Linux-Advocacy Digest #764, Volume #26 Tue, 30 May 00 07:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (Sam E. Trenholme)
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (Sam E. Trenholme)
Re: The Linux Fortress ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
(=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Corel lusing with Linux also. (Sam E. Trenholme)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Let's whine about wine (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451695 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Csaba Raduly)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Giuliano Colla)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (Jim)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Which Microsoft will inherit lawsuit? (Martin)
Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux..... (H H Chau)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Giuliano Colla)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (s@-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam E. Trenholme)
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
Date: 30 May 2000 01:15:06 -0700
>You'd be giving up Outlook. I know that would be such a chore, especially
>with all of the viruses running around lately. :-) (Note that Outlook
>includes such things as a calendar, a mail client, and a task list.)
KDE comes with all this. Kmail + Korganizer.
>You'd be giving up Internet Explorer.
KDE comes with a web browser, as part of the file manager.
>You'd be giving up Microsoft Word -- *the* word processor on Windows.
>Maybe.
There is Applix, Word Perfect, Star Office, Abi Work, among others.
>You'd be giving up Visual C++, Visual Basic, Visual J++, Visual Foxpro,
>Visual This, Visual That.
The KDE project has Kdevelop. MetroWorks makes an IDE for Linux.
>(I will grant that Visual Basic, in the hands of an expert, can do
>nice things, for small projects.)
As some one else already mentioned, Python. Or, for that matter Perl with
one of the graphical bindings. Or TCL/Tk. Or...
>You'd be giving up Presentation Manager.
I know Applix comes with a presentation program. As does WordPerfect
Office 2000 for Linux.
>You'd be giving up the all-inclusive Windows GUI, the industry standard,
>for a hodgepodge of various look and feels: Gnome, KDE, Athena (yecch),
>Athena3d, Motif/Lesstif, even curses in an xterm.
Experienced Windows and Mac users still feel that KDE feels rough around
the edges compared to the GUI they are used to. Little things, like the
KDE theme manager not putting up scroll bars for the GUI when using it on
a 640x480 display, and the theme manager not cleaning up after itself when
changing themes.
>You'd be giving up DOS legacy. Now, we all know how important
>DOS legacy is for an operating system, right? :-)
DOSemu, baby.
>You'd be giving up the NT networking.
Can you say "Samba"?
>And, probably most important of all, you'd be giving up that $1000
>or more total price tag for all of these things, and giving up the lock-in
>requirement that x86 is the only box these things will ever run on
Yes, this is something you will give up when chossing a Linux solution.
- Sam
--
Please post, and not email, questions you have about my answers
Go to http://samiam.org/cgi-bin/mailme to get my email address
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam E. Trenholme)
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
Date: 30 May 2000 01:23:49 -0700
>>>CorelXara
Anything Corel should be available for Linux by next year.
>I tried some of the Linux alternatives, and just as many Windows
>alternatives. Whilst Word is pretty bloated and offers more features than I
>could possible (and some that don't work very well), some of Linux
>alternatives are not that impressive. Like I keep saying, they lag behind
>in functionality.
WordPerfect is, at worse, awefully close in terms of features. Star
Office isn't bad, but I don't like the way I can't change the colors of
its, IMHO, moronic desktop environment. Star Office really needs to honor
a user's color preferences, and, ideally, have a "just run the word
processor" mode.
I can tell you how Applix fares tomorrow.
>Yes I could start using equivalents on Linux for some of the above
>packages, but that leaves me with a dilemma - the files aren't shareable
>between Linux and Windows. I'd have to start again with Mail or News etc.
All three of these choices can share files with Word 2000 almost
seamlessly. The only problem I have had is with bullets, and I can work
around that problem by using ASCII '*'s as bullets in WordPerfect.
- Sam
--
Please post, and not email, questions you have about my answers
Go to http://samiam.org/cgi-bin/mailme to get my email address
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 22:19:18 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> i) To shut it down I had to go onto the console and go through Windows;
> as Linux I can do that remotely via telnet on either Linux or Windows.
>
> ii) Both systems exhibit the documented Windows 98 SE shutdown bug where
> it hangs. Linux has yet to hang on shutdown.
You shut it down? :)
--
Evan DiBiase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG/PGP Key: http://www.telerama.com/~evand/evand.key
"When a masochist brings someone home from the bar, does he say, 'Excuse me
for a moment, I'm going to slip into something uncomfortable?'"
-George Carlin, "Brain Droppings"
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
innovations)
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:33:58 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff / newsgroups </SNIP>
> Microsoft's Windows 2000 is the slowest operating system known to
> mankind.
>
> No-one can challenge this statement.
Sure. Now, could you please, explain away this:
http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc
Here I see Win2K kicking some UNIX' behind and taking names. Cheaper too,
BTW.
Paul 'Z' Ewande awaiting for some interesting acrobatics.
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam E. Trenholme)
Subject: Re: Corel lusing with Linux also.
Date: 30 May 2000 01:35:45 -0700
>LinuxCare goes under.
>Redhat can't figure out what it wants to do in the Linux world.
>IBM dumps Linux shares.
>And now Corel, betting all their chips on Linux, posts a loss.
Simon,
I hate to break this to you, but even if LinuxCare, RedHat, and Corel go out
of business, and IBM completely drops all Linux support, Linux will still
be around. Of these four possible events, the only one that has
a reasonable change of happening is Corel going out of business,
but keep in mind that Corel has been losing money for a long time
before they became gung ho about Linux.
I wonder why it is that you come here hating Linux with such a passion.
I don't know what problems you are having in your personal life, and
they are quite frankly none of my business, but I don't think you will
resolve those problems by repeatably posting the same kind of flamebait
in this forum.
- Sam
--
Please post, and not email, questions you have about my answers
Go to http://samiam.org/cgi-bin/mailme to get my email address
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:36:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>You shut it down? :)
Of course! You learn to do this with Windows. It clears out the days leaks,
dontchaknow? Also, I rarely run more than one thing at once, if you run too
much then CRUNCH!
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Let's whine about wine
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:40:07 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I put together two test apps, one written in Delphi, the other in CB5. The
Delphi one worked (except the font should have been a Courier equivalent!).
The CB5 one didn't as I forgot not to use shared libraries, oops!
Pete
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:45:51 GMT
Bob Hoye writes:
>> Bob Hoye writes [to Eric Bennett]:
>>> Don't you know? How ironic coming from the most prodigious Tholen
>>> emulator.
>> What makes you think that Eric Bennett is emulating me at all?
> Posting for entertainment purposes again, Tholen?
Obviously not, Bob.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:52:31 GMT
abraxas wrote:
> Except that MacOS is alive and well, and OS/2 isnt.
On what basis do you claim that OS/2 isn't?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451695
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:08:57 GMT
As expected, Malloy "ran away" from the various issues, such as the
"chance" I allegedly invented, or the use he continues to get from
something he hypocritically calls "uselessnet", or his writing problems
("as befits the you", "by which you invent you chance"), or what an
"astrological" figure is. Today's digest:
62> Here's another Tholen digest,
Actually, it's another example of your deletion tactic, Malloy.
62> full of sound and fury
And evidence for Thorne's reading comprehension problem, Malloy.
Of course, you didn't address that at all.
62> and, as usual, signifying nothing at all.
Having more reading comprehension problems, Malloy? It signified Thorne's
reading comprehension problem.
62> All this claptrap from Tholen amounts to
62>
62> [0]
62>
62> That's right, nothing at all.
Then why did you bother to respond, Malloy?
62> Thanks for reading!
But it's "uselessnet", right Malloy?
63> Another attempt at a digest of me,
Another success, Malloy, thus your use of "attempt" is inappropriate.
63> as successful as every other "digest" Tholen has tried, which is
63> to say, not at all.
In what way is it allegedly unsucessful at digestifying you, Malloy?
63> Here's everything of value, summarized for your reading enjoyment:
63>
63> [0]
63>
63> That's right, a big round goose egg!
Then why did you bother to respond, Malloy?
63> Figures, it's Tholen, after all.
How ironic.
63> Thanks for reading.
But it's "uselessnet", right Malloy?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Csaba Raduly)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: 30 May 2000 09:07:06 GMT
24 May 2000: A formal bug report was sent to Seti@Home, because the
following message originated from [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
was reported as containing signs of intelligence:
[snip]>
>or you can cat any unix text file through the following perl bit
>and print the result which will have cr/lf instead of lf
>
>#!/usr/bin/perl
># The above line should really have the whole path to perl
># This script must be executable: chmod 755 filter
>while(<STDIN>){chop $_; print "$_\r\n";};
># You might also want to end with a form feed: print "\f";
>#end
>
>using chop is a little dicey since it chews off the last byte
>whether or not it is an EOL or not, but in this instance, is pretty
>safe. If it worries you, you can use chomp instead which checks for
>EOL before eating it.
>
You should definitely use chomp for this job.
If you don't mind typing, just pipe thru
perl -ne '$\="\r\n"; chomp; print'
--
Csaba Raduly, Software Developer (OS/2), Sophos Anti-Virus
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sophos.com/
US Support +1 888 SOPHOS 9 UK Support +44 1235 559933
Life is complex, with real and imaginary parts.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 11:53:34 +0200
Roger wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 11:12:00 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
> Colla wrote:
>
> >Roger wrote:
>
> >> This would be the case if the BIOS presented a standard interface for
> >> all of it's functions. It doesn't. Things like plug and play and
> >> power management vary non-trivially from one BIOS to the next.
>
> >Then a non-trivial OS should be able to cope with it.
>
> Which Windows does, by customizing its setting on install to the
> specific BIOS detected. Which is why there are problems making
> changes to such components without reinstalling.
Well, you should decide which way to go. Either it's done
easily and smoothly, and you don't' have to point how
difficult it is (it's OS job, after all), or it isn't so
easy and smooth (see all the debate about faulty
installations, which would be meaningless if installation
were so trivial) then it's not done as it should be.
BTW, a modular approach, which would be innovative only for
MS, would help not to reinstall everything just because of a
different hardware component. The first step toward
improvement is to recognize deficiencies. Every system has,
but MS and his supporter are so stubbornly denying them to
make it difficult to hope for best.
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
Bologna (Zona Industriale Roveri)
Tel. 051 53.46.92 - 0335 610.43.35
Fax 051 53.49.89
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 12:26:35 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting Giuliano Colla from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 30 May 2000
> 00:27:27 +0200
> [...]
> >If I may add another HO, I have a friend which devotes to computer
> >graphics, produces similar images (technically speaking I mean - let's
> >not discuss the art behind that), and whenever needs to upgrade his
> >computer, has some software or installation problems invites me to
> >dinner.
> >Thanks God he doesn't write about Paganism, Magick and Occult.
>
> I demand some samples. :-/ For technical review.
I'll try to get some for you, however I'm always hesitant to
call him too frequently, for fear of another dinner, with
computer troubleshooting as dessert.
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
Bologna (Zona Industriale Roveri)
Tel. 051 53.46.92 - 0335 610.43.35
Fax 051 53.49.89
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
Date: 30 May 2000 06:34:24 EDT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> WickedDyno wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >WickedDyno wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In article <8go49c$13k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paul 'Z' Ewande "
> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le
> > >> >message
> > >> >:
> > >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> >> In article
> > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >> >> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> > >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > Spelling Camp. ;)
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> How ironic, coming from the person who recently wrote:
> > >> >> >> "Now it's time for Microsoft to puck blood."
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >"puck blood" is a comp.sys.mac.advocacy inside joke.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Posting for entertainment purposes again, Eric? I wonder
> > >> >> what Cornell would think of this use of their network resources?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > He spelled it correctly.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
> > >> >
> > >> >Don't you know ?
> > >>
> > >> Of course not, as it has yet to be proven.
> > >
> > >Now this is where you separate the professional Tholen emulators
> > >from the rest. A real Tholen emulator would never admit to not
> > >knowing something under any circumstances. Do try to keep up, WickedDyno.
> >
> > Hmm...
>
> Do make up your mind, WickedDyno.
>
> > I guess I ought to have gone with a simple Irrelevant.
>
> What you guess you ought to have gone with is irrelevant. What you
> can prove is relevant.
I got ur prove rite ear watter boy.
Mac users puck n suck. ther outta luck
mostly jump aroun inmuck
canteven get it on in truk
Woohahahahaha!
No New Song
Singitpoor, India
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:35:36 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:s2BY4.5071$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> > Well MS used C++ in Windows 2000.
>
> Not for the OS itself. That's C and ASM.
I wouldn't assume this. The main downside to using C++
for this stuff is that it tends to produce larger (but faster) code
due to all the inlining it supports. MS seems unafraid of larger
code. :D
Anyway, things like DirectX are built on COM, and doing COM is
C is way painful; I'd be surprised if MS did not use C++ for those
bits.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:35:37 GMT
"nohow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 18:29:06 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >> MS has increased prices.
> >
> >Not on consumer windows in the last 5 years.
>
> Retail or OEM? At the retail level Windows 98 is more expensive than
> Windows 3.1 at least it is here in Canada. At OEM level you wouldn't
> know what they charge their customers now or then.
I think Erik is limiting it to 5 years to avoid Win 3.
And the *current* price of Win3 is probably not relevant; if that is lower
it is probably because MS cut prices on that version. It is getting a bit
long in the tooth, after all.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:35:38 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8guokb$1qgp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <a3uY4.4224$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >:D
> >
> >Okay, *from a consumers point of view*, why is it better to have
> >many small companies rather than a few big ones, or one big one
> >and many small ones?
>
> It doesn't matter that much as long as there is viable competition.
What do you mean by "viable"? Would you say that
Microsoft's competitors are unviable? If so, why, and why
does this matter?
I deliberately left out the "Big company with no competitors of any
description"; because that's unheard of outside of massive
governmental intervention. But the "one big company and many
small competitors" case seems to describe the current case with
Microsoft.
It sounds like you've no objections to Microsoft's position, except
for this viability caveat.
> The large companies do tend to consider their cash cows as
> sacred, though, and often won't make obviously needed changes
> until a competitor with nothing to lose offers the better alternative,
> often at a lower price.
That has been known to happen, though Microsoft seems
to resist that tendency for some reason.
Sometimes, when a company gets complacent like that, it
gets *replaced*; consider what happened to the Apple ][ once
IBM turned up.
> >MS *was* interested in fixing the problems, just not with the inadequate
> >band aids Digital Research was using. MS's answer was Windows,
> >and it is a *far* better answer than DR-DOS.
>
> The Mac was already there for people who wanted it. The reason
> Windows sold at all was because you could drop it on top of
> a working DOS/Novell network without losing anything.
Backwards compatibility helped, yes, but a bigger reason was that
it worked on the cheap hardware.
Bear in mind that you could not just "drop Windows in" and expect to
get anything out of it. You needed to replace your applications, which
is a pretty big wrench. Many people also needed to get better computers;
Windows 3 was demanding compared to DOS.
It did give bog-standard PCs an upgrade path the badly needed, but
it wasn't as easy as you might think.
[snip]
> >The good news, of course, is that Microsoft didn't get bogged down
> >in 'DOS wars'; they didn't waste time as they might have, fine
> >tuning DOS until they had the best, most kick-ass CP/M clone
> >ever made, which still couldn't print worth a damn.
>
> Windows would never have gotten off the ground without the leverage
> of the existing DOS base
It's not clear to me what you mean by "the leverage of the existing
DOS base" here.
I'd buy the "existing Intel PC base" instead; Windows sold
as an upgrade for these very common computers, not as
a whole new system.
> and it would not have hurt a bit to
> push the low level functionality into the underlying structure
> instead of bypassing it.
Permit me to differ. The underlying structure was very weak;
keeping it even to the extent Microsoft has has placed
heavy burdens on Windows 98! Your proposal makes
this worse. You are having to thunk into real mode for
every operation you keep in DOS, and you have to
expend 'conventional' memory for each. This is going to hurt,
and hurt bad.
> But then they couldn't force you to
> pay for the GUI on machines like servers where no one normally
> even sees it.
Microsoft does not *force* you to buy their products; they include
the GUI because its one of their best features. If you don't want
it, why buy Windows at all? Put Unix on that server, or something
beefier.
Including a very, very popular feature in their OSes is hardly
nefarious, even if a very small minority doesn't want the feature.
Microsoft is not obliged to build custom software for you, you know!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin )
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Which Microsoft will inherit lawsuit?
Date: Tue, 30 May 00 10:39:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, fungus
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>"Charles R. Lyttle" wrote:
>>
>> You know, if split up, the OS company can't ship Java, as
>> that would be an application.
>
>I don't see how a JVM falls into the category of "application".
>
>It all depends how you define "application" I suppose,
>hopefully any split-up proposal will contain a reasonably
>precise definition of the term.
>
>
>To my mind, an application is a program whose main purpose in
>life is to allow users to view/create data files which are not
>part of the operating system setup/configuration.
>
>
>eg.
>
>Regedit can be shipped with Windows because it's needed for
>system setup.
>
>IE can't be shipped with Windows because its main purpose
>is to view files which have nothing to do with the OS.
If you were to apply the same logic to Unix, you would have to remove "more",
"cat", "vi", etc....
>
>By the same token, mediaplayer, et. al. also have to be
>removed from the OS, and you'll have to install a "multimedia
>pack" to be able to play video files[1].
>
..
Martin
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H H Chau)
Subject: Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux.....
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 11:21:00 +0100 (BST)
>>I have a gig of RAM, so it's not the RAM requirements that are choking
>>it.
> Might still be a ram issue --- because it seems that the Gimp, by default,
> uses only 10MB for its tile cache, and thus would be happily shuffling the
> 25M image from and to disk even on your 1G machine.
In Carey Bunks' book, there is a section named:
o Setting up Your Computer to Get the Most from the GIMP
- Notes on RAM
- Notes on Video RAM
- Notes on Swap and GIMP Memory Management
- Loading Fonts
- Setting the X Window System to Run More Than 8 bpp
http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/index.html?node12.html
Cheers
Hau Hing
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 12:51:58 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[snip]
>
> Here's a related thought I've been bouncing around in my head, though.
> I don't think it is unreasonable to say that I "own" any information
> about myself as intellectual property. Which means that anyone even
> having my address in their records is a violation of my property rights,
> unless specific (and potentially non-transferable) licensing
> arrangements have been made. They may have my address, but I still
> "own" it, and can therefore determine explicitly and with prejudice how
> they are allowed to use it. This goes for anything less trivial, of
> course, which is the point, and would include any byproducts of
> scientific research performed with any part of my body. This last is
> not true today; a doctor who patents a chemical which he isolated from
> your tissue is under no obligation to even inform you, let alone
> consider you to have any control over the invention.
>
> Its time to get tough about privacy rights. Maintaining information on
> me is *not* part of someone else's civil rights. Its part of my
> property rights. What do you think? Too radical, or just unworkable?
Currently, the Privacy Act effective in Italy (they claim to
be one of the most advanced in the world, but I have no
elements to compare), makes it mandatory to anyone having
your personal data (address, date of birth and similar
things) to inform you, and not to use them for any purpose
different from the one they were originally given, unless
you give explicit authorization. You may also ask them to
destroy your data. This overrides any previous agreement. If
not detaining your data makes it impossible to perform some
activity, then the activity is canceled. I.e. you may ask
your credit card company to remove your data from their data
base, they are forced to do it, but most likely they will
ask you to handle back the card.
There are much more stringent requirements about your
"sensitive data", like political or religious affiliation,
health information etc.
It appears that this more or less gives practical actuation
to your suggestions.
It's sometimes cumbersome, but it seems to work, and people
are getting used to it.
Sometimes they even try to abuse of it. I was reading
recently of a guy who was fined for littering the street,
and claimed that examining the litter in order to identify
him had violated the Privacy Act!
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
Bologna (Zona Industriale Roveri)
Tel. 051 53.46.92 - 0335 610.43.35
Fax 051 53.49.89
------------------------------
From: s@-
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 30 May 2000 03:14:59 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark says...
>
>A couple of points: first, when they first started building bridges
>(especially the first iron bridges),
But linux is not the first OS.
>Second, a computer program is far more complex than a bridge. It's much
>harder to design. I've read estimates that the average computer program
>has more parts than a 747.
>
It looks like you never looked at an engineering mathematics book
before. Structural engineering is far harder subject that generic
software. proof, almost any idiot can learn to program in VB or
Java. But you need to be really smart to pass all those advanced
engineering courses.
>Third, a computer program _can_ be blown up and started over.
Yes it can. and so can a bridge. If you do not care for the cost
and waste resulting from such an act.
>
>Fourth, the needs of a bridge are pretty simple. How many use cases does
>a bridge support (so to speak)?
>
huh? You really need to go take a course in structural engineering, you
do not how dumb you sound.
Other idiotic points skiped.
>All that said, I do believe in analysis and design and agree that Linux
>could use more of it (if it's true that there's no specification for its
>components at all).
Not only there are no design, looking at the linux kernel code,
you look at a function, and you have no idea what is the input
and output. no function headers to give one an idea
about it, nothing. If I where a manager at such a sw project, I'll fire
those programers who write such code.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
