Linux-Advocacy Digest #473, Volume #27 Wed, 5 Jul 00 13:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Anyone actually using Linux for DTP? (Gene Kimzey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 5 Jul 2000 10:53:42 -0500
In article <%r185.4273$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Not at all, there are way to cope with multiple protocols; using
>> >> >them gives you flexibility.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly - and none of them should involve having to make
>> >> changes on the other end of the wire.
>> >
>> >Why not?
>>
>> Because doing so takes away your choice of ever using anything
>> (a) not under your control or
>
>What does this mean?
Interoperating with anyone you can't force to install the
plug-in that happens to match your API-of-the-day. Like
the rest of the world.
>> (b) not from a vendor that happens to match.
>
>No, this is backwards. If you are allowed to make
>changes at the other end of the write, you can support
>products that support *none* of your current protocols;
>you just add one their do support.
>
>Inconvinient, yes, but better than simply being unable
>to communicate at all.
If you follow standards, you are never in the position of
being unable to communicate so that comparison never happens.
So, why make the inconvenient choice?
>[snip]
>> >I don't think I am; I think that it's *Unix* protocols you favor,
>> >regardless of 'standardization'; there is as I've mentioned
>> >a standards body for COM, but I don't see you complaining
>> >about Unix's vendors failure to support it.
>>
>> DCOM might make sense as a standard, but it has to compete
>> head to head with pre-existing ones like CORBA and I
>> don't see it winning. If there were a free reference
>> library it might have a chance.
>
>Hmmm.. I sense a bit of waffling here. Will you admit that
>COM is a standard?
>
>Not "might make sense as a standard". Is it one?
I didn't see any evidence that it was offered to or accepted
by the IETF, or ISO, which would determine if it is an
accepted standard or not.
>
>I'll admit that CORBA is, if it helps.
Why, because Microsoft is a member of OMG?
>[snip]
>> >You haven't given a reason to want to halt progress; you've
>> >just asserted that its like telephones somehow.
>>
>> It is like telephones in that much of the value of my instance
>> comes from it's ability to interoperate with any other, regardless
>> of the vendor. And it doesn't halt progress, it allows it.
>
>This isn't true of computers. Most of their value is
>rather more self contained. Don't get fixated on the
>Web.
No, that value was provided by typewriters, where you only
get back what you put it. Computers gain their added value
by being able to store data and exchange it.
>Further, you have to show that its ability to interoperate
>depends on standardisation, as you know I said
>that it doesn't. If I'm right, halting progress (in this area)
>isn't justifiable.
Halting progress has never happened. It is your claim that it
has that isn't justifiable. It is standardization of exchange
formats and protocols that allows progress and prevents a
single vendor from destroying it.
>[snip]
>> >> My real complaint about IE is that it puts non-standard HTML
>> >> extensions on a majority of desktops, encouraging designers
>> >> to use them in ways that break standards-conforming software.
>> >
>> >Sort of like Netscape, then?
>>
>> No, Netscape didn't claim to be inseperable from the OS,
>
>That has nothing to do with it.
Yes it does. If it didn't the claim would be unnessary (as well
as being untrue...).
>[snip]
>> >I don't think they do cause trouble for users of competing
>> >products; so far I haven't seen an example of this given.
>>
>> Just incredible... I've posted many, they are in the courts
>> over others and you "haven't seen an example".
>
>I have seen things presented *as* example of this, but
>there were not actual examples.
They were and are.
>There are lots of examples of MS providing some service
>for its users that its competitors did not have; I've seen examples
>of MS's failing to integrate support the product that its competitors
>did have.
>
>But I draw a distinction between "failing to solve a problem" and
>"creating a problem".
So do I, and the ones I have mentioned all fit the "creating a
problem" category.
>[snip]
>> >You don't. You've no right to take IE away from the rest
>> >of us, just because you don't like it.
>>
>> Who said anything about taking IE away. I want to take
>> away the non-HTML that people accidentally produce using
>> MS tools.
>
>You want to keep people from *using* IE's addition features.
>
>You've no right to do that.
Well, whatever consenting adults want to do in private is
OK, I guess. But in public, there are certain standards
to follow.
>> >> I have put a great deal of effort to keep them
>> >> off the web servers I manage and understand how difficult
>> >> it is if you use any of Microsoft's tools.
>> >
>> >Why should you do this?
>>
>> People should be able to view web pages with the browser of
>> their choice even if someone innocently used an MS product
>> to produce it.
>
>Why? Why do you get to dictate to web-page authors what
>features they may use?
Because people call me to complain when our web pages are
not viewable. This happens when the developers are tricked
by the MS tools that generate non-conforming pages.
>[snip]
>> >Not so. Just spewing an X protocol stream into an
>> >arbitrary socket is useless; you need an X server to
>> >do anything.
>>
>> I already have an X server.
>
>That is because you are using Unix or a reasonable
>facsimile thereof, not just POSIX.
That happens to be true, but it isn't necessary. There
are even versions that manage to run under MS-Windows,
although judging from the prices, this must be somewhat
difficult.
>[snip]
>> >Both Windows 98 and NT/2000 have schedulers, too.
>>
>> But GUI based programs aren't easily automated.
>
>Aren't they? Do you know about WSH?
No. Why should I? Is it well documented in the help system?
>> Command
>> driven programs generally take the same commands when
>> run non-interactively as when interactively.
>
>This is not a particularly good thing. It means that
>both UI forms are compromised.
How so? Giving the computer commmands is often the
best way to accomplish a task. Being able to automatically
have them repeated after getting the steps right manually
is sometimes even better.
>[snip]
>> >I'm not sure what you mean here. The software depended
>> >on a particular modem protocol and the modem didn't follow
>> >it; surely *neither* was "generic"?
>>
>> The hardware it supported correctly used two serial ports
>> per modem. One for the data, one for the dialer - a scheme
>> used before smartmodems that took dialing commands on the
>> data port became popular. It did also accomodate using
>> user-supplied expect/send chat scripts, but the problem
>> was that it would not open the port unless the modem
>> carrier detect lead was already up (the usual mode for
>> unix waiting for inbound calls). However, if you configured
>> the modem to hold CD up all the time you couldn't tell when
>> a call disconnected.
>
>Okay. This is all fine, but "two serial ports" is in and of itself
>different from the 'wire protocols' hitherto used. Because
>UUCP depended upon that protocol, it had no way to cope.
No, as I said, it did work with smart type modems but it required
the carrier detect lead to be up as though it were already on
line.
>> >Drivers would solve this problem.
>>
>> As did a change in the open mode. This is strictly a
>> user-level program and the OS already provided the
>> needed function.
>
>Sure, it was a user-level program. But you can't expect
>real users to alter it when something like this comes up;
>it's far better to be able to give them an installer that put
>a driver in.
You can't expect a user to be able to obtain a driver for
every possible program/device interaction. It would certainly
have been impossible in this case. Getting a large company
to fix its software turned out to only be 'almost' impossible,
but then it was fixed for everyone. I probably should dig
out that 'closed problem report' from AT&T and frame it.
>Alternately, you can just stick to your standard protocol
>religiously. But realistically, that isn't always an option.
Why not? If the software vendor won't allow using generic
hardware without specific support, change the software.
>[snip]
>> >Admittedly; but you know what I mean: with a (slow!) remote
>> >network connection, I don't need to be restricted to telnet.
>>
>> If you have decent character based programs on the other end,
>> using telnet isn't a restriction.
>
>"Character based programs" is a restriction in my book.
If you are used to the ones supplied by MS, I suppose that
is understandable. But they work fine for anything dealing
with text. Not surprisingly, most things can be described
with text...
>[snip]
>> >> they
>> >> unintentionally break the competitors product by using
>> >> the non-standard changes.
>> >
>> >You do keep saying this. And I keep not believing you.
>>
>> That doesn't make it any less true.
>
>Maybe so. If it is true, we've got much bigger problems
>than Microsoft, though.
Who is bigger than Microsoft?
>[snip]
>> >> When an unmodified windows client can interoperate with a
>> >> a non-Microsoft version of Active Directory services, or an
>> >> equivalent to the Kerberos-domain-controller, we can talk
>> >> about interoperability.
>> >
>> >They can. They come with plug-ins for other peoples networks;
>> >maybe not *yours*, but they do support NetWare and Windows
>> >2000 has added support for vanilla Kerberos, though vanilla
>> >Kerberos doesn't offer the same features Active Directory does.
>>
>> That's not even close to what I said.
>
>Then I didn't understand what you said; perhaps you could
>rephrase it?
Did you have trouble with the 'unmodified' word? I mean actual
interoperation, not changing the client.
>[snip]
>> >This does not help; aside from being way too slow to keep up
>> >with more normal software development, this does nothing
>> >to upgrade your existing computers- the ones you insist you
>> >can't change in order to accomodate a new machine.
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean here. SMTP has changed
>> dramatically over the years yet there has never been
>> a version that would not continue to work with older
>> versions. Please show how Microsoft's mail products
>> have been more flexible across all versions.
>
>You said you wouldn't be willing to touch each client; how
>are you going to support new version fo SMTP without
>doing that?
SMTP announces its capabilities as it answers a connection.
The sender sends what the receiver can handle.
>Your strategy only avoids touching the clients when the
>protocol *coesn't* change.
And when it does. It might come as a surprise to someone
used to MS software, but when new capabilities were added
to SMTP, all the email systems in the world did *not* have
to be upgraded on the same day.
>> >[snip]
>> >> >Copy the source and recompile works only between very
>> >> >closely related OSes, like the different Unixes and the
>> >> >different Windows.
>> >>
>> >> Then why did we have the misleading claims about subsystems when
>> >> NT came out?
>> >
>> >What misleading claims are those?
>>
>> The posix subsystem was supposed to run all your old unix
>> programs.
>
>When did MS say *that*?
I haven't been able to pin it down, but I remember it and someone
just recently posted about it saying almost exactly that in
a book from a pre-release developers class. I think the place
I heard it was at one of those satellite-video promotions that
were done around the country before NT was introduced.
>[snip]
>> >http://www.opengroup.org/comsource/
>> >
>> >Why isn't this an open standard? Is it just the
>> >lack of design-by-committee?
>>
>> What's open about it?
>
>The *name*! It's the *Open* Group!
>
>But seriously; why isn't this a standard? If you mean
>to say "its not a standard because its not open";
>then please tell me what it means to be "open", and
>why it matters.
There are different types of standards. One is mostly to
assure that consenting adults know what they are getting
into when they agree to do something privately. Another is
for public interaction. The Open Group fits in the first
category. However, something can be open without being a
standard by simply making a reference version available without
unacceptable restrictions on copying or use.
>> I suspect it will have the
>> same fate Motif would have had if it had been
>> offered commercially after better alternatives
>> already existed with free implementations.
>
>What fate would that be, then? Motif tanked pretty
>hard as it is. Could it be worse?
Actually Motif started out pretty good, being included
in most X distributions packaged for or with commercial
systems. However, as free X distributions came around,
the different copying/use restrictions became a problem
and if there had been any less restricted usable alternatives
earlier it would have been worse.
>[snip]
>> >".. should generate standard-conforming HTML" just amounts
>> >to "no new features- it makes MS's competitors look bad"
>>
>> It makes correctly working browsers look bad. A user
>> no longer has the choice of continuing to use these other
>> correctly working browsers.
>
>"Correctly" for you, as always, means "standard conforming,
>no extensions".
It is irrelevant if your browser has extensions, but publically
available web pages should not break standards-conforming
browsers.
>And they *do* have the choice of using other browsers like
>that; they just aren't as good. But that MS should be brought
>down to their level hardly seems reasonable.
On a private MS-only net, anyone can do anything they want.
On the internet, having pages that do not display correctly
is bad, particularly when this is a side effect of using
a development tool and not intended by the author. This
deception does not meet the 'consenting adults' test and comes
closer to outright fraud.
>> >"...should generate real java" is nonsensicle; Java
>> >compilers emit .class files, or executables, or something,
>> >not more Java.
>>
>> It fails to work under correctly operating JVM's. A user
>> can no longer choose to use those JVM's.
>
>Again, I don't see why MS shouldn't be allowed to
>create Windows-specific development tools;
They can and do. They just shouldn't be allow to call
something java when the byte-code generated isn't. Why
bother with the pretense of portability with byte-code
for something that will only run on one CPU/OS anyway?
Also, if it is allowed to touch native methods not bounded
by the expected java sandbox security it shouldn't be
allowed in applets anyway.
>I think that Sun's efforts to prevent this has cost Java
>one of its more influential supporters. It's too bad.
With support like that, they don't need any enemies.
>Java coulda been a contendah. :D
If MS hadn't killed it...
>> >"...should make it as handy to use as exchange address-book
>> >services" is just weird; I don't know if it means that MS shouldn't
>> >try to go beyond what LDAP offeers, or that they should
>> >kludge LDAP to do what they want.
>>
>> It is a lookup and doen't need a kludge. While a user can
>> still use LDAP instead of exchange, it is unecessarily
>> inconvenient.
>
>What you said was that they should keep their own product
>at the same level as LDAP- or else the other way around,
>and it's not clear to me what you meant.
It is a simple lookup and there is no reason to make the LDAP
version take more user steps than local files or the exchange
directory service - unless perhaps it is to punish people for using
a product not sold by MS.
>[snip]
>> >They *don't*?
>> >
>> >Surely they dominance in some markets- like the Linux
>> >compiler market- is just overwhelming.
>>
>> And how does this compare to the number of seats using
>> visual c++?
>
>No idea, but that's a different market, one with substantially
>different needs.
I suppose most of the visual c++ crowd doesn't compile custom-tuned
kernels very often, but I don't see how the application programming
needs would be different.
>> Or encouraged to use MFC?
>
>MFC is not comparable; it is just a class library, and it
>does not use any language extensions.
Can source using MFC be expected to compile and run on
other platforms? If not, how is this any different from
using (say) the alloca() extension of gcc?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 5 Jul 2000 11:07:09 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 05:09:13 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1 Jul 2000 12:47:14 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <QP675.278$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> >Shock Boy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>Um, if you bothered to read my post, you'ld have seen that I installed NT4.0 in
>a dual boot system which came preloaded with
>>> >>Win95OSR2.1, which was then upgraded toWin98.
>>> >>
>>> >>And only a moron thinks that reformatting and reinstall of the OS is necessary
>to go from Fat32 to Fat16. You can convert a Fat32
>>> >>formatting to Fat16 without doing that. It was very straightforward, intuitive
>and easy to accomplish. Especially since I had very
>>> >>little experience on the PC side, having been almost exclusively Mac prior to
>getting a PC.
>>> >
>>> >Do you do the conversion with win95 or NT? It wasn't intuitive
>>> >enough for me to find the program that does it.
>>>
>>> Partition Magic can do it - from 32 to 16. Built-in OS tools in 98
>>
>>Since when did Partition Magic become a part of the basic support
>>software included by Microsloth????
>
>It isn't. I haven't stated it is. Please re-read the (entire) quoted
>text.
I'm still waiting for the answer from the original poster who
said it was straighforward and intuitive. I don't consider
going out to look for third party software to be either
straightforward or intuitive, but maybe that comes naturally
to people who only use MS systems.
>>The fact is, Microsoft doesn't even support their own shit properly.
>>
>>[And *smelly* shit, it is]
>
>Going from FAT32 to FAT16, you'd expect them to support that? C'mon -
>it isn't as if anyone would ever need to do that, so why should MS
>support it?
You need it if you want NT to install, even as a dual-boot configuration
on a different drive. I'd expect anyone doing program development
to have needed a setup like that for testing.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:17:06 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:39:32 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Because of hardware that doens't follow the PnP standards.
>
> Feh. That's *too* easy. Why is it, then, that a piece of hardware that
> resolutely fails to install and configure under Windows (no idea
> whether or not it "follows PnP standards") is capable of being
> installed flawlessly, in one hit, on the same machine under Linux?
Luck. It works in both directions.
ISA "PnP" hardware is a crap shoot. Always has been, always will be. The
only exception to this rule IME is the original SB16, which is detected and
installed flawlessly in ever OS I've ever tried (that supports it).
> The
> hardware in question, BTW, was a Creative AWE32 and a Pace modem.
The former of which I know will installed fine under Win95, once you have
the drivers.
> If a bunch of h8ck3r g33ks can get it to work, why on earth cannot
> Microsoft?
If I'm not mistaken the AWE32 was released after Win95, so it's quite
understandable it would have problems with that. I've personally witnessed
them install flawlessly under Win98, so I know it's not a problem there.
The Pace modem might be a problem. Again, it's not Microsoft's
responsibility to support hardware. *Especially* broken hardware (although
they tend to go out of their way to support broken software and hardware,
for the sake of market share).
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 16:07:28 GMT
In article <8jvjds$2cvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> It proves that you have (and likely had) no interest in making it work
> at all.
Huh? How does it prove that conclusion? You're making this up as you go
along.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 16:11:46 GMT
In article <8jvhnt$2b3b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
> Now if you concede that your case where you managed to hang kfm
> wasn't 'Linux' failing, or that 'Most' apps don't crash under
> Linux, we might be making progress...
I never said 'most' apps crash or don't crash on Linux.
As for Linux failing, I'm still waiting to see people stop using terms
like WinDoze or LoseDos. Or to stop making statements like "Linux is 3
times faster than Windows" without pointing out what they really meant
to say was "Linux is three times faster than Windows for a specific set
of tests".
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 16:15:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> You are the one saying "Linux lags behind Windows". How is anyone
> >> supposed to know what you mean by "windows". And how is someone
> >> supposed to know by "Linux" you mean Unix desktops??
> >
> >I mean Linux not UNIX. I said Linux, did I not? I am evaluating
Linux,
> >not other UNIX's. I stand by what I say: "Linux lags behind Windows".
>
> You lack sufficient knowlegde to make this evaluation. Nor is it
> reasonable to take your comparison out of the context of desktops, as
> your statement does.
I give up. I'm not getting anywhere in this.
You are incorrect - I have sufficient knowledge to make this
evalutation. End of story.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 16:21:07 GMT
In article <8jvjfi$2cvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> Avoid questions?
>
> What about the post where all of YOUR lies were exposed?
>
> I didnt notice a response to that, pete. Your credibility is zero.
Quite often I don't bother to reply when I realise I am talking to a
brick wall. Otherwise we end up with endless replies going nowhere fast.
Charlie on the other hand makes great statements but never bothers to
put any substance to them.
I mean, all I'm asking him to do is justify the statement that Windows
2000 is not based on Windows NT technology. Where does he get such
knowledge from?
In any case I don't care if you think my credibility is zero. That's
your problem, you deal with it.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 05 Jul 2000 12:38:02 -0400
Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the first case the BBC used to broadcast many of the large
> sporting events to the entire population, as a "public service". When
> Sky came along the spend huge amounts of money in acquiring TV rights,
> and then selling subscriptions to them as loss leaders. Nowadays if
> you want to watch many of these events then you have to pay for
> multiple subscriptions.
In other words, the sporting leagues realized that they could make
extra money by charging television viewers for the privilege of seeing
games, instead of allowing them to be broadcast for free. That seems
fine to me. Why should someone have the right to demand that others
give away their services?
> The point remains though that it was not consumer choice at
> all. It was just the economic power of one company. Nor was it the
> activity of competition, and the free market as it was a loss leader.
Consumers are not permitted to choose the price at which things they
buy are sold, because that choice would be zero. The choice of the
consumer is what to buy, and whether to buy it. It is a case where
someone who was giving something away decided to begin charging for
it. There is nothing wrong with that, despite the fact that the
former recipients are annoyed.
> No. It was a situation where our Prime Minister decided that
> she was going to change things, and use the police as a political
> weapon, and extreme force to ensure that she got her way. The
> Metropolitian police has a unparallelled reputation for violence and
> thuggery, and they were used extensively during that period of our
> history for crushing dissent violently.
I don't know the events involved, so I can't say whether you are
correct or not. The good news is that unprovoked use of government
violence against peaceful protesters tends to spawn backlashes
that overturn the status quo. That certainly happened in the States
during the civil rights movement.
> It may be true that government by the noisiest is not a
> terribly good idea. As it happens I agree. But I also think that
> government by the richest is an equally bad idea, and by and large
> that is what we have at the moment.
I disagree that that is what we have.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 02:47:25 +1000
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> So why doesn't Linux have IRQ problems?
You're not going to seriously try and claim Linux doesn't have IRQ problems,
are you ? Even most of the more rabid Linux advocates aren't *that* dumb.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
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: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 16:42:41 GMT
On Mon, 3 Jul 2000 20:31:54 GMT, Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 18:00:36 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:
[deletia]
>> Now, say for a minute you know nothing of PCL. You just get
>> ghostscript drivers and dvi drivers. Printer still works and you
>> don't care if it is PCL, raster pixmap or some other proprietary
>> protocol - the dvi and ghostscript drivers cover that. Oops! That's
>> EXACTLY how "Winprinters" work, except in this case I guess it would
>> be a "Linprinter".
>
>Hmm. And a OS2printer, Winprinter, Unixprinter, ...
...and an AtariPrinter...
>
>Ghostscript and TeX are available for a lot of platforms.
[deletia]
Infact, a printer that is supported by Ghostscript is more
of a UniPrinter...
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Gene Kimzey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Anyone actually using Linux for DTP?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:34:31 -0600
Dear Folks,
I am considering being the editor for a non-profit newsletter. The
requirements include (among others):
"a word processing or publishing program for generating the newsletter."
"Microsoft Access, Word and Excel for the bulk mailing forms, mailing
database and labels."
"Quicken or other bookkeeping program for tracking finances."
Now, I am pretty sure Linux and related software can theoretically do
this. In fact I've already investigated Star Office 5.2, and GNU Cash
and both seem up to the task. My questions are these:
1. Is there anyone out actually using Linux and related software for
monthly production of an 8-10 page newsletter?
2. Is there anyone out there who is using Star Office or similar program
to maintain and printout out labels from a mailing data base on a
production basis?
3. Is there someone out there who is actually using GNU Cash or similar
to run the basic finances of a small business?
If anybody does, please tell us about difficulties and successes. I
would like to be the editor but not at the cost of having to buy a whole
new system with Microsoft Office installed. I am hoping I can do this on
my 486 AMD-133 with 32 megs of Ram.
Gene Kimzey
Rio Rancho, NM
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
