Linux-Advocacy Digest #31, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Drazen Kacar)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Josiah Fizer)
Re: God damm Microsoft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? ("1$Worth")
Re: Slipping away into time. ("Leonardo")
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Drazen Kacar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 27 Jul 2000 17:57:48 GMT
Jay Maynard wrote:
> I've never understood the disdain some folks have for package management.
> What's wrong with letting the computer do things the computer's good at,
> like record-keeping?
Because the computer can fuck-up things in a spectacular way. I'm all for
packaging systems and I put everything I compile in packages (except some
very experimental stuff, which is going to be deleted anyway), but I can
understand the disdain.
Some time ago, when we started using dpkg on Solaris, removal of one
package deleted /bin (which is a symlink to /usr/bin). At that point
shell scripts stopped working. A human would never delete /bin. Packaging
system will, if its conditions are met.
The bug was in the package, which installed files under /bin instead
under /usr/bin. Since /bin symlink was managed by native Solaris packaging
system, dpkg didn't know anything about it and when the last file (managed
by dpkg) under /bin was removed, dpkg removed /bin, too. Using two
package managers which don't know about each other opens a whole new
world of possibilities. :-)
Anyway, after that dpkg got hardcoded rule to never, ever delete a
directory or symlink if it's not under /usr/local.
--
.-. .-. I don't work for my employer.
(_ \ / _)
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:10:11 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:00:40 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> Again, your point is moot and based on the dellusion that
>> originality is a common thing when infact nearly everything
>> is quite derivative. Even the apparently original is usually
>> highly derivative and the creators of it will be quite upfront
>> about their 'borrowing'. (Jobs, Plant)
>
> Okay. So where are some examples of real originality expressed on the
> Linux platform? Those ideas had to come from /somewhere/.
Did you even bother reading what I wrote?
Besides, it's not the 'Linux platform', it's the UNIX platform.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:12:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Sanders
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:09:51 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Drestin Black wrote:
>
>> Writing directly to memory? What BASIC class did YOU take? Not the way I
>> learned it. I NEVER wrote directly to memory from BASIC. GOTOs - what's
>> wrong with properly used GOTOs - do you never use a JMP in assembly? Does
>> this make assembly bad? Original old old basic was not structured or object
>> oriented, You should review VB6 and rethink your comments.
>
> Doesn't: "Let i = 5" write to memeory? Where else does it go?
I don't know about BASIC specifically, but a lot of optimizing
compilers, depending on where 'i' is specifically used, may do
any of the following.
* If 'i' is never used, the assignment never happens, because the
compiler knows that the '5' has no side effects, and that 'i' is
never used, and that therefore this operation is in fact pointless.
A warning may or may not ensue: "warning: unused variable 'i' at
line ...", depending on compiler warning levels, etc.
* If 'i' is used, but not changed or passed by reference (not
const reference), the compiler has the option of changing
any reference to 'i' to a constant in the compiled code,
depending on the code. Presumably, this can result in faster code.
* If 'i' is used and changed, but is not passed by reference or
have the (C/C++ language) '&' operator applied to it, then
'i' might be held in a register, but not stored back into its slot
in memory -- assuming it even was given a slot in memory;
C auto variables (the default if 'static' or 'typedef' aren't
specified) need not be stored on the stack.
* If the assignment happens within a FOR loop, and 'i' is not
changed within that loop or passed by reference (not const reference)
to a function, the compiler has the option of hoisting the
assignment out of the loop, making the assignment happen exactly
once instead of N times, where the compiler presumes N is
a largish number (although it could be zero!).
There are also other optimizations that can happen. Take the
following:
double a[10];
int i;
for(i=0;i<10;i++) a[i] = 0;
Internally, this may result in the creation of a temporary, which
I'll call 'j', which rewrites the for loop in the following
interesting way:
for(i=0,j=0;i<10;i++,j+=sizeof(double))
and then 'a[i] = 0' would be rewritten to use j as an offset; in
many assembler languages, this might be coded someething like
MOV.D _A(r2), #0
or
CLR.D _A(r2)
assuming register r2 contains 'j'. The justification for adding this
temporary is that an addition is cheaper than a multiplication,
since a[i] = *(a+i) = *(double *) ((char *) a + i * sizeof(double))
because of the semantics of C pointer-integer addition. (It's
simpler than it looks; most machines don't support C-style
pointer-integer addition directly, the VAX series being an
interesting exception; pointer addition is more as in Draco, if
anyone remembers that language -- one simply adds the numbers
together, which can lead to bad pointers if one forgets to
multiply by sizeof(double) first, in this case.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:12:58 -0700
JS/PL wrote:
> "Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > > "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8loo9h$30l5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <8lomgp$da$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> kfm isn't distributed as a product. IE was and is and so is
> Windows.
> > > > >
> > > > >IE and Windows are distributed together. IE for Windows is also
> > > distributed
> > > > >seperately, and when installs upgrades parts of the OS.
> > > >
> > > > Everyone who bought Win95 as it was distributed originally
> > > > without IE and paid extra for the separate Plus pack containig
> > > > IE knows this is a lie.
> > >
> > > Why would you buy the Plus Pack? Just type in the fricking MS or
> Netscape
> > > url and download either browser, or press one of the millions of idiotic
> > > buttons that were (for some reason) at the bottom of every single Web
> Page
> > > of that era.
> >
> > You see, the first version of Windows 95 didn't have a web browser. So you
> > couldn't "press one of the millions of idiotic buttons" as you had no way
> to
> > get to the web page
>
> Yes you did, when you signed up for internet access the browser of your
> choice was mailed to your house. If you by chance didn't get a choice from
> your ISP, then within 5 minutes of logging on, you could be downloading your
> choice.
So your saying that Win95 came with a browser because your ISP mailed you one?
By that logic Win95 came with Photoshop seeing as Adobe mailed a copy to me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: God damm Microsoft
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:08:11 GMT
In article <TKZf5.2555$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Outlook uses a common base service of the OS which is being patched,
which
> is why both Outlook and Outlook Express suffer from the same problem.
> Fixing one, fixes both.
>
> But, even so. I don't think you HAVE to reboot. MS often says you
should,
> but that's a default response.
WOW, that's intuitive! Just how is the common users suposed to know when
to reboot and when not to? More MS BS.
>
> "Jeff Silverman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8lpor0$12i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Here are the patch instructions for MS Outlook,
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/download/critical/patch9.htm It
says
> that if you have an older
> > version, you are still vulnerable, but you have to upgrade first and
then
> install the patch. It then
> > refers you to
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/download/default.htm
> which has the list of updates
> > for IE - they have come out with 4 of them in the past 2 months! If
each
> patch takes 10 minutes and
> > I have 50 PCs (which have to reboot), that's 500 minutes or 40+
hours.
> >
> > Because I have to reboot the PCs, I can't do this remotely.
> >
> >
> > Outlook is an application!
> >
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jeff Silverman, PC guy, Linux wannabe, Java wannabe, Software
engineer,
> husband, father etc.
> > See my website: http://www.commercialventvac.com/~jeffs
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:22:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> > Does this mean I could, for example, replace the mouse-driven user
> > interface of GIMP with a command line UI? (I could use that, because
>
> ...now that you mention it: yes.
>
> Do you even look into this stuff in the most cursory manner
> possible before spouting off about it?
Yes, actually I do.
And since you're confident it can be done, please explain how.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:23:39 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> > Okay. So where are some examples of real originality expressed on the
> > Linux platform? Those ideas had to come from /somewhere/.
>
> Did you even bother reading what I wrote?
Yes, actually I did. You're saying that everything is copied. Okay,
then I guess everything implemented on Linux/Unix is just a copy of
something that someone else has already done.
> Besides, it's not the 'Linux platform', it's the UNIX platform.
Okay, cool. It's the Unix platform.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:25:33 +0100
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> "1$Worth" wrote:
> > In summary it would just be refreshing when people would not attack
> > others who are not comfortable with the way things work in Linux. There
> > is already too much FUD in the world.
> >
> > Comments please?
>
> I see the same thing and would like to add this to the argument:
>
> I believe that the 'attacks' on those that do not understand Linux are
> based on retaliation to those that have 'attacked' those of us that do
> understand it. We are told we are idiots for what we know, we are
> ridiculed for having knowledge that they do no posses, we are told we
> are inferior because of our knowledge. Then we are told that we need to
> make our system just like theirs in order for them to use it. Can you
> understand why our reactions aren't always pleasant? For years we have
> been swatted at like flies, and now those same people are begging us to
> make a system just like theirs.
>
> As a counterpoint, we are already seeing the backlash from this action.
> For those of us that considered the requests reasonable, and actually
> tried to make the system more familiar to the people coming from 'that
> other system', we are being told we are copying. We are being told we
> are not 'innovative' (has there ever been a more overused word in
> computing?). We are being told that we are cloning their system and not
> being creative. Yet, the request was that we made our system more like
> theirs. So we did, and were accused of copying. So, yet again we have
> a reason to give a negative reaction.
>
> MS copied (and in some ways improved?) interfaces from those that came
> before. Some of those that came before (including the X interfaces) are
> now taking some of those ideas back and in some cases improving on the
> improvements. And the accusations come flying: copycat geek losers,
> dumbasses can't even think up their own stuff, etc., etc. But we were
> asked, repeatedly, to make a system that would be 'familiar' to Windows
> users so that they could be comfortable with it. What do they really
> want?
>
> I think what it boils down to is people are going to keep bitching about
> it no matter what 'we' (the Linux community/developers) do, so 'we' are
> going to do what we want. Some of us are dedicated to still fullfilling
> the wishes of those that want a familiar "Windows like" inteface. Some
> of us are going to keep using the intefaces we already like. Some of us
> are going to concentrate on other aspects of the system. And some of us
> are going to have a reaction when we are told that we need to make the
> system 'easier to use' because what is really being asked for is a
> Windows clone. This is also why Corel has gotten such a negative
> reaction from some in the Linux crowd. Many Winvocates have claimed for
> years that Linux is just a cheap knockoff of Windows, Corel is doing
> everything in their power to prove those people right.
Corel has done no favours for Linux at this time, and the last thing
that I would like to see is another "windows".
> Some of us people constantly looked down upon by the general public as
> the "geek culture" or counter-culture, liked having an OS that was our
> own. Now, the OS that was our own is going in a direction some of us
> feel isn't right. (I'm kind of borderline on this issue. I know we
> need ease-of-use, but I don't feel that equates to clone-of-Windows.)
> Some of us are moving elsewhere (the BSDs or BeOS or AtheOS). Some of
> us are going to ride the current wave and see what shakes out. Some of
> us are working on truly innovative answers to the ease-of-use ideal.
> Check out Enlightenment as a more traditional approach, or ThreeDSIA as
> a more bleeding edge approach. Enlightenment is a traditional window
> manager that doesn't exactly follow tradition. Very eye-candy and
> resource-intensive. Yet not anywhere near a copy of Windows.
> Completely different from Windows interfaces. And with ThreeDSIA, we
> are talking about an entire shift in philosophy. The idea is that
> interfaces should be 3D, and no longer restricted to the
> folders/files/2D screen. You actually "walk" through a 3D evironment,
> see folders as hallways and rooms, and files are objects within these
> hallways and rooms. You may run into other 'people' (called avatars I
> believe) in these hallways and rooms and can 'speak' with them (through
> chat) in passing. It is a completely new and idealistic attempt at the
> GUI interface. I hope it takes off. It is a very exciting concept, and
> I've played with the software a bit. Very nice. It's got a ways to go
> though.
>
> Anyway, you will not get people to stop complaining about the
> ease-of-use problem for the forseeable future. Some will argue that it
> is needed more, some less. Some will argue you need to work on
> Windows-alikes, some say something different. Some want traditional
> window managers, some want something completely new and different. In
> short, the Linux community is not a single entity working on a common
> goal. It is a lot of people, each working at their own goal. Sometimes
> these goals coincide with something that someone else wants, but it
> isn't through design. You won't end the ease-of-use issue. And you
> won't end the backlash brought on by that issue. I don't believe anyone
> argues against ease-of-use, but many argue against what is thought of as
> easy-to-use. Windows isn't equal to easy-to-use, yet that seems to be
> what most people are clamouring for. We all tried to get away from
> Windows (well, most of us) and moved to Linux. Now all the problems we
> moved to get away from are being re-invented on our chosen platform (see
> Corel Linux and Corel Office with the WINE underbelly). There's going
> to be a backlash to that. Only time will tell how it shakes out.
Thanks for your comments.
The thing is that I don't accept that *if* there is a common standard
(risky to say I know) for GUI that makes a Gnu-Linux system easy to use
that it logically follows that:
1. The standard will be like windows (we already have windows thanks)
2. This standard will mean that we are precluded from the use of our own
window manager or xserver or technologyX.
3. This "standard" means that we have to follow it.
Let's just say for argument that there is a windows like interface that
comes with easy to use configuration. Let's call this interface "KDE 5"
and assume that this will cater for all the people who are stuck on
windows and wish to transfer to Linux. I don't see that this will
prevent me from running Gnome, or you from running the fab 3d thingy.
BUT it means that we have some type of standard of integration and ease
of use that allows people to use Linux.
So here is the crux: Unix likes to have no policies, or rather as few as
absolutely possible. A fine aim but not for some issues. Take the age
old problem of printing, or as I mentioned, the reliance on only text
file configuration. Why should a "standard" or at least a concerted
effort in the same direction mean that it will take anything away from
how things are done already (in terms of nerd-access)? Surely it will
just add to the experience of those who otherwise would never use Linux?
There can be many standards, but lets make sure that they all take the
user (and programmer) into account. Duplication of efforts may seem
wasteful, but like evolution. it allows choice which I guess is why most
of use choose Linux.
I agree that the issues are complex and indeed neer-religious to some,
most windows advocates are more concerned with Linux acting like windows
rather than producing a "better" OS. And I agree ease of use does NOT
means acting like windows.
p.s. Enlightenment is great and I'll check out ThreeDSIA!
------------------------------
From: "Leonardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Slipping away into time.
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 21:16:49 +0300
Reply-To: "Leonardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Charlie,
You are just so full of it...
--L
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've been making some more observations and learning yet another Linux
> OS.
>
> It's been pretty well known, for the last couple of years, that FreeBSD
> is probably the fastest
> server OS there is. Linux is significantly slower than FreeBSD. NT
> was just about tied
> with Linux 2.2 kernels, falling behind only a slight measure. Then
> slightly trailing or leading
> were the other OS's. Mostly trailing.
>
> The problem with FreeBSD is they have the fast kernel but, they rely on
> GNU licensed software for
> just about everything else. It's practically Linux with a FreeBSD
> kernel and a slightly different install
> mechanism.
>
> The problem with Microsoft OS is the cost, the poor performance, poor
> reliability, the fact the
> government will break them up,,,, it goes on,,, total lack of security
> in design,,, on and on and on....
> To design a corporate system using Microsoft as the centerpiece in this
> day and age is foolish.
> It's so foolish a notion that even some corporate executives are
> beginning to see the light in switching.
> Imagine how bright a light that must be.
>
> In the last month, I've switched to Debian 2.2 [Potato]. Potato isn't
> out yet. It's still a beta.
> It's rumored to be out sometime in mid August. Yet, I found the Dselect
> packaging system superior
> to the RPM based system found in Red Hat and the others. I found the
> quality of the distribution much
> higher than say Suse 6.4. I found all the tools readily available to me
> without encumbrances.
> And the cost of installing this OS over my Suse distribution was only 1
> hour of my time.
>
> Then I loaded the new HELIX GNOME desktop. What a shining light it is.
> In this desktop I have
> all the functionality of Windows 2000 for free. And best of all,
> Dselect knows to go to the Helix
> FTP site to perform any upgrades Helix offers. It's all automatic. I
> don't have to do anything.
>
> One final note on Dselect. I merely have to run it once a week to allow
> it to upgrade all the packages
> on my system. Dselect log's into FTP sites and retrieves information
> about specific packages I have
> installed which newer software versions are available for. Dselect also
> alerts me to the presence of
> new software never before offered. Then Dselect automatically
> install's/upgrades what I tell it to do.
> I don't have to personally download anything first then install it
> myself. Dselect performs all this
> for me automatically. Dselect even runs the scripted configuration
> setup's for me on those packages
> which require options. I merely answer the package setup options and
> I'm free of editing files.
> It makes system upgrades and maintenance very easy.
>
> Finally, we come to the Kernel. I've put the new 2.4 test kernel on.
> The 2.4 test kernel is hardly anything
> like the 2.2 in performance. It's much faster. Linux is knocking at
> FreeBSD's door.
>
> There will probably never be another showdown between Microsoft and
> Linux in the OS department.
> Windows 2000 was a factor slower than NT. And the NEW Linux is
> significantly faster than the OLD Linux. The two OS's are headed in
> opposite directions of the performance spectrum as time goes on.
> Linux just keeps getting faster while Microsoft just keeps edging it's
> way slower.
>
> Microsoft is still locked in software problems, software not working
> right. Linux on the other hand
> is infinitely more secure and stable and getting better as time goes
> on. Blue Screens do not exist on Linux.
> Applications on Linux do not become so encumbered by memory situations
> they die and leave the mix.
> The Linux operating system has true multi tasking. This is the
> difference.
>
> The two operating systems are no longer in the same ball park as they
> once were. You couldn't do a
> side by side test between them today.. What would you test if you did?
> Linux would easily outrun
> Windows 2000. Microsoft wouldn't have a remote chance in a security
> showdown. Microsoft wouldn't
> win in the COST of ownership department. If it were ease of use on the
> desktop, they are currently
> tied. There's nothing I can do on a Windows 2000 desktop I can't do on
> a Gnome desktop.
>
> I don't even need to point out the fact that the government is going to
> break Microsoft into pieces.
> I don't need to remind you that Linux is immune to financial
> considerations Microsoft must face.
> Truly, RED HAT, MANDRAKE, SUSE, CALDERA, while they won't go bankrupt,
> even if they did,
> Linux would continue on. Debian is proof of that. Microsoft on the
> other hand is a very cash conscious
> company. Financial losses could harm Microsoft and thus cause their
> operating system to cease to
> exist and thus your corporate infrastructure with it.
>
> What I do want to point out is that Microsoft has an inferior operating
> system from this point in time
> forward. The amount of money they will be required to spend on their
> system in an effort to catch up
> with Linux will be enormous. Chasing Linux down the software trail is
> similar to your family dog
> attempting to retrieve a semi truck cruising through your neighborhood.
> It's an impossible task.
> Truly the efforts of 100,000 some odd volunteers working across the
> entire Linux spectrum simply
> dwarf the efforts of the total population of Microsoft employee's world
> wide.
>
> At this particular point in time, Microsoft is staying in business on
> it's past reputation solely as
> Microsoft has no future. Microsoft has had 0% growth in the market
> place in the last year. That's
> the first year we've been able to measure this accurately since the
> inception of the company.
>
> AND, while I'll probably be reading the usual brain dead comments from
> the so-called in-the-know
> future fast food employee's association, I just wanted to let the rest
> of the user base know how things stand.
>
> Maybe it's time you made a change in your life and forgot what it might
> do FFFEA folks and
> their paychecks.
>
> After all, aren't you sick and tired of spending $2,000 a year on
> Microsoft software and computers to
> keep up with the Gates of this world after you'd been told all this time
> there were noting but Windows.
>
> I encourage everyone I know to try Linux. I want you to be on a winning
> team and be happy.
>
> Charlie Ebert
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:30:21 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:22:22 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> > Does this mean I could, for example, replace the mouse-driven user
>> > interface of GIMP with a command line UI? (I could use that, because
>>
>> ...now that you mention it: yes.
>>
>> Do you even look into this stuff in the most cursory manner
>> possible before spouting off about it?
>
> Yes, actually I do.
>
> And since you're confident it can be done, please explain how.
Try having a look around gimp.org or one of the websites
that use gimp as a server side rendering engine.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:36:23 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:23:39 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> > Okay. So where are some examples of real originality expressed on the
>> > Linux platform? Those ideas had to come from /somewhere/.
>>
>> Did you even bother reading what I wrote?
>
> Yes, actually I did. You're saying that everything is copied. Okay,
> then I guess everything implemented on Linux/Unix is just a copy of
> something that someone else has already done.
>
>> Besides, it's not the 'Linux platform', it's the UNIX platform.
>
> Okay, cool. It's the Unix platform.
...another good counterpoint to your claim that you actually
research things before spouting off about them.
Whining about a GNU based system being too derivative is a hoot.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
