Linux-Advocacy Digest #444, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Donn Miller)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Tim)
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Windows 2000 (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Windows 2000 (Russ Lyttle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 02:57:03 GMT
Ah, because just leaving them on = perfect computing. Right?
Or does doing nothing with them all day = perfect computng, right?
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:24:31 GMT
> <3uR66.27155$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >That's because Windows 2000 users shut their computers down at night, and
> >actually sleep.
> >
> >Why? Because their human.
>
> So am I, and I leave my two machines on 24/7. I've had very
> few problems with them after I did that.
>
> Of course, it helps that they're in an adjacent room :-).
>
> [rest snipped]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random fan whirr here
> EAC code #191 2d:09h:57m actually running Linux.
> All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh)!
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 02:58:03 GMT
I hate IIS. I prefer Netscape enterprise, err, Iplanet enterprise. It
comes with a great web based admin system that's ALWAYS up to date.
"ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93q0jg$c45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > WHAT?! Linux is totaly a Server OS. Notice how it comes with Apache (Web
> > Server), SendMail (Mail Server), Wu-FTP (FTP Server), TelnetD (Telnet
> > server), NameD (DNS Server), etc.. it's all about being a server.
> > Windows is a workstation OS.. and that's about the extent of what I want
> to
> > use it for.
> Did you know that windows2000 comes with iis5. It's not installed by
> default, but you
> have it running with 2 mouse-clicks (and NO REBOOT). You should try that
> sometime.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 02:58:29 GMT
And only you would find fault in such a simplistic process.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ono wrote:
> >
> > > Did you know that windows2000 comes with iis5. It's not installed by
> > > default, but you
> > > have it running with 2 mouse-clicks (and NO REBOOT). You should try
that
> > > sometime.
> > Ups.... sorry I didn't do my research propperly. It's more like 10
> > mouse-clicks (a wizard ;-)) and it does need a reboot.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Only a LoseDOS retard thinks of this as any sort of accomplishment.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:06:38 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
J Sloan wrote:
> Not at all - X is way overkill for 95% of the users, who
> really don't need a network-transparent, client/server
> windowing system. A simple local GUI, similar to what's
> on a windows pc, would likely suffice.
I agree. How many desktop users even need to run X11 apps on a remote
server? Most Linux desktop users just run everything on the "local"
display, i.e., on the console. It also would simplify things for a
desktop environment. Because you (possibly) would have the widgets
built-in, it would make programming the API much simpler, and would
eliminate all the toolkit-clashing you normally see on unix boxes
running X11.
No offense, but the only way to get a consistent look and feel on X11 is
to have all your apps linked to the same X toolkit. Secondly, you'd
have to convince people that this "one true" toolkit is the best to use.
My position on X toolkits is that they all pretty much suck in one area
or another. FOr example,. Qt is very easy to use, but it requires use
of the dreaded "moc" compiler in certain situations. In my experience,
Motif has been the easiest to program, but Motif apps have too damn many
lines of code. Also, Gtk produces nice apps, but, no offense again, the
API looks kinda like a hack.
Write one nice non-X11-based GUI system for unix, and give it a super
API everyone could agree on. Then, if people like it, it could always
be ported to X11 as an API layer.
No doubt I'll be blasted into the ionosphere with all the flames I'll
get.
8-)
====== 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: Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 02:40:04 +0000
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93arkl$rnh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > : Again, though, "No fucker ever got fired for buying Microsoft."
> > : Bleh.
> >
> >
> > That's because Mafia$oft markets to clueless managers, not IT
> > professionals.
>
> No, it's because everyone knows that if you go MS, it'll work.
> If you go anything else, you're betting your company's success
I presume you term "success" as in "inability to recruit good
technicians". Linux is more versatile, adaptable and has the
option to be configured at a much lower level than any M$ OS.
This by definition must mean there is more experience / knowledge
required to set up a Linux system than any M$ equivalent.
They are betting on their ability to recruit good technical
staff, it's nothing to do with whether their computer systems
run better.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:07:48 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> AutoCAD is 2nd-rate software, acceptable only by people who are
> satisfied with 2nd-rate platforms (M$) that it runs on.
I wouldn't tell AutoDesk software this. Last I checked they hold the
highest quality for professional CAD software on the market. But I left
engineering a long time ago.
> AutoCAD is a 2-Dimensional CAD system. It's ok for designing cabinets
> and houses, but completely UN-suitable for designing anything with moving
parts.
> Especially oddly shaped parts like crank shafts.
Suitability is not the point of this post, it was the fact that AutoDesk's
AutoCAD software had become synonymous with engineering in general.
> Corollary: AutoCAD is good as a cheap LEARNING tool.
Ok...
> I have YEARS of experience supporting such environments.
> You don't.
Oh darn. You got me. I don't work with mechanical engineers.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:10:40 GMT
Of course, I should point out that Microsoft's EULA agreement is totally
outside the bounds of the rights provided them by USC Title 18...
Therefore, making the EULA unenforceable notwithstanding it's own
provisions.
Hence, Microsoft has no control over what you do with their software, so
long as your actions are within the confines of the companies exclusive
rights toward the intellectual property that IS Microsoft Office.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jim Richardson wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 07:20:12 GMT,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> > >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > >
> > >> All of a sudden,
> > >> lots of Windows users jump on the bandwagon and say "I want to make
> > >> Linux an OS my grandma can use", but they don't realise that it
> > >> just wasn't designed for that
> > >
> > >sooo.. erm. what was linux designed for?
> > >
> > >and just to correct, as i see it, it isn't the windows users jumping on
the
> > >bandwagon - and that's quite a strong term for linux - as it is the
> > >so-called linux advocates trying to force it down our throats.
> >
> > Force it how? with advocacy posts? pretty broad definition of "force" if
you
> > ask me.
> > So would you say that MicroSof~1 forced windows down your throat?
> >
> > >
> > >then, through clenched teeth, we say -why do we want this when what we
have
> > >works so much better for us?
> >
> > Use what you want. Read the EULA, it's interesting reading.
> >
>
> The Office EULA is downright scary. It basically says that when a
document
> or spread sheet or whatever is created with an Office product, the
ownership
> of the document (etc) is held by Microshaft, not the person sitting at the
> computer.
>
> For example, you are NOT allowed to view a Word document with anything
> other than Microsoft products....thus, doing a hex-dump of a .doc file
> with unix-land "od" command is a violation of the EULA.
>
> I expect Microsoft WILL attempt to enforce this provision of the EULA
> at some time...otherwise, why would they put it in.
>
>
> > >to which the linux advos say -what? you are just too stupid for linux
that
> > >is all.
> >
> > *some* do, most say, "so what? use what you want". Just like *some*
windows
> > advocates say stupid things, not all of them.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Richardson
> > Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> > WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> > Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:11:57 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In computer science that is generally refered to abstraction
> and modularity. There is no good reason why xfree should need
> bother with the internal details of a particular wire protocol.
Well, maybe it should, the autoprobing mechanisim it FEATURES isn't working
properly.
> A USB mouse can even be set up at the kernel level to appear as
> /dev/psaux if the distributor is so inclined.
Forget the distributor, how about ME? Yes, I can activate legacy support in
my BIOS for USB mice & keyboards, but it sort of kills the point of OS level
USB support, doesn't it?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 22:17:32 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
mlw wrote:
>
> Here is a question for all us Linux people.
>
> If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
> others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
> consider it?
In that article on OS-X, J. Hubbard stated that it could benefit Apple
if they made OS-X open source. He also said that it would allow Mac
OS-X to run on the Intel platform as well, since there'd be so many open
source developers into the porting effort. Also, think of what that'd
do with driver support.
It also says that internally, it contains FreeBSD 3.2 and Mach
microkernel. Hmmmm, I wonder why the microkernel is needed? I suppose
Aaron could answer this. I guess it would be to run both FreeBSD and an
older compatibility portion of Mac OS simultaneously.
The only problem I have with Mac OS-X is that it is FreeBSD 3.2
underneath, and not something newer, like FreeBSD 4.2. 4.2 has much
better driver support. If Apple did the design right, they'd make it
easy to upgrade the underlying OS from 3.2 -> 4.2.
Sounds like a decent OS. Unfortunately, I don't have a Mac, so I can't
test it. :( The interesting thing is that FreeBSD has never been ported
to the PowerPC, yet they got FreeBSD to run on this platform. Since
NetBSD runs fine on an PPC, I can imagine they probably created a
Free/NetBSD kernel hybrid.
====== 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: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:16:08 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:93m7ef$ol5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I own a USB mouse. I like my USB mouse. Optical mice only come in USB,
and
> >I don't see a need for the USB-ps/2 converter. The kernel supports USB,
GPM
>
> Are you speaking of some dongle or the that bit of the kernel
> that makes the first USB mouse appear as a psaux device?
No, I'm refering that I don't see why I should use the converter peice for
my USB mouse, when the Linux KERNEL NOW supports USB, and XFree86 allegadly
supports USB mice. GPM also claims this functionality. But only GPM seems
to have found this component.
> So? It's simply not necessary for that functionality to be
> replicated yet again.
Could have fooled me. Seeing as how it's not working NOW as it (XFree86)
stands, I think the functionality SHOULD be duplicated. Not all systems
have GPM, and bothering to institute autoprobe in XFree86 means it should
AUTOPROBE everything. Not just find my monitor and video card, and to hell
with EVERYTHING else. God, I hate to even THINK what the autoprobe does to
people without PNP monitors.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:22:31 GMT
"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93p425$d4r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <N_P76.55259$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 12 Jan
> 2001
>
> >Same with RH7, GPM is configured by Anaconda, XFree86 is configured FROM
> >GPM (typically by Anaconda).
>
> And? It still detected my Logitec Wheel mouse. And it works fine in X.
Yes, but X doesn't do this. Not all distro's use GPM or gorgous installers
to work. Leaving backported USB functionality useless. Leaving USB devices
useless.
> >> again, it identified my Matrox fine... didn't auto detect the 3D labs
> >> card, but I tossed in a cheap STB got the drivers then installed it.
> >> Fine.
> >
> >This is NOT a soulition.
>
> What's not? Installing a driver is not a solution? That sounds pretty ass
> backwards. sounds exactly like a solution. Something that solved the
> problem of the video card not displaying viideo.
You didn't just "install a driver", you got another card. NOT A SOULITION.
> >Because you like your piddling minutia, overcomplication and wasted
> >time.
>
> No it's not. It's control. I don't have shit installed on my system I
don't
> want. It's all this integration and not asking permision that allows for
> the existence of shit like the I Love You VBS virus, or the various Macro
> viruses in windows. You'll please notice that those viruses don't affect
> Linux. You have to write something a little more complicated than a
> glorified batch file. And then if I choose to run a script without reading
> it frist, shame on me. So I say the time spent fixing the follow up to
> stupid viruses is more of a waste of time than me answers yes or no at the
> least for everything. *I* am the decision maker, the computer is a slave.
Oh yes, the old "integration causes instability". Virus's will happen,
period. If Linux becomes popular, Virii will follow. It's an OS, just
because there's a little more protection doesn't mean it's impossible,. or
even being hindered by "integration". Nautilis's file manager is integrated
into GNOME through bonobo. GNOME compiliant window managers are integrated
into GNOME as a WHOLE through a similar system.
KDE software is integrated through the K-interprocess management system,
similar to bonobo. I don't see GNOME being riddeled with viruii.
*You* being the decition maker is a joke. You work for your system under
Linux. Linux does NOT conform very well to the whim of the user at the drop
of a hat.
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:28:37 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > So massage the data. It isn't that difficult and can be done as the file
> > is loaded. Either that or change the name and quit calling your Apple
> > application Excel. If it is Excel and is *.xls, it should be readable by
> > Excel everywhere. Or one of the products isn't Excel.
> > The real truth is that Excel for the PC is so tied to the PC that MS
> > couldn't port it. So they wrote another product that had a UI similar to
> > Excel and called it Excel even though it isn't.
>
> Uhh.. you are aware that Excel was first developed for the Mac and then
> ported the PC, right?
>
Doesn't matter. Either MS made PC Excel incompatible with Mac Excel or
it made Mac Excel incompatible with Windows. Either way the result is
the same. Two products both called Excel.
> So much for your theory.
>
> > >Why would a
> > > native Mac word document store it's data in PC format when such
> > > interchangeability is not necessary very often (especially not when the
> file
> > > formats were created 10 years ago).
> > So cross platform, per you and MS, means the user interface looks the
> > same, but you can't transfer documents or files between platforms? I
> > love this. Word is cross platform because MS makes a version for both
> > PCs and Macs. Just don't try to exchange *.doc or *.xls files!
>
> You can transfer files between them, you just use a converter.
So which converter do I use on the *.xls file I just got from the
internet?
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:26:29 GMT
"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93p4cl$d4r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <VaQ76.55324$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 12 Jan
> Optical mice only come in USB? I have a hard time believing that, since I
> had an optical trackball on ps/2, I would assume they can do the same for
a
> mouse...
> And yes USB is good, but wasted on a mouse.
I've never had an optical track ball. I sit corrected.
> No, I'm trying to be humorus, but with a twist of reality. Because hey,
> ppl do it. And ya know what, that's part of the idea of Linux if it
doesn't
> work, You make it work. Or just don't use it. Go BUY something, They will
> be happy to do the work for you, if you will give them the motivation (the
> money).
I do. Lo and behold, things work better. But "free" does not excuse poor
quality, ever. Especially since the popular computer media is reporting
about Linux as if it were more than just a hobbiest's plaything (which it's
become). It's time to get the act togather and do some serious work on this
platform, which has finally cought the public eye.
> At the cost of critical functionality? What are you talking about?
I'm talking about getting work done. Which seems to be impossible under
Linux, while I'm busy recompiling this, satasifying the dependency for that,
scouring for documentation on this, and getting outdated information for
that. Having THIS not working because THAT is not compiled into the
kernel...
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:27:26 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I own a USB mouse. I like my USB mouse. Optical mice only come in USB,
and
>
> I guess the Logitech optical mouse with PS/2 connection is just
> a figment of the imagination of those in Logitech marketing, eh?
>
> ... and also packaging...and the people who put them on store shelves.
They come with adaptors that adapt the USB connection to a ps/2 connection
for older systems. Natively, it's a USB device.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:30:08 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Dumbshit. Statically linked libraries were abandoned years ago.
What the hell are you smoking? I see tons of Linux software with staticly
linked library files.
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:34:26 GMT
Shane Phelps wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
> >
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > > > > What about Word98?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different
> > > > > formats.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there any particualr reason for that still being the case?
> > > > > > Not trolling, genuinely curious.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, most likely it's the endian issue, not to mention that things like
> > > OLE
> > > > > an structured storage are different between PC and MAC.
> > > > >
> > > > What does endian have to do with it? Changing endian on reading files
> > > > between Intel and Motorola format takes at about 5 lines of code. I do
> > > > that all the time.
> > >
> > > Word has traditionally stored binary data structures in it's file format.
> > > This means that, unless you always convert endianness when loading and
> > > unloading documents, the file formats (even if otherwise identical) will not
> > > be the same for data content. More likely, Word only does endianness
> > > conversion when using filters for a non-native file format.
> > >
> > > > > > IIRC, the Mac version of Word was developed from an earlier version
> > > > > > of Word for DOS and included a lot of WYSIWYG (as we used to call
> > > them)
> > > > > > capabilities which were independently redeveloped in WinWord. I would
> > > > > > have expected convergence in file formats.
> > > > > > Excel was developed on the Mac and certainly used the same format, at
> > > > > > least as far as Excel 5.
> > > > >
> > > > > Excel 5 for the PC uses BIFF format in a OLE structured storage compound
> > > > > document. I'd be surprised if the native Mac excel version was the same
> > > as
> > > > > the PC version (especially given FPU differences between the
> > > architectures).
> > > >
> > > > That still doesn't seem reasonable. The problem of converting between
> > > > FPUs formats has been solved hundreds of times and doesn't require
> > > > enough code to justify new file formats.
> > >
> > > Fine. Store a binary floating point number from an Intel machine in a file,
> > > read the binary format back in on a Mac and shove it back into the FPU.. see
> > > if it works correctly without massaging the data. Why massage the data for
> > > your native file format? That makes no sense.
> > >
> > So massage the data. It isn't that difficult and can be done as the file
> > is loaded. Either that or change the name and quit calling your Apple
> > application Excel. If it is Excel and is *.xls, it should be readable by
> > Excel everywhere. Or one of the products isn't Excel.
> > The real truth is that Excel for the PC is so tied to the PC that MS
> > couldn't port it. So they wrote another product that had a UI similar to
> > Excel and called it Excel even though it isn't.
>
> [ snip ]
>
> Russ, I think both you and Erik are wrong on this point.
>
> Excel was originally a Mac product (MS had, IIRC, Multiplan on the PC)
> and was ported top Windows around Windows 2 or Windows 386. I remember
> Excel for the PC shipping with its own copy of Windows way back when.
> To a large extent, Windows was developed to boost sales of Excel.
>
> The version of Excel in Office 95 quite happily reads a simple spreadsheet
> created in Excel 5 on a Mac, but makes a best-guess effort to determine the
> equivalent font. Such experiments are just one of the reasons for
> having 1
> of each of the widely used systems around.
> It is quite possible that
> a) the file formats are different and convert on-the-fly
> b) later versions are no longer cmpatible
> c) some of the OLE features are incompatible
>
> I didn't (and won't) bother to do binary diffs of Windows and Mac excel
> files to check the formats. I vaguely recall that MS published the Excel file
> format (BIFF) ages ago, so it may still be available.
>
> There are lots of things to beat up on MS about, but this isn't one of them
>
> [ snip ]
I'm really beating up on Erik for having an untenable position. It
doesn't matter which came first, Mac or PC. Either the file formats are
compatible or not. You can't claim Office is crossplatform, but has
different file formats for each platform! I think, but don't know that
cases b) and c) above are true.I claim that case "d) the file formats
are the same but converted on the fly" should be true.
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
