Re: I have 2 spare CPU's (maybe not)

2002-11-11 Thread Shachar Shemesh
Actually, a friend of mine is currently in the Technion doing a Masters' degree, with the thesis subject being what is the best L1 etc. cache remove policy that is best suited for SMT. As far as I know, this is, as of yet, and unanswered question. Shachar Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: On

Re: Version 0.71 of Culmus fonts released

2002-11-11 Thread Hetz Ben Hamo
Hi, Small comment: the license issue is not clear to me.. Are those fonts allowed to be distributed and re-distributed? under what license? (X11/MIT license is prefferd. That way the XFree86 team can release them with the upcoming XFree 4.3.0, and Linux distribution are fine with this

RE: Bidi support in Gtk

2002-11-11 Thread Dvir Volk
Oh well, just compiled the 1.3.10 developer version. It compiles only against gtk2, and works almost perfect with unicode hebrew, eventhough I couldn't get it to render stylish designer ttf hebrew fonts for some reason. But it accepts the standard ttf's copied form windows ;) Anyway, it's really

Re: Version 0.71 of Culmus fonts released

2002-11-11 Thread Maxim Iorsh
Hello! The fonts are distributed under GPL. Regarding XFree - if there is need for Hebrew bitmap fonts, I can release a package similar to Cronyx cyrillic fonts (i. e. same fonts and sizes) under X11/MIT or compatible license. Please let me know whether XFree86 team is interested in such package.

Re: Version 0.71 of Culmus fonts released

2002-11-11 Thread Tzafrir Cohen
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, Maxim Iorsh wrote: Hello! The fonts are distributed under GPL. Regarding XFree - if there is need for Hebrew bitmap fonts, I can release a package similar to Cronyx cyrillic fonts (i. e. same fonts and sizes) under X11/MIT or compatible license. Please let me know

Re: Version 0.71 of Culmus fonts released

2002-11-11 Thread Maxim Iorsh
The fonts are under the GPL {mainly/also?} because they borrow the latin glyphs from GPL-ed fonts (the URW fonts). XFree may have problems with such a license, but linux distros certainly won't. (Also note that there is no legal issue with including GPL-ed files in a MIT-licensed packages.

OpenOffice.org and equations

2002-11-11 Thread voguemaster
Hi list, I've posted a similar question at the Linux forum at Tapuz but no one really answered my question. My question is simple: Does OpenOffice.org has any mechanism to incorporate mathematical formulas in the document (like much MathType for MS Word) ?? One day I'll move to LyX and LaTeX,

Re: OpenOffice.org and equations

2002-11-11 Thread Barak Kaufman
yes it does, and its relatively more comfortable than the ms equation editor, everything there is verbosed (vec a; hat a ... etc.) its called open office Math u can use it a standalone editor or incorporate it into the Write document. On Monday 11 November 2002 20:16, voguemaster wrote: Hi

Re: big question: FW-1 VS. Linux security tools

2002-11-11 Thread Eran Tromer
On 2002/10/28 10:30, Shachar Shemesh wrote: no true state is kept (for example - no proper tracking of connection's state, no ability to limit packets based on packets seen so far on the same connection) Regarding this specific feature, which you listed as missing from netfilter: the current

Open Office VS. MS Office (performance)

2002-11-11 Thread Hetz Ben Hamo
Hi People, I got bored a bit today and decided to do a simple test: Mark gave me a sub notebook (P-II 300MMX, 96MB RAM, cannot expand it to more then that) and I installed on it Red Hat 8.0 (without any tweaks or updates). I selected the development installation + Open Office. After I

Re: Open Office VS. MS Office (performance)

2002-11-11 Thread Ira Abramov
Quoting Hetz Ben Hamo, from the post of Mon, 11 Nov: After I finished, I typed few pages in each of them, in open office's word processor, and in Word 2000. In each document I added tables and other stuff.. I was surprised at one thing - the performance. Word 2k on this low end machine was