Linux-Advocacy Digest #207, Volume #30 Mon, 13 Nov 00 05:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8{ (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("David Brown")
Re: OS stability ("Tom Wilson")
Re: OS stability ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Word 2000 - just as shitty as ever? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:16:39 GMT
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:12:12 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|>
|> Fortunately, with linux you have a choice, there are at least 3 diff ACL
|> projects out there for linux.
|
|None of which are near completion, would be considered anywhere near stable
|and go completely against the grain of *nix style "security".
|
|It's a hack-job on an antiquated and inadequate security model. Several Unix
|vendors have implemented DAC on their platforms, but only for Government
|jobs since the DOD requires it, but it's still a hack-job there, as well.
|
|It's the design philosophy that counts, not the attempts of individuals
|to correct the original poor design that matters.
So, by this reasoning, we would be justified in holding all of
Microsofts past mistakes against them, even after they have been fixed,
since the attempts of companies to correct their original poor design
don't matter.
Double standards can be dangereous. Don't go there.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:48:58 GMT
In article <g7IP5.19730$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The obvious way is to provide your own DNS, given that you have
everything
> you need and more than one machine. Make it primary for your own
> domain (which can be made-up) and number ranges, and either a generic
> caching nameserver or a slave to your ISP. If that seems too
complicated
> for 2 machines, put everything in /etc/hosts.
Then there's the Windows way of doing it - the DNS is assigned to the
Dialup entry setting, and not to the system. Windows used to do it the
same way as Linux and made it hard to have two networks, but that was
fixed a while ago.
Now what was it I said, "Linux lags behind Windows"?
--
---
Pete
Why don't I use Linux? I'm waiting for Delphi to appear on Linux...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:50:36 GMT
In article <3a0f1e49$0$27393@reader5>,
Bas van der Meer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pete, what sound card do you have? If it's an on-board VIA soundcard
(as
> often with recent AMD Athlon/Duron motherboards) you should configure
> ALSA-sound module instead of the regular one.
I have an ESS Allegro. This is supported by OSS but apparently not by
KDE2 (KDE2.0 dies when I tried OSS).
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8{
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:52:52 GMT
In article <W6FP5.19668$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's see: turn off DNS, things break. Too complicated?
I assume it's the sight of the crash dump that's putting her off?
What has been interesting is finding out what it is exactly that
prevents things from working etc.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:04:22 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The claim that Linux is already "enterprise ready" is at stake.
Well, Linux is being used by plenty of enterprises, so it's beyond
"enterprise ready".
> You can't have an enterprise-ready application with a faulty and
> half-baked file system (ext2).
I'm not sure why you think ext2 is half-baked and faulty? I've been
using it since way back when xiafs was the main competitor, and it's
always been a good performer with no more bugs than any other.
I wouldn't use it without a backup, but neither would I trust anything
else to that degree.
> According to people in your camp, ReiserFS is the answer
It, along with other offerings, gives you journalling - of both
metadata and data, unlinke NTFS which only journals metadata.
> If you were setting up an enterprise system with thousands of desktops
> running a piece of software that they all depended upon. Downtime is
> measured in minutes costing thousands of dollars per each downtime unit.
> Would you trust Linux and ReiserFS to it?
> The possible answers are:
> "Yes"
> "No"
> "I wouldn't use Linux in that scenario"
I'd certainly consider Linux with or without ReiserFS, but it'd need
to be a solution with enough redundancy. If I need to trust a single
box, it'd have to be a 390, I guess.
> "Yes" then you're obviously lying because it's still a work in
> progress
Well, I wouldn't trust anything which wasn't supported with
improvements - like bug fixes. With this metric, the only system
useable would be Win 3.11. Is that what you want?
> "No" Then Linux isn't "enterprise ready".
Really? Why don't you come back when MS comes up with anything
remotely enterprise ready?
You probably think your brilliant rhetoric proves something - have you
stopped beating your father yet? Please answer "yes" or "no".
> I never want to hear another jab at MS for "false marketing" or
> "misleading statements", etc.
Then go read a different newsgroup.
> Whatever you consider "done" or "stable" or "we're confident enough
> that we'd trust running a banking operation on it"
Okay, fair enough. Did it occur to you that other people - like Red
Hat and Microsoft - might have differing opinions of what's
"enterprise ready"?
>> It's still being worked on, of course. Does that make it not
>> count?
> Ah... well, this answers the questions. If the developers don't
> count on it, then why should a Fortune 500 company?
What is that supposed to mean? Obviously developers only count on Win
3.11, since they have stopped developing it. Is that where you'd run
your banking operations?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 13 Nov 2000 09:04:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:16:51 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
:>Let me see, of the top of my head, things that you *have* to remember in
:>order to handle linux.
: Wrong.
:>Lot of commands and their parameters.
: Again, you don't have to know a "lot of commands" to use Linux.
In all fairness, this is a point that can't be argued one way
or another since the meaning of "a lot of" is purely a matter
of opinion.
For example, what if Ayende considers 20 to be "a lot of" commands?
Then it *would* take memorizing "a lot of" commanda to handle Linux.
(You've got to memorize more than ls and man to use the commandline
effectively. "cd", "mkdir", "cp", etc... It's not enough to go looking
those up in man each time you want to use them. They have to be
memorized before your use of the command-line can be practical.)
For us programmer types, memorizing 15 commands or so is child's
play. Not because we can do rote memorization well (far from it
in many cases), but because we have a good intuative feel by now
for how to minimize what to memorize. We're so used to doing
everything by commands and parameters (or functions and parameters)
that our minds know what information to memorize for that, and
what information is fluff that can be safely forgotten. (For
example, memorizing the order of parameters of a system call is not
as important as memorizing what situations call for the use of that
system call, and memorizing the quickest path to finding the
terse usage docs for that function call. Example: Memorizing
that the exec() calls are the ones that replace the process with a
new executable file is important, and remembering that exec() has
it's own man page is important, but once you have that then it's
safe to forget all the various forms of exec, and all their myriad
of parameters.)
This happens subconsiously, so we tend to forget how hard it is
for someone new to the field to memorize all of this stuff. They
end up memorizing more than they need to, and cluttering up their
head with pointless trivia. They don't know the difference yet
between the important stuff and the trivial stuff so they try
to soak it all in.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 13 Nov 2000 09:11:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: No, you are as far wrong about that as you have been about
: everything else. I said the developers work on windows and
: I do the linux stuff myself. Perhaps you were confused when I
: said the CVS repository of their work resides on Linux. The
: developers use wincvs or their native command line program
: in client/server mode and don't know/care where the source
: really is.
Side note - something there caught my eye.
Whoah - "wincvs"? That sounds like something I could use where
I work. Is it some sort of windows CVS client? Does it have
to use the client/server CVS technique or will it work writing
directly to a CVS archive on a Samba share? For the windows
projects up until now I've been asking people to transfer the
code to one of the unix machines and run cvs from there to
commit their work. It sounds like I don't have to do that
if this wincvs thing is what it sounds like.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:31:33 +0100
I can crash my Win95 desktop quite easily by trying to start programs too
early. Another good one is to insert a ZIP disk while the desktop is first
being displayed after a reboot. Sometimes inserting a CD also works. I
haven't managed to get the same effect under NT, however.
Curtis wrote in message ...
>Giuliano Colla wrote...
>> Life is not as simple as that. Maybe you've noticed that in order to
>> fake a faster boot, icons do appear before they can be actually used.
>> Usually if you click "My computer" too soon nothing happens. Apparently
>> there's a split microsecond when things are only halfway setup, and if
>> you just catch that moment you may get a BSOD out of a very innocent
>> operation. I was setting up networking and for each change I was
>> prompted to reboot, so I was acting faster than normal, after the umpth
>> reboot. I tried to reproduce the problem, and it was very hard to do,
>> but I succeeded at least once more.
>
>Hmmm. I'm one like you who tends to be hasty and start hitting icons
>before they actually become usable. Usually nothing happens. No
>bluescreen. You're an unlucky guy. <g>
>
>--
>ACM.
>________________________________________________________
>"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:43:15 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > In article <8um3k5$onk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In article <ColP5.7666$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > >
> > > > I suppose you don't change the oil in your car either. The whole
> > Oil
> > > > Changing thing is a ruse designed to sell more oil and is completely
> > > > unneccesary. Right?
> > >
> > > I don't have oil in my computer! I don't have ANYTHING that REQUIRES
> > > regular changing. Please povide documented evidance were a computer
> > > manufacture recomends changing ANYTHING the way car manufactures
> > > recomend changing OIL!
> > >
> > > Your loosing it franky!
> > >
> >
> > Whoosh!
> >
> > What was that?
> >
> > Just another analogy shooting over Matt's head...
>
> What part of a computer needs regular maitenance, exactly?
Aside from the users and admin, I'm not quite sure.
Could be, we're talking about an ENIAC here...<g>
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:43:16 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yuBP5.7784$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8um3k5$onk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > No, it's not the same hardware. It may be the same type of hardware,
> > but
> > > all that shows is that Linux admins do not perform regular
> > maintenance.
> > > That's to be expected from non-professionals.
> >
> > Over all, it is basicly the same hardware. Or else Linux and UNIX users
> > Know how to buy better hardware! You have NOT proven that the downtime
> > for NT and W2K is because of HARDWARE maintenance! If any thing is
> > forcing reqular maintenance of W2K workstations every 30 days It must be
> > the software because It it is not required for Linux or UNIX.
>
> It is in fact required for any computer running off the shelf hardware
24x7
>
> > > I suppose you don't change the oil in your car either. The whole Oil
> > > Changing thing is a ruse designed to sell more oil and is completely
> > > unneccesary. Right?
> >
> > I don't have oil in my computer! I don't have ANYTHING that REQUIRES
> > regular changing. Please povide documented evidance were a computer
> > manufacture recomends changing ANYTHING the way car manufactures
> > recomend changing OIL!
>
> Sure you do. Hard disks have mean times between failure. If you don't
> change them prior to the MTBF you're risks go up exponentially, just like
> not changing your oil. Of course the MTBF on hard disks is quite high,
but
> that's taking into account that some drives fail after a week, some after
10
> years. Doing routine diagnostics will help you identify that.
Why replace them before hand? (MTBF numbers are so arbitrary, anyway) Since
we're talking mission critical here, we're talking about hardware RAID level
5 hot-swappable (I Sure as hell HOPE anyway). Drive gets flaky, drive gets
changed, drive gets restripped on the spot. Barely a hiccup to the server. I
guess the mother hen approach has its' merits. But, it's kinda hard on the
ol' IT department budget..
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Word 2000 - just as shitty as ever?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:43:14 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Word 2000 converts to HTML in an interesting way. It adds
> some fake xml to encode the Style setting. And at least the
> nesting is correct now. It is still hard-to-read, and has a lot
> of extra tags in it, but at least this extra crap lets you
> convert it back to a Word doc without losing any styling.
Out of curiosity, how is it with RTF files? Any changes from the last
version?
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:43:18 GMT
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8umv75$k80$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Raul Sainz wrote:
>
> > > "Of course, you must realize that OS decay is actually a natural
> > occurrence
> > > that results from heavy use of your system. You could look at the OS
> > > decay problem much as you would an aging automobile?no matter how well
> > > you take care of it, eventually, you're going to have to buy a new
one."
> > >
> > > You poor poor guys :-)
> >
> > To be fully honest we must admit that even a god system suffers from
> > this,
> > be it libraries, be it disk fragmentation or memory one. Slow, but it
> > occurs on
> > each OS of the planet.
>
> Well not as much as Windows :-) When i used it, and i not nice to a OS, it
> lasted for about 4 months. Then the registry got [too]big , probably due
to
> the fact that i like to test and install lots of programs ;- only thing
> that really helped was to reformat and reinstall the whole thing. Then it
> runned really nice and fast for about 2 weeks or something (depended on
> what i had downloaded) .
> I actually installed Win95 on an old Aptiva last week and was surprised
how
> fast a fresh Windows install can be :-)
I've actually managed to keep one over a year that was fast. My P166-MMX was
running circles around a friend's Celeron Whatever. The secret is to keep
the registry pruned and the disk de-fragmented. Also, occasionally boot up
in DOS mode, rename c:\windows\win386.swp to something like kill.me, reboot,
erase the kill.me file, then do a full defrag. This will cause the swap file
to be more contiguous. (Assuming you defragment often). Helps a lot.
Actually, Mijenix Fix-It utilities
does a bang-up job with the registry cleaning. A hell of a lot better than
the utility I wrote, anyway.
Avoid Microsoft's RegClean at all costs.
PS. Whoever said Windoze doesn't require as much work as Linux....<g>
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:43:04 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QeqP5.125604$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:99nP5.19049$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:OdeP5.125412$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Now that thats out of the way, when will Linux stop allowing root
> > > exploits
> > > > > so easily?
> > > >
> > > > Only if you memorize all the icons and logos for all the programs
> > > > you find at freshmeat.net.
> > >
> > >
> > > As I suspected. Linux root exploits forever!
> >
> > Just like that Other OS... except you don't have to wait 6 months for a
> > service pack that will break something else you run.
>
> Easy root exploits are a Linux specialty.
The ability to quickly adapt to and eliminate such holes is yet another.
I can understand the number of exploits on Linux systems, as designing
security requires a great deal more expertise than it does for, say, NT. I
should know, I'm presently starting the learning process and have quite a
way to go yet. (My last Unixesque experience involved SCO XENIX System V, an
AST Six Pack, a 386-16DX (Double Sigma Stamped), and some 1200 BPS Wyse
terminals). What I've seen so far, tends to support the "stupid
administrator" argument. The tools are there. Understanding them fully is
another matter. No nice radio buttons or "Are You Sure About This?" Message
Boxes. NT has Linux beat there, hands down.
The one thing that sells me on Linux, as a programmer, is the source code.
Proper string handling routines nullify buffer overflow exploits. And as for
things I can't fix with a compiler, there's always a guru or two out there
who has the answers. Their response times far out-do Redmond's and that's to
be expected. Nerds don't have the scheduling and time constraints of a large
multi-national conglomerate.
While I'm not as vitriolic as some of you are, <grin> I'm sold on the
Free-Source Movement.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:43:11 GMT
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Curtis wrote:
> >
> > Giuliano Colla wrote...
> > > Life is not as simple as that. Maybe you've noticed that in order to
> > > fake a faster boot, icons do appear before they can be actually used.
> > > Usually if you click "My computer" too soon nothing happens.
Apparently
> > > there's a split microsecond when things are only halfway setup, and if
> > > you just catch that moment you may get a BSOD out of a very innocent
> > > operation. I was setting up networking and for each change I was
> > > prompted to reboot, so I was acting faster than normal, after the
umpth
> > > reboot. I tried to reproduce the problem, and it was very hard to do,
> > > but I succeeded at least once more.
> >
> > Hmmm. I'm one like you who tends to be hasty and start hitting icons
> > before they actually become usable. Usually nothing happens. No
> > bluescreen. You're an unlucky guy. <g>
> >
> I agree with you that it's a very unlikely thing to happen. Maybe it's
> related to other unlikely conditions. Perhaps you've noticed that in NT
> if you alter your network setting it turns out that your shared
> directories still appear to be shared (the icon is that of a shared
> thing) but actually they aren't. You must remove the sharing and then
> share again. At this point the folder or the drive is again visible
> netwise (rather crappy, but it works like that). As I was setting up
> networking, it's possible that I was in this particular condition of a
> C: drive shared/not shared. Were it the only stability problem with
> Windows NT, one could neglect it as irrelevant.
> I only mentioned it because Ayende appeared not to believe that a BSOD
> may come out of a drag-and-drop operation (which actually I too have
> experienced a few times). So I brought forward my experience of an even
> simpler operation which *may* produce a BSOD.
Which was a moot point, IMHO, since any of the following *may* produce them:
Planetary Alignment Shifts, Chinese Tea Prices, Pork Belly Futures, and
Current Fashion Trends. Net etiquette dictates I stop the list here.
Bandwidth is our friend!
The drag-and-drop thing happened to me a few times too . SP4 on every
occasion. Never SP3. Weird.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:43:09 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > SNIP
> > But it helps ignorant users remain ignorant and as a result make them
> > vulnerable. The sad thing is that most of these users don't even have
> > insight into the implications behind their ignorance. Some may feel that
> > they're being exploited by MS. Weeeeellll, I wouldn't necessarily say so
> > because if the UNIX type approach was all there is, computers wouldn't
be
> > so commonly used in the household setting. People would get frustrated
> > because they'd actually have to learn to have fun.
>
> The next Outlook will block most file attachments by default. The problem
> will be gone and all those who can't get their frog in blender attachments
> will have to find another distibution route.
Then out of nowhere comes public outcry for Frog-In-Blender attachment
support. Even greater outcries over Hamster-In-Microwave attachments. The
whole bloddy mess starts over again...
Not a good solution.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:43:13 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Okay, here is how you do it.
> > > Start>Run> "Regedit"
> > > Go to:
> > > "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\"
> > > if there is a sub key call "shell", go to it, otherwise, create it.
> > > In "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell", delete any previous attempt to do the
> > > notepad.
> > > Then create a subkey to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\" called "notepad"
> > > create a subkey to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\notepad" called
"command"
> > > Go to "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\notepad\command\" and double click
the
> > > default value. (called "(Default)" )
> > > Enter "C:\Windows\Notepad.exe %1" at the edit string box that would
> appear.
> >
> > Small correction... put quotes around the %1, so long filenames are
> > handled properly.
> >
> > Is there a %* or something similar? This method doesn't work with
> > multiple files unfortunately.
>
> That is because notepad can't handle multiply files.
I hate that!. My solution, and I know it only appeals to a few, was to grab
the source off the MSDN CD, convert it to an MDI application wrapped around
CRichEditCtrl, and voila! In a couple of hours, I had a program identical to
Notepad that handles multiple text files >64k in length.
I wonder why MS continued to build notepad around the Win16 Edit Control in
and beyond Win95?
If anyone wants the source (VC++5.0) or binary to it, no problem. I'll
e-mail it.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
