[LONGISH] My Linux Journey

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:52:14 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Rick <none.RemoveThis@nomail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:26:16 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>> Err, correct.
>>
>> Really? Duh.
>
> Yes. hence I bought them together. Is it too much for poor little Rick's
> head to cope with??
>
> Let me explain : in one thread we have Mr Shearman telling me I'm too
> stupid and that Linux was "ready" 10 years ago for the average desktop.
> It doesn't take a genius to work out "average desktop" means "desktop
> for the average person" or thereabouts. In another thread we have the

Well, which is it? Average person or what the average desktop does? Those
can be 2 very different things. Home use? Work use? Home user? work user?
what?


> findings of a new recruit who reckons 5 years ago it wasn't ready and
> listed why. So, I bring the two together to compare and contrast. It's
> not illegal to open ones mind and compare evidence you know.

You didn't compare and contrast anything. You've asked which of the two
are lying.

>
> There, I hope that helps your thought process a little.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>> It wasn't. NOW it is. THAT is advocacy.
>>>>
>>>> I see. It is advocacy because YOU say so.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> You really are that stupid ...
>
> Its advocacy because its making a point that liars are not tolerated and
> that the reality of the CURRENT Linux situation can get it places.

That's why you are not tolerated. You accuse me of lies, yet can provide
no quotes or references.


>
> Bold face lying, like you do, and claiming Linux was ready 10 years ago

... not ready by YOUR DEFINITION, and that defintion precludes Windows as
being ready.

I said that I was using Linux 10 years ago for "average" use. Word
processing, spreadsheets, irc, (no, I didn't and don't "game"),

> just alienates potential new users because they understand this to mean
> that Linux is THE SAME as ten years ago when we claim it is ready now.
> Comprende?

NOTHING is the same now as it was 10 years ago.


>
> It IS ready now. It was NOT ready 10 years ago.
>
> If it was ready 10 years ago, then there would have been a far greater
> uptake.

.... except it wasn't pre-installed, which slowed user uptake, too. It
would be far more widely used today if it was widely pre-installed.

>
> I ask you again : if it was so "ready" why have the big distros put so
> much time and effort into including binary drivers, making the installs
> so easy, facilitating dual boot install, including more HW coverage etc?
>
> I know. See if you can guess.

I have answered that in another message. Yes, developers have been
steadily improving the installation process to make it more user
friendly. So what? So has evey other OS developer.


>>>>> Lying and cheating is not.
>>>>>
>>>>> it's not against the law to correlate between different threads you
>>>>> know.
>>>>
>>>> Do it properly.
>>>
>>> I did.
>>
>> You did not.
>>
>>> What was Wrong? Oh I see.
>>
>> You didn't change the thread subject, jerk.
>
> I don't change thread subjects. In fact, doing so pisses people off
> since they might have the thread killed on subject.

The subject of the thread changed. You should change the tread subject.


>
>
>>> You answered before you read my entire post. How embarrassing for you.
>>
>> I can see how you might be embarrassed, but I am not, and there is no
>> reason for me to be embarrassed.
>
> Ignorance must be bliss for you. You're behaving like a little child.
> You don't make the rules about what can be brought into a thread - Mark
> Kent does. I know. He keeps telling us.
>
> So, call me "Jerk" again - it'll make you feel better.

Well, jerk, I was using Linux 10 years ago. I have used and installed
many different distros. I know how much things have changed. I can say
the same about Windows. I know a Linux could be used for a lot of things
10 years ago. Too bad you are clueless.

--
Rick

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:20:03 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Rick <none.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:30:42 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>> We are not talking about XP. We are talking about Linux which did not
>>> come pre-installed.
>>
>> Ah, but you are braying about being ready for the "average" desktop. By
>> your definition, XP is not ready for the desktop. But I see it is OK
>> for you to to bring 10 year old installation problems into a thread but
>> it's not OK for me to show that XP does not flawlessly install.
>
> What are you talking about? Can you not follow a thread. Let me try
> again : for most people it did not matter whether XP was or wasn't
> installable 10 years ago (or whatever version of windows was out). Why?
> Because all/most machines came pre-installed. ALL HW came with Windows
> drivers.
>
> Still with me?
>
> OK. Good.

You can compare things. I can compare things. WIndows didn't come with
drivers.

>
> Now, for Linux to be accepted it was imperative that the average desktop
> user could install it easily.
>
> It was not easy. It did NOT support enough HW ten years ago.
>
> Easy.
>
> It does now.
>
> Get it?
>
> I snipped the rest since you seem to want to argue for arguments sake.

Yeah, I'm sure that's why you snipped it.

You seem to want to argue for arguments sake. It's OK for you, but not
for others.


> Anyone with any knowledge of Linux history knows your claims to be
> totally bogus.

What claims are bogus. I used it 10 years ago.

> It was NOT ready 10 years ago for the average desktop.

Again, it depends on what you mean by the average desktop., and how you
define ready.

> There wasn't enough HW support, the installation process was a nightmare
> and there simply weren't the same level of applications that the average
> user uses on a daily basis.
>
> In addition, Windows as NOT difficult to install. Yes, it could be time
> consuming. But difficult? No. Sound cards worked.

If you had the drives.

> HW acceleration worked.

If you had the drivers.

> Networks worked. Printers and scanners worked.

If you had the drivers.


> Of course they
> all did : Windows was and is far and away the biggest market.



--
Rick

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:35:59 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Rick <none DeleteThis @nomail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:33:35 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>
>> Gregory's thread was irrelevant to Somebloke's.
>
> No it wasn't. How can it be "irrelevant" when Somebloke had problems and
> Gregory maintains that there are NO problems? I cant think of any two
> threads being more relevant.

And you missed the point of SOmebloke's post, and Purposefully, I think,
which that he has been using Linux for years and that it has steadily
improved.

You, it seems, just want to berate Gregory.

>
>>>> Actually it was. He was talking about how it didnt work for him 5
>>>> years
>>> ago.
>>
>> 5 yeas ago, not 10. Yes, so? Some things didn't work for him on
>> install.
>
> Hmm. 5 not 10. I leave the deductions that can be made from that as an
> exercise for the reader.
>
> God, but you're persistent in your weaseling.

I'm not weaseling anywhere. Go by a clue.

--
Rick

It was on, or about, Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:32:59 +0000, that as I was
halfway through a large jam doughnut, Rick wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:52:14 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Rick <none DeleteThis @nomail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:26:16 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Err, correct.
>>>
>>> Really? Duh.
>>
>> Yes. hence I bought them together. Is it too much for poor little
>> Rick's head to cope with??
>>
>> Let me explain : in one thread we have Mr Shearman telling me I'm too
>> stupid and that Linux was "ready" 10 years ago for the average desktop.
>> It doesn't take a genius to work out "average desktop" means "desktop
>> for the average person" or thereabouts. In another thread we have the
>
> Well, which is it? Average person or what the average desktop does?
> Those can be 2 very different things. Home use? Work use? Home user?
> work user? what?
>
>
>> findings of a new recruit who reckons 5 years ago it wasn't ready and
>> listed why. So, I bring the two together to compare and contrast. It's
>> not illegal to open ones mind and compare evidence you know.
>
> You didn't compare and contrast anything. You've asked which of the two
> are lying.
>
>
>> There, I hope that helps your thought process a little.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>> It wasn't. NOW it is. THAT is advocacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see. It is advocacy because YOU say so.
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> You really are that stupid ...
>>
>> Its advocacy because its making a point that liars are not tolerated
>> and that the reality of the CURRENT Linux situation can get it places.
>
> That's why you are not tolerated. You accuse me of lies, yet can provide
> no quotes or references.

So, he's losing the argument, accuses you of lying, but supplies no
quotes or references. He's trolling agin..

>> Bold face lying, like you do, and claiming Linux was ready 10 years ago
>
> .. not ready by YOUR DEFINITION, and that definition precludes Windows
> as being ready.

Exactly, by *his* definition.

> I said that I was using Linux 10 years ago for "average" use. Word
> processing, spreadsheets, irc, (no, I didn't and don't "game"),
>
>> just alienates potential new users because they understand this to mean
>> that Linux is THE SAME as ten years ago when we claim it is ready now.
>> Comprende?
>
> NOTHING is the same now as it was 10 years ago.

>> It IS ready now. It was NOT ready 10 years ago.
>>
>> If it was ready 10 years ago, then there would have been a far greater
>> uptake.
>
> ... except it wasn't pre-installed, which slowed user uptake, too. It
> would be far more widely used today if it was widely pre-installed.

And again, how does HE know it wasn't ready 10 years ago? Oh, by HIS
definition as a windoze user, of course.

>> I ask you again : if it was so "ready" why have the big distros put so
>> much time and effort into including binary drivers, making the installs
>> so easy, facilitating dual boot install, including more HW coverage
>> etc?
>>
>> I know. See if you can guess.
>
> I have answered that in another message. Yes, developers have been
> steadily improving the installation process to make it more user
> friendly. So what? So has evey other OS developer.
>
>
>>>>>> Lying and cheating is not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it's not against the law to correlate between different threads you
>>>>>> know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do it properly.
>>>>
>>>> I did.
>>>
>>> You did not.
>>>
>>>> What was Wrong? Oh I see.
>>>
>>> You didn't change the thread subject, jerk.
>>
>> I don't change thread subjects. In fact, doing so pisses people off
>> since they might have the thread killed on subject.
>
> The subject of the thread changed. You should change the tread subject.
>
>
>
>>
>>>> You answered before you read my entire post. How embarrassing for
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> I can see how you might be embarrassed, but I am not, and there is no
>>> reason for me to be embarrassed.
>>
>> Ignorance must be bliss for you. You're behaving like a little child.
>> You don't make the rules about what can be brought into a thread - Mark
>> Kent does. I know. He keeps telling us.
>>
>> So, call me "Jerk" again - it'll make you feel better.
>
> Well, jerk, I was using Linux 10 years ago. I have used and installed
> many different distros. I know how much things have changed. I can say
> the same about Windows. I know a Linux could be used for a lot of things
> 10 years ago. Too bad you are clueless.

Clueless, yes, that about sums him up.

--
The universe exploded out of nothingness 14 billion years ago.
14 billion years later, & some of us have 100 trillion
interconnected cells, & a self-aware consciousness.
Others post through GoogleGroups, & insist on installing Vista.

Rick <none.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> writes:

> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:30:42 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>> We are not talking about XP. We are talking about Linux which did not
>> come pre-installed.
>
> Ah, but you are braying about being ready for the "average" desktop. By
> your definition, XP is not ready for the desktop. But I see it is OK for
> you to to bring 10 year old installation problems into a thread but it's
> not OK for me to show that XP does not flawlessly install.

What are you talking about? Can you not follow a thread. Let me try again
: for most people it did not matter whether XP was or wasn't installable
10 years ago (or whatever version of windows was out). Why? Because all/most
machines came pre-installed. ALL HW came with Windows drivers.

Still with me?

OK. Good.

Now, for Linux to be accepted it was imperative that the average desktop
user could install it easily.

It was not easy. It did NOT support enough HW ten years ago.

Easy.

It does now.

Get it?

I snipped the rest since you seem to want to argue for arguments
sake. Anyone with any knowledge of Linux history knows your claims to be
totally bogus. It was NOT ready 10 years ago for the average
desktop. There wasn't enough HW support, the installation process was a
nightmare and there simply weren't the same level of applications that
the average user uses on a daily basis.

In addition, Windows as NOT difficult to install. Yes, it could be time
consuming. But difficult? No. Sound cards worked. HW acceleration
worked. Networks worked. Printers and scanners worked. Of course they
all did : Windows was and is far and away the biggest market.

Rick <none RemoveThis @nomail.com> writes:

> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:36:13 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Jim Richardson <warlock RemoveThis @eskimo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:38:54 +0200,
>>> Hadron <hadronquark RemoveThis @googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> SomeBloke <stuff RemoveThis @stuff.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Oh, and seamless installation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If "seamless" installation is a requirement for an OS to be ready for
>>> the average desktop, then MS-Windows isn't ready for the average
>>> desktop.
>>
>> As I pointed out in another post
>>
>> 1) Windows was reasily installed. Sorry, but having extra CDs didnt make
>> it difficult.
>
> But it didn't work with much hardware until you chased drivers.

We are talking 10 years ago. All HW came with drivers. And Linux
supported very little back then. It still doesnt work with great swaths
of printers/scanners and wireless cards. Even now.

>
>
>> 2) Most people never had to bother as it was pre-installed.
>
> So what?

You have totally missed the point of this thread. The point was that
Linux NEEDED to be easily installed to even hope to get some market
share.

>
>>
>> My point which a few zealots choose not to see, is that because Linux
>> didnt come pre-installed then it *had* to be easy to install or no one
>> would bother.
>
> ... and installation and steadily become easier. For me it now just hit
> enter a few times and I'm done. And, I WAS installing Linux 10 years ago.
> On desktops and laptops.

Good for you. Nobody cares. It wasnt possible for the average user for
the average desktop.

>
>>
>> Windows has never been "difficult" to install : tiresome and boring ,
>> maybe. But all HW I ever bought always came with drivers on disk.
>
> They didn't come with Windows.

Correct.

>
>>
>> I must admit I never quite understood the automatic SW update thingy in
>> Windows - why didnt it find UDB drivers, new video drivers etc?
>
> Because they weren't Microsoft software.

Exactly. But MS could have brokered a deal to include them.

>
>>
>> The synaptic interface in Ubuntu is far superior.

--

Rick <none RemoveThis @nomail.com> writes:

> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:33:35 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>
> Gregory's thread was irrelevant to Somebloke's.

No it wasn't. How can it be "irrelevant" when Somebloke had problems and
Gregory maintains that there are NO problems? I cant think of any two
threads being more relevant.

>>> Actually it was. He was talking about how it didnt work for him 5 years
>> ago.
>
> 5 yeas ago, not 10. Yes, so? Some things didn't work for him on
> install.

Hmm. 5 not 10. I leave the deductions that can be made from that as an
exercise for the reader.

God, but you're persistent in your weaseling.

On 2007-07-26, Rick <none RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote:

>
> You can compare things. I can compare things. Windows didn't come with
> drivers.

Windows 2000 in particular. A fact many potential upgraders discovered
after Windows ME turned out to be a tanker.

On 2007-07-25, Hadron <hadronquark.DeleteThis@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
> Actually it was. He was talking about how it didnt work for him 5 years
> ago. I found that interesting keeping in mind that, according to Greg
> (and now you), Linux "just worked" 10 years ago. Now, who is lying? It
> aint me or "somebloke".
>

For some people it *did* work.
For others it did not work easily.
It depends upon what the intended use of Linux was.

If you're asking if 10 years ago Joe with his box store
bought Compaq complete with Winmodem, Winprinter,
cheap Intel onboard graphics chipset
and Asian no name on board sound chip
could install Linux easily, no he probably would never
get it to work.

However, Adam running Apache, or a lab data logger
or email server or a basic desktop with email etc
probably would be smart enough to choose better
hardware, which isn't difficult, and would be
able to install it.

As for usage 10 years ago, with kde or gnome
on an already set up system, the user would
have little or no trouble moving over from
Windows.

Fortunately times have changed and IMHO for the last
5 years or so, give or take, Linux has been easier
to install than Windows and it continues to
become even easier.

It was on, or about, Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:33:47 +0000, that as I was
halfway through a large jam doughnut, Rick wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:35:59 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Rick <none.RemoveThis@nomail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:33:35 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregory's thread was irrelevant to Somebloke's.
>>
>> No it wasn't. How can it be "irrelevant" when Somebloke had problems
>> and Gregory maintains that there are NO problems? I cant think of any
>> two threads being more relevant.
>
> And you missed the point of SOmebloke's post, and Purposefully, I think,
> which that he has been using Linux for years and that it has steadily
> improved.

"Missing The Point - Trolls rarely answer a direct question - they
cannot, if asked to justify their twaddle - so they develop a fine line
in missing the point."
As someone in another group said, Hadron is excels at that.

> You, it seems, just want to berate Gregory.

Quack doesn't like losing an argument, & GS got the better of him. So he
drags the argument into another thread. Another trooll tactic!

>>>>> Actually it was. He was talking about how it didnt work for him 5
>>>>> years ago.
>>>
>>> 5 yeas ago, not 10. Yes, so? Some things didn't work for him on
>>> install.
>>
>> Hmm. 5 not 10. I leave the deductions that can be made from that as an
>> exercise for the reader.
>>
>> God, but you're persistent in your weaseling.
>
> I'm not weaseling anywhere. Go by a clue.

--
The universe exploded out of nothingness 14 billion years ago.
14 billion years later, & some of us have 100 trillion
interconnected cells, & a self-aware consciousness.
Others post through GoogleGroups, & insist on installing Vista.

On Jul 25, 6:04 am, SomeBloke <st... RemoveThis @stuff.com> wrote:
> Up until 2002 I was a dedicated Windows user. It hadn't always been so. My
> first computer was a Sinclair ZX81, then a Spectrum and finally I migrated
> to a Sinclair QL. The amount of money these cost to buy and upgrade was
> frightening even at the time. I had heard a lot about PC's and in 1992 I
> bought one. A 386 with 4MB Ram and a 26MB Hard drive, it came with Windows
> 3.0 and I experimented with it until it broke. It broke frequently so I
> learned to reinstall it frequently. Then came a succession of increasingly
> powerful machines, 166Mhz, 750Mhz, 1.25Ghz until now I have a 2.5Ghz
> machine with 1GByte of Ram, 2 x 500Ghz SATA drives, multiformat dual-layer
> DVD drive, and all the toys that go with it (Printers, scanner, card reader
> etc), and a development machine with almost exact specs.
>
> The operating systems on these systems were always Windows, after all what
> else was there? I had migrated to Windows 2000 Pro and that worked well
> enough. Then in 2002 the British magazine PCPlus gave away the SOT Linux
> distro on their cover disk. I was curious so I installed it on a partition
> on my hard drive. This was a major disappointment. I couldn't get it to do
> anything and I was stuck on the command line with no idea what to do. So I
> got rid of it. Six months later PCPLus gave away Mandrake 8.0. I tried
> again. What a revelation. It installed no problem and suddenly I had KDE
> working with applications I had never heard of. My scanner didn't work
> however and my printer, at that time an Epson Stylus ColorIIs would only
> print basic files but it worked!
>
> My modem was a problem. I bought an external serial modem and then I had a
> connection to the internet as well. No broadband in Cornwall at that time
> so I was stuck on dial-up. No matter I had a connection.
>
> Since then I have gradually upgraded my Mandrake version until now I run
> Mandriva 2007.1 Spring. Every piece of hardware I use works and works well
> with no problems. With a broadband connection through a router and a switch
> I connect 4 PC's, a print server(with 2 printers connected) and a 250GByte
> NAS server. Samba supplies my networking needs, OpenOffice for necessary
> business stuff and Kontact for email, newsreader and RSS news feeds from
> the BBC and Slashdot, and there is so much more available.
>
> I still use Windows, all be it a LOT less than I used to. I use Lazarus, an
> Object Pascal RAD and develop apps for both platforms. Java is no problem
> on Linux, Netbeans and Eclipse work well and even faster for me in Mandriva
> than Windows XP.
>
> My wife is resistant to changing over to Linux though. She knows what she is
> used to and that is what she wants. I keep mentioning Ubuntu 'Feisty Fawn'
> and show her it running on my development system but so far no go. Time is
> on my side however, time is on my side.

Nice.

I had a similar experience. Started in 1984 with a cheap Atari 600XL
followed by a Commodore 64 which saw LOTS of use. Finally, the C64
broke down and I got a Tandy 1000RL (glorified IBM PC Jr) and then a
proper 386 PC (upgraded to 486) with DOS and Windows 3.1.

Then I got an HP Pavilion PC with Windows 98. Had it for 7 years. In
2004, I removed Windows 98 and replaced it with Linspire, followed by
Xandros before their respective recent total sell-outs). In 2006, I
got rid of the Pavilion (but kept the 40 GB hard drive) and bought a
new Wintergreen PC from Tiger Direct that had Linspire Five-0 for a
while, but in June 2006 I replaced Linspire with the just-released
Ubuntu 6.06 Dapper Drake.

Since then, I bought an HP Pavilion laptop which came with XP but now
has Ubuntu 7.04, and my desktop also has Ubuntu 7.04. I recently
installed Ubuntu 7.04 on my aunt's new computer, and she and her
family love it.

waterskidoo <water.skidoo DeleteThis @yahoo.com> writes:

> On 2007-07-25, Hadron <hadronquark DeleteThis @googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually it was. He was talking about how it didnt work for him 5 years
>> ago. I found that interesting keeping in mind that, according to Greg
>> (and now you), Linux "just worked" 10 years ago. Now, who is lying? It
>> aint me or "somebloke".
>>
>
> For some people it *did* work.
> For others it did not work easily.
> It depends upon what the intended use of Linux was.
>
> If you're asking if 10 years ago Joe with his box store
> bought Compaq complete with Winmodem, Winprinter,
> cheap Intel onboard graphics chipset
> and Asian no name on board sound chip
> could install Linux easily, no he probably would never
> get it to work.

That *is* what we were talking about. Thank you.

Gregory Shearman <ZekeGregory.RemoveThis@netscape.net> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Let me explain : in one thread we have Mr Shearman telling me I'm too
>> stupid and that Linux was "ready" 10 years ago for the average
>> desktop. It doesn't take a genius to work out "average desktop" means
>> "desktop for the average person" or thereabouts. In another thread we
>> have the findings of a new recruit who reckons 5 years ago it wasn't
>> ready and listed why. So, I bring the two together to compare and
>> contrast. It's not illegal to open ones mind and compare evidence you
>> know.
>
> Fuck off Quark.

Nailed eh Greg?

>
> I used Redhat on my desktop 10 years ago and it was a hell of a lot
> better

Yes, do did a load of others.

We are not talking about bearded buffoons. We are talking about the
average desktop user. You know : in offices and things.

How stupid can you be? I mean really. The man who thinks his Granny
should read the nntp protocol. Idiot.

> than the Windows it replaced. It took knowledge of your machine to get it
> installed. Where do you get off misquoting me as saying it was ready for
> the "average desktop" or whatever?

You did. You argued against my statement that it wasn't ready for the
average desktop.

>
> You are becoming humourless. I suggest another holiday from this newsgroup.
> Do us all a favour.

Who is "us"? You and the other Roybot shills and yes men?

>
> BTW, I still remember your whining about how hard it was to install
> ubuntu.

You do? Where? What I said was that I couldnt get HW acceleration
working. I had to buy a new Video card. I also said I had hell of a
problem with sound. It now works - generally. AC97. Google it up loser
boy. I also had to buy a new printer and scanner. I also then posted a
longg advocacy post about a new installation and how I partitioned my
disks. With facts. Not the bleating sheep "advocacy" that you seem to
enjoy so much.

I have frequently said how impressed I am with the efforts and the steps
taken by distros like Ubuntu recently to make the installation process
easier. Thank god they're not complete twats like you who live in some
sort of "Linux was perfect" dream world. The facts indicate something
else. And they are improving things.

> If you can't handle it then go back to windows.

More bullshit from Gregory. I am more than happy with my Linux
installation. Because I don't feel the need to lie about when Linux was
ready doesn't mean I don't like it. But that it always the attack
direction taken by zealots like yourself : lie and lie again. Sooner or
later it will be true.