Linux-Advocacy Digest #756, Volume #27 Tue, 18 Jul 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Re: I just don't buy it (Paul Gresham)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: This thread has needed a new name from the beginning (Yannick)
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (OSguy)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Craig Kelley)
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... (Tim Kelley)
Re: Mouse Wars (was Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (ZnU)
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Pan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:01:06 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8l22th$94$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8l1un0$dob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Payed" is much more logical than "paid". Just try to *logically*
> explain why "shure" is a misspelling.
To understand the root for the illogical spelling rules of the english
language we have to consider the source of the language as well as the
traditions and culture that surrounded it. Logic was never a part of the
development of the spelling rules of the english language.
English is a large and rich and evolving language with multiple ways to say
the same thing--all with equal validity. The English language has an
inheritance from the Picts, Celts, Vikings, Romans, Normans, Angelo, Saxons,
Jutes, Francs, and many other peoples. These sources provides us a large
pallete of words, phrases, and idioms to select from. Many meanings have
multiple ways of being stated and many words also have multiple
meanings--all valid.
We may never know what the first language of Britian was. So let us start
with the proto gaelic of the Picts and Celts. Then came the Romans to
Britonium (sp?) and their introduction of Latin. It was the Roman presence
in Britian that created the sepperate identities of England and Scotland.
Latin was then the proper language of Britian and the prior language was
used amoung the lower classes and for daily conversation. Over time other
languages were introduced into Britian by the various barbarian contacts
such as through invasions by the Jutes, Angelo, Saxons, and other contacts
like those with the Francs, Goths, and Vandals. In the end the Saxons
becase supreme over the area that is now known as England. Then came the
Vikings conquest of most of Britian and their language.
By the time that the Viking lords were about pushed out of Britian along
came the Normans who were a more civilized version of the Vikings. Of
course I am now talking about the Battle of Hastings in 1066 under the
command of the Duke of Normandy, who became known as William the Conqueror.
Along with the Normans came a proto french language with nordic influence.
There were also Germanic influences in the language and others as well.
Through all those invasions and other influences, Latin remaind the primary
language for written communications and for communications between the
speakers of different languages even though by then most latin speakers were
speaking dog latin by then. Latin of that time was not too different from
how English is used now. But during that time the proto english was an oral
language. When it evolved into old english it started to become a
writtenlanguage as well. But there were no standard spelling and each
author "wood rite tha words lik he thot waz rite".
When that became too much of a problem, the crown commissioned the
development of the standard speller an dictionary for the language of the
English. Which is the source of the terms "the King's English" and "the
Queen's English". The person who was appointed to the task was not a great
linguist, so he wrote the dictionary by examining various documents written
in "english" and gathered spelling samples from those documets. Although
rules were established as a part of that effort they were not applied as
they should have. The mishmash of spelling rules the we have to live with
today got started that way.
It was as a result of that person's working style that has given: us three
spelling for the sound of "2", which are "two", "too", and "to", as well as
"book" and "cook" instead of "bwk" and "cwk"; why "sure" is correct and
"shure" is incorrect. It is by violating his own spelling rules that has
established "paid" for the past tense of "pay" instead of "payed"
Since that time the language has continued to evolve in some cases dividing
into very simmilar sub languages which is my "color" and "colour" are both
correct as are "grey" and "gray".
> You ignored the posts earlier in the thread about people who process
> things differently than us (dyslexic) and I am sure our multilingual
> peers could provide more forceful response in languages you don't
> have even enough grasp to misuse.
I could, but I don't like to use that kind of language in any language.
However, I will close with mixed language statement:
( ( 2 * b ) || !( 2 * b ) ) tolerant is the question.
------------------------------
From: Paul Gresham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 04:06:29 +0800
Actually Microsoft are trailing behind Sun, the whole point behind Star
Office is that Sun can start the Star Office Portal. There's a recording of
a web cast on the Sun main site about the benefits of using such systems.
The basic idea is that information, not money is rapidly becoming the most
valuable resource, and the ability to transfer information is therefore
paramount, as is the security of the information. Sun's position is this
(and this is why they give away staroffice), You trust your money to a
bank, and yet information is as valuable, if not more so, so you should
trust your information to people who can manage it for you (i.e. Sun).
Now supposing you wrote a letter to your lawyer about your divorce, and
you're not at home, not near a fax machine, perhaps having a picnic on your
weekend visit with your kids, but you need to re-read that letter, and
perhaps fax it to a different lawyer (one you are obviously paying to work
weekends, so time wasted is costing you $$). You could dial up to the web,
view the doc with your palm top, and then email or e-fax it to anywhere in
the world. This is possible today right? Yes it is. Now office portals are
touted as being the next big thing ... Information Banks.
I think if you guys can stop being cynical about M$ (lets face it NONE of
us would trust them to manage anything important anyway) and look at the
whole picture, a secure environment for all your documents, stored
electronically and encrypted, with all the benefits of regular backups,
kept in a controlled condition environment on mirrred disks, is a good
thing, and something we cannot afford (genarally speaking) at home. On top
of that some document management system, easy document retrieval, i.e.
finding the seperation papers when you need them for court etc seems again
like a good thing. Being able to search for this stuff from any location,
home, office, picnic in a field, and then send the documents in a secure
and garaunteed way, so there is no need to take a copy, get it is
certified, signed, blah blah also seems like a good thing .... Where are
the deeds to your home? can you look at them, or will you have to pay a
solicitor to write a letter to your mortgage lender, to then pay a fee, to
view the deeds to argue about that neighbor who is erecting a fence so that
he gains an inch of your land?
Think about it, if you are diligent and professional computer users, then
you will see many benefits of sharing document space in a properly managed
environment. Of course Microsoft thinking that they can offer this service
is like asking my dog to look after package of pork sausages and not eat
them, after all they are legally recognised as a dishonest business, if
they were a bank, they'd have to close down.
Regards
Gresh
Ian Pulsford wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There has been some discussion about M$ .NET. I just don't see the
> advantages of it from a home user perspective or a business perspective.
>
> 1. Is a home user really going to want to store private documents on
> some remote server?
> 2. Why would I want to log onto the internet everytime I want to write a
> short letter or note?
> 3. Why clog up internet bandwidth more with stuff that really belongs on
> the home PC/business file server?
> 4. What company would trust strorage of information to a server on the
> internet?
> 5. Hard drive capacity gets bigger every year, no need for
> 'internetwork' disk space.
> 6. Intel, AMD, etc want to sell faster expensive processors, not cheap
> thin client gear.
> 7. Everyone already has an office suite of some sort
> 8. What can .NET do that an intranet + an internet gateway cannot do?
>
> Plus probably loads of other reasons.
>
> Of course, in the future internet bandwidth will increase with
> technology, and everyone in a modern country may have a permanent
> connection via cable just like a phone service or TV aerial, but where
> is the advantage of keeping information/applications remotely as opposed
> to retaining them locally?
>
> The only 'advantage' I can see is tricking the PHB tools of microsoft
> into buying M$ .NET and making extra cash for M$. Of course SUN et al.
> have to push their equivalent technologies. So everyone rushes towards
> an idea that seems to have little real merit.
>
> IanP
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:09:28 -0600
"Victor Schneider, Ph. D." wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:49:15 -0600,
> John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:36:24 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Steve Mading wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Tell me, did you "Win" with the winmodem?
> >> >A) Yes
> >> >B) No
> >> >
> >> >If the answer is B, then it is a LOSEmodem.
> >>
> >> I think the term UNmodem works much better...
> >
> >In keeping with the lastest advertising fads, I suggest:
> >
> >Modem!Not
>
> If that were all that is wrong with Linux, there would be no problem.
> But, Linux doesn't support the latest sound cards fully,
Neither does Windows. The "latest" sound cards only work in high end
editing stations (some *VERY* nice hardware, and my ears aren't all that
good!). But if you meant: "The newest Windows sound cards are not
supported under Linux", then you'd be correct.
If/When the interface specifications are released, they'll be
supported. Since most hardware companies do not write Linux drivers,
and most hardware companies are very leery of releasing their hardware
interface specifications . . . Linux drivers always come later. Blame
the hardware vendors, as they are the only ones that can change that
fact.
I'm curious as to what specific task(s) need the latest sound card,
though . . . just curious, you understand, but I've never seen a PC
sound card used for much more than games, and playing MP3's.
What do you do with these high end sound cards?
> or supports
> them without the midi synthesizer interface, which is a "win", i. e.,
Ah, MIDI. Is that what you were looking for?
The intersection set of Linux programmers and MIDI users is relatively
small, so MIDI is an under represented part of the software market. I
recommend a Power Mac, if you need a computer for this kind of thing.
Linux software for this kind of stuff will come as soon as a dedicated
musician/artistic type wants it badly enough to work with a programmer
on it.
> software, interface that obsoletes completely the old OPL synthesizer.
> And, the new X-Windows desktops are ridiculous space hogs that do
> nothing but add twenty seconds to the bootup time for X-Windows and
> consume half a gb. of wasted disk space.
Now, how does this differ from Windows or the Mac?
GUI's are expensive, and that's a fact.
> If you do a Linux system with
> the latest X-Windows and only an fvwm-98 setup, it fits into 200 mb. of
> disk space, complete with C compilers and complete text system. If you
> use kde or gnome,
Not everybody does, you know.
> you get a bunch of worthless clones of Windows freeware
> internet appliances, most of which are still quite buggy or inadequate by
> comparison with the Windows freeware.
Pure opinion.
> Most of this freeware, which is not
> MS based runs under the Wine emulator, but not without some problems. In
> other words, it is absurd to consider Linux-X-Windows as an alternate to
> Windows on high-end systems with the latest and best sound boards and video
> cards.
I run Linux on a Voodoo 3 board . . . how much higher end did you want
to go? Voodoo 5? That's coming, you know . . . as for Sound Stuff . .
. I'm willing to write the code and drivers, if some sound-enthusiastic,
musical type is willing to describe the requirements, write the
specifications and do the testing.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 17:19:25 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >Allow me to refresh your memory:
> >> >
> >> >" But if you're hanging around just to collect a paycheck, dude, then
> >> >I'd recommend suicide. We could use the space you're taking up, and
> >> >someone who wants to act like a civilized person wants to use it."
> >>
> >> Touche. I had presumed you weren't actually hanging around the planet
> >> just to collect a paycheck. Are you saying I was in error?
> >
> >I had my doubts about whether you assumed I was or not, and in the
> >reply to that message I asked "are you talking about me?". You refused
> >to answer.
>
> Perhaps I didn't see the message, or merely chose not to answer. I
> think "refused to answer" is just another insinuation based on an
> argument from ignorance.
You replied to that specific message, but deleted my question. That
looks
to me like a refusal to answer the quetion. Choosing not to answer is
the
same as refusing to answer, unless I'm missing some subtlety you surely
should be happy to explain.
> >If I called you a orangutan that copulates with dead chimpanzees, the
> >fact of you not having red hair would not make it any less insulting.
>
> I suppose that is self-evident, though I clearly have no idea why you
> think it would be an issue.
Because of the obvious parallelism?
> Your apparent insistence that making money
> is some sort of higher purpose was the subject at issue, not my general
> appearance or sexual preferences, neither of which have come up lately,
> AFAIK.
You really should stop putting words in my mouth. I have given enough
proof in my life and contributions to diverse causes of my relatively
low appreciation for money, and need not defend here.
> I think maybe you need to consider that some statements are intended to
> be taken literally, and some are not, and often they occur in a
> staggering variety of combinations in human languages. If you took
> offense at my suggestion of suicide as an optimal service to society if
> you believe making money is an end in itself, you have obviously
> mis-classified it. The category in which it rightfully belongs,
> however, literal or rhetorical, I will leave for you to determine. So
> you tell me, "Am I talking about you?"
I take offense at the suggestion of doing many bad things to people
who fit many descriptions I don't fit. That's not unusual.
Throwing an insult under the thin disguise of an if, is, let's say,
disingenuous. In principle it assumes that it is correct to insult
those who fit the condition. It's just a cheap rethoric trick.
As for the final question, if you don't know who you are talking about,
that's your own problem.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:58:11 -0400
JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:39748271$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Mark Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >> Mark Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >>
>> >> >History has shown that there is no group consistently worse at this
>sort of
>> >> >thing than a government. Government may correctly provide some
>oversight to
>> >> >business, but when the government itself gets involved in business you
>can
>> >> >bet the bank on failure. Nobody does business worse than government.
>> >>
>> >> The list of failures from government is far smaller then the list of
>blunders
>> >> and failures from business -- and even then, the list of government
>failures
>> >> is often one of things the market place didn't do or couldn't do in the
>first
>> >> place.
>>
>> >Even a cursory reading of history should convince you otherwise.
>>
>> No. A cursory reading results in knee-jerk answers, as you have shown. A
>> thoughtful, reflective reading leads one to analysis and different
>answers.
>> -- Is government perfect? No. People aren't either and certainly not
>people
>> driven only by the profit motive -- which you are suggesting would do a
>better
>> job on everything if left alone.
>Letting the market create winners and losers isn't "perfect" but it's the
>best thing man has come up with so far. Insert the government into the
>equation, who's sole misguided solution is to strip the OS of any extra
>applications and give the consumer "less" for the same or more money isn't a
>logical answer.
Lets say we do nothing -- That gives us a M$ monopoly over society -- since
the computer and the information controlled with it will, in the future
determine how government and business and society work.
Get over it. M$ is not going to be allowed to control the future. It is going
to be broken up. Get use to the idea.
>Microsoft won't lose anything in the deal, as a matter of fact they will
>probably increase their revenue because of it.
So? M$ will probably need it to pay all the civil suits that are going t
come.
>Where in history has the government been successful at running a business?
>Now they want to help the poor stupid ignorant consumer get the most for his
>buck in computer software. People just weren't making the correct choices on
>their own.
You have a phony issue here. Government has been very suscessful in some
business -- usually the ones that free-enterprise couldn't figure out how to
handle. In any event, the government is not proposing to run M$. They are
just getting ready to make sure M$ doesn't run everyone else -- any longer.
Do you work from M$?
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: This thread has needed a new name from the beginning
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:06:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Yannick in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> [...]
> >Until some recent time, *nix never crashed due to bad drivers
because they
> >weren't any drivers for any strange hardware provided by 3rd
parties. On Windows
> >we have a bunch of horrible legacy, of people writing drivers
without knowing how to,
> >etc... (read on)
>
> That's a complete fabrication.
>
Has to be proved...
> [...]
> >I don't know much about what happens for Windows 9x systems running
for a very long time.
>
> I do. I call it "reg rot".
>
When I say "for a very long time", I mean "for days without rebooting",
I'm not speaking of the time between reboots.
> >Although I spend the major part of my free time on my computer, I do
not use it all the
> >time, I switch it off when I don't use it for more than an hour,
which means that "rebooting on
> >a daily basis" has no meaning for me.
>
> This isn't a personal issue; it doesn't matter if you just like seeing
> the startup logo screen every twenty minutes or so, so you power cycle
> constantly, or if you need your PC for more than leisure activities,
and
> need it running for weeks at a time. You personal situation is not
the
> issue.
You'll notice, however, that for people who need an OS for days, MS
provides a nice OS which was called NT and is now 2000.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:43:11 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well, I have played with Linux for three years now, and I must be
> honest - I can not wait for the Delphi port to hit the market. I
> can understand the arguments of coding for speed, and lets be honest,
> RAD tools usually drag a lot of code that will never be used.
You've mentioned 1 of the 2 problems that I have with the RAD tools. The
other problem is that although the program appears to do what the
developer wanted, in reality it isn't doing it correctly, and here comes
the bugs....but the tool has hidden the bug from the programmer. So now
we have a 'mainstream' program that has bugs that truly nobody knows how
to fix (at least with the RAD tools) along with the bloatware of unused
code. Sounds just like Windows.
> Anyway, with ever faster computers I believe the difference between a
> RAD app and a "vi" written app will be very small (speed wise).
Sad that faster computers have to 'mask' the difference, rather than
having the RAD tools generate efficient code.
> So, what I want to say is this: I believe RAD tools for Linux is a
> must - especially Delphi and Builder (maybe also VB?). There are plenty
> of M$ programmers out there playing with Linux, and now they too will
> have tools to write some great apps for Linux. I belief we should see a
> huge app explosion within two years after Delphi is available on Linux.
I just hope we still see intelligent programmers still around developing
on Linux....programmers who know how to keep a 'check' on their tools.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18 Jul 2000 14:24:43 -0600
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel) writes:
> > > [...]
> > > >Just don't try to print anything and then have your box immediately
> > > >respond; even on our new G4 (which is some seriously cool hardware,
> > > >BTW) the whole machine locks up for a few seconds when you print. Oh,
> > > >and what was that new feature in 9? You could actually use the
> > > >machine while it was copying files? :) Fun stuff.
> > >
> > > I thought that was a new feature in System 7. It was, in fact. But
> > > then, Windows uses the same line of bull.
> >
> > Nope. I have a PowerBase 180 with System 7.5x and it locks the whole
> > thing up while copying a file.
>
> Actually, it doesn't, IIRC. The Finder isn't multi threaded, so the
> Finder become useless while copying. But you can use other programs.
... but you use the finder to switch between programs.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:24:05 -0500
Russell Wallace wrote:
> FAT is one of the very few pieces of software I've ever come across that
> I really trust. I've seen any number of DOS/3.1/W95/W98 machines
> hard-shutdown due to power failures, crashes or whatever in the 12 years
> I've been working with them, and FAT doesn't mind in the least - all
> that happens is any uncommitted data was lost (obviously) and
> CHKDSK/Scandisk sometimes finds some lost sectors (that wouldn't have
> done any harm except waste a little bit of disk space).
The problem with FAt wasn't that it was "unreliable" but that it
has no features to be unreliable. It has too many stupid
limitations, but it's still good for formatting floppies or
something.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mouse Wars (was Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?)
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:19:57 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Rob Hughes wrote, rooting for mice:
>
> > Logitech.
>
> In my (painful) experience, a trackball is much,
> much easier on... what's it called again, that nerve?
> The one that goes through the centre of your wrist.
> At first, it's difficult to adapt to a track ball,
> sure. But since I replace my mouse with a track
> ball, I never have my arm lock up in pain. I admit
> that a mouse is somehow easier to use, but it is
> not worth the pain. How long have I been using
> a track ball? More than a year now. No regrets.
Much of that depends on the model of trackball you use and your situations.
I have used a variety of pointing devices and in the end I also consider a
good track ball the best for general use. From my experiece have found the
best trackball design to be the kind that is molded to your hand shape you
place your hand on with your the fingers sitting on the buttons and move the
ball with your thumb. The worst design for trackballs are the kind you have
to move the ball with the palm of your hand making you relocate the buttons
each time you need to use one.
The WORST design for a pointing device I have ever encountered is the
wireless mouse. I know of a shop that used a number of them each set to a
different frequency to reduce interference from one unit to another. At
night the janitors would often toos them all together while cleaning the
desk, then put them back onto the desks. Often not on the same desks as
they came from.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:30:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel) writes:
> > > > [...]
> > > > >Just don't try to print anything and then have your box
> > > > >immediately
> > > > >respond; even on our new G4 (which is some seriously cool
> > > > >hardware,
> > > > >BTW) the whole machine locks up for a few seconds when you print.
> > > > >Oh,
> > > > >and what was that new feature in 9? You could actually use the
> > > > >machine while it was copying files? :) Fun stuff.
> > > >
> > > > I thought that was a new feature in System 7. It was, in fact.
> > > > But
> > > > then, Windows uses the same line of bull.
> > >
> > > Nope. I have a PowerBase 180 with System 7.5x and it locks the whole
> > > thing up while copying a file.
> >
> > Actually, it doesn't, IIRC. The Finder isn't multi threaded, so the
> > Finder become useless while copying. But you can use other programs.
>
> ... but you use the finder to switch between programs.
IIRC you can still start a program from the Apple menu and maybe even
use the applications menu while the Finder is copying. It's been a
while, but I remember figuring out a way to switch to another app.
--
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: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:30:15 -0700
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > VB is much more than a scripting language. Are we going to compare what
> > tcl\tk offers linux to what VB offers windows? Please. What planet are you
> > people on?
>
> Please elaborate.
>
> Look at [perl|python]/gtk as well.
Indeed. And Perl tk, which is also phenomenal for rapidly scripting
widgets. What it took me several weeks to learn how to do in c/gtk
(possibly because I currently suck at both c and c++), I picked up in
Perl in about 5 minutes.
I haven't even messed around with tcl yet, but why bother when perl and
python are so easy? Let's not pretend that vb is as multipurpose as
perl, even forgetting the fact that perl runs on everything from linux
to win32 to solaris to bsd to an os390 mainframe.
--
Pan
www.la-online.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
