Linux-Advocacy Digest #66, Volume #29 Tue, 12 Sep 00 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (sfcybear)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (sfcybear)
Re: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft (ATG)
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft (ATG)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (Craig Kelley)
Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T.
Max Devlin)
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (Damien)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why Linux might NOT! be called a Communist conspiracy!! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (Damien)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:56:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ville Niemi in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>
>> But isn't that what capitalism is all about - maximising market share at the
>> expense of competitors, and maximising profit? By definition, all
>> businesses must be monopolists...
>
>No... Capitalism is about letting supply and demand set prices on a free
>market and direct resources to where need (demand) is greatest.
Well, strictly speaking, Ville, what you've described (supply and
demand) is 'free markets'. As you've already mentioned, this isn't
necessarily the same thing as 'capitalism', which is merely the right to
make profit on free investment of capital. Obviously they are related,
but not the same thing.
>This assumes that supply and demand are the factors deciding the price and
>that the price quality comparisons determine purchases. Monopolizing is
>always anti-capitalist in nature because its purpose is to prevent the
>market mechanisms from working correctly in order to make people buy your
>products.
You may not be aware of the problem with your phrasing, Ville; the very
words "make people buy your products" is problematic. But you are
perfectly correct that monopolization is anti-capitalist in nature. It
prevents the free investment of capital to earn profit in a free market,
by preventing a free market.
>Good question, though. Many people assume that if a country calls itself a
>capitalist country its market practices are capitalism. This is not the
>case.
Apparently, we've got propagation issues; I've already responded to a
response to this message. Sorry for the confusion.
Thanks for your time, Ville. 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: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 04:50:15 GMT
In article <8pi06a$3sb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:11:11 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft
> > Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > |
> > | If you wish to use WSH in a login script (as proposed ages ago),
all
> > | that has to work reliably is the login script running reliably,
which
> > | does.
> >
> > Wasn't the purpose of the login script we were discussing in this
> > thread to udate the DNS setup of the Windows client to deal with
> > changes in the DNS necessary to implement Active Directory with W2k.
> > So here's the problem I'm having: unless you are going to each and
> > every client to install this script, you need the clients to all be
> > running a login script from a centralized server.
> >
> > Now let's assume they are already doing that. User logs into a
> > workstation, workstation executes a script it retrieves from the
> > server. Now we go in and change the DNS. Then we change the login
> > script to update the DNS settings. User returns, logs in and the
> > workstation goes to locate the server to find the login script to
> > run. Except now the DNS structure is changed and the workstation
> > can't find the server.
> >
> > Wouldn't this be a problem.
>
> Obviously you wouldn't make changes when you hadn't already got the
> replacement DNS up and running...
So, you are suggetsting 2 servers???? Then you would have to change all
the machines to point to the NEW services! If you are doing this with
only ONE DNS server the changes MUST happen at the same time! You can
NOT change a DNS server to get it up as a replacement and expect the
client to work right without changing them. In a very small environment
this may be possible but NOT in a very large environmnet.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 04:46:19 GMT
In article <8pisj0$fg8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said sfcybear in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> > >In article <8p4t5a$c8u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > [...]
> > >> > b) You've just screwed up the corporate DNS
> > >>
> > >> Funny - Internet browsing works just fine. If DNS was screwed,
it
> > >wouldn't.
> >
> > Every failure causes all failures, right? Typical
Microsoft-inspired
> > 'idiot troubleshooting 101'. I didn't say you'd screwed it up in a
way
> > that you are currently aware of. Others may be aware of it, or may
> > become aware of it, or incidental failures which it caused. There
is no
> > 'statute of limitations' on this kind of stupidity. You aren't at
all
> > aware of how you might screw it up, so you figure you couldn't have
> > screwed it up, right?
> >
> Wrong. It works. Full stop. Internet browsing works. Local name
> resolution works. For everyone. It works. Get it yet?
Must have a VERY small network to be able to claim that ALL name
resolutions work for everyone. Like I said before, changing DNS on 5
workstations is MUCH easier than the 16000 work stations, servers and
routers were current addressing scheams may require changes to more than
just windows boxes to make the changes you suggested. In such an
envronment there may be NO record of what type of devices have been
given what address. And I would NEVER have make the claim that name
resolution _was_ working for everyone. Why? because we could not verify
that fact. We would say that the DNS server was up and running, then ask
that anyone with problems, report them...But the end user never did.
Like I have said, just because you have gotten it to work on a _SMALL_
network does NOT mean it will scale to a very LARGE network. I can tell
you from experiance that your solution would NOT be easy to emplement on
a 16000 node network
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 01:02:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ville Niemi in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> > True, but what's your point? The theory is what the law is based on,
>isn't
>> > it?
>>
>> Which is a bad idea in itself. The law should be based on reality, not an
>> abstraction.
>
>Sorry, but laws based on entirely on the material reality are not practical.
>Laws depend on an underlying abstraction of right and wrong. Laws not based
>on abstraction would be effectively random, and random law is worse than
>having no laws at all.
Well, that's a valid observation, Ville, but not necessarily where you
might want the conversation to go.
BTW, your posts are still munging threading all to hell. Might I
suggest using Agent; its vastly superior to Outlook Express.
>>[...]Why not go after the polluters, or the people who do serious
>> harm to the world we live in?
>
>BECAUSE, this is the wrong newsgroup.
Yea, that too. :-)
--
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: ATG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:22:07 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Per the original article if it was up to the lead engineer he would have
used Linux/Unix as the operating system. Windows was --FORCED-- upon him.
- Also, as an employee of the DON we can purchase any computer system that
we require with the following limitations:
It must run a processor from Intel
It must run Windows 95, 98, NT.
Other then that we can purchase anything we want.
(Oh, and starting in Sept/Oct each and every system purchased will
cost the US tax payers a min of $3400.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The system that fell over on the Yorktown was a bridge navigation
> control system. There is no requirement for processing sensitive data
> on such a system, and in all probability the box was properly stickered
> with a label stating such.
>
> The DoD can purchase anything it wants under a waiver system that is
> part of the purchasing criteria you mention. If Navy feels that Linux
> provides a better solution for a navigation control system than any
> other OS, they will apply for and be granted a waiver and the TCSEC and
> all its rainbow books can go to hell.
>
> You really want Linux on an aircraft carrier? Then how much money will
> Redhat contribute to election campaigns this year? How many political
> action committees do they finance? How many executive retreats for
> military top echelon have they sponsored? How many country club
> memberships, junkets to Hawaii, hookers, dinners, and luxury cars have
> they bought and paid for? That's what makes for a successful contract
> award, not some stupid nonsensical security classification.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: ATG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:23:27 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a pigs eye they do!!!
"Anthony D. Tribelli" wrote:
> Moderator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If Microsoft creates backdoors in their closed source
> > software, (not that I'm saying such, but it *is* closed-source
> > and such a trick wouldn't be hard to pull off), wouldn't
> > Microsoft have more power than our own government?
>
> The military and various Universities have access to Microsoft source code.
>
> Tony
> ------------------
> Tony Tribelli
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 Sep 2000 23:25:51 -0600
"Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > Yes, but what of folks still on Win 3x? Have they not been forced to
> > upgrade? BTW, I have begun to notice that a number of programs are
> > now coming out for '98 only and not '95.
>
> I must be very different then since I have not found any need to upgrade any
> software since I fired up this machine (1.5yrs, & no re-installs!)
Try to download Microsoft's Media Encoder 7.
(although Microsoft seems to be the only software company that is
writing code for Windows 98 and not Windows 95)
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 01:34:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> Besides, I am actually the one who asked "how can you monopolize
>without
>> >> being a monopoly"; I did it to illustrate the problem you were having
>> >> with the word 'monopoly', which is common.
>> >>
>> >Actually - you're not. I did - follow the thread...
>>
>> Perhaps. Ville's software is making following the thread rather
>> impossible. Crappy Microsoft stuff.
>
>Crappy Microsoft stuff handles it OK - I don't often use thread by
>conversation but it works OK. I prefer just to read by date received.
Still don't have handle on that 'interoperability' thing, eh, Stu? I
don't blinkin' *care* how you read things. Why the hell should that
matter to me? Your sort order isn't what determines NNTP threading, and
it certainly *shouldn't* screw up the subject line (as Ville's seems to
do, as you'll notice.)
YOUR crappy Microsoft stuff might handle threading OK, but apparently
there is some problem on Ville's end. You can go to Finland and do the
ol' "blame-shift troubleshooting" routine through email, if you want.
I'd advice him to just replace the stuff; I'll wager Agent won't have a
problem maintaining threading, no matter what your preferences.
Then again, maybe he's posting through a Microsoft 'NNTP' service. That
would explain the munging, and I'm afraid Ville might be unable to avoid
monopoly crap in that case, as well.
Try Agent, Ville; its worth a shot at least.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: 12 Sep 2000 05:51:49 GMT
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 04:34:55 GMT, sfcybear wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ bullshit snipped ]
Give it up. The test doesn't prove a damn thing unless you collect a
reasonable amount of data.
I doubt that either OS is "faster" on a task as untaxing as downloading.
If you want to really test the OSs, run ftp servers on both of them and
have multiple clients download over a high bandwidth connection.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 12 Sep 2000 05:55:50 GMT
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:39:06 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| The massive curve of the price/performance ratio of hardware may indeed
| level out a good bit, once Linux is the de facto standard OS. Hardware
| is, after all, limited by Moore's Law; software efficiencies are limited
| only by imagination, with some small nod to engineering capabilities and
| bandwidth.
Software inefficiencies are limited both by the problems they are
trying to solve and by the high cost of writing software.
(For example, no amount of engineering magic is going to make it
possible to sort an array in constant time. Similarly, you can try to
write your word processor in x86 assembly, but will you ever finish
it?)
In contrast, use for hardware is limited only by needs and wants.
Needs and wants are unlimited, so there will always be scarcity in the
hardware market.
(Examples: Speech recognition for general purpose use; A system
smart enough to bag groceries without breaking the eggs, squashing the
bread, mixing frozen and dry foods or putting rat poison in with the
flour; Modeling of traffic patterns in LA 3 weeks in advance.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: 12 Sep 2000 05:59:12 GMT
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:33:56 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>No, it isn't the "same difference" at all. Administrator and root are very
>different things. Stuff like security and hardware abstraction actually
>apply to the Administrator account, whereas Unix security runs along the
>lines of "if UID=0, allow anything" - yet another reason NT is better.
Could you explain how "security and hardware abstraction" do apply to
Administrator and do not apply to root ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Why Linux might NOT! be called a Communist conspiracy!!
Date: 12 Sep 2000 06:14:10 GMT
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:47:56 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> Actually, I was trying to have some fun at the expense of Aaron
>> Kulkis and his Communist conspiracy theories, by proposing one that is at
>> least as well-supported as anything Mr. Kulkis has been able to think up.
>
>The difference is:
>
>My theories have supporting evidence.
You're doing a great job at hiding this so-called "evidence". So far, we've
only seen some wild verifiably false ( I say that because I know
NEA members ) claims about the NEA.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 12 Sep 2000 06:32:36 GMT
On 12 Sep 2000 02:40:09 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On 11 Sep 2000 22:57:47 GMT, Damien wrote:
| I've got a Pentium 133 running WIn9x and it runs it just as easily as
| it did 3 years ago. It's probably about 4 years old. IOW, I bet that your
| laptop is perfectly usable with Win9x.
I suppose it is, but it's faster under Linux. Plus, I'm running the
newest version of Linux. Under Windows, I wouldn't be able to
upgrade.
| BTW, I bet you aren't running KDE on those old machines. ( and I certainly
| hope you aren't trying to compile it on them !!! )
No, enlightenment with a lot of gnome apps. Between X, enlightenment
and Netscape I should probably spend more on memory. Of course anyone
will tell you enlightenment is unecessary, but I spend a lot of time
in front of this machine so it's import to me that it looks pretty.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 02:36:49 -0400
"Joe R." wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > The *only* thing that we can do to change the climate is that which
> > changes the terrain sufficiently to alter the energy flows in
> > rivers and air currents.
> >
> > And even then, all we will do is *change* the energy flow, not destroy
> > it.
>
> And that's more than enough to drastically change the climate.
>
> There was an article in the NY Times news service just last week on how
> the climate has changed in many major cities. They used Atlanta as an
> example, but other cities have had the same effect.
>
> Man has changed the climate in many places -- sometimes drastically.
Local micro-climate change. Has zero-effect on the weather 100 miles
away.
>
> >
> > If a major river is re-routed, the climate will be *CHANGED* not
> > destroyed.
> > If a mountain range is leveled, the climate will be *CHANGED*, not
> > destroyed.
>
> Nice try to move the goalposts.
>
> You claimed that Man couldn't even change the climate. Now you're
> pretending that the argument was about destroying the climate. How do
> you "destroy" a climate?
Precisely, my friend...precisely.
>
> >
> > In either case, some organisms will suffer, and others will prosper.
> >
> > All in all, it's a zero-sum game.
>
> Not quite. Greenhouse warming can, at least in principle and possibly in
> fact, change the overall temperature.
>
> But there's still plenty of room for the climate to change --
>
> For example, let's take a situation where the earth's mean temperature
> remains the same. Let's say that today it's 60 degrees F. What if it
> changes so that exactly half the planet is at a constant 140 degrees and
> the rest is at -20 degrees. According to you, that's a zero sum game and
> shouldn't matter. Of course, it does.
And you also know that this is utterly impossible, so get off it,
because such an idiotic argument is unbecoming of someone who has
the letters PhD after his name.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Joe R.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 02:49:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>>What do you expect from the guy who said that software products can't
>>>>>be damaged because it's all just bits?
>>>>
>>>>What, they get dented in shipping;
>>>
>>>Ah, so [...]
>>
>>Christ, what a troll. When you've figured out your ass from a hole in
>>the ground, try again. I don't respond to trolls on rhetorical
>>comments.
>>
>>You said removing IE would 'damage' the software. I said that's
>>bullshit, because its bullshit. Software doesn't get 'damaged' like
>>that.
>>
>
>Oh, OK Max. Now that you've said it again, and this time with a bit of
>feeble invective thrown in, it makes all that much more sense.
>
>So, this is your idea of intellectual discourse, eh Max? What a
>fucking worthless fraud you are.
Apparently you're not paying attention. You're still trolling with
rhetorical comments. Obviously, I cannot respond to them; they're too
silly to be taken seriously. I can point out, however, that they are
merely 'trolling with rhetorical comments'. Perhaps these would be
"your ass", and intellectual discourse would be "a whole in the ground".
Perhaps the opposite is the case. Either way, I wish you'd learn the
difference, or stop bothering me. Believe it or not, I've better things
to do.
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: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:53:19 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ermine Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:OW3fLxFHAHA.316@cpmsnbbsa09...
> It provided printer drivers that would ONLY work with WP and couldn't be
> used by anything running on Windows including the OS. IF they had chosen
to
> provide printer drivers that could be installed as general printer drivers
> for use by every application, I would have said "GREAT"
But that was the point, do Window style driver could do the work needed for
Wordperfect to do its job as well as the Dos version did. If they had
provided their drivers as Windows printer drivers, then it would have broken
too much compatibility with the Dos version. If they would have provided
Windows printer drivers capable of delivering the same print quality as the
Dos printer drivers, the Windows driver would not have been compatible with
any other applications anyway. Besides WordPerfect for Windows was also
able to use whatever Windows printer drivers were intalled on the machine.
So including those drivers was not the problem you are trying to make out of
it.
If you wanted to use Windows printer drivers with WordPerfect for Windows
you had that choice. If you wanted better quality printing the was beyond
the Windows printer drivers or you needed compatibility with the Dos version
or you needed a customized or third party WordPerfect printer driver you had
that choice as well.
> ... I was at a WP
> shop at the time and I really, really wanted WP to succeed because there
was
> a big contingent that was pushing to get Mac's as the only PCs in use -
> which meant MS Word. Because WP didn't have a version for Windows - the
Mac
> contingent used that as a BIG point of contention.
What is the most important feature of a wordprocessor? The quality of the
printed document.
> The 4 years really does relate to the fact that they should have had a
> version for Windows 2.x/ 386 back in '87 or earlier - you do remember
> PageMaker don't you?
Yes, developed for the Mac. Ported to OS/2 where it really flew. Ported to
Windows where is really limped until Windows 3.0. I used it as well.
Remember Adobe Illustrator?
> Their version for Windows back in '86 did everything
> necessary and certainly did everything technically that WP needed to be
able
> to do. At the least with Windows 3.0 actually available as early as '88
> and it being really '92 before a working version of WP (I don't call that
> first release working since it really didn't) was out - that would be 4
> years.
Which of the WordPerfect 4.x are you referring to? As you will recall
before a port of any version of WordPerfect prior to 5.0 would have been a
nightmare of incompatability. There was to no way for those versions to
behave the same in Windows as in Dos, so that any document saved by a Dos
version and if it would have been loaded into a Windows version, the
formatting would have been changed so much so that the entire document would
have had to be reformatted and the same if it was send back to Dos. Neither
Windows nor WordPerfect were ready for wach other at that time.
WordPerfect 5.0 was a radical redesign of the program from the ground up
with document portability in mind. The file format then contained enough
information to permit correct identification of a required printer driver
upon loading a document. It also conatined enough information to try to
convert the file to your default printer driver if the driver for with the
document was designed for was not installed. Printers and fonts were now
referred to by name and not by installation dependent printer number and
font number as it had prior to version 5.0.
This meant that version 5.0 or 5.1 as it turned out was well suited for
cross platform protability of documents which prior versions were not.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
