Linux-Advocacy Digest #433, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 07:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: KDE2 (matt newell)
Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Donn Miller)
Re: KDE2 (Donn Miller)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux + KDE2 + hello world = 8( (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Insite into Linux Kernel 2.4 (mark)
Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it? (mark)
Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it? (mark)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: matt newell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE2
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:38:39 -0800
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 11:42:26 -0800, matt newell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : : You are what I consider an idiot.
>
> You're certainly entitled to that opinion, however wrong it may be.
>
> : : KDE2 has a very powerfull ability to use themes. Themes can make your
> : system
> : : look however you want. It even supports gtk themes so it can look just
> : like
> : : gnome if that is what you would like. You critisize KDE without even
> : : exploring the options. What a shame.
>
> I'm well aware of the availability of themes. It's a shame that I have
> to hunt all over the net to find KDE2 themes that don't look like bad
> anime. It's also considered poor form to call someone an "idiot" when
> your own posting is full of spelling mistakes ("powerfull" and "critisize").
> I won't do you the same disservice. I may think your opinions are idiotic,
> but you're probably a reasonably intelligent person.
KDE2 comes with 15 themes, each of which can be configured using bg and fg
color settings. Also, all installed gnome themes are immediatly available to
use.
> Actually, the notebook on the other side of the room has the Debian Woody
> release installed on it. Yes, I have gone so far as to
> "apt-get install task-kde", as well as "apt-get install task-helix-gnome".
> KDE2 works, and while more pleasant to look at than KDE1, is still slow.
> The notebook in question is by no means a speed demon (P-133/48MB RAM), but
> while KDE2 crawls, Helix GNOME is bearable to use.
I have found KDE2 to be much more responsive on slower machines. Unfortunatly,
most KDE2 packages are compiled with exceptions enabled which takes a lot of
memory and processor time. This problem has since been solved and hopefully
will not occur in the future.
> It's a shame that KDE is written in C++.. C++ still doesn't have any
> reasonably standardized support on the Linux side of things. Witness
> the whole gcc 2.9x/3.0 debacle over ABIs and lack of binary compatability
> between releases. Shall we just statically link EVERYTHING? GNOME is
> written in C. If you're a C++ fanatic, use gtkmm and gnomemm, the C++
> bindings. KDE forces you to write in C++, C is not an option.
I have never had a problem with C++, issues regarding the ABI belong to the
gcc developers and I will respect their decision. Compilers only become
mature when they are tested, and KDE is proving that C++ is great for gui
programming and they are testing the compiler.
> BTW - KDE2 doesn't have anything as advanced as gnome-print,
QT's print model is much easier and more flexible that that of gnome. With
gnome you are force to rewrite all of your drawing code to print, while with
QT you just specify that the painter use a printer instead of a widget. No
drawing code changes are involved.
> gnome-vfs,
I assume that this stands for gnome- virtual file system. Does this mean a
filesystem within a file? What happened to mounting a using loopback.
> bonobo
KDE has kparts for embedable components and dcop for desktop communication.
> oaf medusa
I don't know what these are?
> or GConf.
Kcontrol.
> The root of the problem is all of the time
> that the KDE people wasted with QT. QT, while a technically sound library,
> was the stumbling block that caused GNOME and Gtk+ to be created. The
> project was for quite some time, a GPL violation - only fairly recently
> have they gotten their house in order.
The KDE project never stumbled with QT. The only waste of time was the fact
that gnome duplicated all of the work that had already been accomplished by
KDE. I have nothing against gnome and think that it will also evolve to
become an awsome desktop the same way that KDE is evolving.
Some of the technical merits that KDE provides:
Network transparency to the programmer and user.
IOSlaves allow flexable IO from any kind of devices( You can now rip cd's by
dragging files straight from konqueror)
A great Web Browser that supports many standards and is getting better every
day without accumulating bloat.
A great component model
A promising office suite
Truly fast theming because themes can be programmed instead of just pixmaps
A truly wonderfull and well thought out API
the list goes on and on
Matt Newell
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 23:07:17 +1200
Hi kiwiunixman,
> The reason why big corps and people have stuck with Office is that
> during the development of Office, it was one of the first to be built to
> run on top of Windows, unfortunately by the time some of the other
> companys got around to porting to Windows, Office already had a strangle
> hold in the market, now that these competitive products have come up to
> speed, and in some cases exceeding Office, companies find it hard to
> justify changing, as the costs associated with moving say from MSOffice
> to Wordperfect to expensive and time consuming. About the only way a
> company could break the monopoly would be to give away their Office
> suite and absorb the costs of moving a company from one Office suite to
> another.
Unfortunately kiwiunixman I think the history is precisely the other way
around. Microsoft may have been big on bundling but they weren't first with
the applications. However if you mean *Windows 95* then i'd have to agree.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft release Office 95 at the same time as they
released Windows 95. But before Windows 95 they had a lot of catchup and
bundling to do in order to wipe out/overcome well established Windows
software markets.
Regards,
Adam
>
> kiwiunixman
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> > In article <8vpp6a$2dl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Adam Warner wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Charlie,
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Adam
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Let me solidify how Windows got into the College's in the
> > first place. It was business demand which brought it there.
> >
> > When I was going thru college, CRT's hadn't even been put to
> > wide use. Our college was still using card decks as this was
> > the industry norm for the oil companies. Windows nor Microsoft
> > nor the PC was invented. It would be a decade later that
> > PC's were invented and another 5 years before my university
> > saw them.
> >
> > Donations are the name of the game.
> >
> > It's TRUE that monopolistic power has come into play here.
> >
> > Since we are 5 years behind schedule at all times, such
> > investments in Windows in the present don't really sway me
> > that much.
> >
> > It's also true that academic functions will receive discounts
> > that major business's won't.
> >
> > What a difference between post Viet Nam colleges and today.
> > It doesn't seem like we have learned much in 30 years.
> >
> > Charlie
> >
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 05:11:25 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
mark wrote:
> Latex is common, it's just not supported by the monopoly providers
> software (MS Office or whatever).
LaTeX is probably best for things that follow strict typesetting
guidelines, like a thesis or report for a scientific publication, for
example. Try to write a 100+ page thesis with Word sometime. I was
going crazy, hand-inspecting each and every page for the correct
line-spacing. Plus, there was all these "orphaned" subtitles
throughout. LaTeX does it right with much less work, and it's all
automated.
But, I think you're right that for really "quick" reports that are
pretty much free-form, html or some word processor is best. For online
documents where format doesn't really matter much, html is an advantage
here. Sometimes I do a doc in LaTeX format, and then use a handy tool
called "latex2html" to convert it to html. It works really well! The
LaTeX is great for generating the printed report, and latex2html
generates a report you can put on a webserver for online viewing. So, I
think LaTeX and html co-exist quite nicely. I'm sure you've seen web
pages which have "created with latex2html" on them.
Also, when I create resumes to fax out to people, since I have it in
latex format, I run latex, and then use dvips so that it can get faxed
out in postscript format. The resume looks really nice. I also used
latex2html to convert it to html for those people who want an email
copy. There's a prime example of both formats co-existing: LaTeX for
faxing, and html for emailing.
> What exactly is 'complex page formatting'? If this is trying
> to put characters or objects at specific points on a page,
> I would point out that the nightmares caused by docs written
> for eg., letter size paper that are printed on eg., A4 are
> , well, nightmares. It's just bad writing style.
Well, I suppose you do this with style sheets (CSS). With these, you
can get html documents to have custom margins, spacing, etc., that are
close to what a word processor can produce, although a word processor is
probably a little more adept at this.
- Donn
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 05:16:04 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE2
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> How cartoony does Win2k look? :-)
How cartoony does Bill Gates look? I think he looks like that Mad
magazine guy. :-) Ok, I apologize. The Mad magazine guy is a little
cooler than that.
====== 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: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 10:36:55 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_y1U5.24883$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:pJST5.5581$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > > > The nice thing about Unix is that the defaults are relatively
safe,
> > > > > and offer NO opportunity for one person to remove another's files.
> > > >
> > > > Interestingly, it's a nice thing that windows (on NTFS) can do as
> well.
> > >
> > > Unix had this from the Very Start.
> > >
> > > Why did it take Microsoft over 15 years to come up with similar
> > functionality?
> > >
> >
> > Because in the bad old days, none of the systems were connected to
others
> > nor were they connected to the outside world, such functionality was not
> > needed.
>
> I just love historical revisionism. Windows for WorkGroups didn't
> really exist, nobody ever used DOS or Windows on top of Netware,
> Windows95 didn't really offer to share files, Windows98 didn't offer
> to share files.
IMHO, they ignore Netware because it routinely kicked NT's ass in the file
serving department for years. NT couldn't even come close where stability
and uptime were concerned. Netware was always more responsive, too.
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 10:39:33 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> You've made statement that the X desktop at large is very crashy.
I said KDE has a tendancy to crash. Is KDE X? I don't think so. Try reading
what I post sometime Charlie.
> I've never felt that way. Further, you've made statement
> that 98 and NT were less crashy than X.
I said NT/2000 are less unstable than 95/98/ME. I never compared any of
them to X. I did mention KDE.
> Now there seems to be a distinction in your mind that 2000 is
> stable and 98 and NT are junky.
No, NT/2000 are the stable ones. Sheesh! Charlie, try reading what I said!
> I just find it interesting to see your opinion of things
> 'EVOLVE' over time Pete. Not picking on you but your
> changing.
When are you going to learn to read Charlie? Your reply is so full of
errors its unbelievable.
> Active X is going to be an obsolete term with their new release
> comming up next year.
Yes I know. Pick your favourite marketing term. It was OLE, then ActiveX
then whatever.
> BTW - I noticed one bug in KDE2 whilst I was using it and
> they came out with a series of upgrades over this last
> month on Debian which seems to have made it disappear.
One bug? I've logged a few more than one. I've seen konqueror crash,
kcontrol crash and the whole machine lockup tight.
> I think the KDE 2 is more FINAL now than it was.
> And by that I'm meaning final 2.0 updates not the
> beta release you have on that 7.2.
Ah, so now Linux Mandrake 7.2 has a beta version. It doesn't identify
itself as such. I heard that they did release earlier versions which had
prerelease KDE 2.0
I can't find out if that's what I've got. If I look in the about boxes, it
says KDE Release 2. If I do konqueror --help, it says KDE 2.0pre which
suggests it's a prerelease. Yet I asked on the KDE newsgroup and it turns
out KDE 2.0pre is a bug - it is the final release of KDE.
It's amazing isn't it? Am I running KDE Release 2.0 or not?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 + hello world = 8(
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 10:43:48 +0000
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
Now do it in Delphi on Windows.
Number of lines of code - none. It's all done in the resource editor. You
create an application with a single form, set its title to "Hello World".
Compile/Link/Run faster than GNU C/C++ can do it for a similar X
application and there you are.
I'm learning Qt and KDE on Linux. A few lines of code, I suspect.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:25:55 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Giuliano Colla wrote:
> >
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > The NT4.x and 9x EULAs specifically prohibit ANY customer statement
> > > > which is damaging to Microsoft in any way.
> > >
> > > Can you point me out to where those statement are?
> > > I can't see how this is true, because when ME came out (and 95/98 too, for
> > > that matter) a lot of magazines said something like: "You buy a new
> > > computer, get it, otherwise, keep your own OS" Which is clearly damaging MS
> > > http://www.iarchitect.com/shame.htm is taking apart several of MS
> > > application.
> > >
> > > Two examples out of the millions I could've given.
> >
> > EULA binds customers, not journalists or net sites, hopefully!
>
> But most journalists are ALSO MS customers.
>
> Catch-22.
>
This explains the different "opinions" published on the same subject.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:06:12 +0200
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 2. Why have another OS just to run the one or two Windows programs that
you
> might need to use. I have been down this road. It's a real PITA to have
to
> log into Windows just to get my mail. All of my real work is done on AIX
and
> Linux.
Aren't there email programs for linux? Why do you've to use windows to check
your mail.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:12:53 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mark wrote:
> >
> > In article <8vpegc$52a0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
wrote:
> [snip]
> > >
> > >Really? I never could force netscape 4 to read more than one email per
> > >profile. How did you do that?
> >
> > I can just add as many as I want. Is there something wrong with
> > the windows version?
> >
> > >
> > >> >With IE, I could get all the mail from all those email boxes with no
> > >> >trouble.
> > >>
> > >> As can I with Netscape 4.
> > >
> > >No, you couldn't.
> >
> > Err, yes I can.
> >
>
> It just depends on what you're speaking about.
>
> Netscape 4.xx can handle either multiple IMAP e-mail servers, or a
> single POP server, per profile.
I've POP acounts. Which was a nightmware to check.
> Netscape 6 supports multiple POP severs, but I've not yet tested it
According to a review from one of the more known computer reporters in here,
it sucks.
Of personal experiance (beta, though) it has the stability of a dove in a
hurrican.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:15:35 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:PvST5.5571$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > BZZZZZZT Wrong answer, While Win2K does perform nicely with 128MB RAM
it
> > > performs rather well with a mere 32-48MB RAM as well.
> >
> > I also tested it on a 133 with 32MB (server version, you only need 64
for
> > the install) I wouldn't use it as my desktop, but it serves quite well
as a
> > small server.
>
> You're using Windows 2000 Server on this machine. I truly don't
> believe it. 2000 Pro's performance for me was intolerable on a similar
> machine. Even Win98 on the same machine, with a 32MB memory injection
> (total of 64 MB) sucks royally.
Yes, why not? It's not a desktop machine, it's a server.
> Maybe you guys need to try Linux to see what a really responsive
> system is like.
Add X, add Gnome & Enlightment, adn you add up with about the same
requirements.
Win98 will fly on 32MB (I used to work on 16 win 98)
And I'm running a server on a 64MB which is also used as a desktop machine.
> Win2000 on 96 Mb performs pretty shitty, as far as I can tell.
> Note that I'm talking about disk caching and the user interface.
> The networking code on Win2000 works damn fast.
My point exactly.
133 & 32MB have long passed their time as desktop machines.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:17:03 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vpjuo$5autc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >FAT is about the simplest FS that there can be, and it should only be
used
> >on single user OS, as it has no way to implement security measures.
> >I much rather have NTFS.
> >For that matter, the registry in NT acts like an NTFS partition, where
you
> >can delegate permissions.
> >In win9x, you can only dream about this capacity.
> >
> >
>
> But if that's all Win9x can read, then that's what you'd have to
> use for any other partition.
Since when?
I can read just about any fs in the world from win9x.
Third party, yes, but I don't care about it.
Isn't 3rd party products what linux all about?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:19:48 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vpjv1$5autc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> You said that his floppy wouldn't boot, that the CD wouldn't boot
> that the OS wouldn't boot, and that he was installing Win98 to
> fix an ext2 problem, even though win98 can't read ext2 without
> some exta add-on.
The OS would boot, he can only log on as root, and in read only mode.
He doesn't have a floppy.
The slackeware CD in a non-bootable one.
Win98 CD is a bootable one.
One I'd win98 up & running, it was a matter of minutes to get the ext2
reader and back everything up.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Insite into Linux Kernel 2.4
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:21:12 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, kiwiunixman wrote:
>
> From what I read, the only progs. that will have problem will be ones
>that directly interact with the kernel itself, anything else may simply
>just need a recompile.
That's the great thing about having access to the source.
Mark
>
>Matthew Soltysiak wrote:
>
>> Yea, it does... But i'm worried about capatibilty.. I would love to use
>> 2.4, with the new features and performance enhancments, but it looks like
>> it will break the capatablity line with 2.2 binaries and OS structures. I
>> hope not...but...oh well
>>
>> kiwiunixman wrote:
>>
>>> Below is a fairly complete analysis of Linux 2.4 for the Intel Plaform:
>>>
>>> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-11-23-017-06-NW-LF-KN
>>>
>>> Looks like a complete kernel overhaul, USB support, new devfs and loads
>>> of performance improvements, looks very promising.
>>>
>>> kiwiunixman
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthew Soltysiak
>> Comp Sci/Soft Eng
>> ICQ: 3063118
>>
>>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:26:32 +0000
In article <8vqllu$ps1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam Warner wrote:
>By the way Mark,
>
>Did you also read this from the URL I previously posted:
>http://www.auckland.ac.nz/itss/interconnect/2000/may/ADS.html
>
>"Since mid 1998, ITSS has been investigating options for the provision of a
>single network directory service (explained below) for the University of
>Auckland. This led to negotiations with Microsoft in late 1999, and the
>signing of an agreement with Microsoft in January of this year to trial
>their newly released Windows 2000 / Active Directory Service. (W2k/ADS) "
I would recommend LDAP. It's free, supports multiple platforms,
debian has an implementation available. Why waste your country's
resources filling Bill's pockets when you could be educating your
upcoming youngsters with it as well?
>
>Thus it appears the University of Auckland had already signed an agreement
>with Microsoft to trial the Win2k/ADS before it was even released. The
>University of Auckland is the largest University in New Zealand (over 25,000
>students).
I wonder if that followed one of Microsoft's famous 'audits'.
I wonder how well the trial will go, particularly now that
free multi-platform alternatives are so readily available?
>
>This is obviously not the only University/College/Institute where this will
>be occurring.
Why? Personally, I'd be looking at options which leave more resources
for educating my people coming in.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:28:01 +0000
In article <8vqncd$r51$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam Warner wrote:
>Hi kiwiunixman,
>
>> The reason why big corps and people have stuck with Office is that
>> during the development of Office, it was one of the first to be built to
>> run on top of Windows, unfortunately by the time some of the other
>> companys got around to porting to Windows, Office already had a strangle
>> hold in the market, now that these competitive products have come up to
>> speed, and in some cases exceeding Office, companies find it hard to
>> justify changing, as the costs associated with moving say from MSOffice
>> to Wordperfect to expensive and time consuming. About the only way a
>> company could break the monopoly would be to give away their Office
>> suite and absorb the costs of moving a company from one Office suite to
>> another.
>
>Unfortunately kiwiunixman I think the history is precisely the other way
>around. Microsoft may have been big on bundling but they weren't first with
>the applications. However if you mean *Windows 95* then i'd have to agree.
>I'm pretty sure Microsoft release Office 95 at the same time as they
>released Windows 95.
This again shows the power of having a Monopoly, and how easy it
is to abuse that power.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:36:02 +0000
In article <8K5U5.26660$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>One bug? I've logged a few more than one. I've seen konqueror crash,
>kcontrol crash and the whole machine lockup tight.
Now, I wonder that lockup tight means? We know that a KDE app
_might_ cause a KDE problem. We know that KDE _might_ cause an
X problem. We know that an X problem will not stop the machine.
Mark
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 11:52:40 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > Netscape 6 supports multiple POP severs, but I've not yet tested it
>
> According to a review from one of the more known computer reporters in here,
> it sucks.
> Of personal experiance (beta, though) it has the stability of a dove in a
> hurrican.
I gave a quick test (under linux) of beta's. Until PR3 they were just
for fun. PR3 appeared to be a reasonable beta (a little buggy, something
not implemented, but usable).
You may have different behavior under Windows, because the application
must handle a lot of issues which under Unix are handled by OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
