Linux-Advocacy Digest #299, Volume #26 Fri, 28 Apr 00 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux to destroy Microsoft. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft ("Ermine Todd")
Re: Linux to destroy Microsoft. ("Chad Myers")
Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat (Arthur)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Craig Kelley)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Opensource rumors (Microsoft Windows) (Bastian)
Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel (The Cat)
Re: Linux to destroy Microsoft. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Craig
Kelley)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (JEDIDIAH)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (The Cat)
Re: So what is wrong with X? (Cary O'Brien)
Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000 (Michael Born)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (JEDIDIAH)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (The Cat)
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! (Cary O'Brien)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to destroy Microsoft.
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 22:10:59 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I agree!
> > Linux will destroy Microsoft and we will have
> > a one world OS.
> >
> > Think of all the wars and agreements we've
> > been making for the last 100 years!
> >
> > Linux will be the worlds first true
> > global effort and it will be sucessful!
> >
> > My hat's off to Linus.
> > He should be awarded the prize!
>
> I'll just go ahead and assert Godwin's law here, but...
>
> Does this not sound vaguely like 1932 Germany?
>
> Hail Der Fuhrer! He will bring the first global effort
> and it will be succesfull!
>
> He should be awarded the prize!
> Hail Der Fuhrer!
>
And allow me to just say that Bill Gates will never
be awarded the prize.
After all, you have to actually help people to
be awarded the prize.
Congradulations Linus.
Charlie
> -C
------------------------------
From: "Ermine Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 15:06:36 -0700
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
What was integrated into the OS was the capability for applications to
communicate and interact seamlessly over the internet. IE, as a pretty UI
app, could have been removed - but the internet capabilities - which other
application DO use themselves are still there.
Assuming that these other markets have any validity, then my understanding
is that a version of IE will be created. For the answer to that question,
you'll need to talk to MS - but seriously, given the anti-MS attitudes by
some of the adherents on these other platforms, do you really believe that
even if IE was available, that it would be used?
To many people, the definition of an OS doesn't include any networking or
graphical interface elements. To others, it does. The basic definition in
my view would be any consistent and interrelated set of services provided on
a generic basis to application developers to aid in the use of devices and
manage information.
--ET--
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:22:53 -0700, Ermine Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >First, the appeals courts have ruled that MS was perfectly okay to
"bundle"
> >IE into the OS. Show me ANY OS that hasn't undergone increased
> >functionality to keep pace with the technology and the market and you
will
> >also have identified an OS that has died.
>
> That's not quite the same thing. Adding a 3D API or a TCP stack
> is a far different matter. These are shared facilities that don't
> tend to eliminate the need for 3rd party application products.
> They also tend to conform to a less disputed definition of Operating
> System.
>
> Thus the differnce between when Microsoft 'assimilated' Stacker
> technology versus when they 'assimilated' Netscape technology.
>
> >
> >Second, including IE into the OS can only be termed a positive for the
> >consumer - especially since versions of IE on all other platforms are
free
> >of charge.
>
> ...all 3 of them.
>
> Meanwhile, a product that is available for 12 or more platforms
> is effectively killed due to it's 'airsupply being cut off'.
>
> Where's the Exploder for BeOS? What about Solaris x86? Howabout Tru64?
>
> >
> >--ET--
> >
> >"Peter van der Linden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:3909e2b6$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <uTTFPxTs$GA.233@cpmsnbbsa03>, Ermine Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >And you forget that no matter how cheap something is, even if it's
free,
> >if
> >> >it isn't what the consumer wants, then including it has no value and
> >> >actually becomes an unnecessary cost.
> >>
> >> The illegal bundling of Internet Explorer comes to mind as an example.
> >> That rather undermines the point you are trying to make: you are
arguing
> >> against yourself here.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to destroy Microsoft.
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 17:17:48 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And allow me to just say that Bill Gates will never
> be awarded the prize.
Nor does he want the prize. He's a capitalist, not a
communist, he simply wants to make money and be
successful like any other red blooded American.
> After all, you have to actually help people to
> be awarded the prize.
Of course, Gates just wanted to make a good product,
sell lots of it and make money and be successful.
Linus just wants to take over the world as part of his
master plan. He seems bent on destroying Microsoft and
indoctrinating all his croonies to do the same.
Simply look at the subject of this topic to see how
ludicrous and diabolical it is.
> Congradulations Linus.
Hail Der Fuhrer!
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:30:10 -0700
Gary Hallock wrote:
> boat_goat wrote:
> > When IBM made the investment, it was widely reported that the investment
> > meant that IBM was going to support Linux and adopt some form of it as an
> > OS platform on their servers and/or workstations. Dropping the investment
> > is indicative of the opposite.
> Ok, one more time -
> Redhat is NOT Linux
> IBM is very heavily invested in Linux these days. I'm not talking about
> buying stock in other companies, which is really a very passive form of
> support. I'm talking about IBM actively supporting Linux by porting Linux to
> all of its hardware platforms and porting applications to Linux. Buying or
> selling Redhat stock is totally insignificant and has no bearing on IBM
> supporting Linux.
That IBM's selling their Linux shares has some negative implications
for Linux is simply wishful thinking on the part of the usual MS
shills.
I don't see this as any different from IBM's Intel investment in the
80's, when IBM took a 20% stake in Intel for a while and then dropped
it a few years later (didn't exactly hurt Intel either). The obvious
reason for the Intel and Red Hat investments by IBM, is that at
either company it gave IBM tremendous mindshare, access to information
and probably authority, and helped legitimate the respective
marketplaces.
In the Intel case, IBM had the rights to produce x86 processors, and
probably wanted a smooth ramp up of their own production and influence
on future x86 iterations, plus their investment helped legitimate the
x86 PC market. In the RH case, IBM was already announcing Linux support
but had little in the way of Linux offerings of their own. Their
investment helped legimate the Linux market plus gave them access to
RH's
Linux knowledge base. Just like with x86, IBM can produce their own
Linux
versions if they're so inclined.
In either case, I doubt IBM lost money on the shares.
Arthur
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Apr 2000 16:22:45 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
> On 28 Apr 2000 11:19:43 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >Lord knows I'm not a KDE fan, but I think glibc2.0 -> glibc2.1
> >demonstrated how happy people are when an interface changes in a major
> >version. The C standard has been defined for much longer than the
> >"KDE standard" (if there is such a beast).
> >
> >So, my question is: Do you feel glibc too fragile?
>
> I think it's safe to say the general consensus is yes.
And yet you complain when KDE doesn't want to do this? :)
> >It's easy to sit back and criticize a team for not doing what you want
> >them to do, but don't expect much sympathy.
>
> This is a fundemental interoperability issue as vexing as the
> 'libc made of glass' problem. When things break badly in either
> case it shows a clear problem somewhere.
In the glibc case, they wanted to make it standards-compliant; damn
the programs that depended on 2.0. I can sympathize with the KDE
folks not wanting to make the same mistake. Waiting until the next
major revision will be just fine -- which, BTW, will be completely
L?GPL compatible and included with Debian.
> The interface didn't have to change. KDE and GNOME are both to
> a certain degree 'wrapper' libraries. There's no need for either
> of them to be hung up on implementation details of underlying
> interfaces when presenting it's own interface. Even if Xdnd is
> in some way rather bizarre in comparison to Motif DnD or Offix DnD
> there should be some 'simple' mode of interopability that could
> be achieved with minimum impact. Motif dnd, for example, has several
> types of interaction and clients can choose to implement a only subset.
>
> When making comparisons between competitors, it certainly is relevant
> to bring up how well each addresses legacy interoperability or
> implements newer standards.
In a perfect world, perhaps. Consider chaning declarations, though
and passed structs. Every program which is linked to KDE would need
to be rewritten to work with KDE 1.n+1's new XDND unless, by chance,
they matched up perfectly (doubtful).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 22:20:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It was the Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:11:48 GMT...
> ...and bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Am I the only one here who thinks that X Windows is crap?
> > X Windows is extremely archaic, ridiculously bloated,
> > way too slow, and extremely hard to install.
> >
> > Let's get rid of it completely.
>
> You don't know what you're talking about, do you? Oh well...
Unfortunately, there is no "X Window for Dummies".
Dummies use Microsoft.
NB: even my 5th grade daughter complained about Windows locking up
daily.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bastian)
Subject: Re: Opensource rumors (Microsoft Windows)
Date: 28 Apr 2000 22:50:15 GMT
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 21:26:25 GMT, Andy Micheals wrote:
>
> Have been to discussion groups and recently heard the idea tossed
>around about Microsoft looking at the possible situation of making
>windows 98 into an open source os, their way of punishing the feds and
>torpedoing the competition; What do you think!
>
> Andy Micheals
I think, M$'s source code will be called the "Joke of the Week", because
all people will laugh about how badly it is written. And when everyone
can see what badly-coded OS they're using, they'll switch to another one,
which certainly prevents M$ from releasing the Windoze source.
Believe me, they won't release it!
Bastian
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.corel,alt.linux,alt.fan.linux
Subject: Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:00:06 GMT
Hmmm 16 hours at my salary would have bought a pretty decent Athlon
system :)
But who is counting :)
On 28 Apr 2000 15:44:07 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Achim Nolcken Lohse) writes:
>
>> Well, as it happens, I've just spent about 16 hours over the space of
>> the past week trying to get an OSITECH modem/Ethernet card working
>> properly on my laptop under Win95.
>>
>> Happily, Ositech responds promptly and almost exhaustively to
>> requests for technical assistance. And they have drivers available for
>> WinXX, NT, and OS/2.
>>
>> With Linux, you're pretty much on your own when something doesn't work
>> "out of the box".
>
>Hmmm, 16 hours at my salary would have purchased numerous,
>good-quality cards. :)
TheCat (Steve)
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to destroy Microsoft.
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:03:29 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > And allow me to just say that Bill Gates will never
> > be awarded the prize.
>
> Nor does he want the prize. He's a capitalist, not a
> communist, he simply wants to make money and be
> successful like any other red blooded American.
>
> > After all, you have to actually help people to
> > be awarded the prize.
>
> Of course, Gates just wanted to make a good product,
> sell lots of it and make money and be successful.
>
> Linus just wants to take over the world as part of his
> master plan. He seems bent on destroying Microsoft and
> indoctrinating all his croonies to do the same.
>
> Simply look at the subject of this topic to see how
> ludicrous and diabolical it is.
>
> > Congradulations Linus.
>
> Hail Der Fuhrer!
>
> -Chad
Yes Chad! You've learned a new word! "Diabolical"
Yes Chad! This is diabolical and ludicrous.
Yes Chad! You must make money to be a Red Blooded American!
Yes Chad! Everything you learned in your church is just pure shit!
You truley CAN'T be a good person for helping the world!
Not UNLESS you can make MONEY in doing so!
Thanks for clarifying your position to the world again!
Chad,
Once again. You've managed to put your foot up your ass.
Charlie
------------------------------
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Apr 2000 17:07:45 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) writes:
[snip]
> You might want to look at
> http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/docs/io-events.html
> for a good analisys of these issues.
Strange that he came to the same conclusions (M/N management of polls
versus threads). A very interesting read.
I'd like to have callbacks on FDs (because I'm lazy and it seems
elegant), and he has a userland library for doing this:
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/karma/lib/dm.html
[snippage]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
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 23:22:13 GMT
On 28 Apr 2000 16:22:45 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>
>> On 28 Apr 2000 11:19:43 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >Lord knows I'm not a KDE fan, but I think glibc2.0 -> glibc2.1
>> >demonstrated how happy people are when an interface changes in a major
>> >version. The C standard has been defined for much longer than the
>> >"KDE standard" (if there is such a beast).
>> >
>> >So, my question is: Do you feel glibc too fragile?
>>
>> I think it's safe to say the general consensus is yes.
>
>And yet you complain when KDE doesn't want to do this? :)
>
>> >It's easy to sit back and criticize a team for not doing what you want
>> >them to do, but don't expect much sympathy.
>>
>> This is a fundemental interoperability issue as vexing as the
>> 'libc made of glass' problem. When things break badly in either
>> case it shows a clear problem somewhere.
In the case of glibc, you had developers blaming the library
maintainers and the library maintainers blaming developers.
>
>In the glibc case, they wanted to make it standards-compliant; damn
>the programs that depended on 2.0. I can sympathize with the KDE
>folks not wanting to make the same mistake. Waiting until the next
>major revision will be just fine -- which, BTW, will be completely
>L?GPL compatible and included with Debian.
Mebbe, mebbe not. I would be more convinced of that whole
'QT is now finally GPL compatible' if I saw some 'GPL
compatible' behaivor going on: like a BeOS or a MacOS version.
>
>> The interface didn't have to change. KDE and GNOME are both to
>> a certain degree 'wrapper' libraries. There's no need for either
>> of them to be hung up on implementation details of underlying
>> interfaces when presenting it's own interface. Even if Xdnd is
>> in some way rather bizarre in comparison to Motif DnD or Offix DnD
>> there should be some 'simple' mode of interopability that could
>> be achieved with minimum impact. Motif dnd, for example, has several
>> types of interaction and clients can choose to implement a only subset.
>>
>> When making comparisons between competitors, it certainly is relevant
>> to bring up how well each addresses legacy interoperability or
>> implements newer standards.
>
>In a perfect world, perhaps. Consider chaning declarations, though
>and passed structs. Every program which is linked to KDE would need
>to be rewritten to work with KDE 1.n+1's new XDND unless, by chance,
>they matched up perfectly (doubtful).
The real question is what's so damn different about Xdnd when
compared to DnD protocols from the last 15 years such that there
would necessarily be a problem and/or why KDE was apparently
written with too much of the innards of a particular protocol
exposed. (Dunno really, it might not be infact that way. That's
just the way that the defenders of KDE have been painting the
situation).
Everyone is presuming that KDE fails at being modular and abstract
such that an addition of xdnd to KDE 1.x would be a problem.
You can code in assembler if you want that kind of maintainability.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:28:57 GMT
The real answer is that as usual jedi, you haven't a clue as to what
you're are babbling about.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:22:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On 28 Apr 2000 16:22:45 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>>
>>> On 28 Apr 2000 11:19:43 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>>> >
>>> >> 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.
>>> >
>>> >Lord knows I'm not a KDE fan, but I think glibc2.0 -> glibc2.1
>>> >demonstrated how happy people are when an interface changes in a major
>>> >version. The C standard has been defined for much longer than the
>>> >"KDE standard" (if there is such a beast).
>>> >
>>> >So, my question is: Do you feel glibc too fragile?
>>>
>>> I think it's safe to say the general consensus is yes.
>>
>>And yet you complain when KDE doesn't want to do this? :)
>>
>>> >It's easy to sit back and criticize a team for not doing what you want
>>> >them to do, but don't expect much sympathy.
>>>
>>> This is a fundemental interoperability issue as vexing as the
>>> 'libc made of glass' problem. When things break badly in either
>>> case it shows a clear problem somewhere.
>
> In the case of glibc, you had developers blaming the library
> maintainers and the library maintainers blaming developers.
>
>>
>>In the glibc case, they wanted to make it standards-compliant; damn
>>the programs that depended on 2.0. I can sympathize with the KDE
>>folks not wanting to make the same mistake. Waiting until the next
>>major revision will be just fine -- which, BTW, will be completely
>>L?GPL compatible and included with Debian.
>
> Mebbe, mebbe not. I would be more convinced of that whole
> 'QT is now finally GPL compatible' if I saw some 'GPL
> compatible' behaivor going on: like a BeOS or a MacOS version.
>
>>
>>> The interface didn't have to change. KDE and GNOME are both to
>>> a certain degree 'wrapper' libraries. There's no need for either
>>> of them to be hung up on implementation details of underlying
>>> interfaces when presenting it's own interface. Even if Xdnd is
>>> in some way rather bizarre in comparison to Motif DnD or Offix DnD
>>> there should be some 'simple' mode of interopability that could
>>> be achieved with minimum impact. Motif dnd, for example, has several
>>> types of interaction and clients can choose to implement a only subset.
>>>
>>> When making comparisons between competitors, it certainly is relevant
>>> to bring up how well each addresses legacy interoperability or
>>> implements newer standards.
>>
>>In a perfect world, perhaps. Consider chaning declarations, though
>>and passed structs. Every program which is linked to KDE would need
>>to be rewritten to work with KDE 1.n+1's new XDND unless, by chance,
>>they matched up perfectly (doubtful).
>
> The real question is what's so damn different about Xdnd when
> compared to DnD protocols from the last 15 years such that there
> would necessarily be a problem and/or why KDE was apparently
> written with too much of the innards of a particular protocol
> exposed. (Dunno really, it might not be infact that way. That's
> just the way that the defenders of KDE have been painting the
> situation).
>
> Everyone is presuming that KDE fails at being modular and abstract
> such that an addition of xdnd to KDE 1.x would be a problem.
>
> You can code in assembler if you want that kind of maintainability.
TheCat (Steve)
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cary O'Brien)
Subject: Re: So what is wrong with X?
Date: 28 Apr 2000 19:34:57 -0400
In article <8ecbr9$8o1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> If both machines had to equally run the binary, there would be no
>>> way for me to run the program since my Linux machine can't run the
>>> Sun binary program. No Thanks.
>>
>> Perhaps the local GUI could run in Java, or tcl, or something
>> equaly portable. It doesn't need to be particularly powerful.
>
>Plus, if you use a higher-level language you can significantly reduce
>the amount of network traffic required to support the session. (This
>is one of the main complaints levelled at X, and it is a largely fair
>one too. Provided you are willing to mandate a powerful display
>engine. Given the modern costs of processing and graphics power, this
>is not a bad tactic!) Distributing applications across several
>machines is definitely the in-thing in modern computing. Push those
>database accesses over to the business-rule server. Run those CFD
>analyses on the supercomputer. Put the heavy duty 3D visualisation
>into the Cave...
>
>Now, the production of a fully functional remoteable Tk GUI is an
>interesting topic. Wish I had the time to persue it...
>
Back, what, 15 years ago (gaak!) Sun pushed something called NEWS,
Network Extensible Windowing System. My understanding that it was
kind of distributed display postscript. You could up- (down-? over-?)
load bits of display postscript to the machine with the display to
speed things up. Similar to what you are talking about. Eventually
Sun knuckled under and went with X.
Nothing new under the sun, eh?
[Hope I've got the details sorta right]
-- cary
------------------------------
From: Michael Born <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:39:59 GMT
Mig Mig wrote:
>
> Linux has no shortcomings and i can guarantee you that Netscape >= 4.7 is
> faster than IE.
No shortcomings? I know it's an advocacy NG but could we mix in a little
reality?
Mike
------------------------------
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 23:40:16 GMT
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:28:57 GMT, The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The real answer is that as usual jedi, you haven't a clue as to what
>you're are babbling about.
>
I gave KDE far too much credit.
[deletia]
I'm still not convinced that altering the underlying dnd protocol
should change anything at the API level or really create that much
instability in terms of the code.
This is why it never occured to me that KDE wasn't up to having
this implemented in a stable fashion already.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:42:26 GMT
Fair enough. I retract the statement.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:40:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:28:57 GMT, The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The real answer is that as usual jedi, you haven't a clue as to what
>>you're are babbling about.
>>
>
> I gave KDE far too much credit.
>
>[deletia]
>
> I'm still not convinced that altering the underlying dnd protocol
> should change anything at the API level or really create that much
> instability in terms of the code.
>
> This is why it never occured to me that KDE wasn't up to having
> this implemented in a stable fashion already.
TheCat (Steve)
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cary O'Brien)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: 28 Apr 2000 19:44:13 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Allow me Mark.
>
>
>Mark Weaver wrote:
>>
>> Are you sure this is a good thing for Linux? So far, Microsoft has been
>> neglecting Linux because it conflicts with their OS strategy. That has
[snippage]
>
>Since Corel, and Sun and Applix already have head starts, and two of the
>three are native,
>then Microsoft is going to be behind.
>
>I'll put it another way! Do you ever look back and wonder why station
>wagons disappeared
>in this country?
>
They never have. I've been driving station wagons for almost 35
years. You can't get much more practical than a Taurus wagon with a
third seat. 14K at carmax, 30+MPG on the highway, holds 8, fits a
boatload with the seats down, and doesn't wallow all that much in the
curves. Plus people don't steal them!
And BMW, Audi, and Saab have figured it out. Ford, Volvo and MB never
forgot. C/D has those minivans. Only GM is clueless.
So don't dis my wagon!
-- c
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
