Linux-Advocacy Digest #188, Volume #27 Mon, 19 Jun 00 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (aflinsch)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:01:25 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:45:18 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:SXc35.8012$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:20:15 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:35:00 -0700, Stephen Edwards
>> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
>> > ><8ic211$htb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > >> >
>> > >> >>There are things that I have seen mentioned in these three news
>> groups
>> > >by
>> > >> >>the supporters of the Microsoft Windows environment that I can not
>> > >reconcile
>> > >> >>with what I have experienced in reality, I would like to discuss
>one
>> of
>> > >> >>them. Please note that I did not say the Windows operating system,
>> > >since
>> > >> >>there is no such beast. Windows, in all of its incarnations is
>> nothing
>> > >more
>> > >> >>than a graphical environment that runs on an actual operating
>system.
>> > >>
>> > >> This isn't quite correct.
>> > >>
>> > >> Unix is an actual operating system and X is a graphical shell
>> > >> that runs on top of it. However WinDOS is a different sort of
>> > >> beast. The "whole OS" does not exist in DOS. Most of the OS is
>> > >> embedded into the GUI shell making the boundary between system
>> > >> components murky and DOS itself crippled.
>> > >>
>> > >> They aren't quite comparable... Unix/X vs. DOS/Win.
>> > >>
>> > >If so much is imbedded in the GUI shell, why can I change that shell?
>> > >LiteStep and the other available GUI replacements for Window 9x or NT
>4.
>> >
>> > You're just replacing the top layer and doing it BADLY.
>> >
>> > Run LiteStep and you lose the explorer desktop.
>> >
>> All I reply too, was it CAN be done, there alot more than LiteStep out
>> there for shell replacements. MJCR implied you couldn't replace Explorer
>> because it was too tied to the OS layer.
>>
>>
>
>Wrong, I was not the one who said that, Jedidiah was one of those who did
>say it, in an effort to refute my position which appears to be you position
That a psuedo OS like Windows might be well enough componetized
to allow parts of it to be replace does not in any way prove
that it is not more than just a graphical shell.
>as well. Reread the thread and you will see that you are totally confused
>as to who said what. Hold your fire, get your bearings and then fire at
>will.
What litestep replaces is the APPLICATION called explorer, or
rather parts of it. That is why when you run explorer again it
is somewhat crippled. It expects to have control of the desktop
but litestep does.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:00:29 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Not at all, it's the attachments and embedded scripts, graphics and
> other nice things that Linux office suites fail to translate properly.
>
> Example, in my company we use a lot of Web based education, usually
> via Lotus Notes but also under Netscape. Forgetting about Notes, Linux
> fall flat on it's face when trying to run these simulations using
> Netscape.
>
> My company has gone so far as to ban all non Windows applications and
> generated memo's and we were a long time OS/2 supporter up until last
> year.
>
> You Linonuts just don't get it. The rest of the world is marching to a
> completely different band and running Linux puts the entire concerto
> out of sync.
>
Funny, I didn't know of too many concerto pieces that used only one
instrument. Are you trying to say that adding a flute would screw up
the orchestra who had standardized on violins? Well, a bit short
sighted of that orchestra if you ask me.
It doesn't matter how many times you come in here lying that Windows is
the only operating system used ever. You can say it all you want, that
won't make it true. It is the number one OS by numbers at the moment,
but so what. If 90% of the population decided that committing suicide
was better than facing another day of listening to dumbass bastards like
you, that doesn't mean I would commit suicide just to join the trend.
In short, SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!
Thank you
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:53:18 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> >One computer for a family. Life is simplified by giving each family member his
> >own directory to organize files, and his own user configuration. Even Win9x
> >offers primitive multiuser support for that reason.
>
> But moast peopel don't USE it, and it can be turned off.
>
People don't use it because it does not work all that well.
There is no protection for files created by other users.
And the best feature of win98's "multi user" functionality -- A user
can set everything the way they want on the desktop, fonts background,
all sorts of nifty sounds, but whenever they set a screensaver it gets
applied to all users.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:06:21 GMT
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:13:55 GMT, John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:20:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:36:23 GMT, John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>The NT 3.x is quite similar in design to Linux/XF4 if you look at it.
>>>Wonder how long it takes them to move X into the kernel to improve
>>>speed? ;-)
>>
>> Even if that happened, our kernel is modular. The wise sysadmin
>> would still be able to rip it back out if necessary. So, the
>> whole point is moot.
>
>Not necessarily. Just as you practically need perl, python and half a
>dozen other scripting packages to run a full featured Linux
>installation, so you will probably end up needing the GUI.
This is simply false.
>
>>[deletia]
>>>>>That's because real-mode never made its way into Windows v3.x.
>>>>>In order for Microsoft to move forward, they had to leave some
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter what the excuse is. The 386 was out by then,
>>>> they had more than enough information to plan ahead with. They
>>>> just chose not to.
>>>
>>>The 386 was out, but the target platform was the 286. Windows 3.x
>>
>> So, they could have designed it with both the future and the
>> present in mind.
>
>How? You obviously have some idea, don't you?
Are you implying that I am some sort of CIS genius and that
if I can't come up with the solution than somehow Microsoft
is magically absolved of any responsibility for not coming
up with a solution of their own?
[deletia]
>>>> No, they should design for the future more than the have
>>>> been (in the case of Microsoft). Software doesn't wear
>>>> out and OS vendors shouldn't be essentially sabotaging the
>>>> capital investments of both companies and home users.
>>>
>>>So Linux should have a standard binary driver API, or do different
>>>rules apply to different systems?
>>
>> You're trying to change the subject.
>
>No, I'm just saying that what's good for the goose is good for the
>gander. If you want old binaries and DOS apps (which required
You are trying to support the fallacy that Application == Device Driver.
This would be a good example of the "false strawman argument".
>drivers) to run on the latest versions of Windows then Linux 1.x
>kernel modules and binaries should all run seamlessly on Linux 2.4.
>
>If you have a different rule for Linux to Windows then you are a
>hypocrite (by definition).
The only hypocrite here is you. I made no claim about device
drivers, only applications. They are entirely different beasts
as Merge, SoftWindows, WABI, Linux on OS/390, and VMWARE clearly
demonstrate.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:10:03 GMT
On 19 Jun 2000 16:44:38 GMT, James Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> No, they should design for the future more than the have
>>> been (in the case of Microsoft). Software doesn't wear
>>> out and OS vendors shouldn't be essentially sabotaging the
>>> capital investments of both companies and home users.
>
>> So Linux should have a standard binary driver API, or do different
>> rules apply to different systems?
>
>The same rules. There's a big project called the LSB that defines things
>that are going to be the same across the different distros.
He's just baiting you.
Device Driver != Application.
Noone was complaining about older device drivers not being
available for newer versions of the OS. Windows has this
same problem as well. It what causes NT5 to not be supported
wrt some hardware.
He's just trying to draw a false comparison to distract us
from the central issue.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:07:47 GMT
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:15:25 GMT, John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:41:05 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>John Wiltshire wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> As for X windowing and Motif windows being separate things, do you
>>> really understand X?
>>>
>>
>>Motif is a widget library, and one can run motif applications on X,
>>just as one can run qt or gtk apps on X.
>
>My point precisely. So why was 'X Windowing system' and 'Motif
>Windowing system' listed as separate subsystems?
Both are components that can be replaced at will at any time
by anyone that has the specifications for either. This includes
the 4 or so X servers available for x86 Linux and the 4 or so
implementations of each major version of Motif available for
x86 Linux.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 12:12:06 -0500
"Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8idtod$ln1$12$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[Snip]
>
> OK, then tell me how to get "Need For Speed - High Stakes" to run on W2K.
Well, I suspect you picked this title because it's mentioned in so many
newsgroups that that series of games has big problems with W2K - it's one of
the only I've seen this nasty. HOWEVER, I do know exactly how to make it
work. Since you asked, here is step-by-step how (note, this is NOT the case
for 99% of the other games out there, they run just by inserted a CD and
letting autoplay do it's job)
1. Run Setup.exe
2. When you get the error message "This game only runs on
Windows 95 or 98" copy the entire directory
"_ISTMP1.DIR" (or similar) which is located in
x:\Documents and Settings\User Name\Local Settings\Temp\ to a
temporary location (eg. c:\nfshsdir). Maintain directory
structure when copying.
3. Click OK to quit the error message.
4. In the nfshsdir directory rename _INS5576._MP to _INS5576.EXE
5. Copy ImageCFG.exe and SetWin95.cmd from the NT
4.0/NT5b2/Win2000b3RC1 CD to the nfshsdir directory.
6. Go to a command prompt, CD to the temporary directory. Type
SetWin95 _INS5576.EXE <ENTER>.
7. Create a file called "_INS0432.INI" and put the
following line in it: " -fY:\SETUP.INS -z1 -cx -xC:\nfshsdir
-x1"Y:\" -q10009" Make sure you substitute Y:\
for your CD-ROM drive and C:\nfshsdir for the temporary
directory you chose in step 2.
8. Run _INS5576.EXE from the nfshsdir directory.
9. Ignore the error message "Can not run Unicode version of
ATL.DLL on Windows 95. Please install the correct version.
10. Run NFS Auto-Patch (under Start Menu) to update to latest
version to resolve "Invalid Win32 Application" error
message.
11. Congratulations, you have just installed Need for Speed 4 in
Windows 2000. You may need to apply a NO-CD check patch to
eliminate CD-check depending on your system.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:12:36 GMT
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:31:19 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:04:25 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:nU835.5498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> That's mighty nice for those able to run NT. :)
>> >
>> >Well, it's hardware requirements are hardly what you'd describe as
>extreme
>> >today.
>>
>> Speak for yourself. I would and do describe NT's hardware requirements
>> as extreme.
>
>You can name some other system offering as much with significantly lower
>requirements ?
Unix/X.
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
