Linux-Advocacy Digest #732, Volume #26 Sun, 28 May 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Don't run Windows. (mlw)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Arclight)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Gary Hallock)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Gary Hallock)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Arclight)
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Bloody Viking)
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Bloody Viking)
Re: Hey Pete Goodwin (mlw)
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Bloody Viking)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: The Linux Fortress (David M. Cook)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Don't run Windows.
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 19:19:50 -0400
Just some idle thoughts about Windows and microsoft in general.
Windows is a prison, a cage. You are trapped into Microsoft's way of
doing things. You will never be free of proprietary standards for which
you must pay cash to use. Every dollar you spend on Windows and Windows
products furthers your future expense. Every Windows user is one more
brick in Microsoft's monopolistic wall of anti competitive behavior.
The average computer user is in the "death spiral" of Microsoft
monopolism. The justification of "I need Microsoft Windows to buy
Windows to be able to do ..." just makes doing "..." even more keyed to
Windows.
For the good of the computer industry, we need more early adopters. We
need more app developers. We need more people to make and use Linux (or
alternate operating systems). We need more push in the industry to
reject MS Office documents as standards.
This may sound like a rah! rah! speech, and perhaps it is, but we need
to make sure that Microsoft is not the one setting standards because
Microsoft sets standards designed to protect its monopoly, not offer
end-users choice. Without the end users having access to choice, real
innovation in computers and software will not happen.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arclight)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 23:21:03 GMT
On Sat, 27 May 2000 20:24:29 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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..
Fuck you,
the logical & coherent reasoning behind it is,
Given that I have used office 97 for several hundred hours and if
there were as many bugs as people claim, I would have experienced at
least some of them but I haven't, so therefore there cannot be as many
bugs in the software as you seem to be claiming.
TTFN
Arclight
Web Site:
http://www.daniel-davies.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 19:26:01 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On the subject of Samba configuration, here's another thought along the
> lines of 'ease of use' and the way KDE lags behind Windows.
>
> How do you configure a share with Samba. You edit the smb.conf file.
>
> How do you configure a share with Windows. Here's one way - right click on
> the directory, select Sharing... and pick the settings you want. This way
> is much more intuitive. Is KDE's kfm going to offer functionality like
> this, or is the KDE desktop going to remain in the depths of the past and
> still rely on config files?
>
> Pete
>
> PS. I've not tried Gnome. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt it offers
> anything like this, does it?
What in the world does Samba have to do with KDE? It sounds like you want a
GUI interface to Samba - I thought there was one already.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 19:31:42 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>
> PS. I've not tried Gnome. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt it offers
> anything like this, does it?
You're wrong. linuxconf. It is even a Gnome-based application.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arclight)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 23:29:32 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 02:03:03 +0200, Giuliano Colla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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!
The only epson computers I've had experience with didn't work straight
out of the box, and the thing had to be returned 4 times before they
got a working one.
>> >> >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.
or because that is the most common cause of problems in windows.
>> >> >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.
Guess again, it was a Daily Telegraph competition.
>> >> >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?
what are you on about, this is incoherent crap.
>> >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.
it sounds like you fucked up somewhere, or you are just plain lying
about your experiences.
>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.
you can say that but it doesn't make it true,
I have a GCSE in Computer Science,
I have an A-Level in Computer Science,
and I'm doing a degree in applied computer technology so I must know a
thing or two about software, and if you don't believe me, go check out
my website, and try explaining how I could write the software I have
if I'm as clueless as you are accusing me of being.
TTFN
Arclight
Web Site:
http://www.daniel-davies.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 23:38:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Only the Linux user has to settle for second best.
In some cases, you're right. But it's a problem caused by Windows
dominance. Modems are a perfect example, like the printers. With Linux, I
nowadays ONLY use external modems to ensure I don't end up with a useless
Winmodem. This is a drawback to using Linux, I admit.
But Linux has one massive advantage. It's effectively freeware. Want a
compiler? Wuith Windows, you get to spend big bucks unless you go with
DJGPP. Even lousy hobbyist programmers can see the value of getting gcc
with a Linux distribution.
No one OS is ever perfect. You have to accept problems with ANY operating
system, and cost is a major problem with Windows as the OS of choice. I
chose Linux becuse it's effectively freeware and how it can be used for an
awful cool computer system. It's pretty easy to make a homebrew LAN using
Linux throughout the system. Only now is a home LAN even being talked
about for normal people, while in 1995 I built one using Linux.
It does not take a guru to use Linux, though it sure helps. I'm no techie
by any means. I sweep floors for a living, but I like Linux anyways. I
have some Linux problems that many users would find easy to fix, like
getting X to work. I prefer a CLI anyways, so I don't even care that I
don't take the time out to fix X. I'm first to admit Linux is not for
everybody, certainly not yet. But I like it, and to me that's what counts.
Linux. It's not just an OS... it's an adventure! :)
I guess Linux embodies a certain ideology. It would have to be the
ideology of the DIY type or the classical hacker. (not the cracker or
virus maker) Meanwhile Windows is corporate all the way. There is nothing
inherently evil about Windows itself. Rather, it's that corporateness that
is a turn-off to me as well as its all too well documented problems.
I've expierenced the well-known problem with Windows and the .DLL calls.
People who are not techies generally don't know about the problem but this
non-techie sure does. Just recently, I installed some cheque-cut-ware and
had funny nag screens about fucked up .DLL files. In fact, it was the
cheque-cut-ware that got me to start messing with the brain-dead printer
on Linux. What I'd like to do is take the cheque paper, put the numbers on
them in the funny font and code my own cheque-cut-ware in C for Linux.
That way, I load in the cheque-cut-paper, and cut cheques to pay bills
with.
BTW, why is it that when a machine is used to manufacture cheques, it's
called "cutting a cheque"? You don't "cut" form letters, a manufacturing
process I'm familiar with. I equate printing with manufacturing. That's
becuse in the old days of the Commodore 64 I would use a multistage
process for manufacturing form letters to politicians. Later, I learned to
write programmes that did all the steps in one shot.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 23:45:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I still have the original IBM printer (made by Epson) as well as a
: Proprinter 24XE that works fine.
: I prefer my Canon though as it is faster and quieter.
Personally, I don't mind some printer noise. That's only becuse of how I
once worked in a factory and equate many types of print jobs as like
manufacturing. (e.g. manufacture of form letters as an example of a print
job that's like manufacturing.) That's why I don't mind dot-matrix
printers. The G-G-G-G-G-G noise is music to my ears!
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hey Pete Goodwin
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 19:48:50 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You are having troubles, just like virtually everybody who makes the same
> mistake.That's why Windows is still number one and they can't even give Linux
> away.
Funny, all the people I know that run Linux, love it. Most of the people
who run Windows, run it only because that's their only choice for their
situation and hate it.
>
> You are trying in your mind to justify running Linux for some reason or another.
> Maybe you hate Microsoft, experienced dll hell with an older version of Windows,
> maybe you just want free software, it really doesn't matter as the result will
> be the same. You will waste your life away tinkering and reading documentation
> when you could easily perform the same tasks under WIndows will little effort.
It is true, UNIX (and Linux) seem to have a higher entry learning curve.
I haven't seen any studies to verify that this is, or is not, true,
however, I have seen studies that indicate that Linux has a lower over
all TCO.
>
> Take a good look at how much extra work is required just to do mundane tasks
> under Linux. You could do this stuff under Windows with your eyes closed because
> WIndows has a good, unified help system unlike Linux which is a scattered
> collection of half written documentation.
Yet, I have never seen an error message for Linux like:
"Error Loading Kernel. You Must Reinstall Windows"
>
> It only gets worse as you finally get the beast installed. You will be hooked
> into a loop of constant upgrading, patches and incompatibilities.
Wait, you're talking about Windows here? Or Linux? This sounds exactly
like Windows, and almost exactly unlike Linux.
> Gnome libs,
> kde libs, qt libs libc etc. You will soon discover that Linux is the hard way
> of doing things. There is always some disjointed utility to do what you want but
> everything is scattered all over the place. Tried Email and news yet? How about
> a firewall? Multimedia? Want to turn that high end video card into a loser? Try
> Linux. Games? look again.
Yes, Windows is a toy, and as a toy it should run games.
> KDE and Gnome run as slow as molasses. Try selecting a directory with a lot of
> files (/dev will do) and see how long kfm takes to stop churning. Now try the
> same thing under Windows. Instantaneous. How about moving WIndows, re sizing and
> so forth. Sluggish under Linux, fast as can be under WIndows.
Sorry, I do not observe that behavior on my Linux machine, running, by
the way, kde.
>
> Linux is for tinkerers. It is the Gilbert Erector Set of operating systems.You
> get to build it as you go along. Kind of like a "Do it Yourself Parachute" only
> there are no instructions on how to assemble it. Remember the Gilbert Erector
> Set? You spent all day building some stupid dump truck only to have the kid next
> door bring over his nice shiny Tonka dump truck which made yours look like a
> joke.
As ridiculous as that analogy may be, lets examine it. I am assuming you
do not have children, if this is incorrect, I apologize. Let's assume
the analogy continues along the lines with: "a child's play" is
equivalent to "an adults work." When you give a kid a tonka truck, it
will keep their interest for (tops) 6 months. An erector set grows with
the child, techniques and "tools" created with the erector set continue
to be useful. Toys like erector sets and legos add to the growth and
long term mental health and development of children. Toys like tonka
trucks as transitive objects which get discarded once the child grows.
I know few parents that would rather their child play with a tonka
instead of an Erector set.
>
> Same thing with Linux. Linux is the Gilbert and Windows the Tonka.
Yes, Windows is the tonka truck of operating systems. I will accept your
statement.
>
> Sponge says Linux is a complete waste of time. I have Windows 2000 up and
> running here at Sponge Central and it rocks. Try a real operating system and
> stop wasting your time asking questions of the Lusers in this group. They will
> just attack you and call you an idiot for not knowing. I think half of them are
> full of crap anyhow.
One must wonder...
>
> Sponge
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 23:55:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: This is exactly what makes Linux so hysterical. You have to
: "experiment" with a piece of hardwre to make it work.
But then again, experimenting can be fun. That's why I titled this thread
as "Fun with Brain Dead Printers". If it was so easy, it would be no fun!
Sort of like programming in C is fun. Sure, it can be frustrating, but it
can also be fun if you have a warped sense of humour. The thing is that
with Linux it WILL be more of a challenge than with Windows, which
purports to make everything easy. Windows is like the attempt the Germans
made at building a cheap easy to drive fighter plane and ended up with the
He-162 as the "Volksjager".
But alas, our friends in Deutschland didn't have fly-by-wire nor a pizza
delivery industry to get pre-trained fighter jocks. And like the
Volksjager, Windows falls short for a "peoples' OS".
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 00:07:03 GMT
On Thu, 25 May 2000 03:32:21 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
Colla wrote:
>Roger wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 May 2000 13:22:50 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
>> Colla wrote:
>> >Roger wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 18 May 2000 03:30:45 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
>> >> Colla wrote:
>> >> >There is just one difficulty: we happen to have uninstalled Office 97 because
>it was
>> >> >too buggy to be used (our secretary had become almost hysteric).
>> >> Bugs such as ... ?
>> >Crashing daily.
>> Not a bug, since it does not generically do so. Must have been
>> something in the environment.
>Yes, it was the Windows environment, set up by OEM (Epson Computers in
>the specific case), with Office 97 pre-installed as a bonus even if not
>requested because we already had open site license for Office 4.3.
>Please remember that OEM setup is actually MS setup, because OEM is only
>minimally free to change something.
>However I agree with you. It was not a bug. It was tons of bugs.
>
>The assertion "does not generically do so" strongly conflicts with my
>inquiries with other users.
>
>The posting of Bob May just after mine, reminding me a problem I forgot
>to mention (also because our printer was not 600 feet away from PC)
>would support better my limited statistics, than your unsupported
>assertion.
And you have supported yours? Please post the message ID on the
response where you have -- all I've seen is bald assertion on your
part.
And yet while I do not deny that you experienced such problems (only
that they were generically Office bugs,) you completely discount my
experience to the contrary.
Of course, since you've been shown in another thread to have a
singular disregard for the truth, an objective observer will have to
decide which assertion is the more credible. Especially given that
the numbers of people using Office tend to refute a generic problem of
the magnitude you posit.
>> >What's shown on the screen doesn't show on print.
>> For example?
>You have a subtitle and three lines of text, the subtitle doesn't show,
>the other lines do.
>Or first line of paragraph doesn't show. Or last line. Just examples.
>Quite frequently.
Again, not something which generically happens. What video / print
driver combination pertains?
>> >You save a document and next session you can't open
>> >it (either hangs or shows some fancy error dialog).
>> Which error dialogs would likely have helped in determining * what *
>> about the environment, since this is not the behaviour of most Office
>> installations.
>Very helpful. Sort of "the application has an error and will be closed.
>If the error persists, contact the software supplier". The software
>supplier keeps you half an hour waiting, and then tells you to call
>again.
"Sort of" isn't going to help.
>> >Each time Sysadmin intervention, fruitless attempts, recovery
>> >with simple text editors, importing text only, etc. etc.
>> >Sending a letter to a customer becomes more costly than
>> >sending him a Christmas present.
>> >
>> >For further information please refer to old F-Prot
>> >documentation, which explains how anti virus program may
>> >hang while scanning Word documents due to MS OLE bugs. They
>> >solved the problem just rewriting what they needed. We can't
>> >afford that.
>> Ah, so we had a conflict with the anti-virus program. I don't recall
>> McAfee or NAV so corrupting documents or causing such stability
>> problems.
>No, you misunderstood. You didn't have a conflict, the anti-virus was
>not running. You had bugs in OLE which caused Word hang or crash. The
>same bugs caused the antivirus to hang or crash too when it was running
>and using buggy OLE to scan Word documents.
Nope. I doubt very seriously that anyone used OLE to scan for
viruses. Given this description of the issue supposed documented, I'm
going have to say that if the document even exists, it does not say
what you have reported.
And given your errors in fact addressed in that other thread, this
would not surprise me.
>> And again, not generically needed. Office 4.3 and Office 95 could
>> even co-exist and while I have not had a need to have both 4.3 and 97
>> active at the same time, the differences in 4.3 and 95 which allowed
>> this to work would also apply to 97.
>You have hinted that we could have failed to uninstall O97, in order to
>tell me that not uninstalling was my mistake. But as I told you that I did,
>then it becomes unnecessary. We were forced to uninstall O97 in order to
>have only one registered application for Office documents.
I "hinted" nothing -- I asked a question, the answer to which IWE can
cause the kind of behaviour you seemed to be reporting. Why so
defensive?
>As you well
>know (you don't, but let's pretend)
Any particular reason for this assertion?
>Office 4.3 is a 16 bit package which uses the .INI files, while O97 is supposedly a
>32 bit
>package which uses Registry.
This is one of the differences I alluded to above.
>If you let the two co-exist, you're never
>sure of which one will be started when you click over a document. You
>must give a secretary a clean environment to work in.
Wrong: From
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q167/9/85.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0
When you double-click a Microsoft Office document in Windows Explorer,
the following rules apply:
If a version of the program in which the document was created is
running, the document is opened in that version of the program.
If no version of the program in which the document was created is
running, the document is opened in the version of the program that you
most recently installed UNLESS you started a version of the program
installed with Microsoft Office 4.x (Microsoft Excel 5.x, Microsoft
Word 6.x for Windows, Microsoft PowerPoint 4.x, or Microsoft Access
2.x) since you installed the last version of Microsoft Office.
To reassociate documents with the programs included with a particular
version of Microsoft Office, run the Microsoft Office Setup program
with the /y and /r switches. Doing this registers the file
associations for the version of Microsoft Office.
>> >> >Documents produced with Word 97 where completely unreadable with Word 96.
>> >> Nope.
>> >>
>> >>
>http://officeupdate.microsoft.com/downloadDetails/wd97cnv.htm?s=/downloadCatalog/dldWord.asp
>> >>
>> >> Available since September 1998.
>> >If a conversion program must be used then documents ARE
>> >incompatible. We choose NOT to use MS conversion program,
>> >being made cautious by experience (see above).
>> Of course, you could also use the import filter, this util simply
>> allows batch conversion which sounded like a better alternative for
>> you. And I was not saying they were incompatible -- that's not what
>> you claimed. You said "unreadable" which is wrong.
>Don't play with words.
I'm not.
>If you open a Word 97 document with Word 6 you
>just get a screen full of garbage.
Wrong -- you get some garbage, and the text of the doc. Unless you
installed the import filter, in which case most of the formatting
transfers as well.
>If "unreadable" is wrong, please
>suggest another adjective which describes a document you can't read.
You can read, is the point.
>If
>the output of program A results garbage for program B, and saying that A
>and B are incompatible is wrong, please suggest another word which
>describes this situation. I'm not in love with words. I just like words
>which describe facts at best.
And then use those words to describe situations which do not exist.
>> And of course you knew absolutely that StarOffice would do everything
>> that you needed with out having tried it out as well...
>No, I didn't know, I tried and it did work.
And yet you did not try the filters created by the manufacturer of
your software, which were available before the solution you did try
AFAIK. Why is this?
Oh, yeah: MS is evil, and all they do necessarily tainted.
>When you're unsatisfied of a supplier you test another one, that's how
>competition is supposed to work.
Yep. Of course, most folks are going to at least look at the
solutions that the original supplier offered...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Date: 29 May 2000 00:08:25 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 09:09:49 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Now, the GUI that configures the Samba server is the kind I'd call
I don't care much for swat. I find it easier to edit the config file by
hand.
If you have a system that uses rpm, an easy way to find documentation for a
package is, e.g.
rpm -qd samba
Samba is very easy to set up on the Linux side. Most problems I've
encountered are on the windows side.
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 00:09:26 GMT
On Wed, 24 May 2000 22:33:03 -0700, someone claiming to be Bob May
wrote:
>Let me tell you about bugs in Win95 code! How does going through a
>computer and replacing parts until the problem stops sound to you?
Like a solution used by someone unfamiliar with troubleshooting the
Windows environment.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
