Linux-Advocacy Digest #690, Volume #29 Mon, 16 Oct 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ("David T. Johnson")
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (John Thompson)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (John Thompson)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (jazz)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (jazz)
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Todd")
Re: Media Player in Linux? (Michel Bardiaux)
Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech
Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player! (Stuart Fox)
Re: Astroturfing ("JS/PL")
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux (Roberto Teixeira)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? ("Garry Knight")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:12:54 -0400
You have falsely accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2
developers. For that,
you will have to answer. In addition, you have now falsely accused me
of email harassment, email stalking, and making threats against others.
You will also have to answer for those new accusations.
Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >>>>I have never harassed and denigrated OS/2 developers. Please delete
> >>>>this post or face the consequences.
>
> >>> Brad Wardell is an OS/2 developer. Marty Amodeo is an OS/2 developer.
>
> >> Assuming for argument sake that they are active OS/2 developers,
>
> >No need to assume in one case.
>
> >>I have not harassed and denigrated them.
>
> [Examples of David Johnson's harassment and denigration of active OS/2
> developers deleted].
>
> Marty, let me know wehn you get tired of Johnson's off-topic,
> deliberately harassing empty threats. I've been preparing a complaint
> to be filed with his ISP, should the need arise to do so, and you're
> welcome to contribute directly to it. Johnson already attempted to
> harass me by email. I saved evidence of his unsolicited, unwelcome
> email to me, and told him that any repeat performance of that would
> result in his ISP being contacted and such email delivered as evidence
> of his email stalking. Not surprisingly, he hasn't had the nerve to
> try emailing me back. (He likes to deliver empty threats in the
> newsgroup, and thought that he could get away with blustering his
> threats in an email as well. Not to clever, that one). I've already
> detailed his off-topic posts, his harassment and denigration of
> others, his ignorance of the newsgroup charter and violation of such
> in his inept attempt at being the net-cop for COOA, his email
> stalking, his threats against others, etc. But anyone who would like
> to directly contribute more such evidence to the complaint is welcome
> to contact me
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:13:54 -0400
You have falsely accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2
developers. For that,
you will have to answer.
Marty wrote:
>
> Jeff Glatt wrote:
> >
> > >>>>I have never harassed and denigrated OS/2 developers. Please delete
> > >>>>this post or face the consequences.
> >
> > >>> Brad Wardell is an OS/2 developer. Marty Amodeo is an OS/2 developer.
> >
> > >> Assuming for argument sake that they are active OS/2 developers,
> >
> > >No need to assume in one case.
> >
> > >>I have not harassed and denigrated them.
> >
> > [Examples of David Johnson's harassment and denigration of active OS/2
> > developers deleted].
> >
> > Marty, let me know wehn you get tired of Johnson's off-topic,
> > deliberately harassing empty threats. I've been preparing a complaint
> > to be filed with his ISP, should the need arise to do so, and you're
> > welcome to contribute directly to it. Johnson already attempted to
> > harass me by email. I saved evidence of his unsolicited, unwelcome
> > email to me, and told him that any repeat performance of that would
> > result in his ISP being contacted and such email delivered as evidence
> > of his email stalking. Not surprisingly, he hasn't had the nerve to
> > try emailing me back. (He likes to deliver empty threats in the
> > newsgroup, and thought that he could get away with blustering his
> > threats in an email as well. Not to clever, that one). I've already
> > detailed his off-topic posts, his harassment and denigration of
> > others, his ignorance of the newsgroup charter and violation of such
> > in his inept attempt at being the net-cop for COOA, his email
> > stalking, his threats against others, etc. But anyone who would like
> > to directly contribute more such evidence to the complaint is welcome
> > to contact me
>
> I appreciate the gesture, but don't feel the need to take any proactive action
> against Mr. Johnson at this time. He hasn't convinced me that his case has
> any merit, and until he does, I feel no need to defend myself. Furthermore, I
> feel that taking such an action against Mr. Johnson myself would go against
> the points I have been making about him, namely his attempts to silence those
> whose opinions he doesn't like. I'm more than content to simply ignore his
> meritless threats.
>
> Sorry to hear that you've received unwanted e-mail from him and I'm glad he
> hasn't tried the same with me. I made my stance on that matter clear to him
> when he accidentally (or so he claims) e-mailed me a copy of one of our posted
> correspondences in this forum.
------------------------------
From: John Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:41:44 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Linux world that will 100 percent
> emulate MSOffice. Nothing at all.
The same thing could be said for MSOffice itself. You have no
guarantee that documents created using earlier versions of
MSWord/Excel/whatever will transfer cleanly into the latest
version, or vice-versa. Microsoft has no incentive to ensure
anything but minimal backwards compatibility. Quite the
contrary: as each new version of MSOffice comes out and is
pre-loaded onto new PC's, the deficiencies in interoperability
force users of earlier versions to buy the newest version whether
they want to or not. In my view, this is only possible because
of the virtual monopoly position MS holds in office suite
software. By keeping MSOffice document formats proprietary and
constantly changing, achieving full MSOffice interoperability is
akin to shooting at a moving target. In the dark. Why anybody
would want to buy into this is beyond me.
But all this is really moot, as the original poster asked
specifically about linux software. There's really no reason for
you to extoll the virtues of MS software in a linux newsgroup.
Troll.
--
-John ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: John Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:44:08 -0500
jazz wrote:
> All I ask for is the ability to import Star Office files into Word. Possible?
Yes.
Just save the document as MSWord format from StarOffice. I've
had no problems.
--
-John ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jazz)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:16:32 -0400
In article <8se33h$94e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> jazz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> >
> >
> >Well, the problem is that everyone I work with uses word, so I have to
> >give them documents in word. Even professional journals in my field prefer
> >to receive articles in word attachments, though some still accept Latex.
> >
> >Thanks for your help.
> >
> >Jim
>
>
>
> I have written articles with other people--them using Word and me using
> StarOffice. It worked pretty well. Certainly having StarOffice
> was a tremendous help for me, even with the few glitches.
>
> The equations did not survive the transfer back and forth very well.
> Thankfully, we only had a handful, so I waited till I prepared the
> final version using Word and put them in then.
Thanks......
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jazz)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:18:08 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 23:11:06 -0400 jazz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Erp...I checked it out and am sorry I didn't make clear I'm currently a
> >Mac/Unix guy thinking about dumping my Mac for Linux (the Unix is our
> >supercomputer, which I am not allowed to take home).
>
> Well, if you run Linux on your Mac, you could use Mac-on-Linux to run
> MacOS inside Linux natively, and run any Mac software you need
> side-by-side with Linux stuff.
>
> See <http://www.ibrium.se/linux/mac_on_linux.html>.
Now you're talking! Thanks..
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:28:16 +0800
"Phil 'Guido' Cava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Perhaps Drestin is really John-Todd-Whoever in disguise; and, now we get
to
> here the inside scoop on MS instead of HP?
Nope. I'm still here mostly just reading. It's pretty sad that this group
has degraded to mostly 'Tholen' style posts, however.
I miss the good 'ol days of actually arguing technical merits of OS/2 vs.
NT.
Now that Windows 2000 is so way beyond OS/2 in almost every category of
comparison, there is really no more point in debating... but I still read
posts from this group now and then...
-Todd
>
> Guido
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> > On 10/13/00, 6:43:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote regarding
> > Re: The Power of the Future!:
> >
> > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 06:21:35 GMT, Mike Byrns
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > >> MS would not let a kook like you near any corporate site and give
> > > >> details on the usenet.
> >
> > > >Drestin has been much better behaved in recent posts. Kook is an ad
> > > >hominem attack on his credibility.
> >
> > > Yes, it was ad hominem, but "Drestin" has a long history of posting in
> > > comp.os.linux.advocacy. He much predates your posting here, so you
> > > have seen only the most recent "Drestin" posts. A number of long
> > > timers have a history with "Drestin".
> >
> > "Ad hominem: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to
> > logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that
> > question their opponents' motives."
> >
> > I suppose the question is, Is Drestin a factual authority on Hotmail?
> >
> > MS, like any large company, is NOT going to allow someone to post
> > corporate info on a sensitive migration in a public newsgroup so they
> > can banter about Windows and Windows 2000. If that's an Ad hominem
> > attack then it is - to me it's really about credibility of facts and
> > the illogical premise that this guy is going to have detailed
> > information about MS's hotmail architecture and performance AND be
> > allowed to post it on USENET in the format and context that he uses.
>
------------------------------
From: Michel Bardiaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Media Player in Linux?
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 16:34:30 GMT
Moderator wrote:
>
> You can set Netscape MIME types to load mpg123, timidity, and xanim
> for their respective filetypes.
>
That leaves a large number of files unsupported: AVI with I263, IMC,
MP34; ASF; WMV. And note that the support of AVI with INDEO (3,4,5)
relies on codecs that are distributed *in binary*.
--
Michel Bardiaux
Peaktime Belgium S.A. Rue Margot, 37 B-1457 Nil St Vincent
Tel : +32 10 65.44.15 Fax : +32 10 65.44.10
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 16:42:17 GMT
Oh, man, what a pain it is to install linux.
Put CD in drive.
Hit RESET and let cd boot.
use all the default prompts and
watch the RPM's install during the next 30 minutes.
Or windoze:
install DOS
install CDrom drivers.
run setup from CD
watch it install the wrong drivers; frequently *wildly* incorrect.
get the internet connection working
hunt websites for each and every card trying to find the right driver.
repeat installing windoze and the drivers untill you find an order of
instalation that works.
I experienced the same shit w/ os/2 vs. windoze95. I haven't a clue why people
think windoze is easy to install. With my pas-16 card's scsi i/f to a double
speed NEC cdrom drive, windoze chugged for 5 hours before I gave up and cut the
power. OS/2 recognized it instantly.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player!
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 16:37:39 GMT
In article <8s7p7b$66t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No reply? I'm going to assume that you made an assumption when you
> > said MS were one of the software companies involved.
>
> I did identify other links that closely identified Microsoft with
> DVD-CCA, since Microsoft uses it in Windows 98 (a major selling
> feature), but no direct reference that directly identifies the
> two software companies.
Which means that it just might be possible that Microsoft paid the
license fee...
>
> I mentioned in another post that shortly after the release of
> Windows 98, the DVD-CSS was less formalized and Microsoft and
> some "third stringer" no-name company were the two identified.
> Unfortunately, I didn't print it out (or any of the other 500,000
> pages I've read since then), and the cool thing about web sites
> is that you can remove all traces of a prior public statement.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to prove that Microsoft is NOT the primary software
> sponsor of DVD-CCA?
I never made the initial claim that they were, I'm just sceptical of
your claim that they are because I can't find any evidence.
Don't get me wrong on this, I think that the DVD-CSS idea is incredibly
stupid, and I'm glad it was cracked.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:52:25 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> When I said use your brain, I meant use it, not repeat the same
stuff
> >in
> >> >> detail. There is probably something very badly wrong with your
> >> >> installation. C corrupted filesystem or a bad harddisk or something.
> >> >> There are kernel options to allow Linux to see more memory.
> >> >> Try mem=256M or something like it.
> >> >
> >> >That's the point, my objective isn't to hack the kernel, it is to
insert
> >a
> >> >disk, hover over the return key for a few minutes and have the thing
work
> >in
> >>
> >> You don't need to hack the kernel, there's a point in the Mandrake 7.1
> >install
> >> where you get to enter how much memory you have. All you do is amend
the
> >> 64MB value in the text box and change it to 256MB. Not rocket science.
> >
> >I've done that on the second of three installs, it still shows 66mb when
the
> >install is complete. I also have a pretty good feeling that just typing
> >mem=256M will not magically work if it doesn't already see the maximum
> >amount available.
>
> Yes it will, it gets the maximum amount available by querying the BIOS
(where
> it gets the 64MB figure). Not sure where you're getting the 66MB figure
> from, 64MB is the maximum that most will report.
I'm getting it from here
http://badlinux.dynip.com/2a.gif
Yet there's 224mb installed (I thought it was the 256 stated above, but no.)
>
> You should just be able to add append "mem=256" to the relevant section of
> your lilo.conf and rerun lilo and it will work. That'll tell Linux exactly
how
> much memory it can use, overriding what the BIOS told it.
Windows 2000 doesn't have a problem figuring out how much ram is available,
neither does the system bios which is aware of total ram.
My needs, and most others I would guess are to let the OS handle the basic
hardware with no input form me, no editing .conf files, no anything. I can
insert the Win2k disk, and basicly let it install with minimal input.
I did however attempt to edit the lilo.conf which is on the boot floppy,
unfortunately for some reason I got an error message instead of a look at
the disk when I tried to open it, why wasn't I surprised.
I'll install the next Linux release I get my hands on, maybe it'll work
right on my system.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Date: 16 Oct 2000 15:12:12 -0400
>>>>> "Roberto" == Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Roberto> This is Conectiva 5.0 :-)
Roberto> -- Roberto Alsina (Disclaimer, I work for Conectiva)
me, too. Conectiva rulez!
--
Roberto Teixeira (I just couldn't help it...)
------------------------------
From: "Garry Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:16:53 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Dustin
Puryear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another possibility is to use HTML for true portability, but most
> publishing houses will not support that.
Most of the word processors I've come across can import and export RTF
pretty well. It just depends on how tricky you want to get with using
text frames and so on. And, of course, the WP needs to have a good font
substitution algorithm. But I believe RTF to be the most portable text
format (apart from plain text, that is...).
--
Garry Knight
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:07:01 -0500
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >I see you conveniently forgot that we're talking about Solaris 7 and
> >below.
> >>
> >> That's a crock of lame ass bullshit. Here is what you posted:
> >>
> >> http://x65.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=677223329
> >
> >Here was my clarification (which you responded to, btw)
> >
> >http://x55.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=677303057.1
>
> Irrelevent. It's nothing but an attempt on your part to shift the
> emphasis to an older version to hide that you were wrong. The pricing
> of older versions is irrelevent.
Not irrelevlant, you claimed that Solaris 7 was also cost of media for a
commercial license.
> >> Furthermore, Sun isn't even selling
> >> Solaris 7 any more.
> >
> >Funny, it's listed on their web site for sale, including prices and
SKU's.
> >That's the price I listed in my clarification.
>
> Although it's irrelevent provide a URL please. You never provided
> one. And not a stale one. I think your full of it.
http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?cid=23916
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:21:24 -0500
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8sdhfu$9gc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It's not a god thing it's just that eric has been sent to the usenet
> many times and he still can not find information. I found at least 6
> posts that had the information he wanted by doing a deja search (all
> news groups) looking for "linux masq firewall ipchains". After all the
> BS claims of technical know how eric can not even do a news group
> search. It would have taken him all of 15 minutes at most. Pathetic
> really and even more pathetic that you support him.
I first set up my firewall on Linux 2 years ago. I doubt a deja search
today would reveal what the usenet looked like 2 years ago, since Deja seems
to only go back a year.
I setup another firewall about a year ago with RedHat 6.1, and haven't done
so since.
> I mean take a look at how many posts he has made on use net and then try
> to tell me he is not experiance enough to do a usenet search
That's completely irrelevant to what happened 1-2 years ago.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:26:37 -0500
"unicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Two other things:
> 1) On Windoze systems, reformatting the hard drive is often easier than
trying
> to hunt down all the errors that have crept into a bad Win-install.
No, just boot from the recovery disk (which is a DOS boot disk), delete the
windows directory. If you want to completely get rid of it, then sys the
disk. All gone. No format needed and it takes two commands.
> 2) Who cares anyway, this isn't the point of either the origianl question
or the
> original answer.
> It was about installing RH 6.2. Any references to windoze were just color
> commentary.
You mean lies.
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > "unicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I'm not sure that this is the answer to your query, but when MS went
from
> > > Win95 to Win98, they changed the spec for the PnP protocol.
> > >
> > > About 10% of machines that ran Win95 would lock up and die when Win 98
> > > was installed. To the point that you had to boot DOS 6 from a floppy
and
> > > reformat the hard drive to recover.
> >
> > Two things.
> >
> > 1) You *NEVER* have to reformat the hard drive to recover unless you're
> > entire file system has been mangled. You need only boot from your
recover
> > disk (which was dos in and of itself). Installing windows doesn't do
> > anything mythical that you must reformat your hard drive to recover from
it.
> >
> > 2) What you're talking about is not the PnP spec, nor was it something
MS
> > changed. What you're talking about is ACPI. Many motherboards had
faulty
> > ACPI bioses that claimed they were ACPI but weren't fully compliant.
Since
> > Win95 didn't support ACPI, it never saw any problems. Win98 did support
ACPI
> > though, and would lock up the system when it tried to use the faulty
ACPI
> > bios.
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
