Linux and Windows XP on the same PC 2944

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:07:07 +0100, Peter T. Breuer

There was only one sentence in the whole thing that needed to be split or simplified, and it didn't ramble. It covered two reasons for a problem, going into just enough detail about each to warrent being split.

Oh, a semantic argument. What's more, a semantic argument that is wrong and doesn't even follow.

After all, what is an explanation but a way of imparting information? I was referring to the information given in his explanation.

There you go, claiming to be a psychic again.

Well, if the person only has one hard drive, and no large removeable storage media, it is rather difficult to do a backup. At least to do a backup that is of any protection against the dangers involved in an OS installation.

That's why you should have read the whole thing, the physical distance involved was why the OP could not just go over and do it right. In fact, the original post clearly implied that the OP would have done a backup, installed XP as a clean install, and then re-installed Linux and loaded in the data from the backup. Why do you think he specifically mentioned it as something he expected to be a common, but useless, answer?

Being told that someone had Linux installed on his PC, and that the installation was some time ago lost you? Or was it that Augustus liked the person that confused you?

At this point, if you weren't posting from a Spanish server, I would be tempted to reccomend adult literacy clbuttes. I am correct in thinking that English is not your first language, right?

Sometimes that is all that is needed to give the needed explanation.

e.g.:

"Why were you so late?"

"Well, first of all I hit every red light on my way to the 401. When I finally got on the highway, some idiot in a tractor-trailer had rolled on the Hogs Hollow bridge, of course he was in the express lanes. Traffic was fine right up to the DVP, but it took me was three hours to get from there to Yonge"

There, nothing more than a sequence of events. A story which fully explained why I was two and a half hours late for work one day last year.

The problem lies with you, and if you had read enough to have read the first few events, you would have read the whole thing. There were only three events in the whole paragraph, and two were only implied.

Congratulations! Your choice has resulted in you making yourself look foolish. You don't need to believe that my name is Rick, or remember what the names are of everyone you are replying to, you just need to pay enough attention to know that there is more than one person involved in the thread with you. This should have been rather easy, given that I didn't remove Augustus's attribution line.

When you consider the computer knowledge of the typical home user, making backups is an advanced topic. Setting that aside, making a workable backup using limited equipment is somewhat advanced if it goes beyond just copying the contents of ~-Documents

You need at the very minimum a second storage device with enough capacity to store the backup.

Wrong on both counts, they're going into the shop for a tune up and to get the oil changed, and have not made such a demand.

Back on the central topic: Show me where Augustus demanded that nothing go wrong. (Free hint: He hasn't, you made that bit up.)

Then why are you acting like you do?

Your 'reasoning' has resulted in conclusions which contradict the facts as described by Augustus. That means that either your reasoning is wrong, or his facts are wrong. He has given an understandable reason for why the facts are as he described them, a reason which you have chosen to try and ignore.

Then you have no information at all and are posting nothing more than wild guesses.

And it still does not change the fact that starting your response by telling someone to simply violate the constraints which he has stated he is working under, is not a productive thing to do.

One would think that you at least have an interest in not looking like an idiot. When you can't even detect that people with completely different names, and which have completely different writing styles, are two separate people: You end up making posts that make you look idiotic.

The "you" may have been generic, the "your" sure wasn't.

When he tells you that he knows the oil is low, but that he does not have any more to add, telling him to add more is a useless piece of advice. This is for two reasons: First, he already knows he should add more, it's just that he physically can't do so. Second, you are telling him to do something that is not possible for him to do.

Now, to deal with that coast to coast bit you made up:

I considered specifying a trip to a garage for an oil change, but felt that it would be a needless complication as the analogy was about telling people to do things they have just told you they could not do. Now that I know that you are a person who grabs things and goes running off into left field, I will try to remember to

Well, that depends on the soup. I wouldn't try to open a can of Campbells Chunky soup that way1.

Your extension nicely hits the idea that things can become more complicated as constraints are imposed. e.g. That if you cannot use a can opener to open a can, the contents of the can must be taken into consideration when looking for a method of opening the can.

You keep responding to me as if I were the OP.

The scare quotes you stuck around "look like", you aren't contesting the definition, nor are you using them as an incorrect colloquium. From what I see in this post of yours, you simply do not know how to use them. Thus I will extend my advice, and say that you should stop using scare quotes at all.

1 As the name implies, these soups have very large chunks of meat, vegetables, etc. For years the advertising campaign centred on arguments about whether you should use a fork or a spoon to eat it.

-- Phoenix