Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily

In article <vljmlt$29vt3$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 16:10:55 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wibbled:

In article <vljiml$296n5$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 15:35:44 -0000 (UTC)

I think perhaps you should try to write some complex programs in
the Unix environment before making such categorial statement.

>
Don't be patronising.

>
Wow, that's rich coming from you, my guy.

>
"My guy?" LOL, how old are you, 12? :)
>

I've probably written more unix software in 30 years
than you've had hot dinners including a fully featured telnetd and numerous
other servers for work and play. And in the places I've worked which included
finance/banking, aerospace and government,

>
"For play" implies things that could be, or are, open source.
So post a link to code, then.

>
Nope, I like my relative anonymity here and I don't need to prove anything to
some twat with a chip on his shoulder getting worked up over technical trivia.

Ok.  So we're just supposed to take your word for it, I guess.
Got it.

Bluntly, I don't believe that any of this is true.  Your posts

>
Believe what you like, I couldn't give a rats arse.

You also have no evidence to back up your claims, it seems.

here show a distinct lack of relevant experience and knowledge.

>
Whatever you say genius.
>

*shrug* Feel free to look up some things that I've written, if
you like.  Perhaps you'll learn something.

>
Is this yours?
>
https://github.com/dancrossnyc

Yup, that's me.

Am I supposed to be impressed?

*shrug*  I think my credentials speak for themselves.  I really
don't care whether you're impressed or not.

- Dan C.