Linux-Advocacy Digest #500, Volume #28 Sat, 19 Aug 00 09:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451775 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: (KDE RULES) (Cihl)
Re: Switch to NT? ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
How KDE And Gnome Apps Can Interoperate -was- Fragmentation of Linux Community?
Yeah, right! (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you! (mark)
Re: Whats a usenet troll? (mark)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Jack Troughton)
Re: Decent Linux CDR software wanted. ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's favorite
conspiracy theorist rides again... (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Decent Linux CDR software wanted. ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's favorite
conspiracy theorist rides again... (Mark S. Bilk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451775
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 08:10:41 GMT
Marty writes:
>>>> Here's today's Amodeo digest. Starting around item #6,
>>> "Frankly, I don't care."
>>> - Dave Tholen
>> "You believe the ego of this guy?"
>> --Marty Amodeo
>>
>> "What an ego! He never ceases to astound me with his bloated sense
>> of self-worth."
>> --Marty Amodeo
> "Non sequitur."
> - Dave Tholen
An inappropriate quotation, Marty, given that your illogic regarding
ego is quite sequitur.
>> Of course you don't care to admit to your illogic, Marty.
> "What alleged illogic?"
> - Dave Tholen
Yet another inappropriate quotation, given the proof for your illogic
contained in the digest.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: (KDE RULES)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 09:17:50 GMT
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> What "stuff" ?
>
> /IL
>
> > I can get my stuff done in either KDE or Gnome
>
> > - Doctor Nick
> > Martin A. Boegelund.
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
I think this entire thread is a good thing. As long as people are
arguing whether to use Gnome or KDE, both will exist. In the
open-source world, a project only dies when there's nobody using it.
--
You have changed the signature included in your e-mail.
For these changes to take effect, you must restart your computer!
Do you wish to restart your computer now?
[YES] [NO]
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Switch to NT?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 12:29:21 +0100
>... And it can read and write MS Office documents, which is what you
>need. Another (but "owned" in the same sense as MS Office) alternative
>is WordPerfect Office, cheaper, leaner, reads and writes office
>documents as well
>
All MS Office documents except MSAccess databases unfortunately. Of course,
if anyone can live without this feature (or install access under wine) then
these linux office packages can be far superior to msoffice with far fewer
crashes (and when they do crash they don't take other running applications
and the OS down with them).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 19 Aug 2000 11:26:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>The mere fact that the court found it "weighty" and "pertinent" that the
>>>work was software and not any old literary work is a cogent argument for
>>>my point (contrary to Lee Hollaar, Resident Expert's opinion) that the
>>>functionality of software might not be protected by software, but is
>>>very relevant to software's copyright protection.
>>
>>I assume you mean "the functionality of software might not be protected
>>by copyright". What you wrote is pretty obscure otherwise.
>
>Uh... yea.
>
>>Of course functional aspects of any copyrighted work is not protected
>>by copyright. That's true of software, or lamps with statutes as their
>>base. And of course, that makes functionality relevant to copyright
>>protection.
>>
>>Software isn't unique in that respect. It's just that it comes up more
>>often with software.
>>
>>And I doubt that I said otherwise ...
>
>No, but you continue to indicate otherwise by saying so. Functional
>aspects of software are *integrally and fundamentally important to the
>protection of software under copyright*. Why is it you want so hard to
>deny that fact? Is it *just* because you learned "functional aspects
>are not protected by copyright" as a mantra, and have never bothered to
>think any harder about the matter?
I haven't any idea what you are accusing me of saying. I indicate that
that functional aspects are a consideration in the protection of a
computer program by copyright, and that I doubt that I have said otherwise,
and you first appear to agree with me and then say that I "continue to
indicate otherwise by saying so."
Functional aspects of software are integrally and fundamentally important
to the protection of software under copyright. As they are for any other
copyrighted work, because they determine the extent of the copyright
protection. I don't deny that fact, and never had.
Functional aspects of software are also important for software, because
most people purchase software because it will perform a desired function.
But copyright does not prevent somebody from writing another program
that performs the same function, as long as the expression protected
by copyright is not taken, patented methods are not used, and trade
secrets one has agreed to protect are not used.
Is there some other reason why you think functional aspects of software
are integrally and fundamentally important to the protection of software
under copyright, that I have denied in a past posting?
And try to focus on your answer, and not ramble for page after page ...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: How KDE And Gnome Apps Can Interoperate -was- Fragmentation of Linux
Community? Yeah, right!
Date: 19 Aug 2000 11:26:52 GMT
In article <cn3n5.6522$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8nieb1$pgk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Wrong. Having two different ways of doing things does not
>> qualify as "fragmented" except to people who are very
>> compulsive and controlling.
>Having two ways of doing something like drag-n-drop or cut-and-paste
>certainly does qualify as fragmented. An application probably could be
>written to support both, but generally only one or the other is supported.
>That makes interoperatbility impossible, and is the definition of
>fragmentation.
Wrong again. The *library* used by all KDE apps can be
augmented so it communicates correctly with the Gnome
desktop manager (instead of the KDE manager) if the app is
running under Gnome. Or the Gnome manager can be augmented
so it communicates correctly with the KDE library of KDE
apps running under it. (And, of course, vice versa for both
techniques.)
So there are *two different ways* that the apps of each
system can be fully supported under the desktop manager of
the other system without increasing the complexity of
application programming at all. (I'm sure both teams of
developers have thought of this long ago.)
In fact, even if the developers of one system decided not to
support interoperability at all, those of the other system
could support it in both directions by augmenting both their
application library and their desktop manager to support the
protocols of the other system.
Unless there's some flaw in the above solution (which could
exist if the semantics of the two systems are sufficiently
different), Microsoft's propaganda point of the day --
that the separate existence of Gnome and KDE is causing
irreparable fragmentation in the GNU/Linux/OSS world --
is revealed to be just so much lying bullshit. Condolences
to Erik Funkenbusch, who has been pushing this pile of FUD
hard in a multitude of posts.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you!
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 12:44:03 +0100
In article <8nkihr$m62$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Keep your eyes open for the next great personality coming your way at
>> an advocacy group near you...
>
>Already happened, with two different identities: "Me" and "milton"
>
>
We need to get that Steve/Mike/heather etc., list up to date (again).
Is there any possibility that this multiple personality is being run by a
small group of maybe 2 or 3 people?
Maybe we need a faq - any volunteers?
A kind of 'guide to advocates' could be useful?
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Whats a usenet troll?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 12:45:32 +0100
In article <399e3ce4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bloke wrote:
>hey people,
>im a bit of a news group newbie and was wondering what is a troll in the
>context of news groups?
>im not losing any sleep or anything.....just curious
>cya's
>
>
>> Someone who tries to start an argument
> No it's not, you piece of sh*t
Yes it is - and I can prove it (but I won't now)...
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 11:44:10 GMT
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:21:55, Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jack Troughton wrote:
>
>> Josiah Fizer wrote:
>> >
>> > Chris Wenham wrote:
>> >
>> > > >>>>> "Josiah" == Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > >
>> > > > Chris Wenham wrote:
>> > > >> I must be missing something, or you are. I thought Everblue was the
>> > > >> effort to port the X window toolkit to OS/2's Presentation Manager to
>> > > >> make it easier to port X applications and run them seamlessly.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Someone could do the same with Windows - making it easier to port X
>> > > >> applications and run them without an X server.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Regards,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Chris Wenham
>> > >
>> > > > If thats all it is there are already several X Window (no s) sytems out
>for MSWindows. I
>> > > > use Excead and have had no problem porting X applications over to NT/98.
>> > >
>> > > Exceed is an X server.
>> > >
>> > > Everblue is about porting X applications to the native windowing system.
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > >
>> > > Chris Wenham
>> >
>> > With the Excead system (inc. Interex) I have a CSH, GCC and the XLibs. I just run
>Make and end up
>> > with an application that runs under MSWindows in Excead X-Window. However it
>sounds like your
>> > talking about a software adstraction layer that would run applications under
>MSWindows
>> > transparently.
>>
>> Not exactly. Instead, Everblue will provide the means to take the
>> windowing calls and translate them to Presentation Manager api calls
>> at compile time, so that you end up with a PM program; ie- a warp
>> native piece of software, running at native speeds. However, when
>> you do that, you'll lose the networking aspects of X, as PM and the
>> WPS are not 'network aware' in the way that X is. It is similar in
>> principle to want EMX does for warp, which is to provide a (largely)
>> posix-compatible subsystem to OS/2. BTW- there is currently another
>> project underway to extend/replace emx with a fully posix-compatible
>> subsystem, probably based around the *BSD systems; one goal is to
>> include binary compatibility with *BSD. One of the lead people on
>> the project is the redoubtable Dr. Holger Veit, who ported XFree86
>> to OS/2.
>>
>> Jack
>> Montreal PQ
>> CANADA
>
>Sorta like that system Metrowerks had for porting Macintosh applications to SGI Irix,
>but in reverse.
Not knowing anything about Metrowerks, but yes, basically it's a
porting tool.
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Decent Linux CDR software wanted.
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 13:16:37 +0100
>Thanks for the testimonial, Nigel. Sorry for the earlier cut, and I'm
>sure Andy will echo my sentiments.
>
>Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
Perhaps the minimum PC speed needed for CD burning could be used as a
benchmark to show the bloatedness (or at least software slowdown overhead)
of different operating systems, for example the company I work for has been
using CD writing hardware for roughly 7 years and originally we had good
success using a philips CDD521 on a 386dx40 with 4mb Ram, the same writer
would need at least a 486dx33 under linux, not sure what would be needed
under win95 but a P90 that I now use it on as a second cd-r system at home
always fails to reliably work under win95 (the drive only has a 256k buffer)
but still works great under DOS (will try linux later today but judging by
the results with modern CD-R drive at work there will be no problems).
Also, I have several Window-Managers installed on the machine at work (and
at home) so perhaps I will try a different one for every CD for the next few
writes to see if the size of the GUI makes a difference, I used FVWM for my
first attempts as I know this is one of the smallest and fastest. It should
either make no difference at it uses console apps to do the writing or KDE
and Gnome should be the slowest as they are the biggest.
I also forgot to say thanks for the speedy technical support (better than
hanging on a phone for several days trying to get support from MS or other
windows software companies).
I think the reason I didn't think about reading the documentation before
complaining was that I am used to the windows world where nobody seems to
supply any documentation anymore (tried to find the manual supplied with
win9x or NT lately, even an on-disk one).
Thanks again,
Nigel
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 19 Aug 2000 12:04:02 GMT
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 02:02:21 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>That is an outright lie. KDE is free software. Even RMS agrees that
>>QT satisfies the definition of free software, despite his misgivings
>>about that license.
>
>Maybe you should clarify. AFAIK, KDE requires the 'consumer' to agree
>not to copy certain libraries.
This is just plain false. KDE is licensed under the GPL, and QT is licensed
in a way compliant with the open source definition available at
www.opensource.org
> This is not free software. Please
>correct me if I'm mistaken in either regard.
You are.
(1) KDE is under the (L)GPL. read the license.
>I was under the impression that KDE was a directly commercial venture
>which seeks to make money on distributing their developments.
Your impression is a very difficult one to swallow, since all their
software is under the GPL or LGPL.
>consider that an inherently unethical act, but I do question why it is
>considered competitive with GNOMES purely open approach.
You offer no explanation as to why GNOME is more open ( statements that
are outright false do not count )
>Au contraire. If they can clone KDE, and release it from anything more
>than GPL license restrictions, they've accomplished a great deal. Much
KDE is also licensed under the GPL.
>more than the originality required to absolve them of any copyright
>infringement claim would indicate,
I doubt KDE are going to sue them for "copyright infringement" anyway,
since they are also using the GPL.
>labels do. What particular reasons do you really have as a professional
>for *not* using the most widely accessible supporting libraries?
The QT libraries are not less accessible than GPL'd libraries ( like
readline and gdbm ). In fact they are more accesible.
>TBH, I don't know precisely what QT is.
It's the "toolkit" used by KDE. It's an API for writing GUI apps.
> I don't know how people
>extremely familiar with it would define KDE.
KDE is two things --
(a) A set of APIs built on QT
(b) A suite of applications built on those APIs.
> I'm a bit unclear on the
>precise licensing distinctions between KDE and GNOME. I'd be happy to
>hear any information anyone has in these regards. Thanks.
KDE and GNOME are both under the GPL. GTK+ which GNOME uses is under the
LGPL. QT is under a license that makes it free for free software developers
but costs if you want to use it to develop proprietary apps.
(*) note the following : -------
>>>admit that the only reason they'd need to keep any of their code
>>>'commercial' is because they want to profiteer, and can't be satisfied
>>>with simple honest profits on their production.
---------------------
>>
>>What do you mean by "simple honest profits on their production" ? I mean
>>it boils down to what do you mean by "production" ?
>
>Yes, it does boil down to what you are producing. Are you an author or
>an engineer. Make your choice.
I still don't understand your point. Can you explain what you meant
by (*) ?
>>QT is free software, by any reasonable definition.
>
>Then why have I been told that it isn't as reasonably free as GNOME?
Because the GPL zealots think that the GPL is the only "true" free license.
>Because it is based on *someone else's* proprietary code? Hell;
No.
>decompile and use the ideas.
You're way off the mark. Why bother decompiling when the source is
publically available ?
Now I suggest you go apologise to Roberto.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 19 Aug 2000 12:15:33 GMT
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 01:11:41 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>No, that's not it at all. BASIC was designed as a language optimally
>accessible by those who *don't* already know programming, and no amount
>of insistence by those who know how to program that it isn't will change
>that fact.
It was also designed to run on extremely lightweight microcomputer, and
the result of this seems to be that the language was fairly crude and
primitive. For example, the original language required the use of line
numbers.
>>Shell script was intended to do the same thing -- ordinary users could
>>automate things by putting commands in files. Shell script was basically
>>the same as the command line, with a few control structures added.
>
>BASIC is the optimal syntax, shell scripts (with middleware
>capabilities, still generally lacking) are the optimal mechanism. I am
>not suggesting that anyone literally put them together, but might that
>be such a bad idea? In the abstract, certainly, making shell scripting
>more accessible *in practice*, rather than theoretically, would
>certainly increase the acceptance of Unix among end users.
I don't see why shellscript is "inaccesible".
>>The problem is that I don't see many things about basic that makes it
>>substantially nicer than tcl or python. Syntax-wise.
>
>Your ability, as one who already knows these various syntax, is what
>makes it problematic for you to say.
One can make some objective criteria. For example,
(*) An intuitive language should favour clarity over conciseness:
(a) Side effects should be avoided
(b) Symbols such as {} should be avoided in favour of words.
(c) Long words are better than abbreviations.
(*) An intuitive language shouldn't be overly idiomatic. For example,
this kind of thing : for (;a=f.getc();) cout << a << endl; is
not intuitive.
On these criteria, basic does reasonably well, but so do other
languages.
> 'Intuitive' is a matter of >familiarity more than anything else
So it's about defining what is familiar to the beginning user. And
basically, it's just the English language.
>The fact that it was designed to be 'merely' intuitive, rather than
>functional, is the basis of my contention that BASIC is more intuitive.
The fact that it was designed with that intention doesn't mean that it
was terribly succesful.
>BASIC. I just want the accessability of rudimentary automation to be
>subject to the requirement for higher levels of understanding; it isn't
>necessary, it isn't acceptable, and it isn't called for.
I'm confused by the above. I take it you mean that you want it to
be easier to automate apps. I think the most user-friendly way to do
this is with "macro recorders" that allow users to forget about even
writing code. In this case, the only thing the user has to do is
go to the trouble to choose their edits carefully so that they
are fairly general.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's
favorite conspiracy theorist rides again...
Date: 19 Aug 2000 12:16:43 GMT
In article <8nk55j$qbk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote in
><8nk3t3$e03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>In article <8njkmq$7mp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Ah, it's COMNA's favorite conspiracy theorist.
>>>>>Tell me Mark, is Erik getting paid more than me?
>>>>>Because if he is, then that's the last straw!
>>>>It isn't "conspiracy theory" to point out that some people
>>>>have been spreading FUD and outright lies against Linux
>>>>and in favor of Microsoft in Usenet and elsewhere. These
>>>>include both Erik Funkenbusch and Stephen Edwards.
>>>Oh, of course. Yet, you have never once pointed out when
>>>I posted these alleged lies. To you, a lie is merely
>>>something you disagree with.
>>Wrong. I posted these quotes of Edwards' lies on July 3, 1999.
>>
>> "Linux seems to exist these days for the sole purpose
>> of being an anti-Microsoft propaganda tool, rather than
>> ... an alternative to commercial software"
>>
>> "[Linus Torvalds] has turned into an obnoxious "cult leader"
>> of a sort"
>>
>> "Most of the posts I've read coming out of c.o.l.a. are
>> very confrontational, and snide, concerning Windows users"
>>
>>These are all attempts to convey false and disparaging
>>disinformation -- lies -- to the reader about Linux and its
>>adherents. The inclusion of a small amount of vagueness
>>by using words like "seems" and "of a sort" does not change
>>that effect.
>Mark, those are what is known as "opinions".
>I have every right to voice my opinion about
>whatever I damn well please.
Stephen Edwards certainly has the right to say whatever he
wants. And others have an equal right to point out when
he's lying.
>At that time,
>which was quite some time ago, I was voicing
>my general disdain for comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Untrue. The above-quoted lies are in fact quite specific.
>You are calling my opinions lies. Opinions
>cannot be lies, because they are merely the
>viewpoint of the speaker.
Edwards projects an air of technical knowledgeability which
makes his posts appear authoritative to naive readers.
Therefore the false information he includes in them (which
he labels as "opinion") is very likely to be believed.
Putting out false information in a context in which it's
likely to be believed is a functional definition of the
term "lying".
>So, in effect, you are trying to silence my opinion,
That's ridiculous. I've never done anything to silence
Edwards. What he's whining about is my exercise of free
speech in talking about his lies and those of a small group
of anti-Linux/pro-Microsoft propagandists who have spammed
these newsgroups with huge numbers of posts.
What Edwards and some of these others want is to be able
to lie without anyone calling them on it, since that would
make their propaganda much more effective. But as long as
the Internet isn't censored by corporate power, that's a
luxury they're going to have to do without.
There follows Edwards' usual spew of nasty personal
attacks:
>which makes you a fascist pig. Not
>that it matters, since practically everyone
>in your own camp thinks that you are a whiney
>little twit who isn't worth conversing with
>anyway.
>
>You really have no idea what a blithering
>moron you are, do you. Oh well... a sure sign
>of stupidity is the failure to recognize it.
>
>For a while, you really were funny to listen
>to, but considering that your sole interest
>is to make false accusations about me, and
>a whole bunch of others, I think I'm going
>to go ahead and filter your sorry ass from
>my reader, and this time, it won't have an
>expiration.
>
>Mark, you are a tosspot. You are a wanker.
>You are a very teeny tiny piece of turd.
>
>Goodbye. Good riddance.
>
>*PLOINK!*
>
>8<snipped the rest of Mark's raging idiocy>8
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Decent Linux CDR software wanted.
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 13:35:29 +0100
I forgot to mention that the problem of kisofs not being able to delete
directories below the one added to the project which I now relise is due to
it only storing the path to the toplevel directory may now be turned into an
advantage to speedup the starting of the company weekly backups.
Under windows I would create a new project and add the toplevel directory to
the project and then delete subdirectories in the project which hadn't
changed for several weeks and didn't need to be backed up - under kisofs I
will perform the slower process of adding the subdirectories individually to
the project.
This is an advantage because under windows I would need to recreate the
project every week to update for changed or added files in the tree (as it
saves the path to every file) but under kisofs I can re-use the same project
every week and just add/remove any subdirectories that are new / too old.
This wastes time the first week creating the project but saves a lot more
time on following backups.
I will use the simpler-to-use gtoaster for one-off CD's (and for use at
home) where the project never needs to be re-used, although it too seems to
have the advantage of only storing directories and not the files contained
in those directories from what I can tell from my limited use of it.
I look forward to seeing in-memory list support in gtoaster when it is
finished (may speedup project creation) and hopefully it won't a problem we
were recently having under windows where the in-memory list would grow to
the size where windows could no longer display the button to start cd
burning (our backup can contain up to 10,000 files per CD). We also often
had to make an image file and restart the software to freeup enough memory
to be able to burn the image. Ah the fun of winbloats95.
Thanks,
Nigel
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's
favorite conspiracy theorist rides again...
Date: 19 Aug 2000 12:20:17 GMT
In article <8nk4id$s5e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8nk3t3$e03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The point is that Funkenbusch has devoted a lot of energy
>> in the last six months to justifying and excusing Microsoft's
>> DR-DOS-killer message, and some of its other deceptive and
>> coercive acts.
>There wasn't a "killer message". There was a *non-fatal error message* in
>the _beta_ displayed when non-MS versions of DOS were being run.
That error message is colloquially known as the
"DR-DOS Killer" because it was designed to kill
*sales* of DR-DOS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
