Linux-Advocacy Digest #729, Volume #26 Sun, 28 May 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com ("Brad")
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: democracy? (CAguy)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Dave)
Re: OS/2 finally admits IBM is dead, officially.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS/2 finally admits IBM is dead, officially. (Jim Larson)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (poldy)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (poldy)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (poldy)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("bob johnson")
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (Jim Richardson)
Re: OT Please remember Memorial Day (Jim Richardson)
Re: The Linux Fortress ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Mig Mig)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (Pete Goodwin)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Leslie Mikesell)
In Bellevue can buy Linux? (Robert Nicholson)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 17:10:45 GMT
RJ,
While in the confines of os2.advocacy you might get away with living under
the delusion that OS/2 is somehow thriving, this post is crossposted to
other news groups. I doubt most Macintosh, Linux, Windows, or BeOS users
consider OS/2 a thriving platform.
I'm sorry that you can't come to grips with the situation OS/2 is in. OS/2
does a fine job for those still using it I'm sure. But I can't see a
scenario where a Linux user or Mac user or BeOS user is going to switch from
their OS to OS/2 which is kind of the point of the article -- for people on
other OSes to see what's basically happening on the others. I just can't
imagine someone at this point switching to OS/2 just like I can't see
someone switching to an Amiga. That is why it was hard to justify even
covering OS/2 at this point and why next time it will almost certainly be
impossible to cover OS/2 without it looking like my pro-OS/2 bias is getting
OS/2 in the door.
Brad
"rj friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 27 May 2000 02:19:58 "Brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> ¯OS/2 Warp:
> ¯Some people might question including OS/2 in this at this point but my
> ¯background is in OS/2 and I'm pretty fond of the operating system (I
still
> ¯run it on a few machines around here). Its main problem is that its
parent
> ¯wants it to go away and has made it increasingly clear that they want it
to
> ¯go away.
>
> Typical Wardell rewriting the facts to suit his own agenda.
>
> Take a hint Wardell - GO AWAY! And stay away. Take all your
> psychological baggage with you. Don't look back. Don't come
> back. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
> [RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
> rj friedman Team ABW
> Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To send email - remove the `yyy'
> ________________________________________________________
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 28 May 2000 12:18:17 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Horst von Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Imagine where we would be if every vendor including
>>tcp/ip had re-written it from scratch because the bsd version
>>could not have been used. Microsoft and Linux both went this
>>route even though it wasn't required, and the world has gone
>>through several years of pain as a result shaking out bugs
>>that we really didn't need in the first place.
>
>As I remember it, the BSD TCP/IP code was being threatened by the AT&T
>lawsuit at the time. When that cleared up, Linux' TCP/IP was good enough,
>and to hack the BSD code into Linux would have meant greater pain.
Or the Not-Invented-Here syndrome had kicked in... You'll note
at least 2 near-complete rewrites of the Linux code since the
time the BSD code was clearly usable.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 28 May 2000 12:27:56 -0500
In article <KaaY4.2705$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Surprise! No monopolies there, lots of good competition.
>
>It's not immediately obvious that there's a relationship to be found
>there. I've noticed an widespread assumption that competition
>between a lot of small vendors is better than that between a few
>big ones, or between one big one and many small ones.
Any competition is better than none, but it has to be on a level
where you can actually replace one component with another vendor's
product without destroying your entire setup. Look at how long
Microsoft sat on DOS 3.x even though it's limits were clearly
a problem for the users to see what happens when there is no
competition. If DRDOS 5 hadn't come out when it did, they might
never have added any features. Now where is the equivalent
for Active Directory and Win2k domain controllers?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CAguy)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 17:37:45 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 14:48:06 -0300, "Francis Van Aeken"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why is it that the opinion of the man in the street doesn't matter (because
>they're stupid, stupid! (?)) and why is it that one single person (the judge)
>is to make the decision? Shouldn't there be at least a panel or a jury?
>
>Francis.
It's my understanding that, as a defendent, you have a choice
between a jury trail or simply having the judge decide the case.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Microsoft elect to have to
judge decide their case?
Anyway, IMHO, better to have a single judge decide this
highly technical case (even if he does hate your guts)..then
12 people off the street with no knowledge of computers.
Also, that single judge doesn't have the final say..there is
always the appeals process.
James
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 28 May 2000 12:38:03 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No version of any microsoft software has ever been as fast as the
> previous version.
Not true. IE 5 on the Mac is *much* faster that IE 4.5. SQL Server 7
is faster than 6.5. Win2000 *Server* is more responsive as a desktop
OS than Win98se. IE 5 on Windows is faster than IE 4.
That's the problem with absolute statements. They're so *easily*
disproven!
Dave
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OS/2 finally admits IBM is dead, officially.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 17:53:30 GMT
In <G06PYUPlofKK-pn2-cSTyXbwOGmrd@localhost>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Larson) writes:
>On Sun, 27 May 3900 10:47:45, "Drestin Black"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> WELL, IT'S FINALLY official: IBM is dead. OS/2 announced recently that the
>> company once dubbed the "better Microsoft than Apple" has reached the end of
>> the line and will be phased out within a year, beginning with the client
>> version, which will see its last update, or "fixpack" in OS/2-speak, in
>> January 2001. Then the server and Workspace on Demand versions will be
>> updated for the last time in May 2001. After that, support for selected IBM
>> products will be offered only on a special-bid, fee-based system. Like
>> Apple, IBM suffered dramatic and irreversible marketshare losses when
>> Microsoft released Windows 95 in 1995
>>
>> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2745
Please note the only *source* for this official announcement is a
windows source.
Karen
Where do I want to go today?
I want to go where *I* want to go,
Not where MS wants to send me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Larson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 finally admits IBM is dead, officially.
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:08:27 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 3900 17:53:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Please note the only *source* for this official announcement is a
> windows source.
>
Please note that the only *source* for ths unofficial *annoucement*
was *me*, **duh**.
Jim Larson
------------------------------
From: poldy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:15:59 GMT
In article <WgaY4.4975$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You should make it more clear to us when exactly you want us to accept
>> the judge's rulings and when we should consider them dishwater. You
>> just keep swinging both ways.
>
>Hey, I'll be perfectly willing to accept that the jduge doesn't know what
>he's talking about if that's your story. Are you now suggesting that to be
>the case?
Why does the judge not know what he's talking about? The issues in the
case involve business and economic practices, not technical questions.
He doesn't have to be a software engineer to know about competition in
the SW industry.
Guess what? Neither Gates nor Ballmer are engineers. They try to imply
that nobody else knows how the SW market works or how it should work.
As if nothing they do should be subject to any laws since no judge or
regulator is in the industry. Hey then lets not prosecute doctors who
commit crimes since no judge or prosecutor has medical degrees,
residency training and years of medical practice experience.
And the judge at least read every bit of the exhibits from the
deposition transcripts to the economic studies. Can those who claim the
judge is ignorant say the same?
------------------------------
From: poldy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:17:59 GMT
In article <39306821$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>First of all, Gates deposition isn't counted as an actual witness since
>>the
>>DOJ didn't put him on the stands. This will also look bad for the
>>government
>>in that they cheated the process and used the taped deposition to try and
>>squeak in another witness. The so called "faked" evidence wasn't faked,
>>but
>>dramatized. MS proved that the evidence put forth in the tape was
>>correct,
>>even if the tape itself was scripted.
>
>Was it given under oath? If so it counts.
>
Depositions are admissible as evidence. Doesn't count? That's a really
accurate term.
The MS lawyers could have called him to the stand during the trial to
mitigate some of the statements he made during the depositions. They
chose not to do so.
------------------------------
From: poldy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:24:35 GMT
In article <39306821$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>MS's defense is not really all that important to the appeals court.
>>What's
>>important is that the original trial was fair and by the book.
>
>Funny, M$ in their most recent assertions didn't argue that the trial
>wasn't
>fair -- they argued that the nation and the consumer would face economic
>harm
>if they were broken up.
>
>Get use the idea of M$ 1 and M$ 2, because its coming. -- and I can't wait
>to
>see what pole you rotate and whine on then.
The fact remains that on the eve of the trial, the DOJ offered to
withdraw the suit if MS shipped without explorer or shipped Netscape
along with IE.
But Gates was stubborn, and as it turns out, stupid because he put the
company and the shareholder through a lot of unnecessary use of time and
resources. Instead, they said they were taking a stand not only for
themselves but the industry on the right to innovate. Lately, they're
only taking a stand for themselves and what they will do in the future
("best is yet to come").
Even if they win ultimately, they will have spend a lot of time and put
their stock through a lot of churn for the same result they could have
achieved by settlement.
If they lose the appeal, there will be class action shareholder suits.
Did Gates ever explain to the shareholders why he's continuing with the
case when he's had numerous chances to settle it? He better have gotten
shareholders to explictly approve the course of action he's undertaken.
------------------------------
From: "bob johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 13:05:46 -0600
In article <QTIV4.161$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jim Ross"
[snip]
>
> That's the server mentality. On the desktop, why use an OS without
> jagged fonts when other OSes don't?
>
> Hint: Windows stability is "good enough" for most people on the
> desktop. NT's stability is "good enough" for virtually everyone on the
> desktop. So, with that out of the way, good fonts are next. Why use
> Linux, when Windows/NT has AA fonts and Linux+X doesn't? Linux as a
> desktop system seems to take a backseat to Linux as a server. If X can't
> support AA, Linux can't be billed as better than Windows/NT, not as a
> desktop OS. Plus lack of apps and you should get the picture.
>
> Jim
>
When you say NT has AA support, are you referring to the headache-inducing
blur caused by checking the "Smooth font edges on screen" option?
Bob
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 14:52:35 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 27 May 2000 01:22:27 -0400,
Colin R. Day, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>>
>> (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?
>
>
Scales very well, and is maintainable later when you forgot wtf you were doing
in the first place, or if someone else needs to maintain your code.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: OT Please remember Memorial Day
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 15:30:34 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 26 May 2000 23:42:50 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Off topic for our friends outside of the USA, but to those Americans
>in the group, please take a moment and reflect on all we have in this
>country that was fought for by people who believed in freedom. Many
>gave their lives for our country and it is ultimately because of them
>that we have our freedom to speak and more importantly the freedom to
>chose, and this includes Linux for those that appreciate and enjoy it
>and Windows just the same.
>
>Say thanks to a vet this Memorial Day weekend.
>He/She will appreciate it and you will feel better also.
>
As a vet. I get to say thanks, _and_ you're welcome.
seriously, American or no, thanks.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 19:14:14 GMT
Welcome to Linux, where simple tasks become difficult.
Win98SE will do this right out of the box as well as internet
connection sharing (wait till you try that one under Linux). It's so
simple a 5 year old could do it by just hitting enter and accepting
the defaults.
Alas, why people wish to waste their lives away reading reams of
conflicting, outdated documentation to do what should be easy is
beyond me.
Every time I hear the word Samba I think of that movie "They Shoot
Horses Don't They?" where the couples enter a dance marathon and dance
non-stop for weeks.
On Sun, 28 May 2000 09:09:49 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>I want to setup my old PC to be a Linux file server. It needs to support
>SMB. My new PC will be dual bootable, and run Windows 98 SE and Linux.
>
>It took me a while to get Samba to work. I found I could see the Windows
>shares from Linux but not vice versa. Yet, from Linux, I could see Linux
>shares.
>
>After reading the documentation, and scanning through the smb.conf file I
>came across the encrypted password setting. smb.conf points to files I was
>unable to find, so I tried encrypted anyway, and it worked.
>
>The help on the Samba server in the GUI is basically one _long_ document.
>Boy is that a pain to use!
>
>Now, the GUI that configures the Samba server is the kind I'd call
>advanced. What is missing is the simple configuration for those of us who
>want to "set it up and forget it". This is where Windows scores, and Linux
>is still lagging behind.
>
>Pete
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
Date: 28 May 2000 14:20:43 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>What you mean I have to actually READ something! I can't just install and
>go? You do realise with Windows I've never read any of the manuals, yet I
>do installs all the time!
>
>I'll go and check the README file for lnx4win and see if it mentions the
>problems I found:
>
>i) Time zone screwed up
>ii) 64MByte limit
>iii) Broken sound
>iv) Broken network
>
>However, I have a feeling it won't tell me anything useful.
These aren't all generic problems. I just fired up the laptop
lnx4win setup I had done a while back from a Mandrake 7.0
CD and the sound is fine and today even the network came
up running right. I have had trouble with it before, but
thought it had to do with the pcmcia card services. It only
has 64M, so I don't know if it would see more. The time does
seem to be off, so perhaps that one is generic. On machines where
I can count on the network working I normally do an ntpdate
against a stable machine or router to sync time anyway.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Date: 28 May 2000 14:36:18 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I want to setup my old PC to be a Linux file server. It needs to support
>SMB. My new PC will be dual bootable, and run Windows 98 SE and Linux.
>
>It took me a while to get Samba to work. I found I could see the Windows
>shares from Linux but not vice versa. Yet, from Linux, I could see Linux
>shares.
>
>After reading the documentation, and scanning through the smb.conf file I
>came across the encrypted password setting. smb.conf points to files I was
>unable to find, so I tried encrypted anyway, and it worked.
>
>The help on the Samba server in the GUI is basically one _long_ document.
>Boy is that a pain to use!
>
>Now, the GUI that configures the Samba server is the kind I'd call
>advanced. What is missing is the simple configuration for those of us who
>want to "set it up and forget it". This is where Windows scores, and Linux
>is still lagging behind.
Note that before Service pack 3 for NT and the equivalent Win95 OSR2
and subsequent releases, the windows clients would work without
encrypted passwords and could thus authenticate against your
unix password file. As usual, Windows scores by changing the
standards to make others look bad. The insecure Lanman hash is
still accepted so there is no real increase in security from this
change - it just makes it harder to set up samba.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 21:42:46 +0200
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> It was the Sun, 28 May 2000 14:47:40 +0200...
> ...and Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nonsens.. Gnome is nothing else than a KDE klone....
>
> Bovine dung. This isn't even worth arguing with.
Yeps.. dont step on that one .. but whos arguing?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Date: 28 May 2000 14:43:04 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Welcome to Linux, where simple tasks become difficult.
>
>Win98SE will do this right out of the box as well as internet
>connection sharing (wait till you try that one under Linux).
Did you start using computers in the last 6 months? Linux has
been doing this for years. Try it with any version of windows
before SE.
>It's so
>simple a 5 year old could do it by just hitting enter and accepting
>the defaults.
What if you don't like the defaults? How do you turn off the
dhcp server that will destroy any network that already depends
on a correctly configured dhcp server.
>Alas, why people wish to waste their lives away reading reams of
>conflicting, outdated documentation to do what should be easy is
>beyond me.
Me too. At least we agree on something. Anything you read about
Internet sharing under windows longer than 6 months ago is almost
certainly wrong.
>Every time I hear the word Samba I think of that movie "They Shoot
>Horses Don't They?" where the couples enter a dance marathon and dance
>non-stop for weeks.
Yes, Microsoft has made it as difficult as possible to make their
client interoperate over the network. Again, it is a recent
change on Microsoft's side that makes the old documentation
incorrect.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 19:54:48 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin R. Day) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Then don't use both KDE and Gnome.
Unfortunately to get full desktop support you need both KDE and Gnome
shared libraries (linuxconf runs in an xterm without Gnome).
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 19:59:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>rpm -ivh some-application-1.2.3.i386.rpm / or / GnoRPM click the install
>thingy? What's so hard about doing that?
Nothing. Of course, you have to know the name of the package. What happens
when you don't? I couldn't find out which package 'glint' was part of.
There's no glint-1.2.3.i386.rpm.
>>i) Time zone screwed up
>
>timeconfig
Didn't work. This is broken in lnx4win.
>>ii) 64MByte limit
>
>lilo (not sure how Lnx4Win works though)
Didn't try that but reinstall fixed this anyway.
>>iii) Broken sound
>
>sndconfig
Didn't work. This is broken in lnx4win.
>>iv) Broken network
>
>linuxconf
Didn't work. This is broken in lnx4win.
>"You can download Lnx4Win now from this directory. Note that this is not
>**Official Distribution** yet. You need to download latest Mandrake
>Distribution (aka cooker) and you need to put files in right places
>manually."
>Have you followed these very simple instructions? I think not. Does this
> actually make any sense at all to you?
Like I said, I reinstalled the complete installation onto a new disk. It's
all working now.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: 28 May 2000 14:53:39 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>A well designed file format would allow that. Word 6 should be able
>>to read file from Word 97, and vice versa. I wouldn't expect Word 6
>>to be able to view and edit all the new whiz-bang features, but I do
>>expect it to be able to still be able to read and edit the basic
>>parts.
>
>The ONLY way that a 1994 product could handle the format of a 1997
>product is if there were no advancement.
Or if the authors were bright enough to anticipate advancement
and allow unrecognized tags to be ignored. Or if they noticed
that lots of other products already did that and just copied
the idea... But then they wouldn't be able to annoy everyone
into buying the next upgrade just for file compatibility with
the people who got the latest version bundled with their new
PC whether they needed the new features or not.
>The biggest limitation of
>Wintel systems is the designers' perceived need to maintain backward
>compatibility.
Huh? There aren't many new concepts in computer science since the
70's or so. If they ever get something right it should stay
that way.
>While I like B/C I also recognise it is like running
>the marathon towing a caravan. If new features are going to be
>introduced then there will inevitably be a need to modify or extend
>the file format. That's the price of progress. That's reality.
Sure, if someone comes up with a new concept in wordprocessing
and includes the command to invoke it in a file, the older versions
would have to ignore it. There is no reason that the whole file
has to be unreadable or that commands the older version could process
should not be handled in the same file format.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: In Bellevue can buy Linux?
From: Robert Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 May 2000 13:04:28 -0700
OK yesterday I looked. I rang CompUSA and they told me RedHat was a
discontinuted item and then I tried Barnes and Noble and they don't
sell it.
Why in this area is it impossible to find RedHat?
Why doesn't B&N sell RedHat linux. I know Borders does but that's
a trek from downtown Bellevue.
I would expect Linux to be avaiable in this area quite easily and
don't accept that it's unavailbility is anything more than
just a coincidence.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:05:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (sandrews) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>So the point is?
>
>Let me guess, you hav`nt passed remedial reading????
>Or are you one that can`t follow directions??
>Or your just too damn lazy?
No actually I haven't passed my psi exams for guessing what the designers
were talking about. "Remedial PSI" I suppose you'd call it.
As for following directions, I followed the Diagnosis text file and came
unstuck. It made no mention of the encrypted nature of passwords.
So, what was your point? Just to demonstrate how much superior you are by
using insults? Is that the best you Linux guys can do!
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:08:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Huh? Wa'chew talk'n about Willis? "/etc/smb.conf" It's very well
>documented and self explanitory, what's the problem? . . . oh. . .no
>`Point-n-Guess' interface. . I see. . .
It's so well documented it refers to files I was unable to find.
# You may wish to use password encryption. Please read
# ENCRYPTION.txt, Win95.txt and WinNT.txt in the samba documentation.
# Do not enable this option unless you have read those documents
I could not find any of ENCRYPTION.txt, Win95.txt and WinNT.txt. If Linux
had a halfway decent HELP system, maybe I would.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:09:41 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Angry Bob) wrote in <8gr8tf$5in$1@news-
int.gatech.edu>:
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Now, the GUI that configures the Samba server is the kind I'd call
>: advanced.
>
>the above statement, though it reeks of ignorance and stupidity, points
>out the fundamental problem in the relationship between linux and
>windows users.
Your opinion.
>GUI != more advanced.
GUI = more easy to use (except in Linux case)
>text interface != difficult
text interface = more powerful but possibly more complex
Pete
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
