Comment Re:The real benchmark (Score 1) 781
yes, that'll teach me.
Comment Re:And... (Score 0, Flamebait) 781
True, on the level of hardware support & usability Ubuntu is best compared with Windows 3.11
Comment Re:The real benchmark (Score 1) 781
Nobody gives a fuck about Linux because Linux doesn't have a unified billion dollar marketing campaign behind it
Than I suggest to stop portraying shite like Ubuntu as a contender to Vista/7. An honest benchmark would be Ubuntu vs. Windows 3.11 - the hardware support and usability are on par for those two.
Than I suggest to stop portraying shite like Ubuntu as a contender to Vista/7. An honest benchmark would be Ubuntu vs. Windows 3.11 - the hardware support and usability are on par for those two.
Comment Re:The real benchmark (Score 1) 781
Bitterness is difficult to hide if you count up all the lost time in my life thanks to *nix.
Comment Not exactly a fair comparison ... (Score -1, Flamebait) 781
You should benchmark Ubuntu against Windows 3.11 - that's a far more realistic comparison.
Comment The real benchmark (Score 0, Flamebait) 781
Contender 1 - Ubuntu: free & praised to heaven
Contender 2 - Windows: costs money & pure evil, pure shite
We now release them on the market and see what happens...
Oh my Gawd, nobody gives a fuck about Ubuntu. How can this be?
Answer: nobody gives a bleeding arse.
Maybe next time you can compare the Ubuntu install disk with a print of the Holy Bible and conclude that size and weight doesn't seem to play a role.
Call me flamebait/troll all you want, Ubuntu is the biggest waste of resources ever. The delusion is staggering.
Contender 2 - Windows: costs money & pure evil, pure shite
We now release them on the market and see what happens...
Oh my Gawd, nobody gives a fuck about Ubuntu. How can this be?
Answer: nobody gives a bleeding arse.
Maybe next time you can compare the Ubuntu install disk with a print of the Holy Bible and conclude that size and weight doesn't seem to play a role.
Call me flamebait/troll all you want, Ubuntu is the biggest waste of resources ever. The delusion is staggering.
Comment Re:It is possible to exclude Wikipedia now. (Score 1) 439
It'll be a chrome checkbox, not a FF plugin.
Thanks, btw
Thanks, btw
Comment Re:bad idea (Score -1, Offtopic) 439
one, not wone
Comment Re:bad idea (Score 1) 439
we have those expert versions: knole and the other wone ... can't remember the name ... former wikipedia staff started it.
Comment Re:fork it (Score 1) 439
it's been forked a gazillion times. The interwebs are riddled with cheap wikipedia rip-offs.
Comment Re:I for one ... (Score 1) 439
Comment Let Obama do it (Score 1, Informative) 439
He can do it as an intermezzo between solving the economy, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Iraq, the internets, civil right, ...
Comment I for one ... (Score 0, Troll) 439
... am waiting for a Chrome checkbox in the toolbar that automatically removes all the wikipedia entries from a google search.
... while editing Wikipedia requires fighting bureaucracy, patience and the right contacts?
Ehr, that's pretty much what it is now.
In the beginning I had to much trust in wiki content, this was corrected after reading some reviews and case studies. Today I simply ignore the whole site because I'm not interested in wasting my time to dig out the references.
In the end, when you need the data, you just end up checking Britannica.
Ehr, that's pretty much what it is now.
In the beginning I had to much trust in wiki content, this was corrected after reading some reviews and case studies. Today I simply ignore the whole site because I'm not interested in wasting my time to dig out the references.
In the end, when you need the data, you just end up checking Britannica.
Comment Re:a hack on a hack (Score 1) 260
you're correct.