Linux-Advocacy Digest #425, Volume #26 Tue, 9 May 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Shithead Distribution? (George Russell)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Perry Pip)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (Steve Harvey)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Questions about trace route? (Steve Harvey)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Matthias Warkus)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Matthias Warkus)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Steve Harvey)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Bob May")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Bob May")
Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ? (Steve Harvey)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Steve Harvey)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Rob Kendrick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Russell)
Subject: Re: Shithead Distribution?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 18:12:08 GMT
On Tue, 09 May 2000 17:01:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Does Minix give any kind of GUI?
X11 is not ported. There is none supplied in a Minix 2.0 distro,
although possibly it exists in Minix-vmd.
Could X be fitted on the 9 floppies Minix + source fit on?
It does have a nice colour terminal support, and the usual shell is either sh
or modified ash - a little spartan for some.
George Russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 18:17:11 GMT
On Tue, 09 May 2000 17:14:56 GMT, whistler <blahblah> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>>On Tue, 09 May 2000 06:50:56 GMT, whistler <blahblah> wrote:
>>>In article <8f7uqb$1ou1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>> wrote:
>>>>In article <LOCR4.2222$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>whistler <blahblah> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1) put CD in drive
>>>>>>2) push reset
>>>>>>3) click OK at all the prompts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Only if you PC is bootable from CD, if you have a SCSI card it may or may
>> not
>>>>>be bootable.
>>>>
>>>>Add another two minutes to copy the floppy boot image off the CD
>>>>with the provided program if the CD won't boot.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If there is one.
>>
>> Don't suppose you can give us an example of any distro that
>> DOESN'T have one, or several for that matter.
>>
>
>Up until recently, last release or so of all major distro's, the Adaptec
>AHA-2930U@ card wasn't supported.
...then that means that that is no longer a problem.
So much for Adaptec's announcements with respect to AltOS support...
[deletia]
>>>out of 10 you are SOL. It has gotten better, but it still ain't there yet.
>>
>> You can be that way with just plain Win98 (bleeding edge dodgey
>> driver) or WinNT. Being an unwitting member of some hardware vendor's
>> QA department can be a dodgey proposition all around.
>>
>
>More so in Linux where you may have to wait 6 months or longer for a driver.
It all depends on the hardware. It's simply a matter of luck
either way. This can be especially problematic for NT.
>Unless you are skilled enough to write your own. In Windows(any flavor) there
>is at least a probablity of updated drivers on the website.
No there isn't. NT is still at a considerable disadvantage and its
the version of Windows that doesn't blow big donkey balls (like
Win9x does).
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 18:14:21 GMT
On 9 May 2000 11:46:59 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>M. Buchenrieder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> what is "wheel" ?
>>
>>It is a concept that will not allow ordinary users accessing certain
>>commands that need root priviledges, even when if they knew the root
>>password for to become "root" using "su" . This practically limits the
>>access for the "root" user to just the console.
>
>I don't think that explanation is completely clear. 'wheel' is
>a group that a user must be added to before the BSD su will
>let them su to root. GNU su doesn't have this restriction and
This can easily be done with GNU su using PAM, as well as many other
access control options to su and others services using PAM
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 18:27:40 GMT
On Tue, 09 May 2000 18:17:11 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 May 2000 17:14:56 GMT, whistler <blahblah> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>>>On Tue, 09 May 2000 06:50:56 GMT, whistler <blahblah> wrote:
>>>>In article <8f7uqb$1ou1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>>> wrote:
>>>>>In article <LOCR4.2222$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>>whistler <blahblah> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1) put CD in drive
>>>>>>>2) push reset
>>>>>>>3) click OK at all the prompts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Only if you PC is bootable from CD, if you have a SCSI card it may or may
>>> not
>>>>>>be bootable.
>>>>>
>>>>>Add another two minutes to copy the floppy boot image off the CD
>>>>>with the provided program if the CD won't boot.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If there is one.
>>>
>>> Don't suppose you can give us an example of any distro that
>>> DOESN'T have one, or several for that matter.
>>>
>>
>>Up until recently, last release or so of all major distro's, the Adaptec
>>AHA-2930U@ card wasn't supported.
>
> ...then that means that that is no longer a problem.
>
> So much for Adaptec's announcements with respect to AltOS support...
...and another thing: if you're in a position to buy the most
overpriced SCSI controllers on the market, and the devices to
exploit them, then you are quite likely in a very good position
to replace that U2 controller with something supported.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 9 May 2000 13:42:47 -0500
In article <VsHR4.216$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Microsoft was recently sued by Caldera over this exact issue.
>>
>> Microsoft decided to settle out of court rather than risk tarnishing
>> its image any further.
>>
>> It would not have looked very good in light of the concurrent DOJ
>> trial into Monopoly abuse. Microsoft settled because the case against
>> it was overwhelming and to pursue it would only have brought
>> further bad publicity.
>>
>> I can't believe you are actually denying this.
>
>It's fact. Learn to research your facts before you jump to conclusions.
>
>http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm
>
>"The message first appeared in build 61, a late-stage beta, and seemed to
>disappear in the final retail release of Windows 3.1. "
But everybody and his brother had a beta test copy at the time and
there was a large public outcry before it was removed. There is
no reason to think it would have been removed if it were not for
the publicity the beta version caused.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Harvey)
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: 9 May 2000 18:57:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> If you genuinely have sparred with any form of DOS, then
> you should certainly be able to handle a sweetheart like
> Linux. Given your carrying on, I don't for a minute
> believe you have ANY experience with DOS at all.
>
> no pnp, no services, no bundled device drivers, manual
> memory management: that's DOS.
Tell me about it. For that matter, even today, installing Win95 or
Win98 on a brand new machine can be an exciting exercise in DOS
nostalgia.
I just went through this drill the other night, trying to install
Win95 on a new hard disk. The Win95 rescue/startup floppy is enough
to get the disk partitioned and formatted, but there's no NIC or
CD-ROM drivers on it, so I can't actually get to the install media. I
pop in the setup disk that came with my CD-ROM drive, and it complains
that it can't run without MSCDEX.EXE (which is MS code, so the CD-ROM
vendor apparently couldn't include it). I copy MSCDEX.EXE over from
my other machine via floppy, and now I've got a CD-ROM. Only now I
can't run Win95's SETUP.EXE because I don't have HIMEM.SYS loaded.
And so on. It took me the better part of an evening before I saw the
Windows desktop, and that was only because I had another functional
Windows machine on the other side of the room that I could copy files
off of.
By way of comparison, I also installed Debian GNU/Linux on another
partition of the other machine. One single boot floppy and half an
hour later, I had a 100% usable system up and running (X, networking,
etc.) No fishing for disks or drivers, and the ONLY configuration
file I had to edit by hand was lilo.conf, to add dual-boot capability.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 9 May 2000 13:54:27 -0500
In article <lhyR4.9203$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bracy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I wonder how the Macintosh ever became such a user-friendly OS
>since Apple never had access to all that MS Office code?
Perhaps because they actually document and follow a relatively
unchanging API? Compare the Mac emulator 'executor' to
WINE.
Can someone who has looked at the WINE project comment on how
much besides the documented API is really used?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Harvey)
Subject: Re: Questions about trace route?
Date: 9 May 2000 19:04:31 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Ginn wrote:
>You may not have traceroute in your path. In my distro (Mandrake 7.0),
>it's in /usr/sbin which is not normally in a regular user's path.
>Type 'locate traceroute' to find out where it is, and if it isn't in
>your path, add it to your .bash_profile.
Of course that assumes that you have locate/updatedb installed, which
is common but not a given. If locate doesn't work, you can always:
find / -name 'traceroute' -print
Which should work on just about *nix system out there.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 16:42:47 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 08 May 2000 16:09:03 -0600...
...and Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm not talking about the KDE libraries (which are split pretty much
> > > the same way as gnome-libs), but about Qt. Qt is a large monolithic
> > > chunk AFAICS. GTK+ consists of three libraries minimum (not counting
> > > libgthread, libgmodule etc.).
> >
> > If every app is going to link glib, gdk and gtk, what's the point
> > of having three libraries?
>
> Some apps only link against glib.
Yup. And some are supposed to only link against GDK, too. Some people
are sick enough to use GDK directly as an Xlib wrapper.
> It's actually a pretty nice C de-crappifier.
Yeah.
mawa
--
Actually, the fun thing about playing the piano is that you can walk
around in town with a Henle Urtext score, showing off, and feeling
like a *musician*.
-- mawa
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 17:39:13 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 08 May 2000 20:57:06 GMT...
...and Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not talking about the KDE libraries (which are split pretty much
> > the same way as gnome-libs), but about Qt. Qt is a large monolithic
> > chunk AFAICS. GTK+ consists of three libraries minimum (not counting
> > libgthread, libgmodule etc.).
>
> If every app is going to link glib, gdk and gtk, what's the point
> of having three libraries?
Greater modularity, clarity of concepts, and besides linking to glib
does not necessarily mean linking to GDK or GTK+, and linking GDK
doesn't necessarily mean linking to GTK+. Lots of programs use glib.
More will in the future, because we're going to move most of the
non-GUI-specific stuff from GTK+ into glib (i.e. the object model).
(One advantage of GNOME: We can actually work on the toolkit we're
using without being peons of some company, we can fork it if necessary
and it's equally free on all platforms. GTK+ 1.4 will be the first
GTK+ 1.4 that will work on Windows unpatched.)
> > BTW, has KDE got any equivalent to the GNOME canvas (main reason we
> > link to libart_lgpl is antialiasing and affine transformations for
> > canvas members) and the gnome-print architecture?
>
> Well, Qt applications have been able to print since Qt 1.2 or so, so
> I don't know what you mean, exactly ;-)
OK. So you're completely uninformed about what gnome-print is... I'll
rephrase my question:
Do you have an architecture that can render the content of a widget to
any PCL or PS printer or a PS/PDF file (more backends such as for WMF
are possible and may already exist or be in development) with pixel
precision, that does zoomable antialiased page previews, that allows
you to set your paper size etc. and that will eventually interact with
common spool systems (interaction with CUPS is already being worked
on)?
> As for the canvas, there is (or was) something called QCanvas floating
> around, but I have no idea if it's equivalent.
Does it allow positioning arbitrary, layered objects on an infinite,
zoomable and scrollable plane, doing arbitrary affine transformations
on them and catching events on them? Does it do antialiasing?
(The canvas and gnome-print are pretty much two parts of a greater
"vision" as you can see. BTW I hate the word "vision" :)
> > > KDE2's kicker has applets (in fact, everything in it is an applet),
> and
> > > it is in the list above.
> >
> > I know that.
>
> Then I fail to see the point of what you said. That's probably just me.
>
> > However, there's no stable released version of a KDE
> > panel supporting applets.
>
> Sure. KDE 1.89. Or wait a couple of weeks.
I talk about what is now. Is KDE 1.89 an official stable release?
> > Anyway it's interesting to see how both
> > sides make cover versions of the other side's features. The applets
> > clearly weren't a KDE idea.
>
> Of course not, they were a window maker (or afterstep, or NeXT) idea!
> Or you meant they were somehow a GNOME idea?
I request you to refrain from further speculating about the
implications of what I write and instead focus on what I actually
wrote.
Anyway, GNOME's applet concept differs from the "dock app" concept.
Applets are not of a fixed size and they can dynamically resize,
applets are started and controlled via CORBA, there is an applet API,
there is a communications protocol that negotiates resizes between the
container and the applet, Window Maker dock apps have nothing
resembling the standard applet context menu (that works via CORBA, I
think) etc. etc.
A dock app, however, is just a little 64x64 pixel application that
gives some hints to the window manager and does it drawing in a
certain standardised way (I think).
GNOME applets are a huge step ahead of square little dock apps,
however sophisticated those might be (consider Enlightenment's
Epplets).
This point will eventually become moot anyway since the applet
concept, the GNOME MDI concept and the current Bonobo controls will
all merge into one standardised GNOME embedding API.
mawa
--
Actually, the fun thing about playing the piano is that you can walk
around in town with a Henle Urtext score, showing off, and feeling
like a *musician*.
-- mawa
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Harvey)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: 9 May 2000 19:12:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Arclight wrote:
>On 05 May 2000 00:28:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 04 May 2000 21:10:41 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>>Arclight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>| On 04 May 2000 17:27:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien) wrote:
>>|
>>| >On Thu, 04 May 2000 16:32:03 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>>| >Arclight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>| >Any decent file format would have
>>| >an extensible design making new versions automatically compatible with
>>| >older versions.
>>|
>>| They are partially compatible, as long as you don't use any of the new
>>| features.
>>
>>But a well designed file format would degrade well. Uses of programs
>>that don't support the newer version of the file format would still be
>>able to work with those files transparently, albeit without being able
>>to edit and view all the newest, whiz-bang features.
>
>In theory yes, but can you point to anything which actually does this?
HTML, for all its faults, comes pretty close. If I try to load a page
into an older browser that doesn't recognize the <swirling text> tag,
the page will still load fine -- it'll just ignore the features it
doesn't understand.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 9 May 2000 14:26:31 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Stuyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>A trainee, having had some instruction on the "consent decree"
>just a few days earlier, asked Buck if he, when he became a
>salesman after training, should "hold back" a little, letting the
>competition win every once in a while.
>
>Buck's reply: "Don't you worry about that. IBM's share of the
>business is ALL of the business."
>
>Absolutely true story.
This is a good point, and it is only fair to realize that things
would not be any better for consumers if this had happened,
or if AT&T had been allowed to use their monopoly power
to push a single-vendor unix system. On the other hand there
was a reason those monpolies were held back and it wasn't
just to create another one.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bob May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 12:34:30 -0700
The details that I have were that Stac management and other employees
(software engineers, etc.) had gone to Redmond and talked to Microsoft
(a.k.a. microcrud) and discussed a technology transfer. There were
several of these trips and there was only one trip after the source
code had been shown to the microcrud people. Considering that I was
going down the street to Stac, my info was from inside sources. If
Microsoft had just coded something from having seen the Stac software
run, they would have been in the clear. Stac won the lawsuit because
they could prove to the court that Microsoft had taken thier code and
copied it's design. PhotoStacker (our addon to the Stac lineup of
software in developement) was put on hold when Microsoft started thier
fun so the company that I worked for also lost money because of
Microsoft's theft.
As far as I am concerned, Microsoft's policies are predatory because I
have been on the losing end of the process and have seen the whole
thing in review. They will get your source if possible and copy it or
will reverse engineer your code (remember that they wrote the compiler
that you are writing the stuff on so they have the best of the reverse
compilers available) to thier desire.
As far as I am concerned, Microsoft should be divided into a lot more
than 2 companies.
--
Bob May
Don't subscribe to ACCESS1 for your webserver for the low prices. The
service has
been lousy and has been poor for the last year. Bob May
------------------------------
From: "Bob May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 12:35:44 -0700
But which version of the .DOC file structure should you support? The
latest versions don't support all of them!
--
Bob May
Don't subscribe to ACCESS1 for your webserver for the low prices. The
service has
been lousy and has been poor for the last year. Bob May
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Harvey)
Subject: Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ?
Date: 9 May 2000 19:38:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
>> >tom wrote:
>>
>> >Here is a, not too, authoritative break down:
>> >
>> >/etc - System configuration files.
>> >/bin - administration programs needed to fix a machine.
>> >/sbin - system level programs needed to boot a machine
>> >/usr/bin - general user programs linked to the main system libraries.
>> >/usr/sbin - administration tools.
>> >/usr/X11R6 - The x Window system
>> >/usr/share - supposedly platform independent files .
>> >/usr/local - supposedly platform dependent files.
>> One you seem to have forgotten :
>> /opt - optional mostly commercial software uses that like
>> WordPerfect.
>> I also tend to doubdt your declaration of /usr/local from what I understand
>> is that /usr/local is used for non-standard programs normally not found on
>> every machine on your site.
>
>Like I said, not too authoratative. I do use an /opt directory, but it
>has seemed to fall out of favor as of late, I'm not sure why. Besides my
>systems, I only see opt directories on sun boxes.
/opt is still fairly popular on SunOS/Solaris and HP-UX, where it
tends to be a not-very-organized catchall directory for various
applications (often 3rd party apps install themselves in /opt by default).
I'll also mention /var here, since I haven't seen anyone else do
so... /var is mostly used for system logs and queues (print queues,
mail queues, etc.) There's often lots of good troubleshooting
information to be found in /var.
>As for /usr/local vs /usr/share, I have yet to see any real consistency
>in their use.
This distinction has always been very clear-cut to me; I've never
encountered confusion of these two directories. Anything that's not a
part of the "official" OS distribution goes under /usr/local. You'll
note that /usr/local generally echoes the structure of the general
/usr mount point, so there may be /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/sbin,
/usr/local/share, etc. So "shared data files" (like GIMP brushes and
textures) would go under /usr/share, while "site-specific shared data
files" (like data files for a program that I built from sources) would
go under /usr/local/share.
This makes life easy when you know that all your site-specific data is
either in /usr/local or /home (or configuration info in /etc) -- this
makes backups and reinstalls a cinch.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Harvey)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 9 May 2000 19:46:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tesla Coil wrote:
>On 6 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> I wish you people would get your facts straight. I've read
>> this misinformation dozens of times. It's simply not true.
>>
>> The reason it's spread so fast is that few people seem to
>> be able to resist opening an attachment that says it's a
>> love letter.
>
> "I'll send you a love letter! Straight from my heart...
>You know what a love letter is?"
> -Frank Booth, in *Blue Velvet* (1986).
ROTFLMAO
------------------------------
From: Rob Kendrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 20:24:30 +0100
In message <8f5e04$i78$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Tom Hanlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7-May-2000, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>
> > Or are you seriously suggesting that the older software be capable of
> > reading a format which did not even exist when it was released?
>
> Actually, this is a perfectly reasonable idea, and is not that difficult to
> implement. The old software may not be able to take advantage of every new
> feature, but it can reasonably be expected to degrade gracefully-- say,
> displaying text in a default font instead of using the unknown new feature.
> This is a common technique for software designed to be robust, as opposed to
> badly-designed software, or software that is designed to force you to
> upgrade...
Ah; you mean like Windows and Office? :)
Cheers,
--
Rob Kendrick, Kiwi Software (UK)
http://www.kiwisoft.co.uk/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
