Whatever delusion helps you sleep at night, sicko. You're the one trolling the Apple news groups. You won't find a single post from me in your beloved Android news groups because I'm not the sicko here with a burning need to disrupt and belittle total strangers simply because of their choice to use a certain product or platform - that's *your* sick game. : )
Meanwhile...
LOL! What a joke! : D Keep eating your own words, dimwit. : )
In , Jolly Roger suggested:
The difference between you and nospam is that nospam *purposefully* misunderstood everything stated in the linux thread you speak of.
That's because he's actually intelligent but he's just not used to dealing with people off the iOS newsgroups who actually can handle detail.
In your case, it's not on purpose.
In , nospam suggested:
The record will show that the Linux people had to tell you *multiple* times that you were dead wrong in almost everything you said.
Do you want me to prove my statements with the cites to the thread?
You know I only speak verifiable facts.
Nospam says (clueless):
Frank Slootweg replies (correctly) He *has* said what the problem is. Sofar the only one having no idea is you.
Nospam says (incorrectly): > You don't want a fixed IP address on a phone. Carlos replies (correctly): Not true, he does.
Nospam says (incorrectly):
Frank Slootweg replies: There's no 'guessing' involved. A static IP *is* the solution.
Nospam says (incorrectly):
Carlos replies (correctly): It will work everywhere perfectly as it is.
Nospam says (incorrectly):
Carlos replies (giving up on nospam's idiocy): Your opinion noted.
This goes on for days on end, where nospam is dead wrong, doesn't understand the question, doesn't like the solution, until the Linux people just five up on him.
Here's just one of many of those conversations:
Nospam says (incorrectly):
Pascal replies (correctly): In your uninformed/pig-headed opinion. To compensate for your extreme clue-resistance, I'll give you two clue-by-fours: - It's common to describe a problem where? - It's irrelevant that it's a phone. It has exactly nothing to do with the device being a phone. He actually *first* uses the term "device" several times, before he talks about "phone".
There's more (lots more) but the point is that you get your head handed to you whenever you stray off of the iOS newsgroups because you just make everything up.
I only state verifiable facts. You just make everything up.
In , Jolly Roger suggested:
And yet, while I know nothing, I clearly know far more than you do.
Fancy that.
In , Jolly Roger suggested:
If I'm a "dimwit", what does that make you?
i didn't misunderstand *anything* in that thread.
several people there, including you, do not understand the difference between a static ip and reserved dhcp (which is sometimes called static dhcp, a possible source of confusion because of the contradictory name, something, which i mentioned early on) and even more who did not realize that the device name via dhcp is all that's needed, which can be set on the device and sometimes the router, no need for reserved dhcp at all (although that is sometimes helpful anyway).
tl;dr there's little to configuration needed, certainly not setting a static ip.
the question is do *you* want to make a bigger fool of yourself than you already have.
it looks like that answer to that is yes.
i also know that you continue to lie.
all frank does is argue.
he's the one who said that it's illegal to have an unswitched 12v power outlet in a car.
carlos is wrong. you don't.
a fixed ip on a phone is very bad.
he's wrong. there is no need for a static ip, and not only is it *not* the solution, but it *creates* many problems.
the solution is to either use reserved dhcp or better yet, let dns handle everything.
ftp myandroidphone (or whatever name you want). done. nothing to configure, other than deciding what to name your phone.
nope. it definitely won't everywhere. he's wrong, as are you.
the moment that phone with its fixed ip associates with a network other than your own (i.e., *any* public hotspot) problems can (and likely will) occur because there's no guarantee that its ip won't conflict with one that is already in use. common sense.
translated "i don't actually understand any of this stuff, so i'll just call it an opinion and pretend i do."
carlos refuses to learn anything. he insists that it costs money to use google voice. it doesn't.
except for everyone who agreed with me, including jeff lieberman, who can configure a network while blindfolded.
his reply (which was *very* long and detailed, as his posts often are) went into gory detail why your idea is stupid and why reserved dhcp is the way to go.
tl;dr reserved dhcp and/or dns. *not* static ip.
true. you do not.
definitely wrong.
In , nospam suggested:
Your observation that everyone on the linux group cited is wrong, and you're always correct (even sans a shred of fact), is duly noted.
In , nospam suggested:
Do you really want me to quote again all the times in that thread where respectable people handed you your head?
Constantly you misunderstood the OP and even finally admitted it, reluctantly way later (because multiple people pointed it out to you).
Repeatedly when you made unsubstantiated claims, they handed you your head, to the point that they just gave up and said "your opinion duly noted" time and time and time again.
You don't know what that means?
Remember, I always speak verifiable fact. You just make everything up.
You get away with it on the iOS newsgroups because they're a gullible lot. But on the Linux newsgroup - they just hand you your head.
Proof is in the record. Go ahead, challenge my facts.
In , nospam suggested:
Why is it that I can list a score of functionality that Android does that iOS can't hope to do without jailbreaking?
Absolutely none of which can you don on an Apple iOS device/
You know why?
It's not the hardware. Apple hardware is in the top 10% of hardware out there.
While Apple is never going to be the best at anything, being in the top 10% of mobile device hardware is pretty good.
But being in the bottom of functionality is pretty bad. It's not the hardware that cripples what iOS can do.
It's Apple who cripples what iOS can do.
i didn't say everyone was wrong. stop lying
i didn't say that either but in this case i am.
plenty of evidence was provided. stop lying.
actual respectable person, such as jeff lieberman, agreed with what i said and even called you an idiot for your crazy plan.
why do you talk about yourself in the third person? the op was you, and i didn't misunderstand anything. stop lying.
...
why is it that every time you do, it's refuted? why is it you ignored the numerous things ios can do that android can't?
why does it matter? nobody but you gives a shit.
just about of it can be done, most with little to no effort, and according to you, the amount of effort expended does not matter.
In , Jolly Roger suggested:
Since you have never once added technical value to any conversation, it would be a miracle if you mustered the brains to simply follow your own advice.
In , nospam suggested:
Everything I say is verifiable fact. You?
You just make it all up.
In , nospam suggested:
You completely misunderstood the question (proved in the prior post) and now you completely misrepresent what Jeff (and others) said.
What you forget (which was in the original post) is that it was a technical question asking about why something so simple works so well - so it was always known from the start that there could be technical issues (to flesh out being the entire point of the thread).
Dan Purgert responds to the setup explained in the original post: totally agree this works.
Nospam insists the problem wasn't stated in the original post:
Carlos E.R. corrected nospam:
Nospam finally replied: eventually, he did, and the reason is valid.
Nospam proves he doesn't understand how Android works: >> On Android, the IP address on the phone is set "per access point"! > > no it isn't. Carlos E.R. responds: Yes it is. Look it up on your phone.
Jeff Liebermann agreed that it will work, and explained why: In theory, if one sets a static IP address for some (mobile) device on a network managed by a router, the router will be able to detect the presence of that device, it's MAC address, and what IP address it is using by one of the aforementioned methods. It will then not assign in use addresses via DHCP.
Jeff Liebermann even explained why nospam's solution could be bad: Of course, there's a security problem with sequentially assigning IP addresses via DHCP.
Nospam continues to misunderstand the problem set:
Carlos E.R. corrects him time and time again: The fixed IP setting applies only to a single SSID. Does not affect other networks. When he goes out, the phone will connect to a different SSID and use the configuration for that different SSID, which is "auto", ie, "DHCP".
Nospam insists:
Dan Purgert correctly responds: Bear in mind that for android devices, you can set the IP address settings on a per-SSID basis. Therefore, unless he connects to a network with the same SSID, but a different addressing scheme, the approach will cause him no grief.
Carlos E.R. says (correctly):
To which nospam replies (incorrectly):
And to which Whiskers corrects nospam: Why? He only needs to set the static IP for his home network, not for any others. Once set, each network will be recognised automatically by his phone and use the settings created specifically for it
Nospam says (incorrectly):
Carlos E.R. responds (correctly): He doesn't have to change anything. Just move and continue using the phone normally.
Nospam continues to say (incorrectly): > except when it doesn't. Carlos E.R. (exaperated) simply replies: Your wrong opinion noted.
In , nospam suggested:
You're already misunderstanding the original post again.
You can get away with just making things up with the gullible iOS users, but not with those on the linux and android newsgroups.
I only listed verifiable facts.
Nospam misses the entire question in the original post: > he has not stated the problem he needs to solve and has demonstrated > that he knows very little about networking. Carlos ER responds (correctly): Yes, he did say it. And it is a legitimate reason.
Nospam incorrectly stated: > he has not stated the problem he needs to solve and has demonstrated > that he knows very little about networking. William Unruh correctly replied: > I am so sorry. I know it is a terrible thing to have your memory go. > He HAS said why. Nospam finally admitted that the original question was always clear: eventually he did, but not initially.
Nospam counters erroneously time and time again: > he has not stated the problem he needs to solve and has > demonstrated that he knows very little about networking.
Framk Slootweg correctly replies: He *has* stated the problem he needs to solve. And you'd better worry about your reading/comprehension problems than about his alleged lack of networking knowledge.
Nospam says (incorrectly): > he hasn't said *why* he wants this
Frank Slootweg counters correctly: He *has* said why he wants/needs this - a fixed ip address on his phone while at home -, but as usual you spout all kind of bollocks without even knowing what the problem is. And yes, his want/need *is* a legitimate one.
Nospam says (incorrectly): > Google "address reservation". > You don't want a fixed IP address on a phone. Carlos replies (correctly): Not true, he does.
Nospam says (incorrectly): > that's not a why. Framk Slootweg responds: Duh! I said "He *has* said". I.e. you said he hasn't, I say he has.
You might want to look up the concept of 'context'.
The "a fixed ip address on his phone while at home" is an elaboration of "this", because it would be silly to talk about "this" if it isn't clear what "this" refers to.
Nospam continues to say that the original post didn't ask the question: >>> he has not stated the problem he needs to solve and has demonstrated >>> that he knows very little about networking. >> >> I am so sorry. I know it is a terrible thing to have your memory go. >> He HAS said why. > > eventually he did, but not initially. Carlos E.R. responds again: He did, on the first post:
Nospam then starts obsess> "Static is fixed, not changing.
Nospam replies: technically true
Nospam opines: > it's a horrible idea because he'd have to change it every time he > leaves the house and back again when he returns. Carlos E.R. responds: Not at all.
Nospam says (incorrectly): > his *guess* is that a static ip is the solution without realizing all > the problems it will cause for both himself and others.
Frank Slootweg responds correctly: There's no 'guessing' involved. A static IP *is* the solution.
Nospam says (incorrectly): > he never said what the problem is, so nobody, including you, > has any idea.
Frank Slootweg responds correctly: He *has* said what the problem is. Sofar the only one having no idea is you.
Nospam says (incorrectly): > there is no valid reason why a *phone* needs a static ip address. Frank Slootweg responds correctly: In your uninformed/pig-headed opinion.
Nospam retorts incorrectly: > You want it in DHCP so it will work anywhere. Carlos replies correctly: It will work everywhere perfectly as it is.
Pascal Hambourg agrees: A static address for a device is set on the device, not on the router
Nospam erroneously responds: > it's a horrible idea because he'd have to change it every > time he leaves the house and back again when he returns.
Nospam says (incorrectly): > there is no valid reason why a *phone* needs a static ip address. Frank Slootweg replies (correctly): In your uninformed/pig-headed opinion. To compensate for your extreme clue-resistance, I'll give you two clue-by-fours:
Nospam says (incorrectly): > no it definitely is *not*. a static ip *will* cause problems, > both for him *and* others. Frank Slootweg responds: You seem to think that your use of terms is some kind of standard. Guess what, it isn't!
Nospam repeatedly gets the original question wrong: > As such not having to figure out what the IP address of the phone is > each time he does so is a convenience and he wants that convenience. William Unruh correctly responds: if he was interested in convenience, he wouldn't be asking about static ips. he'd be asking about dns so he doesn't need to remember any ips.
Nospam says his opinion:
Carlos E.R. (exasperated) replies: Your opinion noted.
In , nospam suggested:
It has already been established that there is nothing functional or useful that Apple iOS devices can do that Android doesn't already do.
If there were, someone (anyone) would be able to name just one.
Even the vaunted Apple iOS mobile device cameras provide no better output than Android cameras already do.
And yet, that there is plenty of functionality (e.g., automatic call recording, bit torrenting apps, launchers, app drawers, wifi and cellular graphical scanners, ability to organize desktops, etc.) that Apple iOS devices don't have.
Those are the facts (not your opinion).
i gave a list of a dozen or so and you haven't refuted a single one and there are several more i thought of after i posted those.
not that it matters. it's not a race. heck, some android phones can do things other android phones can't, which you of course, ignore.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.