Linux-Advocacy Digest #292, Volume #26 Fri, 28 Apr 00 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: So what is wrong with X? (Stephen Cornell)
Re: Why Linux should be pronounced with a long I ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY-LINUX IS CRAP-WIN2K RULEZ!!!!!!!!! ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat (Truckasaurus)
Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat (Truckasaurus)
Microsoft Office Linux Edition! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) ("Joseph T.
Adams")
Re: Linux RUINED my PC LINUX SUCKS!!!!!!!
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: So what is wrong with X? (Streamer)
Awfulness of WordPerfect (Christopher Browne)
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! ("Mark Weaver")
what's the best tool for linux to get IPs?
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Roberto Alsina)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Roberto Alsina)
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Awfulness of WordPerfect ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So what is wrong with X?
Date: 28 Apr 2000 12:47:20 +0100
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> About once or twice a year, we get a crop of people trashing X for
> various reasons. The reasons, however, never tell the whole story.
>
> "X is slow!"
> Perhaps XFree86 is not as speedy as it could be, but it is really hard
> to characterize as slow. Some optimized X servers are VERY speedy.
>
> "X is old!"
> Yup, it is. Very proven and useful technology. Like most of the best OS
> ideas, computers are growing in to them. X is no different. 20 years ago
> virtual memory was totally impossible on a PC, now it is a necessity. X
> is no different.
>
> I find it very funny that people are starting to kick X. Citrix and
> Windows Terminal server are trying to do what X has done all along. I
> guess if you can't beat the competitor with quality and innovation, you
> have to discredit them with FUD and lies.
>
> Innovation to most people is doing something new to the world. Innvation
> at Microsoft is doing something new to Microsoft.
I may be speaking somewhat out of turn here, as I have no experience
of programing X-applications, and I have only anecdotal understanding
how the the X protocol works. What I say below is based on my
experience of running X-applications remotely, and from what I know
about where the various bits of software live when I do so. Please
feel free to correct me where I am wrong - I'd like to be more
educated on this topic.
It appears to me that X *does* have some major deficiencies as a
protocol for running remote applications. Isn't the X-server's job
merely to render raw graphics on the screen, and to pass mouse and
keyboard events to the client? Almost all of the the work is done on
the remote machine, and not enough on the local machine (the one
running the X-server). Thus, the local machine is not in a position
to filter out the X-events that remote application does not need to
know about, and there is a huge waste of bandwidth. For instance, a
remote emacs window is almost unusably slow over a phone line. I can
see the modem lights flashing when I merely move the mouse.
Given that most GUI applications have pretty simple needs (buttons,
sliders, text boxes, etc.), it's surely possible to pass the
information over the network in a more parsemonious way (`slider 3 has
been moved from position 1.1 to 2.3' rather than `mouse is being
clicked and dragged over points x1,y1; x2,y2; x3,y3...'). The way
that widgets respond to X-events could be controlled localy, without
having to wait for calculations and updates from the remote client
between each X-event.
What I am suggesting is that the `X-client/X-server' division of
labour is too unequal, and that a `remote server/local not-too-thin
client' approach leads to much less wasted bandwidth. I know this is
nothing new, and I also know that this approach can be (and is) used
with applications that run under X. However, as far as I know there
is no standard protocol (API?) for creating GUIs in this way, so
programmers are not encouraged to write most software according to
this model.
I don't know how Windows terminal services works, nor have I ever used
it, but I would have thought that, if it runs as a thin client so that
only a subset of the terminal activity is sent over the network, it is
much more efficient than running X-clients remotely.
In summary: X is very powerful, but its very flexibility means that it
is too inefficient to be used as the communication protocol for most
remotely-run applications. Of course, this has nothing to do with X's
suitability as the display protocol for locally running applications.
Anyone care to comment on the above, or correct my ignorance?
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux should be pronounced with a long I
Date: 28 Apr 2000 11:48:39 GMT
Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Bit Twister,
: exactly what drugs were you under the influence of when you wrote:
: + Gees, NOT again. Go here and let the man who name it
: + sound it out for you.
: +
: + ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/SillySounds/
: That wasn't Richard Stallman.
Of course not. It would have sounded like "Gnu/Leenux." :)
(Although RMS does have somewhat of a point - Linux would not even
compile, much less be useful, without gcc and other tools from
GNU/FSF.)
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY-LINUX IS CRAP-WIN2K RULEZ!!!!!!!!!
Date: 28 Apr 2000 11:50:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: IBM DUMPS STOCK....SURPRIZE..THEY NO HOW STINKY LINUX IS..LINUX IS LIKE
^^^^^^
Has Boris returned?
Joe
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 11:41:23 GMT
In article <YDMN4.1698$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8e82dq$c07$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It seems that Billy was spending the money IBM gave him
> > to do OS/2 on Windows 3.0. They settled out of court with the
> > usual nondislosures, but IBM didn't trust Microsoft anymore.
>
> Note that in Rex speak, "it seems" means, I made this up out of thin
air and
> you can't prove that I didn't because the information is not
available to
> disprove me.
Yeah, that's great; let's have another prove it/disprove it discussion,
that'll be great! Remember to bring Drestin along!
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 11:47:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Salvador Peralta wrote:
>
> > It must be humbling for a man whose company sells 5 and 6 figure
> > licenses for Lotus to work with a product that runs better on PC
> > architecture than his does on a mainframe, and then deal with the
fact
> > that the strengths of Lotus as groupware / intranet server / mail
server
> > are all handled better by a product that is available for free and
runs
> > better on cheaper hardware.
>
> Ouch.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
Ouch.
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 12:14:27 GMT
It's comming folks!
Just look at all the little Wintroll's.
They are so angry.
I think that's just too bad.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: 28 Apr 2000 12:36:30 GMT
s_Ea_DAag0n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Please provide __ONE__ __TECHNICAL__ reason why Terminal Server is less
: advanced than X.
I'll provide three.
(a) Isn't portable.
(b) Doesn't (AFAIK) have a published API.
(c) Is only available in binary form.
Joe
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux RUINED my PC LINUX SUCKS!!!!!!!
Date: 28 Apr 2000 10:52:48 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029) wrote:
>>Linux erased all my partitions and
>i lost all my data!>
>
>More commenly known as "I'm a dumb
-
Tell me, do you know ANYTHING about linux,
or did you just try'd to install it? I usually
read manuals and stuff about a program or OS
before installing it, but maybe it's just a
stupid thing for me to do...
DUUUHHHHH!!!!
Try a brain transplant, it might do the trick!!
------------------------------
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: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 07:54:40 -0500
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:42:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 07:23:52 -0500,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 04:59:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Helix-modified-Gnome isn't all bad, but it's still a far cry from the
>>>>ease-of-use of Windows/MacOS's GUI.
>>>
>>><rant of the day>
>>>
>>>So can someone explain why it is I have to open a pdf file in windows in
>>>order to print it? I mean, under linux, dragging the file to the printer
>>>icon, or typing lpr file.pdf prints it just fine. Why does windows feel
>>>it is neccessary to open it up with adobe acrobat first? It takes a long
>>>time compared to simply dragging it to the printer icon in KDE. I mean,
>>>if I drag it to the printer icon in windows, windows asks me for a file
>>>association, I don't want to open it, just print it.
>>
>>Why would it ask for a file association? Acrobat automatically
>>registers itself at installation. It sounds like you didn't install
>>Acrobat Reader - you only copied the installation from another
>>machine, without adding the correct entries in the registry (which
>>normally happens for you at installation time). When I drag a PDF
>>onto a printer, it prints for me perfectly. (I just did it.)
>>
>acrobat is installed, if I dbl click on the pdf, it is opened in acrobat,
>but dragging to the printer is a no go, wants a file association.
Reinstall the latest Acrobat from Adobe.
>>> Another thing, why is it that windows can't seem to deal with
>>>postscript files, under linux, there's ghost script and the like, all
>>>set up and easy as click to use, from the command line or gui. Sure, I
>>>can go to the effort of grabbing GS and GV for windows, but why doesn't
>>>it come with something similar?
>>
>>You'd have to tell me what those are before I can tell you what NT
>>does in their place.
>Ghostscript is a postscript interpreter, very versatile, knows pdf and ps
>and a lot more. GV is the X-frontend for GS and its not NT, 95
You'd have to tell me why I'd need that, given that NT puts the PS
interpreter in the driver.
>>>Ymmv, but for me, linux is easier to use, and with the exception of
>>>games, has better and more apps.
>>
>>In some ways yes, in some no.
>
>
>For what I do, it is.
>
>>
>>>To top it all off, the W95 machine I was using briefly today froze, I had
>>>tried running telnet from the "Run" menu item, (have done so before with
>>>no prob) and the system froze, a few minutes later, it was rebooting, except
>>>it had somehow trashed the C: drive, which it no longer recognized as a
>>>bootable disk.
>>
>>I don't think anyone here seriously defends 95 as the 'be-all' machine
>>for work.
>>
>>
>
>It's not the be all for anything, it's ok for games, because they are written
>for it, but every game I have for linux is more stable than the windows version,
All 5 of them? :) Yes, it's gotten better, especially with Loki, but
really, there's no comparison.
>this is a small list admitadly. Win9X is only good for the games that have
>no linux version yet. NT might be better, but it's way too expensive, and I
>don't trust the boys in Redmond.
So you've not run NT / Win2k?
------------------------------
From: Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So what is wrong with X?
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 07:59:14 -0500
Stephen Cornell wrote:
> <snip>
> What I am suggesting is that the `X-client/X-server' division of
> labour is too unequal, and that a `remote server/local not-too-thin
> client' approach leads to much less wasted bandwidth. I know this is
> nothing new, and I also know that this approach can be (and is) used
> with applications that run under X. However, as far as I know there
> is no standard protocol (API?) for creating GUIs in this way, so
> programmers are not encouraged to write most software according to
> this model.
Well, I have 2 machines, one Linux and one Sun Solaris. Neither machine can run
each other's binary, but they both have an X-server/client. The program I have
to run is on the Sun, but the Linux machine is my work machine. If both machines
had to equally run the binary, there would be no way for me to run the program
since my Linux machine can't run the Sun binary program. No Thanks.
Instead, I just telnet to the Sun Machine and start the application. Since I
told X to use my X-server as a client for the display, keyboard, and mouse
events, I can run that program over on the Sun Machine and have the program
display show up on my machine only. The X-server on my Linux machine is involved
in handling the display, keyboard, and mouse clicks from my machine. Anybody who
happens to be on the Sun machine won't even be aware that their machine is
running the program I'm using.
> <snip> In summary: X is very powerful, but its very flexibility means that it
> is too inefficient to be used as the communication protocol for most
> remotely-run applications.
It runs things that the Windows GUI simply won't run at all without having to buy
expensive X-server clone programs for Windows. I think that makes X very
powerful and flexible in Comparison to Windows. I have seen X be very
efficient, where I have seen the Windows GUI fail when talking just to another
Windows machine...So, my conclusion: X is powerful and flexible.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Awfulness of WordPerfect
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:05:49 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Full Name would say:
>On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 04:59:37 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>You mean... what if Word Perfect was let back into the market place?
>>
>>The mere mention of such an idea makes for nightmares in Redmond...
>
>The DOS version of WP was quite a good package. The Windows version
>was the worst mass produced software package I've ever seen.
That demands the question:
Was it The Worst because:
a) It was badly designed? or
b) It crashed incessantly?
The design of version 5.2 certainly didn't seem _great_; the serious
problem I saw with it was that it could only run short periods before
crashing. Saving documents often made it crash, which was Rather
A Problem.
Questionable design I could readily blame on WPC.
But it was a well-known "factoid" at the time that Microsoft didn't
consider Windows done 'til it made WordPerfect for Windows crash.
That "fact" wasn't backed up by specific news out of Redmond, but was
certainly consistent with the other things that MSFT was doing at the
time, such as the "AARD" detection of DrDOS, and having Windows spit
out error messages if the DOS it was run on didn't come from Microsoft
(or IBM).
--
Flashlights are cases for holding dead batteries.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: "Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:22:44 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It's comming folks!
>
> Just look at all the little Wintroll's.
>
> They are so angry.
>
> I think that's just too bad.
>
>
> Charlie
Are you sure this is a good thing for Linux? So far, Microsoft has been
neglecting Linux because it conflicts with their OS strategy. That has
provided a niche for other ISVs to survive (StarOffice, Corel, Applix). If
Office shows up in the Linux domain, why do you imagine that the other
office suites would do any better competing against Office under Linux than
under Windows?
To take it a step further, if the Microsoft Windows company (as opposed to
the MS Office company) perceived a threat to the Win32 API in the porting of
Office to Linux, might they not try to keep that from happening by
developing their own version of WINE that uses the real Windows code
(perhaps called WDE--Windows Desktop Environment) for x86 Linux?
You want to run Office (or other Win32 apps) on Linux? Fine, but you gotta
buy yourself a copy of WDE which--surprise!--has the same OEM pricing as
Windows 9.x.
I suspect that if the breakup does happen and the pieces of Microsoft start
turning their attention to Linux, Linux fans may find they preferred the
good old days when Microsoft left the Linux market alone.
Personally, I'd like to be able to buy WDE which would run Office and other
Win32 apps on top of the Linux kernel--but I suspect others here might have
different opinions.
Mark
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: what's the best tool for linux to get IPs?
Date: 28 Apr 2000 11:03:32 GMT
I'm looking for a program to trace IPs on linux,
one that get's by firewalls and stuff.
Does any one know of a program like that?
Thankx!!
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:24:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:36:05 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> >> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:22:44 GMT, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:13:15 +0100, David Faure
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >David Steuber wrote:
> >> >> >> If you want to argue about which Corba ORB to standardize on,
> >that
> >> >is
> >> >> >> an entirely different ball of wax. I think that it would be
> >good
> >> >to
> >> >> >> have either one ORB or have Corba servers and clients work
with
> >all
> >> >> >> ORBs. Then you can drag a file from KFM and drop it on GIMP
to
> >> >edit
> >> >> >> it or whatever. Maybe you can already do that. I haven't
tried
> >> >it.
> >> >> >CORBA has nothing to do with Drag and drop. You can't drag from
> >KFM
> >> >and
> >> >> >drop on gimp, but you can drag from konqueror and drop on gimp,
> >since
> >> >> >Qt 2.x / KDE 2.x use the XDND protocol.
> >> >> [deletia]
> >> >>
> >> >> The Gimp should have access to xdnd.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just because an application programmer has access to all the
bells
> >> >> and whistles, it doesn't mean that the programmer will use
them.
> >> >
> >> >Jedi, read what he wrote. He said Gimp HAS access to XDND, in
fact,
> >>
> >> He also said that you can't drag from kfm to gimp. KFM is
> >> supposed to be conformant to the same standards as the rest
> >> of KDE is it not?
> >
> >Argh. Could you please not argue about what you ignore?
> >He said "KDE 2.x". Kfm is part of KDE 1.x. Kfm's replacement in KDE
2.x
> >is Konqueror. Kfm can't drop to gimp because KDE 1.x doesn't use
Xdnd,
> >because its Dnd stuff was done before Xdnd existed.
>
> ...so much for release early and release often, or nice
> modular design for that matter (something that C++ with
> all of it's object oriented hoo-haa should facilitate).
Jedi, do you have the slightest idea how stupid you look?
Why don't you just say "oh, well, didn't knew that", instead of
backpedaling so furiously?
Do you have ANY idea of when the Xdnd spec was finalized, of when it was
adopted by Qt, and of when development of KDE 1.x was switched to
stability maintenance?
And then, even if KDE's switch to Xdnd was not feasible (it was, it was
also work noone wanted to do at the time, since the only other widget
set that supported Xdnd was JX and GNOME had said they would NOT switch
to Xdnd, but would use Xde), what does that say about failure of OO
development techniques or C++? Nothing! It's just an anecdote.
It could (it really is not) be seen as an example of bad coding practice
in KDE. So what? No project is uniformly well coded. That's reality.
There are plenty of pieces of KDE that are great examples of
OO coding done right.
> [deletia]
>
> You are just making KGrave larger and larger...
Well, considering your ignorance of the subject, I can be confident that
if you are correct, it is only by sheer luck (but I'm lucky these days).
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:28:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:23:58 +0100, David Faure
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:22:44 GMT, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> [deletia]
> >> >>
> >> >> The Gimp should have access to xdnd.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just because an application programmer has access to all
the bells
> >> >> and whistles, it doesn't mean that the programmer will use
them.
> >> >
> >> >Jedi, read what he wrote. He said Gimp HAS access to XDND, in
fact,
> >>
> >> He also said that you can't drag from kfm to gimp. KFM is
> >> supposed to be conformant to the same standards as the rest
> >> of KDE is it not?
> >
> >Don't mix up the KDEs.
> >KDE-1.x had a proprietary DnD protocol, whereas KDE-2.x uses the
>
> Oh, I hadn't realized. That's really QUITE interesting.
>
> Now I can have yet another reason for not trusting the
> KDE development team...
Uh... switching from homebrewed protocols[1] to standards is a reason
not to trust KDE? Interesting point of view. Any other pearls of wisdom
you would like to share? Maybe if Sun released StarOffice under the BSD
license, it would be a reason not to trust Sun?
[1] David is using proprietary in a very specific way: it was a protocol
based on the Offix protocol, with some extensions to make it more
suitable to KDE's needs. It was not closed, and anyone could use it.
It's just that noone did. Then, when Xdnd came up, the choice was made
to switch to it. But since KDE 1.x was already in maintenance mode, and
development went into KDE2, it won't be finished until KDE2 is released.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:52:12 +1000
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ebtjd$6mg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : When Windows 95 first came out, engineers put sniffers on the
> : net to figure out why desktops were sending traffic between 1:00 A.M.
> : and 4:00 A.M. local time. Furthermore, this traffic was going
> : via UDP (thus bypassing firewalls).
>
>
> Interestingly this is why I've banned all versions of Winblows from my
> network. Prior to discovering NT's propensity to try to connect at
> random times to nameless IP addresses in SE Asia, I had a lone NT box
> behind a masquerading firewall. No more. It still exists in case I
> have to open Office documents that SO or WP can't handle, but its only
> connection to the rest of the network is via Sneakernet.
>
> Microsoft is NOT entitled, legally, morally or otherwise, to know what
> is on the contents of my hard drive.
It seems a lot of people like to make claims like this, but I don't believe
I've ever seen a single one back it up with actual evidence. Do you think
you could be the first ?
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:37:12 GMT
In article <CCLN4.22091$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Roberto Alsina would
say:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:13:15 +0100, David Faure
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >David Steuber wrote:
> >> >> If you want to argue about which Corba ORB to standardize on,
that
> >is
> >> >> an entirely different ball of wax. I think that it would be
good
> >to
> >> >> have either one ORB or have Corba servers and clients work with
all
> >> >> ORBs. Then you can drag a file from KFM and drop it on GIMP to
> >edit
> >> >> it or whatever. Maybe you can already do that. I haven't tried
> >it.
> >> >CORBA has nothing to do with Drag and drop. You can't drag from
KFM
> >and
> >> >drop on gimp, but you can drag from konqueror and drop on gimp,
since
> >> >Qt 2.x / KDE 2.x use the XDND protocol.
> >> [deletia]
> >>
> >> The Gimp should have access to xdnd.
> >>
> >> Just because an application programmer has access to all the bells
> >> and whistles, it doesn't mean that the programmer will use them.
> >
> >Jedi, read what he wrote. He said Gimp HAS access to XDND, in fact,
> >he said Gimp USES XDND. I don't know if what he said is correct, not
> >using Gimp at all, but at least try to argue about what is there.
>
> It's still pretty legitimate to note that the use (or disuse) CORBA is
> fairly irrelevant to this issue; it is the use of the XDND protocol
> that "stimulates" most of the use of Drag'n'Drool on Linux/X.
Indeed, two of the telltale signs of people just talking at random,
are the widespread myths that DnD is somehow related to the window
manager, or to the usage of a specific ORB (or the usage of an ORB at
all).
In all implementations currently in use, inter-application DND is done
through atoms, and that's Xlib, and nothing more than Xlib.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Awfulness of WordPerfect
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:56:17 +1000
"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Full Name would say:
> >On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 04:59:37 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >>You mean... what if Word Perfect was let back into the market place?
> >>
> >>The mere mention of such an idea makes for nightmares in Redmond...
> >
> >The DOS version of WP was quite a good package. The Windows version
> >was the worst mass produced software package I've ever seen.
>
> That demands the question:
> Was it The Worst because:
>
> a) It was badly designed? or
> b) It crashed incessantly?
>
> The design of version 5.2 certainly didn't seem _great_; the serious
> problem I saw with it was that it could only run short periods before
> crashing. Saving documents often made it crash, which was Rather
> A Problem.
>
Plus it didn't follow any of the Windows UI standards. And it was
horrifically slow.
> Questionable design I could readily blame on WPC.
But, it seems, you prefer to blame Microsoft based on things you heard
around the campfire ?
> But it was a well-known "factoid" at the time that Microsoft didn't
> consider Windows done 'til it made WordPerfect for Windows crash.
Ah, is this like the "till Lotus won't run" "factoid" as well ?
> That "fact" wasn't backed up by specific news out of Redmond, but was
> certainly consistent with the other things that MSFT was doing at the
> time, such as the "AARD" detection of DrDOS, and having Windows spit
> out error messages if the DOS it was run on didn't come from Microsoft
> (or IBM).
Only in beta versions, then ?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
