Linux-Advocacy Digest #722, Volume #26 Sat, 27 May 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (poldy)
Winmodems )Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux) (Victor Wagner)
Re: PHP vs Java (Victor Wagner)
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Losers (Alan Boyd)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Giuliano Colla)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Wally Bass)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Wally Bass)
Re: Why AOL should not be used in Public School... (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux Losers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: poldy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 23:11:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's looking more and more like the judge is burying himself.
>
>Oh god don't you all wish beyond wild hope. But the Judge has a
>combative, argumentative defendent who thinks they deserve his court's
>time to chase red herrings. MS got to file their documentation and it
>only took one afternoon.
>
>> Denying MS
>> the time to review the governments proposed remedies shocked most of the
>> legal by-standers (including the DOJ, which expected the judge to give
>> MS
>> the time). Due process may have been compromised, and will certainly
>> give
>> them a lot more firepower in the appeals process.
>
Now if the Appeals court agrees that MS was denied due process or
doesn't accept the remedy that Jackson ultimately imposes, would that
abrogate the Findings of Fact and the Ruling of Anti-trust violation?
At the onset of the trial, Jackson plotted out an expedited schedule
including limiting the number of witnesses each side could call. So if
he had that kind of discretion, why would he not have discretion to
decide whether there should be further proceedings? Think someone
reported that the Appeals or Supreme court could send back the case to
order discovery of the remedy issues before reviewing the whole case.
Seems strange that the party who violated the law should have the right
to investigate the propriety of the remedy or otherwise argue what it's
punishment should be. But maybe the law provides for this.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Winmodems )Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux)
Date: 27 May 2000 10:06:53 +0400
In comp.os.linux.misc JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Quite. My Phoebe hardware ISA modem came with very reasonable
: defaults: no-pnp, com2. In this configuration I was able to slap it in
: and use it immediately.
Reasonable?! Internal modem is next worst thing to winmodem.
Modem should be a separate box, attached to the com port with cable.
Most important thing in this setup are leds and its independent power
swithch. I don't know how it looks in the West, but here in Russia it is
qute possible that modem would hang on noisy line and only
power-cycling would revive it. How'd you power-cycle internal modem?
Only thing that I don't like about external modem is that they require
something other than 5V DC or 12V DC. (typically 12V AC). If they need
some voltage, which I could get from the main power supply of machine,
I'd be able to get rid of those power supply units.
:>
:>When I installed my modem in win, I needed a bunch of driver diskettes to
:>get it to work.
No, not at all. You need a bunch of driver diskettest to make _windows_
_think_ your modem works.
Using Dos terminal program like Telix or self-written Tcl script you
could make your modem working immediately without any drivers.
: One should never need to 'install' a modem. A real modem is as
Why? You don't consider unscrewing case, finding ISA slot, fiddling with
IRQ-s "installing"? It can turn into half an hour of downtime.
External modems are ones whose installation doesn't interrupt system
operation. You bring in from shop, you connect it, you turn it on, and
other users of your machine do their work in the same time.
--
Whoa...I did a 'zcat /vmlinuz > /dev/audio' and I think I heard God...
-- mikecd on #Linux
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.help,comp.unix.programmer,comp.os.linux.misc,linux.redhat,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: PHP vs Java
Date: 27 May 2000 10:13:26 +0400
In comp.os.linux.misc Ben Chausse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Hi,
: We have a webserver on Debian 2.2 with apache 1.3.12 & mod_perl 1.21 and
: I would like to know what is the best between PHP and Java (.php or
: ..jsp) ????
You have mod_perl and you are asking about php?!
You must be joking. HTML::Mason Apache::ASP or Apache::ePerl modules from CPAN
is what you really need. As far as I remember they are available as aprt
of Debian 2.2. At least ePerl and Apache::ASP.
php is just an interpreter of scripts embedded in the web-pages, and you
are already have language interpreter embedded in your apache. (Probably
you also have people who know perl, but don't know php). Don't switch
from real programmingl language like perl to toy like php. Just use
appropiate high-level modules to achive better productivity.
: Do you know any web pages about benchmark test on PHP and Java ???
Java is another matter. It is Real Language, and as such it has not only
disadvantages, but advantages as well. If you run Solaris 8, I might
suggest you to switch to Java, but Java is just too closed-source to
work reliable on Linux - there are several incompatible version of JDK
and JRE from different vendor.
For God's sake, stick with perl, python, tcl and lisp/scheme. These languages
are proven their reliability in OpenSource environments.
: Thanks ...
: Ben0iT ...
--
õÍÎÏÅ ÔÁÂÕ ÄÅÌÁÅÔ ×ÉÄ, ÞÔÏ ÅÇÏ ÎÉÞÔÏ ÎÅ ËÁÓÁÅÔÓÑ.
--- ó.å. ìÅÃ
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 18:53:49 -0400
>"David D. Huff Jr." wrote:
>> Brad if you and Esther wrote a book I would buy it just so I could burn it.
Hey I'd buy it too -- but I'd rather see it printed on toilet paper. <s>.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Losers
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 19:00:24 -0500
The Truth wrote:
>
> spend their time regard as an esoteric oddity.
^^^^^^^^
Wow, you can use big words. That must mean you know what you're talking
about.
<joke>
If this keeps up I'm going to need another hard drive just to hold my
kill file.
</joke>
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 01:59:31 +0200
Arclight wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2000 10:15:10 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
[...]
>
> What? I ain't no troll, just someone who is fed up of people whinging
> at microsofts software when there isn't anything wrong with it.
>
> TTFN
> Arclight
Well, let's get straight to the point.
If you take Windows by a technical point of view is shit. A supposedly
multitasking system, designed for x86 processors, which doesn't use the
protection mechanism existing since 80386 (1987), and therefore doesn't
guarantee that an application cannot crash another application or the
system, is simply crap. There is much more, but that's enough.
If you take it by a user point of view, if a pre-installed system, with
pre-installed Office crashes frequently, (and I may bring you quite a
number of similar experiences, but one is already one too much) then
this system is shit.
If you can't find anything wrong with microsoft software, then there is
certainly something seriously wrong with you.
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
40139 Bologna (Italy)
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 02:03:03 +0200
Arclight wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2000 20:52:29 +0200, Giuliano Colla
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Arclight wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:31:29 -0400, "Keith T Williams"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >1. Microsoft office (at least 4.3 and 97) crashes frequently.
> >>
> >> I've used 4.3, 95 & 97 and they have never crashed on me.
> >
> >Happy to hear that. Please tell my secretary. Today she has
> >taken out an old typewriter. Says that's faster than damn
> >Word. Asked me "please could we install again old Word Star,
> >which was less fancy, but worked?" She had spent the whole
> >day trying to send a letter to our suppliers. Just same
> >letter, change address and save (to keep record). Only if
> >you "save as", then four characters come printed one above
> >the other and make a nice black square in a line. If you
> >just "save", it prints correctly, but you overwrite previous
> >one and you can't keep track. Takes some time to figure it
> >out.
> >
> >She can quote you by memory, word by word the error box
> >which tells you that the application will be terminated
> >because of an error. The only Windows application she uses
> >is Office, being a secretary.
>
> That sounds like a faulty installation of windows & office, if it were
> bugs in office, I'd have experienced them.
Don't make me laugh lad! Do you think that Epson Computers delivers
faulty pre-installed systems? And so does Fujitsu-Siemens? From what you
say later on I would rather think that if there were bugs in office you
wouldn't have noticed them!
>
> >> >2. Microsoft office is full of bugs (at least 4.3 and 97) that's why they
> >> >issued (for 97) sr1 and sr2.
> >>
> >> What bugs would they be then?
> >
> >Too long a list, please read previous postings, or the lines
> >above for a little sample.
>
> All the bugs that I have heard about have been most likely caused by a
> faulty installation.
Most likely you have attributed bugs to faulty installation because it
was the easiest way to dismiss a problem.
>
> >> >3. Microsoft office 97 did not originally write Word 6/95 files, it wrote
> >> >RTF files which it labeled as DOC files
> >>
> >> It does write word 95 files if you install the correct export filter.
> >
> >Then originally didn't. Please check dates of O97 delivery,
> >and export filter availability.
>
> I got Office 97 the month after it was released as a prize for a
> competition, and it has the filters on the cd.
Was an MS competition? That tells a lot.
>
> >> >4. After much yelling and screaming Microsoft issued a patch for word 97
> >> >which allowed it to write real Word 6/95 "DOC" files. They also issued a
> >> >patch for Word 6 which allowed it to read Word 97 files.
> >>
> >> There was a filter on the office 97 pro CD which allowed you to write
> >> real word 95 DOC files.
> >
> >Now I understand. It was a professional feature. Great! How
> >could you tell if a file was RTF or DOC? There was another
> >professional tool? Or you had to hire a sensitive? Doesn't
> >sound so professional after all.
>
> I know they were DOC because they wouldn't load in a program I had
> which used RTF files.
OK. You have a program which may write two kind of files, with same
extension, only one kind is readable by some programs and the other kind
is readable by other programs. And you don't find anything wrong with
Microsoft?
>
> >Documents either you print them, or you send them. They're
> >not intended just to be watched on the screen. If printing
> >is crappy, and sending doesn't work, because you don't know
> >if the other party will be able to read it, then something
> >is seriously wrong.
>
> The printing problems are most likely due to faulty printer drivers,
> not bugs in office 97.
If you can explain why "save as" printing differently from "save" can be
connected to faulty printer driver then please do so. Try to be
convincing, because it's not so easy.
Till then I'm entitled to affirm that you don't understand absolutely
anything about software and should refrain to express any opinion on the
subject.
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
40139 Bologna (Italy)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 00:15:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Alfter) writes:
>In article <8gp3mu$c1r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Oh, that reminds me --- I have a postscript printer. I have a postscript
>>file. How do I get one to print on the other *under Windows*?
>"copy foo.ps lpt1:" in a DOS box (or in DOS mode) works for me.
OK, next question: I have a PCL5 printer, and a PCL5 file. How do I get one
to print on the other *under Windows*?
Bernie "And I am not sure that is exactly 'under Windows'" Meyer
--
I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked
with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a
fad that won't last out the year
The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall
------------------------------
From: wallyb6@nospam (Wally Bass)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 00:21:51 GMT
On Sat, 27 May 2000 12:19:07 GMT, "Daniel Johnson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The price of harware has dropped while the power has
>> skyrocketed.
>> As a fraction of the cost of a PC, the OS's slice is eating
>> into the pie.
>Hardware and software are not the same.
True
>Manufacturing technology has improved; computer components are
>cheaper.
Surprise! No monopolies there, lots of good competition.
>Programmers, well, aren't; they are quite scarce (and so
>expensive) these days. Especially ones that can do the hard
>stuff, like OSes.
Er, ah, you're drawing the wrong comparison here. Hardware, like
software, has to be designed by skilled people. Have you checked
the price of or tried to hire a hardware engineer in Silicon
Valley lately? Do you think that designing chips (with N million
circuits, and usually zero bugs) is easy?
The correct comparison to manufacturing technology costs are
software reproduction costs. The cost of replicating a CD (in
volume) probably comes in at about a dime these days (certainly
well less than a dollar), again, not due to Microsoft's
innovation, but due to the rest of the industry's inovation.
Don't know about the cost of manuals, but MS has for all
practical purpose stopped including any significant manual in its
SW distributions these days anyhow.
Relative to the question of development technology... SW
development technology has improved enormously since the days of
DOS. The tools revolution really started with Borland, but
(surprise) the profits are now taken almost excusively by MS, now
that they have all but wiped Borland out by leveraging their
insider knowledge of the API's in favor of MS tools. Also, the
tools benefit enormously from the improved hardware... also not
Microsoft's doing.
>(Really. Just *try* building an OS in Visual Basic. I dare you.
>:D )
Give me a break. You don't have to program in VB to benefit from
the improvement in tools. C and C++ are just fine for OS work.
By what measure to you conclude the C++ is not "very much" of an
improvement for large projects. In any case, you have to constrast
this with improvements in chip design tools before you can draw
any conclusions from it.
>Hardware and software are not the same.
Yes, and in particular, MS software is different both from other
peoples software and from hardware. MS has a monopoly, and sells
to a MUCH larger base than anyone else in the industry; since SW
replication costs are virtually zero, that ought to go to lower
costs for everyone. Does it? Well, Bill G has for some time been
the richest man in the world, and there are an incredible number
of millionares at MS... that is some sort of clue. Their profit
margins are 5 times higher than anyone else in the industry...
that is another clue.
It's true that MS could probably charge more and get away with
it. That being the case, I suspect that Bill G sees himself as
rather benevolent, and he probably also sees the world as being
beholden to Him. That is certainly what comes across to me in his
"gee, ain't I, my 'vision', and MS great" TV commercials. He is
not the first benevolent despot that the world has ever seen, and
not the first to confuse his role with that of the Creator. But,
to me, it's surprising how many people that contribute to these
newsgroups subscribe to that role confusion. However, it does
help explain some of the anger: "how dare the mere United States
of America challenge Him." "Why should He be subject to those
dumb old laws, anyhow?" Read some of the Seán Ó Donnchadha
and Drestin Black stuff in this newsgroup.
>And the proliferation of new, better components has made the
>task of a general purpose OS rather harder; there is now more
>stuff to support. You can't just drop the old hardware the way
>computer manufacturers sometimes can.
It would be better if you knew what you were talking about, here.
MS uses it's monopoly magnificantly to get most of that work done
by the HW vendors... and if you don't play Bill's game, you don't
get the MS logo....
True, MS does distribute lots of drivers with their OS's, and
that's a significant convenience. But, they don't particularly
support them..., they will direct you back to the manufacturer in
a heartbeat.
The reality is that MS can't seem to produce two OS's in a row
without forcing the rewrite of all of the hardward drivers (you
could argue that they have, in W95 and W98. I would argue that
those two are really the same OS). The reality is that MS
exacerbates this problem because they, as a monopoly, can and do
stick it to the HW vendors, while they march off to the bank.
Wally Bass
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 20:22:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Arclight from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 27 May 2000 22:47:00
GMT
>On Fri, 26 May 2000 10:15:10 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Quoting Arclight from alt.destroy.microsoft; Fri, 26 May 2000 14:58:23
>>>On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:31:29 -0400, "Keith T Williams"
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>1. Microsoft office (at least 4.3 and 97) crashes frequently.
>>>
>>>I've used 4.3, 95 & 97 and they have never crashed on me.
>>
>>Thanks for the data point.
>
>I've used every version of office.
So have I (a lot more than 3, for sure). The issue is not whether there
are millions of people who use Office without experiencing crashes. The
question is whether there are people who use Office which do, and why.
Your comment that you have not experienced any is what makes you a troll
(see below).
>>>>2. Microsoft office is full of bugs (at least 4.3 and 97) that's why they
>>>>issued (for 97) sr1 and sr2.
>>>
>>>What bugs would they be then?
>>
>>Troll.
>
>What? I ain't no troll, just someone who is fed up of people whinging
>at microsofts software when there isn't anything wrong with it.
There is something wrong with it. Anybody who denies that is certainly
and specifically denying reality. It may be the case that you have not
ever experienced anything wrong with it. It is irrelevant even if true,
but it is also highly unlikely.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 20:24:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Arclight from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 27 May 2000 22:49:25
GMT
>On Fri, 26 May 2000 20:35:47 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Quoting Arclight from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 27 May 2000 15:16:35
>> [...]
>>>That sounds like a faulty installation of windows & office, if it were
>>>bugs in office, I'd have experienced them.
>>
>>That sounds like pathetic apologist bullshit. If it was coherent
>>thoughts in your words, I'd have understood them.
>
>what the fuck is your problem you stupid piece of shit?
>It ain't pathetic or bullshit it's the truth,
>and it ain't apologist, because I ain't apologising
>
>and there are coherent thoughts in my words, your just to fucking
>stupid to make sense of it.
I'm sorry, you're mistaken. The words "if there were bugs in office,
I'd have experienced them" are without coherent thought or logical
reasoning..
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: wallyb6@nospam (Wally Bass)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 00:24:52 GMT
On 26 May 2000 14:53:56 Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>Should I be whining to the DoJ like you are?
The whiners here, it seems to me, are MS management
and their shills, who, rather than face up to the fact that
they have broken the law and correcting that fact, are
instead whining to everyone in sight about how people
are "interferring with their right to innovate."
Gee, poor MS, with only about 5 times the profit margins
of anyone else in the industry.
Wally Bass
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Why AOL should not be used in Public School...
Date: 28 May 2000 00:28:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>AOL/Time Warner recently announced their commitment to an education
>portal targetted at primary and secondary students. I strenuously
>object to AOL exposing children to it's brand in this fashion. Though
>they may be providing content of some value, they are also firmly
>imprinting their brand on their next generation of consumers.
>
>How is this different than what tobacco was doing? Granted, the product
>is (arguably) less insidious, but since much of the government's case
>against tobacco was predicated on tobacco targetting kids with its
>marketing machine, one wonders whether they will stand silent on this
>matter. AOL has placed their logo on every brand-laden page!
AOL has recently censored people because they were openly
gay -- removed messages, biographical info, etc.
Also, years ago, AOL knowingly carried "kiddie porn" on its
news servers and allowed its users to download it. AOL then
secretly reported those users to the FBI, and they were
prosecuted by the federal government.
The people who control AOL clearly believe in the sort of
anti-human "morality" that is designed to destroy people's
lives.
I don't think anyone should do business with AOL.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 00:31:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sat, 27 May 2000 15:42:11 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> >
>> >You also have good taste in typesetting. At the risk of starting
>> >a flamewar, can you latex a file inside of vi? You can do it in
>> >emacs.
>>
>> If you just mean run latex, then saving the file and then
>>
>> :!(latex file.tex; xdvi file.dvi)
>>
>
>But do you do that within or outside of vi.
It's a shell escape; the command line typed in is fed to a subshell
(probably using system(), which presumably does the usual
fork()/exec()/wait() stuff).
>In emacs, you can click
>on Command and Latex or TeX the file. You can also view or print
>the file from the command menu in emacs. Viewing will invoke
>xdvi.
Ah, OK. Sounds similar, just more sophisticated. :-)
>
>>
>
>> >> (I will grant that Visual Basic, in the hands of an expert, can do
>> >> nice things, for small projects. Now whether it scales up is
>> >> a matter of some debate.)
>> >>
>> >
>> >What about python?
>>
>> What about it? I'm not familiar with it, other than that RedHat uses it.
>> I haven't heard anything horribly bad about it, though. :-)
>
>>
>> Part of the reason I say this is that I was slightly embarrassed by a
>> co-worker who had a completely working (and debugged!) project while
>> I was still setting up for a C++ build and coding. Granted, this was
>> a weird special case (we were trying to interface to an IIS/ASP server
>> and encode and decode a VBasic array; turns out VBasic could write
>> objects to and, more importantly, read objects from a binary file.
>> Oh well!). Of course, this doesn't mean VBasic is better at everything,
>> any more than a Mack Truck is bested by a tricycle simply because the
>> tricycle user can make it to the neighbor's house faster than the Mack
>> Truck can be entered, fired up, back out, back in, shut down, and
>> exited. :-)
>
>You probably could have coded it faster in python than C/C++. Also,
>python is cross-platform (Linux/Windows/Mac).
Not horribly surprising, somehow. :-)
>
>>
>>
>> But it does depend a bit on the job required. Tricycles don't do well
>> on interstate highways; Mack Trucks don't do sidewalks. :-)
>>
>> >
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >Colin Day
>> >
>>
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MS Word. Jack of all, master of none.
>
>Colin Day
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Losers
Date: 27 May 2000 20:43:49 -0500
The Truth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>You people are a bunch of losers.
>
>Each day millions of people use Microsoft product and are glad to do
>so. They send e-mails to their friends and lovers with happy messages
>and delightful attachments....
...such as LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.TXT.vbs.
>You Linux losers preach that all this should be stopped because one of
>your low life counterparts writes a stupid virus. I'm sure these
>individuals do this from within the solitude of their lives driven
>only by spite....
...while Microsoft produces the software to help their creations
spread like wildfire.
>Much akin to the sad individuals who advocate Linux...
...although Linux advocates don't write viruses.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
