Anymore?

File 175690842752.jpg - (372.44KB , 1959x1120 , KG.jpg )

kek i mean "welcome to /aisfw/". my bad.

File 176513796760.jpg - (48.65KB , 455x240 , IMG_1237.jpg )

All fey are mischievous

File 176519234589.jpg - (424.50KB , 1080x1080 , 20251208.jpg )

>>132460
All demons are evil

>>132471
All demons are evil because they are a literal manifestation of negative energy. Humanoids and goblinoids can cultivate positive or negative energy and might even be predisposed to be evil due to culture or a creator god (like Orcs), but they are not categorically evil like demons and devils.

>>23239
>>23240
Did she actually get older and fatter between these two shoots?

At least her mallet improved.

>>22430
Op here... nvm, I found it.

Turns out that I had to add Guest to the permissions list directly, even after enabling it. I seem to recall that it was supposed to do that automatically (which may or may not be a wise idea), but doing this one folder at a time could easily become an annoyance, albeit an annoyance that I'm willing to handle.

Turn off simple file sharing, which makes you use usernames & passwords to connect to shares. So long as the account you login with on each system uses the same name & password you won't have to bother with typing anything. Otherwise you type the name & password and you're in.

7 also needs to be switched back to 40/56-bit encryption vs. 128-bit. You'll also want to disable homegroup but since you have XP hopefully you've already done that.

Also XP and 7 need to be at least Pro, the Home versions can only network with other home versions. 2000 and earlier only had "pro" networking, Home was an abortion created for XP.

>>22431
There's two sets of permissions, the share permissions, which control who can access the share, and the file permissions, which control who can access the files. If you had added guest to the share permissions you would need to still add guest to the file permissions, otherwise it would be able to connect but not actually read any files.

As far as file permissions go you can enable inheritable permissions on child objects, which means you set the permissions on test share, then set all the items in test share to inheritable, and they all use the same permissions set in one spot (test share).

Here's a different idea about Gnome. What if the whole thing is being damaged by commercial interest? What if people are paid off to trash the whole thing? Some illumination of the idea.

I noticed that every time Linux gets a good GUI system that's almost there it runs off the rails and turns to shit. If there was a good serious stable GUI for Linux I expect it could rapidly replace windows. It can now but not without a lot of trouble.

Some examples. There was a GUI desktop called Enlightenment. It was way ahead of even windows. Very good stuff. It had some bugs but the basics were there and then all of a sudden they rewrite the whole damn thing and make no progress for many, many years.

Say you are Microsoft and you see this kick ass program full of features that would not come up until Apple does some of the same stuff later. It uses minimal resources and is fast on lightweight computers, it's free and it threatens to derail your multi-billion dollar profit stream.. OH SHIT. So you get a lawyer and he contacts the few main contributors to this desktop and they sign non-disclosure agreements. They offer them say a million a piece for maybe the top 5 guys to stall this thing for 8 years or so.

Another. Gnome is getting really good. Most things falling into place and it's rapidly becoming the desktop of choice. If it keeps going like it was then it could cause a network effect and draw in mass support and WHOOPS they rewrite the whole thing, take away tons of options and turn it into some freakish tablet interface that everyone hates. Whole thing stalls for for years and years while they screw everything up. Eventually causing forks into several different desktop GUI systems. Hmm...

Another and this is the one that made me come up with this idea because it was so damn freakishly absurd. PC-BSD. I was really liking this. It was extremely close to being a plug and play go to operating system with excellent file system. All of the unix tamed so you could use it like a normal system and then Shazam, all of a sudden they change the name to some nonsense, TrueOS(what the hell does that mean), then another name change to Trident OS and then immediately after that they completely stop using BSD as their base and switch to Void Linux. WHAT? I mean who ever heard of that? Why would you work for over a decade on FreeBSD base then all of a sudden switch to some obscure Linux? Total bafflement. Makes no sense at all. Their excuse was that FreeBSD was not moving fast enough but FreeBSD had all it needed to be a great desktop. They even wrote a great window manager and LOTS of supporting software and then abandoned it.

Now I can't prove anything but this last switch with PC-BSD really made me think that they just paid some people off and torpedoed alternate OS development. It was so bizarre. I mean if they were going to move to Linux why not Debian for which t Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>17103
>If there was a good serious stable GUI for Linux I expect it could rapidly replace windows.
This is a hilariously naive vision of the situation, and you've hinged your entire point on this idea.

First, the interface is just one of the reasons why someone might choose to use an operating system over another. The software ecosystem is certainly much more important, as is the hardware compatibility. Windows wins over Linux on both these fronts, although there's a few specialized tools here and there that really do only work on Linux.

Second, there's never really been a desktop environment for Linux that was objectively better than Windows'. Microsoft just has deeper pockets than any DE organization and can afford to spend as much as it wants on GUI research.

Finally, if someone has bought into a platform, it would not be enough for a competitor's GUI to be better to get them to switch. It would have to be significantly better, perhaps even revolutionary, to justify the cost of migrating to an unfamiliar platform.

"...If there was a good serious stable GUI for Linux I expect it could rapidly replace windows..."

"This is a hilariously naive vision of the situation, and you've hinged your entire point on this idea."

"Second, there's never really been a desktop environment for Linux that was objectively better than Windows'. Microsoft just has deeper pockets than any DE organization and can afford to spend as much as it wants on GUI research.">>17105

Your only emphasizing my point. Enlightenment was not finished and went onto a multi-year halt where everything stopped. Enlightenment had many features that Windows took many years to implement. It was also smaller and faster. With more work maybe it would have crushed the bugs it had. Instead it came to a halt.

Gnome instead of refining what they had discombobulated into a totally different desktop. Removing features and totally changing the way it worked.

They didn't die they were murdered.

File 169608949867.jpg - (140.74KB , 640x480 , Terry_A__Davis_2017.jpg )

Terry Davis

File 174490020464.jpg - (1.39MB , 1375x1750 , 64d9b9302188c64dd84d1451deb50bce.jpg )

>>29340