Peter Kai Jensen <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>>>> In an ideal world Roy wuld just post a single line subject and a
>>>> link, but clearly thats not part of his agenda.
>>>
>>> Someone else once tried that, and people in general didn't like it.
>>> Without a decent appropriate quote, such as Roy kindly provides, it's
>>> hard to know if the link is worth clicking.
>>
>> Two lines then. Its enough. How else would people use contents in tech
>> books?
>
> Ah yes, trolls *do* hate it when pro-Linux stuff is posted to COLA.
Err, I want the stuff posted. Where on earth did I say for it to stop?
> Quoting only very little will do nothing to reduce the supposed clutter
> you trolls all complain about (since it drowns you out), but will
> significantly reduce the usability of Roy's posts as advocacy material
> (but then again, that's probably what you want).
Why would I want that? As it is I kill all posts from him beginning with
[News] because it swamps my news inbox. A single post I could tag and
browse at leisure.
>
>>> Do you think that's all *you're* doing? How about your "magical
>>> pixie dust memory" comment, when someone mentioned that Linux handles
>>> low-RAM systems much better than Windows? That surely wasn't your
>>> smartest moment (hint: many of us have done it or are doing it, so we
>>> *know* you're talking BS), and it read as quite trollish.
>>
>> Possibly, but I was making a point:
>
> An incorrect one, apparently.
>
Nope. Sorry.
>> I use Gnome and have used KDE - there is no way my average desktop
>> usage wuld work with 256k None whatsoever.
>
> No, that would be silly. But with 256 MB it is completely usable. I
To do something that few people want as an active desktop IMO.
FFS, I use the bloody stuff : its great. But its not infallible either.
|
|
