Linux sucks
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 5 Feb 2010 01:36 On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 11:07:59 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greegor47(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Has anybody worn out any flash memory yet? Not personally, but i have heard reports that i trust. Several year old heavily used flash was the most common.
From: Gerhard Hoffmann on 5 Feb 2010 02:04 Mycelium wrote: >> Well it could be worse... from the cockpit: ERROR: ENGINES NOT >> FOUND. SYSTEM HALTED >> >> Michael > > > Could be worse than that... could say "Mass Halted". <http://www.heise.de/ct/schlagseite/2003/1/gross.jpg> regards, Gerhard
From: Sylvia Else on 5 Feb 2010 03:05 On 5/02/2010 5:28 PM, JosephKK wrote: > On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:08:20 +1100, Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > >> On 3/02/2010 5:44 AM, Nico Coesel wrote: >>> Vladimir Vassilevsky<nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> http://www.abvolt.com/misc/A330-200_Linux.JPG >>>> >>>> This is the TV console of A330 en route from Amsterdam to US. No movies >>> ^^^^^^ >>> You shouldn't be flying in a French airplane. I avoid flying with an >>> Airbus if I can. >>> >> >> Airbuses have been very safe. Just because there was a crash of one a >> while back doesn't make them unsafe. >> >> Boeings have crashed as well. >> >> Sylvia. > > By track record, the early Airbus 300s and 310s had an excessive landing > crash rates due to design vs training problems with the digital flight > controls which were very modal. This has since been resolved. The A300 and A310 had conventional controls. Sylvia.
From: Mycelium on 5 Feb 2010 03:13 On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:28:07 -0800, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:08:20 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > >>On 3/02/2010 5:44 AM, Nico Coesel wrote: >>> Vladimir Vassilevsky<nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> http://www.abvolt.com/misc/A330-200_Linux.JPG >>>> >>>> This is the TV console of A330 en route from Amsterdam to US. No movies >>> ^^^^^^ >>> You shouldn't be flying in a French airplane. I avoid flying with an >>> Airbus if I can. >>> >> >>Airbuses have been very safe. Just because there was a crash of one a >>while back doesn't make them unsafe. >> >>Boeings have crashed as well. >> >>Sylvia. > >By track record, the early Airbus 300s and 310s had an excessive landing >crash rates due to design vs training problems with the digital flight >controls which were very modal. This has since been resolved. When landing, big planes have what they refer to as a squish area right as they fall in over the runway. The C-17, having "blown flaps" experiences exactly ZERO lead in 'squish', so it fools the hell out of every first time C-17 pilot, especially if previously experienced with big craft.
From: Nico Coesel on 5 Feb 2010 14:46
Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: >On 3/02/2010 5:44 AM, Nico Coesel wrote: >> Vladimir Vassilevsky<nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> http://www.abvolt.com/misc/A330-200_Linux.JPG >>> >>> This is the TV console of A330 en route from Amsterdam to US. No movies >> ^^^^^^ >> You shouldn't be flying in a French airplane. I avoid flying with an >> Airbus if I can. >> > >Airbuses have been very safe. Just because there was a crash of one a >while back doesn't make them unsafe. Its not just about safety. Airbus airplanes make a crappy impression. Very little space for hand luggage. Small toilets. Everthing looks like it is going to fall apart from just looking at it. -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) -------------------------------------------------------------- |