On 2024-02-02 14:23, chrisv wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Another amusing little hiccup, just today
>> <https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/01/windows_10_users_errors_hardware/>.
>
> <quote>
> The answer appears to be the use of old hardware. Intel Core 2 Duo and
> Quad processors have featured in some of the reports, as well as some
> AMD Athlon chips. The Core 2 line first turned up in 2006 and, while
> not on the list of officially supported processors for Windows 10, the
> processor had more than enough oomph for many productivity tasks,
> until now.
>
> A Register reader got in touch to highlight the situation: "A common
> theory is that the faulting component uses some instruction extension
> that Core 2 doesn't support, such as SSE 4.2."
> </quote>
>
> M$ can't be expected to support ancient hardware forever.

They can't, and they never supported this hardware through Windows 10
anyway. Nonetheless, if those people want to hold onto whatever they
have from that era, they're free to use Linux. I am sure that LMDE will
run just fine on it.

--
RabidPedagog
Catholic paleoconservative
Linux Mint patron

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> M$ can't be expected to support ancient hardware forever.
>
>Too bad they don't provide upfront options to tailor the Windows install to the
>actual hardware. I mean, this here is just a CPU extension.
>
>Oh, it don't pay for Microsoft.

Just because YOU are still running on a '386... 8)

>> --
>> "According to the COLA loons [buying an OS-free PC] is IMPOSSIBLE
>> because of the monopoly." - Hadron Quark, lying shamelessly
>
>Steve Ballmer: "We need to get PAID!"

"What monopoly?" - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark

--
'The funny thing is how many of the false "advocates" jumped up and
down and agreed with Ballmer about the iPhone.' - some thing, lying
shamelessly (but no one can quote it lying)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>They claim a 90-year copyright duration on their software, don’t they?
>Why shouldn’t their support obligations last just as long?

That's some silly shit, "Lawrence".

--
"The problem with Linux is too LITTLE choice. There is a bunch of
false choice where you have a million desktop distros *all* tied to
the same limited open source ecosystem." - some thing

On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 18:50:58 -0600, chrisv wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>>They claim a 90-year copyright duration on their software, don’t they?
>>Why shouldn’t their support obligations last just as long?
>
> That's some silly shit, "Lawrence".

I thought you were deleting my responses, unread?

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:41:26 -0500, RabidPedagog wrote:

>> M$ can't be expected to support ancient hardware forever.
>
> They can't, and they never supported this hardware through Windows 10
> anyway.

If they claim rights over this “intellectual property”, they have to
accept responsibilities over the property as well. If they want to reject
one, then they have to give up the other.

On 2/2/2024 4:27 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:23:35 -0600, shitv wrote:
>
>> M$ can't be expected to support ancient hardware forever.
>
> I wonder why not. They claim a 90-year copyright duration on their
> software, don’t they?

"In the United States, software copyright protection lasts for the
lifetime of the inventor or creator plus 70 years after their death if
created after 1978."

This means a whole boatload of GuhNoo slopware devs will be supporting
their junk software into their 80s. Right? That is what you expect of
them, isn't it?

> Why shouldn’t their support obligations last just as long?

Did your parents slap you when you demanded lifetime financial support
(you know, because they gave you life and their support obligation
should last just as long)?

Related: historically, MS provides 10 years of support for Windows
versions, which is 2x to 5x as long as nearly all Linux distros. You
can buy support subscriptions for Suse Desktop for 3 years for $349 - so
it'll cost you a cool $1000 to run supported Suse for 10 years, vs $200
for supported Windows.

MS is doomed by the 5x more expensive Suse.

Le 03-02-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:41:26 -0500, RabidPedagog wrote:
>
>>> M$ can't be expected to support ancient hardware forever.
>>
>> They can't, and they never supported this hardware through Windows 10
>> anyway.
>
> If they claim rights over this “intellectual property”, they have to
> accept responsibilities over the property as well. If they want to reject
> one, then they have to give up the other.

And if they don't, what will you do? Don't you realise you are not
playing in the same world?

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Le 03-02-2024, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> a écrit :
> Related: historically, MS provides 10 years of support for Windows
> versions, which is 2x to 5x as long as nearly all Linux distros. You
> can buy support subscriptions for Suse Desktop for 3 years for $349 - so
> it'll cost you a cool $1000 to run supported Suse for 10 years, vs $200
> for supported Windows.
>
> MS is doomed by the 5x more expensive Suse.

What does it means you have $200 support for Windows? If you have any
issue you call Microsoft and they'll answer you? If not, your prices
don't relate to the same things and your comparison is meaningless.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> M$ can't be expected to support ancient hardware forever.
>>
>>Too bad they don't provide upfront options to tailor the Windows install to the
>>actual hardware. I mean, this here is just a CPU extension.
>>
>>Oh, it don't pay for Microsoft.
>
> Just because YOU are still running on a '386... 8)

https://www.osnews.com/story/135329/linux-optimised-for-386-and-486/

Dated in late 2022.

Why doesn't Windows provide an extensive kernel configuration guide and source
code? :-D

I did, not too long ago, install a Linux (OpenSUSE IIRC) on a Raspberry PI (3+
maybe?) and used it to build my Qt app. Jesus it took forever! But it built.

--
What I tell you three times is true.
-- Lewis Carroll

Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Le 03-02-2024, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> a écrit :
>> Related: historically, MS provides 10 years of support for Windows
>> versions, which is 2x to 5x as long as nearly all Linux distros. You
>> can buy support subscriptions for Suse Desktop for 3 years for $349 - so
>> it'll cost you a cool $1000 to run supported Suse for 10 years, vs $200
>> for supported Windows.
>>
>> MS is doomed by the 5x more expensive Suse.

Cripes, he's a broken record.

Doomed <scratch>
Doomed <scratch>
Doomed <scratch>
Doomed <scratch>
Doomed <scratch>
Doomed <scratch>

> What does it means you have $200 support for Windows? If you have any
> issue you call Microsoft and they'll answer you? If not, your prices
> don't relate to the same things and your comparison is meaningless.
>
> --
> Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
> https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

--
Long life is in store for you.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>They claim a 90-year copyright duration on their software, don?t they?
>>>Why shouldn’t their support obligations last just as long?
>>
>> That's some silly shit, "Lawrence".
>
>I thought you were deleting my responses, unread?

Suffering from reading comprehension problems, "Lawrence"? I wrote
that specific messages would be deleted, unread. I do this to avoid
going around and around with someone that I feel is not being
reasonable, after my point has been made.

Your response will be deleted, unread.

--
"You read them all, you've demonstrated that time and time again." -
Dunce Rabbit, lying shamelessly

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>
>> some dumb fsck wrote:
>>>
>>> Related: historically, MS provides 10 years of support for Windows
>>> versions, which is 2x to 5x as long as nearly all Linux distros. You
>>> can buy support subscriptions for Suse Desktop for 3 years for $349 - so
>>> it'll cost you a cool $1000 to run supported Suse for 10 years, vs $200
>>> for supported Windows.
>>>
>>> MS is doomed by the 5x more expensive Suse.
>
>Cripes, he's a broken record.

DumFSck really does enjoy making a public jackass of himself.

As Stéphane pointed-out, the levels of support are not comparable.

> Doomed <scratch>
> Doomed <scratch>
> Doomed <scratch>
> Doomed <scratch>
> Doomed <scratch>
> Doomed <scratch>

I thought that Linux was supposed to be "doomed", and yet it gets
nothing but stronger, with each passing year.

>> What does it means you have $200 support for Windows? If you have any
>> issue you call Microsoft and they'll answer you? If not, your prices
>> don't relate to the same things and your comparison is meaningless.

Exactly.

--
"FOSS isn't real competition. Anything given away is not competing
with a for-sale product." - DumFSck, lying shamelessly

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> M$ can't be expected to support ancient hardware forever.
>>>
>>>Too bad they don't provide upfront options to tailor the Windows install to the
>>>actual hardware. I mean, this here is just a CPU extension.
>>>
>>>Oh, it don't pay for Microsoft.
>>
>> Just because YOU are still running on a '386... 8)
>
> https://www.osnews.com/story/135329/linux-optimised-for-386-and-486/
>
>Dated in late 2022.

I like how a little flame war erupted in the comments.

>Why doesn't Windows provide an extensive kernel configuration guide and source
>code? :-D

Don't you know? Because then "a bunch of freetards with no
imagination of their own can copy the dish badly, give the dish a bad
name, dilute the market and put the original out of business."

According to the "true Linux advocate", anyway.

--
"You freetards are clueless. Get out of your Mom's basement and get a
job you slimy little freetard you." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron
Quark

On 2/3/2024 5:51 AM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 03-02-2024, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> a écrit :
>> Related: historically, MS provides 10 years of support for Windows
>> versions, which is 2x to 5x as long as nearly all Linux distros. You
>> can buy support subscriptions for Suse Desktop for 3 years for $349 - so
>> it'll cost you a cool $1000 to run supported Suse for 10 years, vs $200
>> for supported Windows.
>>
>> MS is doomed by the 5x more expensive Suse.
>
> What does it means you have $200 support for Windows?

That's the full retail price for Win11 Pro. In the past, Windows was
supported with security patches and bugfixes for 10 years.

Suse Desktop costs at least 5x as much for the same 10 years of support.

https://www.suse.com/shop/desktop/

> If you have any
> issue you call Microsoft and they'll answer you? If not, your prices
> don't relate to the same things and your comparison is meaningless.

"For Home users:
Looking for help? For help from an agent, follow the Get help link below
to chat or request a call—we’ll call you so you don’t have to wait."

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/global-customer-service-phone-numbers-c0389ade-5640-e588-8b0e-28de8afeb3f2

On 2024-02-02 23:48, DFS wrote:
> On 2/2/2024 4:27 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:23:35 -0600, shitv wrote:
>>
>>> M$ can't be expected to support ancient hardware forever.
>>
>> I wonder why not. They claim a 90-year copyright duration on their
>> software, don’t they?
>
> "In the United States, software copyright protection lasts for the
> lifetime of the inventor or creator plus 70 years after their death if
> created after 1978."
>
> This means a whole boatload of GuhNoo slopware devs will be supporting
> their junk software into their 80s.  Right?  That is what you expect of
> them, isn't it?

Nobody expects that out of the original author. The very nature of
open-source means that a project can be picked up by someone else if the
author decides to move on.

>> Why shouldn’t their support obligations last just as long?
>
> Did your parents slap you when you demanded lifetime financial support
> (you know, because they gave you life and their support obligation
> should last just as long)?
>
>
>
> Related: historically, MS provides 10 years of support for Windows
> versions, which is 2x to 5x as long as nearly all Linux distros.

Begrudgingly. In reality, Microsoft would prefer that its Windows users
upgrade to the latest version such as from 7 to 8 to 8.1 to 10 to 11.
They would rather not support the previous version but do so out of
necessity. Most companies running their software upgrade a lot more
conservatively than the corporation would want them to.

< snip >

--
RabidPedagog
Catholic paleoconservative
Linux Mint patron

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:48:50 -0500, DFS wrote:

> On 2/2/2024 4:27 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:23:35 -0600, shitv wrote:
>>
>>> M$ can't be expected to support ancient hardware forever.
>>
>> I wonder why not. They claim a 90-year copyright duration on their
>> software, don’t they?
>
> "In the United States, software copyright protection lasts for the
> lifetime of the inventor or creator plus 70 years after their death if
> created after 1978."
>
> This means a whole boatload of GuhNoo slopware devs will be supporting
> their junk software into their 80s. Right? That is what you expect of
> them, isn't it?

Only if they claim ongoign property rights over that software. Which they
won’t.

Fair’s fair: you want to claim rights, you must also accept
responsibilities. Disown one, and surrender the other.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>Fair’s fair: you want to claim rights, you must also accept
>responsibilities. Disown one, and surrender the other.

Idiot.

On 2/3/2024 4:34 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:48:50 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 2/2/2024 4:27 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:23:35 -0600, shitv wrote:
>>>
>>>> M$ can't be expected to support ancient hardware forever.
>>>
>>> I wonder why not. They claim a 90-year copyright duration on their
>>> software, don’t they?
>>
>> "In the United States, software copyright protection lasts for the
>> lifetime of the inventor or creator plus 70 years after their death if
>> created after 1978."
>>
>> This means a whole boatload of GuhNoo slopware devs will be supporting
>> their junk software into their 80s. Right? That is what you expect of
>> them, isn't it?
>
> Only if they claim ongoign property rights over that software. Which they
> won’t.

eh? They don't have to claim any such "ongoing property rights" -
they're automatically assigned. So in your bizarro world, while their
name is on the copyright, they accept a lifetime of support. And if
you're internally consistent with your idiocy, they're also responsible
for 70 years of support AFTER they die.

> Fair’s fair: you want to claim rights, you must also accept
> responsibilities. Disown one, and surrender the other.

When are you gonna accept responsibility for being a blithering GuhNoo
nincompoop?

On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 18:04:58 -0500, DFS wrote:

> On 2/3/2024 4:34 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:48:50 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> This means a whole boatload of GuhNoo slopware devs will be supporting
>>> their junk software into their 80s. Right? That is what you expect
>>> of them, isn't it?
>>
>> Only if they claim ongoign property rights over that software. Which
>> they won’t.
>
> eh? They don't have to claim any such "ongoing property rights" -
> they're automatically assigned.

So then, their property responsibilities must be “automatically assigned”
too.

On 2/4/2024 1:37 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 18:04:58 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/2024 4:34 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:48:50 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> This means a whole boatload of GuhNoo slopware devs will be supporting
>>>> their junk software into their 80s. Right? That is what you expect
>>>> of them, isn't it?
>>>
>>> Only if they claim ongoign property rights over that software. Which
>>> they won’t.
>>
>> eh? They don't have to claim any such "ongoing property rights" -
>> they're automatically assigned.
>
> So then, their property responsibilities must be “automatically assigned”
> too.

Larry Duh, this troll has gone on too long. It's seriously stupid.

Just drop that Linux slop and upgrade your Windows to the latest (it
costs little to nothing) and enjoy life.

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:04:01 -0500, DFS wrote:

> On 2/4/2024 1:37 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 18:04:58 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/3/2024 4:34 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:48:50 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This means a whole boatload of GuhNoo slopware devs will be
>>>>> supporting their junk software into their 80s. Right? That is what
>>>>> you expect of them, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Only if they claim ongoign property rights over that software. Which
>>>> they won’t.
>>>
>>> eh? They don't have to claim any such "ongoing property rights" -
>>> they're automatically assigned.
>>
>> So then, their property responsibilities must be “automatically
>> assigned” too.
>
> [meaningless ad-hominem rant omitted]

I’ll take that as a “yes”.