Linux-Advocacy Digest #551, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Open source won't protect you - how licensing is being perverted to (Courageous)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Bob Hauck)
Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! ("Ostracus")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Programs for Linux ("Ram416")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 03:10:48 GMT
> Have you ever seen a more vague set of laws?
"Shall not be infringed" is not vague. It's absolute. Only
in modernity has it become vague. Possibly by necessity,
possibly by the shifting sands of time, possibly by who
knows what. But they really meant it then.
They were working really very hard to be crystal, crystal
clear.
C//
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:12:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stephen S. Edwards II in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>That isn't too far from my point either. mjcr
>seems to be portraying "does not" to mean "cannot".
No, he's saying that application programmers cannot port packages
between many different popular hardware platforms on NT, but they can on
Linux. "Cannot on NT." Nobody ever said that NT "cannot" be ported.
Merely that NT software "cannot" be ported until, at least, NT is.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open source won't protect you - how licensing is being perverted to
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 03:17:53 GMT
> >Did you know that Microsoft, Corel, and others are trying to make it so
> >that any document or spreadsheet or whatever that you make on their
> >production software automatically becomes THEIR copyright?
I believe that you are talking out of your ass. The reason
I believe this is that, 1, you presented no evidence, and
that, 2, no commerical organization would be so dumb as to
attempt to arrange a situation which would cause every
executive in corporate america to issue broadcast memoranda
to every employee in their companies to immediately cease
and desist using the aforementioned products.
Which is exactly what would happen, you know. It would happen
the very same day. In fact, it would be backed by little
well meant talks from patronizing human resource personell
if you didn't comply. "Mr. Thermodynamic, I know you mean
well, but your continued employment at this organization is
at will, I should have no need to remind you, and Mr. Big
really doesn't want you using Word. Now sign this paper right
here to aknowledge your official reprimand."
Corporations take their intellectual property quite seriously,
and if Microsoft tried to pull this particular stunt, you'd
see a stinger of a backlash so high and hard, I truly doubt
Microsoft would survive it. The lasting rancor and poor customer
sentiment wouldn't be lived down for a decade.
But this is all hyperbole.
I suspect you're making this up.
C//
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:19:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
[...]
>>I thought this was an opportunity to be an advocate for Linux AND turn the
>>tables on the Winows Advocates. It looks like it worked since we are now
>>hearing the same statements in defense of Windows that they have elicited
>>from the Linux advocates in the past.
I thought so too. Well done, 'mjcr'.
>Not to be a complete smart-ass, but ever heard of "carving
>stone"?
>
>I've heard many Windows advocates go out of thier way to
>say that Linux can't do something that it has been able to
>do for a long time just because 'at one time' it couldn't
>do it. There was a steady stream of comparisons between
>Linux and Windows where they would compare a brand new
>Windows (95a, 95B, whatever was newest) with a version of
>Linux that was at least two years old and then try to say
>what all Linux couldn't do. I don't see that as often
>anymore, but I think that is because more people are
>learning the facts about Linux.
>
>Of course, there will always be the liars on any side of a
>debate.
I've never heard it called 'carving stone' before, but I think we all
recognize the phenomenon. Of course, MS *has* dropped support for all
non-Intel platforms, so what would be the euphemism for the opposite
case, where somebody insists beyond reason that something *could* be
possible in future versions when evidence supports the opposite
presumption? Beyond an argument from ignorance, I guess. "Chiseling
vapor?"
:-D
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:26:12 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [...]
> > > >I guess if you use sufficiently bizarre definitions of your words,
you
> > > >can reach any conclusion you want.
> > > >
> > > >A patent holder is free to license their patent in almost any way
they
> > > >want. There are only a few exceptions:
> > > >
> > > >1. If the patent holder has a monopoly and uses the licensing to
> > > >leverage their way into a new market.
> > > >
> > > >2. They use licensing agreements to violate price fixing laws.
> > >
> > > In other words, if they use their patent to monopolize. I'm not the
one
> > > with bizarre definitions of words. I just know what "monopoly" means,
> > > and it doesn't mean "large market share" any more than it does "100%
> > > market share". It means "having large market share and acquiring it
> > > through anti-competitive actions, maintaining it through
> > > anti-competitive actions, or using it through anti-competitive
actions."
> > > That "and" doesn't make monopolies legal, just large market share
> > > (assuming you can overcome *your* burden in proving that you didn't
> > > monopolize to get or keep it; there is not 'presumption of innocence'
in
> > > this regard.)
> >
> > My power company has a minuscule amount of market share, yet...they are
a
> > monopoly, and my power company has been granted the right to charge me
for
> > their mistakes against the environment and the susequent cleanup charges
and
> > their poor investment choices over the years. My monopolistic power
company
> > is harmfull to consumers because of this fact . I am forced by law to
pay
> > for my power companies huge mistakes for the past 40 years, they are
protect
> > by the government granted monopoly to pay for their own financial
mistakes,
> > and thus are harmfull to those that DO pay for them.
> >
> > A harmful monopoly under capitalism is impossible.
>
> what part of "CONTRAINT OF TRADE" do you not understand?
CONTRAINT.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 03:43:43 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:50:51 +1000, Christopher Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nothing in the OS could have stopped those thing you're talking about
>not do what they did. The attachments are executed, with the user's
>permission, at the same privelege level as the user - just like they
>would be under *nix.
Except that none of my *nix mailers will execute a shell script when I
click on it. You're right, the OS can't stop this. But then, it *is*
a poor design from a security point of view to have applications behave
the way Outlook does.
>Given a video card costs about $10, and the VGA driver is about as
>solid as they get, I'd say this particular weakness is very, very
>theoretical.
It is quite a bit less theoretical for embedded systems. MS did make
an "embedded NT", the thought of which frankly really cracks me up, but
they had to do lots of contortions to do it. One particularly stupid
example being the question of how you respond to system popup boxes if
there is no display or keyboard? Answer...you make an automatic
button-pusher daemon! Hardly an elegant solution I think, but what
else are they going to do with everything all glued to everything else?
Then there's the reported ~12 MB GUI overhead that can't be got rid of.
Having that sit on disk isn't a big deal, having it sit in flash ROM
gets pretty costly pretty quickly, especially if we are talking about a
product produced in volume, even a fairly high-end one. I guess that's
another reason why you don't see many $800 Internet appliances and $100
webcams and $200 routers using NT but lots of them running Linux and
*BSD,
The problem with welding the GUI on and "integrating" everything they
way MS is doing it is that you reduce the flexibility of the system.
You end up with a product that works tolerably well for it's intended
"desktop and departmental server with 512 MB of RAM and infinite disk
capacity" markets but is hard to customize for anything outside of
that. It sure makes it harder to scale _down_ and the PC architecture
gets in the way when scaling _up_, so that's quite a bind to be in.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:01:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Matthias Warkus escribió:
>>
>> It was the Thu, 10 Aug 2000 13:51:21 GMT...
>> ...and Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > Like I said in my talk about GNOME at LinuxTag 2000: The peaceful
>> > > competition between KDE and GNOME is one of the best things that ever
>> > > happened to the free software community.
>> > >
>> > > (No matter how many KDEers try to reason that GNOME is useless and
>> > > should vanish...)
>> >
>> > And no matter how many GNOMEs try to call us crooks and want us to
>> > go away.
>>
>> Whatever the facts are, I've never heard any GNOME head honcho say
>> that KDE should close down the shop (I'm not talking about the
>> hundreds of raving loony Slashdotters who think they're cool when they
>> claim that they "boycott KDE" and want to have the project shut down
>> or something).
>
>Well, you don't have a @kde.org email address, or you would have heard.
>I still get DAILY about 5 emails insulting me for being a vocal KDE
>advocate. Ever got that kind of thing from KDE users/developers?
Ever consider whether that might mean something about whether "morals"
really do come into question? Perhaps I've underestimated the issue.
If it is truly a moral issue of the abstract "free software" religion,
the likelihood would be greater that I've been backing the wrong horse.
So just why doesn't KDE work to divorce themselves of QT, and what are
the advantages of having QT? Why?
[...a library of boorish behavior by GNOME supporters snipped...]
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:00:57 -0500
In article <8npd61$92c4b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nigel Feltham"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>If enough people get sufficiently crazy and/or stoned to pull that stunt, we
>>might even see GNOME for Windows or KDE for Windows in two years or three. I
>>don't think it would be worth the porting effort, except of course for the
>>healthy effect that this would be a quantum leap for front end / back end
>>separation and improve the cross-platform characteristics of whichever package
>>a lot.
>>
>
>
> This could be possible - both the gtk toolkit used by GNOME and the QT toolkit
> used for KDE are available for windows (Gimp, the gnome equivalent of
> photoshop is already available for windows based on the win32 port of gtk so
> why should the gui be that impossible to port).
>
[pulled from TrollTech's page]
1.What is the Qt Free Edition?
The Free Edition is the Qt for Unix/X11 library,
licensed for development of free/Open Source software. It includes the
complete source code. It is released under the QPL Open Source license.
You may freely use Qt Free Edition for:
Running software legally developed by others
Developing free/Open Source software Please note that the Qt Free
Edition is an X11-only library. Qt for Microsoft Windows is only
available in the Professional Edition.
2.What is the idea behind the double licensing of Qt?
The idea is that if you use Qt, you should pay back either by giving your
software to the free software community
(the Free Edition), or contribute to the Qt development
by purchasing licenses from us (the Professional Edition)."
So the fact that QT is available for the windows platform is only useful to
those who purchase the professional edition. I would bet even money that most of
the authors of "free" software will not "pony up" the money.
GTK is "free" on both platforms.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:29:44 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >My power company has a minuscule amount of market share, yet...they are a
> >monopoly,
>
> Maybe from your perspective, and in the casual vernacular, but they are
> not a monopoly "in the legal sense", as it were. They are a public
> utility.
No they are a private company holding a monopoly over their market. They
are a monopoly in the legal sense because if I decided to sell power in
their government granted market territory, I would be legaly prosecuted, and
sued out of business.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:53:17 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >Nope. I've read the Sherman Act. There's nothing in there that supports
> >your position.
>
> You mean 'it is illegal to monopolize' doesn't support the position that
> having a monopoly is illegal?
>
> >Feel free to provide the exact quotation where it makes having a
> >monopoly illegal.
>
> "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine
> or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of
> the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations,
> shall be deemed guilty of a felony"
Here's the whole paragraph:
**********
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or
conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the
trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall
be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished
by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person,
$350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said
punishments, in the discretion of the court.
**********
Not only has the trial been riddled with unlawfull acts against Microsoft,
even the penalty hasn't been lawfully applied. According to the law, fine
them 10 million and be done with it :-)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:29:21 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nrk5e$knq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It should not be so even on one OS that supports multiple desktop
> environments. It is debateable if DnD should even be implemented in Linux
> at all, however, that is another discussion. Multiple desktop
environments
> should not try to be too standard amoung each other. Too much
> standardization tends to prevent inovation. If a vulnerability is
> discovered in the DnD implementation of one environment and all the
> enviroments share common procedures or libraries or are otherwise designed
> to interoperate, they could all be comprimised but that single
> vulnerability. Have we learned nothing from the errors of Microsoft?
Oh, you've got to be kidding me. Your excuse for lack of standardization of
a highly common desktop feature is that it's a potential security hole.
If the Linux consensus is that DnD will not be supported under multiple
environments, then Linux has lost the war. It will never, as a desktop OS,
surpass even the Macintosh, which does have a common API for DnD across all
it's apps.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:31:57 -0500
"John Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > What I find funny is that you have your head in the ground and refuse to
see
> > that even Linux is full of non-standard conformance. Why doesn't the
Linux
> > community create an RFC for drag and drop under X? Why don't they
create
> > one for Cut and paste and the literally hundreds of other functions that
> > companies like IBM have standardized years ago with CUA and such?
>
> If IBM has standardized "hundreds of other functions" then those would
> be the standard. You would not come along and create another set of
> standards for the same functions. That would be non-standard. If
> everyone can standardize anything and everyone has their own standard,
> what is the use of ANY standard?
I take it you've never heard of the CUA.
> You want to standardize DnD? What would this involve? How it looks on
> the screen? Whether it does integrity checking on the copy? What's the
> point? A standard is written to provide some rules for interaction among
> independent processes. DnD is isolated to a system. The 'standard' is
> local to that system. The way it has been implemented are the 'rules'
> for that standard. The API will tell you how to use it.
I could care less what it looks like. I just want all my apps to support
the same API for DnD. DnD is virtually useless without common useage.
> Do you think every DnD operation on every computer should look exactly
> the same to every user? Do you think all the APIs should be identical?
> That's never going to happen. If you're so incredibly lame of a
> computer user that you are upset by seeing different graphics on
> different machines for different functions, then that's just tough. Use
> a CLI, grow a brain.
I'm not talking about graphics. I'm talking about the API. How does an app
that supports the KDE DnD work with an app that supports the Gnome DnD?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:19:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Colin R. Day in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:34:34 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> >>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >
>> >>The entire reason BASIC was developed was to provide rudimentary
>> >>programming constructs which were familiar to those unfamiliar with
>> >>programming languages.
>> >
>> >Yes. Basic was essentially a type of shell script, and essentially
>> >made it easy for users to string commands together.
>>
>> 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.
>
>But the fact that the designers intended it to be that way doesn't
>mean that they succeeded.
An argument from ignorance; it doesn't mean they didn't, and does
indicate that there is more than a chance likelihood it does. It is a
successful programming language by some counts; one can presume that was
due to achieving its stated purpose, unless you have some evidence to
the contrary.
>Don't tell us BASIC was designed to do, tell us what is does.
But... it does what it was designed to do... so... I'm...
...getting a headache.
>> >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.
>
>Optimal, by what standard.
Optimal by the standard that of the two, it is a syntax, while "shell
scripts" are a mechanism. That would make it optimal within the purpose
of the exposition. Now, you may be saying that I haven't "proven" that
it is optimal as a syntax, and you'd be right. But entirely off point.
Of course, you could say that whether it is the optimal syntax is
entirely the point of the discussion, and you'd be right. But it wasn't
the point of my comment calling it optimal.
Now, calm down, and try to understand that you are providing nothing but
an argument from ignorance. There *is* reason to believe that BASIC is
an optimal syntax for non-programmer access to conditional processing
(of the ready choices). It was designed to be that, and it has been
successful in the past at non-programmer access to conditional
processing, and (due quite possibly only to Microsoft's anti-competitive
behavior) was one of the few that a very large number of people were
exposed to. The syntax used in shell scripts, generally C and
derivatives, is used routinely by people trained in programming, not
non-programmers.
Now, if you can give me a real argument that something else is better,
or there is some general reason why BASIC can not be optimal, or some
particular "optimization" which you feel BASIC would need, or would need
to lack, in order to be optimal, or any real argument of this general
effect, I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise, save the wear and tear on
your keyboard; its not worth it.
[...]
>But if there are no objective criteria of intuitiveness, then your claims
>for BASIC in that regard are equally arbitrary.
[...]
>The fact that something was designed to be x doesn't mean that
>it is x.
You're trolling, Colin. I'm afraid you've been reduced to an argument
from ignorance. Be a man and admit it (or just give up); its happened
to all of us.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Ram416" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Programs for Linux
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 04:33:00 GMT
(edited by choice)
> > Another thing I would like to is Advanced 3D modeling and other 3D
imaging.
> > Perhaps I want to make a model of something I want to build, or make a
3D
> > computer-animated cartoon.
(edited by choice)
Is Nick kidding? Man, pick up a copy 3D magazine and look at how many
projects are being done on Linux/UNIX. Some hardcore Macfolks still use
their PowerPCs. And some shops opt for WinNt. But by in far if they need
flexable environment, Linux is the OS of choice. I will grant you that the
price tags for some of the programs in the mag are WAY outside of my price
range ,$ 3000+ is not uncommon, but it's the same price for ALL platforms.
Ram416
Oh, and didn't I just see a CAD program on Linux.org?
> > If you know of some post-development applications that can do these
things,
> > tell us all!!!
> > You can email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > If not, guys and gals, we need to get busy programming!
> >
> > --NSC--
> > _The Liquid Linux Project_
> >
> > Posted on: alt.linux, alt.os.linux, alt.os.linux.caldera,
> > alt.os.linux.mandrake, comp.os.linux, comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > comp.os.linux.questions
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
