Linux-Advocacy Digest #452, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 14:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Chad
Myers")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Dave Martel)
linux too slow to emulate Microsoft ("Doug Ransom")
Re: OT Movies
Re: Good Tex Pdf Files was Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office
97/2000? (Steve Bellenot)
Re: OT Movies
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (cash)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Gary
Hallock")
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Ayende
Rahien")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Ayende
Rahien")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Bob
Hauck)
Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! (Dave Martel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 15:58:37 GMT
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 12 May 2001 13:50:48 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On 11 May 2001 21:38:02 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> > > > > Maybe because I'm using the new telnet server that MS provided with
> >> > > > > their new OS. Or does it not understand window resizing either?
> >>
> >> > go ahead, amaze us with why you wanted to use a text interface?
> >>
> >> Having trouble with reading comprehension again Jan? You still haven't
> >> answered the question about window resizing either.
> >
> >You know, I was using Solaris 2.7 and bash just yesterday and I resized the
> >window and nothing seemed to be affected. I was using vi and it didn't
> >detect the resize.
> >
>
> really? what kind of windows was it? xterm, dtterm....this seems to work
> just fine on my solaris 8 machine and my bash shell at work. I don't
> believe you.
Heh. Solaris 2.7 3/99 fresh install. Downloaded GZip and Bash
I'm using CDE (not OpenWindows). Open a new console window. Open man
for example, or vi, or anything really. Resize window. It won't update.
> >Perhaps some apps detect resizing, but most don't. Please remind me how
> >this is better than Windows again?
> >
>
> How about it works and Windows doesn't?
Well, maybe yours does, but mine didn't.
>
> >> I know that MS puts "features" into their products that do not actually
> >> work.
> >
> >So must Sun then.
> >
>
> Well, you're wrong again in this case.
If you tell me how to make screenshots in Solaris, I'll send you screenshots.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:01:22 GMT
"Michael Vester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
> > > >On unclustered/clustered category, Win2K wins *both* price/performance &
> > > >performance.
> > >
> > > By pitting only clustered Windows against only unclustered Linux,
> > > mostly.
> >
> > given that linux has never posted a single TPC result - you are wrong,
> > again.
> >
> Are you volunteering to pay for Linux TPC testing. A small problem with
> open source, free operating systesm; nobody is standing by with a billion
> dollars to run it through all the hoops.
If any company saw a benefit in using Linux to up their scores for their
product, it would've been used long ago.
Sun, IBM, BEA, HP, and Compaq all could stand to gain if they could get
better results in the TPC. Obviously, they've determined that Linux doesn't
offer this, so therefore there's no incentive to pay millions of dollars
if you know it's going to fail.
-c
<SNIP: talk of spanking monkeys or something>
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 10:14:51 -0600
On Sat, 12 May 2001 14:02:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James
Philips) wrote:
>My experience is very different. I know plenty of people who have used
>Windows happily for years without having to learn anything but how to use
>the GUI. Compare basic things like getting on the Internet using Linux
>rather than Windows, even with kppp it requires a lot more knowledge than
>just downloading a setup app from the ISP that does it all for you. I have
>seen a couple of Linux newbies give up at that stage when their ISP of
>choice wouldn't help them to connect using Linux.
>
>I find that most Windows users can get a system set up for word processing,
>games and internet access without needing to know anything much about the
>system. I find it hard to see how you can claim that the same is true for
>Linux.
One just has to choose the right linux for the task. SuSE is VERY easy
to set up on the internet. If you stick to the 1500 programs that come
with it - enough for any newbie - program installations are also fast
and easy.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Doug Ransom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Doug Ransom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 09:44:15 -0700
Microsoft has been accused of emulation rather than innovation, but look at
the last five years of linux history and you will see that linux is in fact
the emulator now. Unfortunately, the lag is huge.
COM was a great boon for developers, able to share compiled bits of code
written in different languages, and allowing apps to communicate with each
other easily. On linux, CORBA has barely taken off in the ActiveX emulation
project (Gnome) 5 years behind microsoft. On the microsoft platform, COM
and ActiveX are being tossed into the legacy bin as the common language
runtime is being rolled out. The common language runtime (and MSIL
instruction set) is a huge boon for developers and users and an open
standard (ECMA). COM, CORBA, and ActiveX are all junk compared to the
common language runtime. The user experience and developer experience will
be so much better with the common language runtime (part of .net on the
windows platform).
Does anyone know of any efforts to support the common language runtime on
linux? That would make the platform so much better and development of new
stuff much quicker.
-
Doug Ransom
remove the '-' characters to get my email address:
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
free x.509 Certificates at
http://www.thawte.com/certs/personal/contents.html
Help confuse spambots with bogus emails on your news postings
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OT Movies
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:49:54 GMT
On Fri, 11 May 2001 22:18:04 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I would love, just once, a movie show a real data center. Cluttered wires,
>non-color coordinated boxes. Things impossible to find, not because of
>security, but because of simple complexity.
>
>That would be cool.
I would just like to see, once, a real computer in a movie. Not those moronic
throwback to the 50's hollywood imaginations. Even if they show a real laptop,
they have some silly need to have text displayed at 50 baud with beeping or card
reader noises. I laughed myself blue when I saw an anderson-jacobson (?) 110
baud modem in "war games" (I think) enhanced with strings of christmas lights.
Oooo! Flashing lights and beeping! It must be thinking!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Bellenot)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Good Tex Pdf Files was Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office
97/2000?
Date: 12 May 2001 16:41:50 GMT
In article <9diqs7$b0l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I use LyX and add
>>
>> \usepackage{pslatex}
>> \usepackage[ps2pdf,pdftitle={My Document
>> Title},urlcolor=blue,linktocpage,letterpaper,colorlinks=true]{hyperref}
>>
>> in the preamble if I need PDF output.
>
>Another alternative it so to
>
>\usepackage{times}
>
>
>and then go through the latex->dvips|ps2pdf route. Unfortunately, you
>have to use the Times fonts since the (fantastic) cmr fonts have to be
>brought in as bitmaps, which is rotten.
This is false. Dvips has the power to use outline versions of the
cm fonts. For the TeX distribution we have installed all it takes
is doing dvips -Pcms foo.dvi
--
http://www.math.fsu.edu/~bellenot
bellenot <At/> math.fsu.edu
+1.850.644.7189 (4053fax)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OT Movies
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:50:58 GMT
On Sat, 12 May 2001 13:52:45 GMT, mmnnoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well that's nice that you work in such lovely datacenters but surely you
>agree that movies *never* capture the real appeal of technical work (for
>instance the complexity mentioned by the original poster).
The slightest hint of reality would be nice. Like the fact that digital timers
don't beep.
It's as if they were to always show kitchens with wood burning ovens.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:53:01 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Heh. Solaris 2.7 3/99 fresh install. Downloaded GZip and Bash
Chad can't read my answers, but maybe someone else can and perhaps
get some benefit.
> I'm using CDE (not OpenWindows). Open a new console window. Open man
> for example, or vi, or anything really. Resize window. It won't update.
Chad needs to use GNU vi or vim. Both will resize and show the
screen updates properly. vim will also support syntax-highlighting,
as well as a set of macros and options that puts it in a league with
Emacs. See http://www.vim.org.
Pretty funny to see a Win-bigot who actually uses Solaris.
> Well, maybe yours does, but mine didn't.
The ssh client that comes with the Cygwin port of GNU software
to Windows doesn't resize properly. Putty does. Hope that helps
someone.
> If you tell me how to make screenshots in Solaris, I'll send you screenshots.
Download and compile the GIMP. It will do screen-shots just fine.
In fact, I used it on my Windoze box at work to show some stupidity
that occurs in Outlook 2000. (Will post and link later.)
> -c
Chris (still killfiled by Chad, I guess)
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: cash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use.
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 09:52:39 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree with him. I have a MSEE, work for Intel, and have been using Linux
for 2 years. So you can't call me "brainless."
Even today, Linux users have to be careful about what HW they can use on
their Linux machines, whereas with a MSWindows machine, people don't even
know what hardware they're using.
For example, I have a HP ScanJet 3400C, that works on my six year old
Packard Bell Win95 machine, but will not work on my SUSE 7.0 box, which I
built myself. Why is that?
PS: If you've been able to get a HP ScanJet 3400C to work on you Linux,
machine, send me details, including what kernel/distro you use, and whether
you've got it working via paport or usb. Thanks.
Brian Craft wrote:
> In article <9daq5c$9bs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chaparral"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> We can all say what we want about how Windows sucks and that Linux is
>> the end-all-be-all, but after trying almost every Linux version to date,
>> the bottom line folks is that Mr Gates has made operating a home
>> computer easy enough for my great uncle to run. The Penguin still
>> doesnt come close!
>>
>> What Linux is VERY good at is the handling of servers... this is stuff
>> that you are expected to fiddle with and fine tune. Home users don't
>> want to fart around all day trying to figure out what to click and then
>> having barely predictable responses.
>>
>> So, Linux sucks hard for the home user but beats the hell out of
>> WinBlows on the server farm... especially when you can tell a client
>> that full-blown server software will only cost him $75 compared to $2000
>> plus for 2000Server!
>>
>> Microsoft will rule the home front for many years I think, but their
>> exorbitant pricing and draconian licensing policies will soon cause the
>> server market to dry up.
>>
>> Im done now.
>>
>>
>
> He's either a Troll, or an unexperienced Windoze user without enough
> brains to use Linux.
>
> Brian
>
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:06:52 GMT
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> I was referring to this Jan fellow, specifically. By the way he presents
> himself around here, he strikes me more as high school kid than a
> professional.
He's one of those high-school pseudo-genius science-jocks who always
manages to squirm out of the hellacious beatings he so richly deserves.
> While I may disagree with their business methods and curse their bugginess,
> I have a stake in whether or not MS screws themselves out of the high-end
> business market as the primary project I'm involved with is for that very
> platform in that very area. While my emotional side wants to see them get
> their just desserts, the rational side (the one that makes money) would
> rather that not happen because a great deal of work would have been expended
> for nothing. We want to port to alternative platforms but not before we're
> ready and able to do so.
I'm in kind of the same boat. Our client (SPAWAR) really is a Microsoft
house. They've got Novell running now, but will get rid of it in a
tremendously disruptive and expensive boondoggle which will benefit
EDS, Cisco, Microsoft, and a few other companies:
http://www.eds.com/nmci/nmci.htm
"The Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) is a massive,
enterprise-wide initiative that will make the full
range of network-based information services available
to Sailors and Marines for day-to-day activities and
in war. When initial operating capability is achieved
by the end of 2001, NMCI will give the Navy and Marine
Corps secure, universal access to integrated voice,
video and data communications. Afford pier-side
connectivity to Navy vessels in port. And link more
than 371,000 desktops across the United States as
well as sites in Puerto Rico, Iceland and Cuba."
Not only is this agenda laughably ridiculuous, but it will ensure
security mainly by taking control of the desktops of all users.
No NT/2000 user will have administrative rights on the user's own
machine. The cost per seat is something like $350 per month.
That's about $130 million. Not a bad haul in a year for one
project.
Our group will probably be forced make a local network, and then
have some kind of firewalled access to the rest of the network,
so that our admin access (we're developers, fer Cripe sake!)
won't affect the outside world. Of course, it'll cost, and
who knows who will foot the bill, and there will probably
be wrangling amongst all parties involved.
I got me a Linux boot disk a-waitin'. But the Navy's got
that brig a-waitin' just across the street!
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:21:08 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9djflb$qqk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > FreeBSD is the less-restricted one. You can add anything you want to
> > code with the BSD license and distribute it anyway that is still
> > compatible with the additions. Linux allows binary kernel modules
> > that are not GPL'd but does not encourage them by freezing the
> > interface, so it may turn out to be a dead end in software if more
> > hardware requires proprietary-licensed drivers and the vendors
> > aren't interested in supplying them for system that changes on a
> > whim.
>
> Yeah, I mis-read you, apperantly.
>
> I don't understand Linux attidue toward the kernel modules.
> Linux users constantly complain about not having drivers, but they also
give
> the drivers company no *choice* in the matter, because they would've to
> support a driver for every change in the interface.
> Any idea why Linux doesn't have a unified driver model?
> Most other OS has, AFAIK.
There is a trade-off between efficiency and frozen interfaces, but if you
haven't come up with the best way to do something in 10 years or so
you might as well give up and live with what you have. I'm not
sure I understand what you mean by a unified model. Novell made
a lot of noise a decade ago about a design that would let a single
x86 driver support Netware, Windows and Unix, but it was
universally ignored. I've always thought that it should be possible
to write a binary translator that understood the services and linkages
of SCO, SysV, BSD, Winx, Linux, etc. and could turn any driver
into any other, but then you might run into licensing issues.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 13:25:55 +0000
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <3afca21f$0$41634$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan Johanson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But did you think for a second - there are programs that can do this
> Windows too? Hmmm... isn't running a program from the GUI the same as
> running something from the CLI - sure, it is. It's a process off doing
> something for us and getting a result.
If you have an existing GUI that does this then great. If not, go hire
a programmer and in a few weeks time, you'll have a GUI. Now change
what you want do a little bit and wait a few more weeks for a new GUI
program. A good command line shell lets you do simple programming tasks
without ever realizing that you are writing a program.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 07:33:38 +0200
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Economic forecasting is more chaotic than weather
> forecasting because humans are involved. :-)
Actually, that isn't true.
Climate is quite easily predictable (climate being the long term stuff),
weather (short term) is quite hard because there are so many variables, and
you can't just include them all.
With humans, it's much easiers, because it's *much* harder to forsee one
people's movement than a whole bunch of them.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 07:39:30 +0200
"JS PL" <hi everybody!> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The US judicial system has already failed, it is now in the "fix" phase.
And
> who cares about what Europe thinks? Let them eat cake...err...Linux.
You *are* aware to the fact that Europe is bigger, stronger, more populated
and much richer than the US, don't you?
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:32:16 GMT
"Greg Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MPG.15668febb9c341fa98969a@news...
>
> I would agree with you if Microsoft deliberately created "those
> circumstances" and did it with the intent to monopolize. I find the
> whole Sherman Act bothersome because it's vague to the point where a
> company can't point to a specific time where its product became a
> monopoly.
Yes, I think we would all be better off if specific acts were outlawed
whether you had acheived a monopoly or not - things like offering
vastly different pricing to someone who does something to help
you destroy another competitor would float to the top of that list.
Of course ignoring the court order not to bundle IE seems to
be a problem any way you look at it...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 19:33:05 +0100
> If you think that desktop market is composed of masses of people who can
> and will write *print filters*- or even configure them- you are quite
> out of touch.
well, I've used Linux for 3 yrs now and haven't had to write a
printfilter.
-ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:32:18 GMT
On Fri 11 May 2001 08:01, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 11 May 2001 20:31:53
>>>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> This is incorrect. A true one-time-pad would be generated by
>> >> reading a naturally random source of noise that an attacker
>> >> would have great difficulty introducing patterns into. A good
>> >> example would be the timing between decays in a sample of a
>> >> radioactive isotope.
>>
>> Erik> Which is something an average person can get access to, how?
>>
>>Linux has a /dev/random as a source of true random bits. It's been
>>there for a few years. To generate random bits is simply reading from
>>this char device. I often do that in shell scripts with 'dd' piped to
>>'od'. How hard is that?
>
> Easy, as long as you ignore the "true" part of "true random bits". Such
> things are pragmatically useful, but they are not true randomness; using
> such a mechanism in cryptography is not theoretically secure.
>
Actually, /dev/random really *does* provide true randomness. Computer
hardware isn't perfectly deterministic, especially with regard to timing,
so drivers can extract small amounts of noise from the environment and feed
it to the /dev/random bitpool. It can't provide the quantity that a
dedicated source of randomness (like the i810 chipset's RNG) can churn out,
but it is cryptographically secure.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 08:37:26 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Download and compile the GIMP. It will do screen-shots just fine.
> In fact, I used it on my Windoze box at work to show some stupidity
> that occurs in Outlook 2000. (Will post and link later.)
Why use the GIMP for that?
Print Scrn copy the screen's contents to clipboard just fine.
Then any graphic program should be able to accept it.
Or did you mean save it to disk with GIMP?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 08:38:12 +0200
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3afca21f$0$41634$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan Johanson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > But did you think for a second - there are programs that can do this
> > Windows too? Hmmm... isn't running a program from the GUI the same as
> > running something from the CLI - sure, it is. It's a process off doing
> > something for us and getting a result.
>
> If you have an existing GUI that does this then great. If not, go hire
> a programmer and in a few weeks time, you'll have a GUI. Now change
> what you want do a little bit and wait a few more weeks for a new GUI
> program. A good command line shell lets you do simple programming tasks
> without ever realizing that you are writing a program.
A> It doesn't takes weeks to do GUI.
B> A good GUI allows you to do the same.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 08:40:19 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ieL6.16345$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9djflb$qqk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > FreeBSD is the less-restricted one. You can add anything you want to
> > > code with the BSD license and distribute it anyway that is still
> > > compatible with the additions. Linux allows binary kernel modules
> > > that are not GPL'd but does not encourage them by freezing the
> > > interface, so it may turn out to be a dead end in software if more
> > > hardware requires proprietary-licensed drivers and the vendors
> > > aren't interested in supplying them for system that changes on a
> > > whim.
> >
> > Yeah, I mis-read you, apperantly.
> >
> > I don't understand Linux attidue toward the kernel modules.
> > Linux users constantly complain about not having drivers, but they also
> give
> > the drivers company no *choice* in the matter, because they would've to
> > support a driver for every change in the interface.
> > Any idea why Linux doesn't have a unified driver model?
> > Most other OS has, AFAIK.
>
> There is a trade-off between efficiency and frozen interfaces, but if you
> haven't come up with the best way to do something in 10 years or so
> you might as well give up and live with what you have. I'm not
> sure I understand what you mean by a unified model. Novell made
> a lot of noise a decade ago about a design that would let a single
> x86 driver support Netware, Windows and Unix, but it was
> universally ignored. I've always thought that it should be possible
> to write a binary translator that understood the services and linkages
> of SCO, SysV, BSD, Winx, Linux, etc. and could turn any driver
> into any other, but then you might run into licensing issues.
I meant something like WDM, where you have one driver for 98,ME, 2000 & XP.
AFAIU, the same is not (always?) true for linux.
If somone could make Novel's idea into reality, it would be really great.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:43:57 GMT
On Sat, 12 May 2001 13:50:48 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You know, I was using Solaris 2.7 and bash just yesterday and I resized
> the window and nothing seemed to be affected. I was using vi and it
> didn't detect the resize.
Sure it did. It is just that vi doesn't have a lot of fancy borders or
anything that need to be reformatted when you change the size. But if
you run your cursor to the bottom of the window, it scrolls properly.
How could it do that unless it knows the window size?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent!
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 11:34:01 -0600
Please submit your votes for:
Most Talented Wintroll?
Least Talented Wintroll?
Most Pitiful Wintroll?
Most Likely Wintroll To Be Plonked?
Most Likely Wintroll To Be TOS'd?
Wintroll Most In Need Of A Good Spanking From His Mommy?
Feel free to explain your vote and/or to suggest other categories.
Naturally the contestants are not allowed to participate in the voting
and judging.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
