Linux-Advocacy Digest #217, Volume #26 Sat, 22 Apr 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective ("L'Hopital")
Re: Linus Torvalds (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux (pete@x)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (Bart Oldeman)
Re: Illegal to discount software - Linux is in trouble! (mlw)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Matthias Warkus)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (The Cat)
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. ("billwg")
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective ("Rich C")
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (2:1)
Re: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Joseph)
Re: Linus Torvalds (2:1)
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "L'Hopital" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 10:34:12 -0400
RedHat and Mandrake will always be slow for you, look at the hardware you
are running it on! Gnome is a pretty fat package. If anyone could run Linux
where would be the snob factor? Kind of how the Mac's were, if anyone could
afford one where would be the snob factor?
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've been attempting to install Linux on my older P166 system and having a
> few problems.
>
> I have a SB16 card, and a AHA1520B card. Both are ISA, both are PnP. I
> finally figured out one of my SB16 cards was faulty as Windows would not
> boot with it.
>
> I can get Windows to boot with both cards but not Linux. I kept a note of
> the settings Windows uses and tried the same on Linux. Linux then
proceeded
> to hang and emit messages about the SCSI controller.
>
> When I reboot Linux, it's lost the SCSI controller.
>
> Now, from a Windows user perspective, Linux hasn't changed in one respect
> since I last looked at it. It is still a tricky package to install.
>
> I have three distributions:
>
> Slakware 7.0
> Red Hat 6.0
> Mandrake 7.0 Deluxe
>
> Slakware is the most difficult to install but results in a lean, clean
> machine. Unfortunately, things are harder to setup as none of the easy to
> use tools are there, but it does boot faster and startup X faster.
>
> Mandrake is very easy to install but boots slower and X is definately a
lot
> slower. Also, setup asks a few bizarre questions - installing packages
> results in a dialog box showing me the size of everything its about to
> install. The dialog seems to suggest I can change this size!
>
> The Mandrake installer tries to install the AHA152X card automatically but
> fails. So it asks me for parameters and the most confusing dialog appears:
>
> aha152x (1-8i)
> aha152x1 (1-8i)
>
> Now, nothing explains on screen what these mean. I took a wild guess and
> entered aha152x=0x340,11,7 and it worked.
>
> I can boot both systems with the SB16 card in, but if I try to setup the
> card, SCSI dies. I can't reboot after that as I can't get past the kernel
> trying to load the sound card.
>
> A friend at work said to me "What did you expect with Linux, it's free
> software after all". I guess I expected more from something that is
> supposed to be a Windows killer. I guess it's not there yet, and is still
> playing catchup.
>
> Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linus Torvalds
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:31:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:42:07 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>JoeX1029 wrote:
>>
>> "hard working companies like microsoft" Lemme tell you
>> something asshole, microsoft's products crash continually,
>> cost way too much and have way too much shitty programming.
>> How is Linux the downfall of the software industry?? My
>> Win95 box (P200, 16mb ram, 2g hd....) crashes all the time.
>> Last week it went down 8 times just rebooting. My linux box
>> (486/66 8mb ram 12g hd...) only reboots when i issue the command.
>> It hasn't crashed on me yet. BTW, if you couldn't tell already,
>> Microsoft is DONE!!! Finished!! Hope your shares drop
>> even more...
>
>Let me just add this. Linux is not a company nor corporation.
>If Microsoft paid somebody to set a bomb off in the Linux plant, they'd
>spend
>along time finding the building.
>
>
>That's why they call this OS the GHOST INSIDE!
No, that's me. :-) :-)
JoeX's problem might be related to a number of factors, the most
obvious one being bad hardware, most likely a power supply.
Windows may be unstable, but not *that* unstable.
Failing that, a bad video driver might be the culprit.
But again, these are pure guesses.
But I do agree, Linux does seem to be a more reliable operating system.
While NT for me doesn't crash (it's what I use at work), it does do
some very interesting things; the most interesting of these is
"what icon did you want to use for a certain filetype today?". :-)
Win95 on my home machine more or less works, but I avoid it, and
I've yet to get Unreal's editor to work because of some sort of
bizarre VBasic library incompatibility which I've yet to figure out.
(At least I can do my taxes on it...)
Windows 9x is a house of cards. NT is a house of unreinforced bricks.
Linux is an underground bunker. :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- and in Win2k apparently they just painted the bricks
------------------------------
From: pete@x
Subject: Re: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux
Date: 22 Apr 2000 07:03:56 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David says...
>From what I can see there are only a
>couple of things that one cannot do on linux that one might want to do.
>Create PDF's is one
all these years I've been creating pdf's on linux with
simple commands must have been a dream.
ps2pfd
pdflatex
------------------------------
From: Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:45:39 GMT
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, Mike Marion wrote:
> SeaDragon wrote:
>
> > You are extremely out of touch.
> >
> > The fastest shipping CPU in integer performance currently (by far)
> > is the Pentium III. The I GHz model is a whopping 46.8 SPECint95.
> > The second fastest is HP 8600, which is at 42.6. Alpha is way behind
> > at 40.1 for the 667 MHz 21264 (which is not even shipping yet!). SPARC
> > isn't even on the roadmap. It is at 18.3 for the UltraSPARC II, well
> > less than half of Intel, HP, or Compaq.
>
> You seem to be the one that's out of touch. The vast majority of businesses
> that buy the Alpha and Sparc machines could give a rats ass about Integer
> performance. They buy this equipment for the floating point performance (which
> is where x86 sucks big time compared to the big boys), or they buy it because it
> is much more reliable and capable then PC hardware.
As for fp performance, we all know that Alpha's are the top of the bill,
and that the Athlon is closing the gap a bit. But if you're on a certain
budget, it may be that you get more flops/bucks for an x86
(esp. Athlon) than for an Alpha or Sparc.
Just did a test on the fp-intensive research program I run all the time,
of course the optimizations were on in the compilations:
(compiled with g77 from egcs 1.1.2, which is not the best Fortran compiler
around, but good enough for me)
Pentium II 400:
real 0m34.797s
user 0m33.580s
sys 0m0.170s
(compiled with f77: SC4.0 18 Oct 1995 FORTRAN 77 4.0)
Dual (Ultra)Sparcv9 167:
real 1:26.6
user 1:22.6
sys 2.4
This Sun (from June 1997) is ageing, but it's roughly on par with the
Pentium II for this particular case on "flops/megahertz".
Although we have lies, damned lies and benchmarks, it shows that I'm quite
happy running this stuff on the PC instead of the shared Sparc facility
:-).
Just for fun, here's the equivalent on my AMD K6-2 300 at home:
real 0m57.531s
user 0m57.330s
sys 0m0.200s
which clearly lags behind both in terms of flops/MHz, but hey it was a
reasonable cheap CPU (GBP 60 inc VAT in the UK (about $90)) in December 1998.
Bart
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Illegal to discount software - Linux is in trouble!
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 11:43:10 -0400
SeaDragon wrote:
>
> From the Techweb article on proposed Microsoft remedies:
>
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20000420S0016
>
> "Also, the software giant may have to open its APIs and stop discounting
> Windows to PC makers."
>
> Oh boy. So it's illegal to give a DISCOUNT on software? What is going
> to happen to Linux? If it is illegal for Microsoft to give a discount
> of a few dollars, what are they going to do when they are giving away
> Linux for FREE??? Is Linus going to get the chair? And how is
> discounting software bad for the consumer? Should the government impose
> a price floor on OS'es so PC's have to be more expensive? You all better
> be careful about proclaiming that Linux is free, because that's ILLEGAL!
Get real, it has do do with your monopoly position. If you have
something that you must sell on some portion of your inventory. If you
as a computer vendor think: "I can save $100 per machine on 10% of the
machines I sell because 10% of the people buying my machines want to use
Linux. This can save me money, I can be more profitable and charge
less!" and Microsoft says, "hey right now you pay $100 for the Windows
package. If you start selling Linux, we are going start charging $120
for the windows package." Then the vendor can't sell Linux and make
money.
Microsoft does this all the time. It is anti-competitive behavior and,
Microsoft being ruled a monopoly, makes this illegal.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 17:02:51 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 22 Apr 2000 04:29:12 -0700...
...and test@myhome <test@myhome> wrote:
> I wanted to install some rpm package
> to try some application. ok, i do
> it tells me it needs 5 others packages
> now this one tells me that i need 3 other packages.
> now this tells me i am missing 2 packages.
> is this really the modern way of installing sw?
>
> we make fun of MS, yet, on windows, i never had to do this sort of thing.
> double click on setup.exe and all is done.
Yeah. That's because on Windows, software ships in huge packages,
complete with all the dependencies, which will mercilessly overwrite
already installed libraries and dump DLLs all over the system anyway.
Can you get a mail client, a text editor or a file manager for Windows
in a package that's less than a megabyte in size?
mawa
--
Bl�mchenpfl�cker!
Bonsaig�rtner!
Beinrasierer!
Beischlafbettler!
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 16:03:39 GMT
First thing is calm down have a cup of java and take a deep breath :)
Your complaint has been a sore issue for me as well as other Windows
users who are trying to migrate to Linux. I mean under Windows you
click setup.exe and away it goes right? With modern (Win98 or later)
versions of Windows this is generally true. But there is a caveat in
that you have no clue what files went where and what may or may not
have been overwritten. Also the files themselves tend to be very large
because they include all the libraries and so forth. Also un-install
can be a nightmare if it leaves crap around, especially in the
registry requiring regclean to be run to hopefully clear things up.
The good news is that if you have a modern distribution you most
likely have the dependencies on the CD, they were just never
installed. Use xrpm or kde package manager to look for them.
It's been my experience that if you like to try out various programs
and toys from Freshmeat and so forth, it is a good idea to select
"development install" when installing Linux because when you take the
defaults many times there are things missing.
This is one of reasons that I use Mandrake 7.x. The Gnome libs were
there, all the qt stuff, the compilers and so forth and it is setup
from the get go and actually works.
I can sympathize with you because I tried to download Gnome once and
it turned into a needless nightmare. Everything I needed was already
on the CD but was never installed :)
TheCat
On 22 Apr 2000 04:29:12 -0700, test@myhome wrote:
>lets talk a little about the broken way of installing software on linux.
>
>it is most certinaly is a broken system now.
>
>a simple example. I wanted to install some rpm package
>to try some application. ok, i do
>
> rpm -Uhv foo.rpm
>
>it tells me it needs 5 others packages that are missing or not
>to the right level.
>
>after searching in rpmfind web site, and finding one of those
>5 other packages, and finding it in 3 different sites (one from
>redhat, from from freshmeat, etc..) i pick one.
>
>now this one tells me that i need 3 other packages.
>
>i go look, i find the first one, again few copies of it, i pick one.
>the ftp site had wrong URL, i try the other url, now it connects.
>
>now this tells me i am missing 2 packages.
>
>now i lost track of where i started and where i am heading. i bring
>up a paper, and start drawing a directed acyclic graph to help me
>chart my way through this madness.
>
>after 2 hours, i end up with 20 arches and 50 nodes. then i thought,
>the hell with this, i do not need to try this program. what a waste
>of time.
>
>is this really the modern way of installing sw?
>
>we make fun of MS, yet, on windows, i never had to do this sort of thing.
>double click on setup.exe and all is done.
>
>if MS way is bad, then the linux way is sure is much worst. at least
>for the end user it is.
>
>there got to be a better way to install a program on linux without
>having to spend hours chasing missing bits and pieces of software
>from the net.
>
>of course now the linux people will come and tell me i have no clue
>and i need to go read 50 HOWTO and 20 man pages and download this
>and that program to do this and that.
>
>the whole point is that a end user do not have to do any of this. They
>should simply have to issue one simple command or click on one
>button, and have the application install automatically.
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 11:42:22 -0400
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8drgv4$6uv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <yaPL4.1686$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "billwg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8dnehk$thi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > I wouldn't be suprised if by the end of the summer, we were actually
> > > looking at Linux on retail shelves. Even Microsoft has hinted at
> > > Microsoft Office for Linux. Once the remedy portion of the hearing
> > > is established, I wouldn't be suprised if OEMs and Software vendors
> > > started very agrressively backing Linux.
> > >
> > > If the remedies are reasonable (Giving FTC authority to regulate
> > > and mediate Microsoft contract practices), the Supreme Court will
> > > uphold the verdict and the FTC will relax controls as Linux captures
> > > 30-50% of the desktop market. When Linux establishes a sufficient
> > > share of the market that Microsoft can say it's no longer a
> monopoly,
> > > the FTC won't need to regulate Microsoft because the OEMs will be
> > > able to choose how much of a balance of each OS they want to sell
> > > and market based on the terms Microsoft gives them.
> > >
> >
> > I think that this is an incredibly
> > optimistic view of things.
>
> Here's the bottom line. Microsoft has defeated far superior
> products numerous times with it's crossly inferior products.
> It has successfully done so through it's it's contracting
> practices with OEMs that effectively excludes all competitors.
>
> Even when companies like Dell did come up with alternatives
> such as SCO UNIX, or IBM with OS/2, Microsoft literally demanded
> "all or nothing" - threatening to revoke all license rights unless
> every PC was sold exclusively with Windows. This has been going on
> since 1990. Furthermore, Microsoft was eventually prosecuted and
> narrowly escaped a conviction in 1994 when they threatened "all or
> nothing" terms that mandated Windows and Microsoft Office or Windows
> at full retail (effectively causing each PC to be sold at a loss).
>
You don't seem to have a good foundation in the facts of that matter and.
The real record's pretty well documented on the usdoj.gov site and it shows
that Microsoft entered into contracts with the larger OEMs that required the
OEM to supply MS-DOS, not Windows, on all computers shipped in a particular
model line in order to obtain a significant discount on the overall price of
MS-DOS. Thus the OEM had to pay for an MS-DOS license even if the box
shipped with another OS installed. The price was around $5 per unit shipped
versus almost $10 if the OEM wanted to account for licenses individually.
Competitors complained about this lack of market opportunity and the DOJ
obtained the 1994 consent decree agreement from Microsoft to cease this
practice. Most OEMs continued to ship nothing but MS-DOS but saw their
price about double for licences. (I bet they loved that.)
SCO UNIX was never in any competition with MS-DOS or Windows. These
products were so far apart that no-one was going to substitute one for the
other. OS/2 was originally a Microsoft development contracted by IBM. When
Microsoft started selling Windows 3.0 successfully at the exact time that
the FTC set up the trade restrictions on Japanese memory chips and made
memory costs go to about $1000 per mbyte of RAM, IBM severed their close
association with Microsoft and the battle began. Windows won easily on cost
since it could still run in the 640K real mode space, although it certainly
didn't do very much, and OS/2 needed a minimum of 4mb to even install. That
made OS/2 a $4K+ cost item when Windows 3.0 was $50. For consumers, it was
an obvious choice and IBM never was able to recover, even with the PS/2 and
MCA hardware being pushed with OS/2.
The only company that might have suffered from Microsoft's market tactics on
exclusive licensing was Novell and their DR-DOS product at the time. But
Novell never really pushed DR-DOS and used it as a freebie to sell with
their Novell Lite workgroup networking package. That worked a little but
only inspired Microsoft to counter with Windows for Workgroups 3.11 that
started Novell's networking on the down hill slide as well. It's not smart
to twist the tiger's tail it seems.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 12:35:40 -0400
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've been attempting to install Linux on my older P166 system and having a
> few problems.
>
> I have a SB16 card, and a AHA1520B card. Both are ISA, both are PnP. I
> finally figured out one of my SB16 cards was faulty as Windows would not
> boot with it.
One of the most common fallacies when troubleshooting a problem occurs when
you assume something is good and look somewhere else first. Always start
with the basics, even if your intuition "tells" you that's not where the
problem lies.
Most of the PNP ISA cards come with basic DOS test and configuration
programs that allow you to configure and test your hardware BEFORE you
subject it to the operating system's whims. My AHA-1505 came with a program
called SCSI Select (or something) that allows me to define the I/O port and
Interrupt, then test the SCSI chain (assuming there is a device on it to
test with.)
SB-16s come with a program called DIAGNOSE that allows you to test your
sound card from a command prompt, and another utility called ICU (Intel
Configuration Utility) which allows the use of Plug-n-Play cards in systems
that don't support it.
>
> I can get Windows to boot with both cards but not Linux. I kept a note of
> the settings Windows uses and tried the same on Linux. Linux then
proceeded
> to hang and emit messages about the SCSI controller.
The SB-16 PNP DOESN'T KEEP its settings after you power off; it has to be
configured EACH TIME you boot, unlike the SCSI card, which has an EEPROM and
will store the configured values indefinitely.
There is obviously still a hardware conflict when you try to boot Linux with
both cards installed. Are you using ISAPNPTools to configure your cards in
Linux? This program will configure your SB-16 PnP on bootup, just like the
Intel Configuration manager or Windows would do. It should eliminate the
hardware conflict before the drivers are loaded.
>
> When I reboot Linux, it's lost the SCSI controller.
>
> Now, from a Windows user perspective, Linux hasn't changed in one respect
> since I last looked at it. It is still a tricky package to install.
Plug and Pray with Linux can still be tricky, yes. However, for the first
year or so it was also very tricky and unpredictable with Windows too. I
still think the whole PnP system is stupid. The BIOS should have had much
more control over configuration. It should look for hardware conflicts on
bootup, and resolve them either automatically, or with user input if
necessary, and simply REPORT the settings to Windows. Windows or any other
OS for that matter, would then adjust the driver settings accordingly as
they were loaded. This business of having to boot up all the way to the GUI,
then go to the device manager and tinker with settings, then REBOOT and
start all over again, is just stupid.
>
> I have three distributions:
>
> Slakware 7.0
> Red Hat 6.0
> Mandrake 7.0 Deluxe
>
> Slakware is the most difficult to install but results in a lean, clean
> machine. Unfortunately, things are harder to setup as none of the easy to
> use tools are there, but it does boot faster and startup X faster.
>
> Mandrake is very easy to install but boots slower and X is definately a
lot
> slower. Also, setup asks a few bizarre questions - installing packages
> results in a dialog box showing me the size of everything its about to
> install. The dialog seems to suggest I can change this size!
>
> The Mandrake installer tries to install the AHA152X card automatically but
> fails. So it asks me for parameters and the most confusing dialog appears:
>
> aha152x (1-8i)
> aha152x1 (1-8i)
>
> Now, nothing explains on screen what these mean. I took a wild guess and
> entered aha152x=0x340,11,7 and it worked.
>
> I can boot both systems with the SB16 card in, but if I try to setup the
> card, SCSI dies. I can't reboot after that as I can't get past the kernel
> trying to load the sound card.
>
> A friend at work said to me "What did you expect with Linux, it's free
> software after all". I guess I expected more from something that is
> supposed to be a Windows killer. I guess it's not there yet, and is still
> playing catchup.
Do you remember that Volkswagen ad a few years back where the Rabbit was
drag racing a turbine car called the "Green Monster"? The Rabbit had the
lead for the first 97.1 yards until the turbine car roared past (they had to
measure to see at what point the Rabbit was still ahead.) Well, were at
about 90 yards right now, and, you're right, Linux IS still playing catchup.
:o)
>
> Pete
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 17:52:19 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I've been attempting to install Linux on my older P166 system and having a
> few problems.
>
> I have a SB16 card, and a AHA1520B card. Both are ISA, both are PnP. I
> finally figured out one of my SB16 cards was faulty as Windows would not
> boot with it.
>
> I can get Windows to boot with both cards but not Linux. I kept a note of
> the settings Windows uses and tried the same on Linux. Linux then proceeded
> to hang and emit messages about the SCSI controller.
>
> When I reboot Linux, it's lost the SCSI controller.
>
> Now, from a Windows user perspective, Linux hasn't changed in one respect
> since I last looked at it. It is still a tricky package to install.
>
> I have three distributions:
>
> Slakware 7.0
> Red Hat 6.0
> Mandrake 7.0 Deluxe
>
> Slakware is the most difficult to install but results in a lean, clean
> machine. Unfortunately, things are harder to setup as none of the easy to
> use tools are there, but it does boot faster and startup X faster.
>
> Mandrake is very easy to install but boots slower and X is definately a lot
> slower. Also, setup asks a few bizarre questions - installing packages
> results in a dialog box showing me the size of everything its about to
> install. The dialog seems to suggest I can change this size!
>
> The Mandrake installer tries to install the AHA152X card automatically but
> fails. So it asks me for parameters and the most confusing dialog appears:
>
> aha152x (1-8i)
> aha152x1 (1-8i)
>
> Now, nothing explains on screen what these mean. I took a wild guess and
> entered aha152x=0x340,11,7 and it worked.
>
> I can boot both systems with the SB16 card in, but if I try to setup the
> card, SCSI dies. I can't reboot after that as I can't get past the kernel
> trying to load the sound card.
>
> A friend at work said to me "What did you expect with Linux, it's free
> software after all". I guess I expected more from something that is
> supposed to be a Windows killer. I guess it's not there yet, and is still
> playing catchup.
>
> Pete
I can't comment on SCSI cards (I have none), but my SB16 ISA PNP ETC works fine
on my P133.
A P166 (and indeed a 133) are now quite slow machines. If you want to go
faster, use a slimmmer window manager under X, such as Fvwm or Windowmaker. I
also found that slightly older systems (such as Redhat 5.2) run faster on old
hardware, probably because it's smaller.
In terms of many things, it's not playing catchup. I use it for everything I
do, except games.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock, which
is over three trillion years old?
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 16:32:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Rolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, I did not know that Frame was originally developed for Unix, but I
> have used it on AIX in the past. And yes we need the filters and we
need
> the distiller to create PDF docs.
Several of the departments where I work have a requirement to produce
everything in PDF; was really hoping the Beta could do this. Would be
nice to have something stable and reliable (fewer support calls and all
that selfish stuff). Going to continue to evaluate it anyway, and keep
an eye on the ftp site for a newer beta.
So far the beta's a really nice, solid product except for the few
deficiencies you've noted. Hope they go to distribution with this one.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 09:41:53 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Chris Wenham wrote:
>
> josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > And out of curiosity, do you know if and how TeX compares with
> > > Postscript?
> >
> > It doesn't.
>
> I know that Postscript is a programming language as well. Is this the
> main difference? Do you know what other differences are?
I use and know both TeX and Postscript. Over the course a many years of
use I have choosen to not compare them.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linus Torvalds
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 17:57:16 +0100
flame, flame, flame, flame,
flame, flame, flame, flame,
flame, flame, flame, flame,
flame, flame, flame, flame,
flame, flame, flame, flame,
flame, flame, flame, flame,
flame, flame, flame, flame,
I enjoyed that :-)
-Ed
Cihl wrote:
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
> >
> > I believe that the operation system create by Linus Torvalds, Linux, is the
>downfall of the software industry. People who use such a dreaful program should be
>shot. How dare they take money from hardworking companies like microsoft and driving
>down my shares.
> >
> > ==================================
> > Posted via http://nodevice.com
> > Linux Programmer's Site
>
> Crossposted to the proper usenet-group. Let's see the
> reactions, shall we?
> (What an asshole!)
>
> --
> % make fire
> Don't know how to make fire
> % Why not?
> No match
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock, which
is over three trillion years old?
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 11:52:29 -0500
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 06:36:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
wrote:
> So tell me, under windows, how do I export (share) a drive that someone
>else is sharing with me? no-problemo with linux...
That's just a -bit- of a security flaw, Jim.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
