Linux-Advocacy Digest #792, Volume #25 Fri, 24 Mar 00 12:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Personal question ("Drestin Black")
Re: joys of command-line image manipulation ("Drestin Black")
Re: M$ dosent use own OS?? ("Drestin Black")
Re: Spoof interview (John Goodwin)
Re: I WAS WRONG ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Paul Jakma)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: joys of command-line image manipulation (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Kernel Implementation Languages (Dale Pontius)
Re: Spoof interview (Tim Kelley)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Dale Pontius)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Josef Moellers)
Re: joys of command-line image manipulation (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Weak points (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Weak points (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Mike)
Re: Weak points (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Spoof interview (Ron Reeder)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Weak points (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Weak points (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Personal question
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:34:59 -0500
If you had actually read and comprehended my posts you'd note that I do not
"defend" MS the company. I advocate the use of Windows 2000 because I like
it a lot and that is the subject of the group I post from mostly. I do not
like hearing fud and lies and basically made-up-crap about NT/W2K so I
defend it when I hear a lie or distortion. I run a very successful company
that does huge computer installs and I happen to sell a lot of NT servers
and workstations (now W2K exclusively). So, that is my only "paying" bias -
there isn't a penny to be made in honest linux work (unless you like riping
people off with inflated unrealistic IPOs to companies that are just about
guarenteed to lose money) and there is less and less money in unix every
year. The admins get paid more and more cause they are scare and hard to
find good ones - while unix sales drop all the time. Meanwhile, we are about
6 months in backorder for work to do, if someone asked us to do another
60,000 seat W2K install/upgrade, we wouldn't be able to touch it until at
least November! W2K is good and so is biz. But, MS paying me? ha! They
should!
"fysg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:I1SB4.1364$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> It is just a doubt I have, Drestin, do you work for Microsoft or get
paid
> by it ? Not trying to offend you, I'm just curious to know why you always
> defent Microsoft so hardly. It seems and forgive me ... stupid, doesn't it
?
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: joys of command-line image manipulation
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:39:14 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Besides being a programmer, I've been appointed the company Intranet
> webmaster. This means I occasionally have to do menial tasks like put
> employee photos into the on-line directory.
>
> We have a digital camera, which makes color JPEGS that are much too
> large, both in bytes and pixels. What we want is two sizes of grayscale
> image, one a thumbnail for search results, the other a good-sized image
> for an individual entry.
>
> Also, the images are all sideways when I get them, as the camera knows
> nothing about portrait vs landscape.
>
> I've created a little shell script using pnm utilities that rotates,
> scales, and converts to grayscale a mass of photos (just got a set of
> 15). It's running as I write this message.
>
> Gee, I sure wish I were using a whizzy graphical interface so that I
> could dance with the mouse on each of the 80 pictures I've put in this
> week. NOT!
>
> Sorry, gotta go; the script just finished. I need a slower machine than
> this P100. :-)
>
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...
(or, I COULD if I like self-abuse and have no time or job or family life
just write a quick VBScript for WSH to do the job)
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ dosent use own OS??
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:43:17 -0500
Ha! liar.
prove it
"JoeX1029" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> M$ has and may still run on UNIX, using NT to just serve mail. They
didn't
> even run on thier own OS. Dosent that give you confidence in NT??
------------------------------
From: John Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.humor
Subject: Re: Spoof interview
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:58:03 GMT
In article <rUKC4.611$%X3.12927@news1-hme0>,
"TiG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can someone translate this please?
>
> "NNTP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:WYIC4.2742$[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.
> >
Translation:
Nowadays, everyone I know who knows a little about Linux wants to make
money from their knowledge, whether by teaching it, or installing
networks [using it as a base for the servers].
[So] don't say that all the efforts of people involved with Linux are
altruistc.
Even I recognise the idealism of the open source system.
***
Still not a laugh to be had, is there ?
JG
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I WAS WRONG
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:43:54 -0500
wrong again - MS owned XENIX, a version of Unix.
"JoeX1029" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> damn it anyway i was wrong i read my info wrong about M$ they actually
didn't
> have their own version of UNIX. Although for quite some time (and they
still
> may) they ran on UNIX
------------------------------
From: Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:21:06 +0000
Nik Simpson wrote:
>
> Hmm, be more specific, what is not 64 bit about Solaris running on
> UltraSPARC, the CPU is, the Bus strucutre is, the memory address
> capabilities are, the OS is (well mostly)
>
the *kernel* is (on later versions of solaris).
> >
> > keep saying this until it gets through your thick skull.
> >
> You need to explain what you are driving at, Sun cerrtainly would disagree
> with you.
>
They can disagree if they want. But at best Solaris/usparc is "partly
64bit".
You want real 64bit? go look at Digital Unix on Alpha. (64bit all the
way from the beginning).
> --
> Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:26:12 -0500
"Paul Jakma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Nik Simpson wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, be more specific, what is not 64 bit about Solaris running on
> > UltraSPARC, the CPU is, the Bus strucutre is, the memory address
> > capabilities are, the OS is (well mostly)
> >
>
> the *kernel* is (on later versions of solaris).
Agreed, Solaris move to 64bit has been evolutionary , but to a large degree
it was there by 2.6 at the latest. Aspects like memory addressing,
filesystem etc had been taken care of. The basic hardware architecture for
things like SBUS and the PCI implementation are also 64 bit. When ti comes
to shifting around large amounts of data, the kernel and the hardware
architecture are what really counts.
>
> > >
> > > keep saying this until it gets through your thick skull.
> > >
> > You need to explain what you are driving at, Sun cerrtainly would
disagree
> > with you.
> >
>
> They can disagree if they want. But at best Solaris/usparc is "partly
> 64bit".
>
What bits are not 64bit today?
> You want real 64bit? go look at Digital Unix on Alpha. (64bit all the
> way from the beginning).
>
No arguement there, but DEC had the advantage of starting with a64 bit
architecture on Alpha, didn't have to worry about pesky things like backward
compatability :-)
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:47:06 GMT
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:05:10 +0100, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Well, C didn't have these either, initially. People did it anyway, as a a
complete platform specific hack, relying on the lack of type checking in C and
the local stack layout. Andrew Koenig introduced <varargs.h> but it was not
until ANSI C that we got the ellipsis punctuator and <stdarg.h>.
--
#exclude <windows.h>
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: joys of command-line image manipulation
Date: 24 Mar 2000 15:59:28 GMT
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: 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.
How about 5000 images, spread out over 100 subdirectories? :)
Want to convert all the gifs on a site to pngs? What if the
file type doesn't match the suffix? With shell scripts, this
sort of thing is trivial. With a Windows GUI, well, I'm sure
you could find something to do the task for a small shareware
fee...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Pontius)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Kernel Implementation Languages
Date: 24 Mar 2000 16:05:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne) writes:
...
> The problem is that even with something as intentionally similar to
> C as C++, it's problematic to "play well with C" and actually make
> use of the extended features of the language.
>
GNAT does play well with C, at least until you get into the OO stuff.
Once you get there, I'm not sure what happens, though I know a LOT of
thought has gone into the problem, as evidenced by newsgroup threads.
But with Ada, in particular, much of the benefit is not in the OO
extensions, but in the strong typing, function prototypes, etc. It's
a language for maintenance, not development.
And that comes down to another reason you'll probably never see
kernel stuff in Ada - it's more of a pain to code for. I won't say
develop, because I'd assert that the 'pain to code' features help
when it gets to debuggery.
Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.humor
Subject: Re: Spoof interview
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:59:21 -0600
reflection wrote:
>
> An Interview with John Thomas-Handheld,
> Editor of Int@ractive-Weak magazine
> (Conducted by Ima Sudonim, Technology
> correspondent for ?Vino Veritas?)
[snip]
The question marks were a nice touch. Congrats!
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Pontius)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: 24 Mar 2000 16:10:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Warren Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Even C++, the closest cousin of C available, gets shunned a lot.
> Several Open Source projects started in C++ and were later converted to
> C, not because of the language itself, but to get more outside
> developers. Consider also projects like Glade, which builds C code by
> default: there's an addon (glade-- - note the "--" ha-ha-only-kidding
> suffix) that does C++ code, but it lags behind the C version.
>
C++ is a close cousin from a source perspective, but once you get
into OO extensions, it becomes a pain to link to.
> Face it, there's a prejudice in favor of C. It can't be considered
> anything other than prejudice, because logical arguments in favor of
> other languages fail regularly.
And I'll assert that it's because of the linkage problems. ANYTHING
in the world can link to C. The same can't be said of C++, if anything
it's the exact opposite. Doing your project in C++ pretty much mandates
that all surrounding and derived work be done in C++, as well.
It's one of my biggest beefs with KDE, because I've always been a fan
of Wirth's work, and I don't like seeing it locked out. (By C++)
Dale Pontius
NOT speaking for IBM
------------------------------
From: Josef Moellers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:13:10 +0100
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> =
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:05:10 +0100, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr=
ote:
> >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.
> =
> Well, C didn't have these either, initially. People did it anyway, as =
a a
> complete platform specific hack, relying on the lack of type checking i=
n C and
> the local stack layout. Andrew Koenig introduced <varargs.h> but it was=
not
> until ANSI C that we got the ellipsis punctuator and <stdarg.h>.
Can anyone give a substantial reason why we would need all these
"features" to write an operating system in, other than "C has them, so
any language used to write an operating system in should have them too?"
E.g. how many kernel functions rely on variable arguments? Hold this
against the question: how many bugs have been found that were caused by
a function not providing the necessary number of arguments?
C has evolved from something that was nothing more than a beefed up
assembler, and, as such, has numerous structures that resemble
assembly-like features. However, I'd like to argue that
1. If you do want to write a new operating system (no, not YAUC), you'd
do so from scratch.
2. If you did the design from scratch, you might just use proper tools
that might aid in proper software design and implementation.
3. Since, accoring to some theorem the name of which I have forgotten,
most, if not all, languages are equivalent.
The only reason I see to keep using C is the vast code-base. Not just
the drivers, but the applications as well: most (all) GNU tools are
written in C and those that access kernel structures can use common
header files to do so. So rather than elaborately mimic the layout of
data structures to fit kernel and user land together, both should use
the same language.
-- =
Josef M=F6llers
Fujitsu Siemens Computers
SHV Server DS 1
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: joys of command-line image manipulation
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:08:51 GMT
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:44:25 +0100, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Unless you're some sort of hypocrite, a little 3rd party
lust should actually enhance your appreciation for the
old bird at home...
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to the effect |||
that web based video on x86 is 'Windows only', / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:17:47 GMT
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:12:33 GMT, NNTP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ...a little care or a lot of care...
>> There really isn't any difference, hypocrite.
>
> It is difference for me, as it is that I've never injured you
>and you several times me. There are other in this group that
>have disagreed with me and did not have to injury me, learn.
So? I call them as I see them. It is hypocrisy to not
point out identical conditions as such. This sort of
overhead complicates PC Kludge Klone use in general,
not just for AltOSes.
Avoiding the dregs of Kludge-Klone-dom will go a long
way in avoiding AltOS incompatibilities. Being mindful
of what you buy will do the same. Otherwise, you can be
a Win2K user in the same position as a new Linux user.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to the effect |||
that web based video on x86 is 'Windows only', / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:13:53 GMT
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 08:35:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24 Mar 2000 15:01:05 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
>Porter) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 23:30:29 GMT,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 22:58:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 22:31:23 GMT, Itchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>>On 24 Mar 2000 06:07:36 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
>>>>>Porter) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:50:48 GMT, SetMeUp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>Well well well, a new wintroll or a old wintroll in discuise.
>>>>[deletia]
>>>>>There is nothing wrong with PS printers except the price. Why pay 3x
>>>>>or more the going rate for a normal printer for one? You could walk
>>>>
>>>> This is a red herring. There are plenty of reasonably priced
>>>> PCL printers to go around. This 'only PS printers' mantra is
>>>> a bald faced lie that's constantly being disputed.
>>>
>>>And yet no proof is ever given to dispute it except one post
>>>concerning some out of date PS printer from Lexmark that some Lino
>>>supporter found at a fire sale.
>>One instance is *proof* Steve.
>
>Only if any user can buy it.
Just go to the online shopping sites and key in PCL.
>
>Fire sale discontinued printers are in limited supply. If you happen
>to be lucky to find one great, but you just can't go down to CompUSA
>and buy one unless they have some left.
This is just a red herring. If ANY are left, and you can still
get carts for them then it's a valid counter-example. Infact,
this "no fire sale" bit is just hypocrisy. You would gladly
support the existence of the same sort of cheapest printer as
a validation of the "universal hardware support" aspect of WinDOS.
[deletia]
Mind you, some manufacturers are in the habit of recycling old
models and rebranding them. Last I was in CompUSA they had a
cheap HP that was essentially my 6 year old deskjet.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to the effect |||
that web based video on x86 is 'Windows only', / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:29:02 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Geoff Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:59:05 +0000 <9m6ta8.7kp.ln@twirl>:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Bill Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Use a standard library where time_t is a 64 bit signed integer (the new
> >> C standard requires such an integer type) and keep using C. No need to
> >> change languages.
> >
> >There are many reasons to keep C out of inexpert hands ( and there's only
> >about 5 experts - three of whom devised the language!)
>
> Would you rather we rewrite the kernel in Fortran or COBOL? :-)
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
Hey! How about BASIC! ;->
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:22:44 GMT
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:12:04 GMT, NNTP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 12 first tier games versus much of the crap that sits
>> on store shelves these days. 12 may be enough for you.
>> That's what's really important, not some assinine notion
>> of 'having everything'.
>
> I am not talking about having everything, just being able to choose among
>a lot of them.
I suppose if you really have a bias against Unreal in favor of
Quake III, that might be an issue. However, the question remains
how many people really care that they have 5 or 10 FPS clones
rather than 1 or 2 really good ones. Replacability is a lot easier
with games.
>
>> You're a hypocrite. You drone on about game demos and then
>> have to gaul to cry vaporware.
>
> Explain this one to me. Demos use to give to you a first taste about a
>game that already is in the market.
It's still vaporware, strictly speaking, until the full product
ships. This is especially true for that half of the CD that
would likely be non-interactive demos.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to the effect |||
that web based video on x86 is 'Windows only', / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Ron Reeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.humor
Subject: Re: Spoof interview
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:22:31 -0700
John Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <rUKC4.611$%X3.12927@news1-hme0>,
> "TiG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Can someone translate this please?
> >
> > "NNTP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:WYIC4.2742$[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.
> > >
>
> Translation:
>
> Nowadays, everyone I know who knows a little about Linux wants to make
> money from their knowledge, whether by teaching it, or installing
> networks [using it as a base for the servers].
>
> [So] don't say that all the efforts of people involved with Linux are
> altruistc.
>
> Even I recognise the idealism of the open source system.
>
> ***
>
> Still not a laugh to be had, is there ?
>
> JG
>
> > >
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Very Good !
You either:
A. Worked overseas.
B. Emigrated from overseas.
C. Are a literate programmer capable of authoring in more than just VB.
--
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Ron Reeder | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Denver Technical Support | Phone: (303) 389-4408 |
| Western Geophysical Company | Fax: (303) 595-0667 |
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[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 08:20:08 -0800
Jim Stuyck wrote:
> 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?
>
Could very well be true. OS/2 is used in Banks and acounting systems a lot.
However I dont see how this makes it a good choice for consumers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:23:46 GMT
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:12:06 GMT, NNTP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> They're trying to accomodate fools like you that think
>> Windows is the benchmark for anything and that extra
>> options are a bad thing.
>
> Tired of the discussion myself started, I'd just like to say
>to you that don't make assumptions about my skills, and that
>exposing arguments about a user type doesn't mean belonging
>to it. I'd like to say too that you tend to be rather offensive and
>hide your arguments (when any) under screams and cries.
>Greetings.
I only do that once I've come to the conclusion that
rational discourse is no longer productive when
directed at a particular individual.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to the effect |||
that web based video on x86 is 'Windows only', / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 16:27:35 GMT
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:12:31 GMT, NNTP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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
PCL and PS printers are simple to install and configure on Linux
and print sharing is setup for you by default the way samba comes
'out of the box'.
>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.
Well, there's plenty of 'evolution' with Linux. There are plenty
of revisions to use to exploit more current drivers. That's one
of the benefits of a business model that doesn't depend on being
stingy with your install media.
[deletia]
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to the effect |||
that web based video on x86 is 'Windows only', / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
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
******************************
