Linux-Advocacy Digest #463, Volume #25 Wed, 1 Mar 00 21:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Drestin
Black")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Drestin Black")
Re: w64k - the bugs are being found ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition (Damien)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Drestin
Black")
Re: ProSplitter 2000 is released FREE for Linux ("Drestin Black")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Rob Hughes)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Peter Seebach)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Peter Seebach)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Peter Seebach)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Peter Seebach)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian ("Colin R. Day")
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian ("Colin R. Day")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:07:09 GMT
On 1 Mar 2000 19:51:08 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:47:41 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> How exactly has the bloatware brigade progressed since then
>> and why would most people care? Most people put up with the
>
>Laughable in the extreme. I won't even dignify that with an answer.
If you can't answer it then we have no reason to believe
that you have any awareness of the answer and you're just
recycling someone else's rhetoric.
Nothing is obvious.
>
>Suffice it to say that most users don't want to live in caves and don't
>want to compute with 80s software. Go hide in your cave if you like, but
>don't expect other users to join you.
People quite often compute using only mid-80's range of functionality.
Mind you, we're talking mid-80's for the rest of the computing industry
that wasn't following MS's lead and holding onto DOS for dear life.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 20:05:11 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Microsoft has the habit of "proving" that their products can handle the
> job. Hotmail not running NT, by now, absolutely proves that MS can't do
> it. When (if) Hotmail runs on NT, you can tell me I'm wrong, but at this
> point in time, it is not like MS to not convert an acquisition to NT, so
> there must be a problem in doing so.
You'll find that this logic fails scrutiny. There are a billion reason why
hotmail is not running NT right now. You've chosen your list but that is by
no means exhaustive.
We can guess all we'd like but we'll not know until a fact presents itself.
We can however make some logical conclusions.
It's patently silly to suggest that NT (4 or 5, take your pick) cannot
handle the load hotmail has. Sites much larger that hotmail.com run NT4 and
now NT5 - so that is not the issue.
hotmail is really nothing more than a large database application. Do I even
need to mention that SQL Server is one of the most powerful database servers
out there? IIS and SQL server work very nicely together.
Think: you claim to be a programmer with windows knowledge and os knowledge.
Think - what part of running hotmail.com do you think NT/IIS cannot handle?
What specifically do you think is so special about hotmail that you think NT
could not handle it? Try to be honest in your approach. Don't forget that
pretty much all the leading e-commerce sites run NT/IIS and many of them are
MUCH more complicated applications than hotmail.
Given proof that NT/IIS has handled much larger/harder tasks than hotmail
presents - I think it's safe to conclude it's not a technical issue that
holds them back.
Can you now allow youself to consider that there are _other_ issues? Perhaps
something in the purchase agreement. Perhaps a purely political one. Perhaps
something we simply have no knowledge of. PERHAPS MS plans to simply do away
with hotmail and replace it with some form of MSN service? I mean - again,
there are zillions of possibilites ... but to continue to blindly spue
claims nt cannot handle hotmail is a display of pure ignorance. It reduces
your credibility because it's very obvious to anyone with experience on the
web that NT/IIS is in fact more than capable of handling even the largest
web loads. Look at any list of biggest websites and you'll always find
NT/IIS at or near the top. You can pretend but that won't change the facts.
Finally... what will you be left to say when hotmail does run under w2k...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:09:31 GMT
On 1 Mar 2000 19:44:59 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:47:41 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> You, nor any of your other Bloatware worshipers have yet
>> to demonstrate why most, if not a vast majority, of end
>> users WOULDNT be suitably served by RTF.
>
>The ones that can live with RTF can also live with Wordpad. The fact that
Not likely. A document processor is more than just the sum
of the visual elements it can generate. There is also the
interface to consider.
>users seem to buy word would indicate that not everyone wants to settle for
>RTF. While not all users need a real word processor, there are a lot of
>users who want and use features like embeddable components ( especially
>spreadsheets and equations ), styles, etc.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:07:54 GMT
On 1 Mar 2000 19:49:25 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:51:44 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>On 1 Mar 2000 02:30:28 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is a truely assinine comment.
>>
>> If anything, it is proprietary software that causes product
>> to be 'rammed' down people's throats. This is the aspect of
>
>So your solution is to propose that OpenSource software be rammed down
>peoples throats instead? The only thing that causes anything to be
Take your bad rhetoric and go to a religion group.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 20:08:49 -0500
"Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > Which is why I focus on NT and not W9x, hence the choice of this
particular
> > newsgroup :)
>
> Bah.. I keep forgetting 90% of the posts in cola are in comna too... was
> thinking you were in cola.
No problemo.
>
> > I know exactly what in Decent you are talking about :) While you'll hear
NT
> > advocates talk about drivers drivers and drivers (with an occasional
"stupid
> > admin" thrown in for good measure) - if you talk to a W9x advocate
you'll
> > hear drivers about 4 more times with "remove the old ones first" thrown
in
> > for good measure
>
> I actually look forward to the day that MS has an OS out that's as stable
as NT
> (which IME still isn't as stable as *nixes are) but has all the game
> playability, TV tuner support and DVD hardware decoder support that 9x
does...
I have good news. Windows 2000 does just that. It's the single most stable
version of windows and has the most features and hardware support of all
versions.
>
> But if I had all those under Linux, I'd go there in a heartbeat fulltime.
I run
> Solaris and Linux boxes 24/7 and only use windows for games, and DVDs... I
use
> it for my TV tuner too (it runs under Linux, but I switch between it and
DVDs
> often and don't want to reboot everytime I do).
Personally, and not being sarcastic, if I could find one reason to run Linux
I would run it again - but I sat down one day and tried to find one single
thing I needed linux for. One thing that linux did that W2K could not...
When that failed I started to think of anything that linux did easier? (that
took less time) Finally I deleted the partion, expanded my W2K into it and
kept going (without rebooting of course)
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: w64k - the bugs are being found
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 20:09:38 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89ke57$1re$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> and another one:
> >>
>
> > sounds like another one, kinda. I mean, what kinda weirdo creates
zillions
> > of 0 byte files to expand to 768 bytes?
> > But... ok, 2.
>
> What kinda weirdo runs two concurrent root display applications under
> linux?
>
> Not many, but I think it certianly goes to show that it can be done, dont
> you?
>
exactly! see my point!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 02 Mar 2000 01:17:05 GMT
On 1 Mar 2000 23:07:40 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > That MS uses
| >incompatibilities in document formats to create vendor lock and
| >promote continous and costly upgrading?
|
| That sounds like a "conspiracy theory". It might have some truth in it but
| not as much as you think.
Don't conspiracies by definition involve more then one
person/orginzation?
| Most other vendors of office suites also use
| their own documentt format which is no more "standard" than the one that MS
| use. The lack of standards is the one thing that makes writing *any*
| filter a PITA. Most so called filters do little more than convert the
| document to rtf then import it. Any logical markup and embedding/linking
| is typically lost.
True. I here by propose we all switch to exclusivly Tex, ASCII, and
SGML file formats. All in favor, say aye.
--Damien
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:14:37 GMT
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:55:24 -0500, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 04:10:11 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:89ic0f$1dn1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:89hk8p$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
>> >> >> >> buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
>> >> >> >> system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
>> >> >> >> should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
>> >> >> >> that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
>> >> >> >> Protection" does for me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Hey, moron, it doesn't modify system files. It installs itself
>> >> >> > as a driver. It's not modifying system files, and therefore
>> >> >> > there's no system files to protect.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then how in the world does it crash such an advanced operating
>> >> >> system?
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Similar to how X can hang Linux requiring a hard reboot?
>> >>
>> >> See, everyone keeps saying this and I actually have never once
>> >> seen this happen.
>> >
>> >Fire up X with a reasonably complex WM and some svgalib program like
>squake.
>> >Flick between the X and squake VTs until the machine locks.
>>
>> This is a contrived example that merely demonstrates that
>> trying to bit bang the same hardware with two root mode
>> apps concurrently is a stupid idea.
>
>it may be contrived but it does demonstrate linux hanging - just a quicky
>way to demonstrate that this is in fact possible. There are others...
Demonstrate on.
Hopefully they will not be an example of two applications
trying to do low level manipluation on the same hardware
at the same time.
Ever get 2 DirectX games running on NT at once?
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 20:11:14 -0500
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 19:39:34 -0500, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >>
> >> Both Chad's and Drestin's rebuttal argument to Joseph's post is
> >> absolutely moot. MS is runnig UNIX at their hotmail site.
> >>
> >> That speaks volumes for NT and W2K. End of story!
> >
> >weak... very weak...
>
> Microsoft can't make it work with their own OS. They have
> to depend on the product of their primary competitor. They
> can't do that which they expect all their customers to do.
your argument hinges on "can't make it work" - this is the part that is
entirely unfounded and, upon examination, unlikely in the extreme. your
argument fails.
MS does not run hotmail.com on NT/IIS for some reason. reason x. None of us
know reason x - but to assume it's because NT/IIS cannot handle the task is
the safest WRONG answer you can choose. But it's the only one that fits an
anti-ms program, i guess...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: at.linux,aus.computers.linux,comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: ProSplitter 2000 is released FREE for Linux
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 20:13:54 -0500
if it's resident within the core unix system utilities - why does the
product exist for Linux? who'd ever want it if it's entirely redundant?
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> A fine example of something one must buy for Windows a capability
> resident within the core UNIX system utilities.
>
> Oscar Agra wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > ProSplitter 2000 is finally released....
> >
> > ProSplitter 2000 is available FREE for Linux and also available for
> > Windows 95/98/NT
> >
> > ProSplitter 2000 is a fast and powerful file splitting utility.
> >
> > ProSplitter 2000 makes it possible to transfer manageable sized files
> > through any medium and for any purpose. It offers via its
> > straightforward graphical interface a wealth of features which provide
> > a complete solution to your needs.
> >
> > Features include :
> >
> > - Easy to use graphical user interface
> > - Fast 32 bit splitting / joining of very large files or DIRECTORIES !
> > - Recursive archiving of directories
> > - File Compression
> > - DES (Data Encryption Standard) Encryption
> > - Robustness and Reliability guaranteed via CRC data checks
> > - Self-joining executable allows files to be joined without ProSplitter
> > - Attachment of comments to pieces
> > - Drag-and-Drop of files, directories and links (Win 95/98/NT only)
> > - Support for splitting via the Windows Explorer Context-Menu (Win
95/98/NT
> > only)
> >
> > Download it directly from ;
> > For Win95/98/NT - http://www.prosplitter.co.uk/zips/psplit21.exe
> > Linux -
> > http://www.prosplitter.co.uk/zips/psplit21.tar.gz
>
> --
> Mohawk Software
> Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:13:11 GMT
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 06:18:42 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 04:10:11 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >> See, everyone keeps saying this and I actually have never once
>> >> seen this happen.
>> >
>> >Fire up X with a reasonably complex WM and some svgalib program like
>squake.
>> >Flick between the X and squake VTs until the machine locks.
>>
>> This is a contrived example that merely demonstrates that
>> trying to bit bang the same hardware with two root mode
>> apps concurrently is a stupid idea.
>
>The issue being whether or not X could crash the system IIRC. It can.
Except it's not X that is crashing the system.
What's crashing the system is 'two X's' trying to bit bang the
same hardware at once. That's a considerable difference.
>
>Despite your accusation of "contrived", it was something I stumbled upon
>quite innocently switching between squake and X.
The current version of quake is both fully supported and runs
under X. Your example is still artificial and contrived.
Mebbe if CivCTP or Heroes of Might and Magic used svgalib you
might have a point.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:21:36 +0000
proculous wrote:
> When there are so many great windows and mcintosh programs out their
> what is the point of wasting time on a build it as you go along system?
Gee, all those applications, and Microsoft didn't even include TeX,
emacs and gcc. Yes, it's so hard to check the "Install Everything"
box during Red Hat setup.
>
Colin Day
--
Shhh! Be vewy quiet. We're hunting penguins. -- Elmer FUD
------------------------------
From: Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:22:18 -0600
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 18:59:14 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
wrote:
:On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:12:53 -0600,
: Rob Hughes, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: brought forth the following words...:
:
:>
:>"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
:
:well *genius* if an app crashes and takes the Xserver down with
:it, that is a flawed app, and a flawed Xserver, you will notice
:of course, that the *NIX system under the Xserver is still there,
:serving webpages, email, etc. If PCAnywhere dies and takes W2K
:with it, that is a flaw in PCAnywhere, *and* in W2K, which is no
:longer there serving web pages, email, etc... got it?
Hokay, *genius*, if that same app crashes and takes out the xserver
which crashes and takes out the OS, then I guess the bug is in the OS.
Parts of pcAnywhere run in ring 0 as a driver, yet there is no ring 0
code in an xserver (IIRC), but it can still take down the OS. Then UNIX
ISN'T serving up anything except a reset. It does happen. Rare, maybe.
But it happens.
Just go. Away.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:29:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The ones that can live with RTF can also live with Wordpad. The fact that
>users seem to buy word would indicate that not everyone wants to settle for
>RTF.
Actually, no. It would indicate that people are getting docs saved by Word
because someone's company bought Office.
If the default behavior were for Word to save in the least-arcane format that
could store the content a user placed in a file, I bet a lot fewer people
would have Word.
For that matter, be aware that Wordpad isn't "word saving only as RTF"; it's
a very different *interface* feature set.
>While not all users need a real word processor, there are a lot of
>users who want and use features like embeddable components ( especially
>spreadsheets and equations ), styles, etc.
This may be the case, but it's not directly supported by people buying Word.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:30:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael Totschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>markup than a visual one. That does not mean that there is no need for a
>more intuitive, "user-friendly" interface to LaTeX, but Lyx/Klyx has gone
>far in that direction.
Data point: My mom uses Lyx. (Admittedly, she may be an unfair test case;
she once published a book done in TeX.)
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:32:49 GMT
In article <89jq3d$85h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alan Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I don't believe that it is right to ram OpenSource
>>software down everyone's throat.
>How, exactly, is it possible to do that?
Well, let's say you don't want to use perl, but you're dependant on a
vendor who insists on shipping things as perl scripts. :)
>Me: I'd like too pay for my perl executable please.
>Larry: You can't.
>Me: But I want to.
>Larry: Look dude, it's free have fu...
>Me: YOU BASTARD!! I WANT TO PAY!!! TAKE THE MONEY!!!
>Larry: No, you have to use it and you can't pay <evil
> laughter>
>Me: No. No. You can't make me. I'll use Visual Basic
> instead. I'm strong enough.
>Larry: <more evil laughter>
ROFL! Frankly, I bet you could get Larry to take your money if you asked
nicely. Personally, I think he ought to be given enough money that he could
comfortably retire if he wanted to; he's certainly made the world a better
place for many of us.
(I'm not even necessarily just talking about Perl; I think that the Artistic
License, and the first widely-distributed killfile support, and 'patch' are,
amongst themselves, worthy of a lifetime supply of "do whatever you want and
we'll support you" points.)
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:33:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>We are discussing the implications of abolishing copyrights. If we didn't
>have copyrights, users wouldn't be able to choose to purchase software
>that uses the copyright licensing model of payment/distribution.
Of course they could, they'd just have to do it without the legal threat
hanging over their heads. :)
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:34:19 +0000
George Richard Russell wrote:
>
> You can create similar output in either, but you could just do that
> by writing the file contents with a hex editor - its just how much
> pain you'll take to write a Letter to Aunty / Thesis / hello.c
>
> (I have seen people write code in Word, and cut n paste it to an editor to
> save before compiling. Scary. But so is using TeX for creating a simple letter)
>
What's so scary about TeX for letters? If you don't need the macros/fonts/
formatting/whatever, the it's simple typing.
>
> Quite. And its self evident that its faster to open a menu with a
> key combo like Alt-M, than it is to move hand to mouse, move pointer
> and click. And guess which emacs requires.
>
As Donal Fellows said, you could use F10.
>
> 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
Colin Day
--
Shhh! Be vewy quiet. We're hunting penguins. -- Elmer FUD
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:37:46 +0000
George Richard Russell wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >Actually, X requires a mouse. So any GUI version of emacs (for Linux at least)
> >may as well require it.
>
> Why perpetuate the flaws that permeate X11 into Linux'es GUI apps?
>
First, you haven't shown that it is a limitation, i.e. that you can't do these
things without a mouse. See Donal Fellows's post.
>
> >>
> >> Its just bad design practice for GUI apps to force the use of the mouse.
> >>
> >
> >Then blame X
>
> Have done, like many others. Can't fix X. Someone could fix emacs. Backwards
> compatibility really sucks when better ideas arrive.
>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >Emacs needs the depth for its functionality. 10+, hmm, I'd like some evidence
>
> XEmacs that comes with SuSE 6.2, go configure the gnus newsreader from the
> menus, gnus's menu structure starts 7 deep, and gos for another 3 levels.
>
> The extreme amount of stuff stuck in emacs's menus is just another UI
> annoyance.
>
> Would you like a screenshot? I can't guarantee to fit all the menus onto
> a 800x600 screen, but it'd be worth doing to show the importance of UI
> design.
>
You didn't say XEmacs.
>
> 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
--
Shhh! Be vewy quiet. We're hunting penguins. -- Elmer FUD
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
