Linux-Advocacy Digest #728, Volume #29 Wed, 18 Oct 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anybody want to test a widget? (2:1)
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Astroturfing
Re: Anybody want to test a widget? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (2:1)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (2:1)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Brian Moore)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Peter Seebach)
Re: Media Player in Linux? (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anybody want to test a widget?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:15:10 +0100
Donal K. Fellows wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2*(3+4) becomes 3 4 + 2 *
>
> ITYM "2 3 4 + *"
Ok, so what is ITYM (I can't figure it :-)
I wasn't refering to an automatic converter: I was refering to writing
RPN by hand. Obviously, though, both work fine.
> Inline to RPN conversion is trivial since you just perform a walk of
> the parsed syntax tree, inserting node labels after processing the
> children of each node. Parsing 101 if you ask me...
Yep. Inline (thanks for the word-I forgot it) to RPN conversion seems
pretty easy (I haven't done it, but it looks like making a simple tree).
I had my origional program work in native RPN for several reasons. The
first and foremost was that I was in a hurry and since I can write RPN
stuff myself, it was fastest to use RPN. The second reason it that it
appealed to me.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:33:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Scaramanga
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:33:24 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> This is a piece of cake with either Norton Firewall,
>> ZoneAlarm (free) or BlackIce or SonicWall which I believe
>> is also free for personal use.
>
>ipchains doesnt allow remote users to execute shell commands though.
That's what pcAnywhere and Remote Desktop are for. :-)
(For Linux, ssh/sshd work very well.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:37:24 -0000
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:40:00 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:UQ8H5.11324$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I was asked to install a kick-around Linux box on an extra box we had
>> to test our java SDK on something other than Windows.
>>
>> Basic RH 6.2 install... didn't detect hardly anything.
>>
>> Intel 810-chipset, one of the most ubiquitos chipsets around... couldn't
>> detect sound, video, UDMA, RAM, nothing.
...yet it managed to catch my Voodoo3 and my Matrox G400.
It (Mandrake 7.2 to be precise) also caught the netcard and
the cdrom burner.
>>
>> It detected 16MB of RAM. Thank you very little.
>
>Aren't standards wonderful?
>
>> What was that claim that Linux supported more hardware than Windows *.*?
>
>Runs just fine on a couple of old Sparc's here. Which flavor of Windows
>would you suggest instead?
[deletia]
--
But I was there and I saw what you did,
I saw it with my own two eyes.
So you can wipe off that grin;
I know where you've been--
It's all been a pack of lies!
Disco is to music what Etch-A-Sketch is to art.
The debate rages on: Is PL/I Bachtrian or Dromedary?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Anybody want to test a widget?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:37:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:15:10 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Donal K. Fellows wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > 2*(3+4) becomes 3 4 + 2 *
>>
>> ITYM "2 3 4 + *"
>
>Ok, so what is ITYM (I can't figure it :-)
"I think you mean".
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:33:44 +0100
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> It was the Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:26:40 +0100...
> ...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You've misunderstood latex. LaTeX allows you to write a document without
> > worrying about typesetting. You just say, "this is a new section",
> > "emphasize this", etc etc. LaTeX typesets for you. With word, you have
> > to do the typesetting yourself, such as 2 spaces after a full stop,
> > underlining or emboldening titles, and section numbering by hand.
> >
> > The point about latex is that it does the typesetting for you, not the
> > other way round (although you can force it to do what you want).
>
> Actually, writing LaTeX code is a lot like typing a manuscript with
> typesetting directives for submission to an old-fashioned print shop.
>
> The LaTeX macro package is the funny old guy working at the Monotype
> keypunch, and TeX is the other guy who does the layout with repro
> film, wax paper and a razor. :)
Yep. The point is, you give directives, but with most WPs, you have to
do the typesetting as well.
> For documents which are basically just a stream of text with
> subdivisions, markup and floating elements, LaTeX is much more
> advanced and much better suited than any other word processing or DTP
> software I know.
Many, many documents are basically streams of text. DTP is not really
suited at all to that, and WPs, although it is their field, aren't that
good.
> Documents which are not stream-oriented but instead
> take the form of a plane inhabited by linked frames are hard to handle
> with LaTeX, that kind of stuff is the job of a DTP program.
Or multiple, unrelated frames on the same page (like a newspaper). Not
really LaTxX's field. I've seen a presentation wrapper for latex, though
and it does produce very nice looking slides (GIFs, I think) rendered in
a web browser. You can also insert links, animations, audio etc etc.
I've been meaning to try it.
> Classic word processing is out as it is hardly more than typing with a
> huge, overfunctional typewriter. Of course, all the "friendly" LaTeX
> front ends we've got are clumsy (don't get me started on LyX, a
> valiant effort, but not good enough for someone who's used to using
> all of LaTeX's power),
LyX (I've just been looking at it) is not clumsy by a WPs standard. I
think it's very reasonable, especially if you're used to a WP.
Personally, I prefer vi (but my brother swears by pico :-) as the
editor.
I don't think WPs look superficially better than LyX. But I don't really
use either.
> which makes classic WPs look better
> superficially. But the paradigm that any productive editing action
> will immediately insert hard elements into the document which will
> remain unchanged up to the printout is obsolete.
I don't really like the general WP paradigm. I think the reason that I
really appreciate LaTeX is that I once wrote a primitive typesetting
language for the BBC micro computer that used an old Star printer's
functions to typeset. It was esentially a stream with markup codes in
it. I used it for 2 A-Level projects (about 3 years ago) and it gave
better resultes than a WP coming out of that printer. It was completely
controllable (since I wrote it from scratch) and, of course, didn't
crash since it used a very stable editor.
> You'll notice that modern "word processors" are all moving towards
> becoming DTP programs. MS Word, for example, is a monstrosity which is
> very hard to qualify.
The idea of using a program for writing streamed documents for something
like DTP in absurd. I suppose you could make a TeX based DTP package,
where TeX typesets the text and you put the resule in EPS files, and
your program Places the EPS images on the page.
> mawa
> --
> Wachturmverkäufer!
> Weichborstenzahnpfleger!
> Weintraubenentkerner!
> Witzeaufschreiber!
What does that mean?
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:36:38 +0100
> I agree with what you say, but my point is that, these days, using a
> computer for word processing is all about content management. A good
> word processor will provide you with better facilities for this than a
> program that evolved from a typesetting tool.
>
> Harry
TeX was never just a typesetting tool. It was designed to allow high
level, content orientated languages (it says so in the TeX Book).
I haven't seen a word processor that gives the power and output quality
of TeX. They are still too orientated to letting the user, not the
program do the typesetting.
There are very good content management facilities in LaTeX.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:45:28 -0000
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 05:18:16 GMT, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Weevil wrote:
>
>> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > > Think about it. It's much more likely that MS competitors pay people to
>> post
>> > > anti-ms FUD on usenet. Do you get paid per post?
>> >
>> > I don't. But it's posts like Weevil's and Devlins's that make me post.
>> If
>> > they'd shut up I would too. I wouldn't mind being paid for what I do here
>> > because it's honest work. Linux folks lie about Windows and Mac folks lie
>> about
>> > Windows every day. We tell the truth. Keep it up man! I will try to.
>> >
>>
>> One would think you'd "shut up" out of sheer embarassment.
>
>You get so cranky when you are cornered.
>
>> You know, you and others are constantly asking myself or others to "Post
>> proof!" I have posted proof of whatever I was saying countless times now,
>> and I've never once asked somebody else to post proof.
>
>Why not? It's your right.
>
>> What you do here is honest work, huh? And Linux folks lie about Windows?
>> Mac folks do, too? But you and Drestin and your buddies tell the truth?
>
>Sure. We hardly ever cast disparaging remarks about Linux or Mac that are not
>true. Linux is not as easy to use as Windows. Mac is not a stable OS with good
>multitasking. Device and application support for both pale in comparison to
>Windows.
Regardless of the validity of this comment, it still consitutes
FUD. It completely sidesteps the issue of whether or not it's
sufficient. Even Microsoft's own relatively stable version of
Windows has it's own device support issues.
[deletia]
The same goes for Mac and Be. You don't need the WHOLE store.
The implication that you do is quite decietful.
Plus, things are looking up. Last year it was "who even supports
Linux in 3D" and this year it's "who's drivers perform better".
Also, considering that many people can't even wire their own
peripherals themselves (winDOS or not), it is not unreasonable
to expect that the common end user could adequately deal with
the issue of finding hardware that works with whatever OS they
happen to be running.
The WinTel PC still remains a complex beast dependent on the
crutch of gratis tech support provided by local gurus.
--
"We Americans, we're a simple people... but piss us off, and we'll bomb
your cities."
-- Robin Williams, _Good Morning Vietnam_
Please help keep the world clean: others may wish to use it.
Q: Are we not men?
A: We are Vaxen.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Moore)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: 18 Oct 2000 14:07:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
....
>
>
>TeX was never just a typesetting tool. It was designed to allow high
>level, content orientated languages (it says so in the TeX Book).
>
>I haven't seen a word processor that gives the power and output quality
>of TeX. They are still too orientated to letting the user, not the
>program do the typesetting.
>
>There are very good content management facilities in LaTeX.
>
>-Ed
>
>
>
On the other hand, if you are using LaTeX, and for whatever reason
need to make just a small change in the appearance of
the document after the typesetting has occurred, it can be
infuriating. After digging into Lamport to find the relevant
part, it might tell you something like "you shouldn't want to
do that."
--
Brian G. Moore, School of Science, Penn State Erie--The Behrend College
[EMAIL PROTECTED] , (814)-898-6334
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:26:34 -0500
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Listen. I only asked you to post proof that "Microsoft advocates scoffed
at GUI
> of Amigas, Macs, and Atari STs. No real productivity could ever be
achieved
> with those mouse things, they said. And who needed
> multitasking? Why would anybody ever need to run more than one program at
a
> time, for god's sakes? And of course, 640k ram was enough for anybody."
Actually, there were lots of people back then that did scoff at GUI
interfaces, but this was mostly because they had seen how poor the GUI's
worked on PC's. They assumed that they must be just as poor on other
computers.
> Neither COMA nor COMNA existed then.
Correct. The .Advocacy groups were created about 1991-1992 IIRC. The first
was actually comp.sys.amiga.advocacy and was part of the grand restructuring
of the comp.sys.amiga heiarchy. c.s.a.a was so successful at stripping
advocacy talk out of the serious newsgroups that soon other heiarchies
followed suit.
> On the contrary, it is a 32-bit protected memory pre-emptive multitasking
> consumer OS. It boots from the DOS bootloader but when it loads it takes
over
> control from the DOS subsystem and it every bit it's own OS. Windows 3.1
did
> the same thing only it still used 16-bit addressing and used cooperative
> multitasking.
Yes and no. Windows 95 still relies on certain DOS functions, however those
functions run inside a Win95 controlled DOS box. Windows takes full
control, but delegates a few key functions when necessary.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:30:57 -0500
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:voeH5.1574$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Here's a pretty good starting point:
>
> http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
>
> It's Caldera's Statement of Facts in their case against Microsoft. When
> faced with the hundreds of smoking guns Caldera produced in this document,
> Microsoft simply bought them off...settled out of court, I mean. The
amount
> was undisclosed, but most leaks have pegged it at $275 million and up.
Most of the reports I've read say that Caldera settled for less than 1% of
the amount they asked for in their suit. I'd say that Caldera is the one
that settled, not MS.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: 18 Oct 2000 18:16:24 GMT
In article <Ij9E5.119434$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote:
>All the WINE folks have to do is to make a control that behaves like the
>standard windows edit control and clones it's interface.
Okay, so, you're saying this is *totally* documented, and that every interface
feature that of the control is described clearly in the documentation?
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:36:37 +0200
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Media Player in Linux?
Michel Bardiaux wrote:
>
> 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
divx.euro.ru
it [aviplay] plays almost every avi you can get by using original hacked
windows dll's and quite some wine coding
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 18 Oct 2000 13:37:48 -0500
> The first indication that Microsoft was not serious about the enterprise
> was Windows NT 4.0, when they moved GUI code down into kernel space.
GDI != GUI, troll!
------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 18 Oct 2000 13:40:42 -0500
> NT is based on VMS, which was based on MVS, and so it goes.
Only in your imagination.
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/news/fromms/kanoarchitect.asp
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
