the disk is that music. I
didn't know it would erase the other stuff."
To add insult to injury, she's such a dolt that this happened, and she
begged to be rescued:
.....so she just went through all her files and anything that remotely
sounded like "Mcaffee" or "Norton" was deleted.
She complained that now it wouldn't boot...not even in safe mode and
would I mind coming over with another Linux disk and fix it.
Of course, you wanted to blame /that/ on linux, too. Or on the guy
installing linux, for rightly telling her Norton is crap. But how did
you put it? Oh, like this:
> 3) The customers only resort was to go out and buy a new computer, and when
> she fucked that up (based on the vendors statements to the customer that
> antivirus software was evil) he wants nothing to do with her.
Both wrong information (the computer wasn't replaced because she
"fucked that up" and, he never told her "antivirus was evil", but that
Norton was awful) and a mischaracterization of what the article
actually says.
Typical of you. Such rabid, knee-jerk anti-Roysim flows through your
veins that you can't even be bothered read through your red-tinged
anger and avoid making an ass of yourself every time he posts anything
that you/your masters deem threatening. You can't make yourself avoid
lying when trying to accuse Roy of lying by a simple reading of what's
there.
I don't know if you do these because you expect nobody else will read
it for themselves. But I've come to expect that we need to parse every
word and check every statement you make because they're so often filled
with lies and inaccuracy that every syllable is suspect until jibed
with facts.
I don't understand how you can be so willing to make yourself such a
reviled fool. Unless you're paid by quantity rather than quality.
I don't know for certain what you're getting out of all of this. But I
sure hope whomever is supposed to be benefiting remembers how it was
money wasted when the FUD-fest is all over and the people they're
sitting next to some big, sweaty, greasy "boyfriend" in lockup.
Well, *one* of those guys might not mind the "sweaty" part.
--
The current death rate? One per person, of course.
|
|
