Linux-Advocacy Digest #508, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 15:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!? (Steve Mading)
Re: More Linux woes (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Re: More Linux woes
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! ("Kev Ford")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Kev Ford")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: Windows 2000
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!?
Date: 16 Jan 2001 18:52:56 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> I've always associated gas attendants with movies about the '50s.
:> Was the practise revived in New Jersey, or is it something they've
:> been doing all along and never dropped? (New Jersey is a bit
:> odd when it comes to automobiles. When I was out there I couldn't
:> understand the logic behind all those 'jughandle' intersections where
:> you turn right to go left. If it was an actual ramp then it makes
:> sense, but when it merely results in a perpendicular crossing of
:> the intersection instead of a left-turn use of the intersection it
:> looks to me like it just makes things worse.)
: We have a lot of those in Detroit....major thoroughfares are turned
: into boulevards...and to make a left-turn ONTO one of them, you have
: to do a right, and then do a U-turn through the median.
: Actually, it does keep the throughput on the main roads quite high.
That's not the same thing though. You are talking about a situation
where a 4-way intersection *would exist anyway* because two streets
cross each other, and the traffic is directed to use the intersection
that is already there. I'm talking about a place where the road
comes to a 3-way, and the people turning left from the straight
through road onto the 'side' road have to curve around right on a
bit of pavement that was explicitly made for that purpose only.
In other words, there would be no 4-way cross-traffic at all if it
were not for the jughandle. In ASCII art, it looks like this,
(My ASCII art is a bit off - it's a bit larger scale than it
looks here)
(Those of you using a proportional font, knock it off.)
____
/ * \___ This is NOT an on-ramp. It is
/ * __ * \___ A flat bit of road.
/ / \___ * \__
| *| `-- * \__
---------' `---------~~ * *`-------------
__ __ __ * __ __ __ __ __ __*__*__*__*__*__* <--- Car Doing
A Left
---------. * .----------------------------- Turn.
| | |
| *| |
| | |
| *| |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:18:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Interconnect
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:08:05 +1100
<9401kl$c2g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>You would have to be in serious denial to disagree with the statement that
>Linux and it's associated applications are improving.
To be fair, I should also mention that Windows has been
improving as well -- at least in reliability: Win2k is
better than NT. Of course, NT was supposed to be ultra-reliable
anyway, so the abrupt switch from "NT is the most reliable operating
system" to "Win2k is more reliable than NT" could give some people
a few headaches -- or belly laughs. :-)
It's clear that Linux can't rest on its laurels, although one can
ask silly questions such as "Is it REALLY necessary to have
slowly disappearing pop-up menus on one's desktop on a
server machine?". :-)
(Maybe that's not such a silly question, either. One wonders.)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 5d:19h:06m actually running Linux.
All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh)!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:22:12 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:44:05 GMT, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jedi writes:
>> Two Words: "Windows Sockets"
>
>So what?
>
>1) Using code in compliance with the terms set by the owner of the
> copyright is not copyright infringement (and copyright infringement is
> not stealing).
I prefer the term that I usually use for this situation: mooching.
While such behavior is not generally considered criminal, it is
typically considered socially undesirable.
[deletia]
What the BSD welfare beaureau allows for is wealthy robber
barons to have their extenstions of network effects paid
for by largely by someone else.
Sockets is generally pointed to as a 'success' when it comes
to the adoption of open standards through permissively licenced
code, when infact it is quite the opposite. MS merely took the
free source code and added a few vendor specific tie ins.
A well documented standard could have sufficed just as well,
or been perverted in a similar fashion. OTOH, if you try to
assimilate a copylefted work you will be required to expose
your deviations.
As far as open standards goes, this is obviously more suitable.
Outside of perpetuating open standards, what is the point of
giving free aid to someone who will turn around and treat you
like an enemy, mercilessly?
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:26:58 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:22:45 +0000, Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
>>
>> This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
>
>ROFLMAO!
>
>Damn. Now I'm going to have to clean all that coffee off my monitor.
I just had to add this one to my sig fortune file... '-)
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:28:40 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:28:04 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:58:09 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:34:39 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Tom Wilson wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> > > J Sloan wrote:
>> >> [deletia]
>> >> >smaller,
>> >> >> > local GUI system would be a wonderful thing. It isn't going to
>make
>> >> >major
>> >> >> > inroads into the desktop market without one, IMO.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> how much smaller would it be to make a "local only" GUI?
>> >> >> 5%?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> probably not even that.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm looking at performance and stability issues for the most part.
>Most
>> >>
>> >> ...except X isn't the part of the system that tends to bog
>> >> down and bloat. It's various things built on top, and it's
>> >> not even even all of them (of a particular type).
>> >
>> >It's complex layer upon complex layer. It's fast becoming a house of
>cards.
>>
>> It will amusing to see you try to actually support this assertion.
>
>You already did. "Its' various things built on top..."
Moron. That's how ALL engineering is supposed to be done,
including computer science.
[deletia]
Someone should slap you with a harcopy version of the OSI
network layering model & and CS 100 textbook.
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Kev Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:20:13 -0000
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Terry Porter wrote:
>
> I was just flying over in my Potato noticed something down and
> to my 3 and read this message.
>
> >On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 08:28:48 +0000, Pete Goodwin
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Terry Porter wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've finally finished upgrading my Linux box to Mandrake7.2!
> >>
> >>How long did that take you?
> >Each install took about 3/4 hr I suppose, but I redid the
> >install from scratch
> >several times and tried a few different things, including the Reisfer
File
> >System (journalled) which I'm now using.
> >
> >>
> >>> Now I always kept my old system fairly up to date, but the new
Mandrake
> >>> is amazingly easy to install, and I must admit things have improved
a
> >>> lot since Redhat 4.2!
> >>
> >>It is an amazing package to install, but annoying when you try to be
> >>selective in what you install. I installed KDE 2.0 but because I didn't
> >>setup my modem, pppd wasn't installed! Luckily, it was easy to install
that
> >>afterwards but, as Home Simpson would say - "D'oh!".
> >I run a old 486dx50 Linux single floppy router, so I didnt need to use
PPP.
> >
> >>
> >>> I think you could probably, pop the cd in your pc and boot from it,
> >>> select "standard install" and simply go away after youve anwered the
> >>> relevant questions about internet connection, printer type etc.
During
> >>> the install, the CD opens automaticaly and the installer asks you
for
> >>> the second CD. Neat.
> >>
> >>Previous versions of Mandrake (7.0 I seem to remember) had problems
asking
> >>for the CD.
> >This is the first Mandrake I've ever used.
> >
> >>
> >>> Xfree86 was a total breeze, my ISA NIC card autoprobed perfectly, so
did
> >>> my ISA soundcard. PCI video card was picked up straight away.
> >>
> >>Since my sound card is only supported by a non-free driver and KDE 2.0
> >>froze last time I tried it, this is still broken.
> >My sound card is a $20 el cheapo, pci ess1688 I think.
> >
> >>
> >>> Oh its also WAY faster.
> >>>
> >>> Good one Mandrake, worth every penny, and once again showing Linux
*has*
> >>> the EDGE!
> >>
> >>What edge? I can't see anything on Linux running faster than on Windows.
> >The Free Software edge of course.
> >
> >>Response on X seems sluggish at times.
> >X does so much more than Windows tho, theyre NOT the same.
> >
>
>
> Geeze. X slow. Not my X. I run Debian.
>
>
> >>
> >>Applications are the usual hotch potch of half-beta-test and broken bits
> >>and pieces (for those of you out there about to lynch me forf saying
this -
> >>this is HYPERBOLE. Apparently some of you can't recognise it).
> >Hyperbola.] (Rhet.)
> > A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident
> > exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by
> > which things are represented as much greater or less, better
> > or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated
> > fancifully, through excitement, or for effect.
> >
> >Then excuse us if we ignore your exaggeration ?
> >
> >>
> >>The basics are there but there's more work to be done to be "the Edge"
> >>compared to the desktop on Windows.
> >Not to me. Imho Windows cant hack it, lacks resources, stability, and is
*
> >closed software*.
> >
> >Thats why I havent used Windows since 1997. Linux supplies all my
software
> >needs, and life without buggy Windows software, really has to be tried to
be
> >believed.
> >
> >I'm a believer.
> >
>
> I can be playing my Napster, downloading ftp from 3 sites, compiling a
kernel
> have a spreadsheet open, a word document open, and by typing this message
back
> and this thing just doesn't skip a beat. You can't even dream of doing
shit
> like this with Windows.
>
I must agree. I seem to naturally do more stuff in Linux than I do with this
turgid thing
that I'm using right now.... just waiting for the official NVidia 0.9-6
drivers before
Windows says bye bye forever!
------------------------------
From: "Kev Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:25:10 -0000
JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:37:55 +0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >JM wrote:
>
> >> >Now this is a flat out lie. Hell, Windows 98 can stay up for weeks at
a
> >> >time.
>
> >> As long as you maintain it to fuck and don't run any programs.
>
> >We left our web server alone for two months before rebooting. That's no
> >maintenance at all.
>
> That's strange. Mine seems to crash every two/three days, and
> sometimes it lets individual programs crash the entire thing.
Windows 98 will crash every 2/3 days if it is doing any sort of networking.
Witness
my so called web proxy that became utterly unresponsive after about 50 hours
uptime.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:31:34 -0000
On 16 Jan 2001 03:17:41 -0600, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> There should ALWAYS be the choice. I'm
>> advocating a smaller, faster, Micky-Mouse Windowish GUI to placate those
>> folks out there who bitch about such things. You'll notice that the desktop
>> area is the only area that Linux isn't soundly trouncing Windows.
>
>Such a GUI would also allow a consumer-oriented desktop OS to hit it big in
>the consumer market, and further take a bite out of Windows sales. For
>optimum performance, it'd probably be better to make the entire Windowing+GUI
>system a monolith. This would enable you to build a Windows or MacOS -like
>system, but with Linux running underneath. Plus, you could do other neat
There's nothing keeping you from building such a system on top
of X. WinDOS itself is only a shell running on top of a lower
level core CLI system.
>things, like have the windowing system boot up before the kernel probes
>occur. You'd see all the devices being probed in a special information
>dialog, for example. Obviously, traditional Linux types would not like this.
What would the point be?
So you would intimidate end users in a really pretty fashion...
You would still be scaring the novices and achieving no other
useful objectives other than what a curses based system would.
Besides, distro vendors have already managed to do this without
gutting X or re-engineering it.
[deletia]
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to
build their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:36:48 -0000
On 16 Jan 2001 13:19:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On 16 Jan 2001 06:42:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> On 14 Jan 2001 22:06:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>> On 14 Jan 2001 21:04:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:18:21 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn near
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The bulk of what constitues Apple NeXTstep is already
>>>>>>>> running on top of X courtesy of GNU and has been for
>>>>>>>> awhile now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The bulk of what constituted NeXTStep was display postscript, and is not
>>>>>>>running on linux at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...DPS has been running under Linux/GNU for at least 2 years.
>>>>>
>>>>>Indeed; I was quite incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>>Except that its much, much better under OpenStep/OSX. :)
>>>
>>>> GNUstep is OpenStep.
>>>
>>>Not in anyones wildest, wildest dreams.
>
>> OpenStep is a publically documented specification.
>
>Actually, OpenStep started out as an operating system, and then became sort of a
>GUI+apps overlay for Solaris. It never made it to any other platform.
>
>While GNUStep may have alot in common with OpenStep, it is not the same thing
>at all.
http://www.gnustep.org/GNUOpenStep/OpenStepSpec/OpenStepSpec.html
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/bvito/index.html
Also, according to Apple's own site the Next version of openstep
also made it to NT and HP/UX.
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: 16 Jan 2001 19:33:23 GMT
Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Hi,
[snip story about setting up a cablemodem with linux]
: With such an incredibly simple process, why do ISPs refuse point blank
: to support Linux? Is it a fear of the unknown? A false assumption that
: 'it's Linux so it must be difficult'? Surely it can't be that
: expensive to send a few techies on a basic Linux networking course?
Well, there could be several problems:
1 - Now you can't tell your ISP what you did, because if you did
you'd lose your account (It's really quite condescending that
the cablemodem ISPs insist that they must do the install, but
they do, and it's part of the terms of service (probably) that
you let them.) The problem is that the word "support" in the
context of computer techie stuff actually has two completely
independant meanings. On the one hand it means tech support,
with people helping you out when it doesn't work. On the other
hand it also can mean "can work at all", as in "This downloaded
driver is needed to support my sound card." The problem is
that higher-ups in IT departments (not the techies themselves)
make the false equivocation fallacy of assuming both meanings
are the same thing - that if they won't "support" it with
tech support, then it isn't "supported", as in it can't work.
This might be happening at your ISP. The problem is that
you can't tell them now that it works. There could be many
more like you out there, and your ISP would be none the wiser.
(Although the techies in low places probably know that there
exist many Linux boxen hooked up when they aren't "supported",
they also wouldn't want to mention this to their superiours because
they wouldn't really mind those boxes being there, and wouldn't want
to screw over their fellow techies at home by 'ratting' them out.)
So, to summarize point 1 - Nobody who knows better is really in a
postion where they can *tell* the ISP that Linux is working fine
on the service, so the ISP's policy makers remain ignorant.
2 - server bandwith.
They may have a problem with the fact that Linux has the
full suite of server-side daemons like ftpd and telnetd installed
by default, unlike Windows. They intend for the system to be used
in a "client" fashion (not the technical socket meaning of the word
client, but the "I'm just a consumer, not a producer" meaning of
the word.) Producers of content tend to eat up more bandwith for
their box than consumers of it, and their usage rates are based
on the assumption that each customer is merely going to be running
web clients and FTP clients and such. Of course this is completely
biased and false, since not all servers are intended to be used
heavily. You might want a telnet or ssh daemon running merely
so that you can get to your machine from work, not because you
plan on running a 40-person MUD. You might be running a web
server merely for a couple of friends to look at, not to serve
millions of worldwide eyeballs. But, despite this fact, many
ISP's still hold to the false notion that "servers" are always
higher-bandwith things than "clients". They think in that
annoying Windows/Mac mentality where servers are for 'big things',
and they don't comprehend the idea of small server processes
interoperating in a peer-to-peer fashion where the distinction
between server and client is purely a matter of convention.
Granted, the server processes on Linux can be turned off, but
on the one hand, how many Linux owners just install out of the
box without changing the settings, and on the other hand turning
those things off takes away part of the whole point of having
a unix PC on the internet - its networking capabilities would be
just as disfunctional as a Windows PC once you turn off all the cool
daemons.
3 - They might be concerned with security breaches leading to
high-bandwith DOS attacks. The fact that Unix is fully functional
from a remote location makes it a prime target for people trying
to use others' machines as sources of DOS attacks. Sure, you
could also break into a Windows machine, but the payoff is small
since once you get into it there isn't much you can do from a
remote location. How many Linux users would be careful to keep
up to date on all security patches?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:41:37 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:10:28 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:49:07 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 06:22:55 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 14:43:03 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:Fzn86.57932$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> [deletia]
>> >> >industry or even
>> >> >> >> the Macintosh.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Yes, there was a long history of such in the scientific
>> >> >and perhaps even
>> >> >> >banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So? Are you trying to tell us that BillyBob was so
>> >> >incompetent
>> >> >> and disinterested in his 'beefier' potential rivals that
>> >> >he
>> >> >> was completely unaware of any of that?
>> >> >
>> >> >His company was pretty much tied to IBM/Intel from the
>> >> >get-go and for good reason because that's where the money
>> >> >was.
>> >>
>> >> That's no excuse. As others here have pointed out, there were
>> >> common data formats used across 6502's,68000's & 8086's years
>> >> ago and Microsoft even had some early participation in the Mac
>> >> apps market.
>> >
>> >Being paid by an industry powerhouse to build an OS for a new product
>line
>>
>> DOS really has nothing to do with this discussion.
>
>The data formats it and the underlying architecture forced on people are,
>though.
Do you actually have the slightest clue what you are talking about?
DOS is a simple program loader. It doesn't do much of ANYthing to
constrain end user applications. It doesn't even provide basic
user or process management services or even a device driver interface.
>
>>
>> >is a pretty good excuse! Also, if anyone was going to win the "standards
>> >war", it was going to be a juggernaut like IBM.
>>
>> Microsoft could merely have made their Mac apps conform to the
>> way PC's do things right down the endianness of the raw data.
>
>Would IBM have liked that?
Beyond 1985, they probably had little choice.
Certainly beyond 1992 they had no choice.
That's 9 years ago & 6 years before Office 98.
[deletia]
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to
build their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:44:19 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:00:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:41:11 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>
>> What exactly about a few menus and some icons did you need
>> help with? Unless it's Calamus or Maya, a help system for
>> a GUI application should be quite moot.
>
>How to turn off DAE would be nice.
>
>
>
>> Both have browsers that tie into all of the legacy
>> help systems as well as whatever *hlp files may be
>> present for the applications.
>
>Having a browser that CAN use the *hlp files is of no use if the *hlp
>files typically seem to say "not written yet".
>
>
>
>> The best you can do is whine about missing *hlp files.
>
>No. I am talking about a terrible help system and the reason why is
>not important to me.
...except the help system isn't the problem.
[deletia]
As usual, you are simply full of hot air.
If the authors of winamp decide to ignore the standard widgets
under Win32, that says nothing about the quality of the standard
widgets under Win32 when you decide that winamp is a user interface
train wreck.
winhelp does nothing more to ensure that an author actually writes
a help file than does any other help system (Unix or otherwise).
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to
build their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
