Linux-Advocacy Digest #733, Volume #26 Sun, 28 May 00 21:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Linux Fortress ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: Hey Pete Goodwin ("Usenet User")
Yet Another Analogy: Military Aircraft. (Bloody Viking)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691 (tholenbot)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: Don't run Windows. ("Usenet User")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: democracy? ("Andrew N. McGuire ")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (budgie)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 00:17:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>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.
Hmmm --- locate is your friend. Took me 2 seconds to find the files.
Bernie
--
Dream as if you'll live forever...live as if you'll die today.
James Dean
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 00:17:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Alfter) writes:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>OK, next question: I have a PCL5 printer, and a PCL5 file. How do I get one
>>to print on the other *under Windows*?
>There are DOS and Win9x versions of Ghostscript; their use is about the same
>as under Linux/*BSD/etc. Binaries are available, or you might be able to
>roll your own from source with Cygwin or something similar.
Actually, I was asking about sending PCL5 data to a PCL5 printer.
But as you mentioned it --- If I wanted to print Postscript on a
PCL5 printer with Ghostscript for Windows, would GS convert the PS into
GDI, which subsequently gets converted into PCL5 by the Windows printer
driver? Or is there a way to actually send something directly to the printer
from within a Windows program, avoiding GDI?
Bernie
--
We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as
fools.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 00:19:51 GMT
On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:31:29 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T
Williams wrote:
>1. Microsoft office (at least 4.3 and 97) crashes frequently.
Unsupported assertion, refuted by everyone who runs these versions
regularly without experiencing such.
>2. Microsoft office is full of bugs (at least 4.3 and 97) that's why they
>issued (for 97) sr1 and sr2.
There were issues, most not related to stability. You'd prefer these
to go unaddressed?
>3. Microsoft office 97 did not originally write Word 6/95 files, it wrote
>RTF files which it labeled as DOC files
So? MS made a bad decision. Not their first, won't likely be their
last.
This was not a bug, but a design decision.
>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.
They issued an import filter for Word 6, shortly after the release of
97, and well before the export filter was fixed for 97.
>5. In the Dos based environment (Win 9x) there is little or no memory
>protection.
Wrong.
>If you run several things, at one time or another one of them
>is going to write into someone else's memory.
Wrong. If you would care to reword this as "could attempt to write
into someone else's memory" then you would be correct.
>This can also happen in the NT 4.0 NTVDM/WOW environment.
You misspelled "can also happen to 16 bit apps in the NT..."
>That is why you are allowed to start
>separate instances of NTVDM/WOW.
To work around problems with such apps, yes.
------------------------------
From: "Usenet User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hey Pete Goodwin
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 00:20:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
<snip>
>
> Pete
Sigh. What funny little games people play on the advocacy newsgroup(referring to
sponge).
It amazes me how much time and effort people exert into claiming that Linux is not as
easy-
to-use and idiot proof as Windows. DUH!!! No kidding? Really?
Linux is obviously not as easy for normal folk as Windows 98. Who cares? Who's
suggesting
that it is? I don't know.
I do remember using Linux in 1995. Wow, compared to back then it looks like a MAcintosh
now. Linux continues to steadily improve in functionality and ease of use, without
hiding
everything that's under the hood. You can tinker if you want, but more and more you
don't
have to. I think some day it might be even easier to use then WindowsXX. Because Linux
(at least compared to Windows) is a community project, and I don't think the community
will
ever stop listening to the community(i.e. I don't think feedback will fall on deaf
ears).
Not only that, thanks to Linux there's variety in the PC OS market again. And variety,
as they
say(or as I say), is the mother of evolution.
So yeah Windows and Linux are different. THANK GOD! Hopefully they will see each others
strengths and weaknesses and both become better for it. Linux will become easier to
use(for
those that want it to be!) and Windows perchance will become more "open".
I think where Linux has a distinct advantage and in this respect is superior to
Windows, is in
it's *own* variability. I think Linux will continue to evolve at a much faster pace
than Windows
and eventually overtake it overall(meaning it will be superior to windows in most
areas, rather
than just some as I see it is now).
And it will always be NON-PROPRIETARY!! :)
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Yet Another Analogy: Military Aircraft.
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 00:22:57 GMT
If operating systems were military aircraft, here's how some would stack
up (in a holding pattern).
Linux: The Sr-71 Spy Plane of OSes. Nicely fast, stealthy, and takes skill
to drive. Indeed, Linux is frequently found "under the radar" in corporate
areas hidden behind its Samba emulation.
Windows: The He-162 of OSes. Designed to try to serve as the "peoples' OS,
it falls short, exactly as the He-162 fell short as a "peoples' fighter"
(Volksjager). The He-162 was intended to be a cheap easy to drive fighter
plane, but happily for the Allies, it was too hard to drive except for
skilled test pilots driving it. Worked rather well but was quirky, causing
it to crash in the hands of inexpierenced drivers.
Windows NT: The B-52 of OSes. Big, slow, and again takes a skillful driver
to drive it. But it can haul a big load of bombs to a destination. Helps
to have a refuelling plane to gas up after takeoff to drive a long
distance. Otherwise, you wreck.
OS/2: More or less like a generic Tomcat of an OS. Reasonably fast and
manoeuverable. Still takes a good driver to get the best performance out
of it.
MacOS: An He-162 but with fly-by-wire. Reasonably easy to drive but can
land like a Harrier on top of it. Nice glitz, like a good luxury car, but
performs well. Sort of like if BMW were to make a VJ (Volksjager) plane
but succeeded.
DOS: The C-130 of OSes. Real crappy to drive, and you have to wear an
oxygen mask at altitude becuse of an unpressurised cabin. (with back door
open) To do much of anything, you have to always add options.
Happy motoring!
--
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/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 17:28:48 -0400
From: Joseph <[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?
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "poldy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <39306821$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [snip]
> > 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.
>
> It's not that important, but Gates has a very easy explaination for why
> he's being stubborn now:
>
> He *tried* making a deal with the DoJ. Remember the consent decree?
> He got them to agree to "no bundling, but integration is okay". But it
> didn't do any good, they came after him anyway.
>
> He can hardly expect the DoJ to keep its promises *now*. This is
> true even if you feel that "browser integration" is positively
> sinful; they gave him the okay to do it, and then sued him
> anyway.
A lie is only as good as the money it's printed on so who cares what is
said as long as there is increasing shareholder value.
MS will get sued by shareholders for losing the case IF and only IF
shareholders lose money. By the definition of liablity that results
from losing so badly, MS management is culpable when they lose the case
- Period. That the DOJ won so easily is proof enough MS botched the
case and it will enrage the shareholders they were mislead so badly by
management IF MS does NOT WIN on Appeal.
Like crummy software, MS's defense is supposed to get better on appeal,
the next release. Well if it doesn't get better MS managent could well
be be sued for making misleading statements to the shareholders.
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:41:30 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Hoye
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't you know?
Don't I know what, Bob?
> How ironic coming from the most prodigious Tholen
> emulator.
What is allegedly "ironic"?
> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
How ironic.
--
On what basis do you claim "this is the end, my only friend, the end"?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 17:44:21 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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?
"Seán Donnchadha" wrote:
>
> So no, I don't know what the remedy should be. Everything proposed so
> far has been either ineffective or harmful. There seems to be no
> middle ground. One thing's for certain, though: antitrust laws must be
> overhauled for the information age. In their current form, they just
> give assholes like Joel Klein the power to destroy it.
Anti-trust laws do work fine in the information age - AT&T and IBM
proved that they work - this is nothing new - just an arrogant
management team learning how to lose at major league hardball. That
they lost so badly in court proves the DOJ was right. They have already
been vindicated.
A corporate management team decided to bet the farm on an extreme
position: "make no compromise". Some thought that being totally
unreasonable would be someone else's problem. Just the opposite:
they're making this an easy case. The defendent is unreasonable and not
reliable in telling the whole truth. Hearings and further input are not
going to help the Judge and this process is all about helping the Judge
make a good decision, not stalling him.
Even with remedies MS decided to take an extreme position and make it
impossible to find middle ground. What MS is learning we all learned
as children. If you don't work to solve the problem yourself and
compromise then some one will do solve it for you without your input.
Well MS was found guilty and a remedy will be imposed on MS. MS is not
cooperating and that lack of cooperation is *their* problem.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Mon, 29 May 2000 00:44:43 GMT
In article <KaaY4.2705$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Wally Bass" <wallyb6@nospam> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 27 May 2000 12:19:07 GMT, "Daniel Johnson"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > >Hardware and software are not the same.
> >
> > True
> >
> > >Manufacturing technology has improved; computer components are
> > >cheaper.
> >
> > 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.
>
> I'm not sure I see why.
Say you have two companies that make web browsers (OSes or office
software or whatever), with the market split 50/50. Each will do
everything in its power to destroy the other, including introducing
incompatibilities with the other browser. Web developers will hate it,
but they'll put up with it. Can't cut your audience in half, after all.
So both browsers will be supported, and they'll drift away from
eachother more and more.
You have the same issue with one company with 50% of the market and
another five with 10%. The big guy will intentionally create
incompatibles to kill the little guys and block new entries into the
market.
But what if you have 10 companies with even market share? If one of them
introduces some sort of incompatibility, nobody will care but the users
of that product. They'll just switch to another product. It's now in the
interest of every company in the race to maintain compatibility. Because
everything is standards-based, this also allows additional competition
to enter the market at any time.
The point is if no single company holds a significant fraction of a
given market, it means that companies must ensure interoperability,
which means users are free to choose whatever product they want.
[snip]
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Mon, 29 May 2000 00:47:58 GMT
In article <J8gY4.9130$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8grkus$2d5b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> Why?
>
> Certainly the history of this industry suggests that this is *not* the
> case; typically the succesful competitors are *not* those that
> make a snap-in replacement, but those with something new
> and *different*. It is *only* then that there is a positive reason to
> people to switch to the new kid on the block. Without that,
> building a better mousetrap doesn't seem to work awfully
> well.
You might want reconsider that position after taking a look at the
cloning of the IBM PC, MS Office vs. WordPerfect, and the success of AMD.
[snip]
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 00:25:15 GMT
On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:17:46 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T
Williams wrote:
>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 22 May 2000 16:20:18 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
>> Williams wrote:
>> >Roger <roger@.> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Wed, 17 May 2000 07:05:22 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
>> >> Williams wrote:
>> >> >Roger <roger@.> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> On Mon, 15 May 2000 22:06:04 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
>> >> >> Williams wrote:
>> >> >> >Roger <roger@.> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 14 May 2000 22:54:46 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
>> >> >> >> Williams wrote:
>> >> >You can claim copyright on anything, by declaring a copyright in the body of
>> >> >work. Until that right is tested in a court of law, or specifically granted
>> >> >by an appropriate legislative body, it may or may not exist.
>> >> Wrong. The only way it would * not * exist is proof that the material
>> >> in question had been copywritten prior to your creation of it, or if
>> >> you do not aggressively defend it.
>> >Proof?
>> Case and statutory law.
>If something is copyrightable by law then yes, but until it declared to be,
>then not necessarily.
And you question * my * English skills? Case and statutory law
maintains that a copyright, once declared, to be valid except in the
cases where it can be proved the work had previously been copyrighted,
or in the case where the holder does not aggressively defend the
copyright.
I'm not sure what you thought you were writing.
------------------------------
From: "Usenet User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Don't run Windows.
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 00:33:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 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.
For that matter *every* proprietary software product is a "prision".
>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.
...
> 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.
>
Ah, I so agree. I think it's going to be a tough battle. Linux will have to to
acheive "idiot-proof" status. But I think there's a lot more going here too.
GNU/Linux vs. MS has become a "Open" vs. Closed holy war. The
business model for GPL software is nearly non-existent. If Linux ever
does become as popular as Windows, I have a hard time imagining how
anybody's going to make any money from it, which it seems to me is how
MS got so poweful in the first place, from money. But I think that is just a
failure of imagination on my part.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 20:54:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Arclight from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sun, 28 May 2000 23:21:03
>On Sat, 27 May 2000 20:24:29 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
[...]
>>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,
And also with 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.
Once again, while more explicit, your argument is deeply flawed. I have
used Office 97 for thousands of hours, including several years (about
600 hours a year, a conservative estimate) since before it was Office,
and even before it was Windows. So even if you're mistaken and you've
used it for much more than "several hundred hours", you're still
mistaken in believing that you definitely would have experienced bugs
(they tend to manifest when you try more demanding tasks than simple
short document preparation and viewing); it doesn't work that way.
There are plenty of people who haven't experienced an Office bug. There
are plenty more that wouldn't recognize it if they did. You'd be
surprised how conditioned some end-users have become to a) blaming
themselves for software bugs, and b) blaming their local integrator, IT
department, or non-Microsoft software when they experience a bug.
So chances are you have experienced Office bugs, but are in denial.
Even if you haven't that's not a valid reason for claiming that nobody
else has. Not by a long shot.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 17:57:42 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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?
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > "Seán Donnchadha" wrote:
> >
> > > You're out of your mind. The price of operating systems has remained
> > > roughly the same, while their power and functionality has skyrocketed.
> > > What the hell is wrong with that?
> >
> > Windows 2000 is $300.
> Hardware and software are not the same. Manufacturing technology has
> improved; computer components are cheaper.
Computer manufacturing requires billion dollar fabrication plants to
manufacture. Software cheap - there are not costs for duplication
software. Software is by far cheaper to manufacture - the cost of an
FTP site and a connection will generate unlimited quantities of
software.
> Programming technology *has* improved, but it hasn't improved very
> much in this area. The main improvement that can be applied to
> an OS is the emergence of C++.
Hardware is programming logic and it too needs to be designed. It also
has to be orders of magnitude more reliable than a MS software product.
Still prices are dropping, not increasing.
> There *are* advanced tools that can greatly simplify program development
> in *some* sectors; but they don't apply to OSes.
>
> (Really. Just *try* building an OS in Visual Basic. I dare you. :D )
I don't do crack. If I wanted to market and develop a new OS I could do
it in one day. I'd repackage LINUX or FreeBSD and call it JOS. MS even
repackages some BSD networking code in their Windows OS.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
From: "Andrew N. McGuire " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 19:53:16 -0500
On Sat, 27 May 2000, Mark Wilden wrote:
+ Praedor Tempus wrote:
+ >
+ > Direct democracy would SUCK.
+
+ I agree.
I third the motion...
+
+ > You would have religious rightwingers and
+ > idiots (the majority of the public)
+
+ However, I don't think the majority of people are 'idiots'. Compared to
+ what?
Well, for example you have the majority who believe that as of
January 1st, we started a new millenium. Then you have those
of us who are smart enough to realize that there was no year 0.
You have the majority that believes that Windows is the best OS
ever to rear its head... Then you have those who know better.
You have the majority of Usenetters who reply to posts jeopardy
style, then you have the good Usenauts who don't. etc, etc, etc...
Regards,
anm
--
/*-------------------------------------------------------.
| Andrew N. McGuire |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
`-------------------------------------------------------*/
------------------------------
From: budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 01:03:09 GMT
On 28 May 2000 14:53:39 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(snip)
>>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...
I somehow feel they are at the limit of their imagination and horizons
as they rush each alpha to market. Nothing in reserve, so
anticipation of future faetures is fairly much a non-possibility.
> 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.
I'd seen enough of Win95 and its associated Office product that, when
it came time to buy a machine i insisted on WFWG and bought Office Pro
4.3. The govt agency where I worked used wfwg3.11/4.3 and is tuck
with what is till believe to be a robust combo. Note I didn't claim
flawless, but from what I have seen I would place it ahead of the '95
versions.
>>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.
I couldn't agree more, but the artificial 640K barrier was one of the
worst pieces of anticipation the Wintel industry has seen. And its
limitation haunted us through LIM-EMS and extended memory managers.
(I still use some legacy apps which require EMS.)
Something that we could have done far better without.
>>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.
Again, I agree completely. But how do you ensure that the earlier
version can and will ignore future tags and tokens when they are
undefined at that stage?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
