Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #25 Tue, 29 Feb 00 14:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (George Richard Russell)
Re: A Trip to the Store (George Richard Russell)
Re: IE on UNIX (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Martin Schenk)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: A Trip to the Store (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (Josiah Fizer)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Jeremy Nelson)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Rob Hughes")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Rob Hughes")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Chad Myers")
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Darren Winsper)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:16:10 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:37:55 +0000, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>George Richard Russell wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:53:43 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>You really can tell emacs was written by someone who used computers in the
>> >>1970's.
>> >
>> > Use they menus if you don't like the keybindings.
>>
>> Point me to them. In the console version.
>
>And you are complaining about 70's style programming?
Shrug. Even 80's dos based crap had *menus* Even CPM based stuff.
>> Or the keybindings to open and
>> navigate the bindings in the GUI (X|GNU(emacs)) versions, either.
>>
>> Menus should not be mouse accessible only,
>
>Why not?
Ye gods, because its a stupid limitation, easily fixable, yet left in since
those that wrote Emacs want menus (check box | ticked) but don't use them, and
hence, don't realise (care) how poorly done they are in emacs.
Its just bad design practice for GUI apps to force the use of the mouse.
>> nor nested 10+ deep. The UI is a
>> shambles.
>>
>
>No, it isn't.
really? 10 deep nested menus is an example of GUI design par execellence, then?
At least some GUI's have heard of dialogs, tabbed widgets, and moved on slightly
from sticking to menu and pointer only.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: A Trip to the Store
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:16:15 GMT
On 28 Feb 2000 00:30:33 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>(c) There exists modern hardware that does not work with Windows.
In the context of the discussion, the PC (x86 PC) based hardware market,
Name some of that that doesn't work with Windows (any version)
Try and wriggle by claiming subsets of Windows (NT, 2000, 3.1, whatever)
Its insane for a vendor of x86 PC hardware not to support a windows varient
( 9* or more)
Of course, they may not support every version, but working with Windows is
broader than with Windows vX.X
You can expect vendor drivers for windows (one or more versions) with hardware.
Its just not so with any other x86 based OS, Unixlike or not.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: 29 Feb 2000 17:20:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
:> There are about 5 filesystem projects. A couple of them are attempts
:> to redeploy FSes from commercial UNIXen. Then there are GFS,
:> ReiserFS, and ext3.
:>
:> There is a certain amount of duplicated effort, but the separation has
:> several virtues:
: I didn't say they do not have virtues. But one of the primary vices is that
: this approach takes many times longer than using the same resources for one
: or two projects alone. Many people in the open source community are content
: to wait as long as it takes, the business world generally is not.
I don't think this is necessarily the case. While debugging can
be very effectively parallelized over many users, development cannot
enjoy the same type of benefits. Throwing lots of developers at
a single piece of software is likely to make the software later
and buggier rather than the opposite.
The typical OSS-type growth model seems to progress like:
1) A large problem needs to be solved
2) Many OSS developers develop different paths to solve the problem,
none of which quite take care of it entirely (because the problem
is large - small problems are often solved in this step)
3) One or two OSS projects prove to be most successful and receive
the most support in solving the problem. At this step projects
usually branch into modularization, allowing many individual
developers to create seperate modules to solve niche problems.
4) The problem is effectively solved
This progression does involve wasted effort, but the weeding-out
phase would seem to take care of the "second systems effect"
by eliminating less than promising paths or even total
rewrites to compete with other projects. So in actuality, the
effort is not wasted at all; the effort has gone into proving
a particular path is less than optimal.
That's the way I see it.
------------------------------
From: Martin Schenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:21:21 +0100
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> >This assumes that there exist no third party binary only apps. This in
> >the long term is a dangerous assumption.
>
> No it doesn't. The concept of 'relink-at-install-time' actually
> has some precedent in Unix. As long as the standard system is
> considered to have a full build enviroment, this issue should
> never really be a problem.
>
On principle, I agree with this - but in practice this is not immune to
problems either. When installing Oracle, a lot of the stuff gets
relinked -
alas installing Oracle 8.0.5 on my SuSE 6.2 based machine (glibc 2.1
development, should run glibc2.0 and glibc2.1 binaries without problems)
did not work until I downloaded a different version of the C-compiler
and a special set of "glibc2.0-development on a glibc2.1-based system"
libraries (the SuSE help database explains what has to be done).
I also needed a different version of the Openlink drivers (to use the
ODBC API under linux) - and finally could not build me program with
Solid (another database, uses the ODBC API natively) anymore.
I'm sure that one can get all these things to work properly, but it
certainly is pain.
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:20:15 -0800
void wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:21:53 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Even with that false logic, why didn't they jump on Alpha, Microsoft had
> >pretty decent support for Alpha. If any ISVs started porting to it, Microsoft
> >would've upped it's already good support for Alpha.
> >
> >All the service packs, hotfixes, BackOffice products, and many of the
> >little add ons and features that you can download from Microsoft.com
> >are available for Alpha.
>
> What about the development tools? Were they shipping Alpha dev tools on
> the CDs they send out to developers?
>
Yup, all we devlopers got Visual Studio for Alpha and PPC. Not that I ever used
them, no market ya know.
>
> >Also, water is wet.
>
> Cite?
Water is not always wet, when subect to carbon freazing temps it can be rather
dry.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 03:26:16 +1000
"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:45:53 -0500, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> nospam> wrote:
> >
> >Lies? Pooky? Lies? You and MiG are the only liars around - how about
helping
> >MiG in proclaiming that NT is not a multiuser OS (he doesn't even know
the
> >definition) or are you at least smart enough to fail in that claim too.
>
> NT is a multiuser OS in the same sense that DOS is an OS at all.
> Technically it's multiuser, but single-user assumptions are buried
> throughout the code, and they have caused problems in multiuser
> environments and they will continue to do so.
Which of these single-user assumptions can you list ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 29 Feb 2000 17:33:20 GMT
On 29 Feb 2000 16:58:57 GMT, Jeremy Nelson wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Intellectual property" is a new beast and some of us feel that there are
>many who abuse society by claiming something to be "intellectual property"
>and demanding protection, when there is no "property" and there is no
>reasonable basis for "the right to property".
In case you're not clear on where I stand, I am talking about copyright.
I believe in this case, there *is* reasonable basis for the "right to
property", because the product in question arose from the authors labor.
Moreover, almost always ( unlike patented ideas ) impossible to reproduce
independently.
> Some of us would rather not
>see things which have for eons been common property turned into someone's
>private property
Huh ? If I write a software package, that software package has not been
common property "for eons". In fact, unless I release it, it is not
"common property" at all.
> simply becuase they force it upon us and _then_ tell us we
>are evil anti-capitalists because we dare to question their right to take
>from the public domain that which they are greedy for.
Again, it is clear that if you write a software package, that software package
does not instantaneously go into the "public domain". I have a lot of software
I wrote sitting on my hard drive that the world will never see.
Moreover, I would argue that the public has no legitimate ownership claim
to software that I write. I would argue that I have no obligation to make
everything I write public. You are making it sound as though the authors
of copyrighted software are "stealing" from the public. But the opposite
is true -- you are advocating that the public take software from these
authors. You are accusing these software authors of "greed" because they
refuse to share software *that is the fruit of their labor alone* with the
public.
The question is, should the author of a software package be able to choose
who they wish to share their software with ? IMO, the fact that I let one
person use my software does not put me under any sort of moral obligation
to let everyone else use it. And the person I allow to use the software has
no right to "share" it if they've explicitly agreed with me not to do so.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: A Trip to the Store
Date: 29 Feb 2000 17:37:55 GMT
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:16:15 GMT, George Richard Russell wrote:
>On 28 Feb 2000 00:30:33 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>(c) There exists modern hardware that does not work with Windows.
>
>In the context of the discussion, the PC (x86 PC) based hardware market,
>Name some of that that doesn't work with Windows (any version)
>
>Try and wriggle by claiming subsets of Windows (NT, 2000, 3.1, whatever)
I can name several pieces of hardware that won't work with NT.
Naming hardware that doesn't work with Win9x is a nobrainer ( hint: SMP )
Even Windows has its limitations.
However, that is completely beside the point. Szarka's claim was that Linux
"does not work with modern hardware", which is clearly a lie, because I
have modern hardware that Linux works just fine with.
>You can expect vendor drivers for windows (one or more versions) with hardware.
>Its just not so with any other x86 based OS, Unixlike or not.
Which is completely orthogonal to the fact that Linux installs on a lot
of modern hardware, contrary to Szarka's persistent lying.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:33:24 -0800
Christopher Smith wrote:
> "void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:45:53 -0500, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > nospam> wrote:
> > >
> > >Lies? Pooky? Lies? You and MiG are the only liars around - how about
> helping
> > >MiG in proclaiming that NT is not a multiuser OS (he doesn't even know
> the
> > >definition) or are you at least smart enough to fail in that claim too.
> >
> > NT is a multiuser OS in the same sense that DOS is an OS at all.
> > Technically it's multiuser, but single-user assumptions are buried
> > throughout the code, and they have caused problems in multiuser
> > environments and they will continue to do so.
>
> Which of these single-user assumptions can you list ?
A common System and System 32 folder? So that even if the user who logged in
hasn't installed MS Office they still need to have the freakin DLLs.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Nelson)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 29 Feb 2000 17:57:03 GMT
>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On 29 Feb 2000 16:58:57 GMT, Jeremy Nelson wrote:
>>"Intellectual property" is a new beast and some of us feel that there are
>>many who abuse society by claiming something to be "intellectual property"
>>and demanding protection, when there is no "property" and there is no
>>reasonable basis for "the right to property".
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In case you're not clear on where I stand, I am talking about copyright.
>I believe in this case, there *is* reasonable basis for the "right to
>property", because the product in question arose from the authors labor.
>Moreover, almost always ( unlike patented ideas ) impossible to reproduce
>independently.
Just to summarize the confusion that you and I have over this point,
I will point out that until relatively recently, there was no such
thing as the concept of copyright protection on -- for example -- music.
Did not Mozart, Bach, Beethoven all survive and do reasonably well
in their field of endevours despite their music being in the public domain?
These are just three big names, but there were a myriad of composers
whose works were all completely unprotected (ie, it was not their ``private
property''), yet they were still able to do that as their day job...
If I am technically incorrect and all of these three did enjoy copyright
protection for their music, then I am certainly interested in being
corrected.
Jeremy
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Four
Lines
Suffice.
------------------------------
From: "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:58:50 -0600
"asrmj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> fred wrote:
<deleted>
> > I suspect if he had installed the system with the Zip drive in place
> > to begin with, he would not have this issue. Or if he had arranged
> > his SCSI ID's properly to begin with, he would not have this issue.
>
> Wrong. SCSI devices are supposed to be detected by the operating system
> at boot (and SCSI IDs assigned to them from the OS point of view), and
> if the OS is really good then all this should be reconfigurable during
> functioning. It's the whole difference between IDE and SCSI (and fibre
> channel, and USB...). If you still have to monkey around with stupid
> installs and reinstalls then the operating system is unusable. It is
> obviously the operating system's fault. I was not expecting this
> continued ignorance level from the ms crowd (sorry). These postings have
> been very informative. Send more.
>
> asrmj
heh... uhm... no. The OS does not enumerate SCSI ids. The SCSI card BIOS
does that, or, in the case of controllers without a BIOS, the driver which
has the BIOS functions wrapped up in it performs that function. At no time
should the OS ever attempt to enumerate anything at this level, unless you
consider direct hardware access a virtue and not a liability.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:12:53 -0600
"petilon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Anonymous Coward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I'm not the one trolling out a one-trick pony.
>
> What do you mean, "one-trick"? Did you not see my post about
> pcAnywhere crashing Windows 2000? FYI, there are 62998 other
> "tricks", although I haven't found them all yet.
Again, genuis, pcAnywhere wasn't written by MS. How, on god's green earth,
can whatever excuse you use for a mind come to the conclusion that this is a
problem in windows? This is exacly akin to me calling a crappily written and
crashing xserver a bug in *NIX
> >>You are justifying this serious bug in
> >>Windows 2000 --
> >> -- by saying Linux --
> >> -- has the same problem too?
> >
>
> I see you have modified my question to suit your purposes.
> The original question was quite embarrassing to you Windows
> advocates, wasn't it? But I am not going to let you get away
> with it, so here it is once again, in its original form:
Nah... but your repeated trolling is rather embarrising to you.
> Have you no shame? You are justifying this serious bug in
> Windows 2000 -- a product that corporations pay hundreds of
> thousands of dollars to Microsoft for -- by saying Linux --
> a FREE product -- has the same problem too?
I myself am not trying to justify anything. The point is that windows isn't
the only one with this issue.
> >Not a serious bug; you are trying to make this out
> >to be a Showstopper, when it hardly rates listing as a
> >Request for Enhancement (IMO).
> >You seem to be engaged in serious reality distortion by
> >blowing your problem far out of proportion, especially
> >in light of the help others here have given you (Linux and
> >Windows advocates alike) in getting your system set up
> >properly.
>
> Why don't you admit that the Windows boot loader really is
> lacking? Not only will Microsoft's boot loader not boot
> competing operating systems, their boot loader will not even
> boot their own operating systems!
Hey... feel free to submit request for additional functionality.
> Not taking advantage of the SCSI id is only one of the problems
> with the Windows boot loader. For another problem, consider
> the fact that it is extremely hard to get their boot loader to
> boot Windows 98. If your hard disk already had Win98 on it when
> you installed Windows 2000 then you're OK, but installing
> Windows 98 on a hard disk that already has Windows 2000 is very
> hard. In my case Windows 98 is on my Jaz disk, yet, there is
> no easy way (almost impossible) to add an entry to boot.ini to
> boot Windows 98 from the jaz disk!
Yes, and your point? Everyone who deals with windows is already aware of
this and knows how to deal with it.
> I have researched this issue on Microsoft's website and I have
> come to the conclusion that their boot loader is brain-dead.
> To boot Windows 98 from the jaz disk, I apparently have to
> get the contents of the boot sector of the jaz disk and put it
> in a separate file etc. This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Again, your point? That you don't like the way things are and so you're
going to keep throwing this same temper tantrum until someone agrees that
yes, this is in fact a huge, earth shattering bug and that all copies of
windows thus far shipped should be recalled, windows projects cancelled, and
MS publicly appologize, plus give everyone a million dollars for their
trouble?
> If you research these issues and compare with boot loaders of
> other operating systems you will come to the same conclusion:
> The Windows boot loader is brain-dead.
That's the third time you've said that.
> >>Do you realize decent enterprise operating systems such as
> >>Solaris don't have this problem?
> >
> >Others here have claimed it does... can you explain what
> >methods it uses to accomplish this? And how it would have
> >handled the install configuration that you had set up when
> >you installed Windows 2000?
>
> I have already explained what Windows 2000 could have done --
> copy the SCSI miniport driver to the root directory and use
> this driver in the boot process. I have now manually setup
> Windows 2000 to boot like this. So Windows 2000 Setup program
> could easily have done this for me. Instead they made the Setup
> program brain-dead too.
And it would have if you had installed it with the hardware config you say
it won't boot on. Also, are you saying that all your installs of other OSes
have been completely trouble free?
> (By the way, I found the Setup program will not use the scsi()
> syntax even if I turn on all drives when installing Windows
> 2000.)
Why don't I believe you? What did you screw up now?
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 29 Feb 2000 18:29:53 GMT
On 29 Feb 2000 17:57:03 GMT, Jeremy Nelson wrote:
>>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>Just to summarize the confusion that you and I have over this point,
>I will point out that until relatively recently, there was no such
>thing as the concept of copyright protection on -- for example -- music.
>Did not Mozart, Bach, Beethoven all survive and do reasonably well
>in their field of endevours despite their music being in the public domain?
Yes. At that stage, there did not exist the tools necessary to perform
the kind of piracy we see today. Hell, there didn't even exist media
on which to record the music until some time around the turn of the century.
>These are just three big names, but there were a myriad of composers
>whose works were all completely unprotected (ie, it was not their ``private
>property''), yet they were still able to do that as their day job...
Not all the big composers did it as "their day job". Moreover, the music
of that day certainly lacked the diversity of modern music, due to the
fact that it very few people could compose. Moreover, the only tastes catered
to where those who had the money to fund the composers.
>If I am technically incorrect and all of these three did enjoy copyright
>protection for their music, then I am certainly interested in being
>corrected.
The protection these composers enjoyed was a lack of technology. It
was somewhat more difficult to distribute copies of a performance back
then.
I put it to you that the fact that something is true for 17th century
musicians does not automatically make the same thing true for 21st century
developers. The technology and economics were both somewhat different.
A better example is today's software market. If you want to see where we'd
be without copyright protection of any sort, you only need to look at what
free software has produced. Take note of this -- todays' free software
word processors are behind those that were available 15 years ago ( on
the Mac ) Forcing all software to be free would not help the software
industry. Forcing users to use Emacs and Latex might make the GNU-zealots
happy, but it won't help the users.
Another issue is this -- if copyright was not available, software companies
would use technological measures instead. These technological measures make
life more inconvenient for users and divert resources ( into the rat race
between making and breaking these measures ) that could be better spent
elsewhere. The users would be left between choosing to put up with the
inconveniences of this "security" or settle for whatever free software can
offer them.
Moreover, there's this issue:
If you claim that good software can be developed without copyright protection,
then why not just develop software that's just as good as the proprietary
stuff and hand it out for free ? If software really can be developed without
these protections, then the proprietary software industry will be dead in
no time flat. The problem of course is this -- free software has not been
able to completely replace commercial alternatives, and so instead of
competing ( by writing better software ), you choose to resort to
advocating vandalism ( by attacking the revnue base of what is the only
model that is proven to be viable for developing end user applications ).
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:25:27 -0600
"Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[SNIP Windows is not a multi-user OS]
> > Which of these single-user assumptions can you list ?
>
> A common System and System 32 folder? So that even if the user who logged in
> hasn't installed MS Office they still need to have the freakin DLLs.
Does not Un*x have /lib?
Does not un*x have globally installed applications?
With Windows2000 TS, you can have individual user-installed apps, and
system-wide available apps.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "need to have the freakin DLLs".
Office97 is commonly installed as a system-wide app. There about
3 DLLs installed in the System32 dir (1 with a default install, 3 if
you select certain options).
If the user doesn't run Office97, or is not permitted to use it
(the admin won't allow it), then what has the user lost performance
wise?
Sure, the DLL is in the System32 folder, but it's not loaded and
not resident in memory. So what's the big deal?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: 1 Mar 2000 02:58:48 GMT
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:55:16 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <OBJECT> ??
>
> Well, I'll be. Replaces <IMG>, too.
Indeed, although it did some funny things when I tested it in Mozilla
(Wouldn't work at all in Netscape). Images seemed to overlap with a
table it was supposed to be next to and it wouldn't render any html
files I tell it to. It's a shame since I wanted to use OBJECTS instead
of SSI since I don't believe Sourceforge allow me to use it.
> <OBJECT data="canyon.png" type="image/png">
> This is a <EM>closeup</EM> of the Grand Canyon.
> </OBJECT>
>
> OBJECTS are also allowed to execute Python scripts (.py), as well.
Yes and no. OBJECTS can execute whatever you tell it to, assuming the
User Agent is capable of executing it.
> Powerful stuff. Presumably, it could even include other HTML
> files, Active Server Pages, Java Server Pages, Tcl/TK scripts,
> and anything else the browser supports.
Indeed, although Mozilla's support seems flaky, although that might
just have been a quirk in the nightly I used. I'll test it again and
if it doesn't work I guess I'll create a Bugzilla account.
> Of course, the <PARAM> stuff transfers right over, too.
>
> Wow. I learn something new every day. :-)
:)
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
"Microsoft is estimating that 28,000 of these [bugs] are likely to be 'real'
problems [in Windows2000]."
-http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2436920,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
