Linux-Advocacy Digest #365, Volume #31 Wed, 10 Jan 01 08:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: KDE Hell (*)
Re: Windows 2000 (Shane Phelps)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (John Brock)
Re: Linux and FreeBSD, was Re: KDE Hell (TTK Ciar)
Re: Windows 2000 (Ian Davey)
Re: Could only... (Geoff Lane)
Re: Linux a non-starter at CES (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Could only... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Duh! ->was: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: KDE Hell (.)
Re: Could only... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Duh! ->was: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: kernel problems (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:54:51 +0000
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> Why? Because their human.
You seem to be missing some words from the end of that second sentence.
Or did you mean "they're" instead of "their"?
Donal (cheap-shots 'R' us)
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- "I'm going to open a new xterm. This one's pissing me off" Anon. (overheard)
------------------------------
From: * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:04:04 GMT
"." wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:93fhop$cut$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> > Sure looks like it is trying to be like Windows to me.
> >>
> >> We've completely covered this and decided quite a long time ago that
> >> thats because youre a complete idiot.
>
> > Really? Because he has a point;
>
> She.
you must be kidding.
what part of 'enjoys arguing endlessly about operating systems' and 'claims to
drive a fully-modified chevy impala' did you not understand?
ehh?
y'r pal -kK
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:09:04 +1100
craig nellist wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Are there file format converters available so that later versions of
> > Office programs can write files for earlier versions? If so, they are
> > late, and they suck.
>
> Yes, there are. They ship with the product - always have - and they work
> adequately enough.
>
> Out of the box, Word 2000 can write in these formats:
>
> Word 2000 (Document / Template)
> HTML
> RTF
> TXT
> Word 2.x (Windows)
> Word 4, 5, 5.1 (Macintosh)
> Word 95 (Windows)
> WordPerfect 5.0, 5.1 (DOS & Windows)
Let's hope the Word 2K converters work better than the Word 97 ones.
Word 97 had a bad habit of saving 0 length files when saving in
Word 95 format, at least early in the piece.
This only happened to me early on, and only saving to a Netware file
system, so it may have been Novell trying to screw MS rather than the
other way around. Novell and MS products were notorious for their poor
interoperability. It seems to have improved a bit lately, though
(BTW, Novell also did a good job of screwing up on TCP/IP and Unix
stuff as well. LAN Workplace had a lot more bugs *after* Novell bought
the product :-(
Let's have a Novell flame war for a change ;-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock)
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 10 Jan 2001 06:18:39 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yes...I know...I have used XEDIT off and on for a total of 6 years,
>and I have never seen a 3270 manual.
Isn't it kind of odd that you should have used XEDIT for so long
without learning what the ALL command does?
And we know for a fact that you did not, at least until very
recently, understand what ALL does, since earlier in this thread
you equated it with the vi command "s/bad/good/g", which is just
flat out wrong.
--
John Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: TTK Ciar
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and FreeBSD, was Re: KDE Hell
Date: 10 Jan 2001 10:24:59 GMT
>You're in luck. Svgalib has been ported to FreeBSD already. AFAIK, it was
>put in the ports collection Oct. 2000. In fact, one of the svgalib apps in
>the FreeBSD ports tree, "seejpeg", was done by me. I don't know who ported
>the svgalib, though. Update your FreeBSD ports tree and look under
>/usr/ports/graphics/svgalib.
>
>8-)
Heeeey, thanks! :-) This enables me to put off picking up X11
programming skills for a couple years longer. ;-) (And makes my
artificial life simulator a bit more portable.)
-- TTK
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:46:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>craig nellist wrote:
>>
>> Out of the box, Word 2000 can write in these formats:
>>
>> Word 2000 (Document / Template)
>> HTML
>> RTF
>> TXT
>> Word 2.x (Windows)
>> Word 4, 5, 5.1 (Macintosh)
>> Word 95 (Windows)
>> WordPerfect 5.0, 5.1 (DOS & Windows)
>
>Let's hope the Word 2K converters work better than the Word 97 ones.
>Word 97 had a bad habit of saving 0 length files when saving in
>Word 95 format, at least early in the piece.
What suprises me is the omission from the list above (i.e. Word 97). What's
the point of exporting to Word 95, but not the previous version of Word? It'll
result in a painful migration from 97 to 2000. As you'll have the problems
caused by Word 2000's export to Word 95, compounded with the problems with
Word 97's import of Word 95. Or in other words, a nightmarish mess.
Star Office's new format sounds a much better way to go.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane)
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: 10 Jan 2001 12:19:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Look at Australia...they banned guns, and the murder rate TRIPLED.
>
> You can repeat this mantra as many times as you like, but it still isn't true.
Perhap's he's got cause and effect the wrong way around...
In anycase only an Australian wimp would use a gun to murder with when
there's plenty of stout sticks available.
Getting back to linux - were ALL the companies in the US recently involved
in multiple murders using Windows?
--
/\ Geoff. Lane. /\ Manchester Computing /\ Manchester /\ M13 9PL /\ England /\
Not genius, glory or love reflects the soul's greatness, it's kindness.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux a non-starter at CES
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:29:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 03:42:21 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >That's the WHOLE point of the movie ANTI-TRUST, which hits theaters
> >this month....
> >
>
> Isn't that the movie that has video clips in QT4 format so Linux users
> can't view them?
>
> Check out MGM website for details :)
>
> Ironic.
Maybe it's just as well Linux (as you /purport/) doesn't support it,
since QT4 has been inducted into the Interface Hall of Shame:
http://www.iarchitect.com/mshame.htm
And check out this rave review:
http://www.salonmag.com/tech/feature/1999/09/30/quicktime/
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10 Jan 2001 23:03:20 +1100
* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I would seriously doubt it. There are very few areas in human life where
>> experience can't make up for a heck of a lot of theoretical knowledge.
>i don't understand. you are saying that the driver of the McLaren doesn't have
>experience?
Driving a Beetle --- probably not.
>this may sound a little stupid. and i could be completely wrong.
>but. generally speaking. if you drive a McLaren. it probably wasn't
>your first car.
But I would wager the guess that most F1 pilots do not drive Beetles
"in normal life". The personality profiles of the respective groups
are kinda different.
>> Last time a friend of mine wanted to drive my Beetle, she couldn't even
>> get it started. She did all the right moves, but nope, no start.
>wow. you'd be suprised how many people couldn't even start my honda! (you have
>to hold down the clutch natch..) and it was a '90!
Yeah. So if we were to swap cars, you trying to drive my Beetle, and me
trying to drive your Honda, just for a week, we'd probably both end up
with the conviction that the other's car is a piece of crap that just doesn't
behave, just doesn't work properly, and all in all is just plain awful.
Does that remind you in any way of some of the arguments in this group, by
any chance?
>> And ever wondered *why* you don't see Beetles flipping over all the time?
>> Well, first of all, most of the people driving them have driven them for
>> a while, and thus know how to handle them. And those who are new to the
>> Beetle are generally clever enough to *know* that they don't know how it
>> handles, and thus tend to err on the side of caution. Going through a
>> corner too slow doesn't hurt you --- doing it too fast does, and you end
>> up being even more late for your date..
>why are you stating the obvious and thinking that somehow it helps prove your
>point, when you have no point?
It would appear that a person who claims it doesn't take any skill to
drive a Beetle (and drive it fast, at that), and in support for such a
position points out the lack of flipped Beetles, has some trouble with
the obviousness of the above.
That person would be you, in case you don't remember.
Bernie
--
Human blunders, however, usually do more to shape history
than human wickedness
A.J.P. Taylor
British historian, 1906-90
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10 Jan 2001 23:13:38 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On 9 Jan 2001 16:32:03 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>What "standard" is it you are talking about? What "standard" says that
>>a PC from IBM, using an IBM VGA card and a 3COM NIC, is "nonstandard"?
>It's a Microchannel based IBM PS/2
Indeed. That is "nonstandard"? It strikes me as a very well defined standard.
>with non standard hardware.
Repeating it doesn't make it any more true.
>The SCSI cables use IBM Proprietory mini 68 pin connectors (not the
>standard ones) and an abortion of an adapter on the internal one.
That would be the *external* connector, which is completely unused in
this particular machine, right? Because the *internal* connector sure
looks like ye olde Wide-SCSI to me. If it wasn't such a pain to reboot
the machine, I'd plug in the Wide-SCSI cable that came with my 2940UW.
>The SCSI adapters, while built by name brand vendors (Future
>Domain/Adaptec) use IBM proprietor BIOS's on them and have trouble
>working with non-IBM drives.
This would appear to be so much baloney, especially as you still seem
blissfully unaware of the on-board SCSI. But anyway --- the drives, both
of them, are original IBM.
>Try buying cards for it and see how standard it is :(
I have been doing that. I have also turned down cards for it --- not
much point having a sound card in a machine upstairs ;-)
Of course, you have to buy cards that actually match the machine. So
what? Have you tried recently to buy an ISA VGA card? How about a
VLB EIDE controller? Does that mean these busses are "non-standard" all
of a sudden?
>>That won't work --- I bought this machine to run a specific application
>>on it, which only runs under Windows. And quite frankly --- I don't need
>>another Linux box. There are 6 in this room alone, a further 3 upstairs,
>>and one in the lounge room.
>Ten machines in your house?
Well, eleven if you count the Windows one. Plus a small collection of laptops,
and some older machines that have reached the hand-me-down stage. And that
isn't even counting my 8/16 bit era nostalgia collection.
>You sound like a nut !!! <smile>!!
Well, some of us need more CPU cycles than others. When a single program
run takes 6-12 hours, having a few more machines is quite useful.
Of course, for day-to-day stuff (mail, news, WWW, simple text editing
and so on), I am using a lowly P150.
Bernie
--
If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens,
how incapable must Man be of learning from experience
George Bernard Shaw
Irish playwright, 1856-1950
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Could only...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10 Jan 2001 23:22:31 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Exactly. Which is why I want the person who has the gun pointed at my guts
>>to be at ease. It's not like she has anything to fear from me. I am more than
>>willing to hand over my wallet, and if she so desires, even my car keys
>>(although that would be a stupid thing to steal --- not much use in a getaway
>>car that one cannot start, and which also stands out like a sore thumb).
>In Houston they way they do it is to just dump the entire clip into your
>first then they take what they want.
Ever wondered *why* the muggers adopted that policy?
>This kind of romanticising about how a mugging happens is very cute.
>But it's also very wrong.
Well, in Houston it probably is. And that might just have something to
do with the muggers being a tad uneasy about all those law-abiding
citizens walking around with concealed weapons.
Now, over here, where law abiding citizens and citizens that walk around
with concealed weapons are almost two distinct groups (and both are rather
small, with most people being unarmed but anything-but-law-abiding :), a
would-be assailant doesn't *need* to shoot you before robbing you.
>Thanks Bernie but leave the thinking to the people who know how.
OK, so Mr. Deep Thinker, how do *you* explain that Houston muggers
and Melbourne muggers operate differently?
Bernie
--
Nothing is illegal if one hundred well-place business men decide to
do it
Andrew Young
American Democratic politician, 1932--
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:41:45 GMT
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> At this point, I'd say there isn't a damn thing I can do with it, even
> though clearly *something* is still running, since the mouse pointer does
> move on the screen.
>
> That's a powerswitch-reboot situation. There's nothing else to do.
>
> In that case it doesn't matter if the underlying OS is crashed
> or not, I can't talk to it in any way shape or form.
>
> This happens to me about once a month on Linux. (It happens more often
> on Windows, but it *does* happen on Linux too). I'd say that counts
> as being "frozen".)
>
> It always happens when running Netscape, and always when its stuck
> while bringing up a menubar pull-down menu. I think X is grabbing
> more input types than it needs to and then not releasing it.
Better check your memory chips.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Duh! ->was: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:51:21 GMT
MH wrote:
>
> Awww...did da wittle twoll get something up his nose?
> Sorry, didn't mean to disturb you. Go back to your pup-tent marathon.
> Be sure to wipe the stains off of Linux Journal when you're done!
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > MH wrote:
> > >
> > > Linux is crude and inconsistent.
> > >
> > > OK, now that you've stated the obvious...
> > > What's your point?
> >
> > Oh, I thought they were talking about you, jerk.
Ah, thank you. That was a /fine/ masturbatorial session.
Always got to keep those fighting sperm ready and rarin'
to go in the genetic battle.
Keep your own screen clean.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 10 Jan 2001 12:58:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I guess you haven't used FreeBSD then.
>> > There may not be a central admin system, but thanks to the uniformity of the
>> > platform, 3rd party programs that perform administrative tasks are POSSIBLE
>> > and WORK under FreeBSD, instead of having to deal with the massive array of
>> > text files, and VI... (Flashback circa 1989).
>>
>> Try running it on an 8 processor machine.
> I don't know if either would be very great on an 8 processor machine.
> FreeBSD & Linux are pretty much at their best on "low-end" hardware,
> like maybe 4 processors or less. For more than 4 processors, you'd be
> better served with a microkernel-based unix, like Solaris for example.
SMP on linux is more mature and much, much more stable.
Which is not to say that linux is a better operating system in general,
it is merely to reinforce my point that linux does indeed have uses for
which FreeBSD is not suited.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:02:36 GMT
In article <93hk67$8bs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) writes:
>
>Well, in Houston it probably is. And that might just have something to
>do with the muggers being a tad uneasy about all those law-abiding
>citizens walking around with concealed weapons.
>
>Now, over here, where law abiding citizens and citizens that walk around
>with concealed weapons are almost two distinct groups (and both are rather
>small, with most people being unarmed but anything-but-law-abiding :), a
>would-be assailant doesn't *need* to shoot you before robbing you.
>
>>Thanks Bernie but leave the thinking to the people who know how.
>
>OK, so Mr. Deep Thinker, how do *you* explain that Houston muggers
>and Melbourne muggers operate differently?
>
>
>Bernie
>--
I think I'll refer this to the other gentlemens comment above.
In Australia the just dump the clip into you and then take
what they want.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Duh! ->was: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:03:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 01:09:28 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >No, according to the post, it states
> >
> >"Duh! -> was: Linux is crude an inconsistent."
>
> And it is. Why do I have to click once sometimes and twice other
> times? Why does my mouse behave one way with one application and
> another way with a different application?
> Why do some web pages look ok but others look like crap? They all look
> ok under Windows.
> Why do fonts appear in some applications but not in others?
> And on and on and on and on....
Also sounds quite like the various incarnations of Windozzzzzzzz and
the various applications that run on Windozzzzzzzzz.
You seem to be confused about the difference between an operating
system, a GUI, a browser, and other applications. Oh, I forgot,
Megalosoft tries to bundle them all together for you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:07:31 GMT
In article <VyR66.27214$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>Well, when Linux comes up with something better.
>
>But by then, I'll be long since dead, we all will be, and it won't matter
>(well, as far as I'm concerned anyway...)
>
They already have. It's called Debian and the EMU10K sound module.
I rather like the term sound module over driver.
One term , sound module, gives clear definition as to it's intention!
Sound Module! I'm going to get some sound with this module!
On the other hand the other term 'Driver' has a less pleasent meaning
to it. That is anyone who's not gay would have problems with it.
Hope this helps
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
