Best choice for a laptop?

[Shogun]

Shogun, if you think Windoze is so perfect, fine, have at it. Ubuntu can be installed on anything, even on a Mac (though if you're going to shell out the money take advantage of the customer service and keep the MacOS). So seriously, just because it's got Ubuntu installed doesn't make it that much different from another computer (except it has better security and more free software that competes well with the high priced alternatives). When I got mine it had XP installed, all I did was put Ubuntu on it and got rid of Windoze ... didn't cost me a cent, got the CD for Ubuntu for free online, they mailed in in two weeks. The real difference is what you pay for, Windoze you are suppose to be getting customer service for the cost, if you don't want or need that then you are wasting your money, however, if you do need customer service go with Mac, they have the best in the business. Now, as for your failed attempts to insult, here's a clue, learn something and actually explore what computers offer what instead of staying naive.

Again, bitch. Your OPINION means two things to me. Jack and shit. I really don't care if you are an eternal shill for anything non-MS and continue to keep choking on the cock of ubunto. Really, I don't. But, when you keep waffling about some self righteous bullshit and have YET to post evidence for a single fucking assertion you've made.. well.. again, we see how you justin long motherfuckers last out in the real world. enjoy your free software. Nobody wants to use it but you. If you think that makes you cool in some neo-hax0r kind of way then, again, it's no skin off of my balls. If your harpy cry needs to scream about customer service then squawk on, lil birdie. the FACT remains that consumer trends define which system actually is better more than your silly fucking freebie fantasy. end of story.

ps, for someone who has yet to provide a single scrap of evidence you can take your clue and shove it up your crusty pussy. Again, we BOTH know why you are too much of a spineless **** to post comparative prices on the above laptops. Much like we BOTH know how laughable your take is on 3d apps and Operating Systems.

Opinion ... sure, whatever. Linux is more secure and universal than Windoze, even PC Mag says so. But that's moot, because no matter what you have installed as an OS, the hardware is what you should be paying for, nothing else. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's better, and Windoze is losing popularity anyhow so even if popularity is proof then Windoze is sucking more each year. Tests done over and over again have proven that Linux is the better OS, it's almost invincible to virus' and hacking. However, until recently Linux has been a "geeks only" OS, thanks to Ubuntu that is changing. Also, almost every web server online (the smart ones anyway) run Linux or Unix (almost identical OSes). So again, you are only making your point more pointless. Thanks for playing though, wannabe nerds like you are a dying breed.

Perhaps you'd like to post a link to pc mag then, genius? Or, did that idea not pop into your atrophied brain longer than your next ubuntu deepthroat cycle?

and yes, if Windows were not a better product then more end users would be using something else. As it is, we see how the market share proves my point.

I dare you to post evidence of MS losing popularity. I fucking DARE you. bitch, i'm just not interested in your baseless assumptions. sorry. You'll be regurgitating the same stale bullshit a decade from now when your trendy OS du jour is STILL in the single digit user range.


Now, if only you could back up your bullshit with more than crying POINTLESS WHAAAA WHAAAAA.





wannabe nerds... again, bitch. I was writing our autoexec.bat files when you were learning to type. Your "expertise" on computers is kinda like a doctor telling you his post-grad work was done at the U. of Pheonix - online.

Feel free to provide evidence any time now, skank.

 

[KittenKoder]

This was fun, making you look like a partisan hack without actual politics involved, but meh, I grow bored of this little game. Fact of the matter, a PC is any Personal Computer, even Macs actually qualify, and your mentioning bash files for Windoze does not show you know a damned thing about computers.

You also missed that Linux can be installed on any PC, any computer, of any type. The OS does not make the computer a specific type, the CPU architecture does, and the latest is the Intel series. Oddly, Macs are using that as well, so if you wanted (again, it would be a waste) you could install even Windoze on a Mac, though you'd lose a lot of hardware capabilities, but you could install Linux with no loss except for you wouldn't get their customer service which you pay for. Your last line is telling, the fact that you again resort to just plain bad attempts at insults. I how many paper towels do you use on your monitor each day?

 

[Shogun]

This was fun, making you look like a partisan hack without actual politics involved, but meh, I grow bored of this little game. Fact of the matter, a PC is any Personal Computer, even Macs actually qualify, and your mentioning bash files for Windoze does not show you know a damned thing about computers.

You also missed that Linux can be installed on any PC, any computer, of any type. The OS does not make the computer a specific type, the CPU architecture does, and the latest is the Intel series. Oddly, Macs are using that as well, so if you wanted (again, it would be a waste) you could install even Windoze on a Mac, though you'd lose a lot of hardware capabilities, but you could install Linux with no loss except for you wouldn't get their customer service which you pay for. Your last line is telling, the fact that you again resort to just plain bad attempts at insults. I how many paper towels do you use on your monitor each day?

of course you grow bored, bitch, you know you have to evidence to post like i do. Relaying the FACTS isn't partisanship, snatch. Wanna see market shares again?


it's LAUGHABLE that you leap back into the "any personal computing machine technically qualifies as a PC" pile of shit, koder. it's shit like that that makes your "expertise" such a fucking farce. We both know goddamn well what is meant by a PC in every discussion about operating systems. That you'd try to be so fucking obtuse is three shades of hilarious. Please, tell me more about which of us clearly knows jack shit about computers.



uh, when did I suggest that ubuntu could not be installed on a pc, genius? QUOTE me. I fucking double dog dare you, ya jelly roll ****. Do you really want to talk about paper towels given how many imacs you have crammed up your pussy? REALLY?



so, go sit the fuck down like I told you to.

 

[KittenKoder]

No, I didn't engage you in a debate, I mentioned some little facts, offered and opinion, and you just couldn't stand an opposing opinion so you tried to force a debate about a completely non-issue. Wipe the spittle from your chin by the way.

 

[Dis]

Again, bitch. Your OPINION means two things to me. Jack and shit. I really don't care if you are an eternal shill for anything non-MS and continue to keep choking on the cock of ubunto. Really, I don't. But, when you keep waffling about some self righteous bullshit and have YET to post evidence for a single fucking assertion you've made.. well.. again, we see how you justin long motherfuckers last out in the real world. enjoy your free software. Nobody wants to use it but you. If you think that makes you cool in some neo-hax0r kind of way then, again, it's no skin off of my balls. If your harpy cry needs to scream about customer service then squawk on, lil birdie. the FACT remains that consumer trends define which system actually is better more than your silly fucking freebie fantasy. end of story.

ps, for someone who has yet to provide a single scrap of evidence you can take your clue and shove it up your crusty pussy. Again, we BOTH know why you are too much of a spineless **** to post comparative prices on the above laptops. Much like we BOTH know how laughable your take is on 3d apps and Operating Systems.

Opinion ... sure, whatever. Linux is more secure and universal than Windoze, even PC Mag says so. But that's moot, because no matter what you have installed as an OS, the hardware is what you should be paying for, nothing else. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's better, and Windoze is losing popularity anyhow so even if popularity is proof then Windoze is sucking more each year. Tests done over and over again have proven that Linux is the better OS, it's almost invincible to virus' and hacking. However, until recently Linux has been a "geeks only" OS, thanks to Ubuntu that is changing. Also, almost every web server online (the smart ones anyway) run Linux or Unix (almost identical OSes). So again, you are only making your point more pointless. Thanks for playing though, wannabe nerds like you are a dying breed.

Perhaps you'd like to post a link to pc mag then, genius? Or, did that idea not pop into your atrophied brain longer than your next ubuntu deepthroat cycle?

and yes, if Windows were not a better product then more end users would be using something else. As it is, we see how the market share proves my point.

I dare you to post evidence of MS losing popularity. I fucking DARE you. bitch, i'm just not interested in your baseless assumptions. sorry. You'll be regurgitating the same stale bullshit a decade from now when your trendy OS du jour is STILL in the single digit user range.


Now, if only you could back up your bullshit with more than crying POINTLESS WHAAAA WHAAAAA.





wannabe nerds... again, bitch. I was writing our autoexec.bat files when you were learning to type. Your "expertise" on computers is kinda like a doctor telling you his post-grad work was done at the U. of Pheonix - online.

Feel free to provide evidence any time now, skank.

I gotta ask what you do for a living, Sho.. Hubby is actually a 6-figure a year compu-geek, and sorry, but Linuxx, its stability, and its security is where it's at...and has been for some time now..

But.. save yourself the trouble of name-calling. It's not going to phase me, nor will it change my opinion.. I'm just curious..

 

[Shogun]

No, I didn't engage you in a debate, I mentioned some little facts, offered and opinion, and you just couldn't stand an opposing opinion so you tried to force a debate about a completely non-issue. Wipe the spittle from your chin by the way.

you've yet to provide evidence for a single "fact", koder. Remember that list of lightwave movies I posted? You know what MARKET SHARES are? These are facts. You have yet to post a goddamn thing that even remotely resembles a fact.


Like I said.. go sit in your fucking corner with the rest of your emo ubunto friends until you figure out what a goddamn fact is and how to provide evidence of such.

 

[Shogun]

Opinion ... sure, whatever. Linux is more secure and universal than Windoze, even PC Mag says so. But that's moot, because no matter what you have installed as an OS, the hardware is what you should be paying for, nothing else. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's better, and Windoze is losing popularity anyhow so even if popularity is proof then Windoze is sucking more each year. Tests done over and over again have proven that Linux is the better OS, it's almost invincible to virus' and hacking. However, until recently Linux has been a "geeks only" OS, thanks to Ubuntu that is changing. Also, almost every web server online (the smart ones anyway) run Linux or Unix (almost identical OSes). So again, you are only making your point more pointless. Thanks for playing though, wannabe nerds like you are a dying breed.

Perhaps you'd like to post a link to pc mag then, genius? Or, did that idea not pop into your atrophied brain longer than your next ubuntu deepthroat cycle?

and yes, if Windows were not a better product then more end users would be using something else. As it is, we see how the market share proves my point.

I dare you to post evidence of MS losing popularity. I fucking DARE you. bitch, i'm just not interested in your baseless assumptions. sorry. You'll be regurgitating the same stale bullshit a decade from now when your trendy OS du jour is STILL in the single digit user range.


Now, if only you could back up your bullshit with more than crying POINTLESS WHAAAA WHAAAAA.





wannabe nerds... again, bitch. I was writing our autoexec.bat files when you were learning to type. Your "expertise" on computers is kinda like a doctor telling you his post-grad work was done at the U. of Pheonix - online.

Feel free to provide evidence any time now, skank.

I gotta ask what you do for a living, Sho.. Hubby is actually a 6-figure a year compu-geek, and sorry, but Linuxx, its stability, and its security is where it's at...and has been for some time now..

But.. save yourself the trouble of name-calling. It's not going to phase me, nor will it change my opinion.. I'm just curious..

linuxX? The only reason why there are not an equal amount of linux and osx virii and such is because MS products dominate the market. Were it reversed, we'd see norton antiv made exclusively for protecting linux and osx. It's not that the archatecture is any more secure at all. Hell, if some teenage hacker can infiltrate the pentagon then chances are your little fucking linux desktop isn't impervious.

Stability? same issue. It's easy to remains "stable" with a handful of app options. Now, try generalizing ubuntu to include an exponential number of variables rather than the handful at play. This is the burden of MS and it's overwhelming market majority.


Not to mention, end users don't want a laptop just to open word and nothing else (ubuntu app options); they want to play games (NOT where it's at, sorry) and do more than use the same three page wizard to burn a cd (ubunto, again, not where it's at). You can tell your 6 figure husband to go out and install a linux distro on as many MS machines as he wants and almost every machine he touches will get MS reinstalled after the user finds out what kind of pain in the ass it is to wear that silly little ubuntu team jersey.


sheesh.. It would be nice if you EXPERTS could discover the fucking link button.

 

[KittenKoder]

Perhaps you'd like to post a link to pc mag then, genius? Or, did that idea not pop into your atrophied brain longer than your next ubuntu deepthroat cycle?

and yes, if Windows were not a better product then more end users would be using something else. As it is, we see how the market share proves my point.

I dare you to post evidence of MS losing popularity. I fucking DARE you. bitch, i'm just not interested in your baseless assumptions. sorry. You'll be regurgitating the same stale bullshit a decade from now when your trendy OS du jour is STILL in the single digit user range.


Now, if only you could back up your bullshit with more than crying POINTLESS WHAAAA WHAAAAA.





wannabe nerds... again, bitch. I was writing our autoexec.bat files when you were learning to type. Your "expertise" on computers is kinda like a doctor telling you his post-grad work was done at the U. of Pheonix - online.

Feel free to provide evidence any time now, skank.

I gotta ask what you do for a living, Sho.. Hubby is actually a 6-figure a year compu-geek, and sorry, but Linuxx, its stability, and its security is where it's at...and has been for some time now..

But.. save yourself the trouble of name-calling. It's not going to phase me, nor will it change my opinion.. I'm just curious..

linuxX? The only reason why there are not an equal amount of linux and osx virii and such is because MS products dominate the market. Were it reversed, we'd see norton antiv made exclusively for protecting linux and osx. It's not that the archatecture is any more secure at all. Hell, if some teenage hacker can infiltrate the pentagon then chances are your little fucking linux desktop isn't impervious.

Stability? same issue. It's easy to remains "stable" with a handful of app options. Now, try generalizing ubuntu to include an exponential number of variables rather than the handful at play. This is the burden of MS and it's overwhelming market majority.


Not to mention, end users don't want a laptop just to open word and nothing else (ubuntu app options); they want to play games (NOT where it's at, sorry) and do more than use the same three page wizard to burn a cd (ubunto, again, not where it's at). You can tell your 6 figure husband to go out and install a linux distro on as many MS machines as he wants and almost every machine he touches will get MS reinstalled after the user finds out what kind of pain in the ass it is to wear that silly little ubuntu team jersey.


sheesh.. It would be nice if you EXPERTS could discover the fucking link button.

If you knew anything about computers, you'd know just how stupid your "points" are. You can't get a virus in Linux unless you're completely stupid, period. Also it doesn't randomly crash .... again unless you are stupid. Thanks for proving you are stupid. I tried being reasonable with you on this, but until you actually use Linux for several months you have no clue what you are talking about. There are thousands of games available for Limux (Ubuntu is Linux moron) and burn CD (integrated already so you don't even need an applet for that), access any MS document, any audio or video file, make video and audio, graphics, websites without downloading huge server packages, etc.. Learn something Shogut.

 

[Shogun]

I gotta ask what you do for a living, Sho.. Hubby is actually a 6-figure a year compu-geek, and sorry, but Linuxx, its stability, and its security is where it's at...and has been for some time now..

But.. save yourself the trouble of name-calling. It's not going to phase me, nor will it change my opinion.. I'm just curious..

linuxX? The only reason why there are not an equal amount of linux and osx virii and such is because MS products dominate the market. Were it reversed, we'd see norton antiv made exclusively for protecting linux and osx. It's not that the archatecture is any more secure at all. Hell, if some teenage hacker can infiltrate the pentagon then chances are your little fucking linux desktop isn't impervious.

Stability? same issue. It's easy to remains "stable" with a handful of app options. Now, try generalizing ubuntu to include an exponential number of variables rather than the handful at play. This is the burden of MS and it's overwhelming market majority.


Not to mention, end users don't want a laptop just to open word and nothing else (ubuntu app options); they want to play games (NOT where it's at, sorry) and do more than use the same three page wizard to burn a cd (ubunto, again, not where it's at). You can tell your 6 figure husband to go out and install a linux distro on as many MS machines as he wants and almost every machine he touches will get MS reinstalled after the user finds out what kind of pain in the ass it is to wear that silly little ubuntu team jersey.


sheesh.. It would be nice if you EXPERTS could discover the fucking link button.

If you knew anything about computers, you'd know just how stupid your "points" are. You can't get a virus in Linux unless you're completely stupid, period. Also it doesn't randomly crash .... again unless you are stupid. Thanks for proving you are stupid. I tried being reasonable with you on this, but until you actually use Linux for several months you have no clue what you are talking about. There are thousands of games available for Limux (Ubuntu is Linux moron) and burn CD (integrated already so you don't even need an applet for that), access any MS document, any audio or video file, make video and audio, graphics, websites without downloading huge server packages, etc.. Learn something Shogut.

Again, bitch, IM THE ONE posting evidence. Your opinion of my cpu background means two things this side of your absolute refusal to do more than act self righeous: jack and shit.

here, you stupid bitch. Notice whose forum this is.
Can Linux get Virus's? - Ubuntu Forums

See, you fat bitch, this is what we call EVIDENCE.. Say it with me EV ID EN CE. One doesn't have to be any more stupid to get a linux virus than an MS virus; the midigating factor is the popularity of the OS, not some kind of superman imperviousness. Hell, you might want to take a fucking refresher course if THIS is the kind of stupid shit you seem to think is true.


Thousands of pansy ass flash games is not anything close to what games people want to play. You'd admit that if you weren't using your copy of ubunto for a dildo.


NO SHIT UBUNTU IS LINUX. WHERE DID I SUGGEST OTHERWISE, FAT ASS?





seriously. Your Best Buy Geek Squad level of cpu kung fu is almost not even worth mentioning to people.

 

[KittenKoder]

linuxX? The only reason why there are not an equal amount of linux and osx virii and such is because MS products dominate the market. Were it reversed, we'd see norton antiv made exclusively for protecting linux and osx. It's not that the archatecture is any more secure at all. Hell, if some teenage hacker can infiltrate the pentagon then chances are your little fucking linux desktop isn't impervious.

Stability? same issue. It's easy to remains "stable" with a handful of app options. Now, try generalizing ubuntu to include an exponential number of variables rather than the handful at play. This is the burden of MS and it's overwhelming market majority.


Not to mention, end users don't want a laptop just to open word and nothing else (ubuntu app options); they want to play games (NOT where it's at, sorry) and do more than use the same three page wizard to burn a cd (ubunto, again, not where it's at). You can tell your 6 figure husband to go out and install a linux distro on as many MS machines as he wants and almost every machine he touches will get MS reinstalled after the user finds out what kind of pain in the ass it is to wear that silly little ubuntu team jersey.


sheesh.. It would be nice if you EXPERTS could discover the fucking link button.

If you knew anything about computers, you'd know just how stupid your "points" are. You can't get a virus in Linux unless you're completely stupid, period. Also it doesn't randomly crash .... again unless you are stupid. Thanks for proving you are stupid. I tried being reasonable with you on this, but until you actually use Linux for several months you have no clue what you are talking about. There are thousands of games available for Limux (Ubuntu is Linux moron) and burn CD (integrated already so you don't even need an applet for that), access any MS document, any audio or video file, make video and audio, graphics, websites without downloading huge server packages, etc.. Learn something Shogut.

Again, bitch, IM THE ONE posting evidence. Your opinion of my cpu background means two things this side of your absolute refusal to do more than act self righeous: jack and shit.

here, you stupid bitch. Notice whose forum this is.
Can Linux get Virus's? - Ubuntu Forums

See, you fat bitch, this is what we call EVIDENCE.. Say it with me EV ID EN CE. One doesn't have to be any more stupid to get a linux virus than an MS virus; the midigating factor is the popularity of the OS, not some kind of superman imperviousness. Hell, you might want to take a fucking refresher course if THIS is the kind of stupid shit you seem to think is true.


Thousands of pansy ass flash games is not anything close to what games people want to play. You'd admit that if you weren't using your copy of ubunto for a dildo.


NO SHIT UBUNTU IS LINUX. WHERE DID I SUGGEST OTHERWISE, FAT ASS?





seriously. Your Best Buy Geek Squad level of cpu kung fu is almost not even worth mentioning to people.

Did you miss this point in that forum?

"Yes, but they're so rare it's negligible. It's not a big concern. Just don't download anything that you don't already know what it is, and don't open strange attachments in your email."

Though the "strange attachments" isn't right, you still have to click an "install" button and enter your password to actually install a virus. You'd know that if you knew how to use Linux. They did a video mocking Windoze about this, "how to get a virus" ... seriously, if you know Linux you wouldn't be this stupid. Now, stop being an idiot.

 

[Shogun]

If you knew anything about computers, you'd know just how stupid your "points" are. You can't get a virus in Linux unless you're completely stupid, period. Also it doesn't randomly crash .... again unless you are stupid. Thanks for proving you are stupid. I tried being reasonable with you on this, but until you actually use Linux for several months you have no clue what you are talking about. There are thousands of games available for Limux (Ubuntu is Linux moron) and burn CD (integrated already so you don't even need an applet for that), access any MS document, any audio or video file, make video and audio, graphics, websites without downloading huge server packages, etc.. Learn something Shogut.

Again, bitch, IM THE ONE posting evidence. Your opinion of my cpu background means two things this side of your absolute refusal to do more than act self righeous: jack and shit.

here, you stupid bitch. Notice whose forum this is.
Can Linux get Virus's? - Ubuntu Forums

See, you fat bitch, this is what we call EVIDENCE.. Say it with me EV ID EN CE. One doesn't have to be any more stupid to get a linux virus than an MS virus; the midigating factor is the popularity of the OS, not some kind of superman imperviousness. Hell, you might want to take a fucking refresher course if THIS is the kind of stupid shit you seem to think is true.


Thousands of pansy ass flash games is not anything close to what games people want to play. You'd admit that if you weren't using your copy of ubunto for a dildo.


NO SHIT UBUNTU IS LINUX. WHERE DID I SUGGEST OTHERWISE, FAT ASS?





seriously. Your Best Buy Geek Squad level of cpu kung fu is almost not even worth mentioning to people.

Did you miss this point in that forum?

"Yes, but they're so rare it's negligible. It's not a big concern. Just don't download anything that you don't already know what it is, and don't open strange attachments in your email."

Though the "strange attachments" isn't right, you still have to click an "install" button and enter your password to actually install a virus. You'd know that if you knew how to use Linux. They did a video mocking Windoze about this, "how to get a virus" ... seriously, if you know Linux you wouldn't be this stupid. Now, stop being an idiot.

A CONCERN NONTHELESS, STUPID. and, they give the same fucking advice applicable to MS viruses! WOW you are dumb. How many quotes do you want me to pull from that thread making it clear that the ONLY reason more viruses are not written for linux is because of the tiny niche of users? Please, I fucking DARE you to say something now.







again, cow, move your fat ass and post some evidence instead of pretending to be the expert that we both already know you are not.

 

[Shogun]

Shane Coursen, a senior technical consultant with Kaspersky Lab noted, "The growth in Linux malware is simply due to its increasing popularity, particularly as a desktop operating system ... The use of an operating system is directly correlated to the interest by the malware writers to develop malware for that OS."[3]

SecurityFocus's Scott Granneman stated,

...some Linux machines definitely need anti-virus software. Samba or NFS servers, for instance, may store documents in undocumented, vulnerable Microsoft formats, such as Word and Excel, that contain and propagate viruses. Linux mail servers should run AV software in order to neutralize viruses before they show up in the mailboxes of Outlook and Outlook Express users."[1]

Linux malware - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Linux Virus: A False Sense Of Security

There seems to be a false sense of security among some Linux users. The number of malicious programs specifically written for GNU/Linux has been on the increase in recent years and in the year of 2005 alone has more than doubled: from 422 to 863. Some security consultants will argue that Linux has fewer viruses/malwares because it is less attractive as a target for having a smaller user base (compare ~90.66% Windows vs ~0.93% Linux). You may call me a traitor but I agree with that assessment. There is no reason why we will not see a rise of malware designed for Linux as it becomes more mainstream among ordinary users.

Linux Virus: A False Sense Of Security | LinuxHaxor.net






EV

ID

EN

CE


BI

TC

H

 

[KittenKoder]

Again, bitch, IM THE ONE posting evidence. Your opinion of my cpu background means two things this side of your absolute refusal to do more than act self righeous: jack and shit.

here, you stupid bitch. Notice whose forum this is.
Can Linux get Virus's? - Ubuntu Forums

See, you fat bitch, this is what we call EVIDENCE.. Say it with me EV ID EN CE. One doesn't have to be any more stupid to get a linux virus than an MS virus; the midigating factor is the popularity of the OS, not some kind of superman imperviousness. Hell, you might want to take a fucking refresher course if THIS is the kind of stupid shit you seem to think is true.


Thousands of pansy ass flash games is not anything close to what games people want to play. You'd admit that if you weren't using your copy of ubunto for a dildo.


NO SHIT UBUNTU IS LINUX. WHERE DID I SUGGEST OTHERWISE, FAT ASS?





seriously. Your Best Buy Geek Squad level of cpu kung fu is almost not even worth mentioning to people.

Did you miss this point in that forum?

"Yes, but they're so rare it's negligible. It's not a big concern. Just don't download anything that you don't already know what it is, and don't open strange attachments in your email."

Though the "strange attachments" isn't right, you still have to click an "install" button and enter your password to actually install a virus. You'd know that if you knew how to use Linux. They did a video mocking Windoze about this, "how to get a virus" ... seriously, if you know Linux you wouldn't be this stupid. Now, stop being an idiot.

A CONCERN NONTHELESS, STUPID. and, they give the same fucking advice applicable to MS viruses! WOW you are dumb. How many quotes do you want me to pull from that thread making it clear that the ONLY reason more viruses are not written for linux is because of the tiny niche of users? Please, I fucking DARE you to say something now.







again, cow, move your fat ass and post some evidence instead of pretending to be the expert that we both already know you are not.

I have written viruses for Windoze, all you have to do is include code for the browser to save (silently, just fake a security certificate) a file into the root directory and it's in there. Many are programmed to "tag along" with DLLs. Many are worms that save in the actual DLLs. That what a virus does to stay hidden, you can't do that on Linux, all apps are downloaded and compiled on the fly, which is automated in most cases, and you have to give your password for access to the root directory where the system files are stored. Any virus that can copy itself to your hard drive you just empty your temporary files and it's gone. As I said, until you actually use Linux, you have no clue what you are talking about. Any true threat can only happen if the user is a complete moron and just installs anything they find online.

 

[Shogun]

Did you miss this point in that forum?

"Yes, but they're so rare it's negligible. It's not a big concern. Just don't download anything that you don't already know what it is, and don't open strange attachments in your email."

Though the "strange attachments" isn't right, you still have to click an "install" button and enter your password to actually install a virus. You'd know that if you knew how to use Linux. They did a video mocking Windoze about this, "how to get a virus" ... seriously, if you know Linux you wouldn't be this stupid. Now, stop being an idiot.

A CONCERN NONTHELESS, STUPID. and, they give the same fucking advice applicable to MS viruses! WOW you are dumb. How many quotes do you want me to pull from that thread making it clear that the ONLY reason more viruses are not written for linux is because of the tiny niche of users? Please, I fucking DARE you to say something now.







again, cow, move your fat ass and post some evidence instead of pretending to be the expert that we both already know you are not.

I have written viruses for Windoze, all you have to do is include code for the browser to save (silently, just fake a security certificate) a file into the root directory and it's in there. Many are programmed to "tag along" with DLLs. Many are worms that save in the actual DLLs. That what a virus does to stay hidden, you can't do that on Linux, all apps are downloaded and compiled on the fly, which is automated in most cases, and you have to give your password for access to the root directory where the system files are stored. Any virus that can copy itself to your hard drive you just empty your temporary files and it's gone. As I said, until you actually use Linux, you have no clue what you are talking about. Any true threat can only happen if the user is a complete moron and just installs anything they find online.

You'll just have to get over it if people go ahead and take the advise of actually knowledgeable comp users than laughable wannabes trying to avoid posting evidence by hiding behind blustered with bullshit jargon. You are not the fucking Dr. Who of virus writing. Just because YOU can't figure something out doesn't mean it's not possible. The fact is, I've posted MY evidence that virii ARE possible on ubuntu and that it's only the lack of popularity which limits active attacks.

and what have YOU posted? Not a goddamn thing. Not one fucking source of evidence outside of your laughable self righteousness. zilch. nadda. FAIL.

put that in your cookie jar of negative self esteem and smoke it.

 

[KittenKoder]

A CONCERN NONTHELESS, STUPID. and, they give the same fucking advice applicable to MS viruses! WOW you are dumb. How many quotes do you want me to pull from that thread making it clear that the ONLY reason more viruses are not written for linux is because of the tiny niche of users? Please, I fucking DARE you to say something now.







again, cow, move your fat ass and post some evidence instead of pretending to be the expert that we both already know you are not.

I have written viruses for Windoze, all you have to do is include code for the browser to save (silently, just fake a security certificate) a file into the root directory and it's in there. Many are programmed to "tag along" with DLLs. Many are worms that save in the actual DLLs. That what a virus does to stay hidden, you can't do that on Linux, all apps are downloaded and compiled on the fly, which is automated in most cases, and you have to give your password for access to the root directory where the system files are stored. Any virus that can copy itself to your hard drive you just empty your temporary files and it's gone. As I said, until you actually use Linux, you have no clue what you are talking about. Any true threat can only happen if the user is a complete moron and just installs anything they find online.

You'll just have to get over it if people go ahead and take the advise of actually knowledgeable comp users than laughable wannabes trying to avoid posting evidence by hiding behind blustered with bullshit jargon. You are not the fucking Dr. Who of virus writing. Just because YOU can't figure something out doesn't mean it's not possible. The fact is, I've posted MY evidence that virii ARE possible on ubuntu and that it's only the lack of popularity which limits active attacks.

and what have YOU posted? Not a goddamn thing. Not one fucking source of evidence outside of your laughable self righteousness. zilch. nadda. FAIL.

put that in your cookie jar of negative self esteem and smoke it.

You are so naive, the experts don't agree, the only people that think Windoze is more secure are the blind followers who fear change and the people paid to endorse it. Until you use all the OSes, I recommend you stop representing your bad opinion as fact, plain and simple. I've test driven them all, even got a chance to test drive and write code for Windoze 7 ... it still sucks compared to Ubuntu. Sorry, but you have no evidence to support your failed view, you have to ignore most of what you posted as evidence to make it feasible. Now, I need to be off to work, a Linux network needs to be integrated with their slave PC's, I'll be back in a short time though, guessing no more than an hour.

 

[Dante]

Summer's coming - I want something portable, so I can lounge around outside...

Any suggestions on laptops? Looking at maybe a Sony Vaio, mostly for reliability sake..

Internet, email, photos, and messaging is pretty much all I use it for.

I'm looking too. here notebookforums.com

 

[Dis]

Summer's coming - I want something portable, so I can lounge around outside...

Any suggestions on laptops? Looking at maybe a Sony Vaio, mostly for reliability sake..

Internet, email, photos, and messaging is pretty much all I use it for.

I'm looking too. here notebookforums.com

Already bought one almost a month ago..

Oh, and Sho.. All the name-calling in the world, and links to other peoples words does not make you right. It simply makes you a loudmouth. Until you actually work with it, you simply have no idea... You left out what you do for a living... Is it because you don't work with computers in any depth, except as an end user?

(Look, Ma! No swearing, or name-calling! It CAN be done.)

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Linux is not perfect. There is no perfect operating system. Linux is more secure than Windows. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that a person can't ever get a virus. It is rare though. And should that occur, it is easily taken care of, versus a machine with Windows.

The popularity of Windows does play a role in it being a target. I don't believe anyone has denied the obvious. But, Windows takes the hits it does, because of how the OS is coded. From the start, Windows has been about 'patching' flaws in its OS, instead of writing better code to make a more secure OS to begin with. Microsoft releases problem software knowing that the public (as a whole) will continue to put up with a crappy product, just because it is popular. They keep recreating a patched OS with shiny eye candy, and people keep flocking to it.

Would you knowingly go out and buy a brand new car with numerous problems, knowing that you will have to spend more money to get the known problems fixed, even though they should have been fixed to begin with? No rationale person would conduct business that way. But when it comes to Windows, it happens every day, and Microsoft, as well as many other companies are getting rich off a consumer that is either ignorant, or just too lazy to care.

Windows is fancy bloatware that needs several third party applications to try and plug holes, so that the computer doesn't become completely taken over by the nasties found in cyberspace. If Microsoft wrote better code, lots of their own people would be out of jobs, along with a lot of third party protection apps etc. They can't and won't have that happen. So, like the government, they keep making promises they know they can't keep, because the public has allowed itself to become too dependent on a crappy product and crappy customer no service.

For the average adult person who is not into heavy gaming and architecture / graphic intense programs, Linux can serve their general needs just fine, while being faster and more secure than Windows has ever been.

In Linux, you have the power and ability to configure your OS just the way you want it, without all the disk fragmenting bloatware code to worry about. You don't have to shell out money for a firewall, spyware prevention, and all the other program subscription. The average person can save at least $100.00 a year, by using Linux, not to mention not having to pay for the OS to begin with. Throw the OS into the mix, and the savings is several hundred dollars a year.

The installation of Linux is very short and simple, compared to Windows. Linux can be cleanly installed in 20 minutes or less, whereas Windows is anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour, not including the numerous update files once Windows has installed.

With the installation of Linux, I don't have to worry about the serial key and having it authenticated by Microsoft. I can install any flavor of Linux I want on any machine I want as many times as I want, without having to seek any permission first.

With the installation of Linux, I don't have to worry about my hard drive getting fragmented like it did with Windows. Which, if truth be told, didn't take long. And I don't miss having to turn the defragment program on and let it run for several hours.

With Linux, I don't have to worry about paying for customer no service from India or the like. If I have a problem or question, I can get the answer for free, and a lot faster from people that know a lot more than me about coding.

If a person needs to run a Windows application, that can be done most of the time in Linux.

Linux is not for everyone, But, as a whole, I believe the advantages of using Linux outweigh any advantages found in using Windows. There are many different flavors of Linux that are very easy to use, especially if one has never used Linux before.

 

[Ringel05]

Linux is not perfect. There is no perfect operating system. Linux is more secure than Windows. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that a person can't ever get a virus. It is rare though. And should that occur, it is easily taken care of, versus a machine with Windows.

The popularity of Windows does play a role in it being a target. I don't believe anyone has denied the obvious. But, Windows takes the hits it does, because of how the OS is coded. From the start, Windows has been about 'patching' flaws in its OS, instead of writing better code to make a more secure OS to begin with. Microsoft releases problem software knowing that the public (as a whole) will continue to put up with a crappy product, just because it is popular. They keep recreating a patched OS with shiny eye candy, and people keep flocking to it.

Would you knowingly go out and buy a brand new car with numerous problems, knowing that you will have to spend more money to get the known problems fixed, even though they should have been fixed to begin with? No rationale person would conduct business that way. But when it comes to Windows, it happens every day, and Microsoft, as well as many other companies are getting rich off a consumer that is either ignorant, or just too lazy to care.

Windows is fancy bloatware that needs several third party applications to try and plug holes, so that the computer doesn't become completely taken over by the nasties found in cyberspace. If Microsoft wrote better code, lots of their own people would be out of jobs, along with a lot of third party protection apps etc. They can't and won't have that happen. So, like the government, they keep making promises they know they can't keep, because the public has allowed itself to become too dependent on a crappy product and crappy customer no service.

For the average adult person who is not into heavy gaming and architecture / graphic intense programs, Linux can serve their general needs just fine, while being faster and more secure than Windows has ever been.

In Linux, you have the power and ability to configure your OS just the way you want it, without all the disk fragmenting bloatware code to worry about. You don't have to shell out money for a firewall, spyware prevention, and all the other program subscription. The average person can save at least $100.00 a year, by using Linux, not to mention not having to pay for the OS to begin with. Throw the OS into the mix, and the savings is several hundred dollars a year.

The installation of Linux is very short and simple, compared to Windows. Linux can be cleanly installed in 20 minutes or less, whereas Windows is anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour, not including the numerous update files once Windows has installed.

With the installation of Linux, I don't have to worry about the serial key and having it authenticated by Microsoft. I can install any flavor of Linux I want on any machine I want as many times as I want, without having to seek any permission first.

With the installation of Linux, I don't have to worry about my hard drive getting fragmented like it did with Windows. Which, if truth be told, didn't take long. And I don't miss having to turn the defragment program on and let it run for several hours.

With Linux, I don't have to worry about paying for customer no service from India or the like. If I have a problem or question, I can get the answer for free, and a lot faster from people that know a lot more than me about coding.

If a person needs to run a Windows application, that can be done most of the time in Linux.

Linux is not for everyone, But, as a whole, I believe the advantages of using Linux outweigh any advantages found in using Windows. There are many different flavors of Linux that are very easy to use, especially if one has never used Linux before.

I've been playing around learning Ubuntu with the idea of replacing all my Windows OSs. Currently I'm configuring for dual boots so if there is anything I need to do that Linux won't handle I can go back to Windows.
So far I love Ubutu/Linux.

 

[KittenKoder]

Linux is not perfect. There is no perfect operating system. Linux is more secure than Windows. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that a person can't ever get a virus. It is rare though. And should that occur, it is easily taken care of, versus a machine with Windows.

The popularity of Windows does play a role in it being a target. I don't believe anyone has denied the obvious. But, Windows takes the hits it does, because of how the OS is coded. From the start, Windows has been about 'patching' flaws in its OS, instead of writing better code to make a more secure OS to begin with. Microsoft releases problem software knowing that the public (as a whole) will continue to put up with a crappy product, just because it is popular. They keep recreating a patched OS with shiny eye candy, and people keep flocking to it.

Would you knowingly go out and buy a brand new car with numerous problems, knowing that you will have to spend more money to get the known problems fixed, even though they should have been fixed to begin with? No rationale person would conduct business that way. But when it comes to Windows, it happens every day, and Microsoft, as well as many other companies are getting rich off a consumer that is either ignorant, or just too lazy to care.

Windows is fancy bloatware that needs several third party applications to try and plug holes, so that the computer doesn't become completely taken over by the nasties found in cyberspace. If Microsoft wrote better code, lots of their own people would be out of jobs, along with a lot of third party protection apps etc. They can't and won't have that happen. So, like the government, they keep making promises they know they can't keep, because the public has allowed itself to become too dependent on a crappy product and crappy customer no service.

For the average adult person who is not into heavy gaming and architecture / graphic intense programs, Linux can serve their general needs just fine, while being faster and more secure than Windows has ever been.

In Linux, you have the power and ability to configure your OS just the way you want it, without all the disk fragmenting bloatware code to worry about. You don't have to shell out money for a firewall, spyware prevention, and all the other program subscription. The average person can save at least $100.00 a year, by using Linux, not to mention not having to pay for the OS to begin with. Throw the OS into the mix, and the savings is several hundred dollars a year.

The installation of Linux is very short and simple, compared to Windows. Linux can be cleanly installed in 20 minutes or less, whereas Windows is anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour, not including the numerous update files once Windows has installed.

With the installation of Linux, I don't have to worry about the serial key and having it authenticated by Microsoft. I can install any flavor of Linux I want on any machine I want as many times as I want, without having to seek any permission first.

With the installation of Linux, I don't have to worry about my hard drive getting fragmented like it did with Windows. Which, if truth be told, didn't take long. And I don't miss having to turn the defragment program on and let it run for several hours.

With Linux, I don't have to worry about paying for customer no service from India or the like. If I have a problem or question, I can get the answer for free, and a lot faster from people that know a lot more than me about coding.

If a person needs to run a Windows application, that can be done most of the time in Linux.

Linux is not for everyone, But, as a whole, I believe the advantages of using Linux outweigh any advantages found in using Windows. There are many different flavors of Linux that are very easy to use, especially if one has never used Linux before.

I've been playing around learning Ubuntu with the idea of replacing all my Windows OSs. Currently I'm configuring for dual boots so if there is anything I need to do that Linux won't handle I can go back to Windows.
So far I love Ubutu/Linux.

When you do make the switch, save all your Windoze drivers in case you want to run Windoze software afterward. Once you install Wine just copy the DLLs into the Wine system folder and you're good to go. However, you shouldn't need Windoze ever again unless you run video games that haven't been cracked or allow their code to GNU programmers.