-hh
Tue, 30
May 2017 11:15:12 GMT in rec.photo.digital, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 12:58:37 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
-hh wrote:
[snip]
"And yet you're still here". /S
Does that bother you?
To show how you're being a hypocrite? On the contrary!
I'm being a hypocrite how exactly?
Ah, *one* photo of a cat, overlooked. See, I made a mistake.
Although within the scope of RPD critiquing, that is a pretty
crappy image (mostly composition). So how about one that's not
crap?
Indeed, it's a downright ****ty image. Taken on a pile of ****sor
stickpen camera of all things. Due to previous stalking efforts by a
certain well known stalker, I tend not share any decent quality
pictures online with people I don't know. The pic you've seen does
the job for it's intended purpose. Bug, wouldn't have cared if I used
a high res one instead.
Translation:
a "snip" to try to disrupt association to Kingsport & Johnson
City, TN.
Your translator algorithms need work.
Keep on shooting yourself in your own foot, kid...er PSL.
LOL, You blew your entire foot off, already:
"After all, one can't run an App which hasn't been installed."
That's just one stupid statement you've written.
*sigh* Kid, it requires Admin authority to run the chmod
command, and without granting the appropriate "+x", your user's
.exe file won't run.
ROFL.
Let's go over a few reasons you're wrong.
1) chmod is an attribution settings command, not an installer.
While it does require admin rights to be used, it doesn't apply
in the case of Xnews.
Yet Admin is still a required step.
That depends entirely on the OS. So, required is a bit premature on
your part.
2) Linux doesn't require the file extension .exe to denote an
executable. Windows itself doesn't either...(I'm waiting for you
to try and argue that it does, then, I'll correct you again. g)
OS's require that the file .. regardless of its extension .. be
identified as an executable; on systems which use chmod, that's
how its done.
Not exactly. The OS loader (I'm dumbing this down for you; I can tell
you're not a coder) reads file header data, that data determines if
it's an executable, what kind it is, and how to load it into memory
to execute it. the executable bit for systems which use it isn't
doing what you thought. That's granting permission to RUN it, not
determine what the file itself actually is.
3) Xnews is a native Windows PE32bit executable. It runs under
Wine in linux, so, doesn't require my specifically setting the
executable bit beforehand...[4] Despite the fact I need admin
rights to install Wine, that's still not Xnews. And once Wine is
installed, I don't need admin rights to run Xnews under it.
Since you can't run it without Wine, and Wine isn't part of the OS
and it required Admin to install, you're dead in the water. my
basic point still applies and stands.
Well, no, because you claimed originally that applications had to be
installed...Not all of them require installation. Then, you tried to
claim you had to have admin rights to install them, you don't always
need that either. In Xnews native environment, (which is windows)
admin rights are not required to install or run it, unless you want
to move the goalposts (as you've done several times now since making
your initial statement) and discuss system policies which may be in
effect on the machine. Btw, Xnews actually runs on win9x systems as
well as Windows NT based ones, and you don't have normal user and
seperate admin rights on windows9x...
I can't run it on LINUX without Wine, because it's not a native LINUX
application. By the same token, once Wine is installed, I do not need
admin rights to use Xnews on the linux machine.
So, short of my attempting to use it on a corporate configured
system with restrictive policy settings, ...
Sorry, but there is no "short of", as the point was for something
that will run anywhere, *including* from restrictively configured
systems.
When you made your initial statement, it wasn't. You've added further
revisions to your statement when I educated you on the concept of
portable apps that require no installer, and, have no installer. In
an effort to save face, because, being the end user you are, you
didn't know about apps that don't require installation.
Which indicates to me atleast you might be exaggerating concerning
the length of time you have in the world of IT. Installers didn't
originally come with apps; that was later. Much later. Computers have
been 'dumbed down' considerably since I started with them, so I don't
blame you for not knowing about the way in which the majority used to
treat software. Or how the majority of software was used back in the
day, and, is making a comeback...History does have a funny way of
repeating itself, sometimes.
If a system is correctly configured with policy settings, it's most
likely going to have a restricted network access policy and likewise
restricted internet access policy as well; which most likely will
deny access to google groups via web browser. And, I've already
covered how easily that can be enforced; which renders your excuse
for accessing usenet in that manner, null and void for your example.
I can't think of a legitimate reason off hand that I'd need to be
using a usenet client while using company equipment, either. Let
alone bringing something with me on a USB stick, cd-r, etc, and
being allowed to introduce the program to a machine I don't own
or have any real control over. I'd expect that to violate one or
more company policies, actually. I'd be very surprised if it
didn't.
Yup, which merely means that you've _finally_ realized why then
the existing browser is the solution approach. Golly, it took you
long enough, kid.
See above.
I'm getting the impression that you aren't a programmer or coder
(yes, there's a subtle difference between the two; aside from the
slang aspect)...
Still trying to compensate for you never having a real paid job
doing either.
http://picpaste.com/HlZsFJlY.jpg
You accused me of bragging for that and some other stuff, previously.
I also asked you if you thought being paid to write software while
still in elementary school counted as an IT job, and, you never
answered that question, either...
I also fail to see what your failed snide remark has to do with what
I wrote? I also couldn't help but notice that you don't know the
difference between the two?
I'm not surprised.
So much for you knowing more than myself about this stuff, or, My
being an average joe.
David Brooks never fails to pick far less
than comparable skillset persons to compete with me. ROFL. He's
reliable like that.
--
Nope, I can't go to hell.
Satan still has a restraining order against me.
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php