Linux-Advocacy Digest #580, Volume #26 Thu, 18 May 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451683 (Pascal Haakmat)
Re: Bill is a weenie (Sitaram Chamarty)
Re: Question ("Robert L.")
Re: Bill is a weenie (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Familiarity of Windows for Linux! ("Arjan J. Molenaar")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Jim)
Re: Closed-mindedness and zeal... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!) ("Stephen S.
Edwards II")
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451683.943^-000000000003 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Jim)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Craig Kelley)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (Tim Koklas)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (George Russell)
Re: Does Linux support USB already? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Here is the solution (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Question (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pascal Haakmat)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451683
Date: 18 May 2000 13:56:33 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I already did that, Dave.
>
>No you didn't.
Yes I did.
>That's why you had to ask me what my question was.
You've just not been very specific.
>> I won't do it again.
>
>You're erroneously presupposing that you did it previously.
Are you saying that you did not forget to digest me? Perhaps you chose not
to digest me on purpose?
>> Why should you indeed.
>
>You should know, given that you're the one who wants me to admit to
>something that isn't the truth.
I want you to get on your knees and ask me to marry you, but lacking that, I
want you to admit that you forgot to digest me.
>> I'm sorry, I'm afraid I confused you with someone else.
>
>That's your problem.
Indeed.
>> Please don't be mad.
>
>What makes you think I might be mad?
Where do you think do I get my impression of you?
>> Sweet liar of mine.
>
>Namely yourself.
You think I'm sweet?
>> I beg to differ,
>
>On what basis do you beg to differ, Pascal?
I think your memory has gone bad. We can have it examined if you like.
>> daffodil of mine.
>
>Non sequitur.
Almost certainly not.
>> What claim?
>
>The claim you made, Pascal. Having memory problems?
What a coincidence.
>> What claim?
>
>The claim you made, Pascal. Having memory problems?
Maybe we should get ourselves examined together. We can hold hands and eat
ice-cream if you like. Do you like ice-cream?
>> Don't you know, Dave?
>
>No, I don't know when you disciplined me previously, Pascal; why do
>you think I asked?
Because you want more?
>> I'm not going to tell you until you admit you forgot to digest me.
>
>Why would I admit to something that isn't the truth, Pascal?
I never said you should, sweet dandelion.
>> That is how I am disciplining you.
>
>Illogical, Pascal.
Nevertheless you keep coming back for more.
>> "again", Dave?
>
>Yes, Pascal. Still having reading comprehension problems?
"still", Dave?
>> All of them.
>
>Typical lack of specificity.
Do you particularly like to say that, even though it isn't true?
>> Don't you remember?
>
>I can't remember that which hasn't been stated, Pascal.
More evidence of your memory problems.
>> Did I ever stop loving you?
>
>Non sequitur.
Ask me later.
>> Are you saying I am predictable?
>
>I'm saying that your failure to start then was not a surprise, Pascal.
It's surprising that you think I ever stopped, though.
>> Love can do that to a person, Dave.
>
>Love for entertainment.
No thanks.
>> Perhaps.
>
>Non sequitur.
Perhaps.
>> Perhaps.
>
>On the contrary, for sure you did jump to a conclusion, Pascal.
Perhaps.
>> Perhaps.
>
>On the contrary, you did write "if", Pascal.
Perhaps.
--
Rate your CSMA savvy by identifying the writing styles of
ancient and recent, transient and perdurable CSMA inhabitants:
(35 posters, 252 quotes)
<http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sitaram Chamarty)
Subject: Re: Bill is a weenie
Date: 18 May 2000 14:06:39 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 02:03:32 -0400, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>world of computing better? I would say that he made the personal computer
>more accessible to the average dummy with his "easy to use" Windows 9X
>interface. That's one way. I really can't think of any other ways in
But all those average dummies are growing up thinking it's
perfectly OK for a computer to crash periodically, which is not
true at all.
One day we got snow on the TV due to a cable problem, and my son
suggested I switch off and switch on the TV! He says "it works
for the computer, so why not for the TV?" I hold Bill Gates and
his gang responsible for this!
(This was a long time ago - my son knows better now :-)
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 14:09:44 GMT
"Raul Valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
rtFU4.371$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> What does prevent Microsoft selling its own Linux distribution with
> integrated browser (may even be IE), bonus packages (like Office)
> and a propietary installed (as most distros do) ? Then, wouldn't this
> be as monopolistic as Windows ? Just asking for opinion.
Money!!!
They want money for everything they do. They are going to ask money cause
they compile the kernel, cause it's *.rpm and *.deb compatible. They will do
what everyone can make, but useless, so no one make it. The system gonna be
very costly, if they put office in it, it's 100-150 we have to pay.
If MS want, they can take a slackware, make some useless addition, remove
usefull stuff, and sell it. EVERY addition will be closed, and it's going to
be full of bug. People trying this version will say "Windows is far more
stable than this Linux shit! I reinstall windows." And these people are
going to stay with windows & microsoft. And, some people gonna go here and
say shit against Linux without having try a real distrib. ( by real i mean
an untouch distrib )
So, if they make one, is to make people thinking Linux is shit.
Please MS, don't sell ( or give ) any Linux.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill is a weenie
Date: 18 May 2000 14:19:36 GMT
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
: 3.) Bill is a geek. Yes, Bill is one of us (Geek), but he is one of those
: asshole geeks.
Hey now. Geekdom implies technical competance. BillG certainly
looks geeky, but he hasn't shown anything remotely technical since
the Altair days. Let's not insult hard-working, technically adept
geeks everywhere by placing BillG among them.
------------------------------
From: "Arjan J. Molenaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Familiarity of Windows for Linux!
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 16:26:30 +0200
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Run Suse 6.4 or Mandrake 7.0 and leave your computer on all day as I do.
> >I never re-boot except for power outages.
> >
> >With Microsoft you have to re-boot.
>
> I would only Linux doesn't offer me what I want right now. Windows does...
> though if Borland manage to release Kylix this year that may change.
What do you need? A compiler, a drawing app, internet access and XBILL!
Arjan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 14:17:38 GMT
On 18 May 2000 00:44:19 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Bob Hauck <hauck[at]codem{dot}com> writes:
>: Linux has come a long way since 1996. Your knowledge is a bit dated.
>
>I'm sure it is. I'm not arguing the technical validity of Linux here,
>Bob
>He keeps spewing off about his "experience" with WindowsNT, and how much
>it crashes, and BSODs.
Whatever his experience with NT or lack of it, your experience with Linux
is out of date and it is a bit disingenuous for you to claim "extensive
linux experience" as you have done in the past.
>It is his childish, and wankish behavior that I am downplaying and not
>Linux (though in another thread, I did explain one of my personal reasons
>for disliking Linux which some may consider silly... you decide).
I saw that post and personally, I do consider your reasons silly, or at
least superficial. If I understand correctly, it boils down to a couple
of the kernel hackers sometimes putting four-letter words in their
comments in the source. I fail to see what that has to do with the
quality of the code itself, the reliability of the system, or anything
else that's measureable, but you are entitled to your opinion. I wonder
if their are any such words in NT's source? Would you change your opinion
of NT if there were?
I also think you are very quick to dismiss people's experiences on the
basis of it being "anecdotal evidence". As far as I know there is no
other kind of publicly-available evidence for something like frequency of
BSOD. Can you point us to any actual statistics of this kind for any OS?
Them that could afford to pay for the surveys won't necessarily be
interested in releasing the results.
So, for how often we see BSOD vs a kernel panic, we are pretty much
limited to collecting anecdotes as far as I can tell. I agree that BSOD
is fairly rare. However, that doesn't mean that NT is as reliable as
Linux either.
I'm not going to comment on the rest of this because I really don't care
what you think of Perry or Charlie. I do agree with you that there are a
lot of bozos posting in this group (I'm reading this in cola). I may
disagree on exactly which posters those are.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 18 May 2000 10:39:49 EDT
In article <3923cd68$3$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snippage applied to everything except the .notsig, since that contains
the only information content in the post]
I have purposefully not pruned the odd collection of cross-posted groups
(this guy has a strange idea of what advocacy means!) in order to ask of
all of the victimized groups: isn't there _anything_ we can collectively
do to tromp, squash, bash, and otherwise trash this oaf's exercise of
free speech (or at least censor it a bit? No? He's certainly
demonstrated, long term, that he doesn't deserve to exercise it. I
suppose we _do_ have to put up with porn to safeguard artistic freedom,
but this seems to go beyond that, IMHO. Ah, well, I guess that's what
the kill file is for. Sheesh!
PS.
> --
The space goes here ^
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
> MR/2 Ice 2.19ze Registration Number 67
> As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------
>
PPS. Does OS/2 have an editor that lets you prune the Newsgroups header?
<clue--this is a somewhat sarcastic rhetorical question>
*plunk*
--
Jim (we don't need no steenkin' M$ aroun' here, either, Bub, but we don't spew it all
over usenet) Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Closed-mindedness and zeal... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!)
Date: 18 May 2000 14:41:28 GMT
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8fvddj$phq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: >
: > Half true. The kernel is also partially based on the Carnegie Mellon MACH
: > microkernel, as well as being based partially on FreeBSD v3.2.
: No, the kernel is a straight Mach derivative. I believe it is even referred
: to as Mach 3.0.
: The BSD part comes in above that - I believe the Mach people refer to them
: as "personalities" - like the Win32, POSIX and OS/2 layers on top of the NT
: kernel.
Hmmm... a document on Darwin at Apple's web site states that the core OS
is based on both MACH and FreeBSD v3.2. I just now tried to get at it,
but the link is reporting a network error. I'll try again later on today.
: > The name
: > for the core running underneath MacOS X is known as "Darwin". It's going
: > to be OpenSource software (at least, that was the situation when I last
: > read about it), and it promises to be one heck of a kickass operating
: > system for graphics applications. Let's hope Apple gets things like SMP
: > right with this one.
: SMP ain't easy to get right, even after many tries. My guess is the first
: few versions won't be too hot.
: > The WindowsNT kernel is similar, in that it too is partially derived from
: > the MACH microkernel.
: I don't think it's "derived" in any way except the conceptual design. Any
: documentation to the contrary would be welcome.
When I say "derived", I don't mean to suggest that actual code is derived.
I'm talking about design principles here. But I can see how my words
would be interpreted that way. :-)
: > It's officially referred to a "modified
: > microkernel" in Microsoftie terms. Microsoft has made its design a little
: > more monolithic-like than they should have, IMHO, but I think the
: > WindowsNT kernel is still very efficient, from what I have experienced
: > using the OS.
: It's kinda hard to tell, since the only thing you really ever see on NT is
: Win32.
True. I've had outstanding performance results with it on my Screamernet
network. I'd be curious to see how well an OS like NetBSD would fare
(NewTek would have to port LWSN.EXE (LightWave ScreamerNet) first, of
course).
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451683.943^-000000000003
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:44:13 -0400
Today's Tholen digest is full of nothing:
[yep, nothing but these word to sum them up!]
Thanks for reading!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 18 May 2000 11:13:07 EDT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
[snip]
> > OLE was introduced as part of the OS in 1992, it was NEVER an
> > office only solution.
>
> OLE officially used by MS prior to 1992 and it was an office only
> solution. The Apps group invented OLE for their exclusive use.
>
> WHEN OLE was added to the OS MS said the correct defintion and
> documentation on how OLE worked was defined by their Office
> implementation.
>
I am on thin ice here, because I don't remember the time frame, but
wasn't OLE just another M$copy of an Apple technology--the Publish and
Subscribe protocol? Anyone? (with actual knowlege, of course)
>
> > > >Oh, one person gives the entire application team (for Office,
> > > >that's like 200 developers) orders of magnitudes of extra
> > > >leverage. Right.
> > >
> > > Yea, like maybe the senior software architects? Or do you think
> > > all the Excel widget makers do their own design? The Office team
> > > is a lot bigger than 200 developers by the way - well at least it
> > > was about 6 yrs ago and I doubt that it has shrunk. As to
> > > Kerberos why don't you find out what the other people at IETF and
> > > MIT have been saying about MS's behaviour.
Is it really so hard to imagine that an entire team of (even thousands)
of programmers can (and do) get "extra leverage" from copies of APIs
obtained from a "point source?" Even simple coders don't need their
hands held to code up an API. After all, they are its secondary audience
(after the corporate spies ;-). (Thank you, Linus Torvald, et al., and
all the hard working standards committee members _outside_ of the
M$_alternate_universe.)
> >
> > I fail to see how access to undocumented API's would help a designer.
>
> Yet you'll argue undocumented APIs do not exist.
I'd go farther and say that EF's statement above is transparently
ingenuos for anyone who's had occasion to do a little design himself.
And if he hasn't, he should keep his uninformed opinions to himself, if
he wants to be believed.
[snip]
--
Jim (no M$ required) Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 May 2000 09:12:46 -0600
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Wed, 17 May 2000 03:49:26 GMT <8ft4s0$t8m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> As if drive NUMBERS are all that different...
>>
>> CAT,d1
>>
>> Gak, I hated that. Of course the Commodore64 was even worse; It
>> started labeling at 8 (because of the biggest kludge in the universe:
>> the 1541).
>
>Drive numbers were a DOS 3.3 thing. ProDOS and GS/OS used volume names,
>which were not drive letters/numbers/labels, or mount points, but
>something entirely different. They were actually pretty useful,
>especially for installations without a hard drive.
ProDOS certainly DID use drive numbers.
CAT,D1 is a ProDos command, in fact (it won't work under 3.3).
I never had a GS, but I just bid on one from ebay. :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Tim Koklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 15:10:58 GMT
Jim Ross wrote:
ware out there, quite complicated, having all sorts of
> > fancy filters etc, costing no more than �9.99, which is $20?
>
> Name some for our benefit.
Ohh, I can't remember, there are so many programs with wierd names. Emm,
LivePix, PhotoDeluxe (�14.99) and many more. Just look at the covering
disks of PC-Format, PC-Plus etc. Every month there are 1-2 image
editors. And most of them are cheap.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Russell)
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 15:21:22 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:44:25 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:13:31 GMT, Pete Goodwin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )) wrote in <8fucab$92l$1
>>@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>[deletia]
>>>(friendly GUI interfaces for applications and administration, helps,
>>> wizards, and hints). Linux also agreessively went after the
>>>configurability of the PC in terms of hardware and software. There
>>>are some peripherals that aren't supported, but more and more
>>>OEMs and After-market vendors are discovering that Linux support
>>>sells hardware. Even if users don't use Linux full-time, they
>>>are insisting on the ability to run Linux at least some of the time.
>>
>>I must have missed something here - Linux still seemed to have
>>configuration spread all over the place.
>
> Only if you consider /etc and $HOME 'all over the place'.
And /var/spool and /usr/lib and /opt/appname + /usr/local/appname +
/usr/doc/appname
No distribution is consistent with any other.
George Russell
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Does Linux support USB already?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 May 2000 09:19:28 -0600
"Mariano Cividino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a USB Zip drive, printer and scanner and Red Hat 6.1 doesn't seem to
> support USB devices.
> Do someone know if current Linux distributions support USB and how to
> configure then?
Linux 2.2 does not support USB (generically speaking -- keyboards and
mice are exceptions).
Your only option right now is to use the 2.3 development kernel, which
should come out as 2.4 stable sometime in the next few months.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 15:23:15 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 04:53:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> The notion that the machines or software is cheap or free is only
>> true so long as the only people going after these machines are a
>> small population of "daft tinkerers." (Parallelling the "daft
>> tinkerers" that want to port Linux to NeXT cubes, Vaxes, and such.
>> It's not just VMS folk that are daft...)
>
>And that is largely what I am advocating VMS for. Linux is supposed to
>be for hobbyists, people who are interested in programming and in
>computer hardware. When some Linux user tells me VMS is crap because
>his favorite video game is not available for it (as a parent poster
>did), well, that kind of puts into the light what Linux people are
>really all about. I'm a daft tinkerer with VMS, but I'm practical too.
Oh really. So what 'practical' things can you achieve that
someone who also likes to have fun can't accomplish under
one of the Unixen?
[deletia]
It's not like the home hobbyist is interested in running ebay
itself without the db server melting...
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 15:27:21 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 18:56:56 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >What *really* strikes me as weird is that allegedly something like
>> >65% of people opened the attachment. I mean, come on --- you start out
>> >with a mail with the title "ILOVEYOU". Not "I love you", not
>> >"I LOVE YOU", but just "ILOVEYOU". Would you *really* expect someone
>> >who might be in love with you to leave out any whitespace? How long
>> >have they been using email?
>> >Then, you look at the mail, and it contains absolutely *nothing* that
>> >personalizes it. You are not being addressed, heck, AFAIK, the whole
>> >thing doesn't even refer to one's gender at any time. And at the end,
>> >it says "please look at this loveletter from me".... Gimme a break!
>>
>> Maybe it's just curiosity. This possibility was mainly caused by the
>> fact that the difference between code and data has been severly blurred
>> in the Windows environment. "Open" a .gif file and "open" a .exe file
>> sound the same to the end user but are fundamentally different.
>
>In all fairness if you want to lay "blame" for that (if you consider it
>something that deserves to be "blamed" on someone) you would have to lay it
>on Apple. After all, as the Mac advocates are so proud of trumpeting, they
>did pioneer that whole document-centric GUI thing.
When did the Apple notion of "open" ever include "execute this
random bit of possibly malicious code".
THAT was purely a Microsoft 'innovation'.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 15:28:54 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 04:49:10 GMT, Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 May 2000 01:00:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> So what is the problem with doing this in the KDE desktop?
>>
>>KDE isn't free.
>
> uh what? I don't remember paying for KDE...
It's base library is "owned" by a corporation.
A good suggestion might be to replace libqt entirely with a
completely liberated clone. However, it's dubious whether or
not the KDE developers would actually take advantage of such
a thing.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Question
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 15:32:28 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 07:16:31 GMT, Raul Valero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>> call it "Lindoze"). If M$ Office becomes available for Linux, it's
>> going to become even more commonly used.
>> It would never be monopolistic (like Windoze), because you can go
>> into a store and buy a burned Linux CD (which would certainly be
>> compatible with Lindoze) for virtually nothing. There's a huge amount
>> of competitors.
>
> Thanks for your opinions. One thing, why should Microsoft be forced
>to sell Office apart when Corel includes Corel Office at Corel Linux ?
Corel doesn't OWN the OS. They're just another VAR, like Compaq
or eMachines...
They're not a monopoly player of any kind either.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 15:36:20 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 01:24:53 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:28:05 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >Tim Koklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Ian Bell wrote:
>> >> > Trial versions? Maybe they're good when the full version costs more
>> >> > thatn the scanner itself.
>> >>
>> >> There is more software out there, quite complicated, having all sorts
>of
>> >> fancy filters etc, costing no more than �9.99, which is $20?
>> >
>> >Name some for our benefit.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > No, it never will.... I have to give you that one, no-one will ever
>> >> > develop any applications for the fastest growing OS platform in the
>> >> > world...
>> >>
>> >> lol
>> >
>> >That is as a server.
>> >
>> >And why would a server OS need scanner support?
>> >That's clearly a desktop application.
>> >
>> >Linux only has 4% desktop market share and won't grow since it's not easy
>> >enough,
>> >and missing critical features like anti-aliased support.
>>
>> If that's all that you think is missing then you are going
>> to be quite dissapointed.
>
>No.
Certainly. Both the major desktops already have anti-aliased
font suppot and the standard X server just got support for it
as well.
[deletia]
>I wonder if you have an alternate explanation Jedi for why Linux isn't being
10 years of forced bundling and the perception that it 'runs
everthing'. REAL people don't give a SHIT about 'antialised'
fonts. They want their pet applications to work and to be able
to deal with the cruft other people send them.
[deletia]
...thus why a superior MacOS lost.
History has already contradicted your assertions at least once.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
