Linux-Advocacy Digest #701, Volume #26 Fri, 26 May 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Peter Ammon)
Re: You have never seen Linux like this (Bill Sharrock)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead ("Chad Myers")
Re: "Lean and mean" Mozilla (Gary Hallock)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux vs. Solaris Intel (Timothy J. Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Font deuglification ?? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:19:21 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Wenham wrote:
>
> Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But end-user Unix applications are on average
> > bloatier, buggier, uglier, much less usable, and overall shittier than
> > their Windows counterparts.
>
> Can you give examples of this?
The free ICQ client that I used with LinuxPPC was more unstable, harder
to install, and harder to uninstall than both of the Mac ICQ clients
I've used, and I presume the Windows ones too.
-Peter
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 13:14:34 -0500
From: Bill Sharrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You have never seen Linux like this
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> I love it - guy posts a job opportunity - the very idea of a paid linux
> programmer - and he is told to fuck off (politely) and is kill -filed..
>
> yep, the linux community - it's own worse enemy!
>
> "Nicholas Murison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Please fuck off
> > --
> > Nicholas John Murison
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Don't mess with penguins
> > Registered Linux User #153895 http://counter.li.org
Somebody has never perused the occasional programming languages
newsgroups. So far, this guy hasn't been flamed at all. You might as
well say the COBOL community is its own worst enemy.
I've only seen two threads by this guy and his topics are completely off
the mark. I can't take the posts seriously. Just this one simple fact
seriously undermines your assertion with regards to your overgeneralized
concept of the "linux community".
Oh and all he asks for is linux programmers. That could mean anything.
No mention of rates for the jobs he's trying to fill... Just a promised
grand for a successful referral. Yeah, I know I'm greedy enough to
blindly refer a co-worker or friend to this guy. Not.
You may see this as someone putting up flyers on lightposts but you
shouldn't be surprised if others treat this a someone who has just fired
a shotgun over their property.
--
I know life's a bummer baby
But that's got nothing at all to do with me - Monster Magnet
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 13:15:01 -0500
Geez, another Nazi reference.
Is this a double-Goodwin?
-Chad
"Lars Träger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Edwin wrote:
> >
> > > Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8gcd95$cd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [snip]>
> > > > Much like Adolf Hitler's policy of never retreating,
> > >
> > > According to Goodwin's law, this thread is officially dead. Move along
> > > folks. No thread to see here.
> > >
> >
> > And how is this "law" enforced? What happens if I keep posting to
> > this thread?
>
> Like all who oppose Microsoft, you will be send to a camp.
>
> Lars T.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 14:25:16 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Lean and mean" Mozilla
Christopher Wong wrote:
> This issue has been bugging me for a while, and I thought this forum of
> all places would be the right spot to ask. The Mozilla project has lots
> of hype, and hype often has some connection with reality. What puzzles
> me are the claims that we will be getting a small, fast web browser
> relative to the "bloated" Netscape 4.x. I've been downloading the
> nightlies and milestone builds for Linux, but have yet to see any
> justification for this claim.
>
> What I am used to: according to "top", Netscape 4 eats 15MB of Ram, KFM
> eats 4-8MB, and Opera previews eat about 9MB. What I see: the Mozilla
> builds weigh in at about 30MB after minimal browsing. Mozilla, in normal
> usage, is also slow as a banana slug. Response time is also slowed by
> its unwillingness to recall pages from cache when I hit the "back"
> button. I know the usual explanations: not yet optimized, built with
> debug info, ... etc. But somehow, people believe that Mozilla will have
> a small footprint and good performance. In the absence of any concrete
> proof whatsoever, I am would like to hear reasons why such belief
> exists. There must be some facts that I am missing so far. I am eager to
> hear them. (no, "blind faith" does not qualify).
>
> Chris
I believe that Mozilla is currently built with all libraries statically
linked. This was done for the beta to avoid dependency problems. The
final release copy is supposed to be built with shared libraries making it
much smaller. I'm not sure, but it is also likely that the beta was built
without optimization and with debug enabled.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 18:26:27 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 11:19:21 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chris Wenham wrote:
>>
>> Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > But end-user Unix applications are on average
>> > bloatier, buggier, uglier, much less usable, and overall shittier than
>> > their Windows counterparts.
>>
>> Can you give examples of this?
>
>The free ICQ client that I used with LinuxPPC was more unstable, harder
A sample size of ONE, that's certainly convincing. </sarcasm>
>to install, and harder to uninstall than both of the Mac ICQ clients
>I've used, and I presume the Windows ones too.
--
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] (Timothy J. Lee)
Subject: Re: Linux vs. Solaris Intel
Date: 26 May 2000 18:27:18 GMT
Reply-To: see-signature-for-email-address---junk-not-welcome
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin ) writes:
|Cons for Solaris :
|
|Quite picky about hardware support - does not include drivers
|for many more obscure or older devices.
Or newer network cards...
|If you are doing commercial development for a client, then I would
|definitely go for Solaris.
Or whichever one the client chooses?
If you're reasonably careful, your programs developed on Linux
will port to Solaris and vice-versa. Also BSD, etc.
--
========================================================================
Timothy J. Lee timlee@
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 18:29:02 GMT
Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The free ICQ client that I used with LinuxPPC was more unstable, harder
> to install, and harder to uninstall than both of the Mac ICQ clients
> I've used, and I presume the Windows ones too.
I know that there is more than one ICQ client for Unix, so this is a
bad example and not one I'd consider seriously when evaluating the
claim.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Font deuglification ??
Date: 26 May 2000 18:29:17 GMT
On Thu, 25 May 2000 10:05:31 -0400, Dave Rolfe wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>linux machine I have a 19 inch display running at 1024x1280 with 100 dpi set
>and the 100 pdi fonts first in the font list.
This won't help you with Netscape -- it just goes ahead and uses 75 DPI
anyway. See the font HOWTO for info on how to fix it.
>My complaint about linux fonts has to do with word processor support. On
>windoze, if the fonts are defined to the system, then word processors know
>about them and use them. Not so in linux.
The problem is that there is really no such thing as "defined to the system"
on Linux. They can be "defined to the X window system" and "defined to the
ghostscript printing system".
Because of the lack of print/display unification, most application vendors
go right ahead and use their own print/display system, which you have to
install fonts into.
Anyway, this is explained in more detail in my font HOWTO.
You *can* install any printable ( ie Type1 or TrueType ) fonts in most
word processors on Linux, but it's a bit tricky.
>can only access a small fraction of the installed fonts. In addition Netscape
>cannot properly display web pages for this reason. I feel the web page display
>problem is very serious and should be high on the todo list. My suspicion is
No, Netscape has nothing to do with the printing problem. It's easy enough to
get Netscape to work -- install the fonts you need ( especially the MS fonts
which are widely used ) and then set up your X resources so that Netscape
uses 100 DPI ( or however many DPI you'd like )
>that these font problems have some kind of personality/political dimension that
>I am unaware of. Otherwise this stuff would have been fixed long ago.
You're bringing up a lot of different problems at the same time. Font display
problems are IMO pretty much fixed. TrueType works, Netscape works if you tweak
it.
Printing is another issue. The main problem is that you need to get everyone
to agree on how to manage print/display fonts, and you need everyone to
build the right hooks into their toolkits. It's as much a standardisation
problem as anything else.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: 26 May 2000 18:32:21 GMT
On Thu, 25 May 2000 23:20:13 -0400, Colin R. Day wrote:
>Bloody Viking wrote:
>> Is there any way to make a Poscript "hello world" file to experiment with?
>> I'm sure a Postscript guru could hand-make a "Hello World" file.
>
>If you know TeX, you can convert a dvi file to a postscript file by
>dvips file.dvi -o file.ps. Do you have a TeX file on your system?
That's cheating. And it's probably not "hello world" either.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
