Linux-Advocacy Digest #567, Volume #25 Thu, 9 Mar 00 01:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Chad Myers")
Re: Disproving the lies. (Christopher Browne)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Christopher Wong)
Re: BSD & Linux (5X3)
Re: BSD & Linux (Peter da Silva)
Re: BSD & Linux (Peter da Silva)
Re: BSD & Linux (Peter da Silva)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Christopher Wong)
Re: Giving up on NT - So Where's The Emotion? (Joseph)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Christopher Wong)
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Andrew Higgs")
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... (Oxford)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 04:10:12 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8a708d$8omm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> :> As of today, W2K is as much C2 as Linux. Untested.
>
> : However, since Win2K is built primarily on NT, which is C2 certified,
> : it's a lot more likely Win2K will be able to be ceritified without
> : much modification.
>
> When NT went to version 4.0, it already lost the bragging rights
> to C2 certification. Only 3.51 was certified. A system based on
> 4.0, which was in turn based on 3.51 is not likely to retain the
> properties that make it certified.
>
C'mon people! If you're going to argue this, at least have your facts
HALF WAY right. You guys aren't even close.
<sigh>
NT 3.5 = C2 Orange and Red Book
NT 3.51 = No ratings (except for E3/FC2 I believe)
NT 4.0 = C2 Red Book (no network) in 1996 or 7 (shortly after release)
NT 4.0 = E3/FC2 in 1998 or 9
NT 4.0 = C2 Orange Book (w/ network) in 1999
There! If you don't believe me
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/epl-by-class.html
there it is in black and white (with a few cheesy colors)
Oh, and yes, it is about the OS.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 04:11:38 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when R.E.Ballard ( Rex
Ballard ) would say:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8a54li$6et$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> <snip>
>>
>> It's nice to see you *start off* trying to
>> sound like you are going to give
>> a fair rebuttle...
>>
>> <quote>
>> > Provided that the NT/Windows 2000 environment is
>> > operated in a data-center-like manner
>> > with policies and procedures for change management,
>> > software updates, software
>> > distribution, backup/restore, and the like; and
>> > </quote>
>> >
>> > Again, this reaffirms my statements that when you conduct
>> > "standard maintenance" (which includes reboots at LEAST once
>> > per week, preferably once/night) and you deduct this as "scheduled
>> > down time" (therefore not included in availability ratings), you
>> > can achieve availability of around 99.97% (more on this below).
>>
>> No no no no no - NO weekly reboots. I do
>> not tell anyone to do this, I do
>> not know of anyone except uninformed/frightened
>> idiot "admins" that do this.
>
>> It is completely unnecessary to reboot on
>> any schedule UNLESS you knowing
>> (and willingly?) installed an application with
>> a memory/resource leak.
>
>Memory leaks, resource leaks, MUTEX conflicts, full disks,
>and DLL conflicts.
>
>How often you reboot a specific box is based on the requirements
>of the application and the organization responsible for deployment.
>In some cases, you can just go to services and stop/start a few
>services, but with the delicate DLL and OCX interdependencies,
>even this could create more problems than it solves.
Indeed.
>> But, who would let such a thing continue?
>
>With some third party software, you don't have a choice. They
>released the software in 1998, issued a service pack in 1999, and
>Microsoft broke it with SP6 or Win2K. SP2 broke Cyrix CHIPS.
>In some cases, it has even been proven that the disfunctionality
>resulting from service packs was deliberate. Eventually, the
>third party software gets a replacement patch to recover from the
>Microsoft patch.
In my departmental group, they had to put in an NT Server with
something like 2GB of RAM in order to be able to have SAP's "ITS"
(Internet Transaction Server) services run for more than a day or two.
Apparently when connections are closed, the memory isn't recovered.
As a result, a test server that had only 64MB of RAM pretty much
needed daily rebooting.
That may represent a server that has somewhat inadequate
adminstration, but I thought that the main value to adopting NT (over
UNIX) was that you could have drooling idiots administer it because
it's so "user friendly." The problem has been reported, and appears
to be inherent to the system...
>Conversely, if you have SQL, ERP, CRM, SCM, and cash flow
>management systems all running in the same server, you
>can expect life to get exciting. You might eventually get
>such a system to stay up, but you also expect
>to reboot it at least once a day. Ideally, you put each subsystem
>on a dedicated server, cluster them reduntantly, and replicate
>every transaction. Eventually, you might even have 20-30 SQL servers,
>10-20 ERP servers, 20-30 CRM servers, 10-20 SCM servers, and 5-10
>cash-flow servers. Of course, you've blown any economy and the
>economy of scale available on UNIX based systems becomes very
>attractive.
Well, in the case of R/3, all you need is the "web server" component
running on NT in order to keep uptimes low...
>It will be even more interesting to see what Linux $/TPM-C looks like.
>(has anyone published a "legal one" yet?). The last unofficial one
>I saw was $2/TPM-C on a 30,000 TPM system based on P-II/300s and Linux.
>Unfortunately, it was not approved, not properly sponsored, and the
>TPM review committee demanded that all references to these results
>be removed. They appearantly didn't disagree with the results, only
>that the results couldn't be published without the permission of the
>entire membership. Since the membership included Oracle, Sybase, IBM,
>HP, and SUN, there weren't any votes that wanted to see these results
>published.
I'd think that it's just the hardware vendors that would be displeased
with such a report; if the result was from running Oracle + Tuxedo
(one of the common combinations), I'd expect Oracle and BEA to be
quite happy to be associated with spectacular numbers.
--
"Objects keep things tidy, but don't accelerate growth: inheritance
does." -- James A. Crippen (after Alan Perlis)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 04:13:39 GMT
In article <8a12q5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Gettys) wrote:
> Then fix it... See below...
>
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
> > Date: 5 Mar 2000 20:56:22 GMT
> > Newsgroups:
> >
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps
> > Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
> > -----
>
> >
> > Font antialiasing would be nice admittedly. However, there is more
to
> > life than font smoothing.
> >
>
> Turns out that you don't want to stare at anti-aliased fonts all day.
> It turns out this is hard on the eyes/brain.
>
> Don't take this as a statement that X should not have anti-aliased
fonts:
> it should, in the year 2000: particularly when you are trying to see
what
> something will look like when you print it; most of the time, however,
> at normal screen resolution tuned bitmap fonts are least fatiguing.
>
> Also, as shipped, the font path for most monitors is wrong, compounded
> by a bug in XFree86 3.x which is using Type1 outline fonts at times
> that it should be using tuned bitmap fonts. Fixed in XFree86 4.0
> (we hope). *See the X Font deuglification mini-faq, for a (slightly
buggy)
> description of how to straighten out your font path, etc.*.
>
> Getting your font path setup right and True Type fonts are by far
> the most important thing you can do to fix the appearance on the
screen.
>
> Ok, how can you help?
>
> 1) you can help the XFree86 folks. Even if you can't program, you can
> help if you can write (documentation is always a problem in open
source
> projects). Even if you can't program, or write, you can make
suggestions
> about what is wrong with documentation. You can also report bugs
> in broken X server implementations.
>
> 2) you can help the people working on the Gnome or KDE projects.
Gnome
> in particular is doing anti-aliased fonts as part of the Gnome canvas.
>
> 3) You can work on one of the toolkits applications are built with.
>
> 4) you can work on window managers
>
> 5) if you are a very good programmer, you can also get in touch with
> Keith Packard, who is working on a new imaging model for X, including
> anti-aliasing, specifically with the goal of supporting the kinds of
> operations that Gnome and KDE have found necessary to perform on the
> client side.
>
> Remember, X and/or desktops built on X won't get better unless YOU
help.
> This isn't a free ride, people. This is a situation where
individuals
> can actually contribute and make a difference... YOU don't have to
take
> what computer vendors give you any more: you can help make open source
> systems better...
>
> - Jim Gettys
>
> --
> Jim Gettys
> Technology and Corporate Development
> Compaq Computer Corporation
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
speaking of which, why dont you post some instruction so
I can use my compaq 1800xl with X windows. This Xconfigurator
stuff in free unix (linux) does not work
sysv
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Wong)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 05:16:14 GMT
On 8 Mar 2000 13:20:34 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 03:37:26 -0700, Warren Young wrote:
>>
>>Do you have specific examples? This $100 Postscript-enabled inkjet
>>printer I just gotta see. We are talking "new" prices here, aren't we?
>
>Yep. See the Lexmark Optra 40. There's a link to a few of them on the
>printing HOWTO page.
> http://www.picante.com/~gtaylor/pht/
These are links to special offers. The Egghead offer, for example, is in
their auction & surplus section. The Optra 40 is obsolete, replaced I
believe by the Optra 45. That printer is selling new at PC Connection
for $749. When you are talking about obsolete, surplus or special offers
then of course you get prices all over the map. In the general case,
however, Postscript printers tend to cost quite a bit more.
>>In my experience, any given printer, if it comes in Postscript and
>>non-Postscript versions, will cost $100 to $300 more for the Postscript
>>version.
>
>Well the Lexmark Optra E310 which I have is a PS laser that goes for $400.
My non-PS Okipage 10e sells for about $300 at PC Connection and Egghead
(the latter ships free). Warren is right: Postscript printers cost
$100-$200 more than plain PCL printers. Type 1 font capability comes at
a price, whereas PCL printers come with TrueType fonts builtin.
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 9 Mar 2000 05:28:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8a6oan$2aah$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Noah Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> And, speaking of FreeBSD, how does it fare in compatability with Linux?
>>> Can the two live together on the same drive with Win98? NetBSD destroyed
>>> all the partitions I had. I can't say I am impressed with the *BSDs so
>>> far....
>>
>>Youve missed the point of freebsd entirely...Its not a "hobby" OS or
>>really a "workstation" OS, its for ridiculously long uptimes and major
>>load handling. I have no idea why anyone would want to put it on the
>>same hard drive as any other operating system, especially now that
>>physical drives are so cheap.
> Oh boy, I've got news for you.
> There's this exciting new technology that's been out there for a few years
> now. It's called a laptop. It usually comes with one single hard drive, and
> it's pretty expensive to connect more.
Yes, I understand that. Ive installed FreeBSD on two laptops.
The fact that it CAN be installed on laptops doesnt mean that its been
written with workstation applications specifically in mind. I can run linux
on an S/390, but that doesnt mean that linux was written with mainframe
applications specifically in mind.
> Of course, you can always buy one laptop per OS.
> Want to buy me a second laptop, so that I can stop having Linux, OpenBSD,
> Windows all on the same hard-drive ?
> --
I dont know why you have openbsd on a laptop when you also have linux and
windows; it seems to me that youre doing it more for kicks than for actual
use---which is fine. But openbsd isnt a "workstation" operating system
either.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 8 Mar 2000 22:06:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert Yoder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Everything I read was that Linus wanted to expand upon Minix.
> I think he would have written Linux REGARDLESS of the legal
> issues around *BSD.
Well, it's not written down anywhere, that I know of, but in my presence
he said that if 386BSD had been out a bit quicker there wouldn't be any
such thing as Linux.
> (Legal trademark issues aside)
> If an OS provides standard POSIX API's,
> Utilizes standard network protocols,
> And provides the usual commandline utilities,
> Enabling it to interoperate with the other Unix variants,
> Then it's a "Unix".
I'm 100% behind that interpretation. I once had a set of 35 system calls
an interfaces, such that if an OS implemented them and you could do pretty
much everything you ever needed to do on the OS through them, then it was
UNIX.
Stuff like "open/close/read/write/ioctl" and "/dev/tty".
So long as "you" weren't wanting to write device drivers. And it was
in the pre-network days, so the number of interfaces is probably a bit
higher now.
Anyway, I consider Linux to be a UNIX implementation. A sort of funky and
disorganized one, but definitely UNIX.
I've started to wonder about SCO Unixware though.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?
'U` "The Windows Perl motto: It's just as well there's more than one
way to do it because most of them don't work." -- Simon Cozens.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 8 Mar 2000 22:11:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Staf Wagemakers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's maybe true that there is only one FreeBSD but there're 4 BSD
> distributions (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, BSDi). There is only one "Debian",
> "Red Hat" or "Slackware" like there is only one "OpenBSD", "FreeBSD" or
> "NetBSD".
The distance between FreeBSD and OpenBSD or NetBSD is a lot less than the
distance between Red Hat 2.1 and Red Hat 6.1, let alone Red Hat and Debian.
It's a pity that GCC has so heavily outcompeted alternatives like TCC,
though. It'd be nice to have software distributed in ANDF[1]... you could
probably come up with a single ANDF that could run on *BSD and *Linux.
[1] TCC produced an intermediate "Architecture Neutral Distribution Form"
that you then translated to machine code.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?
'U` "The Windows Perl motto: It's just as well there's more than one
way to do it because most of them don't work." -- Simon Cozens.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 8 Mar 2000 22:13:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *BSDs have different source trees, VM models. The difference between
> NetBSD and FreeBSD is much greater than the difference between, say,
> Debian and Redhat.
That depends on whether you're a user or a kernel hacker.
For a user, the difference between *BSD is nothing compared to the massive
variety of filesystem layouts and administrative interfaces in Linux.
If I could get a Linux kernel with FreeBSD userland I'd probably be happy
with that.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?
'U` "The Windows Perl motto: It's just as well there's more than one
way to do it because most of them don't work." -- Simon Cozens.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Wong)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 05:33:40 GMT
On 8 Mar 2000 06:37:04 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You'll only get visible degradation at small point sizes. The URL you post --
>uses point sizes between 10 and 20, *at 72 DPI*. If you have a 100dpi
>display, this is analagous to adjusting the range to 7-14 points.
You bring up a good point: the resolution and point size is
significant. Still, many -- myself included -- will not want to work at
the resolution and point size you prefer. I prefer reading at about 12
point size at a resolution somewhere between 72 and 100dpi. At the URL I
posted, half of the fonts are too large for my taste. Even then, the
quality of the fonts are noticeable.
Higher screen resolution is not always preferable. I trade off
resolution for refresh rate and pixel depth, for example. In addition,
bitmaps can be too small at higher resolutions. Even at higher
resolutions, I still want to pack more onscreen: if the resolution goes
up, I would prefer smaller fonts. Aside from the subjective
considerations there is also the hard limitations: my laptop screen,
like most LCDs, is relatively low-res. There is no way to up it.
I suspect you are understating the quality degradation at usable font
sizes. Of course, I cannot tell until I see what you are actually
working with. Still, I cannot see how I can prefer Type 1 fonts now that
I have seen them alongside good TrueType fonts. My installed TrueType
fonts look noticeably better than Type 1 on my PC at all sizes that I
use, and the advantage is even bigger on my notebook.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 21:40:06 -0500
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT - So Where's The Emotion?
Dr Yassam wrote:
>
> The PS2 will have no more impact on the PC games market than the
> original Playstation had over the last 5 years. And before anyone
> screams out "ONLINE", the Saturn, PSX and N64 were all launched BEFORE
> online gaming became big on the PC.
Who would think the only use for a TV/Console is online gaming.
Consoles are connected to the TV and there is web content for viewing with TV/set-top
boxes sure does make 2000 very different from 1995. OpenTV, WebTV, TVNavigator, ....
Why are these set-top boxes and set-top box content are compatible/competitive with a
game console.
Add to a game console a DVD player and Firewire expandability - the same kind of
expandability in modern PCs - and you have a very different kind of device than N64.
What was the impact of the 1994/1995 consoles on PC games ---
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/graphics/library/infogfx/gamemkt1.gif
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/graphics/library/infogfx/gamemkt0.gif
In 1996 the console and the PC revenue were ~1.6 billion in sales. Lumping all Macs
and PC flavors into one big blob as you want to inflate the market - are 3rd! The
1999 DC is 3/4 the revenue of the whole messy PC market. So let us pop a cork to
toast the 100 million dollar year growth in sales for PC games.
In 2001 MS is going to ship "Whistler", Windows 2000's next release, as a their
consumer OS replacement for Windows ME. But of course the dynamics between the PC and
console will not change after MS pulls the plug on their DOS/Win9x consumer OS because
the past is always repeated.
> The much hyped 'emotion engine' is nothing more than a VERY powerful
> processor optimized for complex mathematical tasks, but some have fallen
> for the hype and believe it's something more than that (Hi Joseph!).
> Also, the PS2's graphics depends on standard polygon rendering, but
> again, some people believe the hype and think it's more than that (Hey,
> Joseph!).
I'm glad you admitted the PSX II is more than just optimized for Polygons. It seems
like you want imply I said the PSX II had an elf-inside.
> And where's all the 'EMOTION' based games promised by Sony last year?
> They were not at the launch, and I know of none in development. All
> we've seen so far are typical console games with better graphics.
I wasn't in Japan with you do see what was missing at the release date of this new
device. The Sony promotion video in their large San Francisco Store "Meteron" claims
to have been made with a PSX II and it shows characters that display emotion and the
claim is it is done in real time. What did you learn in Japan at the roll out?
> If such a game does appear it will have had nothing to do with the
> 'emotion engine', and everything to do with the efforts of the game
> developers themselves. Emotion is a human quality, it's not hardware
> dependent,
Expressing emotion on the face of a computer game character in real time is of course
hardware dependent. Programmers write to what the hardware can support. I don't
think anyone said the PSX II will feel emotions or program itself.
> So, why the rant? Do I hate consoles? Absolutely not, the PS2 is as good
> as I expected it to be, but no more and no less. When it arrives this
> year in the UK (and depending on the games), I will be tempted to buy
> one. But to those who think it marks the end of PC gaming and the
> beginning of a new era of computing, wake-up because IT DOESN'T. Just
> enjoy it for what it is, a great console which will have some great
> games.
It is a big world out there. 64 new millionaires a day are made in the Silicon Valley
(SF to SJ) because there is a new era in computing that is networked based. This
isn't a fad and we're not talking about stand alone toys or online gaming. Liberate
(TVNavigator) is a now 10+ billion dollar company. TVNavigator is a kind of software
technology that runs on set-top boxes or computers like a PSX game console.
It is silly to imply anyone argued the PSX would program itself or magically add
emotions to characters. It is dishonest to imply I expected the emotion engine was
more than a computational engine.
> So love it or loath it folks, PC gaming is here to stay (at least for the
> foreseeable future).
There isn't anything sinister with someone advocating users keep their existing PCs
and not invest in expensive new systems/hardware to keep up with future PC games. It
isn't unusual to think PCs as consumer devices are waning with a host of easier to use
alternatives and server based computing replacing the PC.
MS reluctantly makes WebTV and now the X-BOX while Windows ME is the end of the line
for that consumer OS. The next OS in 2001 for consumers is corporate Windows 2000
white washed for consumer users. Lots of luck with W2K.
(Game_console) = (WebTV)+(X-BOX)(+I.E)-(MS_license_fees)-(DLLs hell, Drivers, BSOD,
and etc.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Wong)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 05:43:26 GMT
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 03:30:46 -0700, Warren Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have a collection of the 35 Adobe Postscript fonts -- real Adobe
>foundry fonts, not cheap knockoffs. I've got them installed on my home
>Linux box, and they _suck_ on screen. I'm sure they'd be beautiful in
>printouts. They just aren't hinted properly for screen resolutions.
>The same goes for all the Bitstream Type 1 fonts I got with the various
>versions of Corel Draw. These aren't junk fonts: they're just intended
>for printing, not for day-to-day screen display.
Adobe Type Manager has been around for a decade. With ATM comes
well-hinted fonts. The old favorites -- Times New Roman, Courier New and
Helvetica -- all look good under ATM. They look horrible in Linux simply
because the X rasterizer is awful. I can get well-hinted Type 1 fonts by
copying them from my OS/2 partition (OS/2 used ATM) or from Adobe (they
were competing against TrueType, after all). The fonts would look fine
under OS/2, Mac or Windows, but would look horrible in X. The problem is
not the lack of hinted fonts, but the lousy rasterizer in X.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Andrew Higgs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 07:45:54 +0200
One very simple question :
Who paid for the research?
Kind regards
Andrew Higgs
Slackware user
Drestin Black wrote in message ...
>It's a very long read but it is very well documented and detailed.
>
>This report from Aberdeen Group is something I waited for for some time. I
>knew they were creating it but had no idea it had come out already. They
are
>reporting now factually what I've been saying for some time and what I
>continue to say. NT is reliable and definately enterprise ready. W2K even
>much more so.
>
>NT Advocates will find themselves nodding their heads and probably smiling
a
>lot at things they will think "I have been saying that!" and will also find
>some very nice supporting documentation to our claims. A *FAIR*
>anti-MS/anti-NT type IF they are capable of setting aside prejudgment and
>bias will probably find suprises in the report. I hope, but doubt, that
many
>linvocates will at last find that we've been making claims consistant with
>reality as regards enterprise readiness and uptime reliability for NT.
>
>If you intend to continue as an advocate you will do all of us a favor by
>reading this link.
>http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/reviews/dotcoms.asp
>
>if you are afraid of the truth there is always slashdot. org
>
>
------------------------------
From: Oxford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 23:55:57 -0600
"James McLaren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well if my own experiences are representative then Linux is doomed. I got
> the impression that the Linux community would descent on a nubi en masse if
> they requested help. Well after several ignored questions on .help I'm
> calling it a day.
Linux is just unix with a personality... the real magic is the gear/bit heads
are excited about something... that tends to lead to change... take a look at:
www.octavo.com/collection/galsid.html
Sweet! A native pdf os changes everything we know about computing. Adobe's
web browser is earth shaking... could it be the basis of osx? hummmmm.
oxford
-
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
