Fancast compared to Hulu plus linux "fun'
in [Setup]
|
Prev: Now, my Debian thinks I have SCSI for my old IDE/ATA drivesafter installing Kernel 2.6.32-4?
Next: du showing more disk usage than df
From: trigonometry1972 on 27 Apr 2010 04:25 This is a quick and dirty posting. Fancast is apparently vastly more stable the Hulu when playing video streams. Hulu stumbles the at the advert "blocks". I can play thru by restarting and sliding to a point around were it stumbled (not fun as I have to guess a bit were it crashed) but this is only works part of the time and is a huge pain. I'll add the Fox site works somewhat while at least some of the other network sites only seem to think Windows and Apple. But then again what can one expect from the empty suits at the old big three networks. I am using a AMD64 system with a 64 bit version of Ubuntu 9.04. I am relaxant to to upgrade as upgrade when I ran the 32 bit version of Ubuntu caused problem to the point of inactivating the Hulu video stream and most others. Finally after one "upgrade" the computer could no longer see the internet connection. I was on some version 10 number version of 32 bit Ubuntu. So I saved everything on to the freestanding hard disk and then experimented. Mint failed to see the internet connection and the freestanding HD. Mandriva Linux 2010 did OK except the video was apparently crippled and so was search quite clearly. But it had it hand out for money and I suspect that would enabled it to work on both points just mentioned. I also tried Debian 9.0 which also had it faults. There seemed to be fewer programs in its software warehouse than Ubuntu. So I came full circle to an aging 64 bit Ubuntu 8.10 which I then upgrade as much as I thought I dared. Then once I reach 9.04 I limited the upgrading to just the bare essentials. I am still a newbie but that is my story for your entertainment..................Trig
From: William Poaster on 27 Apr 2010 18:16 trigonometry1972(a)gmail.com | wrote: > This is a quick and dirty posting. Translation: troll posting through googlegroups. <snip> <PLONK>
From: trigonometry1972 on 28 Apr 2010 03:15 On Apr 27, 3:16 pm, William Poaster <w...(a)mylinuxmachines.com> wrote: > trigonometry1...(a)gmail.com | wrote: > > This is a quick and dirty posting. > > Translation: troll posting through googlegroups. > > <snip> > > <PLONK> LOL, a four postings in William's posting history and he calls me a troll. I have a long history of on topic comments. So William please PLONK me, I am so hurt and so so left in the cold. Sheesh. Sheesh.........................Trig
From: Darren Salt on 28 Apr 2010 10:42 I demand that trigonometry1972(a)gmail.com | may or may not have written... > On Apr 27, 3:16 pm, William Poaster <w...(a)mylinuxmachines.com> wrote: >> trigonometry1...(a)gmail.com | wrote: >>> This is a quick and dirty posting. >> Translation: troll posting through googlegroups. >> <snip> >> <PLONK> > LOL, a four postings in William's posting history and he calls me a troll. > I have a long history of on topic comments. Crossposting good; multiposting bad. You've been multiposting. -- | Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Toon | using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds ,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army | + It's 1984. A crisis is when you can't say "Let's forget the whole thing."
From: Doug Freyburger on 28 Apr 2010 11:38
Darren Salt wrote: > > Crossposting good; multiposting bad. Since the advent of cross-posting troll abusers I think this view is obsolete. Cross-posting is abused enough that a lot of people filter on it - I filter all messages to 4+ groups everywhere and to 2+ groups on the noisy groups I subscribe to. |