Linux-Advocacy Digest #295, Volume #26 Fri, 28 Apr 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (JEDIDIAH)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (JEDIDIAH)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (JEDIDIAH)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (JEDIDIAH)
Re: i cant blieve you people!! (david raoul derbes)
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat (aflinsch)
Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel (Craig Kelley)
Re: So what is wrong with X? (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 28 Apr 2000 11:06:33 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Another thing, why is it that windows can't seem to deal with
>>>>postscript files, under linux, there's ghost script and the like, all
>>>>set up and easy as click to use, from the command line or gui. Sure, I
>>>>can go to the effort of grabbing GS and GV for windows, but why doesn't
>>>>it come with something similar?
>>>
>>>You'd have to tell me what those are before I can tell you what NT
>>>does in their place.
>>Ghostscript is a postscript interpreter, very versatile, knows pdf and ps
>>and a lot more. GV is the X-frontend for GS and its not NT, 95
>
>You'd have to tell me why I'd need that, given that NT puts the PS
>interpreter in the driver.
I suspect that he wants to read/preview PS files on the screen and
have the ability to print them on non-postscript printers. GS/GV
will do that under windows as well, but it could have been a
native capability.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:16:11 GMT
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 11:14:32 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I don't think they were necessarily "at fault" for the lack of options
>when it
>> comes to pricing. The market is such that people really only saw two
>choices: A
>> PC or a Mac. A PC has historically only been available with one company's
>OS
>> installed: MS.
>>
>> The fact that MS used bully tactics to make sure OEMs only sold windows so
>that
>> it was either all you could get, or what you had to pay for then also pay
>for
>> the OS you really wanted is clearly "their fault," but we are seeing a
>change in
>> this due to Linux pre-installs today. Though that percentage is very
>small.
>
>We could run in circles discussing this issue. MS was able to use those
>tactics because everybody wanted to sell their products, under a favorable
IOW, they were the biggest player. Selling their stuff was most
profitable. That's far different from being able to claim that
NO ONE wanted to buy DRDOS.
Oddly enough, all the serious DOS users I knew at that time weren't
using msdog but something a bit more powerful. Doubledos and
Desqview seemed quite popular with the SysOp crowd.
>term, which means incresed profit for the OEMs. They were/are competing with
>each other and did things on the voluntary basis. OEMs are as much at fault
...this is a contradiction. They didn't do things on a voluntary
basis. You've admitted this yourself. They were slaves to their
own business goals. If a competitor could get an edge by acquiring
the 'free OS' for cheap, then their contemporaries would likely
have to follow suit in order to remain price competitive.
This only establishes what was cheapest for an OEM to shovel at their
customer, not what was better.
>in this as Microsoft. Even now some of the OEMs would not sell you a PC with
>OS other than Windows. Some of them started to sell Linux pre-installed and
>then there are Linux companies where you can't get a Windows PC.
...exclusive contracts, built on potentially punitive price
discrimitation.
>
>>
>> DR-DOS was a product that, at the time, was technically better, and it was
>> priced about the same IIRC. However MS kept any OEMs from selling it, and
>even
>> had that inital code in win3.? that would make it complain/not run under
>DR-DOS
>> (which they had to change). That's definately "their fault."
>
>That was only in Beta code and was disabled in the released version. Don't
>you think that MS had right to do so? Why should they tested Win3.x unders
>DR-DOS?
Nope. What they did was clear defamation.
They could have left well enough alone if they really wanted to.
However, they didn't do that. They specifically sought out
competitor products.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:21:17 GMT
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:24:24 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:36:05 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:22:44 GMT, Roberto Alsina
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:13:15 +0100, David Faure
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >David Steuber wrote:
>> >> >> >> If you want to argue about which Corba ORB to standardize on,
>> >that
>> >> >is
>> >> >> >> an entirely different ball of wax. I think that it would be
>> >good
>> >> >to
>> >> >> >> have either one ORB or have Corba servers and clients work
>with
>> >all
>> >> >> >> ORBs. Then you can drag a file from KFM and drop it on GIMP
>to
>> >> >edit
>> >> >> >> it or whatever. Maybe you can already do that. I haven't
>tried
>> >> >it.
>> >> >> >CORBA has nothing to do with Drag and drop. You can't drag from
>> >KFM
>> >> >and
>> >> >> >drop on gimp, but you can drag from konqueror and drop on gimp,
>> >since
>> >> >> >Qt 2.x / KDE 2.x use the XDND protocol.
>> >> >> [deletia]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Gimp should have access to xdnd.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just because an application programmer has access to all the
>bells
>> >> >> and whistles, it doesn't mean that the programmer will use
>them.
>> >> >
>> >> >Jedi, read what he wrote. He said Gimp HAS access to XDND, in
>fact,
>> >>
>> >> He also said that you can't drag from kfm to gimp. KFM is
>> >> supposed to be conformant to the same standards as the rest
>> >> of KDE is it not?
>> >
>> >Argh. Could you please not argue about what you ignore?
>> >He said "KDE 2.x". Kfm is part of KDE 1.x. Kfm's replacement in KDE
>2.x
>> >is Konqueror. Kfm can't drop to gimp because KDE 1.x doesn't use
>Xdnd,
>> >because its Dnd stuff was done before Xdnd existed.
>>
>> ...so much for release early and release often, or nice
>> modular design for that matter (something that C++ with
>> all of it's object oriented hoo-haa should facilitate).
>
>Jedi, do you have the slightest idea how stupid you look?
...being foolish enough to actually buy into all of that
lame ass propaganda about KDE and GNOME agreeing on
interop standards doesn't make me look half as stupid as
it makes YOU and the rest of the KDE Team ASSHOLES look.
True, I was foolish enough to take you charlatains at your
word. That makes me the chump. However, that condition is
remedied easily enough.
>
>Why don't you just say "oh, well, didn't knew that", instead of
>backpedaling so furiously?
Actually, I did say that. I said it a little more explicitly
in another reply.
I made the mistake of overestimating you jokers.
That certainly won't happen again.
>
>Do you have ANY idea of when the Xdnd spec was finalized, of when it was
>adopted by Qt, and of when development of KDE 1.x was switched to
>stability maintenance?
It doesn't matter. The dnd protocol can be implemented outside
of the core widgetset. You don't need use Troll's lameness or
the lameness of the QT licence as a CRUTCH.
HELL, in this respect adding Motif or OffiX dnd support would
also be nice. Evidently, we'll have to wait for Troll to put
it in instead of the KDE developers taking the initiative.
This also highlights the liability of using someone else's
corporate property in free software or an open standards
implementation.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:24:54 GMT
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:28:53 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:23:58 +0100, David Faure
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:22:44 GMT, Roberto Alsina
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> [deletia]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Gimp should have access to xdnd.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just because an application programmer has access to all
>the bells
>> >> >> and whistles, it doesn't mean that the programmer will use
>them.
>> >> >
>> >> >Jedi, read what he wrote. He said Gimp HAS access to XDND, in
>fact,
>> >>
>> >> He also said that you can't drag from kfm to gimp. KFM is
>> >> supposed to be conformant to the same standards as the rest
>> >> of KDE is it not?
>> >
>> >Don't mix up the KDEs.
>> >KDE-1.x had a proprietary DnD protocol, whereas KDE-2.x uses the
>>
>> Oh, I hadn't realized. That's really QUITE interesting.
>>
>> Now I can have yet another reason for not trusting the
>> KDE development team...
>
>Uh... switching from homebrewed protocols[1] to standards is a reason
>not to trust KDE? Interesting point of view. Any other pearls of wisdom
...that didn't quite happen, remember.
That's the little 'detail' that I missed: that despite all the
time that has passed in between the declaration of KDE agreeing
to conform to the standard (xdnd), it hasn't yet.
That's a rather fundemental aspect of a desktop to drag one's
collective feet on.
>you would like to share? Maybe if Sun released StarOffice under the BSD
>license, it would be a reason not to trust Sun?
>
>[1] David is using proprietary in a very specific way: it was a protocol
>based on the Offix protocol, with some extensions to make it more
>suitable to KDE's needs. It was not closed, and anyone could use it.
Then the term he was groping for was FRAGMENTED.
Offix
Offix++
xdnd
Motif.
>It's just that noone did. Then, when Xdnd came up, the choice was made
>to switch to it. But since KDE 1.x was already in maintenance mode, and
>development went into KDE2, it won't be finished until KDE2 is released.
...just another reason to await (or even help) GNOME become
more stable...
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:32:09 GMT
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 21:33:28 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was the Thu, 27 Apr 2000 17:18:53 GMT...
>...and JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Argh. Could you please not argue about what you ignore?
>> >He said "KDE 2.x". Kfm is part of KDE 1.x. Kfm's replacement in KDE 2.x
>> >is Konqueror. Kfm can't drop to gimp because KDE 1.x doesn't use Xdnd,
>> >because its Dnd stuff was done before Xdnd existed.
>>
>> ...so much for release early and release often, or nice
>> modular design for that matter (something that C++ with
>> all of it's object oriented hoo-haa should facilitate).
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> You are just making KGrave larger and larger...
>
>Oh please, Jedi. Stop talking out of the wrong end of your anatomy.
>You've already clarified thoroughly that you are unable to discuss KDE
>in a rational way and that you lack essential knowledge about it (not
Bullshit. How long has it been since the claims were made that
GNOME and KDE would be conforming to the same dnd standard?
Furthermore, I've not been ranting about KDE or trying to rip
it apart for quite awhile. Although, I have a good reason to
now and it relates back to my original problem: can't trust
their core developers.
>to mention the lack of attention you give other people's postings), so
>you should maybe just shut up now.
>
>I'm not a big KDE fan either, but this is really too much.
Their design is too fragile to stand a reimplementation of their
DnD components? How is that too much? The whole point of OO or
using a particularly OO language is so that you can do maintenance
of that kind with minimal impact.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:40:27 GMT
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 11:24:53 -0400, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 20:52:36 GMT, Pete Goodwin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8e5ln3$quo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >
>> >>No Its not playing catch-up.
>> >
>> >Bzzzt! Wrong! If Windows can install with this setup with ease, why not
>> >Linux?
>>
>> Perhaps most of us with SCSI cards don't bother with ISA.
>> I could certainly see most of the SCSI maintainers caring
>> considerably less about ISA hardware, especially these days.
>
>I think there are a LOT of ISA SCSI cards out there, which were sold bunded
>with peripherals like scanners and ZIP drives. In these cases, people bought
>the SCSI versions, which were much faster than their Parallel Port
>counterparts, even if they ARE slow by modern SCSI standards. I have such a
>card myself for my Epson scanner.
Yup. Every once in awhile you'll see an OEM card of this kind
giving its owner grief in *hardware. Although, these days the
OEM cards seem to be moving over to PCI.
[deletia]
My ISA OEM card is sitting in a box somewhere...
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: i cant blieve you people!!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes)
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:45:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 04:59:37 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>You mean... what if Word Perfect was let back into the market place?
>>
>>The mere mention of such an idea makes for nightmares in Redmond...
>>
>>
>
>The DOS version of WP was quite a good package. The Windows version
>was the worst mass produced software package I've ever seen.
>
The Mac version is, IMHO, excellent. I remember from many years on comp.os.
os2.advocacy that it was claimed that WP for OS/2 was *nineteen days*
from being code complete when it was dropped. There were significant
rumors (never substantiated) that WP dropped this project because they
were leaned on real hard by the Boys of Redmond. It would have been
pretty difficult to develop WP for Win95 without help from MS re: API's,
etc.
I don't know if anything in the Jackson/Boies findings of fact relate to
this. (I reiterate: these were only rumors. It was no rumor that WP/2
never appeared, at least, I never saw it, and I looked pretty good.)
David Derbes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 16:48:43 GMT
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 15:27:33 GMT, Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 21:50:29 GMT, Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Any sane person pays for stuff in cash anyway. What do you mean, you
>>wouldn't pay for e.g. a car in cash?
>
>In the US, that sort of thing tends to bring on _more_ scrutiny of one's
>affairs rather than less. Banks are required to report cash deposits of
>over $10,000 to the feds for example. This is because of the US
>government's infamous "war on drugs".
Any banking transaction of that size requires government reporting.
It doesn't have to be a cash transaction...
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 12:33:56 -0500
>
> Guess what Chad - They might sell for a bunch of reasons; last time I
> checked, IBM wasn't an investment company.
> Therefore, concluding that IBM sells because RedHat is a bad paper, is
> just plain stupid.
>
Actually, since IBM was working on a S390 version of Linux, wouldnt it
make sense to sell off any investment in a possible competitor?
Not trying to imply that Red Hat's x86 & Alpha products would actually
be competing with a 390 version, if it ever came to market, but might
make sense to drop the investment, from IBM's point of view.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.corel,alt.linux,alt.fan.linux
Subject: Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Apr 2000 10:53:09 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name) writes:
> I have to concur with Achim's comments.
>
> All of the guys I work with are Linux advocates (with a definite
> hatred of MS).
>
> One of them recently purchased a Dell Inspiron 7500 notebook and
> promptly installed Madrake 7.x. He spent a fortnight trying to get
> the PCMCIA network card running. I was rather amused to see him
> camped in the communications cupboard with his notebook directly
> connected to the switch in an effort to get the network running.
>
> He finally gave up on the card and installed one he new would work
> with Linux.
>
> We purchased a second identical notebook (except for having a Linux
> compatible PCMCIA network card). It dual boots Win98 and Linux.
> Getting the Win98 networking took less than 15 minutes.
And I have a dozen other stories in which Linux works "out of the box"
with something while NT falls on it's face.
What's the point?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: So what is wrong with X?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Apr 2000 11:06:54 -0600
Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> It appears to me that X *does* have some major deficiencies as a
> protocol for running remote applications. Isn't the X-server's job
> merely to render raw graphics on the screen, and to pass mouse and
> keyboard events to the client? Almost all of the the work is done on
> the remote machine, and not enough on the local machine (the one
> running the X-server). Thus, the local machine is not in a position
> to filter out the X-events that remote application does not need to
> know about, and there is a huge waste of bandwidth. For instance, a
> remote emacs window is almost unusably slow over a phone line. I can
> see the modem lights flashing when I merely move the mouse.
>
> Given that most GUI applications have pretty simple needs (buttons,
> sliders, text boxes, etc.), it's surely possible to pass the
> information over the network in a more parsemonious way (`slider 3 has
> been moved from position 1.1 to 2.3' rather than `mouse is being
> clicked and dragged over points x1,y1; x2,y2; x3,y3...'). The way
> that widgets respond to X-events could be controlled localy, without
> having to wait for calculations and updates from the remote client
> between each X-event.
>
> What I am suggesting is that the `X-client/X-server' division of
> labour is too unequal, and that a `remote server/local not-too-thin
> client' approach leads to much less wasted bandwidth. I know this is
> nothing new, and I also know that this approach can be (and is) used
> with applications that run under X. However, as far as I know there
> is no standard protocol (API?) for creating GUIs in this way, so
> programmers are not encouraged to write most software according to
> this model.
>
> I don't know how Windows terminal services works, nor have I ever used
> it, but I would have thought that, if it runs as a thin client so that
> only a subset of the terminal activity is sent over the network, it is
> much more efficient than running X-clients remotely.
>
> In summary: X is very powerful, but its very flexibility means that it
> is too inefficient to be used as the communication protocol for most
> remotely-run applications. Of course, this has nothing to do with X's
> suitability as the display protocol for locally running applications.
>
> Anyone care to comment on the above, or correct my ignorance?
I'd concur, except for X11 compression protocols:
http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue53/2374.html
http://www.vigor.nu/dxpc/index.html#performance
And that modems are going out of style rather quickly. ;)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
