Linux-Advocacy Digest #498, Volume #26 Sun, 14 May 00 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Ease of Upgrading, was, Re: X Windows must DIE!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Here is the solution (Forrest Gehrke)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("ax")
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Microsoft must die! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Perry Pip)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("ax")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Perry Pip)
Re: Here is the solution (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (joseph)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Perry Pip)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Todd Knarr)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (abraxas)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Ease of Upgrading, was, Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 16:12:47 GMT
"Alberto Trillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Like you, I use GNU/Linux too, but you, like me, use Windows 98 on one
>machine too :-)
Yep, on a machine that cost me A$25 at the local surplus auction. And it
runs exactly one application --- a Web server, which through a couple of
ingenious CGI programs allows me to access the 1994 Encyclopedia Britannica
CD-ROM from my linux machine.
There *is* a reason that I have 4 machines, but only 3 monitors. And it's
not that I am short on monitors ;-)
>> *That's* the sort of thing that makes me use linux. And quite simply,
>> I don't think any amount of exposure to any version of Windows will
>> change that.
>Neither me, but I think no GNU/Linux version will keep me off testing
>every OS I get to test.
Well, there are certain things I require before I even consider an OS.
Multiuser functionality is one, and seamless integration into a
network environment is another. Looking forward to giving MacOS-X a
spin, to see how badly they butchered NeXTStep ;-)
Bernie
--
The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it
George Orwell
English novelist, 1903-50
------------------------------
From: Forrest Gehrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 16:20:13 GMT
Bob Hauck wrote:
> On Sat, 13 May 2000 22:20:04 GMT, Forrest Gehrke
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >This must have some meaning about the long term for OS/2. Like Lazarus,
> >OS/2 is showing renewed signs of life and the MS pitchers have to be
> >recalled from the bullpen.
>
> Uh, yeah, whatever you say. I used OS/2, liked it too, but I have a hard
> time thinking up ways that being end-of-lifed by IBM can be considered
> "renewed signs of life".
>
> It is time to move on.
>
Coming up with that old cliche proves exactly what?
IBM is issuing a new release later this year. Since I like it and you did
too,
why must I move on? What is so compelling simply because 85% of the
rest of the world uses Windows? What is the reason for this lock-step?
//
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 16:37:29 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ax wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]....
> > >
> > > So Linux will survive and the GPL is sound.
> >
> > Watch how the stock market justifies the soundness of GPL.
> > Have fun !
> >
> > >
> > > Microsoft does the reverse of this, or course.
> > >
> > > Charlie
>
> Okay, I'll give you my professional opinion on this.
> Stock markets always wallow in a certain technology just before a
> monuments
> change is about to occur.
>
> There is every sound reason to believe that with the Breakup of
> Microsoft,
> Combined with the manpower of Linux, we see a sudden death of Microsoft
> OS by 2006.
>
That's still a slow death of Microsoft in SIX YEARS compared to the
cooling down of Linux hype in just SIX MONTHS.
> There you go!
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 09:57:28 -0700
Reply-To: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > --
> > .-----.
> > |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> > | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> > | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> > |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
>
>
>
> I did some checking on this group.
>
> See, they are writing AI under Microsoft products!
And I see that you never answered any of my questions.
Since you absolutely refused to post proof to back up
your claims, I can only conclude that you are lying
about nearly everything you said. Now, please give
COMNA a rest. We already have enough village idiots
posting from COLA, and we don't need another.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Microsoft must die!
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 May 2000 10:50:19 -0600
"As If" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Jimmy Navarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > it's back to 1024x768 24bpp resolution. I do used NTs but everytime I see
> > the blue screen with hex values all over the screen and /CRASHDEBUG
> > without any prompt it's more disgusting. Microsoft do give away their
> > patches but always with disclaimer... :-(
> >
>
> The only times I ever have gotten the blue screen are:
>
> a) overclocking my box and running too hot - pushing the hardware where it's
> not supposed to go
That, indeed, is not the OSes fault.
> b) using crappy 3rd party hardware drivers.
>
> Microsoft isn't to blame for 99% of the NT blue screens out there; it's the
> junk that passes for OEM hardware drivers.
A driver is *part* of the OS. If Microsoft is too lazy to write their
own drivers, then they must accept responsibility for the BSODs caused
by bad OS extensions.
Ask your typical linux system adimistrator if he trusts binary drivers
written outside the kernel. You'll get a 'no' answer almost every
time.
--
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: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 10:05:44 -0700
Reply-To: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ax wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Microsoft is a whimp ass operating system at best.
> > >
> > > It's a bunch of borrowed ideas which have been sewed together over
> > > the years. They took the Windows idea from Apple who in turn took
> > > it from Xerox south park. The Multitasking they stole from Unix.
> > > The concept of dos the took from CPM back when it was popular.
> >
> > Linux borrowed and stole more.
> >
> > > If an application dies in Linux it just does. But it doesn't take the
> > > OS down. Prolonged use of Linux isn't disastrous either.
> > >
> >
> > Don't naturally assume Linux OS never crashes on others
> > if it hasn't crashed on you. There is no bug free OS.
>
>
> I think the point your missing here is nobody in the world has
> experienced it and wrote about it. It's true apps die, but
> not the entire OS such as in a blue screen!
I guess I can conclude that you're lying about being
a programmer too. You've been programming for 20 years,
and you've never seen X (a priveleged root process) lock
up a system? Charlie, if you were as experienced as you
state you are, you'd know that all software sucks, and
that all hardware sucks.
It's true, that X has been battered and beaten around
very much, and now it is very stable under most conditions,
but Linux has not had the same go around, and it's quite
possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees. This
has happened to me several times, and no, it wasn't a
hardware problem.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 16:53:14 GMT
On Sat, 13 May 2000 21:18:21 -0700,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>*sigh* When are you Linvocates going to learn?
There you go again, stereotyping the behavior of an entire group in
response to the behavior of one individual. You are sounding like a
zealot yourself.
>You cannot
>enter anecdotal evidence as proof to a claim.
However, when no scientific evidence is available, and anecdotal
evidence is all that you have to base your professional decisions on,
then you have to use it.
At my place of employment, they are using NT file/print/mail servers
to server nearly 10,000 client seats, mostly Win98 but many Mac, NT
and *nix clients as well. In order to stabilize their NT servers they
have had to nearly double the number of machines from that which was
orrignally to keep machines from crashing under heavy load. This has
doubled their anticipated hardware and licensing budget and has thus
been a major embarrassment for them. And I really felt sorry for them
a week ago when they had all of the NT file/print/mail servers down
for two days straight in order to clean up the Iloveyou virus.
In our specific scientific and engineering areas. including the one
where I work as a developer, we develop custom applications where
stability, scalability, portability and flexibility are often major
issues. For these applications, MS Windows is rarely considered an
option.
>Microsoft-IIS is also being used by Compaq, Nasdaq, and The National
>Football League.
>Windows 2000 users include Microsoft, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Hotbot,
>BigCharts, and Dell.
And now you yourself are giving us anecdotal evidence. In how many of
these cases did they have to substantially increase the number of
machines from originnaly planned in order to keep NT from cratering
under heavy load??
>Now, I suppose you're going to give a conspiracy theory
>entailing that Windows 2000/IIS is used _ONLY_ because
>Microsoft is forcing these companies to do so?
It is a well known fact the MS has subsidized people to use NT so that
they could publish an NT success story.
>|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
There are BSD zealots too. Mostly they are jealous of Linux.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 17:04:39 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ax wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > If an application dies in Linux it just does. But it doesn't take the
> > > OS down. Prolonged use of Linux isn't disastrous either.
> > >
> >
> > Don't naturally assume Linux OS never crashes on others
> > if it hasn't crashed on you. There is no bug free OS.
>
>
> I think the point your missing here is nobody in the world has
> experienced it and wrote about it. It's true apps die, but
> not the entire OS such as in a blue screen!
I experienced it and I also wrote (complained) it to this
group. When MS Windows crashes, I simply reboot it. But the
Linux crash I had could not even boot itself. It was a TOTAL death.
Here is the user event sequence before the crash:
- copied a plain text file created under windows from a floppy to disk
- cd <mydir>
- vi <myfile>
- shutdown Linux
- went to sleep ...
- woke up the next morning, and powered on the computer
- Linux could not boot itself
The same problem did not happen again and I could not
reproduce it. But it did happen once.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 17:03:12 GMT
On Sun, 14 May 2000 10:08:38 -0400, Evan DiBiase
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Now I'd like to read some about your background?
>
>Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers since
>I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
>FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What more
>do you want?
Some real world experience, i.e. deploying systems in business,
scientific, or engineering applications. Not that I mean to knock
you. You're only 16, so someday you'll get some if you want and until
that time you should continue to remain open minded as you
are. However having a PC at home is not the same as implementing
solutions in the real business world.
Perry
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 May 2000 11:10:20 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Uhh.. no. It's a protocol. Why would they write an API for something
> that
> > > the OS already does? The point of making a different domain controller
> is
> > > to do it on a non-MS platform, which means that an API is meaningless.
> >
> > That's a circular argument. Perhaps the word API is incorrect to use
> > here, because it implies that an interface is explained to the
> > programmer. How about this claim:
> >
> > Microsoft intentionally obfuscates internal calls to lock people
> > into using windows.
>
> That is not the argument here. The argument here is that MS is using hidden
> API's in it's applications that give it an advantage over it's competitors.
> Nobody has yet been able to prove this.
That's because it's hard to prove something that doesn't exist by
definition. An API is an explained interface into something. If
Microsoft uses internal hooks with Win32 applications (ABI) is already
proven by the Wine team.
> It is proven that MS used undocumented API's in the early days of
> Windows, but also proven that those API's did not give them any
> advantage since the information was available in other ways. They
> were leftovers from a time when Windows was an application.
> > Note that _all_ OSes have "secret" internal calls. Some, more than
> > others.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > > > They have the symbols all there, I'm sure of it -- they just don't
> > > > want to "create" the API for it.
> > >
> > > How would that be useful?
> >
> > I'm sure that the Samba team would find them so.
>
> How would the SAMBA team find the Windows debug symbols (which is debug
> information defining the API that an application can call) useful?
They would contain helpful information about what needs to be called
when. As it stands, they must reverse-engineer the protocol from
listening to tcp dumps. Microsoft had no such problem in impelmenting
NFS, yp or Kerberos. They half-heartely endorsed CIFS, but the lack
of adoption has left it to decay (Windows 2000 is the first step away
from it).
> > > > As for other undocumented APIs, follow this link:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.winehq.com
> > > >
> > > > They have several.
> > >
> > > "There's a needle somewhere in that haystack, go find it".
> >
> > You'll just say, "That's not an API, that's an internal Windows OS
> > feature."
> >
> > And you'd be correct.
>
> If the internal API is not used by non-OS applications (an OS application
> could be defined as the shell or command.com) then that's true.
I'd say you're correct, on a technicallity.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 10:21:13 -0700
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
Chris Wenham wrote:
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> >
> > > The real question here is how many companies shied away from the
> > > advantages of DRDOS because of the Microsoft ploy.
> >
> > Here's another thought:
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2559857,00.html
> >
> > No one wants to use MS's technology and those who do like AT&T were paid
> > 5 billion by MS for committing to use MS's WInCE.
>
> I have a story that goes to show.
>
> The NATO Inteligence Center in Luxembourg uses Windows NT
> exclusively, but the only reason they do is because Microsoft gave it
> to them for free _AND_ paid for a Microsoft employee to work there
> full time for the sole purpose of keeping it running. They're not
> doing too bad, they only have to reboot once a month.
Jumbo Shrimp
Military Intelligence
Mission-Critical Windows
------------------------------
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
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 May 2000 11:20:00 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Erik Funkenbusch? ([EMAIL PROTECTED]?) wrote (Fri, 12 May 2000
> 22:06:34 -0500):
> > >It's highly unlikely that any non-DOS would conform to unpublished data
> > >structures unless they had reverse engineered the code and committed a
> > >copyright violation.
> >
> > At the time, 'reverse-engineering' in the States was perfectly legal. It
> > was done all the time. What was illegal was copying the code exactly and
> > implementing that code (obvioious, a copyright boo-boo).
>
> That's the point really, to recreate such an internal data structure, they'd
> have to copy at least some of the code exactly.
Didn't it go like this?
They had 2 groups of engineers in clean rooms. Group A took the
functional units and examined them in detail while Group B was kept at
bay. Then, Group A told Group B exactly how it worked. Group B took
this knowledge and impleneted a new solution without ever seeing the
original.
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
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
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 May 2000 11:21:28 -0600
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 05/13/2000 at 07:23 AM,
> "Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > We're not talking about internal API's per se (although they were used
> > here), the actual entries checked were internal data structures which
> > were accessed from the API. I think it's perfectly legitimate for DOS
> > to have undocumented API's if they do nothing but access internal data
> > that 3rd party programs should not be accessing.
>
> Better quit now, Erik. We've just about proved your actual identity as a
> paid MS flack.
Look at all the _calls in Linux before you make such a claim.
Every OS has undocumented APIs; It's just that you can see Linux'
because of open source.
--
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: joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sun, 14 May 2000 17:15:15 GMT
In article <391e8259$5$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/13/2000 at 09:45 AM,
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > MS e-mails prove the test was added to specificaly detect for and
harm
> > DR DOS.
>
> > > MS tested for non MS-DOS period, not any specific brand.
>
> > MS-DOS is a specific brand of DOS.
>
> Absolutely. I wonder why the Wintrolls don't address the problem that
IBM
> had to issue a patch for PC-DOS which was jointly developed with
MS-DOS to
> enable Windows 3.1 to load on machines running PC-DOS.
The justification for the code changes based on the criticism: Testing
specifically for DR DOS due to technical defects, Testing generally for
any DOS version [sic], ....
AT any given time the explanation can change to a local optimal in order
to win the battle. Over the course of the argument these explanations
change and create contradictions.
MS decided to justify the blurring of their Apps and OSs. During the
last appeal when MS was ordered to offer a non Win95/IE OS, 1 of the 3
judges asked about IE intergation in Win95. They asked an extreme
situation for clarification: Does MS's right to integrate features
included their apps like MS WORD. The answer to that question has
changed! MS now maintains they have the right to integrate ANY app into
the OS and it is called innovation. Fine but that's not what they told
the appeals court when they were fighting about IE.
--
-- joseph
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 17:25:16 GMT
On Sun, 14 May 2000 10:05:44 -0700, Stephen S. Edwards II
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's true, that X has been battered and beaten around
>very much, and now it is very stable under most conditions,
>but Linux has not had the same go around, and it's quite
>possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees.
That's funny. I've been using Linux for six years, and I've *never*
had X take a kernel down, i.e. I could always telnet to the
system. And in the last couple of years, I haven't had any console
lock ups either.
>This
>has happened to me several times, and no, it wasn't a
>hardware problem.
It's funny that the only people who claim that Linux crashes for them
and NT doesn't are the Windows advocates on the newsgroups. Whereas
the rest of the world, including the mainstream press seem to agree
Linux is more stable.
Perry
------------------------------
From: Todd Knarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: 14 May 2000 17:32:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.x <8fm5jt$l4k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That's strange since it's been available under X for quite some time, through the
>freetype library; it's integrated with XFree 4. I did an experimental install and it
>worked flawlessly and the truetype fonts do look quite good, especially in netscape.
>Performance is quite good too, meaning that I can't tell the difference between
>bitmap and tt fonts rendering speed.
Actually TrueType fonts under X aren't antialiased, at least not in the
way Windows does it. The problem is that X defines it's font to be a
monochrome bitmap. To antialias right you need a greyscale pixmap. The
problems are that a) most X apps can't handle pixmap font data and b) the
data format for what the font server returns can't accomodate pixmap
font data.
The challenge isn't extending the spec to allow for pixmap font data
for new apps, that's easy. The challenge is to alter the existing specs
so that old apps can benefit from antialiasing without being broken by
changed formats. This is a just slightly more difficult endeavor.
<evil grin> Much like making DirectX 7 add all it's capabilities without
breaking binary compatibility with DirectX 1 apps and allowing them to
take advantage of some of the new features.
> If this and other newsgroups concerning X are to be judged by, there are a lot of
>people (incl. me) using X over a network regularly, where the client/server model
>excels... There's no better model. Thus your reasoning is only valid for you and the
>few people that reason just like you.
Especially considering that Microsoft itself is moving towards the X model
with Microsoft Terminal Server and their new 'services' concepts, where the
application runs on a central system and only displays on the local PC.
--
Collin was right. Never give a virus a missile launcher.
-- Erk, Reality Check #8
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 14 May 2000 17:39:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on 14 May 2000 06:19:49 GMT <8flgi5$ch9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> *sigh* When are you Linvocates going to learn? You cannot
>>> enter anecdotal evidence as proof to a claim. How the hell
>>> do we know that you're not just contriving this stuff in
>>> order to look like you're a techie, when you really just
>>> work for the postal service, or something to that effect?
>>
>>I actually got a bluescreen under my W2K install last night when
>>I tried (uneffectively) to start a winamp plug-in.
>>
>>I cut the power halfway through the 512 meg memory dump, booted
>>into linux and I shall never, ever look back. I needed an excuse
>>to never have a surprise shutdown ever again. My next reboot
>>will be right after I compile a stable 2.4 kernel to handle a
>>USB mouse.
>>
>>>> Microsoft products simply can't handle a LOAD!
>>
>>> I see. Well, according to NetCraft.com:
>>
>>> Microsoft-IIS is also being used by Compaq, Nasdaq, and The National
>>> Football League.
>>
>>I happen to know that the NFL will be using something else very,
>>very soon. (ok, so its not linux, but its not windows either. :))
> Not yet.
> bash$ telnet www.nfl.com www
> Trying 204.202.130.220...
> Connected to www.nfl.com.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> HEAD / HTTP/1.0
> Connection closed by foreign host.
> ?
> bash$ telnet www.nfl.com www
> Trying 204.202.130.220...
> Connected to www.nfl.com.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> HEAD / HTTP/1.1
> HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
> Server: Microsoft-IIS/4.0
> Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 11:17:58 GMT
> Connection: close
> Set-Cookie: SWID=E7DA5BAF-2987-11D4-9BCA-009027302310; path=/;
> expires=Sun, 14-May-2020 11:17:58 GMT; domain=.nfl.com;
> Content-Length: 407
> Content-Type: text/html
> Connection closed by foreign host.
Jesus dude, I didnt mean in the next few MINUTES.
> Of course, it's possible that www.nfl.com may be switching to
> a DNS rotator type of system (somewhat like www.cnn.com), and that
> some systems on that rotator may be using one OS/webserver
> combination, and others using some other OS/webserver.
I have no idea what kind of dns they use or will be using...
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 14 May 2000 17:41:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > --
>> > .-----.
>> > |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
>> > | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
>> > | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
>> > |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
>>
>>
>>
>> I did some checking on this group.
>>
>> See, they are writing AI under Microsoft products!
> And I see that you never answered any of my questions.
> Since you absolutely refused to post proof to back up
> your claims, I can only conclude that you are lying
> about nearly everything you said.
I love it when you fall back on this argument; the one thats continually
used on you.
> Now, please give
> COMNA a rest. We already have enough village idiots
> posting from COLA, and we don't need another.
Then why did you crosspost back to it?
You never clean up your crossposts.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
