Linux-Advocacy Digest #791, Volume #25 Fri, 24 Mar 00 10:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Weak points ("NNTP")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Bob Germer)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jim Stuyck)
Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!! (Dinnin)
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] (John
Loukidelis)
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] (Henrik
Becker)
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] (Sacha
Kaercher)
Re: They say it can be done...Can it? (LFessen106)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Weak points (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Marty)
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Joseph)
Re: Spoof interview ("TiG")
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (DJC)
Re: joys of command-line image manipulation (Tim Kelley)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Joseph)
Re: joys of command-line image manipulation (Tim Kelley)
DCOM vs CORBA Re: Weak points (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: joys of command-line image manipulation (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] (Allin
Cottrell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "NNTP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:12:31 GMT
> So what "sucks" about them, except for a modest increase
> in price? Linux does support a wide range of non-Postscript
> printers, but why would I settle for some nonstandard
> printer (with no guarantee to work with different hardware
> or OS) when I can get a standards-compliant Postscript or
> HP PCL one?
Easy to install and configure I think, that's pretty enough to
home users, and to several office users, and even to some
small NT networks based administrators.
> But why put up with a drivers CD? Wouldn't it be so much
> easier not to have to install anything just to get a new
> printer to work?
Only if the same tech is used once and another, this is, only if there
is no evolution ... till the autobuild driver feature is invented.
> Copy and paste is easy - and window manager independant.
> Highlight with left mouse button, and paste with middle
> mouse button. X should take care of that part for you.
Well, with graphics it does not seem to work so well.
> As for bloat, the entire latest MiKTeX distribution (TeX/LaTeX for win32)
> takes only 22 megs total - less than half of that for the core
> functionality. It does everything I need, produces better-looking
> output with less effort and my documents will be readable 10+ years
> from now. I don't see any reason to switch. (tho naturally I use
> teTeX on my Linux box instead)
Managing TeX is a little hard to learn, isn't it ? And LyX does not
make full use of it I think (not sure).
> Mame32 has been terribly unstable every time I try it, but xmame gives
> me no problems (nor does the K6-optimized DOS version). The games
> may not be native, but they *are* games and I find them quite enjoyable.
Okay, I have to believe you, just got a different experience in here;
anyway
I also prefer old games than new ones.
> No one can argue that Linux has less games than DOS/Windows, but
> there's nothing anyone can do to quickly improve that situation.
Neither to improve Windows.
> They're easy, that much I have no problem with. I just wish they'd
> focus more on being secure and standards-compliant than on trying
> to display HTML in email (along with security holes) and all the
> other assorted nonsense.
I wish it too.
> Mozilla promises to be a great improvement, which is nice.
Promises ... many things are still beta at Linux, we must wait to
see if they'll consolidate at all. Anyway, Mozilla has got other
platform versions, hasn't it (not know it) ?
> I think we all deserve a web
> that shouldn't need such clunky browsers to get around in.
Don't know, let's see ...
> Maybe I'm getting old, but I yearn for days when almost
> anybody could make a decent browser because the standards
> were working as they should.
I admit standards are very important, and have nothing against them.
> It *is* the Linux advocacy group, after all. I don't believe Windows
> is terrible for everybody, but it's not the best for everybody either.
Sure, just testing your patience :-)
> Linux certainly has its faults, but I find it a better place to live
> than with Windows. It's getting better all the time, and is growing
> rapidly in use and support. But I like to hope there's room
> enough for both and there'll be enough competition to strengthen
> both - and hopefully improving standards rather than compromising
> them for monetary gain.
I wish this happened.
> Choice is good, that's what I think.
Me too, but as you said, this is Linux advocacy, it is the right place
to find terrible linvocates to argue with, isn't it ? :)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 07:14:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
On 03/23/2000 at 05:56 PM,
George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >Since IBM lacked monopoly power in the PC OS market, IBM was
> >unable to force all PC buyers to pay for a OS/2 license.
> Because nobody wanted it.
Well, OS/2 contributed 92 million US dollars to IBM's bottom line last
year. Somebody must want it. Of course a stupid liar like you will ignore
facts to avoid admitting his own stupidity, cupidity, and assininity.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.08 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: Jim Stuyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:22:42 GMT
Bob Germer wrote:
> On 03/23/2000 at 05:56 PM,
> George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > >Since IBM lacked monopoly power in the PC OS market, IBM was
> > >unable to force all PC buyers to pay for a OS/2 license.
>
> > Because nobody wanted it.
>
> Well, OS/2 contributed 92 million US dollars to IBM's bottom line last
> year. Somebody must want it. Of course a stupid liar like you will ignore
> facts to avoid admitting his own stupidity, cupidity, and assininity.
Er... your source on this?
Jim Stuyck
IBM -- Retired
Retired OS/2 Consultant
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dinnin)
Subject: Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!!
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:21:08 GMT
How much does Microsoft pay you to troll the news groups all day
anyway? Wonder if that goes in their no cost marketing strategy?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Loukidelis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:33:55 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 23:36:56 -0500, Allin Cottrell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>What the heck you want to run that doesn't have a Linux version?
>
>--
>Allin Cottrell
>Department of Economics
>Wake Forest University, NC
MS Money, Quicken, MS Word...
--
John Loukidelis
------------------------------
From: Henrik Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:57:33 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Loukidelis wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 23:36:56 -0500, Allin Cottrell
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >What the heck you want to run that doesn't have a Linux version?
> >
> >--
> >Allin Cottrell
> >Department of Economics
> >Wake Forest University, NC
>
> MS Money, Quicken, MS Word...
For Money and Quicken (why both?) use VMWare, for Word use StarOffice or
rather LaTeXe/LyX and KOffice (soon).
Gruss / Regards,
Henrik Becker
--
Henrik Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://www.HenrikBecker.de
Becker IT-Dienstleistungen - IT-Beratung, WebDesign/Organisation, Schulung
support FREE SOFTWARE www.KDE.org www.WINDOWMAKER.org www.LINUX.org
dt. J-Pilot Handbuch fertig: http://www.henrikbecker.de/jpilot
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sacha Kaercher)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: 24 Mar 2000 12:55:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 23:36:56 -0500, Allin Cottrell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Eric Peterson wrote:
>
>> Which would you prefer? Personally, if everything I wanted to run had a
>> Linux version, I doubt that I would EVER boot Windows again.
>
>What the heck you want to run that doesn't have a Linux version?
>
A fast and good video player
QuarkXpress
Opera
Netmeeting
PowerPoint
...
-- Sacha
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (LFessen106)
Subject: Re: They say it can be done...Can it?
Date: 24 Mar 2000 13:37:50 GMT
> Targeted to that machine, Windows 3.11 should be enough and should give
>more desktop usability than under Linux. If you talk about serving, I have
>nothing
>to say. Anyway, I suppose that compiling the kernel targeted to your
>concrete
>machine is part of the configuration, I guess it will be more than Windows
>installation
>time.
It's done and working perfectly. No kernal compiling, no bs, no 3 hour
installation either. I used Pygmy Linux right out of the box so to speak.
Installed in 15 minutes flat. Works great and installs twice as fast as Win
3.1.
Thank God it's Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:43:12 GMT
"George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:25:05 -0800, josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
>
> >> The common perception that OS/2 needed PS/2 hardware wasn't because
> >> IBM was pushing OS/2 on their machines. Gee... could it have been as
> >> simple as the common '/2' ending for both? Naw... it must have been an
> >> MS conspiracy.
> >
> >So IBM's ruin in the PC OS market was due to the "/2" - my gosh why
> >didn't MS explain that to the Judge!?! You guys could have saved MS's ass
> >in court! No wonder PC OEMs didn't preload OS/2 - they didn't know it ran
> >on their PCs. Hey it was IBM's fault!!
>
> So why do you think there was a common perception that OS/2 ran only
> on PS/2 hardware?
It's commonly known that people in these markets are easily confused.
I can't tell you the number of times I've heard
"Will Office97 run on Windows98? 97-98... 98-97.. what's the deal?"
"Will Office2000 run on Windows98?"
"Will Office97 run on Windows2000?"
"Will Windows2000 run on Office97?" <grin>
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:41:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Arne Adolfsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mrs. "SetMeUp" asked:
> > 6) Serious internet tools : pine sucks, Netscape breaks more than
Windows
> > 3.11 and is awful and slow. Nothing like IE 5 (the browser) and
Outlook
> > Express (yeah yeah, virus are a problem ... but prefer them than
slrn, tin,
> > krn and such sucky tools).
>
> Again, I have no idea what you mean by "serious". My mail
> reader of choice is still elm. I haven't any idea why you
> think pine "sucks"; I don't care for it, but it clearly
> doesn't suck. Netscape under Windows 95 crashes for me at
> work on average a dozen times a day (no exaggeration); it's
> never crashed even once for me at home under Linux. And
> it's not slow in the least in my experience. I've never
> used Internet Explorer or Outlook Express, mostly because
> I've never felt the need to do so. And I'm at a loss as to
> your characterization of tin and krn as "sucky".
Well, I'd say KRN 0.6.0 was a bit sucky.
KRN 0.6.11 is barely sucky at all, IMHO
Hopefully KRN 0.7.0 will someday suck much less, too.
--
Roberto Alsina (KRN author, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:56:05 GMT
Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On 03/23/2000 at 05:53 PM,
> George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > BM could have decided to preload OS/2 on their machines
> > -- Better Windows than Windows, right?
>
> > BTW, I don't work for Microsoft or make any money due to
> > any connection with Microsoft.
>
> Then you are the dumbest damned liar here.
There is a dumber liar. He tends to throw around insults first and check his
facts second (if at all).
--
The wit of Bob Osborn in action:
"Perhaps it something you should try to your kids don't end up as stupid as
you."
"There is an old saying fartface."
"Not only are you a filthy low-life lying bastard pig, you are too stupid to
know it."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:20:01 GMT
On 24 Mar 2000 00:08:39 -0600, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 08:28:49 -0800, Eric Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Nope. You got it backwards.
>>>Windows sets up fine (usually) but then crashes a lot when you try to run
>>>it.
>>>Linux is (still) tough to set up properly, but once it is, it NEVER
>>>crashes.
>>
>> For what he was describing, Linux can be just as easy to set up.
>> If we were to bring a logitech usb camera into this discussion
>> things would even out real quick...
>
>I've tried a usb camera on a toshiba laptop running win98 and
>the machine crashes when it tries to access it. It can't be
>any worse under linux even if it doesn't run.
I have a windows box that I powerup just for a winprinter, scanner, USB
camera support and a PCMCIA reader. What a piece of crap! Anytime I
kill a hung process, I can usually count on having to reboot it.
------------------------------
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 06:24:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 3-24-00, 1:43:12 PM, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote=20
regarding Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet=20
again):
> "George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:25:05 -0800, josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
> >
> > >> The common perception that OS/2 needed PS/2 hardware wasn't becau=
se
> > >> IBM was pushing OS/2 on their machines. Gee... could it have been=
as
> > >> simple as the common '/2' ending for both? Naw... it must have be=
en=20
an
> > >> MS conspiracy.
> > >
> > >So IBM's ruin in the PC OS market was due to the "/2" - my gosh wh=
y
> > >didn't MS explain that to the Judge!?! You guys could have saved=20=
MS's ass
> > >in court! No wonder PC OEMs didn't preload OS/2 - they didn't know=
=20
it ran
> > >on their PCs. Hey it was IBM's fault!!
> >
> > So why do you think there was a common perception that OS/2 ran only=
> > on PS/2 hardware?
> It's commonly known that people in these markets are easily confused.=
> I can't tell you the number of times I've heard
> "Will Office97 run on Windows98? 97-98... 98-97.. what's the deal?"
> "Will Office2000 run on Windows98?"
> "Will Office97 run on Windows2000?"
> "Will Windows2000 run on Office97?" <grin>
Well, what you describe is based on DATES which are used to denote MS=20=
software versions and indented to help MS increase upgrade frequency. =20=
STILL the confusion you describe seems minor being it hasn't reduced=20=
the monopoly status of Office or Windows. =20
In the case of OS/2 the "2" is not a version and it is static. IBM=20
also changed the name to WARP with version 3.0. =20
> -Chad
------------------------------
Reply-To: "TiG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "TiG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.humor
Subject: Re: Spoof interview
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:28:17 -0000
Can someone translate this please?
"NNTP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:WYIC4.2742$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Nowadays, every person I know that knows a little about Linux want to
> make money with it be it teaching be it installing networks ... do not say
> Linux is to help the world; even when I recognize the beautiness (does it
> spell so ?) of the open source movement.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJC)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:28:52 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:30:02 -0300, "Francis Van Aeken"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Premise: we want economics (you might not agree, but that's another thing) (1)
>Consequence: we want limited offer (with unlimited offer, there's no economics) (2)
>Premise: unregulated copying leads to unlimited offer (fairly reasonable) (3)
>From (2) and (3): we don't want unregulated copying
>Consequence: we want laws and morals (regulation)
Technology has made monopoly income based on restricted copying
unsustainable.
Once upon a time (say before printing was a "new technology") if you
wanted an altarpiece painted, a new divertimento composed for your
soirée, or (say when an IBM 7000 was new technology) a new program to
calculate your payroll you would employ an artisan/craftsman to
produce it. You would pay them the appropriate rate for the time and
materials used (and having regard to the market price of rare skills).
Now in the case of physical products like painting and sculpture, and
even "intellectual property" if its reproduction can be controlled, it
is possible for the product to sold on. So long after the original
artist is dead and gone someone can pay monopoly money for that object
or maybe merely the "right" to print its image on a T-shirt.
I DO want unregulated copying. I want to be employed to USE skill and
knowledge that is rightfully and inalienably mine because it is the
result of twenty-five years or more (a lifetime, I am forty-five?) of
experience and practice and enquiry.
I don't see any reason why anyone, I included, and certainly not some
marketing fool who can unashamedly claim to know less technology than
a peanut, should make a paper fortune from a claim to own what they do
not understand.
--
djc
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: joys of command-line image manipulation
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 08:31:57 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 01:04:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Shell scripts are indeed a beautiful thing, aren't they?
>
> Personally I prefer Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy) but that's MY
> opinion.
>
> Shell scripts rank near the bottom of MY excitement ladder.
yeah, whatever. We all prefer buffy over shell scripts.
We all prefer shell scripts over pointing and clicking for hours
and hours.
We perfer pointing and clicking for hours and hours over reading
your idiotic trolls.
You obviously perfer trolling on cola to just about anything
else, including buffy.
Now, who's pathetic?
shell scripts = more time to play, less time working on menial
chores.
The point is gui tools are worthless for administrative
functions, because they do not scale to large tasks.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 06:39:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 3-24-00, 9:48:52 AM, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote=20
regarding Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet=20
again):
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:05:21 -0800, josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
> >> IBM was sending a mixed message by saying OS/2 was a
> >> better DOS than DOS and a better Windows than Windows while they
> >> were selling Windows. If they didn't even believe that OS/2 was a
> >> better alternative than Windows, why should the consumer believe it=
> >> enough to try it?
> >
> >The Judge didn't see any mixed message.
> I really don't give a rats ass what the Judge saw. I was an OS/2 user=
> and I was upset when I see the company that's supposed to be trying
> to increase the OS/2 user base selling Windows on their PC's.
I didn't ask you to care about the Judges opinion. Your opinion is in=20=
contradiction with the Judge's finding of fact. It says a lot about=20=
the method of reasoning you use. When you cannot reconcile reality=20
with your theory then there's a motivation to change the theory. If=20=
you don't care then fine with me. =20
> >MS didn't defend themselves claiming IBM should have refused to sell=
> >Windows if IBM were serious about OS/2.
> >
> >According to the Judge MS got angry at all the negative things IBM=20=
said in
> >advertisements about Windows in comparison to OS/2 and retaliated=20=
against
> >IBM. IBM did not waiver and so they suffered econimoc losses by MS's =
abuse
> >of monoply power.
> What was the loss they suffered? That's right... they had to pay more=
> to sell WINDOWS on their PC's.
No George. You fall short ebing you seem too stubborn to even read=20
the Finding of Fact. I posted from the Finding of Fact that IBM lost=20=
money because they were given a license 15 minutes prior to Win95's=20
launch. Even the delay in access to Win95 cost IBM a lot of money in=20=
lost revenue.=20
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: joys of command-line image manipulation
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 08:39:07 -0600
Drestin Black wrote:
> you need to write a script for that? at the command line? you feel it's more
> logical to manipulate graphics from the command line instead of in a
> graphical (hint, graphics : graphical - see the simularity) interface?
>
> me, I just highlight the files, open ACDSee and click on Convert and pick
> the destination format, or maybe pick rotate 90 degress clockwise, or
> whatever and don't have time to sit and write posts cause it's done
> already...
Drestin proves his idiocy without a doubt, again.
Give you acdsee or whatever and give someone else a script, take
5000 images, and
see who finishes first.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: DCOM vs CORBA Re: Weak points
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:36:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (CAguy) wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:14:43 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >
> >Notice that the key innovations of Win2K (MTS, MSMQ, and COM+) are
> >all designed to keep application programmers from blowing up the OS
> >or their servers. There is still so much overhead to DCOM
(out of process)
> >that most
> >applications are sticking with the COM (in-process) model for
desktop
> >applications.
>
> DCOM was never ment to be used between components 'in process'.
Correct. DCOM provided the ability to combine smaller modules
that could be executed either on the same machine or distributed
across multimple machines. Unfortunately, the performance
consequences of using DCOM instead of COM was so expensive that
most programmers simply stuck with COM.
> It's just an extention to COM for distributed components. COM and
> it variants were designed to enable modular software development
> with no compile/link time dependencies between components.
> In
> fact, it works so well that Mozilla, Gnome, KDE are all using a very
> similar component model. And in the case of Mozilla's XPCOM, it's
> virtually the same as COM.
Gnome and KDE use CORBA and Mozilla's XPCOM provides an API that
works with either COM or CORBA depending on the platform.
It's worth pointing out that CORBA, an international standard,
implemented in open source (MICO, ORBIT, JORBA,...) and sold
as commercial products (Iona Orbix, Inprise Visigenics, IBM Component
Broker) was already being deployed over a year before DCOM was
announced. DCOM was Microsoft's attempt to prevent the adoption
of an API that would threaten the Monopoly. In fact, the OMG had
already released the CORBA 2 specification and there were nearly
20 implementations of CORBA, most could interoperate with each other.
I had working versions of MICOM on my Linux machine nearly a year
before DCOM was announced.
In the CORBA 2 specification, an appendix was added that enabled
conversion between CORBA and DCOM. Unfortunately, the specification
is only sufficient to provide servers, not clients. Thus you can
call a CORBA server from a Windows DCOM client, but you didn't have
enough information to call a DCOM server from a UNIX CORBA client.
Ironically, the performance of several CORBA implementations was
much faster than DCOM, but somewhat slower than COM. The two are
similar, but strategically very different.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:05:10 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 23 Mar 2000 22:52:45 +0100...
...and Mario Klebsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) writes:
>
> >> The problem with Pascal, as distinct from the others, is that the
> >> design just wasn't made for anything more than education.
> >...
> >e) No pointers to functions AFAIK
>
> At least they were possible as arguments to function/procedure
> calls. I am not sure, wether they are possible as stand alone
> variables or as structure members. However, there were a lot pascal
> compilers in use, that did not implement procedure arguments.
If pointers to functions exist, then there's another e):
e) No variable length argument lists for you.
mawa
--
mawa -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://dev.nullmodem.de/mawa/
Diddler of Languages
Torturer of Key-Studded Things
Proud Owner of a Life
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: joys of command-line image manipulation
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:44:25 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 24 Mar 2000 01:19:27 GMT...
...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 01:04:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> >Shell scripts are indeed a beautiful thing, aren't they?
>
> Personally I prefer Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy)
Ugh. How old are you?
> but that's MY opinion.
What about cherishing some real-life person you have chances of
actually falling in love / having sex / having a relationship with?
Just an idea.
mawa
--
Was wird's heute, technisch oder physikalisch?
-- 9.30, Siemens-Konzernzentrale; ein Ingenieur beim alltäglichen
Auslosen der Gleichstromrichtung
------------------------------
From: Allin Cottrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:50:42 -0500
John Loukidelis wrote:
>
> >What the heck you want to run that doesn't have a Linux version?
>
> MS Money, Quicken, MS Word...
GnuCash, xfinance, LyX, StarOffice.
--
Allin Cottrell
Department of Economics
Wake Forest University, NC
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
