Linux-Advocacy Digest #301, Volume #29 Mon, 25 Sep 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Jim Richardson)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Marty)
Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: GPL & freedom
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: programming languages and design (Richard)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Re: The Linux Experience
Re: The Linux Experience
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Stuart Fox")
Re: The Linux Experience
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 19:48:49 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 22:18:19 GMT,
Timberwoof, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> On 24 Sep 2000 14:29:56 GMT,
>> Andres Soolo, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, brought forth
>> the following words...:
>>
>> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>
>[> >> Timberwoof wrote:]
>
>> >>> Are you an idiot? Are you a silly troll who can do nothing but
>> >>> start flamewars? Do you have to hide your stupid drivel by asking
>> >>> questions? When it turns out you're flat wrong, do you have to
>> >>> cover your butt my pointing out that you were only asking
>> >>> questions? Are your posts even worth reading?
>> >> Mine are. Yours are not. PLONK You just hit the killfile here and
>> >> for all those I feed.
>> >So you have to censor ideas that contradict with yours from your
>> >relatives?
>> >
>> >What does that say about your estimation of their intelligence? Or
>> >your self-esteem? :-)
>>
>> Censorship is if he tries to stop you posting, not if he stops
>> listening.
>
>I don't particularly care if he stops listening ("You just hit the
>killfile here...") to me.
>
>However, when he stops other people listening ("...and for all those I
>feed."), that is censorship. If they are his minor children, then
>there's not much I care to do about it. But if he's an ISP, then I'd
>encourage his customers to go somewhere else.
>
You have a point there, assuming of course, that Bob is telling the truth...
:)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:19:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Actually "Attack of the Killer Refrigerator" is also in the running.
> Plan 9 Outer Space is another winner. You can see the scenery flapping
> behind the actors and Mic booms hanging down into the frame.
How about another Ed Wood classic: Glen or Glenda? It opens with a hurd of
buffalo and a nonsensical and unrelated monologue by Bela Legosi ("PULL DE
STREEENGS!!"). At one point in the movie, the camera aims at a radiator for
no apparent reason and focuses on it while dialog is occurring. That has got
to be the worst movie I've ever seen, and I've seen many a horrible movie.
Shame that it was one of Bela Legosi's last films before he died.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...)
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:38:25 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>One lesson I've gained over the years is that, whilst I'm right,
>the chances are that the person I'm discussing with is also right,
>just looking at things from a different perspective. The only time
>I still get hacked off about this is when I sniff bullying going on;
>which is why Microsoft kind of piss me off ;)
>
What's this, a realisticly open minded view on an advocacy
group. We'd better stop this discussion, lest the wartime
police come knocking ;-).
Bullying is often the result of a narrow or completely
closed mind. That's one of the few things that truly
pisses me off. Someone stating that they are right and
the reason that they are right is because they know they
are right is enough to send me into frothy overload. It
seems we may be in agreement on this as well.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:57:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>How funny! :-) That's very dry mwgreen757 -- I almost missed it. I'm
>so glad i didn't!
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "T. Max Devlin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > [snip] ... Your ongoing tirade of posturing [snip]
>> > [snip] ...You are a moron. [snip] ... if one
>> > weren't a moron.
>>
>> > T. Max Devlin
>> > *** The best way to convince another is
>> > to state your case moderately and
>> > accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
One would have to wonder what an immoderate response would have been
like, eh?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:06:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> I've explained this only a half dozen times. Why don't you email it to
>> >> all the other trolls: I only use a single computer; a laptop provided by
>> >> my company. I don't *have* a 'home PC'. I won't dual boot, and I have
>> >> a Linux box (an old Gateway laptop) at the office, but mostly I just use
>> >> Sun boxes when I use Unix.
>> >
>> >Pathetic.
>>
>> Your ongoing tirade of posturing, you mean? I'd agree, but I wouldn't
>> have thought to mention it, as its not unusual that your various
>> trolling excuses are generally pathetic.
>
>I'm rubber and you're glue, that bounced off me and stuck to you ;-)
>You come off like a really smart kindergartner, Devlin.
LOL.
>> >Quit complaining about the operating system you freely choose to use, or
>> >switch. It's very simple, AND the answer to all your Microsoft problems.
>>
>> You are a moron.
>
>This *IS* the real issue, but you chose to ignore it.
This is bogus arm-waving; you choose to ignore the criminal activity
which has resulted in Microsoft enjoying monopoly power, and the reality
of that power.
>The truth is, you
>could go out and get a computer with linux loaded on it RIGHT NOW -- but
>you choose to use your laptop from work and spend half your day (or
>pretty damn close) bitching about it on USENET. Shall we take up a
>collection? How does the Max Devlin Memorial Computer Fund sound?
Like moronic hand-waving.
The truth is, Microsoft, whether you wish to believe it or not, makes it
more expensive and more difficult to get a computer with Linux loaded on
it. It isn't that it would cost me money; it is that it is less
valuable to me *and* costs more money than it would had not the various
felonious strategies not been performed by *Microsoft*. This has
nothing whatsoever to do with yours truly; I feel no personal
responsibility for the situation, and do not apologize for not making it
my problem any more than it is. When it is convenient and productive
for me to buy a Linux box, I will. Until then, it is Microsoft's fault,
not my own, that I am not already doing so.
[...]
>> >You have not proven in any way that you are forced to use MS in your leisure
>> >time. But by saying that you in fact HAVE access to other platforms your
>> >only hurting your position that your forced to use MS products.
>>
>> Indeed. One might think that it would only support my position, if one
>> weren't a moron.
>
>You have no position to support until you stop posting from Windows.
>You have choices but you'd just rather hear yourself complain.
Again, I'll point out that quite the opposite is, indeed, the case.
Were it not for the fact that, despite my knowledge of its inferior
nature and outrageous cost, I am still using Windows, I'd scarcely have
any need or reason to complain to begin with. Were it simple and
convenient for me to avoid Microsoft crapware, I would have no position
to support.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:06:29 -0000
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:32:05 GMT, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In lots of advocacy groups, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:1SDx5.2386
>
>:> " "Free software" refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,
>:> study, change and improve the software."
>:>
>:> Given that goal the GPL is more "free" than other licenses.
>
>: Except that it doesn't even meet that goal. Sure, it gives you the freedom
>: to run the software, copy it, distribute it. You cannot study it, change
>: it, or improve it for any reason other than personal use without having your
>: actions dictated to you by the GPL.
>
>I loathe the GPL for this reason.
>
>Whenever *I* release free software, the licence conditions allow anyone to
>do whatever they like with it, without imposing any restrictions on them
This is commonly known as public domain, or IOW something
that has no licencing at all...
"unrestrictive licence" is an oxymoron.
>whatsoever. I *want* companies to build commercial systems on my code.
>As far as I'm concerned, the more users the merrier.
[deletia]
--
I/O, I/O,
It's off to disk I go,
A bit or byte to read or write,
I/O, I/O, I/O...
How much does it cost to entice a dope-smoking UNIX system guru to Dayton?
-- Brian Boyle, UNIX/WORLD's First Annual Salary Survey
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:09:57 -0000
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:48:15 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Fri, 22 Sep 2000 23:17:30 -0000
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:43:54 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote
>>>on Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:34:48 -0000
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>>On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:50:51 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
>>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> wrote
>>>>>on Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:52:44 -0400
>>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>>>>Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>[deletia]
>>>>>
>>>>>And now we're more or less stuck with it. :-/
>>>>
>>>> This is more a side effect of bad MS engineering than
>>>> anything else. Nearly every other commonly known OS
>>>> has not suffered this problem (VMS, Unix, NextStep, MacOS).
>>>
>>>There's two other issues, unfortunately. Not only did MS engineer
>>>it badly, but MS tried to (and, for the most part, succeeded to)
>>>leverage its dominance in one operating system -- MS-DOS -- to
>>>give us all an even worse-engineered graphical subproduct, namely,
>>>Windows 3.1, and later on Windows 95, Windows NT, and you know
>>>the rest. :-)
>>>
>>>But the big problem? We bought it hook, line and sinker. (We may
>>>have felt that there was little other choice, but we did buy it.
>>>Or perhaps middle management in key corporate accounts bought it.
>>>I don't know.)
>>
>> What's this "we" stuff? ppppffffttt!
>
>Well, if you've never bought a computer with preinstalled MS software ever
>in your lifetime, then I suppose it would be just "we minus jedi". :-)
>(It's possible!)
The last prebuilt computer I bought was an Atari 520STe.
[deletia]
>> Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
>> nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
>> with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
>> have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
>> in once they've made a bad initial decision.
>
>Well, Microsoft's good at that, admittedly.
[deletia]
--
The party adjourned to a hot tub, yes. Fully clothed, I might add.
-- IBM employee, testifying in California State Supreme Court
Murphy's Law of Research:
Enough research will tend to support your theory.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:13:34 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 03:46:02 GMT, Richard wrote:
> >"I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not
> >have C++ in mind." - Alan Kay
>
> Well C++ is not just about OO. Java is probably a better example of
> a 100% OO language.
So that's why it has primitive types, gratuitous keywords, Rube Goldberg
blocks and other shite?
Smalltalk, Self, Eiffel are OO. Java? Only in the minds of marketing droids.
> There are large parts of C++ ( for example STL )
> that don't use much OO ( as in inheritence and polymorphism ) at all.
OO isn't just inheritance and polymorphism.
One of the requirements of OO is elegance, that's what it's all supposed
to be about. So if a language isn't "only" OO then it is *not at all* OO.
Same with functional programming.
Paradigms aren't overlapping sets, they're *mutually exclusive* sets.
In between them you have a no man's land littered with horrors.
There's no such thing as "supporting" a paradigm in the sense of C++,
that's just nonsense invented by marketroids. And one can see this
when one realizes that even Smalltalk does not "impose" OO, it
merely supports it. And if Smalltalk merely supports OO then C++
does not.
> I don't see how they cannot be a big deal. Run time errors are harder
> to detect obviously. Compile time errors are detected and hence fixed
> earlier which results in better quality software.
>
> Given a choice, I would take a compile time error over a run time error
> any day.
I'll take a run-time error in Smalltalk over a compile time error in C++
any day. After programming C++, debuging Smalltalk is pleasant.
Besides, you're only going to catch the trivial errors at compile time
(and usually stuff that should never even be possible). Logic errors are
not possible to detect at compile time, nor are design or architecture
blunders. If your language makes it just a tiny bit easier to detect and
fix the latter kind of error, then the lack of type safety doesn't even
show up as a blip on the radar screen.
> >And I'm not saying that everyone should do like I do: I'm saying that
> >everyone should *not* use C++ and *not* use Unix.
>
> Well in the case of C++, you are speaking from a position of ignorance,
> and you've admitted this.
No, I haven't. Not knowing how to program in C++ isn't the same thing
as being unaware of its many, many, many, many, many shortcomings
(reading and writing are different skills and this is evident in any natural
language). There's a reason I've avoided learning it; it's because I cringe
every single time I see code in it (same with Java for that matter).
Unsurprisingly, this did not happen with Scheme, ML or Lisp.
When your first instinctive reaction to something is total and complete
revulsion, do you honestly need a stronger argument against it?
You know, Pascal is used in language textbooks because its legion of
shortcomings are instructive. I believe C++ is just too damned ugly.
> We're not. "Container classes" are classes like linked lists, queues,
> sets, hashes, etc. C++ solves the problem with generics.
Ahhh, Collections. Generics don't give you heterogenous lists.
If there's a thing I love about collections in Smalltalk it's the
enumeration methods like #do:
aSet do: [:each | each someMethod].
What could be simpler?
You can even write,
| aBlock |
aBlock := [:each | each someMethod].
aSet perform: #do:
with: aBlock.
Which as soon as blocks are full closures, starts to look a lot like
functional programming. But you probably don't care about that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:15:40 -0000
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:04:41 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Mon, 18 Sep 2000 22:50:28 -0000
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:34:36 +0100, Stuart Fox
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> Nigel Feltham wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > >This kills me. People bitch about Windows 9x still having legacy DOS
>>>> > >support, and when they begin to take it out, suddenly those same people
>>>> > >bitch because it's gone.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > They don't bitch about legacy support in itself being gone, they
>>>complain
>>>> > about
>>>> > the support for their hardware being removed -
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. So my video card is obsolete because MS says so? Fuck
>>>> that. That is the sort of arrogance that is driving a lot of
>>>> people to try linux.
>>>
>>>MS has precisely fuck all to do with whether your video card is supported.
>>>Your hardware manufacturer decides whether to write the driver, not MS. MS
>>>may bundle the driver, but they certainly don't write them...
>>
>> It is infact, Microsoft's OS and device driver interface.
>>
>> Unless you can come up with some compelling reason why MS
>> should break with the past and make all of those older Win9x
>> drivers unusable, you're just making feeble excuses for M$.
>
>It would not be unreasonable to go with a new driver model that
>doesn't support VxD's, which are similar to the TSR's (and have some
>of the same problems) of the bad old DOS days.
That tells one NOTHING of what is actually so wrong about VxD's.
Also, it would be Microsoft's fault for adopting a bad paradigm
in the first place. It's all ultimately their OS. If they couldn't
plan well for the future in the past then that is also their fault.
They've always been a backwards looking company and now it's biting
users in the butt.
>
>Of course, this breaks everything dependent on VxD's. Not good.
>One would hope that Microsoft made a token attempt to contact the
>manufacturers with a warning about this issue, as opposed to
>merely plastering a warning on a webpage somewhere, deep in their
>websystem.
>
>Also, Microsoft has been making noises about merging the Win/DOS and
>the WinNT lines for years now. I wish they'd just do it already,
They also made noises about OS/2 becoming their OS standard.
>but legacy issues keep cropping up. :-) This may be one of them,
>although how one screws up a perfectly good generic 640x480x16 VGA
>driver is beyond me.
--
"Truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense."
Atlanta:
An entire city surrounded by an airport.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:18:39 -0000
On 25 Sep 2000 12:54:10 GMT, Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> However, unlike windows, Linux won't reconfigure the stuff behind your
>>> back and not tell you what it did. :)
>> And 99% of all users will understand that info how?
>I guess you misparsed the original sentence. What he meant was Linux,
>unlike MSW, does not change configuration unless specifically asked for.
Plus, it doesn't matter whether or not the user understands.
Furthermore, that information can still be useful to the
local guru that the WinDOS user guru in question undoubtably
depends on to do anything non-trivial with the system.
[deletia]
--
Yow! I'm imagining a surfer van filled with soy sauce!
Must I hold a candle to my shames?
-- William Shakespeare, "The Merchant of Venice"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:25:49 -0000
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:39:56 +1000, Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jedi,
>
>I think that as he didn't suggest installing the tarball and was asked
>for some help by a more knowledgeable friend this isn't really pedantry.
Sure it is. The critical issues are what was done to the end
user in question. So a misplaced personal pronoun is really
quite irrelevant and fixating on it is just a way to avoid
addressing a really obvious and large hole in a very flawed
rant or avoiding those that point out such things.
I suspect the original belligerence I was met with was an
entirely intentional red herring. Unfortunately, I swallowed
that bit of bait.
>
>Chris
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 02:30:39 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >Note: once your reading reaches grade school level you might want to
>> >reread
>> >> >this post, just to confirm that I, in fact, didn't suggest the tarball.
>> >> >
>> >> >I welcome reasonable responses, but for some reason you can't be bothered
>> >to
>> >> >understand before posting.
>> >>
>> >> ONCE AGAIN RUBE, why did you bother with tarballs when the
>> >> distro in question was Redhat?
>> >
>> >Jedi. Re-read the original message. You'll see that Jake *DID NOT*
>> >"bother" with a tarball. your statements are irrelevant and evidence of
>> >your inability to comprehend.
>>
>> No, it is your pedantry that is irrelevant.
>>
>> The fact still remains, regardless of who the particular rube
>> was, that a tarball was thrown at a package based distro and
>> that the "guru" in question advised adding xfs to a distro
>> that already had it in place.
>>
>> This isn't even getting into font technology issues.
>>
>> --
>>
>> But since I knew now that I could hope for nothing of greater value than
>> frivolous pleasures, what point was there in denying myself of them?
>> -- M. Proust
--
"Hey Ivan, check your six."
-- Sidewinder missile jacket patch, showing a Sidewinder driving up the tail
of a Russian Su-27
It is not enough to have great qualities, we should also have the
management of them.
-- La Rochefoucauld
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:28:16 -0000
On 25 Sep 2000 14:44:16 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:23:51 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:30:53 -0400, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> So? "Support" is the obvious place to look, not the frontpage.
>>
>
>The place to look is the online docs. If you have to look further than
>to find out what your software actually does, it's not adequately documented.
That is the "online docs".
--
Knowledge, sir, should be free to all!
-- Harry Mudd, "I, Mudd", stardate 4513.3
If you drink, don't park. Accidents make people.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:30:57 +0100
"dc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:51:50 -0500, Bryant Brandon
> >@
> >@Then someone got around it...
> > Another security bug in windows?
>
> More likely, the C: drive isn't really hidden - or doesn't use
> WinNT/2k's security mechanisms to do so, but instead uses a third
> party's. I'm not aware of any way in 2k to completely hide a drive,
> so I suspect the data we're being given is tainted.
System policies...
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:30:57 +0100
"dc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:51:50 -0500, Bryant Brandon
> >@
> >@Then someone got around it...
> > Another security bug in windows?
>
> More likely, the C: drive isn't really hidden - or doesn't use
> WinNT/2k's security mechanisms to do so, but instead uses a third
> party's. I'm not aware of any way in 2k to completely hide a drive,
> so I suspect the data we're being given is tainted.
System policies...
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:30:57 +0100
"dc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 10:51:50 -0500, Bryant Brandon
> >@
> >@Then someone got around it...
> > Another security bug in windows?
>
> More likely, the C: drive isn't really hidden - or doesn't use
> WinNT/2k's security mechanisms to do so, but instead uses a third
> party's. I'm not aware of any way in 2k to completely hide a drive,
> so I suspect the data we're being given is tainted.
System policies...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:31:09 -0000
On 25 Sep 2000 14:47:29 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 23:00:19 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:44:29 GMT, Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Besides, Font Deuglification would likely have been an appropriate
>> curative for this particular anecodotal user. Besides which, TT
>> fonts look nasty without greyscale anti-aliasing.
>
>This isn't really true. The good quality TT screen fonts ( like those on
>MS's website ) have better hinting, which makes them good at low res.
I disagree. TT fonts in general are simply not suitable for use
with an X server. Without the 4bit antialiasing they're simply
too jagged and end up being more jagged then their Type 1
counterparts.
>OTOH, Type1 fonts tend to be aimed at the printer market, which means that
>the vendors often don't try too hard to make them look good on screen.
Yet under X they still manage to look better onscreen. This is
simply a side effect of the two routes each system has taken.
Also, even under Windows it's often useful to do simple things
like tell Netscape use larger fonts or not to use document
specified fonts.
I think the first thing I did with Netscape 1.1N was to change
the font configuration...
--
"We are on the verge: Today our program proved Fermat's next-to-last theorem."
-- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982
Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow they may make it illegal.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
